Talk:Yasuke

Some reading

I’ll just leave these right here

• [1]

• [2]
  • (English) [THE REAL YASUKE: HISTORY BEYOND THE SAMURAI MYTH](kindle, Paperback)
  • (Japanese) [弥助: 侍伝説の歴史学的検証](kindle, Paperback)

 Works by a scholar and professor of social (applied) linguistics at Suwon University in Republic of Korea.
 His work is a worthy addition to your reference list.
 As for the source, it would likely correspond to the following.
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoepsilonix (talk • contribs) 08:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC) 

Mileasel (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And you want to use this as source for the article or what exactly? Trade (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Where in the 13 sentences written about Yasuke is he referred to as a samurai? Mileasel (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:RS before encouraging editors to read 'The Bogus Story of Yasuke & "wokeness" revisionist history'. Guinsardrhineford0079 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorta weird how two accounts that are three years old with no edits come out of nowhere to edit about this self published book by a lonely redditor. Weird. 12.75.41.48 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's strange that he suddenly turned into this after being silent for several years.

However, his books will be published not only in Japanese but also in English and Korean by the official publisher.

In his last self-published book, he had no production budget, so the text was not proofread properly, but this time, he says that he will use the money he made from self-publishing to hire a professional and make it more solid.

https://x.com/Goryodynasty/status/1850871797136425314 110.131.150.214 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the English version of his book has been published by an official publisher.

It's a company that specializes in academic books, and all of their books are peer-reviewed by professors and experts.

From today on, the book you derided as self-published and no one wanted to look at is a much more reliable source of information than Thomas Lockley's non-peer-reviewed book.

https://x.com/Goryodynasty/status/1851994356305244506

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1763781100

https://unitedscholarsacademicpress.com/ 140.227.46.9 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

A few points:

1. https://unitedscholarsacademicpress.com/books

The publisher still lists it as 'under review'

2. The author is not a historian and unlike Lockley (who is attributed to on the page when his claims are made) his field of research is significantly further away from historical research (Linguistics) and again unlike Lockley seems to not even be focused on Japanese linguistics. If the book does get reviewed I would still say that at best the findings should be directly attributed to him. Relm (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Lockley is not a historian. 211.36.141.248 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Badly Translated Quote

The quote following quote seems to be machine translated from Japanese to English. The original is in Portuguese, the Japanese translation made be old.

"A black man whom the visitor [Valignano] sent to Nobunaga went to the house of Nobunaga's son after his death and was fighting for quite a long time, when a vassal of Akechi approached him and said, "Do not be afraid, give me that sword", so he gave him the sword. The vassal asked Akechi what should be done with the black man, and he said, "A black slave is an animal (bestial) and knows nothing, nor is he Japanese, so do not kill him, and place him in the custody at the cathedral of Padre in India"

The most obvious error is the use of India, presumably to translate southern barbarian. However, "black slave" might also be wrong, if it is a translation of "cafre". Does anyone know of a better translation that is available? Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion around the word 'cafre' a few months ago around july/august, I'd suggest checking for it in the archives. Relm (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If a quote is not reported by a reliable secondary source, we should simply remove it from the article. It is likely to be neither accurate nor significant (WP:V and WP:NPOV). Removing it also makes the article more readable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It is from the Huffington Post in Japan. Interestingly, the Huffington Post uses "black slave" every time to translate "cafre" however, the Wikipedia article uses black man in all but one instance. I found the letter in the original Portuguese, and it uses India, so that is actually correct (although cathedral might not be). I think that just removing it is probably better. There is already a summary of the events in the article, so it is redundant. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the Honno-ji section contains some misleading sentences. but I only point out one here

"...and not bound by the samurai code of honour." this the-samurai-code-of-honour does not show in the two of the cited sources, it is just someone's imagination.

so I thought showing hos actually stated in the original source(JapaneseToEnglish translated version) was better.

a bit late on commenting below but anyway.

As mentioned, the missionary's letter said "igreja dos padres da India" which would literally translate to "the church of missionarys of India" which thought to mean the Nanban-ji temple, the temple of foreigners at the time basically. sorry for rough explanation. so yes, the word India is not a mistake but was expressed and understood differently in old times perhaps.

and the original text only used word "Cafre" for "Black people" and was translated to Japanese as "黒奴" by Japanese historians for this section of the letter, which pretty much means "black slave" and the cited sources does not seperately use words "black slaves" and "black people" ,it only uses "黒人奴隷" which is "black slave".

so what is discussed here was just how Wiki users modified the source. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The source quote is "Mitsuhide suggested that because Yasuke wasn’t Japanese, his life should be spared; he was not expected to perform seppuku as had Nobutada and the other defeated samurai" which is where bushido came from. Since the exact term isn't used I think it's fine to match the secondary sourcing more explicitly. Also, cafre does not mean "slave". Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Cartas de Evora

https://sleepcratic-republic.hatenablog.com/entry/2024/07/30/225016#%E4%BA%AC%E9%83%BD%E7%99%BA%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A8%E3%83%B3%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8ACarrions-report-about-the-honnoji-incident 110.131.150.214 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to be sure, can you read Portuguese?

If you can, please read the page on the left of this document.

If you see a document that someone has translated and you don't like what you see, you're probably wondering if it's a lie. Just read the original.

https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/bg5/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18_item1/P744.html 110.131.150.214 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of this web site of the original manuscript and I have tried reading it.

But to inline with how the wikipedia article should be treated,

this true original manuscript, I think is not really the source to dig into, for it is the primary source plus is very difficult just even to read to anyone as you can see.

We do already have translated version of those texts in Japanese by professionals and I do not really doubt its accuracy for the main grasp of the content.

I do not intend to be offensive in any racial way of course. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. Bladeandroid (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The two relevant archives which discus Cafre and Kurobo are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke/Archive_5#Another_source_not_yet_mentioned

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#Yasuke_mentioned_by_Portuguese

Additionally, not mentioned in either is this entry in Nippo Jisho: (link)

>Curobô • Cafre. Ou homem negro.

>Curobô • Kafre. Or black man.

This entry on it's own implies that「黒奴」is an accurate translation of "Cafre" however see the other sources in the archives for other relevant sources.

J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for sharing info.

the words "黒坊","黒奴", and "黒人" are different in its nuance.

the relatively older Japanese translation (by Murakami namingly) had used "黒奴" which had meaning of slave.

the site suggested above : https://sleepcratic-republic.hatenablog.com/entry/2024/07/30/225016#%E4%BA%AC%E9%83%BD%E7%99%BA%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A8%E3%83%B3%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8ACarrions-report-about-the-honnoji-incident

introduces the translation by Matsuda which uses more neutral word of "黒人" which mean black person.

the word "黒坊" is not used in these translations discussed, but i have seen it used in different manuscript.

So how to translate the word "Cafre" of original Portuguese text was up to the translator at the time, and they had their knowledge and reasons. 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, thanks for pointing that out. I had found this entry a few months ago after the last discussion about "cafre" and "kokudo" was already archived and I think I mixed up its relevance since it's been a while since I looked at this. I mainly meant to just point to the previous archives that were mentioned. If I remember correctly, this article said that "cafre" in Portuguese mainly referred to Africans in general, and does not necessarily imply "salve." I guess the entry in Nippo Jisho would seem to support that claim, which was perhaps my original intention when I first saw this entry, although I don't really remember anymore. I may try to look at this again later but I likely will not as I just wanted to link to those two archives. Thanks again for pointing that out. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The term Cafre is in India and Southafrica an insult to black people, because it is implied with it a clear connection to slavery, similar to the N-word. I will add, that it is now euphemistically addressed as the K-word in South African English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(racial_term) While there were theoretical and speculative remarks of freed Africans in India, who were still called by this term, who were once slaves in India, it should be highlighted, that in the time of these Portuguese writings by the Jesuits about Yasuke, the Jesuit branch in India was a strong supporter of the Asian slave trade, the Portuguese dominated the slave trade in Asia in these times and they brought the Africans to Asia as slaves and used them in their daily lives in India and their travels.

"Once the slaves arrived in Acapulco, they were categorized as either blacks (negros), also called cafres, or chinos.³"

(³ The word cafre stemmed from the Portuguese cáfer, which in turn derived from the Arabic kāfir for pagan. It was used to refer to black slaves from all parts of Africa.)

https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004346611/BP000055.xml

It is quite an oblivious racial view of the source, written by Jesuit Portuguese about Yasuke, that they name him in not a single instant by a name themself. Even the term Yasuke is only mentioned once as a name given by the Japanese to him and afterward they still call him just by this slave-term. They never use a term for a black person (N-word) for him.

I will add, that this remark about this capture of him is not from a Japanese work, but from the Portuguese Jesuit reports. There were not a lot of sources for this incident, the japanese sources quote the court women, who were not killed, while all retainers from Oda were killed.....apparently not Yasuke, because he is a cafre. --ErikWar19 (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it is hard to tell how much to read into the fact that the Jesuits didn't use his name in the letters. They probably wouldn't have used the name for a white servant, either, especially since the recipient of the letter might not have known Yasuke's name. One should probably read all the letters and look for patterns. It does seem that most experts believe that Yasuke was a slave at some point in his life. Although, the relationship between Jesuits and slavery is complicated. The Jesuits were made legal distinctions between different types of servitude that are sometimes lumped together as slavery in modern literature, and the different Asian cultures had different forms of bondage that influenced the legal aspects of the Asian slave trade as conducted by the Portuguese.

The letter calling Yasuke bestial is in fact from the Jesuits, so we don't know how accurate it is to what Akechi actually said. Historians tend to ignore the "he knew nothing" line and interpret it as Akechi being racist. They defend Akechi by suggesting other reasons to spare Yasuke or call Akechi out for being racist. I am not actually sure if Yasuke being spared relates to any legal code or custom at the time. I know that Japanese both executed enemies, but also took people as slaves during war. Also, some bushi would change sides. I have, however, no idea how the distinction was made. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Actual even Lockley argues in a lot of articles with his direct statements, that Yasuke had to be at some point of his live a slave, he just speculates, that he was freed in India....and didn't supplied any prove of this praxis in India by Portuguese.

His prove is simply to point at his actions in Japan, while claiming, that he has to be freed, to become a samurai for the Japanese. But the Japanese nobles had a different view on European slavery and on Africans in general. So it is more likely, that the Portuguese sources could have seen him as a slave, while the Japanese nobles simply used him as a regular servant, partly unaware about the Portuguese slave-status and norms connected to this matter.

Jesuits talked about the legal ground of slavery in Europa and became later actual opponents against slavery over the decades and centuries, but the actual Jesuits in the colonies had different opinions compared to the Indian and later Macau branch of the Jesuits about this matter, it is still more or less oblivious, that the Jesuits in Asia were strong supporters of the argument to allow slavery, they were involved in the profit of it and a lot of them made cruelties in Southamerica and Asia against slaved Natives and Africans. This is simply the state of the Portuguese colonial slave system at these times.

There were some few examples of Jesuits defending the Natives from Slavery in Southamerica...but even these Jesuits supported often the slavery of Africans as a reason to spare the Natives in America. It is simply dangerous to wish away the biggest European slave seller in this time period in Asia or to make up a "freeing slave" position without actual prove, that Portuguese nobles actual freed African slaves in any significant number in India. We shouldn't presume, that he was freed.

Goa was a main hub of Asian slave trade and Goa was the centrum of the Indian branch of the Jesuits. It was common to have multiple "cafres" as nobility in India and even the poor nobles rented slaves for these services in public. The other servants were Indians, you wouldn't use an expensive white servants in India with these cheaper and easily available options. It was daily live in Portuguese India to use Natives and Africans for these lower services and the delegation to Japan started in India.

Additonal in their arrival in Japan, they talk a lot about the commotion by this specific "carrier, who was a cafre", a carrier of luggage. They presented him to Oda to explain the commotion by their arrival and they gave him into service for Oda as a gift, because he likes curiosities and he served for him in the same capacity, like a servant in India to a Portuguese noble. Carrying weapons etc. But this is partly speculative, original research, because we use the original source and not a reliable second hand source.

It would just fit with the actions of Akechi in this incident, that we have here two sides, the Portuguese side seeing him as a slave, while the Japanese side saw in him a commoner servant.

We have from the Jesuits sources, that he was not killed in this incident, like the actual armed retainer or warriors on the scene, but survived and we know, that barely anyone survived this incident...we have even a statement, clearly seeing him as belonging to the Jesuits. This quote is actual even more interesting, because Akechi send him to the "Indian" branch of the Jesuits, but at this time the Jesuits in Japan were already in a specific Chinese branch and the Jesuits in Japan knew this. I read about the theory, that Akechi probably simply didn't knew about this recent change. Than the source must have adopted the quote accurately with the error.

Some people suggested, that the bestial part by Akechi is an attempt of Akechi to spare Yasuke, because he was not an influential or important figure to him and he saw in him a foreigner, so he send him away to his foreigners, but it remains a glaring issue, that an armed warrior in servitude in any higher rank under Oda would have been killed by Akechi, because he was a loyal follower of the lord. He just killed hundreds of Oda's actual retainers on this day in this incident. Not Yasuke. So there has to be a difference between the way, we portray Yasuke and the way the Portuguese or/and Akechi saw Yasuke. I don't say, that we should change the article for this big problem, but we should probably keep these things in the back of our head, while we look at news articles or books about Yasuke. It will warp our understanding of these sources, if we don't know these perspective differences between Portuguese and Japanese views on Yasuke. We could end up hiding Asian slavery in history. --ErikWar19 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Alessandro Valignano's title was Visitor of the Mission in India or something like that. Also, I doubt the Jesuit source is an exact quote from Akechi. There probably is enough RS that say that Yasuke was a slave prior to serving Oda, that it would be against NPOV to exclude it. As far as the issue of slavery in Japan. There are some articles on the topic on Academia.com I suggest the work of Romulo Ehalt: https://rg-mpg.academia.edu/R%C3%B4muloEhalt Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't actual knew, that it was par tof his title, thx for the info -- ErikWar19 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of Lockley, who does not agree with that theory[3].

"Some have said that Yasuke was a slave, and Lockley acknowledges the theory but disagrees. “Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

except https://www.youtube.com/shorts/36DFUS7erNI?t=11&feature=share

in this video in an Interview of Lockley with The Black Experience Japan he straight up said, that he was a slave. The full interview is linked in the description.

Additional in a webinar this year, he starts the background-page of Yasuke with the information how many Africans were sold under Portuguese rule in the Indian Ocean trade and highlights, that Yasuke was most likely trafficked in this context by them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ghXdNX4j8 ErikWar19 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That quote is referring to specifically when Yasuke entered Nobunaga's service. Lockley is in the minority here. Several experts say outright that Yasuke was given to Nobunaga as a gift, or that Nobunaga took him. Ehalt, who specializes in Jesuits and slavery in Japan, thought it possible that Yasuke wasn't a slave but also said that most Africans in Portuguese service were slaves. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Add the original texts about Yasuke to the wiki

Is there any reason the wiki doesn't include the original texts? We should at the very least have images of the documents for readers to reference. Here are all of the original documents that I am aware of, along with some original translations:

February 23, 1581 - Chronicles of Lord Nobunaga [Original Document - Japanese]

April 14, 1581 - Letter from Luis Frois [Original Document - Portuguese] [Japanese Translation]

October 8, 1581 - Letter from Lorenzo Mesia [Original Document - Portuguese] [Japanese Translation]

May 11, 1582 - Matsudaira Ietada's Diary [Original Document - Japanese]

November 5, 1582 - Luis Frois' report to Jesuit Society [Original Document - Portuguese] [Japanese Translation] HexJK (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia largely avoids using primary sources because those require interpretation and analysis, which is not allowed to be done by editors themselves. Hence why Wikipedia primarily uses secondary sources, which themselves do said interpretation and analysis of the primary sources. Silverseren^C 06:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I was misunderstood, my intention isn't for editors to interpret or analyze the documents themselves, only to reference them as they're already mentioned. When discussing the report from Luís Fróis, would it not enhance the article to include a photo of the actual report? All five of these documents are the entire existence of Yasuke, so they are of extreme importance to the wiki, at the very least deserving of their own topic/section.

Even the secondary sources referenced throughout the wiki don't source the original documents, so its impossible for readers to find the original documents to examine themselves. Omitting them just seems incredibly dishonest, especially with all of the uncertainty and controversy revolving around these secondary sources. I'd like to at least get some more eyes on this, and if it is still not considered, we will at least have a record of the original documents being rejected as material for the wiki. HexJK (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to have a look at wikisource? Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A bibliography of primary sources with links to the original texts and translations would obviously improve the quality of the article. I have made an attempt to create such a bibliography here: Talk:Yasuke/Primary_sources. At the moment it's just a few notes/links. Editors who have the time and inclination can improve it and eventually add it to the article. Right now, and for various reasons, I'm not available to work on it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I do think that having the original source along with the secondary source is preferrable. The translation of missionarys' letter in Portuguese, I understand is a difficult point because it is going from the old Portuguese to Japanese and to English, but the professional Japanese translation is indeed available which is the secondary source and is not so old (1990s), and info we see in English media sources refer to those Japanese translations anyway it seems.

Why do the article only have the original manuscript which is primary source that is not recommended to use and I tried to add some web source which is already cited in other section of the article, and was reverted.

Applying machine-translation from the primary source is not considered the original-research? If not, then one should show the transcribed text for verification purpose? But it will fall into the original research because if the output is awkward, one will try to adjust to better wording and patch-translate only because one does not like the output. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not satisfied with the current translations either. I will look for some English translations. Perhaps we could add footnotes in cases where there are alternate translations? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not think it is the matter of whether you are satisfied with the existing translations or not (or the machine-translation output from the primary source, if the article uses one).

The existing Japanese translations by historians are what should be regarded as the secondary sources for the place of the missionary's letters, not listing the original manuscripts only, especially as long as the officially published English translations from the primary source are not availbale.

Here is one example, about Honnoji incident.

「我等カザにゐた者が一層惧れたところは、明智が悪魔及び偶像の友であり、我等と親しからず、デウスの教を嫌ってゐたのみならず、我等は信長の庇護を受けた者である故、火をカザに放たせ、その部下が聖堂の物を掠奪するであろうことであったが、明智は都の街々に布告を発し、市を焼くことはない故、安堵し、彼が成功したことを喜ぶべく、もし兵士にして害を加ふるものがあれば、これを殺すべしと言った。またビジタドールが信長に贈った黒奴が、信長の死後世子の邸に赴き、相当長い間戦ってゐたところ、明智の家臣が彼に近づいて、恐るることなくその刀を差出せと言ったのでこれを渡した。家臣にこの黒奴をいかに処分すべきか明智に尋ねたところ、黒奴は動物で何も知らず、また日本人でない故、これを殺さず、インドのパードレの聖堂に置けと言った。これによって我等は少しく安心した。」

（村上直次郎訳『イエズス会日本年報 上』雄松堂書店） 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Alaric NAUDÉ denies claims that Yasuke was a samurai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Alaric NAUDÉ

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

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

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

→false

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

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

→false

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

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

→false

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

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

→Inappropriate

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

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

→false

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

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

→Inappropriate

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

→false

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

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

→false

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

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

→false

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

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

→Inappropriate

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

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

→false

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

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

→false

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

→false

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Taku Kaneko, University of Tokyo, Historiographical Institute,

“Yasuke cannot be called a samurai”.

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

Professor Yuichi Kureza , Historian

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

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

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

Full section regarding the definition of samurai

I think we should add a section regarding the definition of samurai used in the article. I think the footnote "Samurai-academic" can stand as its own section with some modification. Current footnote:

Academic sources on Yasuke's samurai status include: Lockley, Thomas (2024-07-16). "Yasuke". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on 16 July 2024. Retrieved 2024-07-17. Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded "samurai" of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people [...] In an unpublished but extant document from about this time, Ōta states that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend. During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or "samurai" rank. Atkins, E. Taylor (2023). A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-350-19592-9. Archived from the original on 26 July 2024. Retrieved 26 July 2024. 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. López-Vera, Jonathan (2020). A History of the Samurai: Legendary Warriors of Japan. Tokyo; Rutland, VT: Tuttle Publishing. pp. 140–141. ISBN 9784805315354. The name given to this black slave was Yasuke (until recently the reason for this was unknown—investigations carried out in Japan not long ago claim his real name was Yasufe) and from then on he always accompanied Nobunaga as a kind of bodyguard. It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyō's service and enjoyed the same comforts as other vassals. He was granted the rank of samurai and occasionally even shared a table with Nobunaga himself, a privilege few of his trusted vassals were afforded.

Blockhaj (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is out of scope for this article and any "X term definition" section would undoubtedly result in a lot of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. It would be highly unusual for an article to have a meta section on that discusses its own sourcing in wikitext. Users who are interested in the sources can check them in the References section.

I will also note that there is a closed RfC on this general topic[4]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Symphony Regalia since the article uses an unconventional definition of samurai and currently holds that definition to a footnote, id say it is a good idea to just cover it openly for transparency. The samurai debate is also part of the modern history, since that title has only posthumously been applied to the character, and thus has the right to be covered. Blockhaj (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't use an unconventional definition; it doesn't define anything at all. It simply reflects the majority view in reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't for editors to perform WP:SYNTH to arbitrarily define terms.

The footnote isn't a definition, it's a citation bundle. Perhaps you are mistaking the quotations in it for editor explanation. The article also contains other citations on his samurai status (TIME, Smithsonian, CNN, etc). Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke has been criticized in various ways by people who want him to be a samurai, but I think it's not a bad idea to start by defining what a samurai is.

Hirayama received criticism for clearly stating that Yasuke was a samurai, but it quickly died down. The reason he was criticized was because there was no definition of a samurai, and when Hirayama realized this, he created his own definition and redefined a samurai. He appropriated the etymology of the word samurai, which is to stay by the side of the master and watch over him, and defined everything that stays by the side of the master as a samurai. On top of that, it was also effective to clearly reject Thomas Lockley as telling a nonsensical story and state that he had no intention of affirming him.

So, what criteria should we use to define a samurai? This is a difficult question. It was a time when the definition of a samurai was becoming ambiguous, so it is possible that Yasuke, who was a mob character who appeared only briefly in Japan's long history, was a samurai. In the Edo period or the first half of the Muromachi period, he would never have been called a samurai. 153.235.152.98 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

TIME and CNN are not reliable sources for definitions of historical nomenclature. No historical sources use the term samurai for Yasuke, so giving him this title needs explanation. Afaic, Yasuke was a page/retainer, but this is not covered in the article at all. There is no confirmation that he ever saw combat, just that he visisted battle zones. Blockhaj (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems the general opinion among experts is that being a page/retainer for a daimyo is a samurai position. There are some experts who have expressed a lack of certainty about Yasuke's status, partly because one isn't sure how the term samurai was used in the period. Considering that the meaning of samurai seems to create some confusion, it probably wouldn't hurt to add an explanation to the article. SYNTH wouldn't be a problem because a lot of sources give a definition of samurai and talk about Yasuke. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is complete tripe. A retainer and a samurai are completely different. Stop pushing Lockley propaganda. Please give your credentials and which experts you are quoting because they certainly arent Japanese. 211.36.141.248 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is going to end up in original research. The sources on Yasuke don't give their definition of samurai, simply saying that Yasuke qualifies as a "samurai" because he was given a stipend, a house and a sword by his lord, served Nobunaga in a military capacity and was in a relatively close relationship with him as a member of his retinue. The article probably says all there is to say about this: According to historians this was the equivalent to "the bestowing of warrior or 'samurai' rank" during this period. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

which historians? 125.179.119.108 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ye, afaic that statement is flawed. Looking at it, it would be better to refer to him as an armed retainer or something along those lines (there must be a proper term for this?) in the preamble, whith the question of samurai covered in a segment, going through which authors and historians says what. A samurai is specifically a warrior, afaic similar to a housecarl or knight at the time of question, later on being analog to knights, which is something we cannot confirm Yasuke as from the sources, just speculate.

My idea is simply to use template:quote for the definitions given by the authors which we use as samurai reference atm. Ie like:

What to define Yasuke as is a in terms of role is a contested subject. Author Thomas Lockley, who has written a paper and two books on Yasuke, advocates for calling him a samurai: Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded "samurai" of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people [...] In an unpublished but extant document from about this time, Ōta states that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend. During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or "samurai" rank. — Lockley, Thomas (2024-07-16). "Yasuke". Encyclopedia Britannica.

Etc.

--Blockhaj (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A retainer is a Kosho in this case a servant who helps a samurai, they are not a samurai themselves. It would be more honest to say that his role is debated. (Even though it is only debated in the West, in Japan we DO NOT CONSIDER HIM A SAMURAI) 125.179.119.108 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of Europe doesnt either, this is mainly a US afrocentric issue, as well as a capitlistic one, as various have released media about Yasuke as a true samurai, take the netflix show, the new assassin's creed etc, which earns on the trope and thus has incitement to keep it as fact etc. There is nothing wrong with the theory alone, but since it is just speculation even from the top sources, it should not be portrayed as the default. Blockhaj (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

completely agree. Unfortunately this page is protected by people paid to keep unhistorical claims alive. To allow neutral or both sides presented will make Ubisoft angry so they wont get paid. 125.179.119.108 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Please suggest changes to this article, with sources. This isn't a forum to express nationalistic rage. 12.75.41.91 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you source any of this comment? If not, you are getting off topic. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page isn't a place to discuss your feelings. The indenting makes it hard to read, but this is a reply to Blockhaj. 12.75.41.91 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

To 12.75.41.91. Decorative quotation marks have been dissabled in mainspace for some reason, so maybe it is better to put quotes in italics for readability?

What to define Yasuke as is a in terms of role is a contested subject. Author Thomas Lockley, who has written a paper and two books on Yasuke, advocates for calling him a samurai: Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded "samurai" of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people [...] In an unpublished but extant document from about this time, Ōta states that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend. During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or "samurai" rank. — Lockley, Thomas (2024-07-16). "Yasuke". Encyclopedia Britannica.

--Blockhaj (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A retainer in English is a generic term for a type of employment. Yasuke received a stipend, therefore he was a retainer (that is a bit over simplified). A few Japanese historians have called him a samurai or said that he was treated as a samurai. Some historians, both western and Japanese have said that it isn't certain that he is a samurai. Thomas Conlan has recently pointed out that the meaning of samurai is unclear in this period, and that a clear distinction between samurai and commoners wasn't made till the speratation edict.It has been suggested by one historian, that Yasuke was a lord's attendant. It is similar to a page, but pages are usually younger. However, it was also a job for bushi. If you want to change the article you need reliable sources, not just accusing people holding other opinions of having a COI or being western or afrocentric. Unfounded accusations made lead to sanctions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources, do you have them? If not, try reddit for open ended conversation. 12.75.41.91 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here are some sources:

Japanese Historians on Twitter: [[5]] [[6]]

Japanese and English articles that are unsure if Yasuke is a samurai, but say that he was like one:[[7]][[8]][[9]] Note the first one says: However, the TBS television program "Hitachi World Mysteries Discovered!", which aired on June 8, 2013, featured a special called "Chase the Black Samurai at Honnoji Temple during Nobunaga's Final Moments!", and a special program aired on NHK General TV on May 15 , 2021 was titled "Black Samurai: Yasuke, the African Samurai Who Served Nobunaga." At least in the world of Japanese media, it has become standard to refer to Yasuke by the title of samurai.

There is also evidence of Yasuke being referred to as a samurai prior to Lockley's book.[[10]]

Here is a Youtube video where it is said that Yasuke might be a Kinju (lord's attendant) at the 19 minute mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b3SGQO_Ij4&pp=ygUWYW50aG9ueSBjdW1taW5zIHlhc3VrZQ%3D%3D Here is the YouTube video where Conlan talks about the meaning of samurai (43 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRByx3d62A

@Blockhaj might find this useful as well. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that no primary sources describe him as samurai specifically and we lack conclusive details to what his actual employment would have been called, thus any "role" attributed is speculative, and we should strive for a descriptive preamble rather than spewing popular speculations as fact. Retainer is imo preferred over samurai due to its generic definition and harmless meaning, but it is also not ideal, in the same manner as calling Buffalo Bill a warrior.

I sorta like attendant: Yasuke was a man of African origin who was a stipended attendant under feudal lord Oda Nobunaga... But it is also probelamtic as the definition of an attendant is all over the place and doesnt really signify what Yasuke was. Blockhaj (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Replying to Gitz. I think it is premature to dismiss a proposed change as OR, until we have heard it. Of course, a definition of samurai would be difficult, as it is described by vague. Lockley even said in an interview that no one knows exactly what a samurai was during Yasuke's time. Lopez uses the term as a generic word for a Japanese warrior. How the article now is explains it is not ideal. Receiving a house and a sword didn't make Yasuke a samurai. Rather both are seen as clues to his rank. The sword was probably just a gift, but the fact that he owned a sword is indicative of his status as a fighting man. The house also indicates that he has a higher rank than servants that lived in barracks or the house of their masters. Not every samurai was given a sword and a house etc. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If Lockley has stated that "no one knows exactly what a samurai was during Yasuke's time" then his source becomes kinda hypocritical (i mean, it was not really neutral to begin with). You got the source?

If even the "experts" say we can't define a period samurai, then we should not apply that term to someone which is not specifically described as such in historical sources. Blockhaj (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The more i think about it, we should just write:

Yasuke was a man of African origin served under feudal lord Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death. Inititally given to Nobunaga as a slave, his role under Nobunaga is unknown, but historical sources state that he was granted a sword, a house and a stipend, indicating that he had a higher rank than servants.

Blockhaj (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There are a few issues with this suggestion. One is that there was a RfC to depict Yasuke as a samurai. In order to change consensus, a more convincing argument is needed. Second, wikipedia prefers secondary to primary sources. Most people that we call samurai aren't recorded as samurai by historical documents. This is part of the reason why in academic works and in Japan, these figures are often called bushi or warrior (the sources called academic in the article are written by academics, but are targeted at the public). I have some sources, but I don't have time today to collect them all. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That RfC was literally stated to be a trainwreck and biased. Popular vote, ie factoids, is not what we should strive for in this case. As for historical figures not literally called samurai yet defined as such later, it is less problematic if there are sources indicating that they actually were professional warriors. The same thing with Vikings; if they fit the description, we call em Viking today. With Yasuke, all we have to go on is that he got a sword, house and stipend, served under a warlord like Nobunaga and visited at least one combat zone. That is not enough to make a statement about warrior class.

The RfC should be torn up and reevaluated from a point of neutrality, only from seasoned editors. Blockhaj (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the first RFC can you clarify who and where it was stated to be a trainwreck and biased? It was taken to ANI where the exact opposite view was held by the commenters who looked it over. (link)

The second RFC which attempted to re-litigate that RFC and how it was being employed is the RFC where the close stated it was a mess.

The details contained in the Shincho Koki manuscript, as interpreted by the expert secondary sources Wikipedia is built on, suggest that Yasuke held the status of a Samurai (as defined by those experts) if the manuscript is genuine. Relm (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again which experts? Not Japanese experts except for one with extremist views who is related to Lockley. Show Japanese sources! 211.36.141.246 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NATIONALISM. Whether the scholar is Japanese or not has no bearing on their reliability. The only new dissenting voice being proposed on this talk page (Alaric Naude) is not an expert and not published through a publisher which would lend their claims credence. Several Japanese sources have been discussed on the talk pages (several for and against, though notably the 'against' category did so through offering doubt as to the legitimacy of the manuscript).

If you have reliable sources, Japanese or not, please feel free to post them. Relm (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me once again point out a discussion that was somewhere in the archives. Thomas Lockley writes in Britannica that the theory that Yasuke was a samurai is debatable.

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

However, this article states that Yasuke was a samurai. It doesn't mention the debate. In addition to dissenting opinions, it also excludes the opinion that his position is unclear and cannot be determined. Isn't it cherry-picking that they say they trust Britannica but intentionally leave out the statement that there is room for debate?

You argue that Alaric NAUDÉ is not an expert. He may not be an expert on Japanese history, but he is a PhD in sociology, which is a field that encompasses history, and his books are peer reviewed.

What about Thomas Lockley? Although He wrote about Yasuke in Britannica, he is not an expert. He does not have a PhD in Japanese history, sociology, or any other related field. Why he, an amateur researcher, decided to write as an expert is a mystery in itself. Thomas Lockley, like Alaric Naude, is a language education specialist. They are not specialists in Japanese history. There are differences in whether or not you have a doctorate in education, but this point is the same. And Alaric Naude has a PhD in sociology, which is related to history. Thomas Lockley does not. That should be taken into account.

And errors have been pointed out in the contents of Britannica. Britannica has a lot of reliable information, but it is not infallible. Even Britannica admits that. Britannica's experts, like CNN and others, would make the same mistake if they read only Western sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
110.131.150.214 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say what I wanted to say most after I sent it. So let me send it one more time.

It is full of mistakes, but if you insist on referring to Britannica, then so be it. I'll accept it as a difference of opinion. Just don't falsify the information in it for your own convenience to push your opinion that Yasuke is a Samurai. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia policy gives preferences to secondary sources and uses votes to determine consensus. In this case, arguing that Yasuke is not a samurai is an uphill battle. This is in part due to poor behaviour on and off Wikipedia by persons arguing that he is not a samurai. Considering this, one must be extra careful and as always have good sources to back up one's claims. At some point there will be a new RfC, and so then there will be a chance to make your argument. Until then, I suggest looking at other improvements to the article that can be made, but those too will require sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Question.Why an opposing view of Goza got removed despite him being a credible historian ?Seems very suspect. 2A02:587:550E:1800:1953:34AF:6CB6:FCFD (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused- that's not what the RFC said- but you've also just gone ahead and made several sweeping changes without any discussion or reasoning besides your own gut feelings.

Why exactly is that allowed? Is that not literally vandalism of the subject which this article is supposed to be protected against currently? What authority are you acting under that let's you do these things and then criticize others for it? 216.138.9.189 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Bushi and samurai are not the same.Being Bushi does NOT make a person a samurai 211.36.141.246 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is possibly true, but the terms are often used interchangeably. Lockley believes that in the Sengoku period, no one knows the difference between the samurai and bushi. If only for recognition purposes samurai is used instead of bushi and has been in some cases used to refer to low ranking persons such as komono. This needs to be kept in mind when discussing Yasuke's status. If you wish to discuss the difference between bushi and samurai in detail, we can do that at the Samurai talk page. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat flabbergasted that you are quoting Lockley when he isnt a historian and his book is 98% made up. 211.36.141.245 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not quoting Lockley, I am explaining his opinion. When Lockley says that Yasuke is a samurai, he might as well say that Yasuke is a bushi. Also, 98% is too much. 98% of the book isn't about Yasuke. African Samurai still isn't very good, but it copied other people's errors (using outdated pop history) or took primary sources at face value. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For context, Lockley's pop history book is not considered a reliable source as was consensus of the Thomas Lockley RSN. The consensus there was that any views Lockley expressed in the book could be found in his peer reviewed works that constituted better sources, and that his theories expressed in those should be directly attributed. This is what the current state of the page reflects. Relm (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

in these reviewed works of Lockley, he stated in a section, that he defines every armed commoner working under a lord as a samurai, thereby including Yasuke....and every single ashigaru-farmer under Oda Nobunaga.

The page should reflect, that his theory describes the term samurai more broadly than the general consensus and just for example the English Wikipedia. He simply includes every armed personal under a feudal lord. This has to be reflected somewhere on the page to not use the term misleadingly for readers? -- ErikWar19 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can frame it exactly like that. I am not sure that his definition is far off. I think Lockley is bad at explaining things, and being precise. There seems to be a disagreement about the meaning of samurai, and several of the authors say that it is used improperly in a generic way, and at the same time use it generically.

Lockley says in Britannica: During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous I suggest we put that in a footnote. We could also change the first sentence to:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who became a bushi or samurai by serving Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582.

I would then use Britannica, Lopez and Vaporis to cite that. Feel free to make suggested changes. The word samurai should be in the lead, out of respect for the consensus. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The article for Samurai suggests that samurai and bushi can be used interchangeably so what is the purpose of such a change? Tippytoemuppet (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Good question. They are often used interchangeably, but depending on the time period, it is incorrect. There also seems to be two opinions on what a samurai is. The conventional definition is that it means a high ranking bushi (such as those with imperial lineage). Recently some scholars have challenged this, pointing out that it refers to servants, and that it could be insulting to call a daimyo or high ranking bushi. It is possible both are correct based on the time. By saying "bushi or samurai" we would be paraphrasing Lockley's "warrior or samurai" and signify the generic usage of the term here. Lockley isn't claiming that Yasuke is a high ranking bushi, and neither is Lopez. Yasuke may be at the low end of a high ranking bushi, but the RS don't say that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

In the sengoku period it's even more likely that Yasuke would be seen as a samurai as lines were very much blurred regarding the definition during that period.

Before that the word samurai referred to anyone who served the emperor, the imperial family, or the imperial court nobility, even in a non-military capacity.

So even based on that definition, he was a samurai.

So I ask again, what is the purpose of changing the lead to include bushi? Tippytoemuppet (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

He said why. They are often used interchangeably, but depending on the time period, it is incorrect. There also seems to be two opinions on what a samurai is. The conventional definition is that it means a high ranking bushi (such as those with imperial lineage). Recently some scholars have challenged this, pointing out that it refers to servants, and that it could be insulting to call a daimyo or high ranking bushi.

This would resolve the controversy and disambiguate, signifying a generic usage. Not all of our readers are going to be experts on Japanese history, especially on this article which has made its rounds unfortunately into the mainstream. If a lack of clarification is causing issues or misunderstandings, then we as writers have failed to communicate to our readers.

Remember who wikipedia is for. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No one has heard of 'bushi' it's about 100% unknown to people who aren't experts in Japanese history. It would also confuse me. Samurai is fine there's no reason to add an obscure term redundantly. 89.8.34.143 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As was previously stated, They are often used interchangeably, but depending on the time period, it is incorrect. Right now, there is an issue in interpretation with people believing we are referring to the warrior nobility, as the meaning of the word evolved through history, as well as basically meaning any katana wielding soldier in english as a loan word. Just saying "it's fine" is WP:IJDLI-adjacent. You're not addressing my point about the lack of clarification causing issues and misunderstandings either.

Interestingly, on jawiki m:ja:武士 and m:ja:侍 are different pages but bushi (warrior) and samurai both link to samurai, which covers both. So we already have precedent for referring to a "samurai" in english as both "bushi" and "samurai". DarmaniLink (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but let me say something.

Yasuke is a warrior. It has the same meaning as samurai.

This story itself is puzzling. Was there any documentation that Yasuke became a warrior? Were there any materials with descriptions that would allow you to infer this? There are descriptions that suggest he became a servant, but there is no description of him becoming a warrior or a combatant. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

He is a military servant. Similar to Batman_(military) or an equerry in modern terms. Probably more like an equerry, because he served such a high ranking man. He is also described as fighting during the Honnō-ji Incident. I don't think historians know what exactly the dividing line between Bushi and lower ranking military servants, or if and how lower ranking military servants fought in battle. That he had a stipend and his own house shows that he was not a low ranking servant. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The statements you have made are false. Bushi were a social class. Also Yasuke was present at Honnō-ji but the record does not mention him fighting at all. House and stipend was common for other servants. Nobunaga gave Sumo wrestlers housing, stipend, wakizashi swords and more gifts than he ever gave Yasuke. Does that make them samurai? This whole page is built on Western assumptions not historic fact. 211.36.141.190 (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing is clear: Yasuke's rank was above Sumo wrestlers but below Matsudaira Ietada. Just like a squire is below a knight. Matsudaira Ietada - knight, Yasuke - squire.84.54.70.120 (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

His name isnt on either of Nobunaga's retainer lists. Squire and retainer are not the same. What you says makea no sense since the Sumo wrestlers had higher payments and higher honours. Calling him a squire is a faux pas, Bushi system and knight system are not the same. 125.179.119.108 (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The same record that says he was at the Honno-ji says he was fought. [[11]]

According to Goza the Sumo wrestlers were also samurai[[12]]. I agree that it is based on assumptions, at least as far as I can tell. Educated guesses. However, that is what wikipedia does, and the assumptions aren't based on solely on western scholarship. I have provided sources, none of the IP users have.

Goza seems to think that the sumo wrestlers were about the same rank as Yasuke. I don't think Yasuke is receiving special treatment here. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The article you quoted says nothing about Goza claiming that Sumo wrestlers are samurai. So I don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe your translation software is strange. The same article does quote Professor Taku Kaneko of the University of Tokyo Historiographical Institute who points out problems with the Maeda verson of the Shinchōkōki . There are 71 versions of Shinchōkōki but only Maeda even mentions sword and stipend plus it is from a later date.

Professor Taku Kaneko has plainly said that Yasuke was not a samurai this was already stated in another post so your claim that sources aren’t being given is false. Professor Taku Kaneko “Yasuke cannot be called a samurai”.

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

Why are you using Huffington Post which has basically English to Japanese translated articles. Ironically a quote there shows that Professor Midori Fujita of Tohoku University does believe he was a samurai.

"It is not surprising that Mitsuhide would have found it unbearable to kill a servant who, although his skin was a different color, understood a little of the language and was loyal to his master until the end."

Why does the article reference the historical texts in the beginning but give not reference for : ＜巡察師（ヴァリニャーノのこと）が信長に送った黒人奴隷が、信長の死後、息子の家に行き、相当長い間、戦っていたところ、明智の家臣が近づいて「恐れることなくその刀を差し出せ」といったので、刀を渡した。家臣は、この黒人奴隷をどのように処分すべきか明智に尋ねたところ、「黒人奴隷は動物で何も知らず、また日本人でないため殺すのはやめて、インドのパードレ（司祭）の聖堂に置け」と言った＞

The reason is this is not a historical quote. It is based on Lockley. The date of the article also predates finding out all the fabrications by Lockley.

I will report what was said in another post:

Professor Yuichi Kureza , Historian

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

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

If editors had any conscience whatsoever they would put the main page stating that he was a retainer, then add a controversy section showing for and against points like the Japanese page does.

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

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

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

So Naude is not the only dissenting voice but three other Japanese professors are too. 112.184.32.144 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Can yal please log in if ur gonna be this active on Wikipedia? It is annoying AF to keep track of the discussion with these IP-adresses as signatures. If u do not have a account then please create one.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Blockhaj:

1. This edit adding according to some historians is against the RfC consensus: "There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification".
2. This edit adds a "better source needed" tag claiming that E. Taylor Atkins' book History of Pop Culture in Japan is a pop culture source. But E. Taylor Atkins is a professional historian specialising in Japanese history [13] and qualifies as WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
3. This edit adds about 15 months. This is not supported by sources. The issue has already been discussed on this talk page (here): no one knows the length of Yasuke's service under Nobunaga.

However, I agree with this revert of Tinynanorobots's edit: sources say that the gift signifies samurai status (e.g., Lockley: "bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank"); "bushi status" is an original research. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

1. That rfc is not neutral, as we can see in the above discussion. You know as well as anyone that it is biased to call him samurai without qualification and against the principles of Wikipedia. This is not equivelant to something obvious, like saying the moon landing happened. This is contentious and problematic wording. My edit puts the same information in a more neutral light which cannot be considered incorrect or worsening the state of the article.
2. That reference does not give a page and is from an onset not obviously themed after something related to this article. However, since u pointed it out, i will retract that tag.
3. I could have sworn this was in the article body somewhere but seems i was mistaken. My error.

--Blockhaj (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The page number of Atkin's book is in footnote 2. Regarding point 1, That rfc is not neutral is your POV. If you have not already done so, I suggest you read the first and second RfCs, which contain an extensive analysis of the sources. Many editors have given their arguments, and even if you're not convinced, you shouldn't ignore community consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be POV editing in regards to this subject and not following actual references in the article. Please remember that this article is now under CTOP restrictions. Silverseren^C 23:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Your accusations of POV pushing and OG are unfounded. bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank is close enough in meaning to became a bushi or samurai that it is a paraphrase. Additionally, Vaporis refers to Yasuke as a bushi. Lopez says warrior, samurai and bushi are interchangeable, although bushi is the proper term. Finally, Atkin refers to signifying bushi status. Granted, Atkin refers only to the sword, but I think that bushi status and samurai rank are similar in meaning. In fact, Lockley has said so much in an interview. There are reasons to use the exact language of a source at times, but I believe it is better to use paraphrasing when appropriate. Really, when quoting the exact language, quotation marks need to be used. The goal of my phrasing was to communicate what was meant by samurai, and as already pointed out it reflects Lockley's "warrior and samurai rank" formulation. I suspect he is doing the same, indicating to sceptics that in this case, they are the same thing. I think bushi does this same thing better, because it has the added connotation of class. Laypeople tend to think that "warrior" means someone that fights, however in this context, it is primary a social designation. I am aware of the fact that many people think that Yasuke didn't fight. I have pointed out on this talk page that he did. Fighting is also not what makes him a samurai. Anyway, you should read the sources before jumping to conclusions and making accusations. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What accusations? Are you referring to this? Then, WP:AE is the place to comment, if you disagree. If instead you are referring to my "bushi status" is an original research, which is the only comment I made that applies to you, I never mentioned POV pushing but I insist on the merit: there's no point in paraphrasing "warrior" as "bushi". We should strive for simplicity, and replacing the English "warrior", as per sources, with the Japanese "bushi" does not achieve that. This is what they call "obscurum per obscurius". Besides, your goal of communicat[ing] what was meant by samurai is exactly what I call original research. We should stick to the sources without adding our own interpretations and explanations.

By the way, what the heck does Yasuke have to do with Abram Petrovich Gannibal?!? [14] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, since Atkin says signifying bushi status, I have no objection to restoring this text, although I suggest that "indicating warrior status" or "marking membership in the warrior class" would be easier to understand. However, I strongly object to this edit [15]: having a man of African origin who became a bushi or samurai in the first sentance is confusing (the conjunction "or" in English is ambiguous - inclusive disjunction or exclusive disjunction?) and I think may be against RfC consensus ("samurai without qualification). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to compromise. I don't agree with your WP:OR argument, but I think that it is more productive at this point to focus on practical results as opposed to the reasoning behind it. It seems as if bushi is the word that you have a problem with, so removing it should satisfy you. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer Blockhaj's edit, because "Yasuke serverd as a samurai to Nobunaga" may be the synthesis of information(WP:SYNTH) of "Some people regards Yasuke as a Samurai" and "Yasuke served to Nobunaga". Each information is based on each sources, but there is no explicit source refering to the combination of these information. The listed souces are "Academic sources on Yasuke's samurai status", not what status Yasuke serverd as.

Similarly, "As a samurai, he was granted a sword, a house and a stipend" may be WP:SYNTH. It may imply "Yasuke was given sword, house, stipend because he was acknowledged as a samurai by Nobunaga".NakajKak (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Blockhaj's edit had problems, but "serving as a samurai" suggests that samurai was a specific role, and not a rank. The sources say rank. I agree with your point about the "as a samurai" The phrase does appear in a CNN article, where it is probably a paraphrase of something Lockley says. The more academic sources phrase it more clearly that these things are indicative of Samurai status. I think that we should follow the more academic sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Differences between Japanese and English wikis

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

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

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

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

There are secondary sources calling Yasuke a samurai that predate Lockley's book or are completely unrelated to it - both WP:NEWSORG (Le Monde 2018) and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (Vaporis, Samurai. An Encyclopedia of Japan's Cultured Warriors, 2019 ). The description of Yasuke as a samurai has been corroborated by experts in the field, some quoted in the article (footnote N° 2), some not because they're self-published, like David Howell's [16] and Dan Sherer's [17] emails in this Google Group, and the tweets from Japanese historians Oka Mihoko and Hirayama Yū, the latter also making it into the news (New York Times).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

鈴木里奈（ロンドン大学・SOAS/教員）

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

Rina Suzuki, Faculty Member, SOAS, University of London

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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