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)

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)

The CNN Travel article reads like it was a write up of an interview with Lockley. Suggest it would be inappropriate as a reference for unattributed statements of fact; but likely usable for attributed opinions. The essay Wikipedia:Interviews#Reliability has guidance on how to handle this type of source. Rotary Engine ^talk 05:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The section in question is here:

In an era racked by political espionage, merciless assassinations and ninja attacks, Yasuke was seen as an asset. Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records.

The problem is, we don't know if this is a conclusion drawn by the author of the article or attributed to Lockley.

There are also speculative claims like this one:

When feudal Japan’s most powerful warlord Nobunaga Oda met Yasuke, a black slave-turned-retainer, in 1581, he believed the man was a god.

However, this one is later elaborated on by (and attributed to) Lockley.

I agree with @Rotary Engine that the article could be used as a source of attributed claims made by Lockley, but not for statements of fact based on the analysis/synthesis of other sources. Judging the CNN article is also made difficult by the fact that it mixes speculative elements, references to pop cultural depictions of Yasuke and doesn't always make it clear what the basis for the individual claims is. SmallMender (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that the article mentions Lockley 20 times (11 times with the verb says, 5 times according to, twice speculates and once each assumes and suspects), I think it's very unlikely that the conclusion is drawn by the author; and not part of the same pattern. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Noting that "according to Jesuit records" doesn't seem to reconcile with my recollections of the letters of Frois and Mexia. And, given the small set of primary sources, unless that attribution can be independently verified, I would not support including it in article text. But perhaps my recollection is incorrect; happy to be corrected with reference to a source. Rotary Engine ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the quote as stated now is misleading as it sounds too similar to the quote from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki. If we do attribute this claim to Lockley, it should just read something like "According to Lockely, Yasuke also had servants." It shouldn't be included along with the other things that are not from Lockley. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Since I cannot verify that it was directly from Lockley, I've attributed the claim of a stipend, servant, and house to "an article by Emiko Jozuka". Anyone is free to change it if they can think of a better attribution, of course. Brocade River Poems 22:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly a courstesy heads up since I already had changes in the pipeline for this part. The Britanicca article that's basically written by Lockley also mention servants and the attribution to a cnn journalist does not really help the article in my opinion. If the servants part is further contested, feel free to remove it. Yvan Part (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I haven't read the Britannica article by Lockley. I just went off of the discussion about the source that was attached to the claim, and since nobody seemed to know for certain that it was Lockley who made the claim, I didn't feel attributing it to him was correct. If there's a source you're going to use where Lockley makes the claim, all the better. Brocade River Poems 23:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of stories around Yasuke in Lockley's and in Lopez-Vera's works, but which don't have corresponding appearances in the contemporaneous Jesuit & Japanese sources and which seem apocryphal. These include the skin scrubbing, the intimate dinners with Nobunaga, and perhaps the servants. The closest I can find to servants is a mention in one of the Jesuit letters (Mexia, 8 October 1581) that Nobunaga sent Yasuke around town with his "private man". But is the "his" referring to Yasuke or Nobunaga? My medieval Portuguese is not strong, and interpreting the text isn't helped by a tendency to write long rambling sentences, but, from the context, it is more likely the latter. Rotary Engine ^talk 06:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that is probably Nobunaga´s man. First, because Yasuke was Nobunaga´s man as well (although I am not sure if in the context "his private man" has specific meaning), and second, the verb "sent" implies that Nobunaga commanded both of them. The mention of servants is an unpublished document that has already been discussed. The source for the scrubbing and the dinners in unknown to me. There is the account of his first meeting Nobunaga, where Yasuke has to remove his upper garment. Perhaps the washing is an interpretation. I also wonder about the money that Yasuke received. Lockely said it made him a rich man, however it is not in the Britannica article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The mention of servants is an unpublished document that has already been discussed. if the document referred to is the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shincho Koki, then it does not include any mention of servants. The additional material in that version covers: stipend, name, sayamaki, residence; but not servants.

As for the money, the Jesuit letter that is the primary source is that of Luis Frois, dated 14 April 1581. Rotary Engine ^talk 13:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it would be nice if the article had the sum listed. It would be nice to contextualize it, but we would probably not be able to find a secondary source for that, or has Lockley done this? I saw an interview where he mentioned the money, but I don’t think he provided context besides to claim that Yasuke was rich. I guessing it was a lot of money for a valet, but not a lot for a Nobunaga. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The sum listed in Frois letter is "dex mil caixas" (10,000 caixas). A caixa in modern Portuguese is a box; but also extents to include ledger, cashier, cash register & payment counter. In Macanese, it also means a small copper coin which is probably closer to the meaning in Frois letter. Japan during the Warring States period used both imported Chinese coins and locally produced coins in copper, silver & gold. See Japanese currency & Mon (currency) for details & references. The buying power varied depending on the quality of the coins, so it is difficult to say how much 10,000 copper coins would be worth. The closest that I've found is a table of shopping item values from the Edo period which indicates a salmon would be worth 250 mon, and a bottle of sake 200 mon. If that's accurate for the earlier Warring States, then 40 fish or 50 bottles. But there's a lot of assumption in that.

Lockley's Britannica article simply mentions "a large sum of money". African Samurai suggests 10 strings of coins weighing 80 pounds; but is not reliable for factual statements. His earlier Japanese translated book has "up to 30kg". Ten thousand mon, at around 3g each, would be 30 kilograms (66 pounds), which accords with Lockley's estimates. Rotary Engine ^talk 19:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Japanese currency, the source I recently added to Koban (coin) might also be of value. It speaks about the periods before and during Tokugawa. I don't know about mon specifically, but various forms of gold, silver and copper were indeed used, presumably in the forms of small sheets (han-kin and han-gin) which were cut and weighed. For weighing the tael or monme unit of weight was used.

Without going into OR, is it possible to judge 10,000 caixas would indeed mean "10000 copper coins" per Portuguese to English translation? SmallMender (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think equating caixa specifically to mon would be OR, but to a copper coin generally might be more acceptable. But, as always, a source would be better. Lockley's chapter in つなぐ世界史2 includes "... 信長は弥助に褒美を与えることにし、甥である津た信澄を通じて、重さ３０kgに及ぶほどの大量の銅貨を贈った。" (emphasis added) which explicitly states "銅貨" (copper coins). Rotary Engine ^talk 21:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that is enough to say 30 kg of copper coins. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable with "10,000 copper coins". Rotary Engine ^talk 01:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rotary Engine, FWIW I agree with @Tinynanorobots that the "private man" is Nobunaga's, in terms of the context and grammar of the original text. The specific Portuguese wording was excerpted and translated earlier here: Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-Eirikr-20240524224800-X0n10ox-20240524024300. Note that this person was described as muito privado / "very private", indicating that this is not "private" in the sense of "belonging to someone, not public" (which doesn't work well with the intensifier muito), but rather "private" in the sense of either "intimate" or "discreet" (as in, someone who was probably very close to Nobunaga, and could be trusted). See also sense 2 here (in Portuguese). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur that Mexia's letter isn't directly supportive of Yasuke having servants of his own; and with your thoughts on the Portuguese. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Re-reviewing the Britannica article after the rewrite by Lockley (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke), I see this sentence:

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

This is problematic — Ōta's account does not state that Nobunaga either made Yasuke a vassal, nor that Nobunaga gave him servants. See also the relevant Japanese text, translation, and explication, over at Talk:Yasuke/Archive_5#The_relevant_quote_from_the_Sonkeikaku_Bunko_version_of_the_Shinchō_Kōki.

• It is probably reasonable to infer that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal (家臣, kashin) on the basis of paying him a stipend (扶持, fuchi). However, the Ōta text does not state that Yasuke was a kashin: Ōta does not use this word to describe Yasuke.
• However, it is just baffling that Lockley claims that Ōta's text states that Nobunaga gave Yasuke servants. There is no mention of this in any primary text, neither Ōta's nor anyone else's, as far as I'm aware. The closest we might get is in Lourenço Mexía's letter, where he states that "agora o fauorece tanto que o mandou por toda a cidade com hum homem ſeu muito priuado pera que todos ſoubeſſem que elle o amaua / now he [Nobunaga] favors him [Yasuke] so much so that he sent him throughout the city with a very private man of his so that everyone would know that he loved him". The "very private man of his" would have been someone in Nobunaga's employ, not a servant of Yasuke. See also the relevant original text, as excerpted and translated here in the archived "The Tono Notation" subsection.

Unless we can find other sources that back this claim that Nobunaga gave Yasuke servants (independent secondary sources that have done their own research, not just sources that quote or paraphrase Lockley as the CNN article does), I think we need to explicitly attribute any such claim to Lockley. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support attributing this specific claim to Lockley as well. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead

I think there are a couple problems with the lead. First, it doesn’t mention that Yasuke was a weapon bearer, which is probably more important than that he was a samurai. Second, in one line it says: "As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend". This implies that all samurai were given a house, a servant and a stipend. That is not something that the sources support, even if it is an indication of a samurai. Lastly, it mentions that he served 15 months as a samurai, but that would imply that we know when he became a samurai. I couldn’t find that in the sources. I am not sure exactly how one became a samurai at this time period. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have a consensus whether he was a weapon bearer or a tool bearer or how important it was overall so I won't address that right now.

About the second point, it was done by BrocadeRiverPoems with this diff.

For your last point, I pushed a tentative change with this diff, trying not to change the phrasing too much. Reverted for now until someone has a better idea that reconciles Yasuke's time in service of Nobugana and the uncertainty of when he became a samurai. My current idea would be to just strike the "samurai" from the first sentence in the lead and either adding a new sentence mentioning that he became a samurai during his service or leaving the sole samurai mention in the second paragraph, but I'm sure there'll be some objections to either choice. Yvan Part (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I just want to note re: Second, in one line it says: "As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend". that it was done by BrocadeRiverPoems is not true if you were trying to say that I'm responsible for the "As a samurai" line. In the diff, I changed the wording back to what it was before someone else had reverted it to "As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend". As for the "weapon bearer", I believe the consensus reached in discussion is that the sources describe him as sometimes carrying Nobunaga's weapons but that there is no evidence in the RS that he was ever granted the specific role of weapon bearer. Brocade River Poems 04:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

if you were trying to say that I'm responsible for the "As a samurai" line. I was not. I just wanted to say that you had already made the change that removed the problem pointed out by Tinynanorobots. Yvan Part (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I wasn't sure because the wording that it was done by me is slightly ambiguous in the sense that it can either mean I fixed it (which to be fair, I didn't, someone else did), or that I put it in in the first place. Cheers! Brocade River Poems 04:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought the weapon-bearer thing showed up in several sources, but I checked the Britannica article and it isn’t there.

Perhaps the solution to the last issue is to qualify the time period. For example, he served "up to 15 months." I think just removing the word samurai is more elegant, though. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Going back to the problems in the first sentence in the lead, I still can't find a way to be more accurate. Making two sentences, one for being a samurai, one for being in service in Nobugana, either creates more problems or disrupt the flow of the paragraph.

New ideas would be really welcome otherwise removing the samurai mention from the first sentence seems like the best alternative. Yvan Part (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It occurred to me that we have the same problem with retainer as we have with samurai. We don’t know when he became a retainer. It is possible that the money he received was the first payment of his stipend, it also seems that him becoming a retainer is what makes him a samurai. My knowledge is limited, but it seems that there was no ceremony or legal process to make one a samurai. It seems that all samurai either had a fief or a stipend. Even in the Edo period, it seems that new samurai could be made by daimyo or wealthy samurai, if they could afford the stipend. It is possible that he was first a non-samurai retainer and then promoted, and indeed some secondary sources say this. However, considering the short time period, I wonder. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing all mention of status, either samurai or retainer, from the first sentence would deal with most problems. Adding a mention of his samurai status either before or somewhere else in the two sentences would be a problem. If before, it could be read as him being a samurai before coming into service of Nobunaga and anywhere else would be incongruous since the paragraph mostly deals with chronology and his stay in Japan.

Adding: Just noticed that the second sentence "Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits." is itself pretty incongruous since the Jesuits are never mentioned beforehand. So I propose to also add:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, Japanese pronunciation: [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who came to Japan with Jesuit missionaries and served the Japanese daimyō Oda Nobunaga for a period of 15 months between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death in the Honnō-ji Incident. Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits. There are no further records of his life.

Yvan Part (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I like it. Could we change "there are no further records of his life" to "afterwards, he disappeared from historical record"? Otherwise, some readers might think that the preceding sentences are the only records. I wonder if we can combine the two lead paragraphs together. That would also avoid repetition. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure "disappeared" would be the right word. We could just add "There are no further records of his life afterward". I don't really have a problem with the lead being two paragraphs with the first being about chronology and the second being other important details.

I also feel the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph are a bit repetitive. Though not that bothered by it myself, if someone else feels the same I might try to come up with something to avoid the repetition. Yvan Part (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that there any "flow" problems (which are ill-defined) with the first sentence in the lead. And as mentioned in other sections, removing the samurai mention would contradict the spirit of the RfC consensus. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Symphony Regalia No offense but I have yet to see anyone agree with your interpretation the RfC to prevent changes to the article. You are also ignoring the logic problems brought up by this section and once again you're fully reverting with no considerations about what is an improvment for the article or not. Your insistence of bringing back the cnn article when a better source that is the britanicca article exists is also odd.

Adding: You are also not engaging with the content or changes proposed at all beyond what is essentially "It's not needed" or "I don't agree", which is a textbook example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, something I have warned you about before.Yvan Part (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear RfC consensus that Yasuke being considered a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources, that of which wikivoice is used for. WP:NPOV is very clear about this. I think the concern here is that you're attempting to brute force lede changes that directly concern the RfC (removal of the term samurai, removal of wikivoice) without any consensus behind them. Only one editor has given you any input, because this section does not make clear that a change was actually being proposed. I do think it is good that you have mentioned it here, so I've offered some input as well above.

1. Can you explain how removing "samurai" from the lead improves the logic of the article? What is the connection between these two things?

2. CNN and Britannica are used on different lines. There was no justification provided for its removal to begin with.

I am assuming good faith on your behalf (given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai"), but I'm not seeing the link between these two things (and I'm all for improving the flow or logic). The removals in question seem like they would make things more difficult to read and more confusing for readers (by also defying how WP:DUE is normally handled). Symphony Regalia (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"There is a clear RfC consensus that Yasuke being considered a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources"

And the changes proposed do not change that.

"1. Can you explain how removing "samurai" from the lead improves the logic of the article? What is the connection between these two things?"

That I can. I'll just parse the original sentence into small blocks to make the problems more obvious.

Yasuke was a man of African origin. Yes.

Yasuke was a samurai. Yes.

Yasuke served Nobunaga. Yes.

Yasuke served for appoximately 15 months. Yes.

Yasuke served until Nobunaga's death. Yes.

Yasuke served Nobunaga as a samurai. Yes.

Yasuke served as a samurai for approximately 15 months. Unknown.

Yasuke served as a samurai until Nobunaga's death. Unknown.

Which is exactly the problem pointed out by Tinynanorobots at the very top of this section "Lastly, it mentions that he served 15 months as a samurai, but that would imply that we know when he became a samurai. I couldn’t find that in the sources." Even a "served as a samurai for approximately 15 months" would not do justice to the sources and information we have, since it is a complete unknown nor have I seen any WP:RS argue that they know when Yasuke became a samurai, even as an approximation, or for how long he was. Sources do mention that he served Nobunaga for 15 months and that he became a samurai but combining the two pieces of information become a WP:SYNTH problem.

There is also the problem I pointed out just a few replies earlier "Just noticed that the second sentence "Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits." is itself pretty incongruous since the Jesuits are never mentioned beforehand.", which is why I also added "who came to Japan with Jesuit missionaries" to the first sentence. A change you also reverted.

"2. CNN and Britannica are used on different lines. There was no justification provided for its removal to begin with."

I also can explain that. It was to resolve an issue brought up by multiple editors in the talk page section "Grounds for stating that Yasuke had a servant / servants of his own?" during which they pointed out that the CNN article was apparently the only source mentioning servants but was also not attributing that statement to anyone. BrocadeRiverPoems tried attributing the claim directly to the journalist with this diff which was in my opinion pretty clumsy and seeing that the Britannica article also mentioned servants and was directly attributable to Lockley I made the change which actually offers a justification in the edit sunmmary. Both sources contain the same information presented in the article that needs reference making the Britannica article a better source per WP:HISTRS and WP:TIERS. I have absolutely no problem adding the britannica reference to both sentences if your problem is lack of inline citation.

After a careful reading of WP:DUE I can affirm with some confidence that none of the changes you have reverted with it as a justification actually fall under its premises. WP:UNDUE is only done in contrast with other viewpoints, however, none of the edits introduced or removed viewpoints.

Now, that is the second time you have accused me of being a WP:SPA which is a pretty big misread on my contributions and is very much leaning toward WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSION so I'm going to ask you not to do it again. Yvan Part (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it reads well and I don't think the change you're proposing has direct relation to what you're bringing up (the exact accuracy of the date range). How date ranges are handled in the Yasuke article are generally how they are handled in other articles (WP:2+2=4). If the start and end dates are not completely clear, in my opinion it is fine to qualify it but others may have input on that. Either way, it is easy enough to tweak the language "during the years X and Y"/"for a period between"/etc cetera if you are concerned about exact time ranges.

After a careful reading of WP:DUE I can affirm with some confidence that none of the changes

One of the primary applications of WP:DUE is what goes in the lede, and what goes in the first sentence (notability). MOS:LEAD makes this clear by emphasizing relative weight.

Concerning CNN and Britannica, people being able to check that information comes from a reliable source is essentially what results in a good encyclopedia (WP:V). Having a variety of sources results in a higher quality, more balanced article when a reader wants to check citations. The exception to this would be citation overkill (note: essay), but just one citation or two citations is very far from an excess. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is not the date range of his service to Nobunaga but the general uncertainty of when Yasuke became a samurai during that service. Calculations are not going to help if we don't have a start or end date. And again, it does raise a WP:SYNTH problem to combine two pieces of information to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in WP:RS. You are free to propose changes but nobody has an obligation to do it for you if you have issues with what is currently being discussed.

One of the primary applications of WP:DUE is what goes in the lede

Again, WP:DUE and relative weight only apply when contrasted by other viewpoints, something that is emphasized in every single passage related to it. You cannot give undue weight if no other viewpoints exist in the article. MOS:LEAD does have a passage on notability but WP:MOS is ultimately a guideline which does not take precedence over policies like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, concerns I have mentioned earlier.

Concerning CNN and Britannica

You're not addressing the problems raised about the CNN article. The way it is currently used to support the "house, servants, sword and stipend" passage has a number of issues raised in another talkpage section. You are free to use it in other parts of the article if you think it is better for variety but the concerns raised by other editors that the CNN article in not appropriate for this specific piece of information are legitimate. You are free to argue your point with them directly since I did not actively participate in the debate, merely agreed with the conclusion they came to. Yvan Part (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is not the date range of his service to Nobunaga but the general uncertainty of when Yasuke became a samurai during that service.

I added "approximately" to account for this, but if others think it necessary additional options could be "during the years X and Y"/"for a period between"/etc cetera.

Again, WP:DUE and relative weight only apply when contrasted by other viewpoints

Every line is in every article has weight. Weight is implicit by inclusion; there does not need to be an explicit comparison for Wikipedia's weight policy to apply. This is foundational to how NPOV is evaluated in respect to prominence in reliable sources.

In respect to the lede text, MOS:LEAD makes clear that "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject".

You're not addressing the problems raised about the CNN article. The way it is currently used to support the "house, servants, sword and stipend" passage has a number of issues raised in another talkpage section.

I took a look at the section you linked and do not see any issues highlighted aside from the suggestion that it should be attributed on any unique claims, which is pretty normal. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I added "approximately" to account for this

The discussion grows stale if you do not have additional points to raise and are merely repeating what you have already stated. Unless you can demonstrate that the changes are detrimental to the article, have concrete changes to propose that can be evaluated by the community or look for other venues of dispute resolution, you are so far a single voice of opposition.

Every line is in every article has weight. Weight is implicit by inclusion; there does not need to be an explicit comparison for Wikipedia's weight policy to apply.

I will ask you to point out precisely where that interpretation comes from as I am not understanding WP:DUE this way nor have I seen other opinions toward this interpretation.

In respect to the lede text, MOS:LEAD makes clear that "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject".

Again you are not addressing the concerns about WP:OR or WP:SYNTH which both take precedence over WP:MOS guidelines. I can only throw you back to the first point of this reply about the discussion growing stale.

I took a look at the section you linked and do not see any issues highlighted aside from the suggestion that it should be attributed on any unique claims, which is pretty normal.

Again, those are not unique claims since they are shared by both the britannica and CNN articles. However, the CNN article does not attribute the opinion despite looking like an interview of Thomas Lockley yet attributing the claim to the journalist would be silly when it can be implicitly attributed to Lockley by referencing the britannica article that he pretty much wrote in its entirety.

In fact, if we are to argue that there is no competing opinion about the fact that Yasuke received "a sword, house, stipend and servants", attribution would give the false impression that only the person to whom the statement is attributed holds this opinion.

Another possibility would be to separate the claim of "servants" from "sword, house and stipend", but still pose the problem that attributing the statement to the CNN journalist or to Lockley, based on the CNN article, are improper as a non-specialist attribution in the first case or a pretty big assumption in the second, when attributing directly to Lockley with the britannica article does not raise any issues. I can only ask you to join the section dedicated to this discussion if you wish to further argue this point.

I will also ask you to confirm that you do not have issues concerning the addition of "who came to Japan with Jesuit missionaries" to the first sentence or the changes proposed for the last sentence of the first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph from "There are no further records of his life. There are few historical documents on Yasuke." to "There are no records of his life afterward. Few historical documents on Yasuke exist." (additional changes proposed by Green Caffeine). Yvan Part (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained the problems with you using something unrelated (dates) to attempt to bypass RfC consensus and brute force through lede changes that have nothing to do with dates (removal of the term samurai, removal of wikivoice). You have entirely failed to justify this and the "flow" issue you've originally brought up has already been addressed by interim edits.

One or two editors on the talk page does not constitute any meaningful form of consensus, because most people are not aware that a change was proposed, and because many editors understand WP:CONLEVEL.

Per WP:CONLEVEL Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

The RfC consensus on this is the definition of the latter, as it is a mechanism employed to solicit broader community input from uninvolved editors when talk pages are canvassed. That consensus is that Yasuke being considered a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources, that of which wikivoice is used for.

It would be entirely out of step with MOS:LEAD guidelines and WP:WEIGHT to not mention the most notable thing about Yasuke. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is clear that the first sentence should establish the main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.) and should include noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held.

I will ask you to point out precisely where that interpretation comes from as I am not understanding WP:DUE

This is potentially problematic as it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of core Wikipedia policy. Per WP:V everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable (short of a few exceptions), and as such every line is in every article has weight. Weight is implicit by inclusion; there does not need to be an explicit comparison of two arbitrary views for Wikipedia's weight policy to apply.

Again you are not addressing the concerns about WP:OR or WP:SYNTH which both take precedence over WP:MOS guidelines.

Date ranges and age generally fall under WP:2+2=4. In the event that someone wants to change it to "for a period between X and Y" or another form of phrasing, or simply not mention the range, they are also free to do so.

Again, those are not unique claims since they are shared by both the britannica and CNN articles.

This is not an issue. It can easily be kept as is, or attributed to either of them. You are correct though that this is off-topic. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You are flailing and entirely missing the point of the discussion. The reality is that removing the samurai term does not change the consensus as Yasuke is still presented as a samurai. Frankly, if you can propose a way to keep samurai in the first sentence while also addressing the issues raised here, I honestly don't care where the samurai term goes.

It would be entirely out of step with MOS:LEAD guidelines and WP:WEIGHT to not mention the most notable thing about Yasuke. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is clear that the first sentence

You are still repeating yourself while not addressing issues raised so I will simply send you back to my previous reply.

Date ranges and age generally fall under WP:2+2=4. You seem to be completely misunderstanding the issues raised so I will invite you to take the time to read this whole section from the top though the main issue is entirely presented in the first message by Tinynanorobots.

I will also ask you again to confirm whether you agree or not to the changes proposed in the last paragraph of my last reply. I will consider another lack of reply on this point as a tacit agreement. Yvan Part (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary it seems you are missing the points I am raising, so I will invite you re-read my responses to you again.

I will also ask you to confirm that you do not have issues concerning the addition of "who came to Japan with Jesuit missionaries"

According to MOS:LEAD I don't see a justification for including this in the first sentence. It is already covered in the appropriate section.

or the changes proposed for the last sentence of the first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph "There are no further records of his life. There are few historical documents on Yasuke." to "There are no records of his life afterward. Few historical documents on Yasuke exist."

I think the current version makes more sense. "Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits" could be removed though, or moved to the second paragraph if necessary. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The structure of the lede that you (Yvan) implemented after the above discussion is less redundant and still affirms Yasuke as a samurai. In my opinion it reads better and I voice my preference for it. The only other change I would propose right now is to remove the word "further" from the last sentence. As in, "there are no further records of his life afterward." edit: actually, seems like this last sentence was reverted during symphony regalia's reversion. It should be re-implemented. Green Caffeine (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The main problems with that lede suggestion is that it violates spirit of the RfC which had overwhelming consensus that Yasuke being considered a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources, that of which wikivoice is used for (which WP:NPOV makes clear), and that it violates MOS:LEAD guidelines.

The RfC consensus is quite clear and can be viewed in the archives. The topic Yvan Part has brought up can easily be addressed without the removal of "samurai" or the removal of wikivoice, which appears arbitrary and seems entirely unrelated to what he is talking about.

MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is clear that the first sentence should establish the main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.) and should include noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Having the rank of samurai is not what makes Yasuke notable, but it makes sense to say in the lead that he is possibly the first foreign born samurai.

I have asked you multiple times if the RfC means that there needs to be a minimum number of mentions of the word samurai, and you ignore that. You seem to be acting as the enforcer of the RfC, but you aren’t making it easy. When asking for feedback before making a change, you don’t participate in the discussion. So other editors, such as myself, go through the trouble of discussing a problem, then make a change, and then revert it. Still, after reverting, you ignore the talk page. Only after you revert is reverted do you come here. However, then you just talk about the RfC is vague and exaggerated terms. This implies that you think that our changes are just sneaky attempts to undermine the RfC. What we all would like you to do is tell us how we can improve the lead without violating the spirit of the RfC. Give us concrete suggestions on how we can change, or at least agree that as long as it says in the lead that Yasuke is a samurai, then you will be satisfied. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Having the rank of samurai is not what makes Yasuke notable, but it makes sense to say in the lead that he is possibly the first foreign born samurai.

It is certainly the most notable thing about him judging by its prominence in reliable sources. Also, the majority view in reliable sources does not need qualification ("possibly" would be editorializing).

I have asked you multiple times if the RfC means that there needs to be a minimum number of mentions of the word samurai, and you ignore that.

I responded to this by asking you if you believe there should be a maximum number of mentions, which seems to be the implication. This should be handled by simply following WP:WEIGHT (proportional to prominence in reliable sources) as opposed to trying to enforce in artificial limitations. As of now there is only one mention so this isn't particularly relevant anymore.

What we all would like you to do is tell us how we can improve the lead without violating the spirit of the RfC. Give us concrete suggestions on how we can change

It looks like some of the concerns were that "Afterwords, he was sent back to the Jesuits" is mentioned without the Jesuits being mentioned prior. This has already been addressed though. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If Yasuke was a chugen, he would still be as notable. Lockley himself has said that there was possibly other foreign born samurai before Yasuke, there is just no record of it.

"I responded to this by asking you if you believe there should be a maximum number of mentions, which seems to be the implication."

That makes no sense, especially in context of the changes. It is also really fuzzy how WP:WEIGHT is supposed to work in this instance. I understand the policy on weight to mean that one shouldn’t put fringe positions in the lead. The lead should be viewed as a whole, and there is no need for repetition in it.

I get the impression that you don´t understand what I am mean, but don’t realize that you don’t. Also, you don´t really explain your position, you just name a wikipedia policy and that’s that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I originally replaced CNN with Britannica. I view both sources as essentially being from Lockley. The Britannica source is newer and in many ways more academic. Suggesting another user is a WP:SPA kinda undercuts your claim to assume good faith. Assuming good faith can be difficult, but I think it would help you to understand our points. We have been mostly discussing stylistic changes and exact phrasing. We aren’t trying to go around the RfC, but actually communicate what is said in the most current literature on the topic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe CNN is fine for helping establish weight and improving the verifiability of the article, and because it is one of the two sources that mentions servants. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The CNN article is simply parroting Lockley. Jozuka did no independent research of primary sources to arrive at her conclusions. As such, the CNN article is not useful in evaluating the claims that Yasuke had servants. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Jozuka did no independent research of primary sources to arrive at her conclusions.

This is actually not known (unless you have a source stating this). Any unique claims should be treated as secondary. Though it should be noted that the servant claim is no longer unique.

As such, the CNN article is not useful in evaluating the claims that Yasuke had servants.

I will point out that the purpose of sources is not independent evaluation or to help editors in evaluating claims. Wikipedia simply conveys what is in reliable sources.

The role of tertiary sources is primarily to help establish the weight of claims in secondary sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Jozuka's own self-description on her bio page (https://www.emikojozuka.com/bio) states that she has only "proficient Japanese", as compared to being "fluent in English, French, Spanish, Turkish".

Moreover, the CNN article (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html) doesn't mention Ōta Gyūichi or the Shinchō Kōki, nor Ietada or his diary, anywhere on the page. The closest we get to her mentioning a primary source without attributing it to Lockley is this sentence:

Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records.

This is problematic, as the Jesuit records do not state that Nobunaga made him a samurai, nor do they state that Nobunaga gave Yasuke any servants. See also the #Grounds_for_stating_that_Yasuke_had_a_servant_/_servants_of_his_own? section, where we discuss the servant claim in particular as an apparent misunderstanding of the 1581 letter by Lourenço Mexía.

Other than Jozuka's unattributed claim here, the only other writer I've seen claiming that Yasuke had servants has been Lockley. Given the structure of the rest of Jozuka's article, relying on quoting or paraphrasing Lockley, this mention of servants must be from Lockley as well.

• "The role of tertiary sources is primarily to help establish the weight of claims in secondary sources."

This CNN article fails in this regard: the article is far from scholarly, and in relying so extensively on one author, the article lends no additional weight at all to the claims therein.

If "establish[ing] the weight of claims in secondary sources" is the only reason for including the CNN article as a source, there is zero value gained by citing it. If the article had instead included the claims and views of multiple authors, it might be more worthwhile. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This is your original research. It is not our job to evaluate the truth of what Jozuka says. It is also not our job to conclude if what she says is reliable or not based on a blurb on another website, that may or not be up to date or even written by her, based on your personal interpretation of what the word "proficient" means. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary to look at language proficiencies of the news article author. It's sufficient to note the nature of the source in the context of our article & content. Or to note that the specific claim is not well supported by the sources referenced for it in the news article, and, consequently, that it is likely made in error. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You are assuming that Jozuka did original resource. How does she have time for that? At most, a fact-checker (probably not Jozuka) called up a historian of Japan, or maybe just a historian to double-check if Lockley´s claims are plausible. She certainly didn’t travel to Japan in order to read unpublished documents. I should note that the CNN article is misleading on the topic of Ninjas. Granted, a historian might make the same mistakes, but not one familiar with Iga and the Shinobi there. Or she is being intentionally sensational. The Smithsonian Magazine cites as one source a Japanese site that promotes tourism. Journalists don’t have that much time for a single article, and these sources might be considered churnalism.

Fact checking and evaluating sources isn't OR, especially on the Talk Page, this is what Talk Pages are for. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You are assuming that Jozuka did original resource. How does she have time for that?

She certainly didn’t travel to Japan in order to read unpublished documents.

Journalists don’t have that much time for a single article

This is not for us to speculate. If she makes any original claims, by Wikipedia policy they are to be attributed to her as her research. Similarly, it is not for editors to evaluate the truth (WP:!TRUTHFINDERS) of claims in reliable sources either. WP:WEIGHT (as an indirect function of verifiability) handles this indirectly; claims in multiple sources naturally have more weight. Hypothetical unique claims generally require attribution.

Evaluating material factors to help establish source weight is fine (note: weight does not imply right or wrong), while "This source is wrong because it contradicts my readings of primary sources, or because I know about this topic and believe it is wrong, or because in my opinion the author clearly didn't go to Japan" is not. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Either way, we are speculating. You are speculating that she did do deep research on an article where she gives credit for most of the information to someone else. You don’t seem to have an understanding of how journalism works. I will also like to remind you that WP:OP doesn’t apply to the talk page. Our job here is specifically to evaluate the sources. I am not basing my knowledge on primary sources, but rather secondary ones and the opinions of experts.

from an article on journalism: Just under three-quarters (74%) of journalists say they produce content in addition to online and print, such as newsletters (17%) and podcasts (15%). Half of journalists publish five or more stories per week, with a third publishing eight or more a week [9]https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220315005368/en/Survey-Data-Shows-Journalists-Are-Covering-More-Beats-Two-Thirds-Produce-Content-for-More-Than-One-Medium

A peer reviewed article can take years to write. Historians and journalists are two different professions for a reason, we can’t assume the later do the work of the former. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Either way, we are speculating. You are speculating that she did do deep research on an article where she gives credit for most of the information to someone else.

No, you are speculating by claiming that she did not. I am not making a claim in either direction on this matter, my suggestion is "This is not for us to speculate".

I will also like to remind you that WP:OP doesn’t apply to the talk page. Our job here is specifically to evaluate the sources.

WP:OR does not apply to the contents of talk pages, but one cannot use their own WP:OR to determine article content; that is to say - a reliable source cannot be excluded simply because it contradicts an editor's WP:OR readings of primary sources, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia simply follows what it is in reliable sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

A "reliable source" can be excluded if that is the consensus. For the last time, I am not using primary sources. You can’t just ignore what I write and treat your opinion as consensus. Also, you repeatedly misrepresent both my position and wikipedia policy.

Your policy seems to be that we should assume that news sources are reliable, even when they contradict better sources. Please clarify this, because you keep making statements that seem to be saying something, but then claim you aren’t.

It seems that you want to quote as many different sources as possible in order to create the impression that there are many different sources supporting this view, when they are all citing the same guy. Your argument about weight, actually is a point against it, because it creates the false impression. Treating them as wholly reliable also raises questions, because they mention certain information, that if true, should be in this article.

You keep avoiding discussion and discouraging others from offering sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Your policy seems to be that we should assume that news sources are reliable, even when they contradict better sources

Evaluating reliability has nothing to do with the claims within sources. Sources can and will disagree, and it is not the place for editors to determine what is true and not true, otherwise you are elevating Wikipedia to the role of the arbiter of the truth. Reliability evaluation instead focuses on material factors (example: ...the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable) as well as community consensus on topics like conflicts of interests, and so on. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

How many people are engaged in fact checking at CNN Travel? And yes, it is relevant that it is the travel section, because it is its own department and has its own chief editor and budget. We don’t know how many people looked over the CNN Travel article. It is also not a collaboration, because the byline isn’t shared. You want us to judge a source by a metric that we are incapable of measuring. The WP:RS page is written very generally, because consensus is supposed to decide reliability.

This isn’t about what determining what is true, but what is reliable, and what has weight. You are also contradicting yourself, because you said reliability should be decided on a case by case basis. Now you are saying that we should assume that news sources have a team of experts and lawyers fact checking their puff pieces?

It is also a fair assumption that a journalist didn’t travel anywhere, or do in depth research, because they would tell us in the article. They don’t cite sources in the same way as an academic article, but they put a lot of X says and according to Y, so that you know their sources. Only general knowledge stuff they don’t mention. The potential here is that they could draw on misinformation, especially in this field, as there is a lot of misinformation out there.

Here is a quote from Karl Friday: "Yet, as historians of premodern and early modern Japan are only too painfully aware, popular perceptions of samurai customs, institutions, and behaviors are overwhelmingly dominated by misconceptions, misinformation, and outright fabrications. Some of this stems from deliberate attempts at distortion and the invention of tradition, such as the efforts by pundits in the Meiji, Taishō, and early Shōwa eras to manufacture an ostensibly ancient bushidō (Way of the Warrior) code and marshal it in the service of nationalism. But far more of it is a product of the relative paucity— especially in Western languages—of books for general readers by qualifed historians."

As you can see, according to Friday, there aren’t many good books on Samurai history, a contrast to the idea that there are plenty of sources about Yasuke. The main issue is the large amount of misinformation out there, and it is difficult for a journalist (or anyone) to shift through it all.

You aren't really making a convincing case with regard to what wikipedia policy is. The various essays on best sources etc. indicate that there is more leeway for editors and that we should be wary of the potential of mistakes made by reliable sources.

It seems that you are trying to artificially bolster the case that Lockley´s position is the majority. In reality, it is the only published position, and if another position was published tomorrow, news sources would not be useful in determining weight.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have to speculate on CNN's fact checking and editorial apparatus, as CNN has been affirmed by community consensus to be reliable time and time again (WP:RSPCNN).

It seems that you are trying to artificially bolster the case that Lockley´s position is the majority

I haven't mentioned Lockley at all in the context of this discussion. You have multiple times though, which does suggest that your motivation with this may be to discredit or diminish him, because you perhaps do not like that his work has been picked up by a number of reliable publications.

Such a thing would fall under POV pushing and is at odds with building an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As an example of journalists not checking their sources, the Time article cites History of Yesterday as a source, treating it as equal with other sources. However, it contains major errors. It calls Valignano an explorer, making it seem like he discovered Japan and claims Yasuke was either abandoned or escaped. Mentions Lockley´s book, so how he got different ideas than Lockley is interesting. Perhaps he speed read the book? https://historyofyesterday.com/how-an-african-slave-became-a-samurai/

The other source cited, Kintaro Publishing is worse. It appears to be AI generated and contains "facts" like Yasuke recieving a fief. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

As an example of journalists not checking their sources, the Time article cites History of Yesterday as a source, treating it as equal with other sources. However, it contains major errors. It calls Valignano an explorer, making it seem like he discovered Japan and claims Yasuke was either abandoned or escaped.

These are not errors (errors in the sense of source evaluation are generally mechanical in an overwhelmingly obvious way, and/or anything acknowledged by a given editorial department in the addendum). These are differences in analysis. Any given source can say what it wants to say.

As mentioned above, Wikipedia is not for editors to evaluate the truth (WP:!TRUTHFINDERS) of claims in sources. WP:WEIGHT (as an indirect function of verifiability) handles this indirectly; claims in multiple sources naturally have more weight. Hypothetical unique claims generally require attribution. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

As previously (and extensively) discussed, an article in CNN Travel is not a high quality source in this context.

That we seem reliant on travel sections of modern news websites to establish WP:WEIGHT for aspects of a historical person speaks strongly to the paucity of sourcing on this article's topic. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The section it is in makes no difference. Per WP:RS:

In general, the most reliable sources are:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

CNN is a major news publication and is a reliable source [10]. In terms of providing tertiary weight, it is a textbook example as it means the secondary claims in them have passed 3rd party fact checking and editorial muster.

That we seem reliant on travel sections of modern news websites to establish WP:WEIGHT for aspects of a historical person speaks strongly to the paucity of sourcing on this article's topic

This is a mischaracterization. It just one adjacent claim in particular, and a major reliable news publication providing tertiary coverage of something does not speak to paucity, it actually suggests the opposite. In any case this is probably off-topic for here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS is a nice guideline in general. It is quite good in describing generally applicable processes for determining reliable sources; and, in that sense, the list of "most reliable sources" is generally applicable; not always applicable.

WP:RS, at WP:RSCONTEXT, does, however, countenance that the specific nature of the source in both the context of the nature of the article and the specific content for which a source is intended to be used is important in determining reliability. It's guidance in that section is that Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Additional guidance in the context of historical claims might be found in WP:HISTRS (essay), WP:BESTSOURCES (@WP:NPOV) and WP:SOURCETYPES (@WP:RS).

It is perfectly in keeping with WP:RS for us to examine a given source and determine that, while it might be generally reliable, it is not reliable in the context of specific article content; or that it does not contribute significant weight in the context of specific article content.

It is also perfectly in keeping with WP:RS for us to examine a given source and determine that its claims are inaccurate; and therefore that it is not reliable in the context of those claims. (Note: I have done this for major newspapers when they have clearly erroneously transcribed audio recordings. We simply did not include content based on those transcriptions.)

It is not in keeping with WP:RS for us to simply parrot a claim because it appears in a major news publication, without considering the context; if news publications are not the best sources in that context, and where the claim is poorly founded.

And, it means the secondary claims in them have passed 3rd party fact checking and editorial muster, seems wishful, at best.

Summary: "But it's generally reliable (per WP:RS/WP:RSP)" is not a good response to concerns about reliability in a specific context. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSCONTEXT is applicable here as it is in all situations, and I agree that it is good practice. "This is wrong because it contradicts my conclusions after reading primary source material" or "This is wrong because the author described herself as 'proficient' which I deem as not proficient enough" are not valid reasons to dismiss a reliable source though. Unless a reliable source has contextually done something severe enough to warrant an outright dismissal (dishonesty, conflict of interest), it is generally best to let WP:WEIGHT do its thing on a claim by claim basis. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what WP:WEIGHT doing its thing means here. I also think that your standard is too high. Basically, you are asking us to assume every source is flawless and not to investigate them, until that author is fired?

I think using CNN to determine weight is wrong. It creates weight based on newscoverage and not towards actual academic opinions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Mainstream news organizations are categorically among "the most reliable sources" as pointed out by Wikipedia WP:RS policy. Academic sourcing is generally preferred if available (and there is plenty of that within the article), however not every source need be, particularly for tertiary sources, that of which per WP:PSTS are a necessary component of a balanced article. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

News organizations are reliable for news. This is what Context means. There is no requirement that we use the news here. The academic sources are better, and we don´t need extra sources. The RS page aslo lists Encyclopedia as tertiary, however, since it is written by Lockley, this article is secondary. You are the only one who wants to use those sources, and for a bad reason, to inflate the WEIGHT.

This is a something to be decided by consensus, something that you have falsely claimed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you quantify the difference between news and "not news"? Is investigative journalism news? If a journalist collaborates with a professor to write a long form exposé on a person is that news? Is it news only if it happened recently? What if an article about something is picked up again 30 years later? Is it news or history? Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What is important here is the different methods of work. The NYT calls itself the "first draft of history" and that is one difference. A lot of journalism involves interviewing persons and in some cases witnessing events first hand. Journalists also cover a lot of different topics, especially on a travel beat. Whereas historians specialize. Historians spend a lot of time studying one subject and also speculate more (at least it is more acceptable for historians to speculate). The output of historians is a lot more in depth and less often, and that is reusing material. They are more concerned about getting their facts straight than about getting the scoop. Granted, both professions can fall into sensationalism, but with historians that usually falls under popular history.

A 30-year-old article on something might be used as a primary source by a historian, if that is what you are asking.

I am sorry I didn’t answer all your questions, they seem hypothetical, but don’t contain the relative information to decide if they were news or not. I am also not the arbitrator of news. It is probably more relevant to ask what is history. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is information is information and there is no true property of information that makes it "the news" or "not the news", so "News organizations are reliable for news... but not for things that are not news" isn't a statement that makes sense especially in the context of building an encyclopedia. The primary source sightings of Yasuke were news. Statements within scholarship could be considered news, in that it is sometimes the publishing of new assertions of fact based on observations of reality ("reporting").

There is no basis for the blanket exclusion of all "news" from certain topics. Such a proposal would be dystopian and logically incoherent.

When academic sourcing is preferred, that doesn't mean that the information itself is fundamentally different in terms of any categorical delimitation of objective reality, it means that the methodology is such experts are more likely to be involved. That is true, but it does not equate to blanket bans on other forms of reliable sourcing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Re It is perfectly in keeping with WP:RS for us to examine a given source and determine that, while it might be generally reliable, it is not reliable in the context of specific article content; or that it does not contribute significant weight in the context of specific article content. I agree. However, if you conclude that a generally reliable source (like Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, or CNN) is unreliable regarding a specific article's content, that conclusion must be based on other, more reliable secondary sources. Free-floating talk page discussions among WP editors are not a sufficient basis for discarding these sources. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that prove Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, or CNN wrong in this instance? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe I made the mistake in my last few comments of falling into the reliable/unreliable dichotomy that I was actually warning against. News sources are generally reliable, but other sources are more reliable. The argument for removing the sources was replacing them with better sources. The argument for keeping the sources was WP:WEIGHT. Which didn’t make sense. The news articles don’t add weight, because they are based on the same research and same expert. Also, 4 sources say x and 1 says y, therefore x is the majority opinion isn’t how WEIGHT works.

That said, there are specific problems with those sources that have already been mentioned. I haven’t gone too much into depth on the problems because Symphony Regalia has said that it is against policy to judge the quality of a source with how it’s statements align with current scholarship.

added: Of the three, the CNN article is the worst. It claims right away as fact that Nobunaga believed Yasuke to be a god. This is contradicts was Lockley wrote, that Nobunaga was atheist. However, if one skimmed Lockley´s book, one might get this false impression. CNN has other problems too, but they are more difficult to prove false. The Smithsonian is the best of the three. It relies mostly on Lockley, but two other historians were consulted. The main problem with Time is that it links to very unreliable sources. All three promote Lockley´s theories that are questionable, and seem to come only from him, although Smithsonian doesn´t mention the black Buddhas. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, use by other sources increases the reliability of a source, and the importance of a viewpoint per WP:DUEWEIGHT also depends on the number of sources supporting or reporting it. I agree that we should avoid WP:OVERCITE, but here we are talking about two sources out of four. You claim that they are "questionable sources", but if I'm not mistaken, you don't question the content they support - you just think they are too many, right? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct, I think there is too many. I don’t think that the statement that Yasuke was returned to the Jesuits needs any inline citations in the lead. In fact, because the primary source is quoted in the article and is unambiguous on this point, we could probably get away only with the inline citation for the primary source.

My understanding of WEIGHT is not that it is determined by inline citations, rather by consensus building through discussion. That CNN considers Lockley an authority on Yasuke, is an argument towards considering that Lockley is an authority on Yasuke. This isn’t changed by whether CNN is cited as a source or not. I am also clueless to what the implications regarding the article would be from the supposed change in weight. Really, we should use the best sources, and not one that contains errors in order to increase variety. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you claim that Smithsonian magazine and TIME contain errors, and what errors you are talking about, but perhaps it doesn't matter: I agree that avoiding WP:OVERCITE is a serious editorial concern. However, removing sources that have not been proven wrong is rarely advisable: some readers may be interested in the better quality academic sources, while others may prefer to rely on NEWSORGs, provided they have not been proven wrong by other better quality sources. If that's not the case, I'd be inclined to leave Smithsonian magazine, TIME, CNN, BBC, etc. in the article, but perhaps we could agree on one small change. Since many readers are interested in the "samurai question", we can use a couple of citation bundles - the first with academic sources, the second with NEWSORGs. Once we've cited TIME, CNN, BBC, etc., we don't need to cite them again if a particular piece of content can be supported by better sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure why putting it in a bundle counts as a compromise. Best practice is to use the best sources. In this context, news organizations are not the best sources. Rotary Engine made a good case by referring to WP:HISTRS (essay), WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES. I do not think that Symphony Regalia has read these, because WP:HISTRS addresses what a historian is.

Additionally, Wikipedia:NEWSORG discusses specifically the limits of news organizations. Noting both the concept of human-interest reporting and churalism. Doesn’t an article in the travel section count as human interest reporting? I am not sure if the three articles count as churalism, but are very close, essentially repeating Lockley´s scholarship. Since an article that copies a press release should be treated the same as said press release, I think that the articles should be treated ultimately as sources on the expert opinions of the experts quoted. This means as far as the articles are sources of Lockley´s scholarship, they are superseded by the Britannica article, which is newer and expresses Lockley´s scholarship in a much more reserved and scholarly way.

I don’t think the articles really deal with the "samurai question." The closest they come to it is when Lockley says “Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai” or when the Smithsonian article says "In 16th-century Japan, the title of samurai spoke to rank and was loosely defined as a warrior in the service of a lord or another warrior." Neither really tell the reader much, and Lockley´s quote has been justly criticized on this talk page. I don’t think he is wrong, but rather he expresses himself poorly in that quote. Really, the Britannica article is in every way better.

If we treated the news article as equal in weight, then we would be giving undue weight to Lockley´s other conclusions than on the question of if Yasuke was a samurai. Like the black buddha theory or pretty much everything Lockley says about Yasuke´s life prior to his serving Nobunaga, or being Nobunaga´s buddy. Those all appear to be minority opinions among scholars. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Tricks or Good Manners?

The article says that Yasuke preformed tricks. I have noticed other sources say that he had good manners or temperament. Is it possible there is a translation error? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oka Mihoko points out that existing published translation is in error and that she would translate the relevant passage as "very powerful in strength and talented." (非常に力があり、資質に優れている) [11][12] _dk (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There's almost certainly translation errors for a number of aspects. I'm currently looking at the various descriptions of Yasuke's meeting with Nobunaga and seeing examples of this.

e.g. Frois, in his letter dated 14 April 1581, uses the words "estranha festa" (strange party) to describe Yasuke disrobing to prove that his skin colour was natural. Solier renders this as "grand feste" (great feast), and begins to separate the words from the disrobing. Lockley in Tsunagu Sekai Shi 2 has 盛大な宴。(grand banquet); in Britannica, more simply, "a banquet", and in "African Samurai" has around 12 pages (e-book) describing the party, conversations & actions of the participants.

The key divergence appears to be in the translation from Frois' Portuguese to Solier's French.

For completeness: Lopez-Vera in both Toyotomi Hideyoshi y Los Europeos and History of the Samurai, and Ota Gyuichi in both the standard & Sonkeikaku Bunko (SBV) versions of the Shincho Koki do not include mention of a party or banquet.

The "good manners or temperament", I recall also being potentially better translated as "in good health", which is how Lopez-Vera's THyLE renders it: "aparencia sana"; sourcing this to Ota Gyuichi's Shincho Koki. The equivalent section in Elisonas & Lamers' translation of that work is rendered as "looked robust and had a good demeanor". The SBV version in Japanese has 彼男器量すくやかにて, (good looks, fine appearance) but Kaneko's book indicates that 器量 is an SBV unique addition; so the other versions would have 彼男すくやかにて, which is more in line with "healthy appearance". And that, in line with comments of Oka, mentioned above, seems a far better translation than alternatives which emphasise beauty or temperament.

I will try to find similar translation chains for the tricks. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I found another source that mentions Yasuke. It approaches the subject from the viewpoint of Jesuits and race. They believe he arrived as a slave and translate the "estranha festa" as a strange celebration. The author, Liam Matthew Brockley, specializes in Portuguese and religious history. [13]https://www.google.de/books/edition/Jesuits_and_Race/RlfSEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jesuits+japan+armed+attendants&pg=PA82&printsec=frontcover Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What Oka Mihoko refered to is in this dictionary:

[14]https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Vocabulario_portuguez_e_latino/H-NBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

check on page 293 for expression "boas manhas" which Oka claims this expression to be "very talented" or "had multiple talents"

but this is not proven to be correct translation though, the original manuscript says in portuguese "tinha muitas forcas & algumas manhas boas" and the traditional Japanese translation has been treated the word "manhas" as more like "tricks" or "skills" hence Japanese word "芸".

It seems Oka's claim is to understand the word "manha" as "manner or talent" instead of something of physical techniques.

if it were mean of "good talents" or "good manner(demeanor)" would the writer put the word "algumas";"some" in English equivalent, to count that noun. not to mention that "boas manhas" seem to be 2-word-expression like "fine-manners" or "fine-skills" in that dictionary and the original manuscript is "(algumas) manhas boas". problem is that these 3 words are pretty general and are to be used daily: algumas = some or several, boas = good or fine, manha = skills or manners

so possible literal translation would be

1: "some good skills" or "some skills that were good"

2: "several good manners"

3: "some level of good-manners"

if anyone is familiar with ancient portuguese, please share your thoughts.

• my opnion on Oka's claim:

very strange, Oka's claim is in decisive tone, clearly stating that she found "mis-translation" on her X post, as you can see in the above 2 references.

and, in the latter reference of X, the user of X questions her, is the word "manha" derived from the latin word "manus"? so that manha should be treated as "manners" instead of "skills". and Oka replies she does not know or she is not sure because she is not an expert of Lain or Romance derived languages.

now check it out on the dictionary Oka posted, her decisive claim is based on page 293 and just 1 page before that (in page 292), there is the description of the word "manha" , remember that "boas manhas" is the expression rather than the single word. so the dictionary first states meaning of the word itself and then shows the example-use and expressions related.

the very first line of manha , it clearly says that

Manha: parece que le(?) deriva do latim Manus → it seems that it derives from Latin (word) "Manus"

and yet Oka does not know this, why?

she did not even check what manha as word means, and claimed that the existing translation to be wrong? KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the meaning of the Latin root is important. I don’t think that counts as ancient Portuguese, it is probably considered early modern- A lot of people make statements in decisive tone, especially on twitter. That dictionary might be too new, and really it would be best to have an expert translate it. The context seems manners, because apparently that was important to the Japanese at the time and is remarked upon by Europeans visiting. Also, from the context, it isn’t clear what skills Yasuke had and would have been seen. However, I don’t know any Portuguese. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no record for content of "algumas manhas boas" which Yasuke had;

what skills Yasuke might have shown or what some-good-manners he was evaluated for.

it is just ,

"He(Yasuke) had A and B , (because of these) Nobunaga liked him ～"

A : clearly is "a lot of physical strength"

B : some (a few 'if counting' or middle degree of 'if not counting'), manhas (skills or manners ?), boas(good, fine)

you can see the translation and manuscript of this section here:

Talk:Yasuke/Archive 2#The Tono Notation

Because of the way manuscript continues, Japanese translation has been

"he was very strong and he could do a few tricks", of course done by the expert at the time,

Oka claimed that this is mistranslation and should be "had multiple good talents" without careful investigation of the very source she refered to.

There is no record of describing Yasuke's character like "good manner or demeanor", which Lockley kept insisting. Other possible expression "器量也" is also thought to be related to his healthy physical appearance. so this "algumas manhas boas" is almost the only key remains un-known, whether manhas might mean skills, manners, or characteristics one might have like calm or smart.

If anyone can show the Italian version of this section that would be helpful because someone said that this Portuguese version is rewritten due to the accident and Italian version remains original though it might not be perfectly equivalent. I am still curious what expression that it used for this part.

I see that this dictionary might not be good to refer, while I cannot find anything better. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is difficult if one is translating old-fashioned Portuguese to Japanese and then to English. "Could do a few tricks" and "is talented" are phrases that could mean the same thing, but have different connotations. If Oka was talking on twitter, then it was probably in the context of the reaction to assassin´s creed. Without getting into a discussion on AC, a lot of the characterizations of Yasuke were based on a poor understanding of the historical context and were poorly phrased. If experts were responding to these poorly phrased statements and questions, that might explain their poor answers. In this case, if people were saying that Yasuke was a pet, then him doing tricks sounds to support that, in a way that him being talented does not.

I think we should less worry about what people say on twitter (it is where people put their worse foot forward) and think about the correct translation for the wikipedia article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If you dislike the existing translation of "tricks", maybe use "skills" or "performances" it would not twist (much) the meaning of the original text of Portuguese.

Even Oka's dictionary does not suggest the words like "talent, one's future potentials, or demeanor" in the entry of "manha". I can only assume that manha eventually gained the meaning of "manner" because someone with skill is thought to have learnt "manha", hence a person who has manha is like trained-person or skilled-person but not in modern sense of respectful behavior like demeanor instantly.

That dictionary seems to show straight conncections to the obvious "skill" or "ability" rather than invisible characteristics.

Here are some excerpt from page 292-293;

"com manha" : with ability

From "boas manhas" : "dancing, leaping, and all the oher good-manhas" which is inclined to the specific skills or performances.

Note that the other expression

"ma manhas" has "bad habits" as its meaning and this is the closest it gets to the modern sense of "manner" perhaps

check it out yourselves. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Weapon-bearer

Does anyone know about this weapon bearer thing? This is Yasuke´s only explicitly named duty as a samurai. I haven’t been able to find out any information on this position. Literature I found about different bearers lists them as Monomachi, but none are called weapon-bearer. There are spear-bearers, and if weapons here means defensive weapons, there is also a helmet-bearer. Some sources refer to Yasuke as a sword-bearer, which seems to have been the job of a page. I think this is more important than if he is a samurai, because a samurai is such a wide category, and some authors claim it applies to people Chogen etc. However, weapon bearer is an explicit job. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The "weapon-bearer" to my understanding comes from an interpretation of a primary source (carried out by an already included secondary source?) of the sentence in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke#cite_note-34

Is it monomachi or monomochi as in 物持ち? The position of weapon-bearer would be dougumochi as in here: https://kotobank.jp/word/%E9%81%93%E5%85%B7%E6%8C%81-580033 SmallMender (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

(Wading back in...)

There is a primary-source quotation from the Sonkeikaku version of the Shinchō Kōki that modern authors have apparently used as grounds for calling Yasuke "weapon-bearer", even though the source text itself doesn't use the specific title 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi). The primary-source text was discussed earlier here: Talk:Yasuke/Archive_4#c-Eirikr-20240725001500-J2UDY7r00CRjH-20240722082300.

@SmallMender, #cite_note_34 doesn't seem to exist as an anchor on the page. If you mean the cite note currently visibly numbered 34, that's the Yahoo! Japan article 【戦国こぼれ話】織田信長が登用した黒人武将・弥助とは、いったい何者なのか. This contains various problems, such as this bit:

信長は弥助を武士として身辺に置き、将来的には城持ちにまで引き立てようとしたという。
Nobunaga kept Yasuke nearby as a bushi [warrior], and was apparently going to promote him in the future to castle-owner.

This is an apparent misunderstanding / misattribution of an episode related in Lourenço Mexía's letter, as excerpted and translated earlier here: Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-Eirikr-20240524224800-X0n10ox-20240524024300. In that letter, Mexía described the gossip around town, that Nobunaga might make Yasuke a tono. But again, this was gossip from around town -- not anything that Mexía attributed to Nobunaga himself.

However, I don't see any other instances of 持ち in the Yahoo! Japan article, nor of the word 道具...? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it seems like the sources were moved around. I should've used a permanent link. The source I had in mind is this one:

Kaneko, Hiraku (2009). 織田信長という歴史 － 「信長記」の彼方へ [The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the Shinchōki] (in Japanese). Iwanami Shoten. p. 311. ISBN 978-4-585-05420-7.

It is currently used as an in-line citation for the quote from Shinchō Kōki of the Sonkeikaku Bunko (尊経閣文庫). SmallMender (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@SmallMender — ah, yes, in that case, please review my earlier post here (now archived) regarding the specific wording, particularly note 4. In a nutshell: Ōta himself would have known the title 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi, "tool/weapon-bearer"), so his decision to instead describe Yasuke using roundabout wording (「依時御道具なともたされられ候」 / "sometimes he was allowed to / was made to hold/carry the [master's] tools and other items") tells us that Yasuke did not have the "weapon-bearer" title.

As an alternative perspective, since this is apparently the text that appears only in the Sonkeikaku version, and this was possibly added by Ōta Gyūichi's fourth-generation descendant Ōta Yazaemon Kazuhiro (per Professor Kaneko's book), this wording could be understood as an even stronger indication that Yasuke was not acting in any official "weapon-bearer" capacity. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If Kaneko is specifically saying the text about Yasuke is possibly added later, that should be put in the article. Do you know if dōgu-mochi is generic, or if it has connotations of a specific weapon. It seems some think it means sword and others think it means spear. Some of the few sources I found on google books are about castle towns. Unfortunately, they only allow snippets, so I can’t say what they say about the role, but maybe it is a position for daimyos, or just another name for a spear carrier. One of the few sources I found with the term uses it to describe Yasuke, calling him a porter of Nobunaga´s straight headed yari spear as well as a shikan samurai. https://www.google.de/books/edition/Samurai_Road/0jvJDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=d%C5%8Dgu-mochi&pg=PT197&printsec=frontcover Despite the few secondary sources on Yasuke, there seems some disagreement about him. It shows how much is interpretation and how it is communicated with confidence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

御道具　　　　When saying "item" politely

なと　　　　　etc.

もたさせられ　be made to have

候　　　　　　A word used to politely end a sentence

He was sometimes assigned the responsibility of carrying tools by Nobunaga or his close aides.

When talking about what tools are, weapons are most likely.

However, Nobunaga did not always fight.

He would ride around the territory on horseback, practice martial arts, and sometimes hold tea ceremonies with his acquaintances.

Just before the Honnoji Incident, Nobunaga entered the temple with several dozen of his close associates, carrying 38 tea ceremony utensils (tea bowls, tea whisks, etc.).

He then invites several celebrities as guests and holds a tea ceremony using the tools.

A tea ceremony cannot be held with just tools. Tea leaves and sweets are also needed. All of these are considered tools.

Money, clothes, and other daily necessities are also tools.

This goes without saying, but they probably transported it in a box or something.

Yasuke was said to be a strong man, so he would have been ideal for carrying heavy loads.

I think we can only imagine what they were carrying.

It must not be dropped and broken.

It's true that Yasuke had earned at least that level of trust.

Honestly, there may not be much point in thinking about this. Tanukisann (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I had forgotten.

In the early Edo period, special roles like this were given to certain samurai.

Yaribugyo, the person in charge of carrying the spears and swords used by the master.

Flag magistrate, in charge of showing the enemy and ally that the master is here.

Usually, in historical dramas, it is the page who holds the sword or spear near the master.

However, in times of war, this role was taken over by a samurai who had received special orders.

But as the world returned to peace, this role was soon abolished.

This is about the Tokugawa family, so it may not apply to the Oda family. Tanukisann (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I have read that Yaribugyo is the commander of spears. Ceremonial spear-carriers seem to have been common for persons of rank. When Captain Saris went from Hirado with Adams to meet the Shogun, a spear bearer was provided to carry the captain’s pike "as was the custom." https://archive.org/details/captainjvoyageof00saririch/page/120/mode/2up?q=pike

A black spear bearer is also seen in the Nanban byōbu in the article.

I was under the assumption that dōgu meant weapon in the context. I have read that the Japanese placed a lot of value on etiquette and ceremony. Specific things had specific people to carry them. It would be strange if the same person carried both Nobunaga´s sword and his tea set, especially since he had so many servants, but also because he would have his swords with him all the time, and probably one of his spear-bearers would be also around.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Kaneko doesn't say it definitively. Really, it's more of the same that Yuichi Goza states. Kaneko says that the possibility cannot be discounted that the reference to Yasuke was taken from the Ietada Diary, but also says that because the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript also includes a lot details of Yasuke's private life versus his public life, noting 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 which I translated as However, it would be difficult to simply disregard all of the above as creations added in the process of transcription. and that 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。 and my translation In particular, the account at the beginning of the fifth volume, which describes a deer hunt on February 13, is more a record of Nobunaga's private activities rather than his outwardly public ones.

Realistically Kaneko is saying that some of the accounts of more minute details of Nobunaga's life that are only present in the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript, but aren't in other manuscripts, are likely true because they deal with Nobunaga's private affairs rather than stuff that was widely publicly known. I doubt he intended this sentiment to extend to the Yasuke claim, but my doubts are irrelevant to what goes in the Wikipedia article. That said, if you wanna throw in that Kaneko believes it possible the account was added later on (or at the very least, says it isn't something that can be ruled out), go forth and do it. You can find the quotes from the Kaneko book above. Brocade River Poems 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems to follow the pattern from academic sources I have read. The scholar will point out potential problems with a primary source, but then say why they say it is still useful. I believe Goza made a YouTube video where he goes in depth about Yasuke. He deserves credit for talking to the public the same way he would talk to scholars, but it is easy to misunderstand if you aren’t used to experts expressing doubts. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is one of my sources: Warfare in Japan[15] There are other sources that list the followers of a mounted samurai that are similar. Neither a sword bearer nor an equipment bearer is listed among them. Interestingly, the author puts "allows" in quotes suggesting perhaps that saying X was allowed to carrier his master's Y, might have been a typical phrasing. https://www.google.de/books/edition/An_Unabridged_Japanese_English_Dictionar/4WwuAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=d%C5%8Dgu-mochi&pg=PA177&printsec=frontcover This Dictionary says Dogumochi means Yarimochi. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I may just be misunderstanding what you are trying to use the source to suggest but from what I can tell reading the source it is referring to the Edo period rather than Sengoku Jidai. I think this is an important distinction given the context of the very rigid hierarchy established by the Bakufu reforms of the Tokugawa being discussed and how the text makes explicit mention of them when distinguishing the types of retainers. Furthermore it is stated on page 128 that "As 'bearers' (monomochi) their duty was faithfully to carry on to the battlefield and protect the objects assigned to them." Though the text on page 127 makes note of what a retinue was allowed to consist of, those reforms were from the later period, and it is explicitly stated in the context of individual cavalry soldiers rather than in the circumstances of a Diamyo or a higher ranking Samurai. In this light, it is possible that the Sakai house's cavalry under the reform were only permitted to have a spear bearer - rather than this being applicable to higher ranks as well. Though I am ignorant of the full details, it was a substantial part of the reforms of the Hideyoshi and early Tokugawa to regulate who could use certain weapons. Relm (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Yasuke Samurai Status

Should the article represent Yasuke's samurai status as debated? Brocade River Poems 02:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think as long as the origin of dispute is clearly identified, then it is sufficient. I think currently there is a lack of clarity on whether Lockley was referring to 'some people (historians)' or just 'some people (general populace)' in the Britannica article. I think any dispute should center around the authenticity of the manuscript since this is the only identifiable dispute brought forward by Kaneko and Goza, with Yu and Lockley both affirming that if the manuscript is authentic then Yasuke was some form of a 'samurai' by some unclear definition of the term.

e.g. instead of "...though this status is in dispute." I think it is currently more reflective of the criticisms levied to say that "Historians such as Yu and Lockley have used the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga Diary to suggest Yasuke met the definition of Samurai for x y and z reasons, though some historians (Goza and Kaneko) have urged caution in regards to accepting the authenticity of the manuscript passage for x y and z reasons."

I think the former would just spiral into more arguments, while the latter is helpful for readers and reflects the current academic discussion that is ongoing. Relm (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

My vote is for Yes and I like the phrasing presented here by Relm, though it could probably be made a little shorter/more succinct. SmallMender (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be different from the intention of this RfC. Attributing opinions concerning a hypothetical about a particular passage is entirely different from depicting Yasuke's samurai status as disputed. Even the people who presented the hypothetical have not really disputed Yasuke's samurai status (Goza concedes he may have been).

And neither of them have definitely said that they believe that passage is or isn't authentic. It is probably acceptable to mention it somewhere down in the article body, but I don't think that was the intention of this RfC. In terms of Yasuke's samurai status, Wikipedia's job is to abide by reliable sources, and per the reliable sources it is overwhemingly clear that Yasuke being considered samurai is the overwhelming majority view in them. In the recent RfC on this it was made apparent that not a single source argues that Yasuke was not a samurai, and this is still the case now. As such, it would fall under WP:FALSEBALANCE to depict it as disputed. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Should the article represent Yasuke's samurai status as debated?

Yes, there are sufficient sources to demonstrate doubt.

No, there are not sufficient sources to demonstrate doubt.

New information has been found and published since the previous RfC, including Thomas Lockley's encyclopedia Britannica article, which demonstrates no clear academic consensus exists on the subject. Brocade River Poems 02:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Yes, Lockley himself has stated there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a samurai: 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. See Talk:Yasuke/Archive 4#Lockley's latest work for the Japanese quote and source. At the time of the finding of this quote there was debate as to the possibility of the debate referring to laymen, with historians actually being in agreement that Yasuke was a samurai. However, Yūichi Goza has since doubted that Yasuke can be certainly referred to as a samurai (although he does not say that he isn't a Samurai): 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." (emphasis added) See Talk:Yasuke/Archive 4#New Japanese source(s) for more discussion of this source. We have one of the main proponent of Ysauke being a samurai saying that there is debate, and a historian saying that we should be cautious in saying that Yasuke was a samurai. These two statements should be enough to change the article to at the very least mention directly that according to some historians there is not enough evidence to definitively state that Yasuke was a samurai. Considering how few historians have published any research on Yasuke, and the fact that most historians have not used the term 'samurai,' the lede should be changed to reflect this uncertainty. This addresses the main deciding point from the previous RfC: 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. Since the sources above were not discussed at the time of the RfC (one was not known and the other not yet published), that RfC documents outdated consensus and should be revised in light of new information. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No. Since the conclusion of the previous RfC[16] (which was recent, I might add) there has been essentially no published reliable sourcing that claims that Yasuke was not a samurai. The Smithsonian Time BBC Britannica CNN Vera's academic work Lockley's academic work Atkin's academic work Several academic reviews of the above All of the above reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. There isn't a single RS that says he wasn't. Lockley's Britannica article also says "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded 'samurai' of foreign birth" while explicitly choosing not to attribute any disagreements to reliable sources. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to depict something as contested when it is the majority view in reliable sources. Since the conclusion of the most recent RfC there has been some new opinions offered, mainly: Yu Hirayama (says that Yasuke was a samurai) Yuichi Goza (does not have an opinion in either direction and concedes that he may have been) Mihoko Oka (says that Yasuke was a samurai) Yu Hirayama was self-published, but his professional opinion does qualify as a RS per WP:EXPERTSPS. Yuichi Goza's opinion was published in an interview with a conservative news website, and Mihoko Oka's opinion is a combination of self-published and published. Notably, Goza never claims that Yasuke wasn't a samurai. He just says he wasn't the type of samurai mythologized in pop culture that was in a bunch of battles and such. Which is something we already knew and wasn't in dispute. As such, even among new sources there isn't a single one that claims that Yasuke was not a samurai. The newer sources are not very high quality, and there is not enough of them to depict this as disputed even if they all contended with the claim that he is a samurai, which they do not. If we do include them though the total becomes: Claims that Yasuke was a samurai The Smithsonian Time BBC Britannica CNN Vera's academic work Lockley's academic work Atkin's academic work Several academic reviews of the above Yu Hirayama Mihoko Oka Says it is possible, but not in the way depicted in video games Yuichi Goza Claims that Yasuke was not a samurai (None) Per WP:NPOV: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Two questions. 1) As a tertiary source, why should Britannica's more general overview matter in comparison to the academic sources we already have? 2) Where in the Britannica does it state as such? There appears to be conversation up above about it referring to Yasuke being made a vassal. But that doesn't say anything one way or another on the samurai question. So you can't use it to prove a negative. In short, what exactly do we have that's new references on the question from after the last RfC, outside of quotes from Japanese media interviews? Which are minor sources in comparison to actual published scholarship, even if the person being interviewed is a historian. Silverseren^C 02:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Britannica states Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people in its lead, which clearly indicates that someone disputes it. It also states the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think, which presently cannot be represented in the article as the prior RfC declares that the usage of samurai is to be authoritative in Wikivoice. The phrasing "historians think" is not a definitive conclusion.

  As for Japanese media interviews, per reliable source guidelines, Yuichi Goza as a Subject Expert Matter shouldn't just be ignored. But, even if we ignore Yuichi Goza, the primary evidence of Yasuke's status as a Samurai is derived from the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript. Hiraku Kaneko's book, which is presently cited in the article, contains a statement by Kaneko that it cannot be discounted that the information about Yasuke was added to the manuscript after the fact during the transcription process, and it is also notable that the information about Yasuke is not included in any of the other versions of the Nobunaga Koki, which, again, cannot be represented due to the prior RfC.

  The actual published scholarship amounts to a book by Lopez-Vera saying that Yasuke was a samurai. While a good quality source from an Academic Press, Lopez-Vera cites to the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript for the information about Yasuke, the same information which Hiraku Kaneko maintains in his book might have been added in the transcription process. Lockley's Britannica article says that the status of samurai has been disputed by some people, Yuichi Goza, a Japanese historian, has interviewed in the media and expressed doubt, and Hiraku Kaneko has expressed doubt in his book over the validity of the passage that is the very foundation of the claim.

  It just seems appropriate to the enyclopedia that this should be represented. Brocade River Poems 03:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  What's interesting is that none of the references you noted are actually ones who dispute the statement. They just state things like "it cannot be discounted" in terms of additional possibilities, but the authors themselves don't actually directly state in their position that they dispute it. Even Goza just points out the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript without taking a position directly. So, who are the ones actually "disputing" it that we would be referring to? Because it's none of those you mentioned. This instead sounds like general scientific jargon of "well, it could also be this", but without anyone actually advocating for those alternative possibilities. Silverseren^C 03:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  >Even Goza just points out the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript without taking a position directly.

  Goza specifically stated that 'we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a "black samurai."' How do you take that statement? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Him not actually taking a position on it. He's not saying that Yasuke wasn't a samurai, just that how the sources are used should be done cautiously. But Goza himself isn't staking the stance that Yasuke wasn't one. Hedging a stance is definitively not disputing it. Silverseren^C 03:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think the question is, should we as wikipedia also hedge it. There is evidence that the majority opinion among scholars is that the definition of samurai in the relevant period was vague, and therefore it isn´t worth arguing about if an individual like Yasuke was a samurai. Some scholars lean towards using bushi instead of samurai. Vera even says in his book that bushi is the proper term, but that he will use them interchangeably.

  This lists the views of several scholars on Yasuke, the term samurai, and Lockley´s book. https://groups.google.com/g/pmjs/c/mrXyZacOqdY?pli=1 I don´t see any of them claiming that Yasuke being a samurai as an indisputable fact. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  This basically ends up with the same questional adage brought up in the previous RfC repeatedly. Even with the new sources you're discussing, is there literally a single one taking a definitive stance stating that Yasuke wasn't a samurai? If no, then we're literally in the exact same position as the last time this was discussed. If it is so disputed that Yasuke was/wasn't a samurai, then why isn't there a single academic-related source that is arguing directly that he wasn't one? Goza saying he wasn't what pop culture envisions as a samurai and that the technical samurai class system wasn't invented until later (something we're all very aware of and is already pointed out by many other sources) isn't an actual dispute against the many sources saying Yasuke was a samurai and a lord's vassal during the Sengoku era. Silverseren^C 03:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  >He's not saying that Yasuke wasn't a samurai

  >is there literally a single one taking a definitive stance stating that Yasuke wasn't a samurai

  >why isn't there a single academic-related source that is arguing directly that he wasn't one?

  This RfC is not whether we should state that Yasuke was not a samurai. It is whether to "represent Yasuke's samurai status as debated." Stating unambiguously that Yasuke was a samurai is contested by the above sources, without any of them saying that Yasuke was definitively not a samurai. To give an example, imagine 1/2 of historians said the moon landing happened, and another half said there is not enough evidence to determine if the moon landing happened. That event would then be contested, and the lede should not read "the moon landing is an event that took place in [...]" without mentioning that half of the historians disagreed that such a statement be made unambiguously. Perhaps the RfC should be worded more carefully, although based on the literal meaning of the proposition in the RfC and previous discussions on this talk page I think this meaning was clear.

  >Goza saying he wasn't what pop culture envisions as a samurai and that the technical samurai class system wasn't invented until later

  Where does Goza say this in reference to the "we should be cautious" statement? This seems like synth. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  But Goza himself isn't staking the stance that Yasuke wasn't one, actually, he does. In his interview he says that he doesn't believe Yasuke was the legendary samurai that Westerners make him out to be and that it is his belief that Yasuke was a bodyguard and entertainer to Nobunaga. Regardless, though, the problem with the current RfC is that the foundational basis for Yasuke being called a samurai by other scholars has been called into question. The RfC ruling that says Yasuke should be represented as a samurai authoritatively in Wikivoice is being used presently to bludgeon any attempt to represent that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript's authenticity has been questioned, to stop any attempt from removing redundancy from the article lead, and as justification for not representing a source for what it actually says (in the case of the Lockley Brittanica). Moreover, that none of the references you noted are actually ones who dispute the statement. I don't need to, the source itself vis-a-vis Lockley's Britannica article states in the lead that it is contended. There is no onus on me to hunt down and verify every individual whom the Encyclopedia Britannica might be referring to in this instance, as Wikipeida's job is only to represent what the Reliable Sources say. The Encyclopedia Britannica by Lockley has been deemed reliable. Just as the argument has been made that a source must definitively state Yasuke was not a samurai, I propose, then, that it should be undertaken to find a source that definitively states that it is not disputed, because the Enyclopedia Britannica definitively states that it is. Otherwise, this is WP:Cherrypicking to use the Britannica to support the statement that Yasuke is a samurai while ignoring that the Britannica says it is disputed.

  All of the high quality academic sources (that is to say, the single book by Lopez-Vera) that represent Yasuke as a Samurai draw their conclusion from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga Koki, based on a passage that two Japanese historians, one being Hiraku Kaneko (in the same book which is used to quote the Sonkeikaku Bunko passage in the very article) have called into question the authenticity of the passage.

  Which, again, we presently cannot even mention that Hiraku Kaneko expressed doubts about the authenticity of the passage regarding Yasuke through a strict interpretation of the RfC. Brocade River Poems 04:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  1. Not all reliable sources that represent Yasuke as a samurai draw their conclusions that from passage in isolation.

  2. The passage is not disputed. Rather, a hypothetical has been entertained, but no historian has definitely declared there is anything wrong with the passage, or even presented an actual concrete argument stating as much.

  3. This is a fallacy, as it does not follow that Yasuke was not a samurai regardless. Some experts may have already considered that hypothetical. Though to avoid speculation the only way for this matter in Wikipedia terms would be if experts updated their assessments of Yasuke's samurai status, which they have not.

  as Wikipeida's job is only to represent what the Reliable Sources say

  And the Reliable Sources in totality, even when factoring in new ones, are such that it is very clear that Yasuke being a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources.

  It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to depict something as contested when it is the majority view in reliable sources.

  It is also worth noting that the RfC did not decide Wikipedia's longstanding WP:NPOV policy on this. I imagine that such policy was added precisely for situations like these.

  WP:FALSEBALANCE is quite relevant here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  If the question is, what is the majority view among experts, then we should count experts, not articles. Let us look at your sources:

  • The Smithsonian: this cites a couple of experts: Prof Okuyama doesn’t say that Yasuke is a samurai, and doesn’t appear to be a historian. Doan has studied samurai, but isn’t quoted saying samurai. Then of course there is Lockley.
  • Time: Lockely
  • BBC: This describes Laurence Winkler as a historian, whereas his website describes him as a "physician, traveler, and natural philosopher" He did write a book, Samurai Road though. Serge Bile is a journalist and author, and wrote a book about Yasuke. Not a specialist on Samurai or Japan though. Also Lockley is cited.
  • Britannica: Lockley
  • CNN: Lockley
  • Vera's academic work: Vera
  • Lockley's academic work: Lockley
  • Atkin's academic work Atkin

  Total count: So that is 3-5 experts, depending on your standards for who qualifies as an expert. It is also important to note, that the article can’t say that something is academic consensus without a source that says explicitly that it is a consensus. I don’t think majority opinion is determined by counting sources. There isn’t a yearly poll of the opinions of experts on academic questions. Yasuke is more notable as a pop culture figure than as a historical one and there isn´t much scholarship on him. There is also consensus on what a samurai is. It seems to be acceptable among expert to call a lot of people samurai, even if it isn’t sure if they were considered samurai at the time. Especially, because in English Bushi and perhaps other Japanese words are translated as samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think it rather funny that you bring up WP:FALSEBALANCE when you cannot even reliably demonstrate that Yasuke being a samurai is commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are a plethora of sources which do not refer to Yasuke as a samurai, and a single academic book by Lopez-Vera and a handful of tertiary sources that do say Yasuke is a samurai. Even allowing for the argument that the sources don't explicitly say Yasuke wasn't a samurai, you are still left with a single academic source that says unequivocally that he obtained the status of samurai as Lopez-Vera does. You are making it out to be that there is an overwhelming amount of scholarship that says Yasuke is a samurai, so much so that representing any doubt to the fact expressed by the sources is apparently undue weight when that absolutely isn't even remotely close to being the case.

  a hypothetical has been entertained, but no historian has definitely declared there is anything wrong with the passage, or even presented an actual concrete argument stating as much.

  Yes, they have. Kaneko and Goza have both stated that it cannot be stated unequivocally that the statement about Yasuke wasn't added during the transcription process and that the passage only exists in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the manuscript. If there are 13 manuscripts of a Primary Sources, and only 1 of the manuscripts of the Primary source contains a pasage of information, and the historians studying the passage say they cannot guarantee it is authentic, that is a red flag and it should be represented in the article. Lopez-Vera, the only academically published book involved in saying Yasuke is a samurai, explicitly points to the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript and the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript alone. It is not unreasonable or undue in Wikipedia policies to represent that the authenticity of the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript has been called into question. Brocade River Poems 22:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  You are attempting to pivot from Reliable Sources, the standard that Wikipedia uses, because it is clear that the Reliable Sources do not support your POV. The job of Wikipedia is only to represent what reliable sources say. WP:FALSEBALANCE is very relevant here.

  At the time of the last RfC we had:

  • The Smithsonian
  • Time
  • BBC
  • Britannica
  • CNN
  • Vera's academic work
  • Lockley's academic work
  • Atkin's academic work
  • Several academic reviews of the above

  All of the above reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. There isn't a single RS that says he wasn't.

  This is still the case now, and in fact

  As of now:

  Claims that Yasuke was a samurai

  • The Smithsonian
  • Time
  • BBC
  • Britannica
  • CNN
  • Vera's academic work
  • Lockley's academic work
  • Atkin's academic work
  • Several academic reviews of the above
  • Yu Hirayama
  • Mihoko Oka

  Says it is possible, but not in the way depicted in video games

  • Yuichi Goza

  Claims that Yasuke was not a samurai

  • (None)

  There is still not a single RS making the argument that Yasuke was not a samurai.

  Kaneko and Goza have both stated that it cannot be stated unequivocally that the statement about Yasuke wasn't added during the transcription process

  In other words, they are not making the argument that it was added. They are simply entertaining a hypothetical. While it can be cited in itself, it is unclear language that cannot be used to draw arbitrary conclusions about other things on the behalf of editors (otherwise you are engaging in WP:OR), because they themselves are not disputing it, and because the experts above have not updated their assessment of Yasuke's samurai. As mentioned, not all reliable sources that represent Yasuke as a samurai draw their conclusions that from passage in isolation, and even for those that do they might outright disagree. If and only if the experts do update their assessment of Yasuke's samurai status, does said hypothetical become relevant to Yasuke's status.

  Wikipedia OR policy is very clear about this.

  This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

  Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Lockley uses the term "some people", choosing to not refer to them as historians. He makes clear that among experts there is a clear consensus that Yasuke was a samurai.

  "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded 'samurai' of foreign birth".

  This is Lockley stating that he does not believe there is a debate among the people who matter for Wikipedia's V and NPOV purposes (experts).

  "Some people" is unattributed, and could very well refer to the internet fringe angry over a video game. The only thing we know is that it is not historians. It's also worth noting that this comment amounts to tertiary opinion on the behalf of Lockley, which isn't enough to say that something is contested (Wikipedia policy usage is very different from plain English). To determine if it is actually contested by Wikipedia's standards one should look at current reliable sources, and when doing so it is abundantly clear that Yasuke being a samurai is the majority view in them, which has not changed. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is Lockley stating that he does not believe there is a debate among the people who matter Is WP:OR, you cannot testify to the decision or mental thought processes of why an author used what wording. Stating commonly held by Japanese historians speaks only to Japanese historians, meanwhile, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people the notation that it has been disputed by some people is attached to the statement about historians, not separated from it, and does not speak in any particular way to the expert nature of the people. It is an ambiguous statement which cannot be determined to definitively say "Lockley says they're not experts". Perhaps some people refers to historians who are not Japanese. Without a heavy dose of WP:OR by way of any analysis...that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources you cannot speak to the nature of the individuals who are disputing it. Brocade River Poems 04:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  I can state that Lockley explicitly choose to use the term "some people" for disagreements, choosing to not refer to them as historians, while explicitly attributing "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded 'samurai' of foreign birth" to historians, because that's what he did. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds like a double standard on your part. If I try to analyse what sources are saying, then you accuse me of WP:OR and say that we can’t question them. I am inclined to believe that Lockley means non experts, but we can’t rule out other meanings. It is ambiguous. If it is people whose opinions don’t matter, then why does Lockley include it? It could also be unintentional. Often topics are just described as disputed, without qualifying who. In fact, Lockley said so in his Peer reviewed article (he should have cited a source, so if anyone has access to the article it would be a good place to check.) Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, "some people say" is classic MOS:WEASEL - it presents the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. And since Lockley didn't identify or give attribution to who these "people" are, we have no way to assess the source of the POV that it is "disputed". And this - you cannot speak to the nature of the individuals who are disputing it - makes the point that these "people" are not identified or given attribution, so it's just plain WEASEL. In other words, we can't give any WEIGHT to these "people" and their POV about it being "disputed", because we don't even know who the hell they are. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn’t apply to sources. A lot of the sources that are used for this article would not be considered very good, by wikipedia policy. I think the question here, is can we put in the article that Lockley says that it is disputed. I am not sure that we should put it in, but we can, because that is what Lockley said. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Mr. Goza does not say that he was a samurai, only that if the story that ``Yasuke gave him a sword, etc. is true, it can be assumed that he was a samurai.

  Lockley uses expressions such as ``generally believed but does not specify who is generally thinking. Japanese people and Japanese history experts generally do not think so.

  It's simple. I don't know even if I look it up because I don't have the materials. No one is investigating.

  Who was arguing about Yasuke?

  I think if you're saying that Lockley is "debatable," you can write it that way. No one in Japan actually discusses this, and only non-Japanese people believe that he is a samurai.

  So, while someone who wants to write it as samurai might write it as such on the English version of Wikipedia, it would never be written that way on the Japanese version.

  There is a debate about whether Yaske was a samurai in the Japanese version as well, but I think it will probably be written as ``We don't know whether Yaske was a bushi or a samurai because there are no documents.

  The Encyclopedia Britannica says that he was given servants, so some people want to write about that.

  That's understandable, but is it reliable information?

  Can you verify the source of information? What did you use as a reference?

  If the content reported by many media outlets such as Britannica, CNN, TIME, etc. is based on Rockley's claims rather than having been verified by multiple experts, then they are not reliable sources of information. , its contents belong to Rockley.

  Very little has been written about Yasuke.

  There are very few primary sources.

  The Shinchō Kōki（信長公記） is a sort of heroic tale about Oda Nobunaga, and strictly speaking is a secondary source.

  Britannica and Wikipedia are tertiary sources.

  Why is something written in tertiary sources that is not written in secondary sources? Tanukisann (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to add one thing.

  In the Japanese version of Wikipedia, I wrote that there is a debate as to whether Yasuke is a samurai or not.

  Those who claim that Yasuke was a samurai say that there are the following reasons.

  "Those who believe Yasuke was a samurai have plenty of evidence, including Britannica, TIME, CNN, the BBC, Lockley's paper, and many others. Those who do not believe he was a samurai do not provide evidence."

  I don't know why, but there's a similar text a little higher up.

  They get rejected, and then a little while later, they try to make the same claim again, and they keep repeating the process.

  It's strange, isn't it? Tanukisann (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  I am guessing there is a language problem causing some unclarity. However, there are Japanese people who talk about this, specifically Japanese historians. A large part of the argument that Yasuke is a samurai is that few people were called samurai back then. It was usually used to refer to a group. Also, the meaning of samurai and possibly bushi are vague. A lot of famous figures are called samurai without evidence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, we can not say in the article that Lockley says that it is disputed, because he did not say that in the Britannica source, he said "some people", which makes it weasel. If we are going to say in the article that his status as a samurai is debated, then we have to give attribution to who is making the opposing argument against his status as a samurai. And then we must decide if we should give WEIGHT to that opposing argument, based on the prominence of that viewpoint in published reliable sources. If it's a minority viewpoint, then UNDUE needs to be considered as well, in contrast to what the majority viewpoint is. WP:FALSEBALANCE says unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  In his peer review article, he says disputed. We can quote Lockley. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn't apply to what the sources say. If the Reliable Source represents that something is disputed, there is no less reason to take it at face value than there is to take a source at face value for any other claim it makes.

  Numerous academic books will contain some variation of the phrase "but others disagree" without delving into who the others are, it is an acknowledgement that a theory or argument being made is not a universally accepted one. I have become involved in another dispute on Wikipedia over the origins of Neith, whether Egyptian or Libyan, and all of the sources that discuss Neith as Libyan do not identify the originator of the theory nor the opponents of the theory but tend instead to say something along the lines of "some historians believe that Neith is of Libyan origin, but other Egyptologists note there is no concrete evidence". Neither the originator of the theory nor the opponents are identified by name and, yet, the dispute very much exists. The Brittanica article states that Yasuke as a samurai is commonly believed by Japanese historians, and yet, it doesn't list specific Japanese historians that believe this and nor has anyone presented any academic publication in Japanese that definitively says that Japanese historians say this, but it has been deemed acceptable for use in the article to support Yasuke's status as a samurai. Since the Encyclopedia article says it is disputed, we cannot just cherrypick the supporting evidence and ignore the statement that it is disputed.

  Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another.

  Other editors have mentioned that guidelines also state Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view but, frankly, what majority view? There is one academically published secondary source that the article uses and a handful of tertiary sources, several of which are based on a book thats reliability is dubious (Thomas Lockley's book), and an Enyclopedia Article by Thomas Lockley which self-admits that the claim is disputed. We have a Japanese historian in an interview who has disagreed with claim as well as Hiraku Kaneko's doubt that the passage in the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript, on which Lopez-Vera basis his statement of Yasuke being a Samurai, is authentic. It's hardly a minority view worth exclusion when two Japanese historians have expressed doubt about the authenticity of the foundational text used by the Spanish historian to make the assertion, one of whom, Hiraku Kaneko, is an expert in the time period employed by the highly esteemed University of Tokyo Historiographical Institute. The man who in quite many senses of the word wrote the book on Oda Nobunaga expressed doubts all the way back in 2009 when his book was published that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript was completely authentic. It is a minority view which is worth inclusion because it allows the readers of the encyclopedia to draw their own conclusions.

  Also, the top of the page which contains MOS:WEASEL states: The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources

  Likewise, the guidelines found in the helpful essay WP:PRESERVEBIAS There is no policy that dictates that we cannot document, use, and include "non-neutral" sources, opinions, or facts in an article body or its lead. In fact, we must do this. A lack of such content may be an indication that editors have exercised whitewashing and censorship. It is a serious violation of NPOV to use censorship and whitewashing to remove any non-neutral opinions, facts, biases, or sources. Our job is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

  While it is true that Editors must be honest and guard against consciously or unconsciously framing material in a manner that misrepresents its original meaning or presents it with a slant or point of view not found in the source. Such misrepresentation may occur by painting a rosier picture, using sophistry, manipulation, or logical fallacies, appealing to emotion, or using propaganda techniques, spin, or weasel words.

  That applies to writing the encyclopedia, not the content of the sources. See WP:ACCORDINGTO which says Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. As I said, Lockley's Brittanica Article has already been deemed reliable. The Yasuke article on the Encyclopedia Brittanica is a tertiary source,

  Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other

  Per Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If it's written in a book, it must be true!"

  The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. Tertiary sources may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea. Brocade River Poems 21:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  >Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view but, frankly, what majority view?

  Another point worth mentioning here is that "majority view" is less relevant when the sample size is so small. From WP:NPOV:

  >If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

  There are no reference texts involved in this dispute as there is very little research done on it, which itself is another reason not to state one viewpoint as fact over another. It makes sense to speak of a majority view when there are multiple in depth sources about a topic. Citing passing mentions from Vera and Atkins who do not explain their view at all should not be considered the same majority view as, for example, the majority view about the causes of major wars which have been studied in depth by thousands of scholars. A 3 vs 1 majority is not the same as a 100 vs 3 majority. In any case, a 1/4 minority view is still rather large and should easily qualify as a significant minority. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)