Talk:Yasuke/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the viewpoint of Lockley (and others), that Yasuke was a samurai, be presented as a significant minority view at or towards the bottom of the Documented life in Japan section? RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes There has been extensive discussion about whether Yasuke was a samurai over the past five or six days but despite this there is still no consensus for any changes relating to the samurai title. While the article should not explicitly state in the article lede that Yasuke was a samurai, there is a significant minority viewpoint that he was (Lockley, Rfi, CNN, Smithsonian, Time) which must be represented in the article; All majority and significant minority views should be covered in an article (WP:RS). As for why the viewpoint should be at or near the bottom of the Documented life in Japan section: 1. The article should not give the viewpoint undue weight through prominence of placement (WP:DUE) and, 2. Placement near the bottom of the section makes the most sense for the flow of the article. RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  As discussed further above, the CNN, Smithsonian, Radio France, and Time sources do not appear to be usable -- they either lack sources themselves (Radio France), or appear to simply be repeating Lockley.

  Should we add any such content, I agree with the suggestion of placing such a mention towards the bottom, as we have been finding no historical source materials that unambiguously state that Yasuke was a samurai. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Third option, as discussed below, I think the best would be a compromise that some consider him a samurai but uncertainty remains.

  Of the sources cited by @Loki, though apparently well liked and often mentioned together, they have some reliability issues, most of all the BBC article citing "historian" Lawrence Winkler. I still think the Lockley book and most sources citing it are also unreliable because it is impossible to draw the line between academic work and embellishments.

  The Lopez-Vera book is the only one I would consider reliable as he does not use Lockley in his references.

  Overall, one of the big problem is that Yasuke's depiction in popular culture muddied the waters and it became something akin to the Mandela effect. Yvan Part (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, as stated elsewhere I agree that it should be represented that while the primary historical documents are inconclusive, there are some scholars who interpert the primary sources to say that Yasuke is a Samurai. Discounting the Lockley entirely, there is still the Lopez-Vera which does state Yasuke was a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, as a majority view. As more time has gone by and more research and discussion has unfolded, I can no longer reasonably assent to the notion that it should be a minority view. Those who are opposed to its inclusion, and those that believe it should be a minority view, have had ample time in the past week to furnish any reliable source that would substantiate their claims. Instead, the most that we have had happen is attempts to define a Samurai by a strict, hereditary caste definition that may not have necessairly been applicable during the Warring States Period coupled with borderline Wikipedia:No original research in terms of interperting the intentions of other sources which do not conclusively state he was or was not a samurai as evidence that he was not a Samurai. Per Wikipedia:!TRUTHFINDERS " 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 Wikipedia:WEIGHT "If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included" and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion". The absence of any reliable sources contesting the concept of Yasuke as a samurai makes describing it as a minority view point seemingly run afoul of Wikipedia's guidelines for NPOV. A book produced by a scholar which was vetted by an editorial board at a University has asserted that Yasuke was a samurai, along with many other secondary and tertiary sources which make the same assertion. These assertions have been made for over a decade now, and if the aspect of Yasuke being a samurai was controversial or contentious in a serious way, there would be some reliable source which actually contests the claim. The inability of opponents of noting Yasuke as a samurai to produce a single reliable source to substantiate their claim across multiple years of discourse (going back to 2021, even, in the archives) is frankly telling. Either the sources do not exist or the editors who oppose the change have been expending their energy on everything but finding the sources.

  In my personal opinion do I think Yasuke should be considered a samurai? Probably not. Does my personal opinion matter for the contents of a wikipedia article? Absolutely not. I have searched every academic library that I personally have access to to try and find any source to substantiate a view that is strictly opposed to the notion of Yasuke being a samurai and I have found none, as I am sure is the case for many other editors. If it were contrversial, there would be reliable sources that talk about it. If it were contested, there would be reliable sources which contest it.

  The fact of the matter is, there are none. Which means, per Wikipedia:NPOV , the assertion that he is a samurai made by reliable sources must necessairly be represented in Wikipedia's voice until a source stating otherwise is produced. Even claims that Yasuke's depiction in popular culture have muddied the waters cannot be the basis for exclusion because there are, again, no reliable sources substantiating the claim.

  To further continue, arguments about the hereditary nature of samurai and the rigidity of the caste system are fruitless. There are numerous reliable sources which have already commented on the fact that the rigidity of the caste system was not solidified until Hideyoshi's reforms and the Tokugawa government.

  "The moment of crisis for the samurai class was the transition from the medieval to the Tokugawa period....The vassal samurai serving either daimyo or Tokugawa shogun had to accept very different, much more restrictive conditions in exchange for a secure, largely hereditary, status and income.... The samurai were forced to live in castle towns, usually separated from direct control over their land; and their societal role underwent a major transformation from that of independent, high-spirited mounted warriors to that of sedate bureaucrats" (21). (Emphasis my own.)

  "Ability rather than empty authority, performance rather than inherited position were valued in both vassals and masters. Indeed, it was during this period that samurai's standards for measuring honor were the most 'performance-oriented' rather than 'bloodline-oriented'. An institutionalized definition of the merit of absolute loyalty to one's master appeared only in the development of the Tokugawa state, in which the structure of samurai master-follower relationships would be permanently altered" (147) (Emphasis my own.)

  "...Japan's forcible unification, a climate characterized by the foreclosure of opportunities for upward social mobility through military heroism" (204) (Emphasis my own.)

  • Ikegami, Eiko (1997-03-25). The Taming of the Samurai. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-86809-0.

  "Historically, Tokugawa samurai were a legal creation that grew out of the landed warriors of the medieval age; they came to be defined by the Tokugawa shogunate in terms of hereditary status, a right to hold public office, a right to bear arms, and a 'cultural superiority' upheld through educational preferment" (353) (Emphasis my own.)

  "Toyotomi Hideyoshi moved to differentiate warriors (bushi) and farmer (byakusbo) in the interests of peace and stability -- to define a man's status as one or the other, and thus to contain both groups better" (355) (Emphasis my own.)

  • Howland, Douglas R. (2001). "Samurai Status, Class, and Bureaucracy: A Historiographical Essay". The Journal of Asian Studies. 60 (2): 353–380. doi:10.2307/2659697. ISSN 0021-9118

  "At the same time the new system bound farmers to their land. In 1588 Hideyoshi issued a law to disarm the urban and rural population and to fix their places of residence. This was not the first time such a decree had been issued: Nobunaga had ordered the disarmament of the people of Echizen and Kii when he defeated the Ikko-ikki in those areas. Another law of 1590 prohibited movement by individuals between classes. Until then social mobility had been relatively free and unhindered by legal prohibitions..." (97) (Emphasis my own)

  • Kure, Mitsuo (2002-05-15). Samurai. Boston (Mass.): Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8048-3287-8.

  X0n10ox (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  "ample time in the past week"

  Some of us are busy in other parts of our lives. I've barely had time to try to stay abreast of all the threads on this Talk page, let alone respond in full. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Everyone works in their own time. No change to the article is necessairly permanent. However, users on the talk page (not precisely you) have engaged in exhaustive discussion and theorizing about the definition of Samurai, suggesting uncommon usages such as the Bujin middle-ground proposal, and otherwise spending copious amounts of time arguing about Thomas Lockley or delving into essays about the very definition of samurai. Users have repeatedly demanded sources from other editors assertions and have provided none to represent a contending opinion.

  To you specifically, though, you were engaged in this exact same conversation almost in 2022. While I do not presume to know your schedule, presumably, two years is sufficient time to procure a source, is it not? You have made multiple revisions over the years on this page, mostly for the sole purpose of reverting and stopping any mention of Yasuke as a samurai. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but the mission of editors is not to exclude content. In the two years since you became actively involved on the Yasuke page, and started blocking edits, you haven't once given a reliable source that substantiates the argument that Yasuke was not a Samurai.

  For that matter, some of the prior discussions that are referenced in your blocks are just factually incorrect. Saying that Thomas Lockley isn't academically published is a falsehood, the Journal in 2016 which he is posted in is still an academically rigorous journal. Just because it doesn't allow first-author submissions from scholars outside of its University system doesn't mean the journal isn't overseen by an academic editorial board and doesn't make the journal not academically credible. There are plenty of University's which have similar journals, it is hardly "a collection of treatises populated only by members of his university's faculty". The journal adheres to academic standards, has an editorial board, and is academically rigorous.

  All that was decided in Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Lockley_2016,_Lockley_2017,_and_Lockley_2019?, likewise, was that Lockley is popular history. But being a popular history publication is not grounds for dismissal on Wikipedia.

  Then we have Archive_1#Request_for_comment_on_samurai_terminology which has an opposition factored on the grounds that the terminology came from a screenplay thesis. But the same person who opposed it wrote "I am in favor tho of pointing out on the page that some writers/historians have categorized him as samuari, but it has to be clear that it is an opinion and not a fact/consensus among historians The more academic treatments of the topic, such as Cooper and Russell do not use the term samurai, but the terms warrior or retainer"

  The opposition per: the prior RfC does not even contend using Lockley, nor does he suggest against using Lockley, but rather notes that Lockley sometimes uses "warrior" and "samurai" interchangeably, and that Lockley is working from a theory, coupled with "and we can summarize Locksely's theory and evidnece"

  During the previous RfC, your own contribution was "In any description in the article of Yasuke as a "samurai", I strongly feel that that description must include an explanation of how the relevant RS(es) define the term."

  That RfC was started in May, and then in October Eccekevin changes his vote to a blanket "Oppose", and Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Was_Yasuke_really_a_kashin? is once again just unsubstantiated conversation without a source, yet you have reverted edits and told people to refer to "Was Yasuke Really A Kashin?" as your justification. I reiterate, not a single source-substantiated statement that Yasuke was not a samurai has been provided in two years of discourse. X0n10ox (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Regarding my past edits to that page that you linked to, if you view the diffs and edit comments, you will see that most of my edits were in regard to content that was not backed up by the references linked for those specific edits. That's a pretty straightforward position to take here at Wikipedia, for any editor on any page.
  • Regarding the Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Was_Yasuke_really_a_kashin? thread, I think I only referred to that once, in this edit comment on 25 July 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1100494431
  • Regarding the claim that "not a single source-substantiated statement that Yasuke was not a samurai has been provided in two years of discourse", consider that non-samurai-ness is the assumed default state for anyone in Japanese society of the time. The lack of any mention of "samurai" status for Yasuke in the historical records of the time is a significant omission. Authors that do not mention "samurai" status for Yasuke are implicitly agreeing with that default state of non-samurai-ness: much like anyone not mentioning that a person has two heads is implicitly agreeing with the default state of one-headed-ness for humans in general. Secondary-source authors who mention "samurai" status for Yasuke have not yet, as far as we have seen, backed that up with specific citations to historical primary sources. We could turn your statement around, and say that "not a single source-substantiated statement that Yasuke was a samurai has been provided in two years of discourse".

  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• No. I don't see any valid reason why that should be the case. DemianStratford (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, as majority view. The sourcing here seems to be pretty clear that "Yasuke was a samurai" is not in fact a minority view, it's the majority view. We have lots of reliable sources that say that he was a samurai, including:

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

In contrast to all this, opponents don't appear to have a single source other than WP:OR readings of primary sources that Yasuke was not a samurai. So therefore, the majority view in both scholarly sources and news sources is that Yasuke was a samurai. So we should say that he's a samurai, not just in a short mention but consistently. Loki (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that it should noted as the majority view. As nearly every published secondary and/or analytical material of primary sources either describe Yasuke as a samurai and/or make no comment on his status. In fact I don’t believe there has been any published material actively making the case that he should not be considered a samurai, I have only seen that position argued by non-published individuals based on their own interpretation of the primary and secondary sources. Theozilla (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-samurai-ness is the assumed default state for anyone in Japanese society of the time. The lack of any mention of "samurai" status for Yasuke in primary materials is a significant omission. Authors that do not mention "samurai" status for Yasuke are implicitly agreeing with that default state of non-samurai-ness: much like anyone not mentioning that a person has two heads is implicitly agreeing with the default state of one-headed-ness for humans in general.

We cannot take the lack of sources specifically stating that Yasuke was not a samurai as an indication that he therefore was a samurai, any more than we can take the lack of sources specifically stating that Rameses II did not have two heads as an indication that he therefore did have two heads.

Secondary-source authors who mention "samurai" status for Yasuke have not yet, as far as we have seen, backed that up with specific citations to historical primary sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I do also agree that it could be noted as a majority view considering as we've yet to receive any published RSes that explicitly refute the claim that Yasuke is a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. The only argument people who say he isn't a samurai seems to have is that he wasn't a noble and instead merely Nobunaga's swordbearer (which is a very narrow definition for what counts as one). And yet they have no problem calling Toyotomi Hideyoshi a samurai despite him being his sandal-bearer. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. --Hawkatana (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple sources describe Yasuke as a samurai and/or the first Black samurai, as fact, with background references, and the recent coverage of Yasuke in the context of Assassin's Creed relies on these sources to present him as samurai as plain historical fact, not weakening the statement with weasel terms like "according to so-and-so" or "some historians believe". The matter of whether or not Yasuke was provably samurai or not is a matter of academic debate, and no amount of back-of-the-napkin original research on this page can or will settle the matter. As it is a significant viewpoint, WP:NPOV compels that we cover it with due weight. It is not Wikipedia's job to convince readers that one or the other side of a historical ambiguity is correct, we just present all significant viewpoints, and leave it to readers to form their own conclusions. This article should have a (probably separate) section describing the historical view that Yasuke was samurai, along with sources that purport to debunk that claim. This is the normal approach to historical uncertainties. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, per the arguments laid out by LokiTheLiar and Ivanvector. Sock (tock talk) 14:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but with attribution, argumentation, and criticism, otherwise No.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• There should probably be some kind of discussion about the "samurai" status, but the definition of the word "samurai" in English seems to be somewhat vague and academic sources discussing Yasuke generally avoid describing him thus. As such, I think something like "many sources have described Yasuke as the first black samurai" is okay, but I would object to describing him as a "samurai" in wikivoice. General interest sources like magazines and Britannica are generally a step-below academic sources in reliability, and there is no reason to view them as authoritaitive with regards to Yasuke's samurai status. Lockley's book also has issues with citations, as discussed in this review, where it is suggested that Lockley embellished some parts of the book.[1] Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I will note, regardless of the Lockley, there is still [2] with the chapter "Black Lives Matter in Japan: The Specter of Race and Racism Haunting Japan" which describes Yasuke as a Samurai on Page 311, and also the Lopez-Vera which refers to Yasuke as a Samurai. Academic sources either (a) Avoid addressing the ambiguity and simply call Yauske a retainer or (b) Call Yasuke a Samurai. There hasn't actually been a single academic source provided that argues against Yasuke being a Samurai, which makes it difficult to present the argument that Yasuke isn't a Samurai as a substantial one. Instead, people are looking at sources that refer to Yasuke as "retainer" and inferring that to mean that Yasuke was not a Samurai. I feel it hard to describe the situaiton with Yasuke as "a debate", as some people have done, when nobody is furnishing any sources showing said debate. The most that has been offered is "these sources don't call him a Samurai", but those same sources also don't call him "not a Samurai". Which, I think, lands us straight into the land of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We have verifiable sources that do say he was a Samurai, we do not (thus far) have any verifiable soruce that says he was not. X0n10ox (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Michael O. Sharpe is not an expert in Japanese history, and his mention of Yasuke is in the context of the recent Black lives Matter protests in a book about the 2021 Japanese general election. My point is that the word "samurai" is vague in English, and the dispute is therefore to a degree semantic. It's best to describe what role Yasuke served in the least vague way possible, and I think that Lopez-Vera's description of Yasuke as a "kind of bodyguard" [3] is more useful to the reader than the vague term "samurai". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they are not an expert in Japanese history, but the point remains that individuals are being published in academically rigorous contexts while referring to Yasuke as a Samurai and nobody is contending it except for editors on a Wikipedia talk page. The Sharpe Quotes Russell 2009, who only refers to Yasuke as being "retained as an attendant" and that Yasuke fought for Nobunaga against Akechi Mitsuhide. Regardless of the context of the article, if academically the editors felt that "Samurai" was an unqualified or incorrect interpertation of the Russell, they wouldn't have allowed it. Misrepresenting the views of a source is considered a form of plaigarism in Academia. My point still remains, if the common view is that Yasuke is a Samurai, and there is no scholarship opposing this, it isn't the place of Wikipedia editors to definitively answer the ambiguities of history. Frankly, the word "Samurai" isn't vague in English, it has a widely agreed upon meaning in English. The problem is that what "Samurai" means in English doesn't strictly adhere to a rigid definition of Samurai that would exclude Yasuke. Per Oxford Reference, "(from Japanese, ‘those who serve’) Warrior retainers of Japan's daimyo (feudal lords). Prominent from the 12th century, they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them, after which they became a hereditary caste. Their two swords were their badge. Their conduct was regulated by Bushido (Warrior's Way), a strict code that emphasized the qualities of loyalty, bravery, and endurance. Their training from childhood was spartan. Their ultimate duty when defeated or dishonoured was seppuku, ritual self-disembowelment" .

  It is not, frankly, the job of Wikipedia to redefine what Samurai means in English. X0n10ox (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's worth pointing out that the very word 武士道 (bushidō) likely did not exist in Japanese until around the time of its first written appearance in 1616. See also Bushido#Etymology. There is also criticism that what the English world knows as "bushido" traces back to the English-language writings of Inazo Nitobe, who may have invented much of what he wrote on the subject. See also https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/.

  There is no doubt that honor was a very important concept for the warrior class of Japan. However, the lack of any standardized "bushido" code until the 1600s should call into question the veracity of Oxford Reference's entry quoted above. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is not true we have less evidence of Yasuke being a Samurai, otherwise Hideyoshi would've been called a Samurai way before he was officially recognized as one, and that never happened with Yasuke, again the historians that "assert" he was a Samurai are being crass with the use of the words in English because probably they believe these words to be interchangeable. Claiming 'this historian says he was so it must be true' when again, none of the primary sources state he was, would be disingenuous, bias and not correct. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  And once again, until you can provide a substantiative source that contends that Yasuke was not a Samurai, it does not matter what your personal opinion about the Historians in question are. We have been provided with exactly no reliable sources for what is being claimed about Yasuke. Once again, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, "The stance of Wikipedia on such things is to avoid giving undue weight to such minority ideas, and represent instead the current state of understanding of a topic. If there's indeed an accuracy dispute between scholars, it is described without taking part. If there's an almost universally accepted viewpoint and a tiny minority one, the minority opinion may be ignored in favor of the viewpoint held by the majority, and the majority viewpoint will be described as fact."

  What we have is:

  • Primary sources which are inconclusive.
  • Reliable sources which say Yasuke is a Samurai
  • No Reliable Sources (thus far) saying He is Not

  You cannot, then, represent it as fact that the Historians who are saying Yasuke is a Samurai are disputed or contested or that they are flat out wrong, because there are no sources being provided to substantiate the claim. It does not matter if, by our own interpertation of the primary sources, Yasuke is not a Samurai, because we as editors are not allowed to interpert the sources. The primary sources not explicitly stating he was does not equate to stating he was not. Until someone provides Wikipedia:SOURCES that say as much, there is little to no reason to include argumentation that Yasuke was not a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Reliable sources which say Yasuke is a Samurai"

  Again lockley is not one, even by your own admission the reviews state "...reader of popular history and historical fiction a glimpse..." Historical fiction, that alone is enough for Lockley to be doubtful about Lockley's veracity, it doesn't matter if 5 historians cited his work, if they're repeating his mistake and lax use of English words is still incorrect, furthermore you keep claiming "majority of historians have this claim" but you only provided Lockley and Lopez-vera which two holding that believe doesn't even make it a "consensus" I'm sticking to the primary sources and none of them state Yasuke as a Samurai, it doesn't have weight to state "Well it doesn't specifically states he wasn't a Samurai" Okay, that is not going to change the fact that he most likely wasn't because your reached conclusions are coming from secondary sources who most likely have this lax and interchangeable use of Japanese words like Bushi/Samurai to mean the 'same thing' which is arguably wrong, otherwise there wouldn't be two different words for it. I wouldn't have a problem with any other title but again, the lack of information and lack of battle history, with only one battle under his belt and lack of historians or writings stating he had experience with swordsmanship is enough to make that claim dubious at best and a straight lie at worst.

  "You cannot, then, represent it as fact that the Historians who are saying Yasuke is a Samurai are disputed or contested or that they are flat out wrong, because there are no sources being provided to substantiate the claim."

  I'm sorry it is a fact and all I need are the primary sources,the primary sources alone are on my side, again not a part of him being called a Samurai, these sources have more weight than any extrapolation like "well he was a retainer and got paid so he probably was a Samurai" which is just flawed. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  It saying it's good for reader of popular history and historical fiction does not make it an unreliable source. See, "Popular history, also called pop history, is a broad genre of historiography that takes a popular approach". Furthermore, the Lopez-Vera still refers to Yasuke as a Samurai. Moreover, there is another review of the Lockley in Booklist. 3/1/2019, Vol. 115 Issue 13, p18-18, by James Pekoll who holds an MA degree in History, which writes "The authors also discuss how this was the age of exploration, in which European traders and missionaries sailed far and wide in search of markets and souls, and Japan provided both. Lockley and Girard deftly survey the cultural and geopolitical aspects of feudal Japan, providing historic facts underlying the popular fictional accounts of this age in everything from comic books to computer games. The authors make excellent use of primary sources, creating an engaging narrative, and use reasoned speculation when discussing Yasuke's later years after those sources end. This fact-checked portrait of a mythologized warrior often featured in manga and anime is an exciting and illuminating tale of action and intrigue"

  Regardless of if the Lockley is Popular History, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) and for the Lopez-Vera, even if the Lopez-Vera book can be considered Popular History, it's still a reliable source, see: "Popular equivalents of the above published by historians who normally publish in the scholarly mode". Yes, it matters very greatly if the Primary Sources don't explicitly state that Yasuke was not a Samurai, because we are not allowed to infer that the Primary Sources say that he wasn't a Samurai when the sources do not say that.

  If the only academics writing about Yasuke are referring to him ambiguously (i.e, retainer) or outright calling him a Samurai, we cannot contend that the sources claim that Yasuke wasn't a Samurai. That would be making an unsubstantiated claim using our own reading of the Primary Sources. It doesn't matter if editors feel that it is true that the primary sources support a particular meaning or definition, we as editors are not allowed to interpert the primary sources ourselves. We can only go off of what they state, not make an assumption based upon what they don't say.

  "are coming from secondary sources who most likely have this lax and interchangeable use of Japanese words like Bushi/Samurai to mean the 'same thing' which is arguably wrong"

  And until someone can provide a reliable source that makes that argument, it is irrelevant. Furthermore, they aren't my conclusions. They are the conclusions of the sources themselves.

  Saying "it is a fact" doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Regarding the point that all I have are Secondary Sources, Secondary Sources is what is preferred on Wikipedia. You make statements like "otherwise they wouldn't have two words for it", are you aware of how many things have different words with the same meaning in English alone? Or, in Japanese, 点検、検査、見学、視察、調べ、閲覧、検証、検閲、検定、査察、検問、監査、観察. All of those words can mean "inspection". Saying "otherwise they wouldn't have two words" is a false statement when you're trying to argue on the basis of factuality. もののふ and 武士 likewise have basically the exact same meaning.

  Again, "all I need are the primary sources,the primary sources alone are on my side, again not a part of him being called a Samurai, these sources have more weight than any extrapolation like "well he was a retainer and got paid so he probably was a Samurai" which is just flawed."

  This is Wikipedia. We have no side. See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

  "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"

  See WP:BIASEDSOURCES "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"

  WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves"

  By Wikipedia policies, the primary sources do not have more weight for claims which they do not explicitly state.

  Moreover, it is not the job of Wikipedia or its editors to redefine the definition of Samurai in common English usage.

  Per Oxford Reference, "(from Japanese, ‘those who serve’) Warrior retainers of Japan's daimyo (feudal lords). Prominent from the 12th century, they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them, after which they became a hereditary caste. Their two swords were their badge. Their conduct was regulated by Bushido (Warrior's Way), a strict code that emphasized the qualities of loyalty, bravery, and endurance. Their training from childhood was spartan. Their ultimate duty when defeated or dishonoured was seppuku, ritual self-disembowelment"

  To your point of "you only provided Lockley and Lopez-vera which two holding that believe doesn't even make it a "consensus" "

  There is no evidence in scholarship that the notion of Yasuke being a Samurai is contested. It has been mentioned in academically published sources since at least 2016 that I know of. The only sources provided only refer to Yasuke as (a) a Retainer or (b) a Samurai. There has not been a single reliable source provided that contends or explicitly states that Yasuke was not a Samurai.

  And finally, once again, Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH "material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add information to articles simply because they believe it to be true, nor even if they know it to be true". X0n10ox (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  In Shinchokoki(信長公記), one of three (or five) primary source about Yasuke, all people mentioned as samurai(侍) has family name, but Yasuke has not. So it's difficult to consider Yasuke as samurai(侍). Isn't this primary source? https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E5%85%AC%E8%A8%98 R.stst (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes but some caveats should be mentioned: The work from Lockley is recognized that his arguments that Yasuke was a samurai are "narrative" and based off of conjectured "research-based assumptions" by his own words,[4] and this needs to be presented if this were to be mentioned in a section at the bottom of the page as a significant minority, since this does not reflect the primary sources given. I cannot speak for Lopez-Vera or other works since I have not been presented their evidence but if they are the same boat as Lockley that needs to be presented as well. If this cannot be met, then it's a No.
• No, and I propose that, due to the lack of primary sources and information on Yasuke to determine with certainty that he is or isn't a samurai, and the apparent issues with the main academic sources contending that Yasuke is a samurai, that it be presented as a theory like the Female Uesugi Kenshin theory and the Shosaku Takagi theory in Separation Edict, this way the contentions by the main sources are made but within the mindset that it is unproven, and also present with criticism of those sources due to the lack of in-text citations, evidence, or documentation to back up the claims as per a scholarly review on Lockley by R.W. Purdy.[5] Hexenakte (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  An alternative proposal is to present it as a theory rather than a view, since it is not substantially proven, like how Uesugi Kenshin has the Female Uesugi Kenshin theory. I would be completely on board with this as an alternative instead. Hexenakte (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would also be okay with creating a Yasuke Samurai Theory section, or its own article, honestly. I will note, though, on the subject of the Lockley interview. In that same interview he states the Japanese book is "factual" and the English one is "narrative", but the Japanese book still describes Yasuke in its title as "Kokujin Samurai", Black Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  With none of us currently able to assess the Japanese book's content, I am loath for us to make any claims based solely on the title (beyond the obvious and objectively safe claim that "this other book has this title"). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am not implying we should use a book that none of us wish to acquire, I am merely stating that it isn't entirely true to paint the idea that Lockley only believes Yasuke is a Samurai in his narrative book when the book he touts as factual in the interview also calls Yasuke a Samurai in its title. Obviously the title of the book alone isn't enough to use as a source, but it isn't strictly necessary to potentially misrepresent Lockley's views or intentions on the page in a way that would suggest his conception of Yasuke as a Samurai is strictly for narrative flair in his "narrative" book, when the book he claims was "factual" in the interview still calls Yasuke a Samurai in the title. X0n10ox (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, yes he did state this, but his research was still based on "research-based assumptions" and while I can only judge based off of the reviews given by Japanese readers on the book, it seems for the most part the same kind of content as far as speculation goes. After all, he also states that he did not write it in Japanese and that it was translated by someone else. That being said, if anyone here does have access to the Japanese version I would love to hear what he has to say in it. Hexenakte (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to note briefly that "research-based assumptions" is being oft repeated online as if it has some sort of negative connontation but almost all academic research uses research-based assumptions. "Theoretical assumptions are the premises on which a theory is based. All theories, projects, beliefs and activities are based on assumptions" Further more, "Assumptions may also be drawn from theories. If a research study is based on a theory, the assumption of the particular theory may become the assumption of that particular research study" and "Research is built upon assumptions since a foundation is needed to move forward. One must assume something to discover something."

  Research-based assumptions and theory-based assumptions are the same thing. X0n10ox (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Which is exactly what I'm saying, it's theoretical and not based on substantial evidence, so we are in agreement. Hexenakte (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  The difference is you are saying "His research was still based on 'research-based assumptions'", which makes it sound as if it is negative. All research is built upon research-based assumptions. Saying that the research is "based on research-based assumptions" is not a grounds to dismiss it.

  Also, per WP:!TRUTHFINDERS "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"

  If someone, say Lockley or Lopez-Vera, reads the primary texts and sees that Yasuke was given privileges similar to that of a Samurai, was given a stipend, and was a retainer of Nobunaga, it is not an unreasonable to base his research on the assumption that Yasuke was a Samurai, especially when there are seemingly no published sources saying he was not.

  Per Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability, "The de facto primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability, i.e. whether reliable sources state it to be true; not whether individual editors think they can verify it themselves. " and "It does not really matter. The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't)."

  Wikipedia:Verifiability "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it."

  Furthermore, even if it's theoretical, that has no real bearing on whether we can include the work on Wikipedia as a source.

  The view that Yasuke was a Samurai obviously does not run afoul of Wikipedia:Fringe theories because the criteria for fringe theories is "the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". Theorizing that Yasuke (who was given a stipend and privileges similar to a Samurai, was speculated in a primary source that Nobunaga wanted to make him a "tono" a "castle-lord", and who was referred to as retainer of Nobunaga in historical documents and scholarly research) was a Samurai does not significantly depart from the prevailing view of the mainstream.

  In fact, there have still been no reliable sources provided that argue Yasuke was not a Samurai. Until we have any reliable source that argues he was not a Samurai, we as Wikipedia editors cannot state he was not a Samurai, nor can we exclude sources on the basis of we do not like the source's definition of Samurai. The basis of this arguement that has started time and time again was the removal of Samurai from Yasuke's page that has never been substantiated or supported by any attempt to furnish a reliable source that states he was not a Samurai. Frankly, it should have never been removed in 2019 when it was initially removed without any kind of discussion or remark, and it only became contentious during attempts to re-add it, contentions that coincided with the release of Yasuke (TV series).

  It is getting to the point that individuals are arguing for a rigid, strict, hereditary understanding of what a samurai is on Wikipedia seemingly for the sole purpose of excluding Yasuke. That editors opposed to the notion of Yasuke being a samurai have devoted a significant amount of their time to research this strict definition of Samurai and interperting primary sources rather than providing any reliable sources to substantiate their claim is, frankly, confounding to me.

  Even if Lopez-Vera cites himself (which is common in academia anyways), the book "Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los europeos" still refers to Yasuke as a Samurai, and is still published by an academic press, and was overseen by an academic, scholarly editorial board that found no problem with it.

  In "Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos", Lopez-Vera writes,

  "El nombre que se le dio fue Yasuke (h. 1555-?), y desde ese momento acompañó siempre a Nobunaga como unaespecie de guardaespaldas. Cabe destacar que a partir de entonces dejó de ser un esclavo, puesto que al estar al servicio del daimyō recibió un estipendio como el resto de vasallos, obteniendo así la condición de samurái" (175-176)

  Machine Translated

  "The name he was given was Yasuke (ca. 1555-?), and from then on he always accompanied Nobunaga as a sort of bodyguard. It should be noted that from then on he ceased to be a slave, since being in the service of the daimyō he received a stipend like the rest of the vassals, thus obtaining the status of samurai." X0n10ox (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  It appears that the entirety of Lopez-Vera's argument for Yasuke's samurai-ness is that Yasuke was paid. As has been extensively argued earlier, simply being paid a stipend does not make someone a samurai. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  And yet, there is no argument that Yasuke was not a samurai supported by any substantial source saying this. Again, researchers who are published are allowed to draw their own conclusions based on their understanding of the facts and the history. Wikipedia editors are not. X0n10ox (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  A separate article would be a bit much since there is so little secondary sources base their claims on and, as far as I know, don't expand on their reasoning much, if at all.

  Still, I am in favor of a compromise such as a new section discussing his status rather than a simple assertion that he is or isn't a samurai. Yvan Part (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Kokujin Samurai wouldn't fit either because I assume the closest thing was Jizamurai but it would work because Yasuke didn't owned any land. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, as majority and only view Considering, despite all of the rampant arguing on this talk page over the past few weeks, not a single source has been presented that argues Yasuke wasn't a samurai, any sources existing that state he was (and we have a number of such sources at this point) is the majority and only view presented. Because there is literally no reliable sources arguing he wasn't. Silverseren^C 21:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, and as a majority view noted in the article lede. natemup (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, he should be described as having been a samurai in the first sentence of the lead and throughout the article, without attribution; at least based on the sources presented so far, it should be the only view on the subject anywhere in the article, with nothing implying that there is any sort of dispute or controversy over it. This is his main point of notability and no one has presented any reason to think that it is in doubt, so he should be described as a samurai unattributed in the article voice throughout the article. If people believe it is under dispute, they must produce high-quality source directly contesting it. There's plenty of sources stating that he was a samurai, of a sufficiently high level of quality and weight that it justifies putting it in the article voice; and, more importantly, with so many sources flatly stating it as fact, you would expect at least some sources to dismiss it or dispute it or describe it as a myth, if it were genuinely controversial. But no such sources seem to exist; a smattering of sources that use "retainer" instead aren't really sufficient when we have so many high-quality sources calling him a samurai directly, since the two terms don't really contradict. Given the amount of coverage his life has gotten it's reasonable to expect at least one high-quality source dismissing this aspect as a myth, if it is actually contested in the way some editors are saying. Without that it feels like WP:OR - people are bringing their own personal definition of "samurai" to the table and judging based on that, which isn't how we determine things. Anyway, some additional sources. Also, given the numerous discussions of Lockley above, see , an academic review of it; while it takes some issues with more minor details, it clearly accepts the basic fact that Yasuke was a samurai; given the much more minor objections it raises, you would expect the review to say something if the central premise were questionable, instead of repeating it as fact. While many of the other sources just mention him in passing, they show that he's been repeatedly referred to as a samurai in academic writing; with it being so widespread, you'd expect someone to have disputed it somewhere in academia if it's genuinely controversial. Note in particular that several sources specifically say that he was promoted to a Samurai, ie. they're not merely presenting it as a narrative or an inference but saying that Nobunaga formally granted him that title. While I'm not a huge fan of tertiary sources, it's worth pointing out that Brittanica matches this. In light of all this, if there are people who want to avoid us calling him a Samurai as an article voice in the lead, they need to present other sources of similar or equivalent weight directly disputing it - "he doesn't match my definition of a samurai tho!" isn't enough to keep it out of the first sentence. For completeness, some additional refs from above so they go into the reflist. I'll also note that one editor, above, has tried to argue against some of these sources because they believe they relied on Lockley, a source that they themselves don't want to accept. But regardless of whether Lockley is reliable, that isn't how WP:RS works; a reliable source is presumed to do its own fact-checking, so if multiple high-quality RSes trust Lockley on a particular point, then they are reliable on that point even if we were to decide that Lockley himself was unreliable. Performing research using sources we couldn't use directly is part of the purpose of an WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I very much agree with this, and would like to emphasize the point that opponents have not come up with a single source that says that Yasuke was not a samurai. The best they have is WP:OR readings of primary sources, and WP:OR readings of scholarly sources that use other words to refer to him. But a source calling Yasuke a "retainer" doesn't make him not a samurai for the same reason that sources calling Ulysses S Grant a "general" don't make him not a president. In order to even entertain that sort of source comparison, we'd need at least one source saying outright he wasn't a samurai. Opponents can't even clear that extremely low bar. Loki (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

YES only if we make it clear that the modern portrayals of Yasuke are mostly fictional, while there's no concrete evidence to identify if he was a samurai or not. The section header should be something like "Modern portrayals". Also, once we have this dedicated section for his fictional portrayals in modern media, we can put every crazy idea that they made Yasuke into a mythical super ninjasamurai liberator in there, while leaving historical articles for academic use like how it supposed to be. Ezio's Assassin (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Majority View, in wikivoice - Until such time as any reliable source can be provided that disputes that he was a samurai, the sources we have state that he was, in fact, a samurai. It should be in the lead, in the 1st sentence, and stated in wikivoice throughout. No dispute of this should be added, even as a minority view, until such time as a reliable source disputing it can be provided. It should not be added as a minority view, but as the majority view. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Have you read the entire Talk page? We have at most 5 academic (not pop-culture) secondary sources claiming samurai-ness, of which two or three are in dispute as potentially non-reliable. So far, none of them include inline citations pointing to any historical records. The only sources currently stating that Yasuke was a samurai are problematic. As such, I cannot currently agree with any contention that we (Wikipedia) should state that Yasuke was a samurai, as a matter of plain fact, in wikivoice. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Seconded, the lack of citations and of a consensus held definition for samurai among these 5 sources hurts their credibility, we cannot confirm where they got this information from since they all neglected to cite properly. Hexenakte (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have read the talk page. I have seen multiple cited reliable sources that state he was a samurai. You have not convinced me the sources are problomatic, they have been peer reviewed and published, which is our general standard. I have yet to see a SINGLE reliable source that disputes he was a samurai in any way, shape, or fashion. Provide me with one, even ONE reliable source that disputes he was a samurai, and we can talk further. I'm not interested in your non-policy view that peer reviewed publications are not reliable, I want to see a reliable source in contention with the reliable sources. Fieari (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  First, samurai status at that time was the exception, not the norm. Other authors omitting any mention of Yasuke's samurai-ness are implicitly stating that he was the default state of "not samurai", much like other authors omitting any mention of how many heads Queen Elizabeth had are implicitly stating that she was the default state of "having one head".

  Secondly, I'm not sure why you assume that all the sources are peer-reviewed? Lockley's and Lopez-Vera's works are books, not articles in academic journals. As books, they have been published, granted; but so far as I'm aware, they did not go through any process of peer review. I'm not sure which other sources you might be referring to, that did go through a peer-review process?

  Thirdly, are you not at all concerned that we don't have any clear definition of "samurai"? Or that different authors evaluated here appear to use the term in different and conflicting ways? If we cannot clearly nail down what authors mean when they use the word, how on earth are we supposed to write informatively about what they've said? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just to add, Kaneko and Purdy have reviewed Lockley's work, both of which state multiple problems with Lockley's research, with Purdy stating it was basically creative embellishments and lacked any form of in text citations for his claims, yet they still approve of it, which I do not get. In any academic research field I've been in, that would be completely unacceptable and would be denied, and it reduces my trust in the peer review process because it's so clearly blatant, but that part is just my opinion I guess. Now as for academic sources, Wikipedia policy affirms that content is a factor in reliability, and not just credentials. So far we have seen every proposed academic source fail at the most basic rule, to cite their claims, and that should be enough to have it be considered problematic, much more the fact they don't agree on what a samurai is, they are all contradicting eachother. It's insane really to think about. Hexenakte (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is all Original Research. Please find and cite a reliable source that says anything you've just said. Fieari (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have literally cited Purdy in this thread above if you made the effort to look. I also have made several posts in other threads with detailed analysis on what constitutes a samurai and another detailing Lockley's definition of samurai + comparing it to the other 4 academic sources with plenty of secondary sources. I am sorry that you did not bother to read them because I cannot be asked to cite them over and over when I can just point you to them. I have pointed out OR on my own accord several times on certain statements I did not have a citation for, but was useful for the sake of the discussion, not as a source proposition. Please look at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status, Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley, Talk:Yasuke#On_the_subject_of_academic_sources then come back with a response when you have finished. I ask that you cease the hostile accusations and to assume we are arguing in good faith because we have been discussing this issue for nearly a month. Hexenakte (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  If I may throw my hat into the ring as a third party.... Multiple people keep bringing up that no sources state that Yasuke wasn't a samurai, but it's highly atypical to expect sources to argue the negative/default condition. The default condition for anybody, even those in Japanese history such as Yasuke, is the state of not being a samurai. Multiple published resources such as the Smithsonian refer to Lockley or whichever of the few sources that say Yasuke was a samurai, but these resources *cannot* be used to argue that the default condition is Yasuke being a samurai, because they either are non-academic resources that are not typically used on Wikipedia, or they are unreliable resources, or they have little to no expertise in the field, or they circle back to the same unverifiable sources. They should not significantly factor into the discussion of what the "default" condition is for Yasuke. I cannot stress enough that the burden of proof is on the positive condition. The few sources arguing the positive condition are unverifiable.

  This is NOT original research. (However, yes, there is original research taking place elsewhere on this Talk page.) This is looking at the sources which is typical for any Wikipedia editing process. We can verify that Yasuke attended to Nobunaga, but claiming he was a samurai by using one of the unverifiable sources is nearly equivalent to espousing legend as verifiable fact. Or espousing modern folk-tale as verifiable fact. Which is not acceptable. When you take a step back, the situation here is not that complicated.

  Lastly, and I will be short here since this paragraph is only a tangent and just my personal unverifiable opinion, I can't help but feel that there are people here fetishizing the status of being a "samurai." I get the vibe that people believe that if Yasuke was not a samurai, then he is somehow less "cool." It's problematic to think this way, to say the least. Green Caffeine (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  i dont know, if i am allowed to voice by opinion, as a "red" user, but i will write here simply to highlight this problem.

  IF we add his samurai status, we would have to add similar status positions of Yasuke with similar plausibility in the same field of subject.

  This includes explicit his potential slave status.

  So i would call it a YES, with a BIG ADDITION to add the contrast, that sources speak about him (even more openly) as a slave and to use most statements to highlight the problem to pinpoint his status in Japan reliable as a samurai or as a slave. So adding the minoirty view, that he may be a samurai makes it necessary to add the majority view, that he was just a servant and probably even a slave, because this is than due --ErikWar19 (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but not outside of that section. It is undisputed that no primary source found thusfar (I don't believe anyone has made the argument there are more expected to be found) refers to Yasuke as a samurai. Observing this is not original research. It would be demonstrably untrue to use wikivoice to describe Yasuke as definitively a samurai throughout the article. It could be stated in this new section that secondary sources call Yasuke a samurai (with attributions), but it would be misleading to present this as historical fact or to not present sources that refer to him simply as a slave and/or later retainer. 2A02:A457:533:0:8A55:EAA7:71D6:C0FB (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but not as a "significant minority view". Badly worded RFC: the viewpoint that Yasuke was a samurai is not a "significant minority view", it's the mainstream view, supported by several reliable sources and challanged by no one except a few editors who engage in original research. Since we have several sources that call him a samuray and no source that disputes this view, what we should call him is a no-brainer: a samurai (in wikivoice). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is not the "mainstream view", outside of the popular press. The sources used to make the case that Yasuke was a samurai all have serious issues (no inline citations, academic reviews calling works "fiction", some sources containing outright fabrications), which remain unaddressed. Simply ignoring the very real issues is intellectually lazy at best, dishonest at worst. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  In Japan, since no one really cared about Yasuke, Japanese wikipedia was left alone for like a decade with some false info (wishful imagination) that was wrote by one or two persons. Many people got tricked by this wrong info on Wikipedia all these years, and they spread the wrong info to another people. Cycle of wrong info to amplify the wrong info through Wikipedia.

  Now many Japanese realized that the Wikipedia was one of the origins of wrong info on yasuke, Japanese Wikipedia got rid of false info (wishful imagination). Only the info from historical records are on the Japanese wikipedia right now.

  But still the English Wikipedia is trying to spread the false info (wishful imagination) based on Lockey's book or some media that are basing on Lockley's book.

  桐野作人 Kirino Sakujin (@kirinosakujin) who got asked for an opinion by the translator of Lockley's book said that he didn't do fact-check on Lockley's book.

  Lockley has been claiming that his book got fact-checked by Kirino, but now it is found out that his book had no fact checked by anyone. His book and any media that use his book for any claim lost all credibility.

  Therefore, editors here should not use any secondary sources that use Lockley's book. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Refs

References

Proposed section

Would this wording be OK? Nowhere man (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There are typographical issues with the proposed section. Moreover, there is a distinct lack of any research arguing against the López-Vera and Lockley. It would probably not be apt to describe it as not being a consensus among scholars when the only scholars who have actively published about it have either (a) stuck to ambiguity or (b) have stated unequivocally that he is a Samurai. There has not been a single source provided thus far that argues against Yasuke being a Samurai. The arguments on this Wikipedia page against describing him as a Samurai come entirely from the editor's own interpertations of primary sources and inferring that other authors that refer to Yasuke only as a "retainer" means that he wasn't a Samurai. Realistically, however, Samurai are still Retainers, even if all Retainers are not Samurai. Until someone publishes something arguing against Yasuke being a Samurai, we do not actually have any substantiated argument against him being a Samurai.

Hence my proposition of something along the lines of

"While historical documents are inconclusive, some scholars assert that Yasuke was a Samurai".

Because it is, ultimately, the most factual and verifiable statement offered thus far. X0n10ox (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"...against Yasuke being a Samurai. he arguments on this Wikipedia page against describing him as a Samurai come entirely from the editor's own interpertations of primary sources and inferring that other authors that refer to Yasuke only as a "retainer" means that he wasn't a Samurai."

This is just Wikipedia:Assume bad faith, the interpretaion of "Yasuke was a Samurai" is coming entirely from conjectures formed you and the Historians too, as again, no where in the primary sources states as clearly as with Hideyoshi that Yasuke was a Samurai. I'm sorry this wouldn't be right. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not assuming bad faith to state the reality. The editors who are arguing the situation have provided no reliable sources that substantiate the argument which is being made. Yes, the secondary sources are allowed to interpert the primary sources. No matter how crass or incorrect editors might feel they are. I am not conjecturing anything, I am saying "these sources say he was a Samurai". Which is a great deal different from people discussing how, by their reading of the primary sources, Yasuke isn't a Samurai. It does not matter if, by our reading, the primary sources do not "states[sic] as clearly as with Hideyoshi that Yasuke was a Samurai", we are not allowed to conjecture that into meaning that Yasuke was not a Samurai. That is interperting the primary sources, which we are not allowed to do, but which scholars and reliable sources are allowed to do.

See Wikipedia:No Original Research, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." (Emphasis my own).

The primary sources do not state that Yasuke was not a Samurai, without a published, reliable source interperting that to mean he is not a Samurai, we, as Editors, are not allowed to do so. X0n10ox (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

When you say "no where in the primary sources", you're doing original research. This cannot be an argument in Wikipedia.

Can you please provide at least one secondary source that raises the issue? I wrote the proposed section thinking there were other historians (which I didn't know about) that do. But if two historians state that Yasuke is a Samurai, and literally zero historians raise the possibility that Yasuke wasn't a Samurai but something like a retainer, then the Wikipedia article should say Yasuke is a Samurai. Nowhere man (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've edited the proposal in light of the fact that there doesn't seem to be a single historian that raises an issue with Yasuke being a Samurai. I'll make another proposal if anyone can point to such an historian. Nowhere man (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Controversy about his status in Japanese society

While two historians of Japanese history, Thomas Lockley and Jonathan López-Vera, have stated that Yasuke was granted the rank of Samurai, some members of the general public refuse this scientific interpretation of the historical sources because those don't explicitly use the term "Samurai".

References

Discussion

You call it a minority view. Where exactly are the sources of the supposed majority that say he wasn't a samurai? Omission of commenting on the subject is not the same thing as saying he wasn't a samurai. Silverseren^C 23:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Take your pick of practically any source before Lockley (except for the Rfi article which came before Lockley). They all refer to him as a retainer or by some similar such designation. A source does not have to explicitly state he was not a samurai; Sources which talk about Yasuke necessarily talk about what his position was under Nobunaga, some say retainer, some say samurai, and some say he had another similar position. RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Except, as has been repeatedly pointed out in discussions above, retainer doesn't mean not a samurai. In fact, many of Nobunaga's retainers were samurai. So sources calling him a retainer are not claiming he wasn't a samurai. Do we have any sources actually arguing that he wasn't a samurai? Silverseren^C 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Given what we know from other contexts about what constitutes a samurai, with the rights and privileges and responsibilities pertaining thereto, and given also the descriptions of even such highly important people like Toyotomi Hideyoshi as pointedly not a samurai until later in life, the onus seems more like it would be on any sources that positively state that Yasuke was a samurai. Circumstantially, the odds are very much against. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We already have a number of sources calling him a samurai. Unless you can produce reliable sources claiming otherwise, you can't just use your own opinion on if he was a samurai or not. We report what sources say. Silverseren^C 00:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

That's OR. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 08:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not OR. See my post replying to _dk at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status and the additional reply to X0n under that. Hexenakte (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

How is that no OR if you don't cite a secondary source saying what you're saying? Your interpretation of primary sources is one clear definition of OR according to WP. Nowhere man (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the post? I cited multiple secondary sources. If your confusing it with my initial post in Talk:Yasuke#Establish_a_clear_distinction_between_Bushi_and_Samurai, I have already corrected that in the post I cited. Look for the post that is me replying to _dk. I also talk about the definition of samurai used by Lockley in my post replying to X0n here at the very bottom Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley. Hexenakte (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree: retainer doesn't mean not a samurai. Many retainers were samurai, and all samurai were retainers. To draw an analogy (not a perfect 1:1 but it demonstrates my point) to military ranks:

Military officer doesn't mean not a Major. Many military officers throughout history were Majors, and all Majors were military officers. If you have a majority of sources saying a figure was a military officer with a minority saying he was a Major, you would present the figure as a historical military officer, and then mention that some sources say he was a Major. We can not use the minority to interpret the majority.

Yasuke was a retainer, he may have also been a samurai. The majority agree he was a retainer, and a minority agree he was a samurai. It is completely legitimate to call him a retainer whether or not he was a Samurai, and then say that he may also have been a samurai.

As a side note: one would expect that a person writing about a historical figure such as a Major would say that the Major was a Major, rather than using the broader term military officer, as the term Major would be both more specific and a greater honour to hold. The same applies to the retainer-samurai distinction. RomeshKubajali (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources calling him a samurai. They have been presented all over this talk page. Just because not every single source calls him a samurai doesn't then make him not one. For that matter, what reliable secondary sources are there that only refer to Yasuke as a retainer in modern commentary? Silverseren^C 00:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"We have plenty of sources calling him a samurai."

None of those are primary sources. As for secondary sources, Lockley appears to be the main one, and he himself in his own interview about the book describes it as "narrative" as opposed to "factual".

One of the big problems we've been zeroing in on in this Talk page is that the secondary sources do not appear to be all that reliable. The Lopez-Vera book Historia de los Samurais / History of the Samurai remains a question mark, as none of us here (so far as I know) have yet been able to read it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that I have read the Lopez-Vera, but apparently that isn't good enough. X0n10ox (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, by all means post more then. Fuller context of Lopez-Vera's mentions of Yasuke, with any footnotes and references, would be much appreciated for shining more light into this so-far dim corner. Google Books suggests that Yasuke is only mentioned twice in the whole book, but the limitations of Preview are vexingly narrow (very little context, not even page numbers given). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke is only mentioned in a small blurb in the book, much in the same fashion that other figures are only mentioned briefly. I cannot post the entirety of the entry without running afoul of copyright. Vera does not provide in-text citations throughout the book, but as I mentioned previously, it's cited over 20 times in Spanish. Best I can give you without running afoul of policies is the entire Bibliography. Which I guess as you can see, Lockley isn't on his Bibliography if that was your concern. Yasuke is mentioned on page 109 of my copy, and it is just a blurb about Yasuke in the section about The Unification of Japan, in the same way that Takeda Shingen and Useugi Kenshin are mentioned on page 102 of my copy. The blurb refers to Yasuke as a Samurai, but the section about Yasuke also concludes with "Akechi decided to spare his life, although it seems more out of contempt than mercy; he stated Yasuke was more of an animal than a man, so could not be considered a samurai, and therefore could not be held to account with his life as was expected of a defeated samurai. So, he was given back to the Jesuits and from that moment on history loses track of him, although it is believed he ended up returning home. A certain English sailor—of whom more later—is often credited with being the first Western samurai, but Yasuke got there a few years before him."[Okay Bibliography looked awful I've removed it]

X0n10ox (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have just now found [6] which should take you directly to the passage about Yasuke in his book. X0n10ox (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

None of those are primary sources.

Exactly, they aren't primary sources. Which is what makes them usable. As I'm sure you're aware, we prioritize using secondary sources for information and minimize the use of primary sources. That's how Wikipedia articles are written. The fact that all the sources calling Yasuke a samurai are secondary sources is perfect, exactly what we require.

From where are you determining the secondary sources aren't reliable? I see things like the BBC, Time, the Smithsonian, and a number of academic publications linked in discussions above. Silverseren^C 00:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"Exactly, they aren't primary sources. Which is what makes them usable."

If a secondary source says "A = B", and no primary source says that, then the secondary source is not verifiable.

"From where are you determining the secondary sources aren't reliable? I see things like the BBC, Time, the Smithsonian, and a number of academic publications linked in discussions above."

Keep reading, these have already been talked over extensively. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how sources work on Wikipedia, which is concerning. Secondary sources are independent coverage of primary sources and events. Secondary sources are allowed to make whatever interpretations they wish. In fact, that's their purpose and why we prefer them over primary sources, as the secondary sources make the interpretations of primary information that we, as editors, are not supposed to make. Again, the entire point of no original research. Silverseren^C 01:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lockley characterizes his own book as "narrative". It includes elements not found in any of the historical documents, such as a duel between Yasuke and another samurai. Lockley himself describes how there is very little historical text talking about Yasuke, and from this he and Girard have written a 400+ book. At least one reviewer has also mentioned the apparent embellishments and contradictions, as well as the paucity of references in Lockley's book, and the problems this presents for anyone seeking more detail. There's also WP:AGE MATTERS, suggesting that for historical events, sources written closer to the time of the event may be more reliable. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources states that "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." I don't see why that shouldn't apply to books as well as articles.

If Lockley (or any other author) presents Yasuke's samurai-ness as a matter of historical fact, then that fact needs backing in historical documents. Alternatively, if presented as a matter of reasoning, stating the various facts and why they think this means that Yasuke was a samurai, that would be the author presenting their opinion. This appears to be what you're talking about with "make the interpretations of primary information". However, so far as I'm aware, Yasuke is simply described as a samurai, with no backing and no particular reasoning given. This is a problem. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we might be talking past each other. I'm not stating the above in any argument that we should discount Lockley and remove him from the article entirely; nor am I arguing that our article here must say that Yasuke was not a samurai, nor that we must say that he was a samurai. My point is rather that Lockley as a source has issues, which should be accounted for in any use of his book as a reference. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want to see Lockley's interview and the issues that are with his book, by all means, I point you to my lengthy post replying to _dk at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status where I talk about it and the additional reply under X0n. I also provide a plethora of secondary sources on the appropriate definitions on what constitutes a samurai and its differences from other skilled warriors. Hexenakte (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that providing definitions of what a Samurai is is not the same thing as providing a substantial, reliable source that contends that Yasuke was not a Samurai. While your research on the definition of Samurai is commendable, its applicability to the subject at hand is unclear. X0n10ox (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lockley is 'historical' fiction. I'm not sure why some people are acting like it's a reliable source. It's like Ken Follett, Maurice Druon, Bernard Cornwell. Except not as good. DemianStratford (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As you can see Ken Follett is categorized as Historical Fiction while Lockley is not. X0n10ox (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As a note re: "one would expect that a person writing about a historical figure such as a Major would say that the Major was a Major", there are few historical sources period that mention Yasuke, some of which were heavily censored. For instance, most versions of the Shinchōkōki exclude Yasuke save for the Maeda Clan version of the Shinchōkōki. As for what seems to be the idea that Lockley is somehow responsible for the notion that Yasuke was a Samurai, here is an article from 2013 which predates Lockley's first writing about Yasuke by several years. This article calls him a "samurai in name only" and this documentary predates Lockley, this article calls Yasuke a Samurai in 2014. This place likewise calls him a Samurai. The French Wikipedia calls him a Samurai and links to this article for justification, this [7] says "With great literary and graphic skill, Frédéric Marais tells the true story of Yasuke, the only ever Black samurai", again, this article [8] , this page, this article, this now dead page from 2014, this book published by The History Press calls Yasuke a Samurai. The Chapter "Black Lives Matter in Japan: The Specter of Race and Racism Haunting Japan" in Japan Decides 2021 mentions Yasuke as a Samurai. Are all of those sources I've listed reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia? Probably not, but I am moreso speaking to the fact with most of them that some editors are acting as if the concept of Yasuke being a Samurai is completely unheard of when the only evidence that's being offered that he isn't a Samurai is saying that the primary sources don't explicitly say that he was. In all of this time of people producing material that says Yasuke is a Samurai, surely if it was a contentious issue that is a known falsehood someone would have published something in opposition. If the Lockley is such an unreliable source, would it not be caught in the peer-review process for the books and articles it is cited in? If it were so hotly contested, would scholars have not published something against it which you could find and cite?

And since we're also talking about Lockley once more, I will also add again that Lockley's book was reviewed "Booklist. 3/1/2019, Vol. 115 Issue 13, p18-18", by James Pekoll who holds an MA degree in History, who writes of Lockley's book "The authors also discuss how this was the age of exploration, in which European traders and missionaries sailed far and wide in search of markets and souls, and Japan provided both. Lockley and Girard deftly survey the cultural and geopolitical aspects of feudal Japan, providing historic facts underlying the popular fictional accounts of this age in everything from comic books to computer games. The authors make excellent use of primary sources, creating an engaging narrative, and use reasoned speculation when discussing Yasuke's later years after those sources end. This fact-checked portrait of a mythologized warrior often featured in manga and anime is an exciting and illuminating tale of action and intrigue."

Furthermore, on the article we are currently debating about "Some people in the town thought that Nobunaga might make him as tono ("lord")" with the notation "It is assumed that 'tono' in this case meant a high position among the samurai, as a lord of a castle would be too high of a position". This assumption is provided with no citation for it, but is stating that the prospect of making Yasuke a castle lord would be "too high of a position", so without a citation of some kind this is a wholly unsubstantiated opinion being presented in the article. X0n10ox (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious, does anyone have any more information about the mentioned Maeda Clan version of the Shinchō Kōki?

The JA WP article about the Shinchō Kōki at ja:信長公記 doesn't include any mention of this in the list of versions at ja:信長公記#諸本と刊本 ("Shinchō Kōki#Variant manuscripts and printed books"); for that matter, the name "Maeda" (前田) doesn't appear anywhere on the page. The closest match might be "Machida" (町田), the version also made available at Wikisource (wikisource:ja:信長公記).

Googling just now for "信長公記" + "前田氏" ("Shinchō Kōki" + "Maeda clan") doesn't seem to turn up anything relevant in the first page of hits.

Any leads would be appreciated. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It is, evidently, referring to an early copy of the Shinchō Kōki which is/was in the posession of the 前田育徳会, the Maeda Clan Archives. There is mention of it here, and supposedly it is used in Kaneko Hiraku's book 織田信長権力論, but I don't have access to the book to verify that particular claim. Regardless, though, there are references going a little ways back online about a version held by the 前田育徳会. Likewise, [[9]] mentions it, albeit under a different name. X0n10ox (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to provide you an update. The Japanese Wikipedia article for Yasuke I noticed has:

『『信長公記』の筆者である太田牛一末裔の加賀大田家に伝わった自筆本の写しと推測される写本（尊経閣文庫所蔵）には、この黒人・弥助が私宅と鞘巻（腰刀の一種）を与えられ、時には道具持ちをしていたという記述があるという』

The source which they list for the information Re: the Shinchō Kōki is listed as "織田信長という歴史　『信長記』の彼方へ』、勉誠出版、2009年、311-312頁."

Which is a book by Hiraku Kaneko, so I had the book wrong in my initial comment. X0n10ox (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

They have not provided any souces contending against Yasuke's status as a Samurai, no. The most that has occurred is dangerously skirting close to violating Wikipedia:OR and variously providing sources which argue for a more restrictive definition of what a Samurai is for the sake of a purity of the concept, but nobody has actually produced any scholarship that conclusively states Yasuke was not a Samurai. Rather, they are working primarily off of their own interpertation of the primary texts as well as the fact that there are other scholars which variously refer to Yasuke as simply being a retainer or an attendant of sorts, rather than explicitly calling Yasuke a Samurai. Since the historical documents are inconclusive in regards to whether he was or he wasn't conferred the status of a Samurai, it seemed reasonable to suggest that rather than Wikipedia stating he is a Samurai, that the article should note that the documents are inconclusive as to whether he was or he was not, but that some scholars contend he was. X0n10ox (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with your concluding statement: the historical record is unclear, some authors say X, some say Y. Objectively, that's the minimal nub of what we can say. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

That is factually all we can say within the confines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is the most logical solution to the debate about what the article should say regarding Yasuke. The primary sources are inconclusive, without drawing upon our own interpertations, the most we can do is say is "some scholars interpert it this way". X0n10ox (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

No, if you were to put "some scholars interpret it this way" that is providing nothing of substance, is the same as putting "some scholars believe is inconclusive" it's not necessary. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Could we write: Although historical documents are inconclusive, some scholars describe Yasuke as the first black samurai. Which is a much more significant statement while remaining both verifiable and neutral.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording for such a post could be that, yes. Though I am uncertain about the necessity of "first Black Samurai" if we consider the fact that nobody is being described as "the first white Samurai". X0n10ox (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m open to re-wording but according to a number of sources including The Smithsonian that is what makes this significant.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A source noting that he is "the first Black samurai" isn't what makes it significant. Factually, as far as can be gleaned, he is the only Black samurai. The Lopez-Vera, for instance, notes that Yasuke would technically be the first Western Samurai. It would be more appropriate to note Yasuke as "the first African" Samurai, but again, Wikipedia doesn't describe anyone as "The first White Samurai". There are, for instance, [10] sources that refer to William Adams as "the first white Samurai". This [11] source notes Yasuke as "the only African and first non-Japanese samurai" X0n10ox (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

X0n10ox, that thing starts "One day in my Japanese class while studying abroad"--so we cannot accept that as a reliable a source. It's a student paper (well, it's not even a paper) on a website. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not suggesting using it, I am saying that notating he is "the first Black Samurai" isn't the only substantial or significant detail. Lopez-Vera, for instance, writes "A certain English sailor -- of whom more later -- is often credited with being the first Western samurai, but Yasuke got there a few years before him". Saying he is "the first Black Samurai" just seems like an unnecessary addition that doesn't necessairly need to be included in the article just because the author of the Smithsonian includes it in her discussion of the Netflix show. The same Smithsonian which they link also says "Yasuke was the first foreign-born warrior to enter their ranks" X0n10ox (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Potential sources

[12][13][14][15] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lockley is fiction. He wrote a fictional narrative with some historical content. It's not a reliable source. DemianStratford (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

While it's fine to have this opinion, per the Library of Congress and libraries worldwide, Lockley's book is not classified as fiction. X0n10ox (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't link anything by a Lockley, did I? Fwiw, the first book is by Yoda. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not 100% positive why they commented "Lockley is fiction" here. I checked the sources you've linked and none of them are Lockley. X0n10ox (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

While Lopez-Vera in "Toyotomi Hideyoshi Y Los Europeos" does refer to Yasuke as a Samurai in the passage below,

"lavo, puesto que al estar al servicio del daimyo recibió un estipendio como el resto de vasallos, obteniendo así la condición de samurái. Se sabe que estuvo en el incidente Honno-ji, luchando contra los hombres de Akechi Mitsuhide y que pudo escapar de allí con vida, llegando incluso adonde se alojaba el hijo de Nobunaga. Cuando este fue también atacado, de nuevo luchó como uno más, con la única diferencia de que, cuando se vieron derrotados, él no cometió seppuku como muchos de sus compañeros, sino que se rindió ante el enemigo. Akechi decidió entonces perdonarle la vida, aunque parece que no por misericordia, sino por desprecio, afirmando que Yasuke era más un animal que un hombre, por lo que no se le podía considerar un samurái y, por tanto, no tenía una responsabilidad que tuviese que pagar con su vida, como se esperaba de un guerrero al ser derrotado. Así, fue devuelto a los jesuitas, y a partir de ese momento la historia lo pierde la pista, aunque se cree que acabó volviendo a su tierra"

The citation Lopez-Vera provides is his own book, "López-Vera, Jonathan. Historia de los samuráis. Gijón: Satori Ediciones, 2016." X0n10ox (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Reaction of Thomas Lockley

Just stumbled across his Instagram account, here is his reaction about the whole drama and whether Yasuke was a samurai or not (spoiler: he doesn't seem to be sure): [16][17]. Thibaut (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's less of a case of he doesn't seem to be sure, so much as it is a case of he says essentially what myself and others have noted on this talk page. During the Sengoku Jidai there was a breakdown of social norms and an extreme weakening of the government. As the Oxford Reference for Samurai notes, "Prominent from the 12th century, they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them, after which they became a hereditary caste". Which Lockley also concurs with when he says that they weren't really codified into a class until Hideyoshi and Ieyasu. Lockely says, paraphrasing because he talked fast, "Lots of people would have been classed as Samurai or said they were Samurai during Yasuke's time so there's no reason we can't say that either. Was he a Samurai? We can't say. Lots of people at his time would have said he was a Samurai, but the most important part is that no serious Japanese historian says he was not a Samurai".

That said, I don't really know how much stock to put into an Instagram video by the author (I don't think it's a reliable source, anyways), but it does clarify his motivations regarding calling Yasuke a Samurai. In essence, it seems to boil down to "No historians have said he was not, and because things were murky during the Sengoku Jidai, it's safe to infer that he was a Samurai".

Beyond that, Lockley is (mostly) just using the controversy caused by the game to...well, advertise his book. X0n10ox (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not to safe to infer he is a Samurai. I am not sure if you realize this but the burden of proof lies with those claiming he is a samurai, not those who deny it. We do not have to explicitly state that he is not a samurai, but we absolutely cannot say that he was a samurai, since there is no substantial evidence proving it and by Lockley's own admittance. I am completely fine with keeping both claims as asserted facts out of the article, whether he is or isn't.

And the claim from Oxford is blatantly wrong, I would not be using that as a claim, but I already made my argument and provided sources about it already so I'm not going to continue to repeat myself on the matter. I will likely end up bringing that argument to Talk:Samurai in the future when I muster time for it. Hexenakte (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof has been met, by all the reliable sources saying he was a samurai. The burden of proof is now on you to provide reliable sources actually arguing the opposite. Do you have a single reliable source arguing that Yasuke was not a samurai, Hexenakte? Silverseren^C 20:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken, it's already been discussed throughout the page that sources like Lockley and Lopez-Vera have not been able to support their claims with substantial evidence and that it's mostly based on conjecture, in Lockley's case, by his own admittance, and by Lopez-Vera's case, a lack of citation or evidence proving it (it's just a blurb in his academic source). I encourage you to look at my post replying to _dk Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status where I talk about it in detail with evidence, and also to please watch his full interview so you aren't just taking my word, but I did timestamp the points of interest for your convenience. So no, the burden of proof has not been met, if anything, they are pushing a theory because it has not been proven and that it is a clear discrepancy due to its inability to match the historical descriptions made in the primary sources. While I did make a huge point about why he would not be able to fit the proper definition of a samurai during this time period (I make a big deal about nobility ties and supported it with a plethora of evidence, including academic), I am not going to argue for the sake of WP:NPOV and the lack of secondary sources explicitly stating that Yasuke as a named individual wasn't a samurai (it would be kind of odd to make an entire academic source based off of that one negative claim, but the point is made regardless for the sake of the policy), but it absolutely cannot be proven with absolute certainty that he was a samurai, and I will stand by that point.

Now if it is accepted that academic source(s) providing the clear definitions or conditions of what made a samurai during the Sengoku period would be able to fit that academic omission from the opposition, I would gladly look for them, because that's the closest that you would be able to get to a definitive answer, otherwise we can't really name Yasuke as an explicit example of that due to the lack of primary sources on him and his relevancy and impact during his service in the Oda clan. That being said, why would Yasuke be the sole subject of an academic source if it were not in support of him being a samurai, especially with so little information about him? I'm not saying it is impossible or it hasn't been done, but it would be really unusual where it could instead be focused on an overall focus on what made someone a samurai instead. Hexenakte (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine for that to be your opinion, and while I commend you for doing research, most of the the resources you provided for that research aren't actually reliable per: Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Of the sources you provided for your information regarding Samurai,

• https://samurai-archives.com/wiki/Court_Ranks | Not a reliable source, and also blatantly says on the mainpage that we cannot use it "Do not copy information from here to Wikipedia or any other webpage - this Wiki is not intended for use on Wikipedia or any other websites without the expressed permission of the owner of this website, or proper paraphrasing, quoting, and full citation"
• https://www.reddit.com/r/Samurai/comments/17hoanp/comment/k6rp4j4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button | Reddit posts are not reliable sources
• 1, 2, 3, and 4, all come from "Japanese Wiki", which states it is "Generated from the Japanese-English Bilingual Corpus of Wikipedia's Kyoto Articles." And per the Wikipedia Reliable Source Guidelines, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
• http://www.unterstein.net/or/docs/JapanRanks.pdf| It would be preferable to obtain and reference the document which "Unterstein.net" is apparently referencing, which is The Princeton Companion to Classical Japanese Literature

"It is not to safe to infer he is a Samurai. I am not sure if you realize this but the burden of proof lies with those claiming he is a samurai, not those who deny it."

Factually speaking, as editors of Wikipedia, we are not making any claims, we are merely representing what is known and claimed by other scholars. You might think it is not safe to infer he is a Samurai, and you can say "the burden of proof lies with those claiming he is a Samurai, not those who deny it" but the problem is that the category of "those who deny it" seems to not be represented in any sort of publication, if they even exist. Wikipedia editors arguing with one another in a talk board about ambiguous historical documents an opposition does not make. I am, once again, stating that if there are any reliable sources that argue that Yasuke is not a Samurai, to please furnish them, otherwise "Yasuke wasn't a Samurai" is factually not a viewpoint we should be trying to represent on Wikipedia. We do however have sources that list Yasuke as a Samurai, which means that the view that Yasuke was a Samurai is something that can and should be represented on Wikipedia.

As for "And the claim from Oxford is blatantly wrong, I would not be using that as a claim"

Per A Dictionary of World History (3 ed.) by Oxford University Press,

"Warrior retainers of Japan’s daimyo (feudal lords). Prominent from the 12th century, they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them, after which they became a hereditary caste. Their two swords were their badge. Their conduct was regulated by Bushido (Warrior’s Way), a strict code that emphasized the qualities of loyalty, bravery, and endurance. Their training from childhood was spartan. Their ultimate duty when defeated or dishonoured was seppuku, ritual self-disembowelment."

But if you do not think a dictionary is a suitable source for the English definition of Samurai on an English encyclopedia, I can provide you other sources that support the statements made regarding the hereditary caste system.

"The moment of crisis for the samurai class was the transition from the medieval to the Tokugawa period. The distinctive of nature of the samurai's cultural transformation was closely related to the course of early modern state-making in Japan. The vassal samurai serving either daimyo or Tokugawa shogun had to accept very different, much more restrictive conditions in exchange for a secure, largely hereditary, status and income. A Tokugawa samurai was formally considered advanced to full samurai status only when he was incorporated within his lord's house as a kachu (literally, "house insider"). The samurai were forced to live in castle towns, usually separated from direct control over their land; and their societal role underwent a major transformation from that of independent, high-spirited mounted warriors to that of sedate bureaucrats" (21). (Emphasis my own.)

"Ability rather than empty authority, performance rather than inherited position were valued in both vassals and masters. Indeed, it was during this period that samurai's standards for measuring honor were the most 'performance-oriented' rather than 'bloodline-oriented'. An institutionalized definition of the merit of absolute loyalty to one's master appeared only in the development of the Tokugawa state, in which the structure of samurai master-follower relationships would be permanently altered" (147) (Emphasis my own.)

"Japan's forcible unification, a climate characterized by the foreclosure of opportunities for upward social mobility through military heroism" (204) (Emphasis my own.)

All of the above are from:

• Ikegami, Eiko (1997-03-25). The Taming of the Samurai. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-86809-0.

"Historically, Tokugawa samurai were a legal creation that grew out of the landed warriors of the medieval age; they came to be defined by the Tokugawa shogunate in terms of hereditary status, a right to hold public office, a right to bear arms, and a 'cultural superiority' upheld through educational preferment" (353) (Emphasis my own.)

"Toyotomi Hideyoshi moved to differentiate warriors (bushi) and farmer (byakusbo) in the interests of peace and stability -- to define a man's status as one or the other, and thus to contain both groups better" (355) (Emphasis my own.)

Above from

• Howland, Douglas R. (2001). "Samurai Status, Class, and Bureaucracy: A Historiographical Essay". The Journal of Asian Studies. 60 (2): 353–380. doi:10.2307/2659697. ISSN 0021-9118.

"At the same time the new system bound farmers to their land. In 1588 Hideyoshi issued a law to disarm the urban and rural population and to fix their places of residence. This was not the first time such a decree had been issued: Nobunaga had ordered the disarmament of the people of Echizen and Kii when he defeated the Ikko-ikki in those areas. Another law of 1590 prohibited movement by individuals between classes. Until then social mobility had been relatively free and unhindered by legal prohibitions..." (97) (Emphasis my own)

Above from

• Kure, Mitsuo (2002-05-15). Samurai. Boston (Mass.): Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8048-3287-8.

"Hideyoshi was the ultimate gekokujō samurai success story. Born a peasant, he worked as sandal-bearer and made his way up through the samurai ranks to become a daimyō. His metamorphosis was made complete in 1591 when he assumed the title of Taikō, or chancellor. As a genin, Hideyoshi did not have the royal lineage to become Shōgun, and his social policies ensured that no other genin could rise through the ranks as he had done. At the heart of Hideyoshi’s unification of Japan was the separation of warriors and peasants. In effect, this abolished the very concept of gekokujō." (111)

"Hideyoshi’s next law, commonly known as the ‘Separation Edict’, built upon the first by classifying three orders – samurai, peasants and townsmen (merchants and artisans) – and making movement between them illegal." (112)

"The result of Hideyoshi’s edicts, his land survey and various other ordinances was a feudal system based on kokudaka assessment. Provincial daimyō submitted to Hideyoshi’s regime as his vassals, which replaced the earlier alliance-led relationship they had enjoyed with Nobunaga. Now Japan had a four-tiered class system that positioned the samurai firmly at the top" (115)

• Hubbard, Ben (2015-10-29). The Samurai Warrior. Amber Books Ltd. ISBN 1-78274-194-1.

As you can see from the above sourced and cited sources, the Oxford Reference and World Dictionary of History definition of what a Samurai was can hardly be factually declared as "blatantly wrong". As an additonal note, you are mistaking what I wrote as my opinion. I was saying that Lockley, in the linked video, is saying that it is safe to infer that Yasuke is a Samurai because no Japanese historians have said that he was not. X0n10ox (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

1) I was not suggesting or proposing any of the sources I used for my argument, they were there to demonstrate I had not gotten my information from OR and for convenience of understanding the argument I was making, I know there are plenty of academic sources out there that would describe exactly what I described but I would not be able to get them all within a timely manner and focused on those I had at hand, as I stated that I would bring this to Talk:Samurai in the future when I can muster time for it, because then I would be proposing reliable, academic sources at that time. I am already well familiar with the topic which is why I made little reliance on secondary sources prior, but even then I wanted to demonstrate that I was not making up what I was saying.

2) You seem to believe that it is necessary for an explicit mention of Yasuke not being stated as a samurai within a reliable secondary source to decide whether it is contentious or not when that is extremely unreasonable to ask for. For one, the topic is contentious, not just by those here but by other scholars such as R.W. Purdy who was already mentioned. But even in the lack of a scholarly contention, it cannot be reasonably asked that it has to be from academia to make it contentious, especially in the case where the main academic sources stating that he is a samurai are using conjecture-based arguments and are insufficiently providing citations and evidence for their claims.

See:

WP:SOURCE ("The work itself...[and] the creator of the work...can affect reliability.") Lockley lacks the reputation especially since this is his first work and that his second book[18] released just two days ago[19];

WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include...Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously [defended.]") Lockley has made it very conflicting when he came out and stated that he cannot say for sure whether Yasuke is a samurai or not in both these clips when he presented it as a certainty in his interview. I do not care if he says "no serious Japanese historian says he was not a Samurai" when he is unable to present himself as serious, this hurts his credibility as an academic source; and

WP:QS ("Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be...relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion.") I saw what you said about Purdy's review of Lockley in Talk:Yasuke#Is_Lockley_WP:QUESTIONABLE?, and I do not know how you got the idea where it was not full of contentions based off of a singular word "seem", when he repeatedly states that there are no direct citations or evidence throughout his review. What he said is as clear as day, that Lockley lacks the citations to back up his claims, so as far as I know that makes Lockley's work questionable. If you got more statements by Purdy that showcases that he doesn't contend against Lockley I would be open to hear them, but that "seem" as a standalone example does not work. He goes on to say this right after that statement:[20]

The lack of citations is not just a question of proof. Citations help the reader know the background of the evidence. Since most of the primary sources are presumably letters by Frois, bibliographic references could explain when and to whom he wrote and whether he was an eye witness, putting these events in better context. Citations also serve as stepping stones for further research. Lockley and Girard have scoured Japanese and Jesuit sources, but, unfortunately, the lack of detailed citations means that much of their effort ends with this volume. Scholars researching related topics such as Oda Nobunaga, Akechi Mitsuhide, or the Jesuit role in the Asian slave trade will not find this work as helpful as it might have been. Perhaps the most important reason for citing, however, is to confirm events and resolve contradictions. Soon after they met, Nobunaga ordered Yasuke to scrub his skin to make sure his black skin was not stained or dyed (149–50). While this may be an imaginable reaction for Nobunaga, it needs confirmation through reliable sources. African Samurai also places Yasuke in the thick of things during the fateful attack at Honno-ji Temple. He not only hands Nobunaga a sword, but, once Nobunaga realizes all is lost, he follows the warlord and the beautiful Mori Ranmaru, Nobunaga’s samurai lover—a relationship presented as fact by the authors and not a romantic speculation—into an inner room where Yasuke assists in their ritual suicides. Other accounts of Nobunaga’s death, however, such as Ota Gyuichi, the Japanese author of the primary source listed in the “Selected Readings” that gives the account of Yasuke’s first arrival in Kyoto, describes Nobunaga committing ritual suicide alone. Yasuke was then returned to the Jesuits and Frois, who may be the source of this version, but there is no citation. Although African Samurai might tell a good story, it needs documentation. (Emphasis mine)

This certainly reads like a contention, so I am unsure how it could be understood otherwise. And also, you're going to have a hard time finding an academic source specifically pertaining to the question of Yasuke being a samurai and stating that he is not, it would be far easier to discuss what constituted a samurai back then to counter this argument. And as I already said, we do not have to explicitly state that Yasuke was not a samurai in the article, we just cannot say that he is, both arguments should be left out as an assertive fact until substantial evidence is provided for either claim, otherwise, present it as a theory.

3) As for the sources provided to support Oxford's definition, let me just say this: I think you are misunderstanding the argument I was making. I never contended that there was no social mobility during the Sengoku period nor prior. What I did contend was that the class simply did not exist, or that there weren't hereditary roles of samurai alongside this period. I have made it absolutely clear that the feudal rules of nobility were followed throughout the entire period with multiple examples, including Hideyoshi. Yes, it allowed peasants like Hideyoshi to rise to the top, but he didn't do it without utilizing marriage, adoption, and imperial proclamations by the Emperor to get to that point. I'm emphasizing the de jure Ritsuryo system that was in place and preserved in structure for centuries even when it couldn't be fully enforced, which I feel often gets ignored. There were hereditary lineages during this period, and there were outsiders who rose through their efforts in the period as reward; but they still had to go through the de jure classifications to do that; marriage, adoption, and imperial proclamation are the main ways to go about that. This would of course end with the Tokugawa who limited it to hereditary and shogunal proclamation/decree and established their own rules (See William Adams (pilot), and I may have been wrong earlier about William Adams since hatamoto were considered to have samurai status (and therefore could have an audience with the shogun), as being distinct from gokenin who were considered kachi, but that is a completely different discussion for another day, I rather not make a definite claim right now).

I do not think any of your listed sources necessarily conflict with my arguments, in fact they prove my point, with Ben Hubbard even stating that "Hideyoshi did not have the royal lineage to become Shōgun," however one thing that needs to be mentioned, he did have the royal lineage to become Kampaku through his adoption by Konoe Sakihisa (I already stated and cited this in my _dk post). Although I am unsure if he must have Minamoto lineage to become Shogun - when the Fujiwara had way more privileges overall - all 3 shogunates were dominated by the Minamoto, with the Fujiwara dominating the Imperial Court, so I cannot really argue against that part without further research on my part.

Also I must say in regards to the Separation Edict, it would not be completely be correct to say that it stopped all social mobility, which I already explained was supported by Shosaku Takagi (Shosaku Takagi, 日本近世国家史の硏究 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1990)), that it only truly limited peasants, but not necessarily warriors deserting from the Korean invasion effort. So it would be fair to say it truly started with the Edo period when it was codified.

Overall, it does not support Oxford's definition that a samurai social class did not exist prior to Hideyoshi, so of course it is blatantly wrong and I stand by that.

And 4) I want to apologize for assuming that you were inferring that Yasuke was a samurai, that was a misunderstanding on my part, but the argument I was originally making still stands. If you aren't making any claims, then I won't be directing it towards you, but rather the claims being made by Lockley and other related academic sources. Hexenakte (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"You seem to believe that it is necessary for an explicit mention of Yasuke not being stated as a samurai within a reliable secondary source to decide whether it is contentious or not when that is extremely unreasonable to ask for"

It's not my belief, it's essentially one of the only non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia, you're new here though, so I understand if things seem really weird with the way Wikipedia works. Moving on to the rest of your points:

R.W. Purdy's critique of a single Lockley book for not using in-text citations is not tantamount to making the entire concept that Yasuke was a samurai a contentious one. Least of all when there are two other reviews that praise Lockley's book, with one of those reviews being by a historian who explicitly praises Lockley's book as being well-researched and fact-checked.

In regard to "the case where the main academic sources stating that he is a samurai are using conjecture-based arguments and are insufficiently providing citations and evidence for their claims", that isn't even the case anymore. You're still arguing with the Lockley and nothing else. If anyone can rightly be described as "the main academic source" stating he's a Samurai anymore, it's Jonathan Lopez-Vera. Lopez-Vera's dissertation "Toyotomi Hideyoshi y Europa" was published by a University Press, overseen by a scholarly editorial board, and was published with no problem with him noting that Yasuke was a Samurai. Lopez-Vera's other book, Historia de los samuráis likewise clears the bar for Wikipedia's requirements for reliable scholarship and it was first published in 2016, which pre-dates or occurs simultaneously with Lockley's own research.

That makes two scholars at a relatively similar time, neither of which cites the other, coming to the same conclusion about Yasuke, both of whom succeed in getting published.

On to your claims about Lockley:

You write, "WP:SOURCE ("The work itself...[and] the creator of the work...can affect reliability.") Lockley lacks the reputation especially since this is his first work and that his second book[46] released just two days ago[47];"

The amount of books a creator has published is not a valid indication of the reliability of him as a source, many academics publish in scholarly journals, for instance. Furthermore, you miss the section below what you are citing that says:

"If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses"

At last check, Harper Collins was still a respected publishing house. Hannover Square Press is an imprint of Harper Collins.

As for the amount of books Lockley has published, the complete list is:

• A Gentleman from Japan: The Untold Story of an Incredible Journey from Asia to Queen Elizabeth’s Court Hardcover – May 21, 2024
• The Women Who Built Japanese History 東京書籍, Mar 30, 2022
• Japanese Culture and History Tokyo Shoseki, Aug 1, 2019
• 英語で読む外国人がほんとうに知りたい日本文化と歴史 東京書籍, Jul 24, 2019 (ISBN: 4487812887)
• African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan Hanover Square Press (Harper Collins), May 2, 2019 (ISBN: 9781335141026)
• 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍 ロックリー トーマス (Original Author(s): ロックリー トーマス) 太田出版, Jan 25, 2017 (ISBN: 9784778315566)

It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to cast aspersions on the authors of reliable sources. As for Lockley's Reputation, I reiterate from a prior comment I made Lockley's book has been at multiple academic talks and is in Academic Libraries and in professional development reading groups, some of which are at highly reputable and respectable institutions such as Berkley. Lockley's book was reviewed by John Rodzvilla of Emerson College in "Library Journal. Mar 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 2, p128-128", with Rodzvilla writing:

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

"WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include...Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously [defended.]") Lockley has made it very conflicting when he came out and stated that he cannot say for sure whether Yasuke is a samurai or not in both these clips when he presented it as a certainty in his interview."

The claim isn't exceptional, though, is it? Lockley's instagram video is not really conflicting. His statement was, "[w]as he a samurai? What was a samurai at this period? We cannot say, and therefor, it is very difficult to say whether he was a samurai or not because nobody was a samurai or not at the time. The caste and the code of samurai was only really dealt with 10-20 years later with Hideyoshi and then Ieyasu, Tokugawa Ieyasu, who came after Nobunaga. A lot of people would have been classed as samurai, or said they were samurai in Yasuke's time, there's no reason to say we can't say that either. Was he a samurai? We can't say. But, pretty much, he probably was called a samurai by the people of his time. And this is the biggest thing, no Japanese historian has ever said he is not a samurai, no serious historian has ever said that. If it's good enough for the Japanese historians, it's good enough for me."

His statement is not really specific to Yasuke. His statement of "We can't say" is generalized from the beginning because defining what was a samurai in the Sengoku Jidai is extremely difficult due to the complete breakdown of social order during what was effectively a hundred years of civil war. Per this source used on the samurai page of Wikpedia, the Sengoku Jidai caused a breakdown of what a "samurai" was and it became interchangeable with bushi.

The second instagram video, Lockley says "we can say Yasuke was a warrior and he fought with Nobunaga, it's documented" and "He didn't just do things, he became close to some of the most important people in the land. He's the only African that we have documents from to prove that he became a member of the higher echeleon of Japanese society"

None of that dismisses or walks back from his claim about Yasuke being a samurai, rather, Lockley is elaborating on his rationale for why he believes Yasuke is a samurai. Because things are muddled, and because no historians have said that Yasuke wasn't a samurai, because there are sources that call him a retainer, because there are sources speculating Nobunaga would make him a "tono", and because Yasuke was afforded privileges that were usually reserved for a samurai, Lockley's research has lead him to say that Yasuke was a samurai. It's the same as Lopez-Vera reading the primary sources, seeing what is established, and saying that Yasuke was a samurai. You do not need to point to a specific exact mention in a historical document that explicitly says "Yasuke, the African Samurai" to be able to look at the available evidence and reach a conclusion. It is then up to academics to refute the claim of Yasuke being a Samurai, or contest it, if they so choose. It is not up to editors on a wikipedia talk page. If there are no sources contending the claim that Yasuke is a samurai after literal decades of things saying Yasuke is a samurai, it's probably a safe bet that it isn't a hotly debated or contentious claim.

The Lopez-Vera History of the Samurai which states Yasuke is a samurai, meanwhile, has been cited 20 times in its original spanish and 3 times in English, it calls Yasuke a Samurai.

Just some varied sources, all of which have content that says that Yasuke was a Samurai (I am not going to re-argue and elaborate each source again), in no order of signifiance and resources simply demonstrating that the claim that Yasuke is a Samurai is far from "Exceptional" (Not all of the sources are reliable, nor am I trying to contend that they are liable, I am making a point to how widespread the claim is) :

[21] [22][23] [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]

There are 37 different sources that I was able to located before I got bored of looking through them which indicate Yasuke was a Samurai or say Yasuke was a samurai in some capacity. Per Wikipedia:Exceptional, this certainly doesn't seem to meet the criteria of "important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources".

This webpage that accompanies the academically published book A History of Popular Culture in Japan, From the Seventeenth Century to the Present calls Yasuke a samurai.

This documentary which has highly reputable historian Hiraku Kaneko as consultant is about Yasuke being a samurai, also. I kind of feel like a very reputable scholar of Japanese history such as Hiraku Kaneko would have, I don't know, published something if he believed calling Yasuke a samurai was incorrect. Instead he's the consultant on an entire documentary about the subject.

The criteria for exceptional lists:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources

The claim is, quite obviously, covered by multiple mainstream sources.

• Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest

There are no self-published sources involved, and the only ones making claims based "purely" by primary sources are, well, the people arguing against Yasuke being a samurai.

• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended

Doesn't even come close to applicable.

• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The claim that Yasuke is a samurai does not contradict the prevailing view within the relevant community nor does it significantly alter mainstream assumptions. If it contradicted the "prevailing view", you would be able to produce reliable sources that show this. Some authors only describing Yasuke as a retainer, and some authors describing Yasuke as a samurai does not contradict each other, because samurai are retainers. Scholars examining primary sources are allowed to make inferences based on their interpertation of the sources, our task is to document what is published in reliable sources, not to try and interpert the primary sources ourselves.

Regarding your claim "WP:QS ("Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be...relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion.")"

The key note here is "widely considered by other sources"

Even if we take the position that Purdy is being severely critical of Lockley's book, Purdy is one source. Furthermore, Purdy's entire line of criticism is stipulated with the preface that it is unfair. Purdy's criticism regarding the in-text citation is, as he confesses, unfair for a book of popular history, because books of popular history usually do not include in-text citations. In the end, he still recommends the book for its intended audience. Academics are not the target audience of the book, and the majority of Purdy's criticism regarding citations is about how much more useful it would be to scholars and academics if there were citations. Being a book of popular history does not exclude it from being a reliable source.

There is another review of the Lockley in Booklist. 3/1/2019, Vol. 115 Issue 13, p18-18, by James Pekoll who holds an MA degree in History, which states:

"The authors also discuss how this was the age of exploration, in which European traders and missionaries sailed far and wide in search of markets and souls, and Japan provided both. Lockley and Girard deftly survey the cultural and geopolitical aspects of feudal Japan, providing historic facts underlying the popular fictional accounts of this age in everything from comic books to computer games. The authors make excellent use of primary sources, creating an engaging narrative, and use reasoned speculation when discussing Yasuke's later years after those sources end. This fact-checked portrait of a mythologized warrior often featured in manga and anime is an exciting and illuminating tale of action and intrigue"

Well, "What he said is as clear as day" is obviously up for contention because the operative word "seem" would not be present in the text if Purdy were outright saying that Lockley made everything up. Purdy's entire review is 1,445 words long. His criticism regarding in-text citations which is more a note on how helpful in-text citations are is approximately 474 words long. Approximately 32% of the review talks about citations, in a section which Purdy explicitly states is both unfair and not a question of the veracity of the scholarship. That is hardly the damning indictment you are making it out to be. Stating that "citations helps scholars research more" and that "citations helps separate reality from narrative" and that "citations help prove facts" cannot at all be reasonably constructed to mean that Purdy contends with the issue of depicting Yasuke as a samurai. Least of all when it is prefaced with the fact that the criticism is unfair and that it "is not necessarily a question a[sic] veracity of the scholarship".

Veracity, "conformity to facts; accuracy."

"you're going to have a hard time finding an academic source specifically pertaining to the question of Yasuke being a samurai and stating that he is not, it would be far easier to discuss what constituted a samurai back then to counter this argument"

That isn't how Wikipedia works, that's the problem. You cannot represent a claim on Wikipedia that is not substantiated by reliable sources. The primary sources do not say that Yasuke was a samurai, they do not say he was not a samurai. We are not allowed to conduct original research in a desperate attempt to argue with the scholarship. The mission of a Wikipedia editor is not to argue with or disprove claims made by secondary sources. If you are approaching this with the mindset that Yasuke absolutely isn't a samurai, and that you need to disprove that, I invite you to invest your time into research and get yourself academically published, because Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Please see Wikipedia:5P2, "we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."

There are no reliable sources being furnished to contend that Yasuke is not a samurai, (Personal attack removed)

"And as I already said, we do not have to explicitly state that Yasuke was not a samurai in the article, we just cannot say that he is"

No, we, the editors, cannot say he is. The reliable sources say he is. A concept that has been explained multiple times on this talk page alone and one which is still apparently being argued about. Per Wikipedia:NPOV, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight" (emphasis mine)

The problem with the statement "Overall, it does not support Oxford's definition that a samurai social class did not exist prior to Hideyoshi, so of course it is blatantly wrong and I stand by that" is that there wasn't a separate, codified samurai social class prior to Hideyoshi. Under Ritsuryō there was no specific class that consisted only of hereditary military families. Yes, there were noble families that would become codified as samurai, but under Ritsuryō they were still just classified as government officials. Following Hideyoshi and Tokugawa's reforms modeled off of the four occupations in China, the Samurai came to represent a rigid class synonymous with the Chinese "Shi", or military class. . As for the Shosaku Takagi, his view is already represented as a theory on Wikipedia. But this isn't the place to get into a debate about the theory of Shosaku Takagi. Fair points on the Korean invasion, that said, the definition given by Oxford says "they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them". If it only applied to peasants, and not soldiers deserting the invasion, that doesn't entirely change the fact that the class of people who were allowed to carry weapons as a professional military caste didn't become hereditary until Hideyoshi cracked down on the peasants and stopped them from being able to bear arms or engage in upward mobility.

No hard feelings on the case of mistaken identity. That said, as editors, it is not strictly in our purview to argue with reliable sources, either. X0n10ox (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Lopez-Vera History of the Samurai which states Yasuke is a samurai, meanwhile, has been cited 20 times in its original spanish and 3 times in English, it calls Yasuke a Samurai."

It appears that Yasuke is not mentioned very much in the book; if Google Books search is anything to go by, there might only be two instances of his name in the entire work. As such, I must ask: How many of these 20+ citations have anything to do with Yasuke? Searching the page of hits for the citations finds zero instances of the name "Yasuke".

"There are 37 different sources that I was able to located before I got bored of looking through them which indicate Yasuke was a Samurai or say Yasuke was a samurai in some capacity."

A lot of those are not worth much as any kind of reference for our purposes: https://www.gq.com.au/entertainment/film-tv/lakeith-stanfield-and-flying-lotus-are-teaming-up-on-an-anime-for-netflix/news-story/e21224cf12444d2c834ef4c13d1d6766 makes it clear right in the URL that this is hardly an academic source. Many of the others are also about movies, anime, and other media, and are clearly commercial / pop-culture publications. Simply the number of sites online stating that Yasuke was a samurai is not a useful metric. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, as I stated when I listed the sources. It isn't a matter of whether they're reliable, it was intended to show that calling Yasuke a samurai has mainstream coverage. When the contention is that saying Yasuke is a samurai is an 'exceptional claim' when one of the criteria for an 'exceptional claim' is that the statements goes against the mainstream, yes, the number of "clearly commercial / pop-culture publications" stating he is a samurai is an important metric. If I say "the sky is pink and the grass is purple", that is an exceptional claim that is not covered by mainstream coverage. X0n10ox (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As a disclaimer I will be repeating some things so it is under the assumption that it is cited by my previous posts to save time.

When I said, "you're going to have a hard time finding an academic source specifically pertaining to the question of Yasuke being a samurai and stating that he is not, it would be far easier to discuss what constituted a samurai back then to counter this argument", it was obviously under the assumption that I was talking about pertaining specifically to academic sources, not original research, I thought we had been past this part. But it's an extremely valid point to make when Yasuke's impact, notability, and visible lack of records show that it is very difficult to write an entire paper on the subject of Yasuke without employing a lot of creative liberties as Lockley had done, and it wouldn't be very academic as a result of it. That's why I suggested we move towards the contending of a definition of a samurai pertaining to the Sengoku period specifically by an academic source in order to settle this matter, because there are very often not many exceptions if there are any (I certainly could not think of any, even the examples of the Kuroda clan, Konishi Yukinaga, etc did not act as exceptions).

The reason for using Purdy in the first place is because of the extremely unreasonable demand that something must be written specifically about the individual Yasuke, which I have provided, and we cannot ignore Kaneko's review of Lockley's book who contended the same issues, regardless of how they feel about its veracity, it's an issue that cannot be omitted; if anything, it's extremely dishonest. As I already stated, you are not going to have anyone not already in support of the idea of Yasuke being a samurai to write an entire research paper acting on that single negative claim or alongside related claims, with how little impact he had in the period, in many cases hes just not mentioned at all. This does not mean that Yasuke has absolutely no contentions just because no academic source wrote about it, in fact it's only been 5 years since Lockley released that book and only in the past few years has it gotten in the mainstream eye compared to the last decade, so to say it was an accepted fact for decades when it was straight up not mentioned in many historical academic sources prior to Lockley or Lopez-Vera and the fact that very few people knew of his existence until recent years (including myself), is wrong.

I will admit, the uproar about Yasuke in Ubisoft's game did encourage me to research more about the topic of samurai status. I had already known previously that it had to do with nobility and its ties to the Gen-pei-to-kitsu clans, examples such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi rising from peasant to samurai status this way and as well as their ability and recognition of the Imperial Court in Kyoto, but as to say the specific court ranks and privileges given, the nuances all in between, it was certainly a learning experience. That being said, to claim that I am employing a No True Scotsman argument to redefine what a samurai is just to exclude Yasuke is not only insulting but also shows you haven't really paid attention to the bulk of my arguments. I had held the view very publicly that even figures like William Adams would not fit this definition (but like I said earlier I may have been wrong since that was under the Edo period which had a different way of handling it, and this is admitting fault on my part if so), I was not singling out Yasuke, I was putting it in regards to the status of all claimed foreign samurai. To talk about other foreign samurai is another discussion to be had, but here we are talking about Yasuke since this article pertains specifically to him. If I have made any changes in definition, it would be with an apology admitting my fault, I am not ashamed in being proven wrong.

And yes, I am still contending that Oxford is wrong in their definition of the samurai class, just because it switched from the Ritsuryo system to an Edo codified system which made the lines more distinct does not mean the class did not previously exist. I have made this abundantly clear, the court ranks from the Ritsuryo system was a way to measure a samurai's nobility status, regardless of what the actual role, job, or title is, it is where they were placed. Social mobility has no bearing on this system, it does not change the fact that the de jure system was preserved in spite of all of this prior to the Edo period. And again, this existed before Hideyoshi, he had to go through this system to reach his title of Kampaku, as that position was monopolized by Fujiwara kuge families. He also had Minamoto ties from his wife, Fujiwara ties from his adoption by Konoe Sakihisa and (arguably based off of his initial surname Hashiba from the Oda clan and his writing "TAIRA no Hideyoshi") Taira ties, but the Taira part is OR so we will not count that. He could've gone Shogun arguably because of his Minamoto ties, but he didn't because Shogun was considered lower than Kampaku, the idea of the Shogun being the most important seat only really started with the Tokugawa by mandating all those who want to meet with the Imperial Court have to go to the Shogun first for permission. You still had to go through these hoops if you wanted to make your way to the top, and as I said, there are practically no exceptions to this, if any. And as I already stated, when I get the time to muster for it, I will be bringing this to Talk:Samurai with plenty of academic sources to contend for this argument because I know for a fact they exist and I've read quite a few on my own in the past, so you will not find me budging on this.

If the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to accept sources at face value of how many times its been cited or how many awards its been given, then why even add that in WP:SOURCE "the work itself...can affect reliability"? Is it impossible to impose reasonable judgement on these academic sources that have very clear faults in them, which you yourself have acknowledged? Is anyone who has a vested interest in the accuracy of a historical period completely worthless in input unless they have been endorsed and sanctioned by a institution, which may or may not have potential flaws or biases? Many things get peer-reviewed and accepted without argument or controversy, that doesn't make them free from (glaring especially in this case) mistakes or fabrications. I've even proposed to keep Lockley's work in as a theory so that his contentions are still preserved in the article, but an outright assertion as a matter of fact? I cannot support that, and I'm sorry for that. Hexenakte (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"Is anyone who has a vested interest in the accuracy of a historical period completely worthless in input unless they have been endorsed and sanctioned by a institution, which may or may not have potential flaws or biases"

Is the person completely worthless? No. Is their opinion inadmissible on Wikipedia? Yes.

Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability

The de facto primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability, i.e. whether reliable sources state it to be true; not whether individual editors think they can verify it themselves.

You may have noticed that the de jure primary criterion, as stated on Wikipedia:Verifiability, basically puts this the other way round as verifiability, not truth: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".

It does not really matter. The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't).

It's not quite as simple as that, of course, but once you know that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, not its editors' private thoughts and unsourceable personal knowledge, most of the rest is more or less common sense.

My comment on "No True Scotsman" is not directed at you directly, but a reference to many editors who are vying for a "pure" and rigid definition of samurai. Saying "Yasuke is not a samurai" and then being handed sources that say Yasuke is a samurai and responding "Yasuke is not a true samurai" is an appeal to purity, AKA, "No True Scotsman".

Regardless, this isn't the place to debate the definition of samurai or the caste system. We are talking in circles here, and while you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to have them represented on a Wikipedia article. The basis for dismissing sources and claims cannot be "my reading of the primary source" or "a very specific interpertation of what a samurai is".

Factually, there are reliable sources which claim Yasuke is a samurai.

Factually, there have been no reliable sources provided which contend that claim.

That is the full extent of what we are capable of saying, and as the mission of Wikipedia is to represent and summarize what the reliable sources say. It is not an extremely unreasonable demand to require a source explicitly contend the idea that Yasuke was a samurai when there have been decades of references calling him a samurai. If you feel so strongly, and you have conducted research, I once again encourage you to compile your research and interpertations into a text, and start submitting it for publication. Even if there are no reliable sources presently to be found saying Yasuke isn't a samurai doesn't mean you cannot be the first to make the argument.

That isn't sarcasm, in case you are taking it that way. If you have done as much research as thoroughly as you say you have and you feel you can make a compelling argument to refute that Yasuke was a samurai, it is something which you can pursue for publishing. It is not, however, something we can represent on Wikipedia.

As for whatever argument you want to take to the Samurai page, go for it? Why would I try and stop you, I told you to do it awhile back, haha.

Cheers, and apologies if you felt the No True Scotsman comment was an insult directed specifically toward you. I'll strike it out. X0n10ox (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"Factually, there are reliable sources which claim Yasuke is a samurai. Factually, there have been no reliable sources provided which contend that claim."

Sure, they claim Yasuke is a samurai, but according to their definition? This is the issue at hand that would have been solved if we settle this discussion.

According to Lockley, from a more summarized but apparently more academic version (from what I can tell) of the African Samurai book on Chapter 13:[58]

In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. At the end of The Age of the Country at War, around the end of the sixteenth century, most of those who’d fought on the samurai side in the civil wars, even some of the peasants, pirates and ninja, were classified as “samurai” in a formalized caste structure with the samurai at the top—a hereditary warrior/administrator/ruling class. The caste ranking continued with peasants, artisans and merchants, who took the lowest status (because they lived off everybody else’s hard work). Outside of the scope of the caste system were eta, impure people who dealt with death, and hinin, nonpersons such as ex-convicts and vagrants who worked as town guards, street cleaners or entertainers. Legally speaking, an eta was worth oneseventh of a human being. The Age of the Country at War had been probably the most socially fluid period since the eighth century. Able men and women, like Yasuke, were able to rise through the ranks due to the chaos. No more. From this time until their caste was abolished by law in 1873, the samurai were forbidden (in most of the country) to farm or engage in mercantile activity and had to live in castle towns rather than country villages. This was the time when the word samurai takes on its modern meaning of a warrior caste rather than actual warrior role.

This is a lot to take in, so we will break it down into parts. The main criticism I have here just at face value is that there is zero in-line citations so I have to go through each and every source he listed in the bibliography on the next page, it's very lackluster to say the least. In the first sentence, he states this:

In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name.

So here he is contending that a samurai only became a caste after Yasuke's time, assuming he means the Edo period. However, he then goes to state this:

The Age of the Country at War had been probably the most socially fluid period since the eighth century.

So, was there a caste then? "Since the eighth century" is a pretty large gap, which he's implying that there was already a structure in place before the Sengoku period. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, let's keep reading.

At the end of The Age of the Country at War, around the end of the sixteenth century, most of those who’d fought on the samurai side in the civil wars, even some of the peasants, pirates and ninja, were classified as “samurai” in a formalized caste structure with the samurai at the top—a hereditary warrior/administrator/ruling class.

Already here I see an issue, namedropping "ninja", and I know exactly where he got this claim from, Stephen Turnbull. I already spoke about Turnbull earlier, so it should be no surprise that he would use outdated claims for his research. Checking the bibliography on the next page, I see he cited 4 Turnbull books. Let's continue reading:

The caste ranking continued with peasants, artisans and merchants, who took the lowest status (because they lived off everybody else’s hard work). Outside of the scope of the caste system were eta, impure people who dealt with death, and hinin, nonpersons such as ex-convicts and vagrants who worked as town guards, street cleaners or entertainers. Legally speaking, an eta was worth oneseventh of a human being.

This one isn't really wrong, but I find the commentary piece in the parenthesis very odd and opinionated, it doesn't seem very relevant to the paper.

The Age of the Country at War had been probably the most socially fluid period since the eighth century. Able men and women, like Yasuke, were able to rise through the ranks due to the chaos.

Again, not necessarily wrong, this is technically a true statement. In many cases, warriors were able to become samurai due to their performance and skill in martial arts and warfare, such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Whether that includes Yasuke? That's another thing to discuss.

No more. From this time until their caste was abolished by law in 1873, the samurai were forbidden (in most of the country) to farm or engage in mercantile activity and had to live in castle towns rather than country villages. This was the time when the word samurai takes on its modern meaning of a warrior caste rather than actual warrior role.

So here, Lockley is contending that samurai refers to the warrior caste in its modern use of the term, and not the established modern usage of samurai and bushi that we know to be professional warriors. So already we're at a crossroads because this is a direct contradiction from what was already established, so it is clear that Lockley is using a completely different definition of the word as he seems to have gotten them reversed.

This is what the discussion should've been about, if his definition of samurai matches what was historically recognized and had an overall consensus with historians who also contend the definition of samurai. Let's look at his bibliography:

• Berry, Mary Elizabeth. The Culture of Civil War in Kyoto. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
• Brown, Delmer M. “The Impact of Firearms on Japanese Warfare, 1543—98.’’ The Far Eastern Quarterly, no. 7, 3 (1948): 236—253.
• Cooper, Michael. They Came to Japan: An Anthology of European Reports on Japan, 1543—1640. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1965.
• Farris, William Wayne. Japan to 1600: A Social anti Economic History. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 2009.
• Jansen, Marius. The Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2000.
• Kim, Young Gwan and Hahn, Sook Ja. “Homosexuality in ancient and modern Korea.” Culture, Health & Sexuality, no. 8, 1 (2006): 59-65.
• Kure, Mitsuo. Samurai Anns, Armor, Costume. Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books, 2007.
• Morillo, Stephen. “Guns and Government: A Comparative Study ofEurope and Japan.” Journal of World History, no. 6, 1 (1995): 75-106.
• Ota, Gyuichi (J. S. A. Elisonas &J. P. Laniers, Trs. and Eds.). The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga. Leiden, NL: Brill, 2011.
• Screech, Timon. “The Black in Japanese Art: From the beginnings to 1850.” In The Image of the Black in African and Asian Art, edited by David Bindman and Suzanne Preston Blier, 325—340. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.
• Shapinsky, Peter. Lords of the Sea: Pirates, Violence, and Commerce in Late Medieval Japan. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2014.
• Society of Jesus. Cartas que os padres e irmdos da Companhia de Jesus escreverao dos reynos de Japao e China II (Letters written by the fathers and brothers of the Society of Jesus from the kingdoms of Japan and China—Volume II). Evora, Portugal: Manoel de Lyra, 1598.
• Tsang, Carol Richmond. War and Faith: Ikko Ikki in Late Muromachi Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
• Turnbull, Stephen. The Samurai: A Military History. London: Routledge, 1977.
• Turnbull, Stephen. The Samurai Sourcebook. London: Cassell, 2000.
• Turnbull, Stephen. Samurai Women 1184-1877. Oxford: Osprey, 2010.
• Turnbull, Stephen. Ninja: Unmasking the Myth. Barnsley: Frontline Books, 2017.

If we exclude Ota Gyuichi (primary source) and Mitsuo Kure (published under an American publisher) on this list, there is not a single source cited that was written in Japanese or from a Japanese native. I am well aware that this is an unfair assessment of these sources, but it puts into perspective how a lot could go wrong if there is little to no consultation to Japanese sources, which I would believe Lockley knows how to speak Japanese considering he is an associate professor at the Nihon University College of Law in Tokyo. Especially on what seems to be almost entirely reliant on Stephen Turnbull, who I had mentioned has a lot of problems with his research and claims.

I list these sources so that you could look at them, I do want to have these sources cleared of any potential issues considering that Lockley neglected to cite pages or sections from these sources, so it makes for a very difficult case to confirm if this information is correct or not. Very unprofessional to say the least.

So is it unreasonable to say that, because of the limitations of his research, that his definition of samurai is not necessarily correct? He makes no mention of the role of nobility or titles or the Imperial Court, which I had contended was absolutely necessary if one wished to rise in the social hierarchy just like those such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi had to do. Even ignoring this, his definition seems to contradict what is the common understanding and consensus on what a samurai is, reversing the modern and historical definitions of the term.

"Is the person completely worthless? No. Is their opinion inadmissible on Wikipedia? Yes."

I am not making an opinion here, I am using factual statements and have supported my claims with secondary sources. I have already stated that I will make an effort to make the definition of a samurai more clear with the support of academic sources in the near future.

"It does not really matter. The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't)."

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the claims I'm making are unsupported, the problem here is you are fixated on sources contending Yasuke, the individual, was or was not a samurai. This is not helpful at all if you do not consider their definitions, the definition of the word samurai is what determines who and who isn't a samurai, no matter what the researcher claims. If their definition of the word is insufficient or does not match historical consensus, then why are we to take their word for it? The problem here is that not only can we not verify if Yasuke was a samurai, but we cannot even verify where Lockley got this information from, he doesn't even cite anything but he pastes the entire books expecting us to flip through each one and just hope he meant it in one certain way? That is not academically admissible from my experience as a researcher.

"It's not quite as simple as that, of course, but once you know that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, not its editors' private thoughts and unsourceable personal knowledge, most of the rest is more or less common sense."

I agree, it is not as simple, the fixation on the specific claim that the individual Yasuke is or is not a samurai is a narrow-minded way of going about this issue when you do not consider the definition.

"My comment on "No True Scotsman" is not directed at you directly, but a reference to many editors who are vying for a "pure" and rigid definition of samurai. Saying "Yasuke is not a samurai" and then being handed sources that say Yasuke is a samurai and responding "Yasuke is not a true samurai" is an appeal to purity, AKA, "No True Scotsman"."

Maybe we should have a constructive conversation on what makes a samurai then? This would solve the dispute at hand quite considerably. If there is no established definition of a samurai during a certain period, there is of course going to be nonstop arguments about the semantics at hand. This is entirely a semantical issue and this would be solved if there was an effort to appropriately define the term. Otherwise, what is stopping anyone from redefining any term if it is not held with scrutiny?

"Regardless, this isn't the place to debate the definition of samurai or the caste system. We are talking in circles here, and while you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to have them represented on a Wikipedia article. The basis for dismissing sources and claims cannot be "my reading of the primary source" or "a very specific interpertation of what a samurai is"."

Once again, I agree that my personal opinion is not admissible to be portrayed in a Wikipedia article. This is not what I am advocating for. These are not my personal interpretations, but they are backed by reliable secondary sources. The time to getting academic sources takes a long time if that is assuming I have access to them, which in many cases they are not, so that effort will take a while if we're talking purely academic sources.

"It is not an extremely unreasonable demand to require a source explicitly contend the idea that Yasuke was a samurai when there have been decades of references calling him a samurai."

It is, actually, when you do not consider the definition that these sources are using. At least with figures such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi there is enough information to write an entire book off of him, but Yasuke? Please be reasonable, there are only sentences worth of his mention in primary sources, that is not enough information to write an entire book, let alone 480 pages, unless you plan on making up a lot of stuff in the process.

And I do not know where you got the idea where he was an established samurai for decades, as far as I am concerned and know the claims were only really backed by academic sources in the past decade or so, I cannot find any prior mention of Yasuke being a samurai in say, the 80s or 90s. If you can find them you are welcome to present them.

"If you feel so strongly, and you have conducted research, I once again encourage you to compile your research and interpertations into a text, and start submitting it for publication. Even if there are no reliable sources presently to be found saying Yasuke isn't a samurai doesn't mean you cannot be the first to make the argument."

As much as I was actually considering this - and perhaps I may actually do this in the future - it is not helpful to the discussion at hand. It is, once again, very difficult to write an entire book or paper on this individual whom we know almost nothing about, unless you plan on employing creative liberty and made up events. This is why I stated repeatedly that the only people willing to take on this goal is those who are certainly convinced that Yasuke is a samurai, those who make negative claims in this situation would be more wise to delve their focus towards the entire social structure overall rather than this one individual, because there is way more to go by and that is actually what determines if someone is a samurai, not someone's personal feelings or opinions or what they think is a samurai from prior experiences without actually considering the definition.

This is why I keep saying this over and over, you can claim that Thomas Dewey was actually the president and not Harry Truman because a newspaper stated it, (and if no academic source contends this claim it must be the correct one, right?). You can claim that Emperor Norton was the first American Emperor. You can claim that Oda Nobunaga was actually shogun because he conquered Kyoto, even though he was never given the title nor did he seek it at the time (and this is a common misconception that I see among those who are new to Japanese History, because of what they think a shogun is). You can make these claims, but you need to back them up with evidence and with an established definition, which Lockley did neither. He settled on practically the worst definition you could think of, literally swapping the modern and historical definitions of the word, which no one but him has stated.

You are absolutely correct, this is not simple, this is something that must be given more scrutiny and not by simple claims, otherwise this discussion will never end. This will continue to be a problem if people do not think about the words they are actually using, even when both of us are gone, unless that stops now.

"That isn't sarcasm, in case you are taking it that way. If you have done as much research as thoroughly as you say you have and you feel you can make a compelling argument to refute that Yasuke was a samurai, it is something which you can pursue for publishing. It is not, however, something we can represent on Wikipedia."

Like I said, perhaps I will, but I do not think it will solve the matter at hand. It would still be that, a contention, with seemingly no agreement on the definition. This isn't helpful to anyone here.

"Cheers, and apologies if you felt the No True Scotsman comment was an insult directed specifically toward you. I'll strike it out."

I appreciate the apology and I forgive you. In all seriousness, I don't want this issue to fall on deaf ears, it needs to be addressed whether sooner or later. Hexenakte (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Another reaction from Lockley in this article from The Japan Times. (Update: Contrary to what the article says, the Japanese historian Sakujin Kirino did not fact-check his book) Thibaut (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) edited on 14:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat sloppy reporting -- it isn't clear in some cases whether the reporting is of Lockley's words, or the reporter's own opinions. This statement in particular is troubling:

• "he [Yasuke] was addressed as “tono” (literally, “lord” or “master”)"

I haven't seen anything making this claim outside of this article. There's the October 1581 letter by Lourenço Mexia that mentions "tono" with regard to Yasuke, which I excerpted and provided a translation for in the Talk:Yasuke#The_Tono_Notation section. That letter makes it clear that the tono bit was gossip around town, local people speculating on what Nobunaga might do with Yasuke. I haven't read anyone else claiming that Yasuke was addressed as tono. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The claims that Lockley also makes in regards to the statement that, "there’s no piece of paper that says anybody else was a samurai," is verifiably incorrect. From below is from the Shincho-koki, and is just one of many examples of named individuals as samurai (侍):

Source text:[59]

一深田口之事三十町計ふみ出し三本木の町を相拘られ候要害無之所候之間即時に被追崩　伊東弥三郎小坂井久蔵初として究竟の侍三十余人討死依之深田の城松葉の城両城へ御人数被寄候降参申相渡清洲へ一手につほみ候　上総介信長是より清洲を推詰田畠薙せられ御取合初る也

Academic translation from J.S.A Elisonas and J.P Lamers:[60]

The unit advancing along the Fukata approach moved forward about thirty chō and took possession of the township of Sanbongi. As this place had no defensive works, the enemy was driven out instantly, leaving behind more than thirty dead - men such as Itō Yasaburō and Kozakai Kyūzō, all of them accomplished samurai. Consequently, Nobunaga directed all his forces against the castles of Fukata and Matsuba. The enemy troops there surrendered, pleading for mercy, handed over both forts, and withdrew, concentrating in Kiyosu. Kazusa no Suke Nobunaga then increased the pressure on that castle by laying waste to all paddies and fields in its vicinity. The struggle for Kiyosu had begun.

Even more glaring, the Shincho-koki also specifies titles for individuals as well:

Source text:

左　御先小性　御杖持　北若　御長刀持　ひしや　御小人五人　御行騰持　小市若　御馬大黒に召れ惣御人数廿七人　右　御先小性御小人六人　御行騰持　小駒若　御太刀持　糸若御長刀持　たいとう

Academic translation from J.S.A Elisonas and J.P Lamers:

Left: advance pages of the presence; cane bearer Kitawaka; halberd bearer Hishiya; five menials; Koichiwaka carrying a set of chaps. Nobunaga on his horse Daikoku, escorted by twenty-seven menials in all.

Right: advance pages of the presence; Kokomawaka carrying a set of chaps; six menials; sword bearer Itowaka; halberd bearer Taitō

I think the biggest takeaway from this is the lack of surnames on all of these individuals, despite given very specific titles and being noted as kosho (小性, page). More interestingly, it is differed from kosho (小姓, noble's page), and both of these terms are used within the same text while being pronounced the same. I ask @Eirikr to provide a bit more insight on this since he is more knowledgeable on Japanese etymology. Hexenakte (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

First topic: I confess I read Lockley's comment that "there’s no piece of paper that says anybody else was a samurai" slightly differently -- I don't think he was claiming that no one documented whether particular people were samurai or not, I think he meant something more like "there was no official governmental agency distributing certificates of 'samurai-ness'": as in, one did not get an official "samurai" license. Which is true so far as I'm aware. However, that does not necessarily support his apparent claim that "samurai" status was entirely fluid and just anybody could claim "samurai-ness". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I could see that, but it's kind of weird to mention that when the main criticism is that Yasuke was not explicitly stated as a samurai as a contention, which is wrong because particular individuals were named as samurai (侍) in many primary sources. Usually "samurai-ness" was applied to a person's place in the Ritsuryo system as I had outlined earlier, which is a more "official" standing of who's of samurai status. Surnames are also notable as well, if you lack a surname you basically aren't a samurai, but it has to be specifically a noble surname and not necessarily just a byname for disambiguation purposes.

As much as I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt on that, it's not where the criticism comes from, he just isn't referred to as a samurai at all. Hexenakte (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree to your points here. I think Lockley is responding to a broader array of comments than our various threads here; while his mention of "papers" seems a bit odd to us, I suspect it might be a more relevant response to things that others have said, such as some of the hubbub at Reddit or other sites. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the 小姓 and 小性 spellings, these appear to be simply variant kanji spellings for the same word koshō, in reference to a (usually young) male servant, roughly equivalent to the European "page boy". See also various resource entries on the corresponding Kotobank page, showing both spellings: https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%B0%8F%E5%A7%93-64788

For a bit more detail:

• The 小 character is derived from an older pictogram representing the meaning of "small", with an additional sense of "young".
• In 小性, the 性 character is composed of radical 忄, a graphical variant of 心 ("heart; spirit; essence") + + 生 ("life; to bear, to give birth; etc."). This has meanings of "“human nature; personal character; what is inborn”. The Chinese character is considered to be a derivation from 生.
• In 小姓, the 姓 character is composed of radical 女 ("woman") + 生 ("life; to bear, to give birth; to be born; etc."). This has meanings of "clan; bloodline; surname". The Chinese character is considered to be a derivation from 性, replacing the radical 心 / 忄 ("heart; spirit; essence") with 女 ("woman"), and indeed both words 姓 and 性 are homophonic in many of the spoken Chinese languages.

If the details in the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry at Kotobank (link above) are correct, the word first appears in the 1400s spelled as 小生, and referred generically to a "young boy, young man, young monk". A "young male servant" meaning appears in the later 1500s, including apparently overtones of "young male lover" in many instances (per the entry). Then during the Edo period, this word is used to refer to a specific position in the shogunate household, a young male servant who would look after the daily needs of the shogun. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of academic sources

There's been discussions all over the place here and there on a variety of sources, occasionally covering the academic sources, but not in a very straightforward manner. We should be ignoring all newspapers and popular media sources and considering only what the academic sources say. If they choose to utilize other sources, including something from say Japanese media, then that's their prerogative to do so as academics, but we should focus on what the academics say in their secondary source interpretation. That's the best way to write a historical article such as this. On that note, I believe rather than saying "this source covers him", we should actually be including text excerpts, presenting what was actually said.

I'll start with that here. If anyone has other academic sources discussing Yasuke, then they should present them here as text excerpts with a formatted reference of some kind. And please try to keep things succinct. No walls of text, with random bolded or upper cased comments. That just makes things hard to read.

Anyways, here's what I have so far.

"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."

Lopez-Vera, Jonathan (2020-06-02). A History of the Samurai. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-2134-8.

"...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 (seppuki). 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."

Atkins, E. Taylor (2017-10-19), A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4742-5857-9

...Yasuke already possessed skills as a warrior, as he is believed to have become a samurai after only one year, a remarkably short period of time. Samurai usually trained from boyhood. Nobunaga granted Yasuke the role of sword bearer in the royal guard, for he felt Yasuke had the "might as that of ten men." This was an era in which Japan was still suffering the aftershocks of a civil war in which hundreds of petty warlords had vied for control of the country."

On a separate page,

"Nobunaga had believed that Yasuke must either be a guardian demon or a god; he was black as only temple statues were black. But touching Yasuke, hearing him speak his rich, inimitable foreigner's Japanese, Nobunaga realized he was only a man. He threw a feast in Yasuke's honour, made him gifts of money, and requested that they train him to become a samurai - an honor never before bestowed upon any foreigner. It would elevate him into Japan's warrior class, the top echelon of society. Yasuke accepted and was granted a house, a stipend, and even, in a turn that may have felt uncomfortable to him, his own manservant. That Yasuke had arrived fluent in Japanese was a great asset."

Edugyan, Esi (2021). Out of the Sun: On Race and Storytelling. House of Anansi Press. ISBN 978-1-4870-0988-5.

I hope that serves as a good beginning to looking into the sources we have. Silverseren^C 19:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem of the matter here is that these academic sources that claim Yasuke is a samurai are using seemingly different definitions of what they consider a samurai, which is why this argument keeps going back and forth. If you check on my post about Lockley's definition of samurai just above in Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley, you'll see that Lockley ends up using a definition that swaps the modern and historical usage of the term (it had been commonly established that bushi and samurai were used synonymously in the modern usage of the term and that it referred to warriors; Lockley states the opposite, that samurai in its modern use refers to the warrior caste, and that it was historically used to refer to warriors), so there is a clear disconnect on what one believes is a samurai in this entire discussion.

We would be having a much more productive conversation if we kept this in mind, and not think narrowly based off of the face value of what these sources claim, because this is an argument purely based on semantics. Please check for these sources and see if they provide a definition on what is considered a samurai. Hexenakte (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not using Lockley because y'all already stated he was unreliable, which is fine. It's not like there's a dearth of academic sources on this subject. As for the rest of what you said, it's irrelevant. Your opinion on the definition of samurai is irrelevant. If you don't have any sources claiming to the contrary in regards to Yasuke, then you have nothing. Do you have a single source disputing his status as a samurai, whether via definitions or just the history itself? If no, then go away and come back when you find some. Because, again, your opinion as an editor of Wikipedia has nothing to do with what sources say. I offer for you to read WP:VNT. You also can't use sources that don't mention Yasuke to then claim the definition of samurai is different. That's a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Either you have sources saying Yasuke wasn't a samurai or you have no argument. Please present the sources. Silverseren^C 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I've already stated I have no interest in stating whether or not he is a samurai, I simply do not think it should be stated at all because those contending he is a samurai are using their own definitions to justify it, and the lack of information on Yasuke does not justify a negative claim on the subject either. The simple fact of the matter is, there is not enough information to go by, so these assertions mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. This is why I proposed that it be stated that it is a theory and not an assertion of fact, because there is not enough information to go by on Yasuke. This is the problem I have with the matter at hand, that it is taken as a fact just because "no academic source disputes it" whilst the same sources contending it are unable to substantially prove it. This is an incredibly new claim in the academic field contrary to what others will say here, so you would be hard pressed to find much opposition to the specific claim when decades of academic sources outright ignore his existence.

So please, tell me why the lack of citations or the lack of a conformed definition does not matter, since you brought up WP:VNT, how can we verify that Yasuke was indeed a samurai? From the same page:

In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible. There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate. (Emphasis mine)

And here:

Reliable sources may express speculation, or a source for a significant view may include in it views that are not significant. In these cases, criteria other than those described in our policy on sources are necessary. (Emphasis mine)

A good way to verify this is with a consensus-held definition on what a samurai is, and this view should be held by others within the same academic field. Lockley does not provide in-text citations and neither does Lopez-Vera for their claims. As for Atkins and Edugyan, while I have not looked at them yet (since they are a new addition to this page), I suspect the same issue at hand, but I am welcome to be proven wrong.

Since this is the case, I would be advocating for presenting this view as a theory, and not as an assertion of fact, due to the failure of providing adequate citations for their claims. Hexenakte (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The qualifier of "theory" isn't even necessary, it's simply enough to say something like: "based on his description in known primary sources, most/many historians consider/categorize Yasuke as one of the first foreign-born samurai/samurai of African origin". Theozilla (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

"... most/many historians consider/categorize Yasuke as [a] ... samurai"

To say "most", we would need to do a fuller survey of all (relevant / academic) materials mentioning Yasuke and determine if the number making such a claim is indeed the majority. Until and unless we do this, we have no business saying "most". "Many" may also be problematic; so far we have four or five, one or two are of questioned reliability (per threads above), and another two are not yet evaluated for reliability. (FWIW, Edugyan's description contains speculative elements I haven't seen backed up elsewhere, and at least one apparent factual mistake [regarding Yasuke's fluency].) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Also based off of Edugyan's description, his definition of a samurai already contrasts with Lockley's, "It would elevate him into Japan's warrior class, the top echelon of society." So now the class does exist according to Edugyan, whereas Lockley contended that it didn't during Yasuke's time. To suggest any of this is appropriate when there clearly has been no due diligence done to make sure the words they are using are absolutely correct is ridiculous, there are many contradictions being made here. Hexenakte (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not different authors are using the "correct" definition is beyond our scope. Whether they are using the same (or at least similar) definitions is in scope: we must clarify for ourselves how the authors are using the word, and explain this to readers — particularly if those definitions do not match what we use, or even do not match each other (as appears to be the case here). Otherwise our article becomes internally inconsistent. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, correct was the wrong word that I used, meant to say consistent, but you are correct. Hexenakte (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

While "most" may not be determinable, I don't agree that "many" is problematic, especially considering we haven't had AFAIK any examples of published/academic historians explicitly stating that Yasuke was NOT a samurai. So far historians/secondary sources analyzing primary sources either categorize/call Yasuke a samurai, or there is no comment made regarding whether his status as a retainer/attendant to Oda Nobunaga qualified him as a samurai or not. Theozilla (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that we are making. It is not as simple as simply stating Yasuke is or is not a samurai as a reason to state he is a samurai in the article. The definition that they use for samurai is often contradictory and unestablished, which makes the entire thing problematic. Compare Lockley's definition of samurai to how Wikipedia and credible dictionaries have it. It has been commonly established within the talk page that the conflation of bushi and samurai as being simply warriors is a modern usage of the terms, while historically it has been used to refer to the warrior class itself. Lockley has these reversed, stating that a warrior class did not exist in Yasuke's time. Compare Lockley to the other academic sources provided above. Edugyan contradicts Lockley's definition by stating that Yasuke is part of the warrior class. On top of that, the lack of in-text citations to prove the statements they make - in all of them - to say that Yasuke is a samurai is also problematic.

On another note, this trend of calling Yasuke a samurai has only been in the academic field in the past decade or so, with many academic sources preceding it entirely omitting Yasuke's existence due to the lack of notability. "Many" is, indeed, problematic, since only a select few of academic sources cover him, and these select few sources have issues with citing their evidence. Even ignoring the lack of in-text citations, which should be disqualifying on its own, they cannot seem to agree on what a samurai is. As Eirikr pointed out, by accepting these sources at face value, Wikipedia remains internally inconsistent since there are conflicting definitions on what a samurai is.

Of course it's already been established how unreliable Lockley and Lopez-Vera's work, and it can easily be said the same for the ones posted above as well as they also lack citations for their work. To quote Eirikr from earlier:

Non-samurai-ness is the assumed default state for anyone in Japanese society of the time. The lack of any mention of "samurai" status for Yasuke in primary materials is a significant omission. Authors that do not mention "samurai" status for Yasuke are implicitly agreeing with that default state of non-samurai-ness: much like anyone not mentioning that a person has two heads is implicitly agreeing with the default state of one-headed-ness for humans in general.

We cannot take the lack of sources specifically stating that Yasuke was not a samurai as an indication that he therefore was a samurai, any more than we can take the lack of sources specifically stating that Rameses II did not have two heads as an indication that he therefore did have two heads.

Secondary-source authors who mention "samurai" status for Yasuke have not yet, as far as we have seen, backed that up with specific citations to historical primary sources.

The idea of Yasuke being a samurai is very new, so it was assumed that the omission of his samurai status in prior academic sources was that he was not a samurai, and this especially the fact since the stated academic sources that do contend he is a samurai do not provide citations for their claims.

Hexenakte (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Authors that do not mention "samurai" status for Yasuke are implicitly agreeing with that default state of non-samurai-ness

This assertion isn't necessarily true though, as plenty of people who are known to be samurai (and/or have more historical consensus on their status) are frequently mentioned by authors in various texts on the subject of samurai without mention to their status as samurai, and in such cases the default implicitly assumed state often is the positive. Like in a text on Japanese history, unless stated otherwise, the assumed default state of individuals mentioned are that they are Japanese.

Or to repeat the well known Carl Sagan idiom: absence of evidence does not automatically equal evidence of absence.

Also the relative recency of a subject being categorized as something doesn't negate the fact that said categorization is now considered such by many. Like Pluto was re-categorized as a dwarf planet/planetoid relatively recently, that relative recency doesn't change the fact that most scientists now no longer categorize Pluto as a planet.

As such, noting that many historians and academic texts categorize Yasuke as a samurai is entirely reasonable and appropriate for Wikipedia, and consistent with the categorization of other historical figures on Wikipedia whose status as samurai could also be debated (since as others have noted the term "samurai" is a term subject to much debate itself). Theozilla (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This assertion isn't necessarily true though, as plenty of people who are known to be samurai (and/or have more historical consensus on their status) are frequently mentioned by authors in various texts on the subject of samurai without mention to their status as samurai, and in such cases the default implicitly assumed state often is the positive.

Can you name sources of specific individuals being samurai not being explicitly mentioned as such? Because I have found absolutely zero. This assertion of yours requires evidence, so please present them.

Like in a text on Japanese history, unless stated otherwise, the assumed default state of individuals mentioned are that they are Japanese.

Because being a samurai is a recognized position within Japanese society, this is not the same comparison to make. You cannot pick up a peasant and assume he is a samurai unless it is stated otherwise. This is equivalent to saying that the assumed default state of individuals in a European society as knights. Very few people were samurai, so it is a significant omission.

Or to repeat the well known Carl Sagan idiom: absence of evidence does not automatically equal evidence of absence.

Yes, but in the case of a renowned status, not mentioning anything about them being samurai status often means they are assumed to not be samurai. I gave you one of many examples from the Shincho-koki of named individuals as samurai (侍), as well as named individuals as being explicitly given page titles, yet lacking surnames, and they were not referred to as samurai. It is assumed that the default is non-samurai, just like how it is assumed that the average American is a non-veteran or non-military personnel unless stated otherwise, and they do not like to omit this!

Also the relative recency of a subject being categorized as something doesn't negate the fact that said categorization is now considered such by many.

It matters when you are considering that "no academic historian has contended that Yasuke was not a samurai" when the academic sources claiming that he is haven't existed for very long, there isn't much room to respond, much less an entire paper about a person we know very little about, especially since this hasn't reached the mainstream until Lockley's work. It would take time for writing a paper against it. Also again, it is not "many", these are select few sources making these claims and none of them have provided citations for them.

Like Pluto was re-categorized as a dwarf planet/planetoid relatively recently, that relative recency doesn't change the fact that most scientists now no longer categorize Pluto as a planet.

It's easy to redefine modern terms for modern purposes, not for historical terms that meant something different in the past. It doesn't change the fact that the term "planet" meant something different before 2006. Pluto was considered a planet before 2006 from a historical perspective, but not in a current modern perspective.

As such, noting that many historians and academic texts categorize Yasuke as a samurai is entirely reasonable and appropriate for Wikipedia, and consistent with the categorization of other historical figures on Wikipedia whose status as samurai could also be debated (since as others have noted the term "samurai" is a term subject to much debate itself).

Again, where is this "many" you are saying? There are only 5 academic sources proposed talking about Yasuke, and none of them provide citations for their claims. That is not many, much less reliable. I have noted prior that Wikipedia utilizes historical terms such as Uji, Omi, Muraji, Taikun, Jizamurai, because modern terms are inappropriate to define what these individuals and groups were. When you have multiple historians contending Yasuke is a samurai, but none of them can even have the same definition as a samurai, it calls into question the verifiability of their claims. In fact the branching of different definitions for a term that matters so much in the classification of Yasuke only hurts their credibility, because this gives the impression they have no idea what a samurai is. There has to be an academic consensus on the historical definition of samurai during Yasuke's time, which already exists but none of them seem to have actually prepared for that, and seemingly made up their own definitions based off what they think a samurai is, because there's no citation for their claims. Hexenakte (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Secondary sources using old Wikipedia info should be removed

Below sources are some Japanese Internet media which just copied and pasted information from the old version of Japanese Wikipedia on Yasuke.

And these should be removed along with the information relating these sources.

I am going to check rest of all the Japanese sources later.

"戦国時代にアフリカから日本へ? 織田信長に仕えた黒人従者「弥助」とは【前編】" [Did he come to Japan from Africa during the Sengoku period? Who is Yasuke, a black servant who served Oda Nobunaga? [Part 1]]. excite news (in Japanese). Excite Japan. 27 September 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2023. Retrieved 12 September 2023.</ref>

"戦国時代にアフリカから日本へ? 織田信長に仕えた黒人従者「弥助」とは【後編】" [Did he come to Japan from Africa during the Sengoku period? Who is Yasuke, a black servant who served Oda Nobunaga? [Part 2]]. excite news (in Japanese). Excite Japan. 29 September 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2023. Retrieved 12 September 2023.

Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The National Diet Library is a reliable source, I don’t see Wikipedia in the bibliography.

I agree for the second one. Thibaut (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

my mistake.

There are two sources of part 1 and part 2.

The second one is part 2 and I thought I pasted part 1 first.

I tried to edit but only the code source editor is available so I am going to fix it. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay now I see, yes secondary sources that contains "Wikipediaより" should be discarded. Thibaut (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

So how will we delete these sources from the article page while the page is semi-locked？

I found other Japanese sources that use Wikipedia info, but first we should remove the above sources and the relating sentences from the article first. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley RSN

Hello, I am posting here to give notice that I have put the Lockley up on the Reliable Source Noticeboard, as probably should have happened much, much earlier. You can find it Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Thomas Lockley here. There has been an exhaustive amount of debate on this talk page about Lockley's reliability and this is the easiest way to settle the subject for you. Chrhns (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

Yasuke was not a samurai. I condemn the change of history for the simple reason that uubisoftö, wants it to be tru 93.106.131.92 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's book was NOT fact-checked, thus UNRELIABLE

Assertions with no sources to back them up are not useful here. Closing per WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since some people here, who are insisting that Yasuke was a samurai, keep ignoring my comments, I post here for everyone to see. Recently 桐野作人 Kirino Sakujin DENIED Lockley's claim that Kirino did a fact-check on Lockley's book. https://x.com/kirinosakujin/status/1795768862652449021 Since there is no one having fact-checked his book, Lockley's book and any media using his book as source are all unreliable. Therefore, any edits based on any media using Lockley's book should be not allowed. ～日本人の皆様方～ 英語ウィキペディアの編集者にはロックリーの妄想本を取り上げた欧米のメディアを利用して「弥助は侍だった」と日本史を捏造しようという勢力が大勢います。ちなみに、ロックリーは日本大学で英語系の准教授をしているイギリス人です。最近、桐野作人氏がロックリー妄想本のファクトチェックなんてしていないと発信して、Japan Timesが桐野作人のファクトチェックを受けたというロックリーのウソ話を撤回しました。 ロックリーは欧米メディアに対しても桐野作人にファクトチェックされたと言って騙して来たのだと思います。 この弥助における日本史捏造の本丸はロックリーです。 Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Your assertion is correct. This work is a completely fictional historical fantasy novel. Please do not misunderstand based on the title. Their references are largely embellishments or imaginative comments written much later. There are very few contemporary sources. African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan Yasuke: The true story of the legendary African Samurai (Thomas Lockley, Geoffrey Girard) Yasuke is a historical figure for whom only about 1-2 pages of historical documentation remain. In other words, it is self-evident that most of the story is the author's embellishment, making it a historical speculative novel, historical fantasy novel, or historical fiction novel. The biggest issue, from the perspective of dishonesty, is that the title might lead to misunderstandings that the work is based on historical fact. It is crucial to emphasize that this is a work of fiction. If Hollywood were to base a production on this work, we would strongly urge them to clearly state that it is fictional. Your assertion is correct. Phoepsilonix (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke should be described as a slave since there is no record that tells he was not after given to Nobunaga

Assertions with no sources to back them up are not useful here. Closing per WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some editors here claim that it is ok to edit that Yasuke as a samurai because there is no primary document that says he was not a samurai. In the same logic, Yasuke should be described as a SLAVE because he was a slave brought by Jesuit and given to Nobunaga. And there was no primary document in Japanese that says Yasuke was not a slave. Rather Jesuit says of Yasuke as black slave as well as Akechi Mitsuhide. There are many Japanese secondary sources that say of Yasuke as black slave. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC) You are going to need a reliable source for your claim that Yasuke, legendary Samurai Warrior, was a slave. 有名な武士である弥助が奴隷であったというあなたの主張には、信頼できる情報源が必要です。 12.75.41.40 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Academic papers in Japan talking about Japanese people like Nobunaga interacting with slavery by the example Yasuke. not a source. Some random American writing about his personal view, that Yasuke was freed from slavery as a kid in india probably with the source, trust me bro. RELIABLE. ErikWar19 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

How did Yasuke actually serve Nobunaga?

Beyond the ambiguity of what the term "samurai" actually means (which has been articulated at length on this talkpage already), I think it would be more helpful for the reader if we added what Yasuke actually did in Nobunaga's service. Jonathan Lopez-Vera in his book History of the Samurai: Legendary Warriors of Japan says that Yasuke served as a "kind of bodyguard" to Nobunaga. (don't have a precise page number, but it is verifiable by google books) I added this earlier, but was reverted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was fine for the article body - relevant verifiable info on a subject we know very little about - but undue for the lead for several reasons. First, because we have only one RS explaining Yasuke's tasks with the bodyguard analogy. Secondly, because I remember reading somewhere that among his tasks there was also fighting in battle. Thirdly, because the lead emphasises this content too much and unwillingly might reinforce some racist stereotype such as "big black guys cannot be heroic samurai, they are just scary bodyguards". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about its removal from the body of the article, which I think was done by someone else. Even though Google doesn't give the page numbers, I've managed to find out from other sources what the pagenumbers are and have re-added the reference to the body. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the section you meant was removed by user:Symphony Regalia after I had added the {{Synth}} tag to that info because it was a breach of WP:Synth to make our own assessment (original research) about which definition of samurai is employed in the cited source(s). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

We have five primary sources about Yasuke. "信長公記", ”家忠日記”, and three "Cartas de Iapão (Frois, Mesia, Frois)".

As you can see, none of them say that Yasuke served as a "bodyguard" or any other duty.

The only recorded Yasuke's job is "依時御道具なともたさせられ候 / Sometimes he carries Nobunaga's tool". This is said to be found in only one hand-written copy of "信長公記" out of several tens of hand-written copies, but we can only access this through Kaneko's work. R.stst (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

With this edit I changed the text as fallows:

Yasuke served as a kind of bodyguard to Nobunaga, was granted the honor of being his sword-bearer, and was occasionally allowed to share meals with the warlord, a privilege extended to few other vassals.

I think that the bodyguard analogy is a way for historians (and for us) to explain Yasuke's services as reported by the primary source: they want to convey that carrying "Nobunaga's tool" was not the job of a porter, and was not merely honorific, but implied (they claim) some kind of security service or military capacity.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

not historians, but a historian for his speculative claim, that Yasuke is suppose to be already trained in fighting in India (no source), used by the Portuguese as a bodyguard (no source) and than used in this capacity by Nobunaga (no source), while in reality it was standard praxis in India and Japan for Portuguese to have black slave-servants for duties like carrying weapons, at these times.

But surely Yasuke is the sole exception without any source proving this unique anomaly in thousands of similar African slaves under Portuguese servitude and it has surely nothing to do with the fictional history book of Lockney. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

and just to highlight the kind of argument and the reach of it, that Yasuke was such a slave-servant already.

Even over 30 years, decades after Yasukes actions in Japan, we have in the whole of UK some form of military used black servants too. And to be exact, there were only 61 cases of these slaves to be proven to exist over these 30 years.

https://www.nationalcivilwarcentre.com/museum/expertextras/name-125968-en.php

At the same time the majority of sources talking and depicting black servants in Japan, China, India on various Portuguese colonies were to be commonly expected to be slaves and they were called with the same name, like Yasuke was called by Portuguese not with his name, but with his ethnicity. The actual problem is about differentiating African, Indian or other nationalities of these slaves as these ethnicity-based slurs for slaves were not used by a clear system.

To be honest, i don't even know of a singular source of such an African slave in a Portuguese colony to get his freedom already as a child. I would love to see the source for such a claim.

I know about this slavery-Freeing services only from other Western European states without a slavery-culture like Portugal and Spain, who freed their long term personal slave-servants after decades of military services, because their military duties ended, as a form of pension with veteran-privileges.

-- ErikWar19 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

References