Talk:Yasuke/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Protected edit request on 15 May 2024

The currently saved version has a orphaned reference (rfi). Please replace <ref name="rfi"/> with <ref name="rfi">{{cite web|url=http://www.rfi.fr/hebdo/20150102-yasuke-samurai-samourai-etranger-africain-mozambique-japon |website=Rfi.fr |title=Yasuke: le premier samouraï étranger était africain |date=January 2, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200114161630/http://www.rfi.fr/hebdo/20150102-yasuke-samurai-samourai-etranger-africain-mozambique-japon/ |archive-date=January 14, 2020 |language=fr}}</ref>. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

there a typo in your replacement link WakandaScholar (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: the reference was orphaned by FifteenthClause when they removed a large chunk of text in this edit. I restored the source as it was prior to that edit, it may not line up with your request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 May 2024 (2)

Please italicize "Assassins Creed Shadows" (the title of a game) so it is Assassins Creed Shadows. Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No. It should be made bold to reflect the strength of our people WakandaScholar (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. @WakandaScholar: please stop adding your personal commentary here, it is disruptive. Wikipedia is not an open discussion forum. If you are not here to contribute constructively you will be asked to leave. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke's origin inconsistent language

The current page is inconsitent, currently saying "likely of african origin" in the first line, but then in the 3rd paragraph in birth and early life it says "However, there seems to be no doubt that he had African roots" and then in the same paragraph refers to an source where he was described as from india. I reccomend the second quote mentioned be changed to reflect conflicting accounts, using less definitive language LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

he from the past man language was different back then WakandaScholar (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

I’ve been seeing a lot of personal attacks on this page. Remember to be civil, and watch the personal attacks, and always assume good faith. If I see any more personal attacks on this page, I will go straight to an admin for blocking. Remember, we are all here to contribute. This is a warning. Thank you. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Very Busy) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi everyone! Given that the current discussion does not appear to be going anywhere, and has a worse heat/light ratio than an incandescent bulb, may I suggest Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as a place to have a more calm and productive discussion with the help of third-party volunteer editors? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the discourse appears to be "going anywhere" may depend on whether on not one thinks the lead needs to be changed. I personally am fine with the status quo. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that dispute resolution might be sensible. There are a lot of people commenting who seem quite involved in the issue with fixed views.

Personally I was interested to note that recently the page did not describe Yasuke as a samurai until recently, and I don't think there was much concern about this. It's unfortunate that an advertisement for a video game has led to edit-warring. John Smith's (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I will contend this point that the page did previously mention Yasuke as a Samurai, as evident by past archived versions and by this discussion Talk:Yasuke/Archive 1#Samurai, which did not seem to resolve conclusively and which notes:

"I've re-added the samurai reference (which was almost certainly removed at point in the past, perhaps as an act of vandalism), with multiple reliable sources. natemup (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)" X0n10ox (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Was Yasuke LGBTQ+

WP:NOTFORUM. This page is for discussing changes to the article, not speculating. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is highly suspected that Oda Nobunaga was LGBTQ+ (having a relationship with his vassal Mori Ranmaru). Is it too far fetched to think that Oda's attraction to Yasuke was more than platonic? Contemporary descriptions are certainly homoerotic ay a minimum: "The blackness of his body is like that of a bull, and he is healthy and of fine physique. Moreover, he has the strength of more than ten men." RepeatedNodger (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request

Under the "In popular culture" heading, change "On May 15th 2024" to "In May 2024" since the specific date isn't terribly relevant. If we do opt to keep the specific date, it should be changed to "On May 15, 2024". Sock (tock talk) 21:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't see what we shouldn't have the date, but I took the opportunity to remove that horrible, passive, fan-like "it was revealed" and other buzzwords. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: other than Drmies' tweak; consensus should be confirmed prior to making an edit request. I don't think this is particularly controversial but let's do a quick straw poll. By the way, Sock, when you're adding the {{edit fully-protected}} template you should omit the "Template:" from your code - the curly brackets assume that the page to be transcluded is a template unless you specify a different namespace. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! Missed it since mobile Wikipedia can be a little rude with talk pages sometimes. I realized a little too late that I was hasty including the "In May" change, but I mostly just wanted the "15th" gone. Didn't realize that some of the other bullets don't have specific dates associated, so I'm totally good with leaving the full dates where applicable. Sock (tock talk) 13:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Straw poll: date format in popular culture

Should the dates given for entries in the "in popular culture" bullet list be:

1. all given in "month, year" format (e.g. "In May 2024 ..."); or
2. given with specific days when the dates can be verified (e.g. "On 17 May 2024 ..."), and "month, year" otherwise?

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Option 2, just for the sake of having the information we can have. Uniformity doesn't really bring anything here. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Option 2, if we can get specific days it's easier to narrow down. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully-protected edit request

In the "Birth and early life" section, can I suggest that:

"Among those whose names have been ascertained, he is the earliest African to appear in Japanese historical records, but his confirmed period of stay in Japan was very short – about three years, from 17 August 1579 to 21 June 1582."

Be reworded to simply:

"Among those whose names have been ascertained, he is the earliest African to appear in Japanese historical records. His confirmed period of stay in Japan was about three years, from 17 August 1579 to 21 June 1582."

This is as I think describing a three year stint in another country as "very short" is a bit misleading. McPhail (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: - from the below discussion, I think there is now a broad consensus in favour of this change? McPhail (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I commented in favour of the change so I'm not a neutral observer, but I'd say yes, the majority of comments are in favour of not editorializing about the length of his time in Japan. But also the page protection has been lowered and anyone who has commented here is able to make the change themselves. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector - ah thank you, sorry I hadn't spotted that. McPhail (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree per MOS:EDITORIAL, just state the facts. Also “with only fragmentary accounts” should be changed to “with fragmentary accounts”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The use of "only" is a fact too, as we only have fragments of accounts to go by, the word "only" is not changing in any way the amount of accounts of an individual specially when there is a few of them, and removing it doesn't make the statement any less or more credible or clearer. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

In what sense is it a fact? Do the sources say "only"? If not this is just an editor's opinion. McPhail (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Is a fact since literally the only times we hear about Yasuke is on the Jesuits writings, the primary source (Shinchō kōki), are the only few places Yasuke is even mentioned nothing else, again the use of the word only is not in any way reshaping or inserting any bias of any kind, if in a book the only place a character is mentioned is on volume 4 & 8, and a few mentions thought the story sayin "Oh he only appears on volume 4 & 8" is in no way misleading. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

”Only” adds unneeded and perhaps biased emphasis that is not included in the original source.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say is accurate to say 3 years is short, some believe 5 year is short, the mention of "very short" does not change nor distort the fact that Yasuke stayed just for three years. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

In these cases we should go to the citation(s). Does the source state or imply any opinion about the length of the stay, or are we just giving our own opinions? The citation for this is in Japanese so I'm of no help interpreting it, but otherwise I agree with the request - we cannot state conclusions that don't appear in the source. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

For the record his stay specifically under Nobunaga was only recorded between a period of about 15 months, from Luis Frois audience with Nobunaga in March 27, 1581 to the Honno-ji Incident on June 21, 1582. I know this is more in general to his total length stay in Japan but it really drives the point that he was not around for very long when he was most notable. For context it often takes months or even years to conquer or siege castles, most notably Nobunaga's sieges on Nagashima which took place in about a period of 3 years, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that Yasuke was not around for very long based off of how long these campaigns often take during this time, especially since he is only recorded in a single fight in Honno-ji. Hexenakte (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

But when does a stint in Japan go from being "very short" to "short" to "medium" to "long"? These are all totally subjective descriptors. Why not just stick to the facts and state the duration? McPhail (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This is basically my point. We can go round and round all day and night justifying whether this was "very short" or "a normal amount of time" or whatever, but it doesn't matter unless there's a source that agrees. Even if it was in a source it would be someone's opinion, unless there are many sources that make a point of calling out this duration as "short". Without sources, any description of the stay is unsourced opinion and original research. The article should simply give the duration, and readers can form their own conclusions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree too, if the citations don't call it "very short", we shouldn't either. "But" as a conjunction between the two statements is also WP:EDITORIAL and shouldn't be there either. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I would add that if we don't have sources, but editors say we don't need them because it's obviously "short" then the obvious (:-P) response to this is we don't need to say it since it's obvious so anyone reading it will realise wow that's short. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Strange article-text

"The name Yasuke was given to him by Nobunaga. His real name is unknown, and it is also unclear what he was called before that."

So it's unclear what he was called before he had his real name?

"Few details are known about him, including his date of birth, family structure, place of birth, ethnicity and native language."

Is this supposed to mean "His date of birth, family structure, place of birth, ethnicity and native language are unknown."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Luís Fróis's Annual Report on Japan states that Nobunaga also longed to see a black man, and summoned him, and Fr. Organtino took him to him and that Nobunaga, seeing a black man for the first time"

Is this supposed to mean "Luís Fróis's Annual Report on Japan states that Nobunaga also longed to see a black man, and summoned [Yasuke], and Fr. Organtino took [Yasuke] to [Nobunaga] and that Nobunaga, seeing a black man for the first time"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 to all of these. Especially the "few details are known" sentence. I asked about that one a few days ago already on this talk page, but the section got completely derailed and then removed. Irrwichtel (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed first and third. As for the second, yes it is supposed to mean that, but leaving the "Few details...including..." part in lets the reader know that there are more unknowns about Yasuke. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 Doesn't it logically read as that the details that are mentioned are the details that are known? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Oh right, I see what you mean. Changed it to match your suggestion. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Speculated depictions of Yasuke"

Just not idiomatic English. Can we change this to "Possible depictions of Yasuke"?

(I really think this is a non-controversial edit, so I've gone ahead and templated this request.)

-- Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on method

I've been trying to read the comments to understand the issues with this page, and people seem to answer to "the consensus among historians is that Yasuke was a samurai" with "yeah, but I know better, here's my reasoning". If there's a consensus among historians, and historians have literally published books about Yasuke being a samurai, shouldn't WP just follow their lead? Can someone point what the written policy is on that? Nowhere man (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Can someone point what the written policy is on that?

WP:V and WP:NOR, the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth contains some clarifications. Thibaut (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, only one "scholarly" source, that is, Thomas Lockley, has actually written on Yasuke as a "historical account". It's all the tertiary sources reposting Lockley's work that makes it bigger than it actually is. I have not heard anything about historians reaching a consensus on Yasuke being a samurai, and I don't think anyone claimed that. That being said, I will point you to my big post replying to _dk at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status explaining the issues with Lockley and why his book on Yasuke is not reliable. So far the only defense ran on Lockley is based off of "technically meeting the criteria to be considered a reliable source" based off of Wikipedia rules and it has been admitted among those here still defending him that his book is not actually academic. In this case I have invoked that we WP:IAR and use WP:COMMONSENSE in regards to this because there is no "reputable" secondary source on Yasuke, or atleast no other secondary sources have been proposed other than Lockley. Hexenakte (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you have to rely on the pretty weak argument of using WP:IAR to dismiss using Lockley as a reliable source in this article. Lockley's work is a textbook example of a WP:QUESTIONABLE source based on what other secondary sources have said about his writings and per WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes ... persons living or dead". RomeshKubajali (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I will admit, since I have mentioned this before, I am new to the Wikipedia platform so I am not entirely well versed in the rules, so I appreciate the input, and I think you are correct. I just was not impressed with the arguments others were using what was essentially loopholes to justify Lockley's inclusion as a "reliable" secondary source. Hexenakte (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to note that "academic" is not a requirement for a source to be considered reliable on Wikipedia. Much of the contention of Lockley points back to an archive of the Talk Page. Chiefly, to Talk:Yasuke#Lockley_2016,_Lockley_2017,_and_Lockley_2019 Which is being handwaved to by individuals claiming that it discredited Lockley as a source. Firstly, Lockley remained on the Yasuke page as a source for years after the conversation happened. Secondly, the discussion of the Lockley that occurred does not once state that the Lockley she be dismissed except for a comment which was struckthrough from assuming it was just a historical fiction piece.

Directing to the wording on WP:QUESTIONABLE

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.[9] Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

The book is published by a reputable publisher. It has been reviewed in an Academic Journal by a Historian whose chief criticism of the book was that it wasn't as valuable of a resource to Academics as it could have been had the book utilized in-text citations, but again, the reviewer does not contend the veracity of the scholarship. Furthermore, it is not a "website" or "publication" expressing a view that is widely acknowledged as extremist, nor is it promotional in nature. Moreover, it also specifies for "citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims AGAINST institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities" (emphasis my own).

Stating that Yasuke was a Samurai is not contentious, and had not been contentious until a certain video game was announced and people arrived on Wikipedia to argue about it, nor are works which say Yasuke "was a Samurai" making a claim against him. Factually, the Lockley is widely cited across multiple sources that Wikipedia deems as reputable, and it isn't the only secondary source that mentions Yasuke as a Samurai.

Even if you want to contend that Yasuke was not a Samurai, by Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:NPOV the view still has to be represented that sources do call him a Samurai, and I quote: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" Extra emphasis my own.

There is an entire documentary about Yasuke that refers to him as a Samurai

More about Lockley who is apparently being written off by Wikipedia, but not by Japanese organizations themselves, which note:

"Professor Thomas Lockley is an Associate Professor at Nihon University College of Law in Tokyo. He has researched and published on a number of historical figures, but is primarily known for his work on Yasuke, which has been featured in Japan on NHK, BS-TBS, TV Tokyo, and Fuji Television as well as receiving many notable reviews including in print media such as Bungeishunju, Shukan Bunshun, Shukan Asahi, and Mainichi Shinbun. The English language version of his book, co-authored with Geoffrey Girard, African Samurai, was released by Hanover Square Press (Harper Collins) in the USA in April 2019. It received wide coverage, including being named by Publishers Weekly as one of the most eagerly anticipated books of 2019, and has been featured by many global media outlets including Time Magazine, the BBC, CNN, Euro News, and the Washington Post."

Lockley's book was reviewed by John Rodzvilla of Emerson College in "Library Journal. Mar 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 2, p128-128", with Rodzvilla writing:

Lockley (Nihon Univ., Sch. of Law, Tokyo) and Girard (Cain’s Blood) use primary sources to piece together Yasuke’s immersion into Japanese culture with a novelistic history that takes place at the height of one of Japan’s most important cultural and political moments. While the authors may take some liberties with Yasuke’s narrative, they do so with attention to their source material and the culture of the time. The story involves several figures alongside Yasuke, including samurai, ninjas, and Catholic missionaries. VERDICT With fast-paced, action-packed writing, Lockley and Girard offer a new and important biography and an incredibly moving study of medieval Japan and solid perspective on its unification. Highly recommended

And again, in "Library Journal. Winter 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 12, p80-80" as an "Essential Title in Social Studies". And again, the book not being "academic enough" isn't even a qualification for a source to be reliable on Wikipedia Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

"Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications" (Emphasis Mine).

Likewise, Lockley's book has been at multiple academic talks and is in Academic Libraries and in professional development reading groups.

Furthermore, Lockley has been subject to external attention related to GamerGate which has sought to discredit his work, which I feel is important to keep in mind.

The Lopez-Vera, meanwhile, has been cited 20 times in its original spanish and 3 times in English.

You can hardly argue that Lockley's claim that Yasuke is a Samurai is contentious or going against Academic consensus.

Article in this Journal refers to Yasuke as a Samurai

And this one

And Warren A. Stanislaus, PhD refers to Yasuke as a Samurai in this journal.

A companion website for the book "A History of Popular Culture in Japan, From the Seventeenth Century to the Present" lists "Sumō yūrakuzu byōbu (1605), screen painting possibly depicting Yasuke, the “African Samurai”" X0n10ox (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I am going to repost something I have already posted elsewhere in the talkpage in regards to the only "scholarly" source being Lockley:

"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" (109).
— * Lopez-Vera, Jonathan (2020). A History of the Samurai. Tokyo ; Rutland, VT: Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 4-8053-1535-0. OCLC 1156626219.

Published by Dr. Jonathan Lopez-Vera, who holds a PhD in Japanese History and an MA in World History from Pompeu Fabra University. His book, "A History of the Samurai" was originally published in Spanish as "Historia de los samuráis" in 2016 by Satori Ediciones, and published again in 2021 by Alianza Editorial.

X0n10ox (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This is probably going to be a long reply so for the ease of following it I will respond to your main points in the order that you made them. I will also preface this by saying I'm talking only about Lockley as I have not taken a look at Lopez-Vera 2020 at the time of writing (but will do so afterwards).

RE: "Academic"

I would say Lockley is academic (or at least some of his books are) and you are certainly correct that being academic is not a pre-requisite for being considered reliable. I would note however that just because something is academic, that does not automatically make it reliable; WP:SCHOLARSHIP shows this to be the case (even though not discussed in this reply, it demonstrates a general point before I explain my full stance later RE: reliability and verifiability).

Lockley remained on the Yasuke page as a source

This has no bearing on whether Lockley is reliable or verifiable so I assume you bring it up to call out a contradiction in not using him to call Yasuke a Samurai but using him as a source for other purposes. I will respond based on this assumption but please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

I'm not going to go through the entire history of the Yasuke page since the Talk in question happened so I will only comment on how Lockley is used in the article in it's current state at the time of writing.

The first usage is in citation 8: Lockley 2017, pp. 200–202. This citation is used once on the page in the notes section after the phrase "However, these are their speculations and have no basis" to caveat what a Japanese language article said RE: Lockley's speculation on Nobunaga's naming of Yasuke. This note gives due weight to a minor aspect and properly states an opinion as such. Using Lockley as a source here falls under WP:ABOUTSELF.

The second usage is in citation 20: Lockley 2017, p. 65. This citation is used once on the page after the sentence "Nobunaga's nephew gave him a sum of money at this first meeting". This sentence is backed up by an additional citation so even though/if Lockley is an unreliable source for anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF, the sentence is still verifiable and can remain. I do support removing Lockley as a source in this instance.

The third usage is in citation 27: Lockley 2017, pp. 147–148. It is used once on the page in the Possible depictions of Yasuke section. This inclusion of Lockley's opinion on a piece of art is in a section dedicated to recording speculations. The same points from my paragraph on citation 8 mostly apply here too; namely: it follows WP:DUE, WP:VOICE and is WP:ABOUTSELF.

Those are all the instances of Lockley being directly used as a source, if I missed something please bring it up and I will comment on that too.

Is Lockley WP:QUESTIONABLE?

First sentence of WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight". The issue is Lockley doesn't have a reputation just for not checking facts, he has a reputation for creating them out of apparently nothing. No other sources exist, besides tertiary ones which themselves cite Lockley, to support many substantial claims made by Lockley. Meanwhile he barely gives any indication of what sources he read to support such claims:

The afterward lists chapter-by-chapter “Selected Readings” of primary and secondary sources, but no direct citations. The omission of citations is not necessarily a question a veracity of the scholarship, but the authors frequently go into detail about Yasuke and his personal reactions, like his kidnapping from Africa and his sword fight with a young enemy samurai, with no cited documentation. Likewise, there is no discussion of the evidence that explains how, in just fifteen months, Yasuke and Nobunaga developed such a close relationship (Purdy, R. W., 2020)

The second sentence of WP:QUESTIONABLE is a non-exhaustive list of examples of questionable sources. Lockley doesn't really fall in to any of these examples.

Third and fourth sentence of WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited". Regarding the contentious element, you said, "Stating that Yasuke was a Samurai is not contentious, and had not been contentious until a certain video game was announced and people arrived on Wikipedia to argue about it". Respectfully, you have it mixed up; Stating that Yasuke was a Samurai has been contentious since it was first brought up on the Talk page, long before the culture war caused by the Assassin's Creed Shadows leak. Every time a discussion was had on Lockley's claim that Yasuke was a Samurai, the conclusion was he wasn't and that Lockley was a poor source. You also said: "nor are works which say Yasuke "was a Samurai" making a claim against him". The list is non exhaustive; a claim does not necessarily have to be against an entity to be contentious, it is just an example of what would be contentious.

The view still has to be represented that sources do call him a Samurai

I completely agree. It is absolutely as significant minority view that Yasuke was a Samurai. This view should be reflected in the article. I am not sure what section it would go under as it doesn't really seem to fit any of the section headings but that's something that could be figured out once/if consensus is established. In actually writing the text for the article there are also many NPOV issues which should be discussed but I digress.

I've been writing for a while so I'll leave it there. If there are any specific points I did not cover that you think I ought to have please let me know. RomeshKubajali (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem with stating "Stating that Yasuke was a Samurai has been contentious since it was first brought up on the Talk page, long before the culture war caused by the Assassin's Creed Shadows leak" is that it's not entirely true. As noted by the talk section about Samurai, the article, specifically:

You're picking arbitrary dates. The article began by calling him a samurai, and has referred to him as such at various points since. I was restoring a previous version that should supersede later (and unilateral, undiscussed) edits that were based on original research and a definition not found in any source used in the article. Merriam-Webster states that a samurai is a retainer under a daimyo, which throughout this dispute the article has unequivocally claimed Yasuke to be (based on the exact same sources that say he was a samurai).
— User:Natemup 17:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Natemup, I haven't looked at the sources in-depth, but I am so far inclined to agree with you that the lead should describe Yasuke as a samurai. The body could note that there is some disagreement on the matter. I also agree that "Afro-centric" was a bizarre and POV statement to add.
— User:Firefangledfeathers 17:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the matter at hand—that of sources, rather than cherry-picked dictionary entries—virtually every source cited in the article refers to Yasuke as a samurai. Full stop. It is literally the reason the article was created and is the warp and woof of Yasuke's significance. This has been obscured by an unsourced edit from 2019 that insisted on a hereditary definition of "samurai"—which is one of at least two, the other of which was cited above (and swiftly no-true-Scotsman'ed) by Hijiri. And lest anyone be misled, the article has been categorized under ~"foreign samurai" throughout this entire brouhaha, since well before I ever got involved, indicating the original state of the article before vandalism took hold. Hijiri has also deemed what would be considered a reliable source on any other article as unreliable here, even scholars whose work is *already* cited in the article without controversy. Thus three additional reliable sources I added have been removed, while the obvious original research seen above from Hijiri is being represented in the article at present without justification
— User:natemup 04:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to point at this time that the main opponent to the re-addition of Samurai to the article in 2021, was Hijiri 88, who struck his opposition:

I'm out Please consider all my comments on this page stricken. I will support whatever the consensus of editors other than myself decides upon. Regardless of what said consensus is, so be it.
— User:Hijiri 88 10:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, we're re-arguing a settled matter here Re: Lockley, again directing to Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Slave_or_Servant

Attribution is required for any challenge statement for Wikipedia:Verifiability, so I simply say that this needs attribution and a source. Lockley disputes it, and while you may not agree, he still is a published scholar, even if you don't like him. But most of all, I am concerned with the lack of sources stating that he is a slave, since all we've got so far is the non-scholarly documentary.
— User:Eccekevin 00:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day, my point is not that "Yasuke should be named a Samurai", my point is merely that there is a number of publications that list Yasuke as a Samurai, and there is a modern understanding that Yasuke was a Samurai which does not seem to be contended as nobody has furnished any secondary sources conclusively arguing that Yasuke wasn't a Samurai. My point of bringing up the usage of Lockley throughout the article is the fact that we are dismissing a handful of sources because "they're based on the Lockely", but as I've pointed out in Talk:Yasuke#Sources Discussion there are a handful of sources presently in use on the page that utilize Lockley as their source. Likewise, there are multiple sources in the citation list that flat-out call Yasuke a Samurai. To plug our ears and not even acknowledge that some sources call Yasuke a samurai is blatantly violating Wikipedia:NPOV.

Do I think the article should say "Yasuke was a Samurai"? Probably not. Should the Article probably say something like "Although the historical documents are inconclusive, some scholars contend that Yasuke was a Samurai"? Yes, because it is an accurate representation of the situation. Even if the Lockley is dismissed entirely, the Lopez-Vera book still refers to Yasuke as a Samurai, has been cited multiple times in Spanish, is touted by his University, and was written by an academic whose doctoral degree is in Japanese History specifically. WP:HSC does say that "Popular equivalents of the above published by historians who normally publish in the scholarly mode" are valid history sources.

Likewise, "Historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible, Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used."

Even in terms of the Lockley, the "highest quality commercial or popular works should be used" is still applicable to Lockley. It is commercially published by a legitimate publishing house. It has received high praise by the Library Journal, and a generally favorable review by R.W Purdy, who, again, does not dispute the veracity of the book nor does he recommend against the book. Since there are no scholarly works available, as everyone has helpfully pointed out, we turn to "the highest quality commercial of popular works". Dismissing Lockley on the grounds of he doesn't use in-text citations but keeping a bunch of random web articles hardly seems to be keeping with the premise of "highest quality commercial or popular works", especially when several of those sources reference or cite the Lockley themselves.

My point as to Lockley remaining on the page is the fact that if Lockley was determined unreliable and that it should be driven from the page and all sources that cite Lockley are unreliable, why did several sources that reference Lockley remain and why does Lockley remain cited on the page? If Lockley's claim is only there because it is supported by another source, but Lockley is unreliable, should the Lockley not just be removed and the supporting source be left in its place?

Even in terms of the "Questionable Sources" section that you quoted, the next section reads:

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.

Which, again "considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion". The "considered by other sources", I feel, is an important fact which is being left out. Original Research by Wikipedia Editors does not constitue other sources making an argument that Lockley is "relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion", nor does the R.W Purdy review state that it relies heavily on "unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion". Purdy does not once in his review go to the lengths of saying the book relies on unsubstantiated rumor, gossip, or opinion. He even says Re: the section quoted about Nobunaga getting close to Yasuke in just 15 months:

"Was it just Yasuke’s height and skin color? Presumably, much of this might come from Frois or be based on reasonable speculation, but, without specific references, details often seem like creative embellishments, rather than historical narrative." His statement is that it can be presumed to be based off of the Frois, but without specific citations, it can seem like embellishments. He is, notably, not outright saying that Lockley is unsubstantiated or that it is outright creative embellishments, merely that without citations they SEEM like creative embellishments. It would be hard to argue that these statements indicate that Purdy believes the entire book to rely "heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion". I would also like to add that [[1]] this source utilized on the Wikipedia List of Foreign Born Samurai lists Yasuke as a Samurai, and predates the earliest publication of Lockley being as the page was published in 2015 and Lockley's first mention of Yasuke as a Samurai came in 2016. X0n10ox (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Do I think the article should say "Yasuke was a Samurai"? Probably not. Should the Article probably say something like "Although the historical documents are inconclusive, some scholars contend that Yasuke was a Samurai"? Yes, because it is an accurate representation of the situation.

If this is your position I basically agree with you on what the article should say. I disagree with a large portion of your arguments, and I think you've made some arguments I already covered in my previous reply, but there's little point in arguing it out if we pretty much agree on what the article should say. If you want to make a new topic to try to get consensus for a change to this effect I would happily add my support (even if I disagreed on certain specifics of the proposal). If you don't want to go down this route, but would be willing to support me, then I could make the new topic myself tomorrow. RomeshKubajali (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to support you. While we are arriving at the same conclusion through different means, it's the same conclusion nevertheless. X0n10ox (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Precisely what some of us are saying on this section is that the historians that you could "argue" have a consensus, of which Lockley seems to have the spotlight due to some of his books, of Yasuke being a Samurai are most likely engaging in a very lax use of Japanese words who aren't really interchangeable, like Hexe and some have explained if there is a clear distinction on the use of words otherwise, historians should've called Hideyoshi a Samurai WAY before he became an ACTUAL Samurai but they didn't why? Because he wasn't one, neither was Yasuke nor Williams but that's because again the lax usage of some translated Japanese words being used, some people/historians(on reddit(I'm not sure how much legitimacy they have since apparently you need credential to post there as an 'historian') and twitter) believe that Samurai were just 'full-time' soldiers, which is just not true nor accurate, also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:!TRUTHFINDERS I am just going to put this here for you once again.

"Wikipedia doesn't reproduce verbatim text from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes should belong in the Wikipedia article in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. This process involves editors who are not making claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth. If there is more than one set of facts or explanations for the facts in the article, there's a guideline for that where multiple points of view (Wikipedia's term for versions of truth) are included.

Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia."

It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to determine if their usage of Japanese is lax, or what the English understanding of a Samurai is. X0n10ox (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As a counterargument, we do have a responsibility to be clear in how we are using words, and also to be clear in how the sources we present are using those words.

What do we mean by "samurai", as used in this article? That is not clear, and this lack of clarity seems to underlie most of the disagreements visible on this page.

If we can clearly define what "samurai" means for the purposes of this article, and show how that intersects (or doesn't) with the definitions and/or usage of "samurai" by our references, then I suspect that much of this disagreement about Yasuke being or not being a "samurai" may well resolve. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

My final comment on this matter, or any matter on Wikipedia, is that I would contend the way we use "samurai" is pretty clearly defined on Wikipedia. Samurai#Terminology:

• "During the Sengoku period, the traditional master-servant relationship in Japanese society collapsed, and the traditional definition of samurai changed dramatically, becoming synonymous with bushi. jizamurai (地侍) were bushi with the status of nanushi (名主), the highest class in the village who managed the farmland, and many of them became vassals of the sengoku daimyo (戦国大名, feudal lords). On the other hand, it also referred to local bushi who did not serve the shogun or daimyo."

As well as with the article also stating "historical sources make it clear that bushi and samurai were distinct concepts, with the former referring to soldiers or warriors and the latter referring instead to a kind of hereditary nobility" Beyond that we, the editors, mean and say nothing. The sources speak for themselves.

X0n10ox (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that no, the sources don't speak for themselves.

We have unclear and apparently conflicting uses of "samurai" in the various sources that editors have brought forward here. Inasmuch as Lockley has clarified how he uses the term "samurai", it appears to disagree with our definition as you've quoted here. If we take Lockley's definition of "samurai" and apply it to our content, without qualification or explanation that his definition does not match our definition, then all we are doing is further muddling an already confused issue. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove the "kosho" title.

Hopefully this is uncontroversial but I think we should remove the "kosho" lead, unfamiliar Japanese titles shouldn't be thrown around when there's no scholarly sources backing it up. JP wiki doesn't use this term and the sources supporting it are a short clickbait "Japaaan" article plus an entertainment article talking about a possible Yasuke movie starring Chadwick Boseman. "He was retained by the daimyō as a koshō" could be changed to "He was retained in the daimyō's service", and "Yasuke followed Nobunaga to Azuchi in Omi Province, where he was appointed a koshō" could be changed into "Yasuke followed Nobunaga to Azuchi in Omi Province, where he was retained in his service." or something of the like. Meeepmep (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the sources given thus far that he was kosho do look unreliable. Are there any more reliable ones that he was granted the rank? That would be preferable to removing the reference entirely. John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty dubious that he was ever granted that rank, when none of the few primary sources that mention him describe him as such. Wiki editors that defend this title admit that it is inference, but can't seem to find scholarly sources backing this up. Thomas Lockley, the preeminent "Yasuke expert" doesn't mention the title his book African Samurai either. Meeepmep (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I made edits cleaning that section up previously to clear out similarly unreliable language and failed to adequately check the reliability of the claim he was a koshō so this is a good catch. FifteenthClause (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

From u/ParallelPain's own words: "FYI no source say Yasuke was actually a 小姓". Thibaut (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and change it now that the article is semi-protected. Meeepmep (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Translation of the extract from the Shinchō Kōki

The extract in the article states that Yasuke "appears to be 26 or 27 years old" which is also supported by the translation done by /r/ParallelPain on Reddit.

The other citation provided (intojapanwaraku.com) says "年齢は20歳代前半" (early twenties).

However, this academic paper from the Kyoto University, which cites another paper, translates the age as "around sixteen or seventeen years of age".

The original text is provided here, correct me if I'm wrong but "廿六七" means "26 or 27".

--Thibaut (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Per the paper in question, its source for saying that Yasuke is 16 or 17 is "Fujita, Midori. 1987a. "Nihonshi niokeru 'Kurobo' no Tojo: Afurika Orai kotohajime" (Early History of Afro-Japanese Relations: People Called Kurob6 in the Sixteenth Century), Hikaku Bungaku Kenkyet 51, 28 — 51."

This article which also lists the Fujita as a reference says "26-27".

Without access to the Fujita itself, it would seem the paper saying he was 16 or 17 is the outlier. X0n10ox (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Thibaut (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The Tono Notation

I am requesting someone to provide a Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the notation "It is assumed that 'tono' in this case means a high position among the samurai, as a lord of a castle would be too high a position" or, failing that, to remove it per Wikipedia:No original research.

Added by this revision [2] with 0 comment, explanation, or discussion. The entire mention of "tono" does not exist until this particular revision, and while we can see in the primary historical documents where Fróis writes about suspecting Nobunaga wanted to make Yasuke a "tono", the editor provided no citation or evidence to assert the assumption in the notation. I do not think H:NOTES is the appropriate place for editors to spin their speculation about what Fróis, or Nobunaga, meant by "tono". X0n10ox (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

In a letter from Lorenzo Mesia, October 8, 1581, it is mentioned that 'Nobunaga would make him [Yasuke] a tono [meaning lord or sir]' which certainly signifies high social status. This, along with the high trust Nobunaga had by permitting him to carry a weapon and providing him with a stipend makes it very likely that he would have been socially classed as Samurai.

Looks like JuliusRoxas made this statement in the talk page above, so this is presumably the reference in question, though it doesn't appear to include the "likely not to mean a lord of a castle" part. That appears to be WP:OR speculation. Silverseren^C 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that statement was made, but there is nothing about the assumption which does make it strictly editorializing by whomever added it. Moreover, I am going to correct the text of the article because presently it says "Frois writes", when very clearly Frois didn't write it. We can see the letter [3] in its original Portuguese here. As the page says this is a letter from Father Lourenço Mexía to Father Pero da Fonseca written on October 8, 1581, saying "Frois writes" is strictly not true. Considering all of the rigorous claims about truth and factuality surrounding samurai made on this page in the past week it is marginally humorous that everyone has been overlooking a blatantly, demonstrably false statement in the article. X0n10ox (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's the relevant excerpt of the text of the letter that @X0n10ox links above (https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/bg5/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18_item1/P680.html), found on the left-hand column of the right-hand page in that image, first full sentence, starts on line 5 of that column.

Leuou o padre hum cafre, o qual porq́ nunca foi viſto no Miaco, fez paſmar a todos, era a gente que o vinha ver q́ não tinha conto, & o meſmo Nobunanga paſmou de o ver nem ſe podia perſuadir que naturalmente era negro, mas que era artificio de tinta, & aſsi não ſe fartaua de o ver muitas vezes, & falar com elle, por que ſabia mediocremente a lingoa de Iapaõ, & tinha muita forças, & algũas manhas boas, de que elle muita goſtaua, agora o fauorece tanto que o mandou por toda a cidade com hum homem ſeu muita priuado pera que todos ſoubeſſem que elle o amaua: dizem que o fará Tòno.

Modernized spelling:

Levou o padre hum cafre, o qual porque nunca foi visto no Miaco, fez pasmar a todos, era a gente que o vinha ver que não tinha conto, & o mesmo Nobunanga pasmou de o ver nem se podia persuadir que naturalmente era negro, mas que era artificio de tinta, & assim não se fartava de o ver muitas vezes, & falar com elle, por que sabia mediocremente a lingoa de Japão, & tinha muita forças, & algumas manhas boas, de que elle muita gostava, agora o favorece tanto que o mandou por toda a cidade com hum homem seu muita privado pera que todos soubessem que elle o amava: dizem que o fará Tòno.

Google Translate, lightly tweaked for clarity:

The priest took a kaffir, who, because he had never been seen in Miaco [Kyoto], amazed everyone, it was the people who came to see him that had no story, & Nobunanga himself was amazed to see him and could not be persuaded that he was naturally black, but that he was an artifice of ink, & so he didn't get tired of seeing him often, & talking to him, because he knew the language of Japan mediocrely, & had a lot of strength, & some good tricks, which he liked a lot, now he favors him so much so that he sent him throughout the city with a very private man of his so that everyone would know that he loved him: they say [he] will make him Tono.

This isn't a letter written by Luís Fróis (who died in July 1579, too early for this incident anyway [apologies, had a dyslexia moment, date of death was July 1597]), but rather by Father Lourenço Mexia to Father Pero da Fonseca in October 1581, as we see in the header for this letter's text on the previous page (https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/bg5/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18_item1/P679.html).

In summary: the Portuguese missionaries did not say that Yasuke was a tono, nor that Nobunaga would make Yasuke a tono, and instead Father Mexia is relating the town gossip, what people at large were saying might happen in future. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Odoacer Rex’s changes

There is no proof that Yasuke was of African origin […]

There are four excerpts from primary sources in the "Documented life in Japan" section, in one of them he was described as a cafre by Luís Fróis.

Another quote (which is not in the article) is from François Solier's Histoire ecclésiastique des isles et royaumes du Japon, where he was described […] [a]s black as the Ethiopians of Guinea, but a native of Mozambique, and of those who are properly called Cafres.

I read the discussions, and like Ivanvector [4], whether or not he was African does not seem to be in dispute but maybe I missed something.

The edit that removed the term "likely of African origin" with an asumption was done recently (after a video game trailer), is suspect.
This is false, the term "likely" was introduced on 15 May at 19:08 (UTC), therefore after the release of the trailer (16:15 UTC). It was then removed by ARandomName123 on 19 May with the comment no need for likely, historians seem pretty certain. The lead before the release of the trailer was "Yasuke was a man of African origin".

About Special:Diff/1225764468, "traveller" implies that he travelled willingly to Japan which was not the case as he was a slave. As for "lusophone", the only primary sources we have state that he understood a few words in Japanese. We don't know his native language. He probably understood a few words of Portuguese, but we don't know if he was fluent. According to Mozambique#Languages, there are quite a few languages. Thibaut (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

To my mind, "of African origin" is a plain euphemism for Black, as in "we don't know where they were born, but they're Black so they must have African heritage", especially when the subject is a person who lived in the 16th century. But we need to go by what the sources actually say, not how we interpret them; that's been a bit of a problem here. If sources say "likely of African origin" then so do we. If they say "Black" then so do we. If they say "probably a Martian" then so do we. Having proof of where Yasuke was actually born is not at all relevant. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources seem to interchangeably call him "African" or "Mozambican". Ex. [5], which calls him by both, along with [6]. I've reverted the edit and added some inline citations for now. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There do seem to be several academic sources that say (or at least state that the best historical estimate) of his country of origin was indeed Mozambique. Silverseren^C 19:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)