Talk:Yasuke

Requested removal of possible misattributed quote claiming to be from the Shinchō Kōki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also added this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember: "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the requested pages.

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

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

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

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

「◎巻十四

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you all for the recent pings.

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

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

"A1: This article has been vandalised to promote a certain political worldview."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The book by Lockley mentioned several times above.

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

• Several academic reviews of Lockley's book.

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

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

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

• The Smithonian magazine.

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

• Time.

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

• The BBC.

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

• Britannica.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise, per WP:NPOV:

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

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

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

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

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

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

the academic consensus is not provided.

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

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

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

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

But surely we dont have other sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

slave and/or something else than a samurai.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lockley's latest work

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

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

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

MTL:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>keep discussion about reliability of Lockley on RSN

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

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

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

A few points.

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

Impressed with Yasuke's height and strength (which "surpassed that of ten men"), Nobunaga gave him a sword signifying bushi status. Yasuke served as Nobunaga's retainer and conversation partner for the last year of the warlord's life, defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces in 1582, where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuku). Although there are no known portraits of the "African samurai," there are some pictorial depictions of dark-skinned men (in one of which he is sumo wrestling) from the early Edo period that historians speculate could be Yasuke.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another source not yet mentioned

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

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

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

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

Here is the relevant quote on page 40:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I think would help the Yasuke discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but it is not limited to the 16th century

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

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

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

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

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

Lockley's article on Yasuke in Britannica

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

Thanks for the heads-up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- sword (sayamaki; secondary source interpretation required)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not only is Thomas Lockley not the best source but he actually made up most of the things he wrote in the English version of his books and articles and falsely claimed to have been fact checked. If you do a modicum of research on him you will find that the English and Japanese versions of his book are not only diametrically opposed in tonality but they also actively contradict each other. Trusting him as a source is no better than trusting Alex Jones.

Makoto Tsujiuchi - Historical Context of Black Studies in Japan

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

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

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

Another episode showing the curiosity of the Japanese regarding the Blacks can be gleaned from Shincho Ko ki. When Padre Alessandro Valignani brought a Negro to Kyoto, Oda Nobunaga, the prime mover of Japan's 16th-century reunification after a hundred years of strife, could not wait until the designated date to meet with the missionary. The news about the black man's arrival instantly spread throughout Kyoto and its vicinity. Hearing the news, many people congregated in the city, threw stones, and pulled down walls and gates to get a glimpse of the Negro. When Nobunaga saw him, he ordered the kokudo (black fellow) to take off his clothes suspecting that his black skin color was painted. After a short conversation with the missionary, he decided to take the kokudo with him and gave him a Japanese name Yasuke.

The perception of the Negro in mid-16th-century Japan, however, cannot be judged as totally full of contempt for the Negro. It is true that Yasuke was regarded as a beast and not a human being. But he was nevertheless released after the assassination of Nobunaga. In general, black people were viewed with curiosity rather than contempt rooted in the belief of racial hierarchy. In fact, Yasuke was described in Shincho Ko ki as follows:

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

This passage simply refers to the external appearance of the kokudo with allusive admiration and without representing his nature as inferior. It would be, therefore, wrong to understand 16th-century Japan through race and racial stereotypes invented in the 19th and 20th century. The concept of "color line" in early modern Japan too was so uncertain that people did not distinguish black Malayans from black Indians and Africans. The term "Negro" (kokujin, kokudo) was very often used to describe all kinds of dark-skinned people. The Whites, on the other hand, were classified by their national origin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OED "fellow" entry 10:

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

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

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

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

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

d. A Negro. U.S. Obs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointless contradiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pointless contradiction. References

References

Yasuke, a Kafir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the top of this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, found a better source.

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

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

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

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

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

Luis Fróes, 14 April 1581:

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

Luis Fróes, 19 May 1581:

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  from WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yasuke's status as a samurai should be presented as uncertain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Yeah, and if someone is arguing that Twitter posts should be used then they would have to accept recent Twitter posts from actual Japanese historians like Yu Hirayama have weighed in on whether Yasuke should be considered a samurai based on the available and known information about him (and Hirayama also aligns with the majority consensus that Yasuke should be considered a samurai) https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/1814609906391200058 Theozilla (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm adding to this thread but also replying to @Traumnovelle's comment.

  From what I have gathered, the scholarly literature on Yasuke changed significantly with the dissemination in 2009 of a quote from the (still unpublished) Shincho-ki manuscript of the Sonkeikaku Bunko collection, which states that Nobunaga gave Yasuke a house, a servant, a sword, and a stipend. Hexenakte mentioned that the quote came from Hiraku Kaneko, "The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the Shinchoki" (織田信長という歴史　『信長記』の彼方へ、勉誠出版、2009年、311-312頁) and, if I'm not mistaken, Eirikr and Thibaut120094 were able to verify this. If this is confirmed, I'll remove the template:failed verification from this important quote.

  Anyway, on the basis of this recently rediscovered primary source (as well as other sources showing that Yasueke was in Nobunaga's retinue, had a direct relationship with him, served him as a warrior, and was speculated to become a "tono", or lord), historians have revised their assessment of Yasuke's social status in Japan, which was probably higher than originally thought: apparently he was not just a servant, but a retainer (vassal) of Nobunaga and a high-ranking bushi (warrior).

  Does this mean that he was also a "samurai"? Some subject-matter experts believe so, and Lockley has explained their reasoning (Japan Times, Britannica). To date, no Japanese or non-Japanese historian has challenged their interpretation, which has been widely reported in the press (BBC, CNN, TIMES, etc.) so until new research emerges (excluding tweets, blogs, etc.), we have no reason to deviate from their account (as per RfC consensus). Note, by the way, that in Yasuke's time the Japanese word "samurai" was usually applied to the lowest-ranking bushi, so that a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a 'samurai' [21]. This means that in 16th-century terms, Yasuke's status in Nobunaga's service may have been higher than what his contemporaries called a "samurai" - but admittedly, this is my personal OR and SYNTH and, mind you, I'm no expert on the subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  [...] if I'm not mistaken, Eirikr and Thibaut120094 were able to verify this.

  They were not, but only because Eirikr still needs time to look through Kaneko's book, WP:NORUSH. Hexenakte (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I should point out that per WP:EXPERTSPS, the professional opinion of Professor Hirayama actually is a reliable source, even if it's on Twitter. Loki (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh that is a helpful clarification then. Theozilla (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

References

So basically there seems to be some critiques on the sourcing of this article.

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

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

Don’t know how reliable this is but it’s also there [22]. Volunteer Marek 04:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

COI

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

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

Oh, wait nevermind, Lockley self identified with his account [23]. Here is the difference between last version they edits and current version [24]. Comparison is difficult because lots of material got moved around. Volunteer Marek 05:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic integrity is not a matter for Wikipedia; and this Talk page is expressly not a forum for discussion of it. We have our own standards, as documented in our policies & guidelines. My own view is that the edit that linked above falls short of both contemporaneous and current expectations. But it is also 5 years old, the editor has not edited since, and is, consequently, not, for mine, much worth fussing over. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Then please update the FAQ to note that Wikipedia doesn't care about (but possibly appreciate) Lockley's past editing on Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 12:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

New Japanese source(s)

As alluded to somewhere in the above conversation, Japanese researchers are coming around to the Yasuke debate. For us here in Wikipedia, that means we are starting to get new published material that we can use as reliable sources to shape the Yasuke article. First one out of the gate is Yūichi Goza (assistant professor at the International Research Center for Japanese Studies) publishing a piece on the Japanese opinion site Agora (https://agora-web.jp/archives/240721081916.html) where he describes:

1. The existence of a recent contention over whether Yasuke was a samurai on the internet.
2. Evidence from the Sonkeikaku version of the Shinchō Kōki (and only that version) that points to Yasuke being treated as a samurai.
3. The undiscountable possibility, despite the general reliability of the Sonkeikaku version of the Shinchō Kōki, that said evidence was a later addition based on the primary source Ietada Nikki.

Given the eyes on this topic, I suspect more reliable sources will come out in the near future. _dk (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The relevant passage is here:

この記述に従えば、弥助は明らかに信長の家臣、すなわち武士（侍）として遇されている。名字が与えられていないから侍ではなく、中間（侍より下の武家奉公人）なのではないかといった意見もネット上で見られるが、中間が刀と屋敷を与えられることは考え難い。いずれ名字が与えられる予定だったという解釈が成り立つだろう。加えて、弥助は時に信長の道具持ちもしていたというから、信長に近侍していたと考えられる。

Here is the profile of the author: https://agora-web.jp/archives/author/gozayuichi

He holds a PhD in literature studies with specialization in Japanese medieval history (専攻は日本中世史).

The source itself looks good, but since the article is an opinion piece, we would probably need additional supporting evidence (peer-reviewed works?) that the writer is a matter-expert. There is an extensive JP Wikipedia article about him: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%91%89%E5%BA%A7%E5%8B%87%E4%B8%80

Great find! SmallMender (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is equally relevant:

弥助が武士（侍）に取り立てられたという説の根拠は、尊経閣文庫本『信長公記』のみであり、弥助を「黒人のサムライ」と断定するのには慎重であるべきではないだろうか。

MTL:

The only basis for the theory that Yasuke was raised to the rank of samurai is the Sonkeikaku Bunko edition of "The Chronicles of Nobunaga," and we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a "black samurai."

More on that issue (MTL):

According to Kaneko Hiraku, a professor at the Historiographical Institute of the University of Tokyo who is known for his research on Oda Nobunaga, the Sonkeikaku Bunko version was copied in 1719 by Ota Yazaemon Kazuhiro (four generations after Gyūichi) from a handwritten version that had been handed down in the Kaga Ota family, who were descendants of Ota Gyūichi and served the Maeda family of the Kaga domain, and presented it to the Maeda family (the handwritten version by Gyūichi that had been handed down in the Kaga Ota family was destroyed in a fire).

Given the circumstances under which it has been transmitted, the Sonkeikaku Bunko version can be considered a copy with a certain degree of reliability, but it cannot be denied that the description of Yasuke being given a sword and a house may have been added during the copying process.

Kaneko Hiraku is the author of 「織田信長という歴史　『信長記』の彼方へ」, which is the source of the quote (as in, first published source mentioning it).

J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The provided machine translation is a bit rough. The "ではないだろうか" expresses a degree of uncertainty in his own statement. In any case anything self-published should be given less weight. In a similar vein Japanese medieval historian Yu Hirayama, who has written several books on the Sengoku period, has recently made a statement[25] saying there is "no doubt" that Yasuke was a samurai.

It seems like there's a lot of talk about Yasuke, a black man who served Oda Nobunaga. There are very few historical documents about him, but there's no doubt that he was a samurai who served Nobunaga. Regardless of one's social status, if one's master promoted one to the rank of samurai, one could become one in medieval (warring states) society.

That said, I suggest we continue to use peer-reviewed works and works published by respectable publishing houses.

Symphony Regalia (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Since a scan of the relevant pages of Kaneko's book was provided (thanks Thibaut120094!), it should be noted that Kaneko acknowledges that it is difficult to dismiss the whole Sonkeikaku addition relating to Yasuke as a work of fiction (p.313), after expressing that there is a undiscountable possibility that the Yasuke record was a later addition. (p. 312) Goza only quotes Kaneko partially, leaving out Kaneko's acknowledgement on page 313. _dk (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@‎Gitz6666 I see you added this source to the article. If we are quoting him, we should also include his other main points, otherwise it might be WP:CHERRYPICKING. The first point we should add is the information about the multiple versions of Shinchō Kōki, and that the quote only appears in one of the versions. That is really just a fact that as I understand we didn't have a secondary source for until now (although perhaps I am wrong here and ohter secondary mentioned that the quote appeared in only one version). The second point we should add is at least his conclusion that "The only basis for the theory that Yasuke was raised to the rank of samurai is the Sonkeikaku Bunko edition of "The Chronicles of Nobunaga," and we should be cautious [or "shouldn't we be careful"] in concluding that Yasuke was a 'black samurai.'" I think quoting a single point from an article that has multiple points for and against an certain view could amount to cherry picking. (Although note that WP:CHERRYPICKING is not an official Wikipedia guideline, however much of it claims to be based on other policies such as WP:NPOV, perhaps from the phrase "representing fairly." It is also listed as an essay in the WP:NPOV page.) J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems fair. May I suggest you either revert my edit or add a line or two of text to make it more balanced? Until we'll have a section on the controversy about Yasuke's status as samurai (if and when such a controversy will produce reliable secondary sorces), we should avoid spending too many words on something hardly relevant, so perhaps you'd better just revert my edit. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I reverted it until others give their input on this. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Skimmed through the article, focusing on text surrounding uses of 家臣 (kashin).

I see some interesting leaps of logic.

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

尊経閣文庫本『信長公記』によれば、この黒人は「弥助」と名付けられ、鞘巻の熨斗付（装飾刀）と私宅（屋敷）を与えられたという。
この記述に従えば、弥助は明らかに信長の家臣、すなわち武士（侍）として遇されている。名字が与えられていないから侍ではなく、中間（侍より下の武家奉公人）なのではないかといった意見もネット上で見られるが、中間が刀と屋敷を与えられることは考え難い。いずれ名字が与えられる予定だったという解釈が成り立つだろう。加えて、弥助は時に信長の道具持ちもしていたというから、信長に近侍していたと考えられる。

---

[First, the quote from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version's text, as in this other section:]

[...] yet it was ordered that the young black man be given a stipend,
to be called Yasuke as a name,
and [be granted] an inlaid sayamaki and private quarters,
sometimes he was allowed to / was made to hold/carry the [master's] tools and other items.

According to the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki, this black man was named "Yasuke", and granted an inlaid sayamaki (decorated sword) and a private residence (yashiki ["residence; mansion, manor"]^*1).
According to this description, Yasuke was clearly being treated as Nobunaga's vassal [家臣, kashin], in other words as a bushi [武士] (samurai [侍]). There are opinions seen online that he [Yasuke] was not granted a surname so he was not a samurai, or that he was probably a chūgen [中間] instead (a warrior-household servant ranked under a samurai), but it is difficult to imagine a chūgen being granted a sword^*2 and a yashiki. At any rate, the interpretation could stand that [Nobunaga] planned to grant [Yasuke] a surname later.^*3 In addition, since it says that Yasuke was sometimes acting as weapons-bearer,^*4 it appears that he was serving close to Nobunaga.

Notes:

• 1: The word in the primary source text is 私宅 (shitaku, literally "private residence"). As I noted earlier in #The_relevant_quote_from_the_Sonkeikaku_Bunko_version_of_the_Shinchō_Kōki, rendering this instead as 屋敷 (yashiki, "residence; mansion, manor") invites a deviation in meaning from the source, due to the different senses of the two words. While Goza rightly points out that a low-ranking chūgen would not be granted a manor house of their own, it is within reason that a chūgen might be allowed to use a vacant hut instead of bunking in a dormitory. The term 私宅 (shitaku) could apply to either case (manor or hut), while the term 屋敷 (yashiki) could not.

Fundamentally, we just don't have enough information about the kind of 私宅 (shitaku) in question.

• 2: As noted elsewhere on this page, the term sayamaki as used as a standalone noun at that time seems to refer specifically to a kind of short sword. Considering that short swords including such sayamaki were excluded from the successive sword hunts carried out in turn by Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and then Tokugawa Ieyasu, it is clear that these were not considered indicative of warrior status: not dangerous enough to confiscate.

If any sources turn up that describe the word sayamaki, in use at that time as a standalone noun, as applying to full-sized swords as well, this point will need revisiting.

• 3: This is pure speculation, even as worded. Yasuke was with Nobunaga for about 15 months, without any mention of a surname. If Nobunaga had any such plans to give Yasuke a surname, they were never implemented, making this immaterial to Yasuke's actual, as opposed to planned, status during those 15 months.
• 4: I have commented earlier on the deviation between the specific text of the primary source and secondary-source claims that Yasuke was acting in the specific role of "weapons-bearer". The Japanese term for this title, 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi), is attested since at least the late Muromachi period (1336–1573), early enough that Ōta Gyūichi, the author of the Shinchō Kōki, would have known the word and ostensibly would have used it if that's what he intended. Ōta's use instead of this odd circumlocution ("sometimes he was allowed to / was made to hold/carry the [master's] tools and other items") indicates that Yasuke was not serving in any official "weapons-bearer" capacity.

That said, I agree with Goza that the text indicates that Yasuke would have been serving physically close to Nobunaga.

Some of this is definitely my own analysis. I provide this to help contextualize Goza's remarks for those who don't understand Japanese. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The relevant quote from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki

This is from page 311 of Professor Hiraku Kaneko's book, 『織田信長という歴史　－　「信長記」の彼方へ』 (Oda Nobunaga to iu Rekishi - "Shinchōki" no Kanata e, "The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the Shinchōki").

This is marked as from Scroll 14.

二月廿三日、きりしたん国より黒坊［主］まいり候、［年之］齢廿六七相見へ、惣之身之黒キ事牛之ことく、彼男器量すくやかにて、しかも強力十［之］人に勝れたる由候、伴天連召列参、御礼申上候、誠以御威光古今不及承、三国之名物又かやうに珍寄之者［共余多］拝見仕候［也］、然に彼黒坊被成御扶持、名をハ号弥助と、さや巻之のし付幷私宅等迄被仰付、依時御道具なともたさせられ候、（二月二十三日条）

---

February 23, a young black man came from the Christian country, he appeared to be about 26-7 in age, his whole body black like a cow/bull, he is dexterous and robust, moreover he would beat / exceed ten strong men, he came as a servant of the Padres, and gave the usual formalities, sincerely [Nobunaga's?] authority is unparalleled in history, and [Nobunaga?] has seen the famous things of the Three Kingdoms^*0 and rare visitors such as these, yet it was ordered that the young black man be given a stipend^*1, named as Hachigō to be called Yasuke as a name,^*2 and [be granted] an inlaid sayamaki^*3 and private quarters^*4, sometimes he was allowed to / was made to^*5 hold/carry^*6 the [master's] tools^*7 and other items, (this ends the paragraph/section for February 23)

Notes:

The Japanese text in ［square brackets］ above does not appear in the photograph of the manuscript in the book. I have not yet read the rest of the book, and I am unsure what Kaneko's intention was with these additions: perhaps they appear in other versions of the Shinchō Kōki?

As @SmallMender pointed out above, there is some uncertainty about a few of the words in the source.

• 0: As noted by @_dk below, this is a reference to the specific "three kingdoms" of Japan, China, and India, as an allusion to the world at large.
• 1: The word for "stipend" here is 扶持 (fuchi).

It is not certain if this was simply food, or money, and whether this was a one-time payment or something ongoing.

Considering the definitions in Japanese dictionaries, I suspect that this was ongoing and not just a one-time payment; that said, I cannot tell if this was monetary or alimentary support. Unclear.

Some commentators have claimed that Yasuke receiving fuchi means that he was a samurai. However, the term fuchi at that time meant something closer to "payroll", be it in money or food rations: even household maids and cooking staff would receive fuchi.

• 2: The source text describes his name as 八号弥助 (Hachigō Yasuke). While Hachigō here might be parsed as a surname, this literally means "number 8". There were multiple people in Nobunaga's employ with the given name of "Yasuke", one of whom also mentioned elsewhere in the text was 七藏彌助 (Nanakura? Shichizō? Yasuke, literally "Yasuke Seven-Storehouse"). So the Hachigō / "Number Eight" here might be a play on that. Either way, 八号 never appears as a surname: see also the lack of any hits here at ENAMDICT, the online names dictionary.

Update: I mis-parsed the text initially, mistaking the katakana ハ (ha, used as topic particle wa or voiced version ba in certain combinations) for the almost-identical kanji 八 (hachi, "eight"). Reading 名をハ号弥助と with the topic particle instead, it is even plainer that "Yasuke" is simply a 号 or a kind of nickname or name of convenience, and that Yasuke had no surname at all.

• 3: A sayamaki is usually a kind of tantō (short-sword or long dagger), specifically one without a tsuba or hilt-guard, and with winding (maki) or inlay on the scabbard or sheath (saya). From what I've read so far, these were usually around 30cm or so, markedly shorter than the 70-80cm blade length of a 太刀 (tachi) or Japanese greatsword. A sayamaki style mounting without a tsuba would look like the image here at right.

Note that the lack of a tsuba or hilt-guard makes this less useful as a weapon of war, as the wielder's hands are less protected from either an opponent's blade sliding down into one's hands, or from one's own hands sliding onto the blade when thrusting or stabbing.

The term sayamaki refers specifically to the mounting of the blade: the scabbard with winding and/or inlay, and the lack of any hilt-guard. The K. Hirayama poster on Twitter maintains here on July 19 that there were tachi greatswords with a sayamaki mounting. While I have found pictures online that appear to be this kind of setup (such as the fourth from the top in this image at Wikimedia Commons), these are often described as "ceremonial", and the use of a sayamaki mounting on a longer sword does not seem common; in almost all cases I've seen or read about so far, the sayamaki mounting is reserved for tantō.

At any rate, this mention of sayamaki in the source is ambiguous.

It is also just one sword (short or otherwise). I have seen some commentators claim that Yasuke was granted the right to wear two swords, but this is not supported by the Sonkeikaku Bunko text above.

• 4: The word for "private quarters" here is 私宅 (shitaku, literally "private" + "residence/dwelling"). This could mean that Nobunaga gave Yasuke a villa. Or it could mean that Nobunaga just arranged for Yasuke to not have to use a shared dormitory. Or somewhere in between. Unclear.
• 5 + 6: The word here is もたさせられ (motasaserare). This is the causative-passive conjugation stem of the verb 持つ (motsu, "to hold, to have in one's hands, to carry"). The causative-passive conjugation means either "was made to do [verb]" or "was allowed to do [verb]", depending on context.
• 7: The word for "tools" here is 道具 (dōgu). In the context of warriors, this was often used euphemistically to refer to "armaments". The Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry for dōgu here lists a first citation for the "armaments" sense of the early 1600s, but the version available online via Kotobank is not the full unabridged, and this is likely not the earliest attestation. I am not yet willing to pay ~$100 for access to the fuller version.

I suspect that Lockley uses point #7 here as his reason for claiming that Yasuke was Nobunaga's weapons-bearer. I do not think that the source text actually supports this contention: there was a specific term for "weapons-bearer", and that was 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi, literally "tools/armaments-holder"). The source text instead says that Yasuke 「依時御道具なともたさせられ候」 "was sometimes allowed to hold the master's tools and other items", which indicates that this is not about Yasuke being granted the specific (and not "sometimes") role of 道具持ち or "weapons-bearer". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would request a scan of the page in question to ascertain if the transcription, and hence the translation, are correct. It is likely that the ハ in the sentence 名をハ号弥助と is not the kanji 八 (eight) but the katakana ハ, making the whole sentence read as 名をば弥助と号す and thus 名は弥助と呼ぶ in modern Japanese. I must repeat the oft-cited Wikipedia policy of WP:no original research and leave the interpretation of primary documents to the experts. _dk (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The other thing I should add is that the 三国 in 三国之名物 here should not be piped to the Three Kingdoms of China, since it refers to the three realms of Japan, China, and India — a metonym meaning the whole known world. (https://kotobank.jp/word/%E4%B8%89%E5%9B%BD-138372) _dk (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@_dk, thank you for the sanity check. Correct on both counts: wrong Three Kingdoms, and the specific character string should be をハ号 (wo ba gō), not を八号 (wo hachigō). I'll fix the above. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Scan of the page 311 of Professor Hiraku Kaneko's book is available here. Thibaut (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Confirming that I have seen the page and that, to my eyes, the character as printed is ハ, not 八; the sentence fragment then being 名をハ号弥助と. No comment on the meaning. Rotary Engine ^talk 04:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on the WP:OR and possible modern rendering of 名をハ号弥助と, however I would leave specific interpretation to historians (for instance, as part of secondary sources), even if these sadly don't discuss the implications of the privileges Yasuke received (stipend, sword, lodgings, etc.) in detail. SmallMender (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr Here is a pdf I created of words starting with とうく in Nihon Kokugo Daijiten. Let me know if this contained your entry. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, yes — second page, third entry from the right on the top row, sense ③. This lists two citations, one from a puppet play called 夕霧阿波鳴渡 (Yū-giri Awa no Naruto) and dating from 1712, the other from 柳多留 (Yanagi-daru), apparently a kind of humorous poetry anthology that was first published in 1765.

I must ask: what edition of the NKD is this? The later citations than the version at Kotobank suggests that this is clearly not the same version, but also not the unabridged...? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Its from volume 14 of the 1980 version. here is some info from the cover page. Also, you may want to download those pages if you haven't already as the link will expire soon J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@_dk, @Rotary Engine, @SmallMender, you mention OR. My intent in posting the above is not to that we should include any of this in the body of the article. My intent is instead 1) to respond to a couple different editors who have specifically requested this quote and translation, and 2) to help us all better evaluate the claims of the secondary sources: both those of us who do understand Japanese but do not have the book, and those of us who don't even understand Japanese. I think it is vital for us to understand when a secondary source is making a claim based on their own synthesizing or inferring, and when a secondary source is making a claim based directly on the text of a primary source. Having the exact text of the sources available, both primary and secondary, helps us to do that. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr Thank you for the explanation. However, I did not mention WP:OR. I am personally comfortable with the use to evaluate reliability (broadly construed; explicitly including WP:RSCONTEXT) of secondary sources (and their use of primary sources, in the context of that evaluation); which is, for mine, well within our remit. Appreciate your efforts in this regard. Rotary Engine ^talk 09:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Eirikr. The quote you provided is indeed helpful. First, we should remove the template:failed verification. The quote is verified and the source (Japanese HuffPost) is reliable. It reports the quote as follows:

黒人は信長様から家臣として召し抱えられて俸禄を得た。名前は弥助とされた。短刀と屋敷なども与えられた。時折、信長様の道具を運ばされた

Automatic translation:

The black man was taken on as a vassal by lord Nobunaga and received a stipend. His name was Yasuke. He was also given a short sword and a house. He was sometimes made to carry Lord Nobunaga's tools.

Secondly, per WP:RSUEQ we can quote from Hiraku Kaneko's book. "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations". If I'm not mistaken (and I could be), this quote has never been translated and reported verbatim by any English secondary source. So we can translate it ourselves, using Eirikr's draft with corrections by _dk and others. This is not OR (see also WP:TRANSCRIPTION). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I've checked WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY and MOS:LISTSOFWORKS and apparently there's nothing stopping us from creating a bibliography of primary sources. I've never seen one in a WP article, but in Yasuke's case it seems useful and relatively easy to make, especially for editors like Eirikr, Rotary Engine, Thibaut and others, who are familiar with the list of primary sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

discussed in a new section

@Gitz, This is a very interesting idea, and I thank you for it. Even a list of sources on a subpage of this Talk page would not be bad; something in the spirit of {{refideas}}. As for the contents of a bibliography of primary sources, I would suggest: Jesuit Cartas from Frois, Mexia Solier Shincho Koki (published version(s?)) Shincho Koki (unpublished Maeda clan version) - given that it is unpublished, this might not meet RS Ietada's Diary and possibly one more that I'm still looking into. Have I missed any? Rotary Engine talk 06:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC) A transcript of the Maeda clan version is published in a secondary source this section is about. Kaneko’s book largely meets WP:RS. Thibaut (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Understand this, but in a list of strictly primary sources, I didn't want to include those which we only have by way of a secondary source. I might move my comment out to a separate section. Rotary Engine talk 07:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Broadly, I agree that the Huffpost text is confirmed. I do have two concerns about the Huffpost restatement, where their word choice could suggest meanings that are not backed up by the primary text:

• 家臣 (kashin, "vassal") sometimes has overtones of higher rank than can be supported by the Sonkeikaku Bunko text, which simply states that Yasuke was granted a 扶持 (fuchi, "stipend / payroll"). If we take 家臣 (kashin) as a synonym for 家来 (kerai, "retainer", or more loosely "household member/employee"), then I think we are in safer territory.
• 屋敷 (yashiki, "residence", but also "mansion, estate") similarly has overtones that go beyond what the Sonkeikaku Bunko text strictly tells us. We are in alignment with the primary text so long as we take 屋敷 (yashiki) in the more-general "residence" sense.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

But the original text doesn't use the word 家臣 (kashin, "vassal") - am I wrong? If I understand correctly, this would be a good translation of the text:

It was ordered that the young black man be given a stipend (Japanese: 扶持, romanized: fuchi), named Yasuke, and provided with a short sword (Japanese: さや, romanized: sayamaki) and a private residence. At times, he was also entrusted with carrying the master's weapons.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct, to my knowledge primary sources don't mention 家臣, 家来 or any other specific position. I have only seen it stated in Japanese secondary sources or articles.

- For sayamaki the writing さや巻 is used in the primary source. I have seen modern renderings as 鞘巻 or written in all hiragana.

- For private residence you could probably use the original 私宅, unless a more modern 屋敷 is preferred, though as mentioned by @Eirikr the meaning points more to a mansion, estate (邸宅) according to dictionaries.

In other words, the Huffpost article does some interpretation of the original text. I don't have an opinion on how to approach this. SmallMender (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Notably the term '家臣' has come up before as it is the term used by Lockley to refer to Yasuke's position in his peer reviewed work as discussed in [this] chain on the RSN. This would make it the second reliable source to explicitly refer to Yasuke as a vassal in this manner. Relm (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If we want to use a primary source, we should pick facts of the source over claims about the sources translation possibilities.

rather than using a translation, we could evade a speculative claim with a secured fact by using the existing English article for tanto.

Same with the term stipend, we could simply evade a claim with the translation of salary. Explicit by non-verified claims, that Yasuke would have gotten 俸禄 (houroku) or similar stipends. 扶持 (fuchi) is not a synonym for 俸禄 (houroku) and lead to the common misconception.

We handled like this the Cafre term being translated as slaves in Japanese articles by using the more accurate term used in the primary sources and using the existing english wikipedia page for the term. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

An unregistered user left a message on my talk page suggesting that we should refrain from translating sayamaki as "short sword". One of the sources they quote says: The word Sayamaki was originally used to describe a regular sword [...] the sword called Sayamaki is undoubtedly a Katana. I haven't been able to verify their sources except for this one [26] which says the style of tachi is also sometimes called sayamaki no tachi (鞘巻太刀) or "scabbard wrapped great sword". So I think we should err on the side of caution and simply translate さや, sayamaki, simply as "sword", which is undoubtedly correct, without giving potentially inaccurate information about its length. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I am familiar with that website, actually. I came across it when researching sayamaki in the context of Yasuke. Sayamaki can refer to both the wrapping of a regular sword (tachi, 太刀) or a short blade (a koshigatana, 腰刀). For instance, the HuffPost article renders it as 短刀.

Additional context and concrete secondary sources would be needed. Other mentions in Shincho Koki would also be relevant, since that provides the appropriate historical context. However, any of this would delve into SYNTH and might be more suitable as disambiguation in the Tachi article or even a separate article if it's justifiable in the future.

For the purpose of the Yasuke article I agree "sword" is the safest option. SmallMender (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Having reviewed the IP's comment, and the accessible links therein, I think @Gitz initial reaction concerning WP:SYNTH is correct. And I do genuinely thank them for raising the question here; Talk page protection notwithstanding, it is vital that on topic IP input is included & discussed.

I suggest there are some logical flaws in the IP's comment.

Briefly: While さや巻/鞘巻 (sayamaki) does appear in 鞘巻太刀 (sayamaki no tachi; wrapped scabbard great sword), in this context referencing the mounting of the sword; it does not follow that さや巻/鞘巻 on its own refers to a great sword. Without the 太刀, an isolated 鞘巻 means a short sword.

Chiisagatana, which the IP's quoted source equates with sayamaki, is literally "small sword" 小さ刀. [27]

In this regard, the IP's sources may actually confirm a translation of "short/small sword". Historical meanings (from the time that the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki was written and transcribed) would, of course, need to be accounted for. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to think of an English language equivalent. The nearest I could get was something like "iron", which is both a noun and an adjective. An iron (noun) has meaning; many of us might think pressing clothes or golf; the name derives from the original material of manufacture (though both clothes and golf irons are no longer made from iron). An iron (adjective) something (e.g. iron greatsword) has a different meaning; the meaning here literally the material of manufacture. Sayamaki is the same: In the context of 鞘巻太刀, it is an adjective, describing the style of mount; in the context of さや巻 alone, it is a noun. We should not take a noun and infer that it is an adjectival reference to an unstated noun referent. Though iron greatswords exist, we should not take a source which says "iron" and infer "greatsword". Rotary Engine ^talk 11:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Good catch with the 小さ刀 (chiisa-gatana). The NKD entry for this term here at Kotobank defines this as:

① 腰刀の一種。鍔(つば)のない合口(あいくち)作りの短刀。鞘(さや)に刻み目をつけ、葛藤(つづらふじ)の蔓(つる)などを巻きつけたもの。鞘巻(さやまき)。
② 殿中差(でんちゅうざし)として用いる柄糸(つかいと)を巻いた鍔つきの短刀。

---

(1) A kind of koshi-gatana [lit. "hip-sword", a kind of short-sword worn at the hip]. A tantō of the tsuba-less aikuchi [lit. "meeting-mouth", where the grip and scabbard come together without a hilt-guard in between] construction. The scabbard is engraved, and wrapped such as with Chinese moonseed vines. A sayamaki.
(2) A tantō with a tsuba [hilt-guard], the grip wound with cord, and worn in one's sash when in a lord's compound.

Sense (1) is marked as attested at least since the 1603 Nippo Jisho, and sense (2) since at least the mid-1500s. Both senses of chiisa-gatana denote a short sword, which makes sense considering the components of the term: chiisa is the stem of adjective 小さい (chiisai, "small"), and -gatana is the rendaku compounded form of 刀 (katana, "sword", literally "single-blade").

Regarding the term sayamaki itself, the NKD entry here attests use as a standalone noun to denote a short sword with no hilt-guard since at least The Tale of the Heike, which apparently we date as "prior to 1330" and which the NKD dates to 「１３Ｃ前」 (the early 13th century / 1200s). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, 家臣 (kashin) and 家来 (kerai) have different connotations and should be treated differently.

I do have two concerns about the Huffpost restatement, where their word choice could suggest meanings that are not backed up by the primary text

家臣 is supported by the Sonkeikaku Bunko text from my reading of it. In terms of the analysis of anything that strictly isn't in the text though (this manner of derivation as opposed to translation), we should follow reliable secondary sources instead of conducting any derivation-based original research ourselves. It can be useful to know what is interpretative and what is not, but it should also be noted that we intentionally rely on secondary sources for that manner of analysis. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an interesting point, and I don't have an answer. We don't have an English secondary source to support the translation of this quotation, so WP:RSUEQ applies and we should translate it ourselves. Are there any good reasons for choosing the modernised version provided by a secondary source over the original text? Given that the secondary source is not of high quality (Japanese HuffPost [28]), I'd be inclined to translate the original text, although translating an old Japanese text raises difficult interpretive issues. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

To my understanding, 安藤健二 (JP Wikipedia article, likely the same person), the author of the HuffPost article, is a journalist, but not a historian. In that sense we rely on his knowledge as a native speaker for a modern rendering of the text in the primary source. Is that correct? If so, I think that might be acceptable.

If we are relying on him as a secondary source (meaning, interpreting the primary source), I think that would be more problematic. If so, I would also be more inclined with a translation by a Wikipedian, assuming such a translation is near-literal and unclear terms are not interpreted. SmallMender (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Rather that neither of the terms 家臣 (kashin, "vassal, etc.") nor 家来 (kerai, "retainer, etc.") are used in the primary texts, I think we should avoid using either kashin or kerai in English. (At least, when writing about the primary sources: if we're quoting a secondary source, that's clearly fine.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you also for the clarification and apologies for the comment on OR. I agree that if a secondary source is making a claim, it would be important to know if that information comes from a primary source or it is a novel claim made in the secondary source based on the interpretation of the primary source. SmallMender (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, and no worries about pointing out the OR prohibitions: it is best that we are all clear on what we are doing and why. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying! I agree that it is helpful to have a baseline so that we can better understand the secondary sources. _dk (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke's Roman Catholicism

There is far more evidence for his practice of the Catholic Faith, than there is he was a Samurai. Just saying the textbox should actually say "Roman Catholic" or "Jesuit Catholic" or even just "Catholic". Colliric (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it mentioned in the already linked References or do you have additional sources in mind? SmallMender (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Bibliography of primary sources

Per the suggestion of Gitz6666 above, some thoughts on a list of primary sources:

Jesuit Cartas from Frois, Mexia

Solier

Shincho Koki (published version(s?))

Shincho Koki (unpublished Maeda clan version) NOTE: We have this in a secondary source, Professor Hiraku Kaneko's book, 『織田信長という歴史 －「信長記」の彼方へ』 (Oda Nobunaga to iu Rekishi - "Shinchōki" no Kanata e, "The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the Shinchōki").

Ietada's Diary

and possibly one more that I'm still looking into, but can only find discussed in secondary sources. Have I missed any? Rotary Engine ^talk 06:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Would the Jesuit letters be treated separately? As in, 1 entry for Frois, 1 entry for Mexia?

For the unpublished Maeda clan version of Shincho Koki, do I understand correctly the scans are available online for viewing, but the confirmed status is "unpublished"? In that case we could take it out and use Professor Kaneko's book as secondary source as a regular Reference.

The rest looks good. SmallMender (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think probably three or more entries for Frois (one per letter), and separate entry for Mexia's letter. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I have created a subpage for the primary sources bibliography. Please, edit that page and add all the relevant entries and information. The relevant guideline is MOS:WORKS, Note that titles should not be linked to the URL of the online reference but to existing Wikipedia articles about the book. The link to the full text can be provided using a bare link of adding "read online" (or "full text") + external link to the citation - see e.g. GAs and FAs like Hugo Krabbe, Alfred Verdross, John Neal (writer), Honoré de Balzac. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I reordered and formatted a bit. I'm confused on a couple points:

• The sub-page is called "Primary sources", but there appear to be a few secondaries as well? Should the page be re-titled just "Sources", with separate sections for primaries, secondaries, etc.?
• Jean Crasset is dated to 1925, but he died in 1692...?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The second paragraph of the lede currently states:

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

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

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

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