Talk:List of foreign-born samurai in Japan

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000516/http://www.i-repository.net/contents/asia-u/0000000002646.pdf to http://www.i-repository.net/contents/asia-u/0000000002646.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304000516/http://www.i-repository.net/contents/asia-u/0000000002646.pdf to http://www.i-repository.net/contents/asia-u/0000000002646.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• William adams bronze ito city.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yasuke wasn't a samurai

It's possible he could have been but there aren't any informations confirming this.

Indeed, he should be listed among those potentially samurai, since nothing is certain. Eccekevin (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

no information means he wasn't foreign samurai, obviously 31.40.131.100 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

that's not how that works. you can't russel's teapot this. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"Russel's teapot" is a terrible argument against God's existence anyways, so i really don't expect those historical revisionists to not use bad faith arguments to deny Yasuke's status as a samurai (which he was) 2804:29B8:509E:616D:48D5:E5C8:34C7:37C6 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Japanese wikipedia disagrees.

https://ja.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:%E6%B5%B7%E5%A4%96%E5%87%BA%E8%BA%AB%E3%81%AE%E6%AD%A6%E5%A3%AB

Ergo he should be put back on the list.158.222.128.86 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Copy-pasting from my other reply at Talk:Yasuke#Section_break:

The page at ja:Category:海外出身の武士 does not list Yasuke as a samurai.

That page is for the category titled 海外出身の武士 (kaigai shusshin no bushi). Note the use of the word 武士 (bushi). In Japanese, this does not mean "samurai" (a specific hereditary class of caste in the social system of Edo-era Japan), and instead means "warrior" (put simply, a non-hereditary job in the social system of Edo-era Japan).

Not all "samurai" were "warriors", and not all "warriors" were "samurai". These were disparate, partially-overlapping categories.

See also the discussion threads at Talk:Samurai#Separate_section_needed_for_claimed_foreign_samurai and Talk:Yasuke#Request_for_comment_on_samurai_terminology. The former includes useful tables breaking down some of the differences between the "samurai" and "warrior" categories.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the list says, it's not evidence. Wikipedia, as you are well-aware, can be edited by anyone. If I go to that list and add Abraham Lincoln to it, it doesn't make Lincoln a samurai. This is a bad standard.

If you think the Japanese wikipedia is a good authority for information, perhaps you should read the page for the man in question:

https://ja.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E5%BC%A5%E5%8A%A9

One of the sources for the information is a letter from a priest, father Luis Frois, which happens to be the chief source of information about Yasuke. Frois was an eye-witness to the events and reported what happened in a letter he wrote 5 months after Nobunaga's death. The source in the wikipedia linked at source number 49 describes what happened to Yasuke after Nobunaga's death.

You can read it here yourself, without any proxies:

https://purl.pt/15229/4/

If you read that, let's recap what happened:

Yasuke walked to the prince's house armed with a katana, which he handed over to a servant of Akechi Mitsuhide. The latter said he should be spared because he was basically an animal, he had no understanding of any of the current events and should reside with the priests in India.

If Yasuke were a samurai, he would first understand what as being said, he would not hand over his sword and/or he would have followed the bushido code. He would not be quiet while being treated as an inferior and might probably be fully equipped.

Nothing about Yasuke's action or the Japanese, or what father Frois wrote give any hint of Yasuke being more than a servant or slave. In the letter it's actually implicit he belonged to Nobunaga as a gift from the priest who brought him. Nobunaga wanted Yasuke and the priest gave him to Nobunaga.

If you didn't read the document, because I don't think you read it, I will transcribe and translate for you. Because I can read it and I can translate it myself.

Here is the original in 16th century Portuguese:

Page 127

Carta do padre Luis Froes ſobre a morte de Nobunánga, pera o muito Reuerendo, padre Geral da Cópanhia de IESVS, de Cochinocçú, aos cinco de Nouẽbro de 1582.

Page 136

Temiamos mais porque hum cafre que o padre Viſitador deixou a Nobunanga polo deſejar, depois de Nobunanga ſer morto ſe foi a caſa do principe, & ali eſteue pelejando hũ grande pedaço: hum criado de Aquechí ſe chegou a elle, & lhe pedio a cataná, que não tiueſſe medo elle lha entregou, & o outro foi perguntar a Aquechi, que faria do cafre, reſpondeo: eſſe cafre he beſtial, que não ſabe nada, nem he Iapão, não no matem, la o depoſitem na igreja dos padres da India, polo qual nos começamos aquietar algũa couſa (...)

Here is the same text brought into modern Portuguese syntax and style:

Page 127

Carta do padre Luis Froes sobre a morte de Nobunaga, para o muito Reverendo padre Geral da Companhia de JESUS, de Cochinchina, aos cinco de Novembro de 1582.

Page 136

Temíamos mais porque um cafre que o padre visitador deixou a Nobunaga por o desejar, depois de Nobunaga ser morto se foi à casa do príncipe, e ali esteve pelejando um grande pedaço: um criado de Akechi se chegou a ele, e lhe pediu a cataná, que não tivesse medo. Ele a entregou, e o outro foi perguntar a Akechi o que faria do cafre, ao que ele respondeu: "Esse cafre é bestial, que não sabe nada, e nem é japonês. Não o matem, o depositem na igreja dos padres da Índia", pelo qual nos começamos aquietar alguma coisa (...)

And here is the English translation:

Page 127

Letter from father Luis Froes about the death of Nobunaga, to the very venerable father general of the JESUS Company, from Cochinchina, on the fifth of November, 1582.

Page 136

We were most afraid because a kaffir that the visiting father left to Nobunaga for wanting him, after Nobugana's death went to the house of the prince, and there a great argument had issued: a servant of Akechi approached him and asked him to hand over his katana, and be not afraid. He handed it over, and the other asked Akechi what to do about the kaffir, to which he answered: "This kaffir is bestial, doesn't know anything, and is not even Japanese. Do not kill him, send him to the priests' church in India", after which we started to calm down a little (...)

Notice how they call Yasuke by the slur "kaffir", in Portuguese, "cafre", which means a man from "Cafraria", a very large portion of the south of the African continent. The name comes from the Arabic word for "infidel", and the Portuguese imported into their lexicon to mean Africans who were not Muslims.

When the priest says that the visiting priest "left him" to Nobunaga, it implies property. Like a thing. In Portuguese, if you leave a person with another person, you would use a different combination of word, roughly equivalent to "leave him [with / along with] Nobunaga", while this describes Yasuke "[with/under care of/under possession] of Nobunaga". That's the treatment Portuguese gave to slaves. Froes saw Yasuke as a slave and so did the Japanese.

It's fun to entertain the idea of a black samurai, but Yasuke was not a samurai. Wishful thinking doesn't describe reality. Unfortunately, this man was a slave and nothing is known of his destiny after taht day described in the letter. Gianmariot2 (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

In the Yasuke article, you'll find (now in footnote 2) a list of academic sources describing Yasuke as a samurai. Footnote 3 lists news organizations that also do this. One of them, the New York Times [1], quotes a Japanese historian stating, "there’s no doubt that he was a ‘samurai’". In fact, all reliable sources available today describe him as a samurai, and none deny this. Some scholars argue that the fact that Yasuke was given a sword, a stipend and a house is a clear indicator that he was a samurai. Per policy (WP:PRIMARY) we must prioritize secondary sources over primary sources – historians are better equipped to interpret primary sources than we are. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

using wikipedia as a source? ok do you have a source beyond that? THAT'S not how it works. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a disingenious examination of the Japanese language being used in the Japanese Wikipedia. For starters, 武士 states that "Bushi" in modern Japanese is used essentially interchangeably with Wikt:侍 Moreover, if you go to ja:海外出身の武士の一覧 You can see in the article that they write "日本の武家の一員となった人物を列記する". With "日本の武家" being "Nihon no Buke". The special emphasis here being on the "武家", which is defined here Wikt: 武家 as specifically "Samurai", "Samurai Family", "Samurai Class". The full sentence of "日本の武家の一員となった人物を列記する" can be read "those who became members of the Japanese samurai class". I do not think this is a good-faith argument. For additional evidence, you can even look the Kanji on a Kanji dictionary and see that buke is defined as Samurai. If the list on the Japanese wikipedia was truly not intending to convey "Samurai" with "Bushi", they likely would not have referred in-article as members who became Japanese buke. You should just as well argue that the Wikipedia page for "Knight" isn't referring to Knights because it doesn't use "cniht". Bushi, in modern common Japanese understanding, is used interchangably with Samurai. And much the same way that "cniht" redirects to knight, Wikipedia redirects Bushi to Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Other posters have already laid out some of the clearer differences between bushi and samurai. This thread in particular might be useful to reference. The tables given there describe the social structure during the Edo period, later than Yasuke's time, but still relevant as they show how bushi and samurai were not entirely synonymous terms.

That said, let's take a step back.

The only case we have historically for Yasuke fighting at all, which is a core part of what either bushi or samurai were expected to do at this point in history, was during the Honnō-ji Incident and its immediate aftermath. Notably, the Honnō-ji incident was an ambush, not a planned battle, so Yasuke fighting here is not necessarily indicative of any official role he might have had: he was simply there, and part of the group being attacked.

As such, it is not clear that we even have grounds for calling Yasuke a bushi, in the stricter sense of "someone who engages in military activities as a livelihood".

Looking again at the ja:海外出身の武士の一覧 page, their "Definition" section also appears to rule out Yasuke's inclusion:

定義

海外出身とは、武士が活躍した平安時代から江戸時代にかけて日本国の勢力が及んでいた日本列島の外で生まれた人物を指すこととする。

武士の定義については諸説あり、また時代によって定義は変わってくるが、本項では以下のように取り扱う。

• 武家の家臣となり、士分の扱いを受けた人物。士分の制度が確立されていない江戸時代以前の場合、戦に参戦するなど武人として仕えながら、知行・扶持米を与えられるなどのちの士分と同様の待遇を受けていた人物。
• 武家の役職（リストで挙げられているものとしては旗本、小姓がある）に就いた人物。

Definitions

"Born overseas" in this context refers to someone born outside of the Japanese archipelago that was under the nation of Japan, during the period when bushi were active from the Heian period through to the Edo period.

Regarding the definition of bushi, there are many different views, and the definition changes depending on the era, but in this article, the term is treated as follows.

• Someone who has become a retainer in a buke household, and who is treated as part of the military caste. For cases prior to the Edo period when the military caste was established, someone who has served as a warrior such as by fighting in battles, while also receiving benefits/treatment equivalent to the military caste of later years, such as a fief or stipend.
• Someone who has been appointed to an official position in a buke household (examples in the list include Hatamoto and Koshō).

Yasuke was clearly born overseas, no question there.

As far as bushi-ness is concerned, this was prior to the Edo period, so we must ask if he received benefits or treatment equivalent to the military caste of later years. He received no fief, so we can rule that out. While he was paid a stipend, it is unclear to me if this amount was equivalent to what an Edo-period military caste member would have received. One standard mentioned in the Talk:Samurai#Separate_section_needed_for_claimed_foreign_samurai thread mentions 150 koku, or enough rice to feed 150 people for a year. I would be surprised if Yasuke were paid that generously, but this certainly bears looking into. The Japanese Wikipedia page about Yasuke, at ja:弥助, does mention him receiving a stipend, but parenthetically comments that to call it "food": 「扶持（食べ物）を与えられ」 ("was granted a stipend (food)..."). This is sourced to this 2009 work, which I unfortunately do not have access to: https://books.google.com/books?id=LmRwQgAACAAJ (no preview available at Google Books).

Alternatively, we must ask if Yasuke were appointed to a relevant official position. He was not Hatamoto, but he is described by some as being appointed as a koshō or Page (servant). At present, I see that our Yasuke page relies on two references for this, the HuffPost Japan article at https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/yasuke_jp_609347f7e4b09cce6c26a9b2, and the Waraku Web article at https://intojapanwaraku.com/rock/culture-rock/28746/.

• The HuffPost Japan article doesn't include the word koshō anywhere, so we can ignore this.
• The Waraku Web article specifically states that Nobunaga appointed Yasuke as koshō on page three, in the https://intojapanwaraku.com/rock/culture-rock/28746/3/#toc-4 section.

However, the article gives no sources, so we cannot evaluate where they came by this information. For all we can tell, this might be a fiction invented by the article author.

Moreover, the writing appears to rely in various places on inference and dramatic supposition: "信長が小姓の一人として、弥助に信頼を置いていたことがうかがえるのではないだろうか。 / It really seems like it must be the case that it looks like Nobunaga put his trust in Yasuke as one of his pages."

The Japanese Wikipedia article about Yasuke does not include the word 小姓 (koshō, "page") anywhere, nor does the ja:海外出身の武士の一覧 page listing foreign-born bushi. The Shinchō Kōki text that I've seen describes him as 依時御道具なともたさせられ候 ("sometimes he was allowed to carry [Nobunaga's] tools and other items..."), with no mention of any specific title.

Unless we can find clear historical textual evidence that Yasuke was granted a specific rank like koshō, it appears that calling him koshō is an inference and not an attested fact. By the definitions on the ja:海外出身の武士の一覧 page, it might not be correct to even list him as a bushi, let alone as having the hereditary nobility social status of samurai. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The difference are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not written in old language, with old understanding. Your contention is that the Japanese Wikipedia page is not saying "a list of foreign Samurai" but rather "a list of foreign Bushi", it is a difference without distinction in modern Japanese.

Your argument about "by their definition he's not applicable" is also wrong, the translation provided by you here reads:

"For cases prior to the Edo period when the military caste was established, someone who has served as a warrior such as by fighting in battles, while also receiving benefits/treatment equivalent to the military caste of later years, such as a fief or stipend."

Yasuke "SUCH AS A FIEF OR STIPEND". Yasuke is documented as having served as a warrior, and he also received Fuchi from Nobunaga. And again, you are choosing to translate the "道具" in "依時御道具なともたさせられ候" as "tools", when the own website you used to link to the definition of "道具" provides it the meaning of a Samurai's Spear or other armanents Prior to the 17th Century.

Again, Yasuke was in attendance with Nobunaga when all of Nobunaga's ordinary soldiers were dismissed. But this is besides the point, I am not here to argue with you more about your extremely contrarian view of established scholarly practice and history. Rather, the contention at hand in this discussion is the fact that you are deliberately misinterperting the Japanese wiki's intention by saying they refer to "Bushi" not "Samurai", when from the Meiji Period onwards, Bushi is synonymous with Samurai. Saying the Japanese don't list him as "foreign Samurai" but rather "Foreign Bushi" is engaging in pointless pedantic exercises because in the modern usage the two words are one in the same. Even the dictionary you frequently quote, Kotobank, lists Bushi and Samurai as synonymous. X0n10ox (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, in your statement regarding 「扶持（食べ物）を与えられ」, you have again conveniently snippped what you wished to snip and then disingeniously translated it. The full sentence being 「には、この黒人・弥助が住処（部屋）と扶持（食べ物）を与えられ、道具持ちをしていたという記述があるという」 which means "Yasuke is a black man who was given a place to live and a stipend, who worked as a weapon bearer". You can even see here that the Japanese understanding was that 戦国時代の『道具持ち』＝『槍持ち』ですか. As the answer given to that question by the native Japanese expert was 「そのとおりです。武士の表道具は槍ですから」. "That is correct. The main tool of the Samurai was the spear". X0n10ox (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The actual source text of the Shinchō Kōki says 道具なともたさせられ (dōgu nato motasaserare). Note that なと (nato): spelled in modern texts as など (nado) with the dakuten, meaning something like "et cetera, and so forth, and others". This doesn't describe a title as in the secondary sources that use the term 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi), and is instead a description as part of a verbal phrase, "he was allowed to / made to carry [Nobunaga's] dōgu and other things" (setting aside how to translate 道具 dōgu). Taking from this that Yasuke must have had the title of dōgu-mochi or "weapon-bearer" is itself an inference. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, please don't ascribe motive to my actions, as in your claim that I "conveniently snippped what you wished to snip and then disingeniously translated it." My point with that quote was relevant to the stipend that was the topic of discussion, the dōgu part of the source was not irrelevant and thus would not have made sense to include. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Yasuke is documented as having served as a warrior,"

Where is this documented?

Serious question.

We know from primary documents that Yasuke fought at the Honnō-ji Incident. This is not "serving as a warrior", this is "being on the receiving end of an ambush and fighting for one's life".

I've already responded elsewhere about 道具.

About synonyms, context is important. When discussing historical periods, and especially when discussing how words were used in those periods, one must be aware of what those words meant at that time. In modern casual usage, sure, "samurai" and "bushi" are used mostly interchangeably. In academic discussions of social status in previous eras, "samurai" and "bushi" are not interchangeable.

In the context of Yasuke, and our page about him, we must be clear about how these terms are used. Is Yasuke a "samurai"? Depends. If we use the modern loose definition, then sure, Yasuke was a "samurai". If we use the definition relevant during Yasuke's time in Japan, then no, he wasn't, at least not according to any primary sources found so far. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

And there in falls the crux of the problem "If we use the modern loose definition, then sure, Yasuke was a "samurai""

Wikipedia:Use plain English and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which states "use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". We do not have categories of "Bushi" or "Bujin" or any other such cause because in the common English understanding, they all mean Samurai. In a modern Japanese dictionary, they are listed as synonymous. See also Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED and that is why "Bushi" just redirects to "Samurai" because the modern understanding is that they are functionally the same thing.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be written in a manner to understand the subtle nuances of feudal Japanese politics and the changing definition or classification of a Samurai, least of all on a page about an individual. If, by modern commonly understood and agreed upon definition, he was a Samurai, than it is perfectly acceptable to say he was a Samurai.

In the context of Yasuke, and our page about him, it needs to be concise and understandable and needs to Wikipedia:Remember the reader. If people want to learn about the nuances of what it means to be a Samurai, I would wager that Samurai is a far better place to expand upon the myriad shifting definitions of the word than to argue on a page about a man who, you concede, by "loose modern understanding" would be considered a Samurai. It is one thing to say "There are disagreements as to whether Yasuke could be considered a Samurai", or "It is unclear whether Yasuke was considered a Samurai in his own time, though he is considered a Samurai by moden convention" and another thing entirely to assert, full stop, with no sources explicitly saying so, that Yasuke was not a Samurai.

To your point of "In modern casual usage, sure, "samurai" and "bushi" are used mostly interchangeably. In academic discussions of social status in previous eras, "samurai" and "bushi" are not interchangeable."

I simply direct you to Wikipedia:NOTEVERYTHING| "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" as well as Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK, "the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter" and "Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic".

The Wikipedia article for Yasuke is not the palce to have an intricate academic discussion on what a Samurai was at the time that Yasuke was alive. If, by modern understanding, Yasuke would be considered a Samurai, that is really all that needs to be known. X0n10ox (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

“If, by modern understanding, Yasuke would be considered a Samurai, that is really all that needs to be known.”

I profoundly disagree. Such an approach would render the vast bulk of Wikipedia's articles about historical subjects a confusing mess of sloppy terminology. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 10:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately for you, your profound disagreement isn't really applicable. Again, Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK. Do you know what renders Wikipedia articles a confusing mess of sloppy terminology? Dredging up archaic terminology that contradicts modern understanding of the language at work. If you want to profoundly disagree with it, take it up with the Admins and the people who laid out the policies of Wikipedia, but it is what it is. We do not list French Knights as Chevalier instead of Knight because it is understood that those two things are synonymous even though an English cniht has very little in common with a French chevalier. Or do you intend to go scour the depths of Wikipedia now changing this Samurai or that Samurai to 武者, or 武人, or もののふ, or 侍, or 武士? Especially when all of those terms mean effectively the same thing in the modern understanding of the language. We have Category:Medieval French knights not Category:Medieval French Chevalier. The point of Wikipedia is to be accessible, again, "by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field", if people understand "Bushi" and "Bujin" and "Buke" and "Musha" to all be the same thing as "Samurai", there is absolutely no reason to create separate classifications of "Bushi" from "Foreign-born Samurai". If, by modern understanding, Yasuke is something which the average reader understands to be a Samurai, then he belongs on this list.

Again Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED, with extra emphasis :

"If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.

" X0n10ox (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Must confess to being puzzled at this point - I thought that primary source confirmation was needed for statements on wikipedia, but this is reading a lot like OR stating that "he was basically a samurai based on our interpretation." Surely we either have primary sources saying that he was, or lacking that he wasn't? Happy to be told I'm wrong, but that's how I've seen things done here in the past, but admit I've not been here too much. 92.236.123.233 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait, my apologies, I'm getting primary and secondary sources mixed up. So my understanding is that secondary sources are needed - surely if they exist this whole debate is easily smoothed over? 92.236.123.233 (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is secondary sources do exist which refer to Yasuke as a Samurai, but they are arguing that the source is unreliable and a big basis of their interpertation of the book as unreliable is that their own personal translation differs from what the source author translates. The primary sources do not definitively state Yasuke was or was not considered a Samurai, but there are secondary sources which interpert the primary sources as indicating Yasuke was considered a Samurai of Nobunaga by basis of being paid a stipend as well as a translation that can indicate that Yasuke was a weapon-bearer for Nobunaga, which was generally only done by young Samurai in service of an older Samurai. Most famously, Ranmaru Mori was also considered a "page" of Nobunaga's. It is not OR "he was basically a Samurai based on our interpretation", the issue at hand in this conversation is they contention that "Foreign Born Bushi" should be separated from "Foreign Born Samurai", when by modern language understanding, "Bushi" and "Samurai" mean the exact same thing. While there was a difference once upon a time, categorically for the purposes of Wikipedia, it does not matter because Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED. You cannot create a list called "Foreign born Bushi", for instance, because "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources".

If, by modern understanding, Yasuke classifies as a Samurai, then he belongs on the list of "Foreign-born Samurai in Japan". It does not matter if Yasuke was or was not considered a Samurai in the feudal period. There are numerous secondary sources, provided elsewhere on this page, that all refer to Yasuke as a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter if Yasuke was or was not considered a Samurai in the feudal period.

This is quite interesting - shouldn't facts be judged in the context of their period, or at least framed in that context? Saying "he was samurai" feels very different from "he was samurai based on the modern interpretation of the word."

At any rate clearly the debate has a load of political baggage atm, give it a few months and I'm sure sensible heads will prevail. Thanks for the explanation. 92.236.123.233 (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they should.

If he was not given a Samurai rank or a koku salary then there's precious little justification, even circumstantial, for him to be given the title in an article.

The article even adds "nobunaga paid a salary" but there's no evidence of this except a one-time payment by Oda Nobonaga's kin, not Oda Nobunaga himself. The author of the Yasuke entry explicitly misleads the reader by not specifying which Nobunaga paid the "salary". FifteenthClause (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH There are secondary sources which say that Yasuke was a Samurai. There are no reliable sources that explicitly say he was not, and the primary documentation, likewise, does not say that he was not. Furthermore, the list isn't specific to any chronological period, it is simply "Foreign-born Samurai in Japan". If, by the modern understanding of Samurai, per Wikipedia:ENGLISH "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources".

Arguing that he should be on a list of Foreign Born Bushi, or anything of the sort, brings us right back to him being on this list because Bushi just redirects to Samurai on Wikipedia. As stated in the initial comment which was being replied to the contention is ""Foreign Born Bushi" should be separated from "Foreign Born Samurai", when by modern language understanding, "Bushi" and "Samurai" mean the exact same thing". Since Bushi and Samurai are understood to mean the same thing in common usage in English, it brings us right back to if Yasuke is understood to be a Foreign Born Bushi and should be on a list of Foreign Born Bushi, then he should be on the Foreign Born Samurai list.

Again. The name of categories and pages on Wikipedia are based upon the common usage in modern language. If one searches for "Bushi" on Wikipedia and gets directed to Samurai, one would then expect that someone who is "Just a Bushi" would be present on a list of Samurai because as far as Wikipedia is presently concerned Bushi and Samurai are synonymous.

This list doesn't say anything, really, about any of the subjects on it, except biographical information about the Samurai in question with links to their individual pages which goes into a deeper explanation of the individuals in question. To quote the actual page of the list we are arguing about:

"The word samurai has had a variety of meanings historically; here it is taken to mean "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility". This list includes the following people.

• Foreign soldiers and generals who served daimyō directly during the Sengoku period (1467–1615) and Azuchi-Momoyama period (1568–1600) before the unification of Japan by Toyotomi Hideyoshi. In this period, many emerging forces like Jizamurai call themselves samurai. Hideyoshi himself was born as a son of a peasant-ashigaru. The definition of samurai was obscure in those periods"

and

"The following people are treated as "people who could be foreign-born samurai".

• "Foreign-born samurai" whose existence is uncertain.
• Foreign-born people who were given territory or rice as salary by lords, whose occupations were unclear."

By the pre-defined definition of what the list presents, Yasuke should be on the list even if the contention is that he was a "foreign born Bushi" and not a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

He is not documented as serving as a warrior. Speculative articles with no reference to primary sources, such as the ones which claim he was a warrior, are kind of useless.

You're also demanding we use modern English universal definition of samurai but a specific obscure definition of a Japanese term "tools". You're demanding two different readings to reflect your activist desires here. FifteenthClause (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I am pointing out the way Wikipedia works in that categories have to adhere to common usage and since Bushi and Samurai are synonymous in modern English, they cannot (or at least presently do not) have two separate pages, one for "Foreign Born Bushi" and one for "Foreign Born Samurai" as had been proposed.

My conversation about the "obscure definition of a Japanese term 'tools'" is in response to someone providing their own translation of a primary source and saying that it doesn't mean weapons, it means tools, and me providing context to the fact that the word for "tools" used in the primary source is understood during the Sengoku period to have also meant a Samurai's weapons.

I am not "demanding two different readings to reflect my activist desires".

Both are Wikipedia policy.

See Wikipedia:NOENG for information about editors providing translations, and then see also Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED for the argument as to whether "Foreign Born Bushi" or "Foreign Born Samurai" matter. As per modern understanding and definition and Wikipedia's policy "Bushi" and "Samurai" mean the same thing. Bushi redirects to Samurai. In this sense, generally speaking, creating a separate category as was proposed for "Foreign Born Bushi" would be going against Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED.

They are two entirely separate concerns and I would also remind you Wikipedia:NOPA and WP:GOODFAITH X0n10ox (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Japanese part of this page still didn't list him as a samurai. And I dont think you who didn't even speak Japanese know better than them Devilhacker86 (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not how wikipedia works. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on samurai terminology

Comments needed concerning the historical figure Yasuke. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#Request_for_comment_on_samurai_terminology natemup (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

where are the facts?why are there so many edits?

there's a lot of edits to a certain page which I will link in the way back machine article and I find it very concerning that there is such talk and that there is missing context that is just being removed and terminology that is being edited and ordered simply because of some very biased individuals and I think we should restore the article to its previous state about a year ago

[2] MisteOsoTruth (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke needs to be added back as a samurai. He was a retainer, otherwise known as koshō. Several other koshō served under Oda Nobunaga, including many samurai. As a samurai and retainer, he was also granted a stipen, and saw battle according to Jesuit accounts from the day. A retainer was also almost always a samurai. Please see the below source.

https://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/weapons/index.php/tour-by-region/oceania/asia/arms-and-armour-asia-133/index.html#:~:text=A%20retainer%20refers%20to%20a,practical%20than%20many%20samurai%20armours. Mmsnjd (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

no. that just shows armor. not that Yasuke ever had that title or not. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

He was not a samurai. This isn't a place for racial activism. There's zero primary evidence that supports the claim he had been awarded the benefits of a samurai, and so I am not sure how any secondary sources can reach a conclusion that simply doesn't have any basis in what can actually be known. Like with most long-dead people, Yasuke's life and status will likely never be known with much accuracy. The fact we have *any* information on him is impressive. Let's not make up some new lore because 2020 BLM movement made it fashionable to be race-critical. FifteenthClause (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

For starters, the claim "zero primary evidence" is demonstrably false. Secondly, there is no necessity of primary sources see Wikipedia:NOR, particularly Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources which states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" Emphasis being also added on Wikipedia:RS. Furthermore, the Maeda Clan version of the Shinchōkōki confirms that Yasuke was given 扶持 by Nobunaga, a stipend given to retainers. Furthermore, the Ōta Gyūichi, the author of the chronicle, only uses "扶持" in the context of Samurai. You can also see here a translation of Ōta Gyūichi's work, specifically a passage where Oda Nobunaga orders all of his ordinary soldiers away, but Yasuke remained with Nobunaga after this as noted in Matsudaira Ietada's diary, which means Yasuke was separate from the "ordinary soldiers". As for a secondary source, there is no real reason to suspect this as lacking in WP:Reliability. X0n10ox (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"This" (African Samurai by Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girard) has already been discussed extensively at Talk:Yasuke and determined to be an unreliable source.

About 扶持 (fuchi, "stipend"), @Hexenakte explains in the Talk:Yasuke#Establish_a_clear_distinction_between_Bushi_and_Samurai thread how the Shinchō Kōki quotes attributed to Ōta include instances of fuchi paid to non-samurai.

In addition, the translated portion of Ōta's work in Google Books just tells us that Yasuke did not leave when the "ordinary soldiers" were sent home (since we know later from Ietada's accounts that Yasuke was present when Nobunaga met with Ietada). It does not tell us that Yasuke was a samurai. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

Please add Yasuke back as a samurai. Yasuke needs to be added back as a samurai. He was a retainer, otherwise known as koshō. Several other koshō served under Oda Nobunaga, including many samurai. As a samurai and retainer, he was also granted a stipen, and saw battle according to Jesuit accounts from the day. A retainer was also almost always a samurai. Please see the Oxford university source. https://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/weapons/index.php/tour-by-region/oceania/asia/arms-and-armour-asia-133/index.html#:~:text=A%20retainer%20refers%20to%20a,practical%20than%20many%20samurai%20armours Mmsnjd (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We had this argument several times already, please stop insisting. It's not a crusade.

What we know from the chronicles is that Yasuke was a page and a weapon bearer for Oda Nobunaga, and he had a salary. Despite every other name on the current list, we have no proof that he was ever granted the rank of samurai and the context itself seems to discourage the idea.

Firstly, he only served Nobunaga for one year and half, too little to realistically earn the samurai title in the racist feudal Japan. Then, a proper samurai would have fought to the death in the Honno-ji battle, committed seppuku or sought vengeance as a ronin. We know instead that he surrendered and was called "black slave" by Akechi Mitsuhide. You can find this all on Yasuke wiki page.

He was made a samurai by pop culture authors, but he was quite likely not one. 93.44.200.186 (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly seems like a crusade, from the side that wish to downplay Yasuke's role in Nobunaga's guard. What seems to be happening is a projection of anachronistic and Western ideas onto the definition of samurai, particularly in your rationale for excluding Yasuke. You have no basis on which to make the judgment that "only" serving Nobunaga for a year and a half was "too little" for Nobunaga or other contemporaries to consider Yasuke a samurai, or that his actions at Honno-ji would disqualify him. Feudal Japan was not "racist" in the Western sense; it did not feature system of racial oppression, but a general and common (dis)regard for foreign matters and people. Thus, it did not formally forbid foreigners from certain roles in society. Further, at the time of Yasuke's service, samurai as a rank or class had not been formalized as under the Tokugawa shogunate. It was a matter of a given person's profession or charge. You understanding seems to be an erroneous application of principles related to knighthood in medieval Europe. As for Mitsuhide's sparing him, it's disputed whether it was meant as an insult or a pretext for mercy. It's disingenuous to present only the half of the dispute that supports your view; it suggests bias which makes the rest of your judgment suspect.

The conversation at https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/m91cwa/yasuke_african_samurai_is_the_outrage_justified/ covers the common, flawed arguments for not considering Yasuke a samurai. It would seem that, by the standards of the time, he would have been considered one.

Per the edit request, here is a preliminary version of what should be added to the list:

|Mozambique/>

|Unknown />

|Unknown, accompanied Jesuit priests />

|1579 />

|Yasuke
(Kanji: 弥助 or 弥介) />

|Oda Nobunaga />

|Retainer to Oda Nobunaga during his campaign of unification, receiving a stipend, arms, and armor. Served in battle at the Honnō-ji_Incident /> 2601:14A:600:1780:7197:3069:AEF2:46EC (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding: In any case, all of this is beside the point. I was wrong to engage your argument, which has no place in this discussion. This is not a forum. The job of wikipedia editors is NOT to interpret primary sources. We use trustworthy sources, mostly secondary, to synthesize a concise reflection of what the expert and popular consensus holds to be true, and of the conclusions these sources have themselves reached. Almost every mainstream media and scholarly source (in English or Japanese) calls Yasuke a samurai, or else some term that is generally held to indicate a samurai. That makes him a samurai for Wikipedia's purposes. Full stop. The edit request needs to go through, once it is properly written and sourced. 2601:14A:600:1780:942A:1AA1:C786:3DE9 (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And with that we are always going to go back to the definition of samurai. We'll note that the japanese article is about foreign bushi, rather than foreign samurai and how translation can color our opinions of definitions. To put it simply, not all japanese warriors are considered samurai, even if in the english language, samurai became the popular definition for all japanese warriors. The english wikipedia page on samurai does take the time to make the distinction between both samurai and bushi. A rough equivalent in medieval europe would be the difference between soldiers and knights. The later involve additional requirements over the simple soldier that could be anyone with a pitchfork who was conscripted into an army or militia. Yvan Part (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on the important distinction between samurai (hereditary social class of nobility) and bushi (a job or profession as a soldier / warrior). Good use too of the analogy, as this was similar in some important ways to the European distinctions between a "knight" (where lineage was very important) and a "soldier" (which was a job or profession regardless of family connection).

I do take issue with the statement that "Almost every mainstream media and scholarly source (in English or Japanese) calls Yasuke a samurai". I have not encountered scholarly sources in either language that describe Yasuke as "samurai". I discount mainstream media, as authors are frequently ignorant or ignoring of the finer details of historical context: HuffPost is much less reliable or precise in its writings on Japanese history than, say, Jackson Bailey.

I also find it significant that the Japanese Wikipedia does not describe Yasuke as samurai. One JA WP page I've seen often referenced these past few days here on the EN WP is ja:海外出身の武士の一覧 (Kaigai shusshin no bushi no ichiran), which includes Yasuke and is erroneously cross-linked to the List of foreign-born samurai in Japan. I say "erroneously", because the Japanese page is a list of foreign-born bushi, not samurai. The Japanese page starts with the [[|#定義]] (Teigi) or "Definition" section, which clearly explains that this is a list of bushi, not samurai. The content on the List of foreign-born samurai in Japan appears to be a lightly-altered translation of the Japanese page, with the important — and incorrect — replacement of the Japanese word bushi with the word samurai.

We have historical evidence that Yasuke was appointed as a page to Oda Nobunaga, and that Yasuke fought in the Honnō-ji incident and immediate aftermath. We do not have historical evidence claiming that Yasuke was ever considered to be samurai, as that term was used at that time to refer to the hereditary social class of nobility. If anyone can point me to a scholarly work that describes Yasuke as samurai, and that clearly defines the author's reasoning and how the author is using the term samurai, I would be happy to change my view. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And as I mentioned elsewhere already, the Japanese page you are referring to and claiming doesn't refer to "Samurai" but "Bushi" uses the modern understanding of the words, which are synonymous. Again, the article's lead says "海外出身の武士の一覧（かいがいしゅっしんの日本のぶしいちらん）では、日本国外で出生し、日本の武家の一員となった人物を列記する". Specifically, the part that says '日本の武家". Wikt: 武家 means, specifically, Samurai Class. Thusly, it reads "Individuals who were born outside of Japan and who became members of the Japanese Samurai Class". X0n10ox (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We literally only have one source on him, hes mentioned as a slave or retainer in the two sentences we have on him. This is a historical revisionism and needs to be removed. 2603:6011:F400:DAC:74DA:DDBC:F58D:CEDC (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It is strange to point to Reddit for your source of info, instead of pointing to the sources that the "historians" within would hopefully credit for this information. Feels like a "these guys say it, and it's on an intellectual site, so you can just listen to them" kind of thing. Speaking of sources, none of them really link to anything, besides one guy, who just links to another Reddit post, with no other input on it besides "he was real". There is a link to a document, which describes an unrelated person, and a link to a letter which is just used as supporting for a translation where a word is mentioned exactly in both translation and original.

If anything, I feel as if this page should be put into protection with Yasuke as a side-note at the bottom of the page. Something along the lines of "Notable inclusions", where Yasuke is listed, stating that while there isn't enough evidence to prove one way or the other, some historians believe he was a full-on samurai. It would keep Yasuke on the page, but not lump him in with the rest of the actually proven figures within the table. 2604:2D80:7886:5B00:9185:DDA1:24:40A4 (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No historians believe that. 71.67.22.210 (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the Reddit link provided is completely moot and doesn't serve as evidence. Frankly, I don't want to consider it a source anyway, because it's Reddit, and any random Joe or Steve can just say something and get a bunch of positive feedback pretending it's true.

Changing my stance to "Remove him, then protect the article" because of this. 2604:2D80:7886:5B00:9185:DDA1:24:40A4 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There is only one person who uses the two sentences we have on him, and literally crafts a narrative which everyone hails as truth. 71.67.22.210 (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with him being a "side note". I think a separate article, if there isn't one, to list historic foreigners that appear in media set in feudal Japan. I think this would not be a short article and could be accompanied by a fictional western characters article. There's some encyclopedic value here as there's films like "The Last Samurai" which have fictional characters. This could allow a reader to quickly figure out if a character in their media is based on a real person or not. FifteenthClause (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A list article would also possibly encourage an expansion of fictional and real characters articles where wikipedia is missing any information on them, so it's a win-win. FifteenthClause (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a good compromise, better than what I could come with. Good stuff! 2604:2D80:7886:5B00:9185:DDA1:24:40A4 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that splitting the difference and making a new article is probably the easiest way. Maybe "notable foreigners in japanese history". I'm not sure putting real and fictional people in the same article would work since there is already a lot to work with either side and their depiction in media can vary wildly.

Of course the easiest way is not always the best way, so getting more opinions on the matter would be a lot better than edit warring about a single person. Yvan Part (talk) 07:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Just by serving a lord doesn't mean someone is a samurai. There were many people serving under a lord, including their gardeners, horse caretakers, foot soldiers and other low-ranking officers. Not all of them were samurai. Same as the koshou position. Many koshous were also samurai but not always. A concrete proof is needed for Yasuke to be added to this article. Such as historical documents that say he was granted the rank of samurai. This article should be protected without Yasuke being included. Ezio's Assassin (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also homosexual lovers of which Oda had many. RepeatedNodger (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

He was most likely Oda's male concubine and lover, not a samurai. RepeatedNodger (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because other retainers were samurai doesn’t mean Yasuke was a samurai. Especially when there is considerably more proof that Yasuke was not a samurai. 173.76.242.30 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke is NOT a samurai. No source claiming he was. Do not put your feelings above facts. Devilhacker86 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Deactivating edit request pending consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove Yasuke pending consensus

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Remove the entry for Yasuke from the table, and readd him to "See Also" if necessary.
• Why it should be changed: The entry is currently the subject of a content dispute (see discussions above or related at Talk:Yasuke). I previously removed him, but it was readded in at the last minute by @Theozilla. This entry should remain out of the table until consensus can be established.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke should remain in if other figures like Williams Adams are going to remain in. Adams like Yasuke was also a retainer/vassal who never married into (or got adopted into or got granted surnamed rights) samurai nobility. If Williams Adams (and others like his crewmate) are being considered samurai, then the same should apply to Yasuke. Theozilla (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Then we could argue that Adams doesn't belong in this article either. You're free to argue about it on the Williams Adams article whether he was a samurai or not, rather than using it to justify edit warring here.

We were discussing making a new article in the previous topic with a broader view for foreigners in japanese history. On the other hand, we could also expand the scope of this article which would require a title change to be less restrictive than being solely about samurai. Yvan Part (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I will be Frank. Adams was awarded a Fief in Japan properly and granted the rights associated with being a Samurai. The fief he was given was worth 250 koku. 1 koku being enough rice production to provide for one individual for a year. To be a daimyo it was required to have 10,000 koku.

That was more than twice the amount of koku given to the average samurai.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/daimyo

In a joint project done investigating his remains between U.S and Japanes Universities he was called a samurai and was bestowed two sword the traditional markers of a samurai along with aforementioned land. One could consider it a mistake but it was done in conjunction with Japanese Universities and co authored.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7729870/

There are also numerous books authored such as those by Giles Milton, the various documents held by the East India Company and so forth. Meanwhile there is no such evidence of Yasuke holding positions with great confidence by which we could call him a samurai. The comparison is not fitting at all. 172.59.176.188 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Allow me to correct myself. with the Japanese University link here.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7729870/

It was entirely authored by various Japanese Institutions namely.

1Department of Legal Medicine, Toho University School of Medicine, 5-21-16, Omori-Nishi, Ota-ku, Tokyo, 143-8540 Japan

2Bioproduction Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Sapporo, 062-8517 Japan

3Computational Bio Big Data Open Innovation Lab (CBBD-OIL), National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)-Waseda University, Tokyo, 169-8555 Japan

4The Organization of Anthropological Research, Yamaguchi, 759-6604 Japan

5Department of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 113-0033 Japan

6Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Yamagata University, Kaminoyama, 999-3101 Japan

Meaning that the Japanese Anthropological Research teams have designated him as such along with the various other institutions involved in the project. Given that I believe this is clear evidence of why William Adams is clearly a Samurai and SAMURAI was capitalized in the project to show an official recognition of the title bestowed and not merely the colloquial use of the term.

However as mentioned various archives exist of his letters and others that confirm much the same. Yasuke has no such clear show of being considered a Samurai and to me this is clear evidence of Yosuke's lack of status as a Samurai.

While others have clear records claiming they are Samurai and are regarded domestically in Japan's Academia as such no such applies to Yasuke. 172.59.176.188 (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether there is or is not secondary academic sources in Japanese that domestically regard Yasuke as a Samurai isn't overly relevant, per WP:RSUEC. "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance" X0n10ox (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Theres no equal quality english sources to the japanese ones... 94.53.40.253 (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke should remain. And my reasoning is supported by a list of sources I compiled over on the Yasuke talk page.

Sources:

• Jozuka, Emiko (2019-05-20). "The legacy of feudal Japan's African samurai". CNN. Retrieved 2024-05-18.Wikipedia:RSPCNN
• Magazine, Smithsonian; Germain, Jacquelyne (2023-01-10). "Who Was Yasuke, Japan's First Black Samurai?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 2024-05-18.Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Smithsonian Magazine And for good measure, since I know people will try to dispute the reliability of the Smithsonian piece, I direct you to this real quickly.
• Moon, Kat (2021-04-30). "The True Story of Yasuke, the Legendary Black Samurai Behind Netflix's New Anime Series". TIME. Retrieved 2024-05-18. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 109#TIME magazine
• Mohamud, Naima (2019-10-13). "Yasuke: The mysterious African samurai". BBC Home. Retrieved 2024-05-18.WP:RSPBBC
• Lockley, Thomas; Girard, Geoffrey (2019). African Samurai. ISBN 1-335-14102-2. Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP
• Manatsha, Boga Thura (2019-12-12). "Historicising Japan-Africa relations". Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies. Retrieved 2024-05-18. Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP It's a peer reviewed Academic journal which refers to Yasuke as a Samurai.

Lockley's book has been cited in academic articles in works in both Japanese and English:

• Manabu Koiso. "Siddhis, an African ethnic group in South Asia: Research notes." Bulletin of Kobe Yamate University 20 (2018): 173-189.
• Jayasuriya, Shihan de Silva. "African Slavery in Asia: Epistemologies across Temporalities and Space." 関西大学経済論集 72.特集 (2023): 9-39.
• Adem, Seifudein. "Making Sense of Japan’s Diplomacy in Africa." Africa’s Quest for Modernity: Lessons from Japan and China. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023. 113-127.

Lockley's book is credible enough to be cited in multiple different peer-reviewed academic journals in both Japanese and English, it meets the criteria for Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP on the bases of being (1) A Secondary Source (2) A book published by a reputable publishing company (Hanover Square Press) and (3) It has been cited and thus entered academic discourse and (4) It has been reviewed at academic levels which have not discounted the book as "bad", rather, one reviewer complained at a lack of in-text citations, but did note that their complaint wasn't that there was a lack of veracity to the scholarship.

Another source reads: "It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyō’s service and enjoyed the same comforts as other vassals. He was granted the rank of samurai and occasionally even shared a table with Nobunaga himself, a privilege few of his trusted vassals were afforded" (109).

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

Dr. Jonathan Lopez-Vera, holds a PhD in Japanese History and an MA in World History from Pompeu Fabra University.

X0n10ox (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Not all reliable sources are reliable in every context. Some of the sources you cited have already been discussed in the Talk:Yasuke page and deemed unreliable in this context. Here are links for talks about the Smithonian magazine, Lockley and Boga Thura Manatsha, which by the way you have replied to with the same text but apparently did not bother reading.

The CNN article seems mostly based on Lockley's interpretation of Yasuke being a samurai.

"“Yasuke was initially viewed as a source of entertainment as he was a novelty, but within a month he’d become a valued samurai and member of Oda’s entourage,” says Lockley."

The TIME article is also mostly based on Lockley.

The BBC article does not cite direct sources.

"Within a year, Yasuke had joined the upper echelons of Japan's warrior class, the samurai. Before long, he was speaking Japanese fluently and riding alongside Nobunaga in battle."

Though not directly attributed, I'm assuming the journalist is referencing Lawrence Winkler which the article refers to as "historian", despite being a self-described physician, traveler, and natural philosopher. and apparently having no background in historical research, writing the book Samurai Road more as pop science than anything else.

The Lopez-Vera book is the only one that has yet to be properly discussed. Yvan Part (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Nah you're just a racist chud pissed off the admins have sided with us. You lost, get over it. Your right winged politics have no place here 2607:FEA8:1065:1000:A573:C641:BC83:F268 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Please read the No Personal Attacks and Assume Good Faith policies. RomeshKubajali (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Yasuke was not a Samurai. The only reason people are claiming he is, is because they're trying to make Assassins Creed Shadows accurate by rewriting history. It needs to stop. What you're doing is racially motivated, fueled by anything but actual historical proof. You're not only disrespecting Japanese Culture, but you're also attempting to rewrite history by adding entirely untrue material to certain articles all to make a video game with fictional events seem accurate, realistic and true when it's just a video game. Stop trying to edit articles to fit your irrational and ridiculous narrative. It's annoying and you have no business rewriting history and purposefully adding fictitious historical information. There's no proof that Yasuke was a Samurai.

You have violated the Terms of Use and Universal Code of Conduct by:

1. Posting or modifying content with the intent to deceive or mislead others (4 Refraining from Certain Activities, Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud)

2. [Failing to] "Assume good faith, and engage in constructive edits" (2 Expected Behavior, 2.1 – Mutual Respect)

3. Insults (3 Unacceptable Behavior, 3.1 Harassment)

4. Trolling (3 Unacceptable Behavior, 3.1 Harassment)

5. "Content vandalism and abuse of the projects" (3 Unacceptable Behavior, 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects)

6. Mutual support and good citizenship (2 Expected Behavior, 2.1 Civility, collegiality, mutual support and good citizenship)

Your behavior is unacceptable, and you WILL be reported for it. It's unfortunate you didn't read the TOU and UCOC as you would know your actions have consequences and that what you're doing is a violation of the Terms of Use and Universal Code of Conduct that you have agreed to by using this or any other Wikimedia website. TheWildGP38-2 (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yvan Part has done nothing of the sort. This is just a groundless personal attack. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Except the discussion of the merits of the Smithsonian piece are (1) Flawed and (2) not sticking with the Wikipedia precedent as established Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#Smithsonian Magazine, and I quote, "The Smithsonian Magazine is certainly a reliable source.". Furthermore, the contention that the Smithsonian Article was unreliable rests on the flawed argument that the Lockley is an unacceptable source, as well as the discussion where it was 'deemed unreliable' argued that "It is pop press written by a reporter, and not someone who has studied the subject. It also uses Lockley as its source, which has also been discussed twice above, and was also deemed unreliable years ago", which is factually incorrect as you can see from the supporting evidence which I provided here which plainly states: "Dr. Natalia Doan (Okinaga JRF in Japanese Studies) was recently interviewed by Smithsonian Magazine for the article “Who Was Yasuke, Japan’s First Black Samurai?” Her research and teaching focuses on Japanese history, transnationalism, and popular culture as connected to global themes of gender, sexuality, personhood, and race."

Likewise, the link you provide to "Lockley" for deeming it "unreliable" as a source doesn't actually state that at all, all that Talk:Yasuke/Archive 1#Lockley 2016, Lockley 2017, and Lockley 2019? discusses is which Lockley version they're working with (because there are multiples) as well as a quote from the same academic review of the book which says, again, "The omission of citations is not necessarily a question a veracity of the scholarship".

Being a work of popular history does not exclude it from admissibility, see: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)

• Books, book chapters and articles by social scientists and scholars in the humanities, working within their area of expertise
• Popular publications by non-historians that were reviewed favourably in explicit book reviews or review-articles by historians in scholarly peer-reviewed journals

The book meets the criteria of being reviewed favorably in explicit book reviews or review-artiscles by Historians in scholarly peer-reviewed journals.

• R. W. Purdy is an associate professor of history at John Carroll University in Ohio. He teaches courses on Japanese history and popular culture, and his research focuses on the Japanese news media during wartime

He concludes his review with: "Although this lens may not be detailed enough for the academic, African Samurai’s lively writing style does offer the reader of popular history and historical fiction a glimpse of samurai values from late sixteenth century Japan."

The reviewer's only real complaint with the Lockley piece is that the author(s) did not use in-text citations, but he does not review the book unfavorably. He notes in his review how citations can be helpful for certain avenues and fruitful for additional research, but again, "The omission of citations is not necessarily a question a[sic] veracity of the scholarship" and concludes the review with a favorable review, even if it's not as robust as Academics would find useful. It has been reviewed favourably by a historian in an academic journal that is peer reviewed. You cannot dismiss the veracity of the "Lockley" on a flawed premise and then use that as justification to dismiss every other secondary source that discusses Yasuke. The Lockley book, again, has been cited academically in journals in both English and Japanese, and it meets the prerequisites for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). The basis for dismissing the other sources is "we've dismissed this source already", and the evidence that the source was dismissed provided is an archived discussion about Lockley 2017 vs Lockley 2019. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The section that claims Lockley was "Historical fiction" and not fit for the review has been struck through, the link to the Lockley does not present a consensus that it is unreliable as you are stating.

As for the Boga Thura Manatsha, the sources which are contested read "Perhaps more extraordinary is that Yasuke's story does not end here. Retained as an attendant by Nobunaga, he later accompanied him into battle against the rival lord Akechi Mitsuhide (1528? — 1582) who upon defeating Nobunaga at Horyuji, spared the African and subsequently released him" (Russel 24)

The Weiner is just a chapter from Russell again, mostly reiterating what was in the Russell. So the Boga Thura Manatsha at least solidifies that Yasuke was retained by Oda Nobunaga, though Boga Thura Manatsha describes him as a Samurai most likely on account of the fact that Yasuke is described as being retained by Nobunaga and accompanying him into battle. That said, saying he was retained or was a retainer does not exclude the possibility that Yasuke was a Samurai, simply by virtue of the fact that Samurai were also retainers.

So, even without the BBC and the Boga Thura Manatsha, there are still plenty of sources that are both credible and that refer to Yasuke as a Samurai.

• Russell, John G. (2008), Excluded Presence : Shoguns, Minstrels, Bodyguards, and Japan's Encounters with the Black Other, doi:10.14989/71097

X0n10ox (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@X0n10ox: Regarding Lockley, the review is not as favourable as you make it out to be. The review also continues:

but the authors frequently go into detail about Yasuke and his personal reactions, like his kidnapping from Africa and his sword fight with a young enemy samurai, with no cited documentation. Likewise, there is no discussion of the evidence that explains how, in just fifteen months, Yasuke and Nobunaga developed such a close relationship. Was it just Yasuke’s height and skin color? Presumably, much of this might come from Fróis or be based on reasonable speculation, but, without specific references, details often seem like creative embellishments, rather than historical narrative.

and

Perhaps the most important reason for citing, however, is to confirm events and resolve contradictions.

The review then goes on to show how part of the book contradicts source material.

The problem with not having citations is that it becomes hard to differentiate embellishments from historical fact, as the reviewer mentions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, almost every academic review of a book will be critical of the book they are reviewing, but that does not make the review "unfavorable". The review makes it clear that the issue with the absence of citations is strictly a scholarly affair, "Scholars researching related topics such as Oda Nobunaga, Akechi Mitsuhide, or the Jesuit role in the Asian slave trade will not find this work as helpful as it might have been". Note that the review does not indicate that scholars would be unable to reference the book, or that the book is not worth while, or that scholars wouldn't find the book helpful at all.

"While Yasuke is not a fictional character, his contributions to the outcomes of events, like the primary sources about him, are slim at best. He does, however, offer the reader a non-Japanese lens on  Japan. Although this lens may not be detailed enough for the academic, African Samurai’s lively  writing style does offer the reader of popular his- tory and historical fiction a glimpse of samurai values from late sixteenth-century Japan", the sum of his conclusion on the review for the book is that it "may not be detailed enough for the academic", while reaffirming that the book has something to offer the reader of popular history.

The entire criticism about the lack of citations is prefaced with "The book is clearly intended as popular history, and, while it might be unfair to judge a book by what is it not, the scarcity of primary sources on Yasuke is compounded by the lack of scholarly citations or other means to document the narrative" which indicates that the criticism is, admittedly, not appropriate for a book that "is clearly intended as popular history". X0n10ox (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the Smithonian article is that it is already in tertiary sources territory. If Dr. Doan has written about Yasuke in the past, looking into and quoting directly from her published papers would help a lot more than insisting the smithonian article should be considered a reliable source otherwise it's just an argument from authority.

As @ARandomName123 said, the problem with Lockley is that he mixes facts and embellishments. Based on what is known of the primary sources about Yasuke (basically that there is very little of it and lacks details), it's impossible for Lockley to not have deviated from scholarly work surrounding this subject. The general review of the book being positive and being cited academically is of little value when we are not arguing the validity of the whole book but the credibility of the specific information surrounding Yasuke.

Again, the book A history of the Samurai by Jonathan Lopez-Vera is the only one that has yet to be talked about beyond a simple mention. Reading in the original spanish would probably be best, because the most recent edition is only in spanish and to avoid contention surrounding the translation.

As a personal note, I will add that the current consensus on the Yasuke article is that he is not a samurai. If we are just going to make the same arguments again, it feels like a waste of everyone's time. Yvan Part (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Well, the problem with the Smithonian article is that it is already in tertiary sources territory. If Dr. Doan has written about Yasuke in the past, looking into and quoting directly from her published papers would help a lot more than insisting the smithonian article should be considered a reliable source otherwise it's just an argument from authority."

The argument against the Smithsonian article initially was quite literally that the articles wasn't credible on account of "It is pop press written by a reporter, and not someone who has studied the subject", and when I am now pointing out that the Smithsonian Article interviewed an expert in the field I am now being told that "it's just an argument from authority". So it is okay to disqualify a source for lacking an expert, but when I point out an expert involved, it's an argument from authority??? Likewise, it's hard to claim there is a consensus on Yasuke when the matter is still being debated. X0n10ox (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I did notice that you mentioned interviewing Dr. Doan the first time but if you read the article, the mentions of Yasuke being a samurai all come from quoting Lockley so it's difficult to separate what parts are just agreeing with Lockley with no further research (whether it came from the journalist or Dr. Doan) and what came from Doan's personal research. If the only claim is that she has a PhD therefore the article interviewing her is right about Yasuke, it is indeed an argument from authority.

"It's hard to claim there is a consensus on Yasuke when the matter is still being debated" is fairly disparaging to the editors who have worked and debated about Yasuke over the years. The debate did not start a few days ago and has already been settled in the past. Right now, it is just rehashing the work that had already been done due to renewed interest in the matter. Unless new primary sources come to light, it's unlikely that the consensus will change. Yvan Part (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not disparaging to say there is no consensus when the subject is still being actively debated. Again, you mention that all mentions of Yasuke being a Samurai come from Lockley, and claim that Lockley is an unreliable source, and that past editors came to this consensus. But for the past multiple years, the Yasuke page has quoted and cited the Lockley. Even after the previously mentioned discussions about Lockley took place. Even if there was a consensus in the past, there is no consensus currently. Wikipedia:CCC. And, if you look here Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Samurai I am failing to see where a consensus was reached that Lockley was unreliable, or that Yasuke wasn't a Samurai. Unless you mean Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Request_for_comment_on_samurai_terminology where opposed twice by the same editor with the editor saying that there should be a section of histroians that classify him as a Samurai, and another saying that referencing Yasuke as a Samurai with a caveat of defining what Samurai means to the sources. X0n10ox (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, none of your sources are valid to be used. 73.123.45.55 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke should be removed. My reason is... in order to add something onto Wikipedia, we need a concrete evidence to prove it. We can't just assume that he was a samurai just because he had a salary or that Nobunaga gave him some "land" (this is very vague, too. It could just have been a house that Nobunaga let him live in). Those are just basic things a lord gave to his servants, including the foot soldiers (farmers, non-samurai). Unless we have some documents from that time period to prove his status, I don't think we can just write it on Wikipedia as if it's a fact. Ezio's Assassin (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's standards there is no need for documents from that time period to prove his status. There are numerous secondary sources which describe him as a Samurai. See Wikipedia:PRIMARY X0n10ox (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Many of those sources aren't reliable. Some of them were baseless assumptions by some authors, and some of them are the results of misinformation spreading on the internet based on modern depictions of Yasuke in TV shows, anime, video games (Nioh, Samurai Warriors, etc.) and other fictions. Even if we want to use these secondary sources to confirm Yasuke's samurai status, we should also consider what was the evidence that those secondary sources cited to when they made the conclusion that Yasuke was a samurai. Like what was the evidence Thomas Lockley cited to for the book he written? Ezio's Assassin (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Tokugawa literally named Addams a Samurai, Nobunaga did not at any point name Yasuke as a samurai 73.123.45.55 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

There is zero historical records that says Yasuke was ever given that title samurai. And he was never given a family name which is something that samurais have but peasants do not.

If you want to call insist he was a samurai you need actual evidence and proof . Yoisi210 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is functionally incorrect. Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn who is present on this list already and is documented as having been given Samurai status was not given a Surname, but was given the name Yayōsu. There is no hard requirement that foreign-Samurai must have a family name.

And as for "Zero historical records", Wikipedia deals primarily in Secondary Sources. Lopez-Vera, Jonathan (2020-06-02). A History of the Samurai. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-2134-8. still refers to Yasuke as a Samurai, was written by someone with a PhD in Japanese History, and the original spanish version of his book has been cited over 20 times in its native language.

This article from 2015 also calls Yasuke a Samurai. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to insert their own interpertations of primary texts, if there are reliable sources which interpert the historical records as Yasuke being a Samurai, it should be represented. Consequently, if you can provide any substantiated sources that contradict the claim that Yasuke was a Samurai, that would solidfy the basis of removal. Choosing to just pretend the secondary sources do not exist, however, is not an ideal way to go about making editorial decisions on Wikipedia. X0n10ox (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The Lopez-Vera book seems more credible but as I mentioned on the Talk:Yasuke page (which you probably have not seen yet so I will not hold it against you) the rfi article is very much unreliable. Yvan Part (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There also remains the matter of the list's own definition for who should be on it. Chiefly, the list page presently says :

"In this list, Japan means the Japanese Archipelago. The word samurai has had a variety of meanings historically; here it is taken to mean "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility". This list includes the following people.

• Foreign soldiers and generals who served daimyō directly during the Sengoku period (1467–1615) and Azuchi-Momoyama period (1568–1600) before the unification of Japan by Toyotomi Hideyoshi. In this period, many emerging forces like Jizamurai call themselves samurai. Hideyoshi himself was born as a son of a peasant-ashigaru. The definition of samurai was obscure in those periods."

And

"The following people are treated as "people who could be foreign-born samurai".

• "Foreign-born samurai" whose existence is uncertain.
• Foreign-born people who were given territory or rice as salary by lords, whose occupations were unclear."

If the plan is to remove Yasuke from the list out of a desire for a more rigid definition of Samurai, than the definition of who gets placed on this list will also need to be amended. X0n10ox (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki, at no point Oda mentions him as a samurai, Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki also records honnoji incident in detail with every samurai that took part in it and there's no mention of a black samurai or a name Yasuke, unless it is proven then Yasuke was not samurai which is why he shouldn't be on this list, it is only proven that he was owned by Valignano and was given to Nobunaga at the request of Nobunaga himself due to his skin colour, i agree the definition of who gets placed in the list should be edited as the page says samurai but the description says a person who's not a samurai can be in the list of foreign born samurai which interjects with page name AndreSvyatoy (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be added to my point that the main description of the page is This is a list of foreign-born people who became samurai in Japan and as he didn't became samurai he should be removed according to the description or again the descriptions should be edited and the title samurai should be removed from the page descriptions AndreSvyatoy (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been exposed that Yasuke's samurai status is a misinformation by Thomas Lockesley. Do not put your feelings above facts Devilhacker86 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Deactivating as protection as expired. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't even realize this latest edit war was also about Yasuke--I blocked one editor and one IP editor, and applied full protection until this silliness blows over. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Giuseppe Chiara

Can I just ask how he got on the list? His Wikipedia entry is very short and doesn't have any reference to him being a samurai, having 10 servants or advising the Shogunate. It may be that his page could be expanded, but I have to wonder if he was added because he became notable following the 2016 film. The citation given on the list links to a website but does not show an article. John Smith's (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've added an archive URL to the citation. The archived article makes not mention of him being a samurai so in the absence of any evidence to support his samurai status he should probably be removed from the list. I'll give it a few hours to allow for other users to comment and then, if no one else does, I'll remove his entry from the list. RomeshKubajali (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, even the few references both on this article and Giuseppe Chiara don't mention him being a samurai. Yvan Part (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the entry. From looking at previous versions of the article there used to be a possible samurai section. Chiara was put in this section as a possible samurai because he earned a salary (I don't see how other users thought this made him a possible samurai but I digress). I assume he must have been added to the list of samurai when this section was removed from the article. RomeshKubajali (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading a bit more on the japanese page, which is a bit more complete, it seems he was ordered to marry the widow of a low-ranking samurai and carried out some duties for the shogunate but was essentially under house arrest and used as a source of information and forced to apostatise his faith throught torture.

Still, no mention of being a samurai at any point even there. Yvan Part (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Rinoie Motohiro

This is another entry I'm sceptical about. His entire page is uncited (and hasn't been given citations for the last five years), and it looks like someone may have just translated the Japanese page and bunged the whole thing in. Is this a person anyone here is aware of from reputable sources? John Smith's (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I checked one of the sources, 萩藩閥閲録 and added citations to Rinoie Motohiro page. Sacchisachi (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Kawaminami Genbei

This is the last example I'm going to bring up. There is no page for him and the link given no longer works. I tried to use Archive.org but that couldn't get me the PDF file. I found a regional government website that refers to having the right to wear swords but that seems to be it. Is there a different version of the PDF article that can be used, or a different source that refers to him as a samurai? John Smith's (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I found the PDF file. You can find the full record for the paper here or you can download the PDF directly here. I tried to do a search for relevant terms that may confirm his samurai status but my software couldn't parse the text and my Japanese is far too poor to read the entire thing. RomeshKubajali (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for at least updating the citation, it will make it easier to check the source another time. John Smith's (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 19 May 2024

Please update the URL for citation number 19, which no longer properly links to the source, to https://k-kentan.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/1807/files/KJ00000066641.pdf (directly downloads the PDF) or https://k-kentan.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/1807 RomeshKubajali (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 21 May 2024

Please update the non-functioning references mori81 and mori82 with the following reference tags:

<ref name="mori82">{{cite web |last=良和 |first=森 |year=2014 |title=メルヒオール・ファン・サントフォールト |url=https://tamagawa.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/263/files/5_2013_81_98.pdf |access-date=2015-08-04 |website=玉川大学学術リポジトリ |page=82}}</ref>

<ref name="mori81">{{cite web |last=良和 |first=森 |year=2014 |title=メルヒオール・ファン・サントフォールト |url=https://tamagawa.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/263/files/5_2013_81_98.pdf |access-date=2015-08-04 |website=玉川大学学術リポジトリ |page=81}}</ref> RomeshKubajali (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Please could you add the reference mori81 again. The reference list has the error:

Cite error: The named reference mori81 was invoked but never defined (see the help page) RomeshKubajali (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally fucked that up. Should be fixed now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke has an RfC

Yasuke has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The name Yasuke or any african name does not appear in daimyoki or in Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki

Daimyoki holds name of all samurai, including those with no notable achievements and foreign people who was made a samurai, Yasuke isn't on daimyoki, Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki which was translated to English by a Dutch and a Lithuanian also doesn't mention an african samurai even though it holds all the names of Nobunaga's own samurai and retainers, it does however talk about an african slave that was brought by Valignano and then given to Nobunaga by request, Yasuke is officially not a samurai AndreSvyatoy (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't find any reference to this "daimyoki (大名記)" except this comment copy-pasted across gaming-related Facebook pages and Twitter.

You'll have to be more precise, the only books I could find are called:

• "信濃大名記", and according to Kotobank it's a "historical novel by Shotarō Ikenami, published in 1959. It depicts Nobuyuki Sanada, who was destined to be an enemy of his father Masayuki and brother Yukimura."
• "切支丹大名記 Les daimyô chrétiens ou un siècle de l'histoire religieuse et politique du Japon 1549-1650" (lit. 'The Christian daimyō or A century in Japanese religious and political history 1549-1650'), can be read here, there's a list of daimyō, not of samurais.
• "將軍略譜　附慶長巳前諸大名記", (lit. Shōguns's genealogy. Record of the daimyōs before the Keichō Era), might be this one but again it's about shōguns and daimyōs and it's not available online.
  • About this book, this comment on Twitter is interesting.

Thibaut (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The real name of the book would be 大名記 and if we're to discuss copy paste things then people here keeps using blog like sites as a source constantly copy pasting, though in my case 大名記 is the book that records the name of the samurai, there's no record of him being called as samurai, twitter is not a credible source, social media can't be a source AndreSvyatoy (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

And to that twitter link which you claim to be interesting, it's not interesting at all, similar things have been said many times without a proof, only depending on what if kind of an argument rather than proving wrong in the face of a solid evidence, one says maybe they didn't record at that time, the other says maybe he wasn't in record because he was black, another says maybe they forgot, when it comes to solid evidence all people say is what if and there's no proof of him being called as samurai in records, AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE 大名記 HOLDS NAME OF ALL SAMURAI INCLUDING THOSE WITH NO NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS AND FOREIGN BORN SAMURAI, truth is harsh AndreSvyatoy (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you give a link to a bibliographical record of this document?

Also bear in mind that per the “Definition” section, the foreign-born samurai list also include “foreign-born people who were given territory or rice as salary by lords, whose occupations were unclear.” -- Thibaut (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Daimyoki is a physical source which can be found in Kanazawa library, not everything is dumped into internet, HOWEVER there are common enough knowledge which defines what kind of a person can be a samurai, there's no person that can be a samurai without the knowledge of Japanese culture and history in 15 months especially when they're not a part of a Japanese family let alone part of samurai family

Then the title should have to be changed instead as it seems to be misleading, it could be called as foreign born daimyo servants to not spread misinformation

Now if this is only a discussion then it should stay as a discussion until solid evidence is brought which says he was samurai and proves the samurai claim

Shincho Koki, chronicle of Nobunaga mentions him only once and not as a samurai, not by name, page 385-6, Book 14, Tennshō 9, 1581

On the 23rd of the Second Month, a blackamoor came from the Kirishitan Country. He appeared to be twenty-six or twenty-seven years old. Black over his whole body, just like an ox, this man looked robust and had a good demeanor. What is more, his formidable strength surpassed that of ten men. The Bateren brought him along by way of paying his respects to Nobunaga. The black slave in question traveled to Kyoto in the retinue of the inspector of the Jesuit order’s Asian missions, Padre Visitador Alexandro Valignano. According to Fróis, throngs of the curious flocked together wherever the “Kaffir” might be seen along the way and caused a riot in front of the Jesuit residence in Kyoto, breaking down the gate in the effort to catch a glimpse of him. Nobunaga, one city block away in the Honnōji, did not remain unaware of the hubbub or uninformed of its cause. When he called for the black man to be brought for a personal viewing, “Padre Organ- tino took him.” This command performance took place on 27 March by the Julian calendar, a date that corresponds with the one given here by Gyūichi. The official audi- ence with Nobunaga, to which Valignano was accompanied by Organtino and Fróis, and at which formal presents were exchanged, occurred two days later. Fróis’ letter of 14 April 1581, Cartas, II, 3v–4.

At some point, Valignano “turned over” the slave to Nobunaga upon the hegemon’s express request; Fróis to General SJ, Kuchinotsu, 5 November 1582, Cartas, II, 65v.”

The chronicle describes the whole honnoji incident in detail, while it is recorded that all his kosho and samurai fought to the death to buy Nobunaga time to burn his residence and then commit seppuku in a utility room, claimed to be a samurai yasuke is not mentioned at all or doesn't exists even at the last stand

That's it, no mention of him being a samurai, no being second to Nobunaga, no westerner bullshit propaganda over a history that they don't even know AndreSvyatoy (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

not everything is dumped into internet

Of course not! What I meant is that there should be at least a library catalog record of a document called "大名記" so we know what document we are talking about, the only one I could find on library.kanazawa-u.ac.jp and lib.kanazawa.ishikawa.jp is "切支丹大名記".

Then the title should have to be changed instead as it seems to be misleading, it could be called as foreign born daimyo servants to not spread misinformation

The Japanese article 海外出身の武士の一覧 has a separate section, this could be a compromise.

About the Shinchō Kōki and the letters from the Jesuits, I agree there is no mention of Yasuke being a samurai (you can read Talk:Yasuke where primary sources have been analysed by editors) but Wikipedia is supposed to follow secondary sources rather than our own interpretation of primary sources (see WP:V), that's why there is still no consensus among editors to this day (as for myself, I'm mostly neutral). Thibaut (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

While not an editor, I agree a separate section to disambiguate also in the English version of this page would be a good idea. Not sure if this would be acceptable now, however, considering the RfC on Yasuke's page.

Regarding 大名記, a cursory Google search for Japanese sources yielded no results, but I can look a little deeper later. While it may be a physical-only register, some discussions around it should exist online. @AndreSvyatoy is the translation of the passage from the Shincho Koki yours or is it sourced from somewhere? 81.223.103.71 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The part of Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki i've mentioned was both a translation and a little simplification of mine, I have to clarify what i mean is i didn't translate it but i did simplify a little, i did talk about it in similar ways here and there which may be found, the source itself can be found much easier, it's a source that is made from letters and diary of Nobunaga and witnesses

-

The answer to the question would be that the passage is originally from the source itself AndreSvyatoy (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm super late to the party, but I would direct everyone to this. Particularly because in the section labeled 「大名評判記」諸本について it says, translated roughly by me, Starting in the mid-17th century and continuing through the 18th century, there were a number of books that could be collectively called the "Daimyo Hyōbanki," or "Records of the Reputations of the Daimyos,"「大名評判記」 in which various daimyo were discussed and evaluated in every aspect, from the good and bad of their governance, to their wisdom and folly, and even their sexual desires.

In short the notion that there is a mythical Daimyoki held in possession of the Kanazawa library which contains the identity of every samurai which ever lived is dubious at best, especially since by all accounts the source being discussed is actually probably one of the many "Daimyo Hyōbanki", which are records specifically about the Daimyo. Other than that, there's also this, which is mentioned here as [切支丹大名記] in a title that translates to the Kirishitan Daimyoki written by Steissien. Since this one is noted as the "Kirishitan" Daimyoki, it seems reasonable to assume that there are other "Daimyoki", and that "Daimyoki" might just be a shortenening of "Daimyo Hyōbanki" in a similar way that the Shinchō Kōki/Nobunaga Kōki 信長公記 is sometimes shortened to 信長記/Nobunaga-ki. You can also read a little bit more about the Daimyo hyoban-ki here

Likewise, this dissertation writes The intellectual historian Wakao Masaki, for example, points out that from about the middle of the seventeenth century to the middle of the eighteenth century, works were being created with evaluations of character, behaviour, and other traits of daimyo lords. These works, now called “daimyo hyōbanki,” did not have “hyōban” in their titles, such as the Warrior Houses Chronicle of Forbearance (Buke kanninki 武家諌忍記), the Warrior Houses Chronicle of Rewards and Reprimands (Buke kanchōki 武家勧懲記), and the Chronicle of Rewards and Reprimands Corrected Later (Kanchōki gosei 諌懲記後正),204 but evidently they were a way to evaluate and criticize contemporary daimyo in a clandestine, anonymous way. These texts by unknown authors circulated only as manuscripts, and actually many daimyo lords themselves, apparently concerned with their own public reputation, collected such works to know what others were saying about them

In short, there's a lot of evidence of daimyo hyōbanki, and almost no evidence of anything called a "Daimyoki" outside of scarce few examples like the "Kirishitan Daimyoki" and a work of fiction titled "Shinano Daimyoki". Much like that one friend's girlfriend who goes to a different school, you totally don't know her, the existence of a Kanazawa Library Daimyoki that lists every retainer and samurai who ever lived seems to be a fanciful story. If such a document existed, you would think it would be at least cited somewhere in a scholarly book or text from Japan, but there is no evidence that such a text called simply the "大名記" has ever been referenced. Brocade River Poems 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, you're not late at all as it still seems to be a discussion and it's only a month older than your account but from what i can tell you haven't read the whole discussion and i mean no offense here, i also skim through certain things, others have said very similar things before which we have discussed, i recommend checking them, especially the part i mentioned Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki.

ㅤ

ㅤ

Also keep in mind Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki which is compiled of Nobunaga's letters, his diary, witnesses was also not cited on the internet in English language until early 2010's thanks to a Lithuanian and a Dutch, now if we're still discussing whether there's a source on internet in which we can find in detail where Nobunaga's samurai are mentioned i believe this bibliography is very detailed.

ㅤ

ㅤ

About Wakao Masaki and the file you found in https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0366126 thanks for the interesting find, i'll read this later.

ㅤ

ㅤ

"outside of scarce few examples like "Kirishitan Daimyoki""

ㅤ

ㅤ

Now Kirishitan Daimyoki is a book or rather a bibliography of sorts which the description of would translate to "the christian daimyo or political and religious history of Japan 1549 - 1650" which is probably mentioning Omura Sumitada, it seems to be a bibliography which can be found on the internet, chances are you did come across a book that was already out of stock on internet, i guess we're on same page.

ㅤㅤ

ㅤ

What is actually fanciful though is that there's a black african samurai, being pushed far enough with an agenda purpose and news or blogs used as a source it took attention in Japanese government and was decided to be discussed later too as trying to rewrite a history is nothing but a shameful action, i mean no personal offense here or no passive aggressiveness against you, i'm talking generally about certain people. AndreSvyatoy (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Notably, per the post above Of course not! What I meant is that there should be at least a library catalog record of a document called "大名記" so we know what document we are talking about, the only one I could find on library.kanazawa-u.ac.jp and lib.kanazawa.ishikawa.jp is "切支丹大名記", the only document held by the Kanazawa Library titled 大名記 is the same 切支丹大名記 AKA The Kirishitan Daimyoki. Which is this book. There is no secret Daimyoki which contains the names of every samurai that is held only by the Kanazawa library, by the Kanazawa library's own reckoning. As for Shincho Koki, that's already been located. It's the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga-ki which is the Maeda Clan's private archives. The document in question has been quoted by Professor Hiraku Kaneko in his book 『織田信長という歴史　－　「信長記」の彼方へ』. There's no use in me discussing the Nobunaga-ki because it has already been located. I went looking for the "大名記" because it hasn't really been verified whether it existed or not. So far it seems pretty clear that the notion that there exists a "大名記" that contains the name of every samurai ever that is held exclusively by the Kanazawa library is untrue. Brocade River Poems 03:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We all have talked about these, i get you've been here for only 15 days but we're not going back to step 1, please do learn to read first instead of feeling lazy about it and just skimming through certain things, being selective isn't a nice habit

Again, not everything is dumped to the internet and definitely not everything is found on the internet too, please feel free to provide evidence to the claim of an african samurai as absence of evidence is not an evidence of another thing's existence

As i said before Kirishitan Daimyoki is probably a reference to christian daimyo Omura Sumitada

About "Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki" it's a whole thing that was put together by Ota Gyuichi using witnesses, Nobunaga's letters and his diary, we're not asking it's location as it has already been translated, i'm pretty sure about your motives but there's enough evidence for this certain person to not having ever been a samurai let alone being allowed much company of his own unfortunately AndreSvyatoy (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that English sources of equal quality are preferred over non English sources in wikipedia, in this case we're going by Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki, thank you for your attention on this topic

WP:RSUEC AndreSvyatoy (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there is nothing in existence called Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki. The Shinchō Kōki and the Nobunaga Kōki are different names for the same text. This has already been explained to you. Secondly, English sources of equal quality are preferred over non English sources in wikipedia brings to question why you started this topic about Yasuke's name not appearing in the seemingly nonexistent daimyoki that is exclusively in Japanese and in the secret possession of a library in Kanazawa unseen by any mortal eyes, as there are no mentions or references to this so-called daimyoki in any scholarly publication.

Secondly i get you've been here for only 15 days but we're not going back to step 1, please do learn to read first instead of feeling lazy about it and just skimming through certain things, being selective isn't a nice habit, refer to WP:NPA, On June 24th an IP Editor wrote Regarding 大名記, a cursory Google search for Japanese sources yielded no results, but I can look a little deeper later. While it may be a physical-only register, some discussions around it should exist online., On June 26th you again insisted As i have said the daimyoki would be in Kanazawa library. I was following up on searching for the source, as the IP Editor who said t I can look a little deeper later never returned.

As for the statement regarding WP:RSUEC, the part you leave out is English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance the section which I have added emphasis. The Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga-ki has no English translation and contains text which is different from the other versions of the Nobunaga-ki. Likewise, Professor Hiraku Kaneko's book has not been translated into English, and we should do well to remember per WP:Verifiability Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic.

Professor Kaneko's book is a reliable secondary source, the Nobunaga-ki is a primary source. So in short you have proposed a source that nobody can access, read, or verify its existence in the form of the Daimyoki, and have just decided to throw mud at me and declare that we're talking about the Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki which is just two ways of referring to the same text.

There are Daimyo Hyōbanki, and the Kirishitan Daimyoki, but there is exactly zero evidence of the existence of anything called simply the Daimyoki that contains the name of every samurai that ever existed outside of random internet fantasy, posted on a facebook Ubisoft post by a random user who purported to be Japanese and which has been turned into a meme and a copypasta and circulated around the internet. It is, quite frankly, a WP:HOAX. Brocade River Poems 05:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"There is nothing in existence called Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki"

ㅤ

this type of ignorance and arrogance is specific to certain people only

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Shinchō_Kōki

https://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Nobunaga-Japanese-Studies-Library/dp/9004201629

ㅤ

ㅤ

"Why start this topic if English source is preferred over foreign source"

It's because before mentioning the English source i didn't know that it was preferred over foreign source, it's also the reason why i provided certain translations from the book directly, it also can be accessed easily etc etc etc etc etc etc

ㅤ

I believe you would need to refer to WP:NPA instead as your first reply was a direct attack filled with implication in your example of "Much like that one friend's girlfriend" let's not be a hypocrite here

ㅤ

ㅤ

"The person who wanted to look deeper for daimyoki has never returned"

This is due to me having given an English source of an equal quality, do not jump into conclusions about other people, you do not have that right dear american

ㅤ

ㅤ

"The Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga-ki has no English translation and contains text which is different from the other versions of the Nobunaga-ki"

ㅤ

ㅤ

God you really know nothing about the topic do you, selective reading, we're talking about Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki that was compiled by Ota Gyuichi using Nobunaga's diary, letters, witnesses which was translated to English by JSA Elisonas and JP Lamers and published in 2011, we're not talking about your narrative or the google translation

"Nobunaga-ki is a primary source. So in short you have proposed a source that nobody can access, read, or verify its existence"

ㅤ

https://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Nobunaga-Japanese-Studies-Library/dp/9004201629

Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki is an amalgamation of primary and secondary source as it's compiled using witnesses, Nobunaga's diary, letters, it doesn't gets more verifiable than this when we're talking about your fake african samurai compared to the evidence that was given for him being a samurai

ㅤ

ㅤ

I won't reply to the rest as it's simple skepticism and whataboutism, you're just being a professional victim, i'm pretty sure my first reply to you was very respectful compared to your second reply to me, i would rather you cut contact

ㅤ

Your point is to question me to make me look like a liar but the editors have or are already reading the book i provided as a source and discussing it, better luck next time mate

ㅤ

Your nit picking won't get you anywhere here, i told you i'm already aware of your intentions and your motives, fortunately Europeans like us don't play the favourites in socials AndreSvyatoy (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Do not lengthen this nonsense discussion, it's over, i've provided an English source which can be verified and read which certain editors have read or are reading as i've seen in other discussions, you trying to question me while playing the victim even though i tried being respectful while you passed the boundaries constantly is something i'm very familiar with, please refrain from further contact mate AndreSvyatoy (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know how to to explain this to you any more clearly. You linked to this, which says Shinchō Kōki, Nobunaga Kōki (Japanese: 信長公記, lit. 'The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga')

There is no book titled 'Shinchō Kōki Nobunaga Kōki'. The book which is called the Shinchō Kōki is also called the Nobunaga Kōki. For instance, it gives Shinchō Ki (信長記). Shinchō is just a different way of reading the kanji that makes up Nobunaga's name.

Ergo, 信長公記 is both "Nobunaga Kōki" and "Shinchō Kōki".

I believe you would need to refer to WP:NPA instead as your first reply was a direct attack filled with implication in your example of "Much like that one friend's girlfriend" let's not be a hypocrite here

That isn't a personal attack, that is me calling your source fictitious because it is.

This is due to me having given an English source of an equal quality, do not jump into conclusions about other people, you do not have that right dear american

Unless you're inferring that you have intimate knowledge of what the IP Editor's intentions were, which is a very odd thing for you to have, you have no idea why the user never returned. do not jump into conclusions about other people, you do not have that right dear american Very weird that you're bringing nationality into this.

God you really know nothing about the topic do you, selective reading, we're talking about Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki that was compiled by Ota Gyuichi using Nobunaga's diary, letters, witnesses which was translated to English by JSA Elisonas and JP Lamers and published in 2011, we're not talking about your narrative or the google translation

No I'm not. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, apparently. There is a different version of the Shinchō Kōki that is only possessed by the Sonkeikaku Bunko(尊経閣文庫) which includes a different passage about Yasuke. The version of the Shinchō Kōki owned by the Sonkeikaku Bunko purports to be an earlier draft edition of the Shinchō Kōki. This fact has been recognized by multiple Japanese historians from Hiraku Kaneko to Yuichi Goza as in fact existing.

we're not talking about your narrative or the google translation

It isn't my narrative. It isn't google translate. It is you failing to understand that there are two different versions of the text called the Shinchō Kōki.

Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki is an amalgamation of primary and secondary source as it's compiled using witnesses, Nobunaga's diary, letters, it doesn't gets more verifiable than this when we're talking about your fake african samurai compared to the evidence that was given for him being a samurai

No, dude. For the purposes of Wikipedia and most of academia the Shinchō Kōki is considered a primary source, in the same way that the Ietada Diary is considered a primary source, and the Jesuit letters are primary sources. See: In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

So not only have you spread a false narrative about a Daimyoki that doesn't exist, you're also willfully choosing to WP:IDHT over the fact that there are different versions of the Shinchō Kōki, one of which has not been translated in English.

A far more useful, and very much extant source, is 「織田信長家臣人名辞典 第２版」, which contains the details of 1,400+ of Nobunaga's vassals, updated in 2010 to account for new information, which does not list Yasuke. Brocade River Poems 09:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Good lord heavens almighty, walk away WP:IDAWT

ㅤ

Refer to that WP:STUBBORN after reading as you suggested, you're not proving anything here, you're simply being a parrot by which i mean repeating others, please keep in mind while reading that i used all caps as a way of highlighting not shouting

ㅤ

After careful consideration i have concluded that you had nothing to add to this discussion from the beginning, i won't reply to your accusations or defamation after this last reply, you could simply "cope" if the term is right, this discussion is being continued by you as a self relief content WP:DISPUTE

ㅤ

ㅤ

"There is no book titled as Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki"

ㅤ

You really should have read the whole discussion before coming here, we explained things there, i use it as a long name for distinction as there's 2 works which have gone by same names apparently, there's simply nothing in your power you can do to stop me, whether you want to shorten it or use a single name doesn't bother me just like how me using both names shouldn't have been bothering you in theory but it's not like that in practice, is it now, you're nit picking to find something to argue about to pull yourself sadly

ㅤ

ㅤ

"That isn't a personal attack"

ㅤ

Then mine is not a personal attack, you can prefer to stop as i suggested to not get offended, there is no point in self harm by being in a place which you get offended at

ㅤ

ㅤ

"Very weird that you're bringing nationality into this"

ㅤ

Not at all, westerners like accusing people a lot, i simply recognise the logic, i was only mentioning, from your profile it also looks clear when we consider language dialects, that's all, please keep in mind i mean no offense here even though it may look like it, southern american dialect of English is a dialect that i like very much too

ㅤ

ㅤ

"There's a different version of Shincho Koki which includes a different passage about yasuke, this is recognised by many Japanese historians"

ㅤ

You need to provide evidence while talking about people, provide an evidence that it's recognised by these many Japanese historians and please provide us with what was recognised exactly as in the text that was recognised which hopefully mentions name yasuke too, i've heard the same tally before WP:V, also are you kidding me, did you read your own source, in the YUICHI GOZA LINK YOU HAVE PROVIDED it literally SAYS THAT HE'S NOT A LEGENDARY SAMURAI AS WESTERNERS CLAIM, can you even read Japanese, later it says "books held by Sonkeikaku Bunko, in Nobunaga Koki there's a description that says Nobunaga gave him a sword and a mansion, being an indication that he was a samurai, HOWEVER this is the only one that appears in this manuscript out of dozens of manuscripts of Nobunaga Koki, WE CAN'T DENY THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS ADDED IN LATER GENERATIONS" are you sure you have read this, in the entire thing HE LITERALLY SAYS IT'S UNLIKELY THAT HE WAS A SAMURAI AND THAT HE WASN'T RECORDED MUCH AS HE WASN'T IMPORTANT, please read, later he says "i don't think he was anything like "samurai warrior" that WESTERNERS IMAGINE" he's talking about your people here when he's saying westerners, oh also did you come here from some ubisoft discussion my guy, you did mention ubisoft before after all and i could only imagine as the interview talks about ubisoft, in the rest he keeps saying even more about the fake samurai which he doesn't even talks appreciative about or confirm his fake title

ㅤ

ㅤ

"It is you failing to understand"

ㅤ

I was replying to you LITERALLY SAYING IT'S DIFFERENT especially when you said "As for Shincho Koki, that's already been located. It's the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga-ki which is the Maeda Clan's private archives. The Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga-ki has no English translation and contains text which is different from the other versions of the Nobunaga-ki" implying that it's very different to the point of being the only correct book while both are correct, in fact the text in the version you're mentioning is apparently thought to be added in later generations as the link you provided about Yuichi Goza suggests and none of them proves the existence of an african black samurai, it only proves the existence of a black african person who was given to Oda Nobunaga by Alessandro Valignano at the request of Oda Nobunaga himself

ㅤ

ㅤ

"No, dude. For the purposes of Wikipedia and most of academia the Shinchō Kōki is considered a primary source like Ietada's diary"

ㅤ

First of all Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki is not a diary, it's much more than that, i'm sorry to break it up to you but it is really an amalgamation of both primary and secondary sources as the witnesses are included in this, please refer to "Accuracy" in Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Shinchō_Kōki page on the wikipedia and read all of it without taking it out of context, it says "however" 2 times, i shouldn't have to explain but keep in mind especially but not specifically in formal places such as courts this counts as a counter to a negative due to being a double negative "In historiography, biographies and war chronicles are regarded as secondary sources based on primary sources such as letters. However, partly because it was written by a contemporary of Nobunaga, Shinchō Kōki is treated as a primary source. However, Gyūichi was not so senior among Oda's vassals and the information he had access to was not perfect. Also, in manuscripts, the transcribers sometimes made mistakes, intentionally rewritten or added things that were not written down. Nevertheless, it is evaluated among researchers that its credibility stands out from other war chronicles, and it is rated in line with primary historical sources.", there's no historical source that is of Japanese origin while being from the Sengoku period that talks about this fake samurai in a way to confirm him as a samurai, please refer to that WP:STUBBORN again, please do KEEP IN MIND THAT PRIMARY SOURCES CAN BE USED TOO AS LONG AS IT'S VERIFIABLE WP:RELIABILITY - WP:V, which is just like Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki even though it isn't only a primary source, thank you for your understanding or stubornness, whichever you will continue with is purely up to you

ㅤ

ㅤ

"you're willfully choosing to

WP:IDHT

over the fact that there are different versions of the Shinchō Kōki"

ㅤ

WP:IDAWT

ㅤ

First point about

WP:IDHT

is we're not editing a thing, we as in both you and me, secondly Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki is already accepted as a valid source, please refer to these lines "Nevertheless, it is evaluated among researchers that its credibility stands out from other war chronicles, and it is rated in line with primary historical sources.", lastly i shouldn't even have to explain this but there's literally no evidence and not even an implication of me not accepting "different versions" of Shincho Koki, the rest is purely your interpretations

ㅤ

ㅤ

"Unless you know the IP Editor's intentions, which is a very odd thing for you to have, you have no idea why the user never returned"

ㅤ

Just like you when you said "the person who wanted to look deeper never returned" oh also i did get a thanks for my reply when i provided an english source, WHICH ONLY PROVES MY POINT FURTHER, the last reply i made for them also got thanks as a sign of having been read, this would further prove against your "the person who wanted to look deeper never returned" which is a baseless accusation PURELY FOR CONFIRMATION BIAS and that's all, this is just basically witch hunting

ㅤ

ㅤ

"A far more useful, and very much extant source, is 「織田信長家臣人名辞典 第２版」"

ㅤ

My guy... that... that is a book written by Katsuhiro Taniguchi, it's definitely not more useful than Shincho Koki that was compiled by Ota Gyuichi, it may be useful but not more than an amalgamation of both primary and secondary source, that's a tertiary source, not even secondary, according to you i should go with something that can be discredited easily compared to something that can be proven correct easily WP:PREPRINTS

ㅤ

THE END AndreSvyatoy (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the issue of Yasuke being a samurai or not is still being debated on the Yasuke talk page. Until consensus is reached there, there isn't much point in changing just some articles while having conflicting information in others. I don't think the daimyoki has been brought up yet there so it might be worth mentioning it since the discussion seems to be at a standstill. Yvan Part (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Until a deciding factor is chosen for a consensus i doubt people will reach to a consensus or even accept this, how will it be decided that a consensus has been reached and why blog like links are used as a source?

And about Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki, the whole thing isn't exactly my own interpretation, it is a source that can be reached much easily than the daimyoki and i believe it is more reliable than a news site not showing reliable sources, Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki is basically an amalgamation of sources from first hand and third hand, it was put together from Nobunaga's letters and diary and witnesses, the witnesses are the only part here where the source would be looking at a third hand but it is still witnesses from exactly in those times AndreSvyatoy (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I also cannot find anything that seems to match your 大名記. I well understand that not everything is available online; however, important documents are usually at least mentioned somewhere online, and this one does not appear to be. Is there anything more to the title of the work? Any author name? Any date?

Separately, you mention "Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki". This is somewhat confusing, as there is no work by this name that I am aware of. There is the 信長公記 (Shinchō Kōki), and there is the 信長記 (Shinchō-ki), with quite a bit of confusion and overlap between different editions and authors. As labeled by Professor Hiraku Kaneko, the Shinchō Kōki is a collection of different manuscript copies of a work originally pulled together by Ōta Gyūichi, who served under Oda Nobunaga, which appears to be a mostly factual account based on things that Ōta witnessed directly or heard about second-hand. Meanwhile, the Shinchō-ki is a different work entirely written by Oze Hoan, based in part on Ōta's accounts, but expanded and embellished by Oze with a mind to creating a more compelling narrative, without regard to factuality. Oze's version was printed, and achieved mass-market popularity, while Ōta's factual accounts long remained solely in manuscript form, languishing as obscure additions to private libraries.

@AndreSvyatoy, looking at your translation above, "On the 23rd of the Second Month, a blackamoor came from the Kirishitan Country." This appears to match text I've seen in Japanese. Which version of the Shinchō Kōki was that from?

About Valignano "turning over" Yasuke to Nobunaga, I posted the Portuguese letter describing this incident over at Talk:Yasuke in this edit. Search the page for the phrase "deixou a Nobunânga polo deſejar" ("left to Nobunaga [to do with] as he wished"). It does seem clear from the Portuguese account that Yasuke was not allowed much agency of his own. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As i have said the daimyoki would be in Kanazawa library

There may or may not be a PDF file named The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga which is a translation of Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki by Jurgis S.A. Elisonas and Jeroen Pieter Lamers

Here's a wikipedia page about Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Shinchō_Kōki

Shincho Ki seems to be a different way to mention Shincho Koki as much as i could learn, unless you're talking about a whole different thing, i can't find a different thing by searching for Shincho Ki, as i said before Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki is compiled from Nobunaga's letters, diary, witnesses, which does make up for first hand and second hand and third hand source, not just the witnesses only, compared to a random blog like news links it's infinitely more credible

There's no african samurai mentioned in original sources as i've found, there's also no original source being mentioned while claiming him as a samurai, as i know the only historian that claims him as a samurai is an american historian who also doesn't seem to mention original sources, the latter is not my findings AndreSvyatoy (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand you. You appear to be using "Shincho Koki Nobunaga Koki" as a kind of long-version title of a single work, equivalent to Shinchō Kōki.

About the Shinchō-ki, the historical record itself is muddled, as both Ōta's factual work and Oze's embellished story have gone by both names, 信長公記 (Shinchō Kōki) and 信長記 (Shinchō-ki). Professor Hiraku Kaneko explains the history of both works in the introduction to his book, 「織田信長という歴史　『信長記』の彼方へ」.

See also w:Shinchō_Kōki#Title, which references Kaneko's book.

Agreed that there's no African samurai mentioned in any primary materials that I've seen so far. Thomas Lockley is probably the American author you're thinking of. There's also Jonathan López-Vera, a historian in Spain (his personal website: https://www.jonathanlopezvera.com/), who describes Yasuke as a samurai in a super-short passing mention in his book A History of the Samurai — but he also doesn't cite any original sources. He has a very long bibliography, shared with me over at w:User_talk:Eirikr#Lopez-Vera_Sources, but no in-line citations, so we have no way of understanding what specific materials López-Vera referenced in his judgment that Yasuke was a samurai. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

To this day i haven't thought Shincho Koki refers to 2 different materials, though i believe when i mentioned Nobunaga Koki it probably clears it a little and clarifies what i mean unless i understood this wrong, thank you for all the informations AndreSvyatoy (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Ranks higher the Hatamoto

The article says "Foreign-born people who served the Tokugawa shogun and were granted a status higher than Hatamoto." This would suggest that Hatamoto is not a samurai rank, because it is too long. Therefore, William Adams is not a samurai because he was only Hatamoto. This is most likely an error. I can’t read Japanese, so I can’t say if this is what the sources say. It is also a very high bar to clear. A lot of samurai were not direct retainers of the Shogun, and most of the Shogun's samurai were not Hatamoto. What is the basis for this standard? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke at the Conquest of Koshu?

In the table, one reads that Yasuke "participated in the Conquest of Koshu", with interlanguage link to this ja.wiki article, 甲州征伐, and this Japanese source as reference. I don't read Japanese - could someone please check? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, This is an interesting one. Started off reading the page in the link. The third paragraph (reading right to left), which begins "バーク" contains a description of Yasuke meeting Nobunaga, Nobunaga's amazement at seeing Yasuke, and having him strip to show the skin on his body. Yasuke is not mentioned by name, but using the characters "黒奴". Looking over the rest of those pages, I didn't see anything else relating to Yasuke, but I skimmed it fairly quickly. Then noticed a search box at the top right. Searching for 弥助 (Yasuke), 甲州 (Koshu), 武田 (Takeda, the conquered clan in that conquest), all yielded no results; and there is only that one instance of 黒奴.

Then returned to the article to check that the link was correct and noticed something strange... the link is as in the reference, but the description in the article does not match the linked document. The description "松平家忠、「家忠日記」、文科大学史誌叢書第2巻、吉川半七、1897年、54頁" is the Ietada diary, which describes Ietada meeting Nobunaga during the latter's post-conquest tour of the conquered territory, and Yasuke being with him. The linked document 日本西教史 上巻 is a "History of Western Religion, Vol. 1". The Ietada diary was initially referenced without a link. Searching the page history, the link was added in this edit by @Tinynanorobots, which is to a different section, but uses the same named ref tags. Probably a copy/paste error. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, let's hear from Tinynanorobots. If no one has access to the original source, the Ietada diary (松平家忠、「家忠日記」、文科大学史誌叢書第2巻、吉川半七、1897年、54頁) I think we should should remove the reference to Yasuke participating in the conquest of Koshu, as I've never found it mentioned in any other source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I found a copy of the Ietada diary here. The relevant diary entry is on the far left of those pages, dated "十九日" (Day 19). It's handwritten cursive script, which is harder to read. Have found some transcriptions which match the more easily discernible characters, but not yet found any in reliable sources. The text as presented in those transcriptions is, 上様御ふち候大うす進上申候、くろ男御つれ候、身ハすみノコトク、タケハ六尺 二分、名ハ弥介と云, which for the most part aligns with my reading of the cursive. I do think one of the characters for Yasuke (弥介) is incorrectly transcribed, and should be 弥助; and there may be other errors.

My own reading of the text as transcribed is that it mentions Yasuke's name, height, body colour, that he was accompanied or was with Nobunaga, was given by the Jesuits (here 大うす), and received stipend or sustenance (ふち) from Nobunaga (referred to as 上様).

English translation on another of the non-reliable sites is, On the 19th (of April,) 1586, it rained. The lord (Nobunaga) took with him a black man, who has been given provisions by Nobunaga and presented by the missionaries. His body was like black ink, standing at six shaku and two bu (approximately six feet), and his name was Yasuke., which is not unreasonable. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, nothing to do with the "Conquest of Koshu", whatever it is, so I'm now removing text and reference. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah. The link is that on that date (Tensho 10 Month 4 Day 19), Nobunaga was returning from having inspected the conquered territory of Koshu (Kai Province). But the war against the Takeda clan in Koshu was carried out by Nobunaga's son, Oda Nobutada (see section "Conquest of Koshu"), and the fighting was over prior to Nobunaga's arrival.

Certainly, the Ietada diary does not directly support saying that Yasuke was involved in the conquest itself. He may have been, but he may have just been part of Nobunaga's subsequent inspection tour.

Comfortable with the removal. Rotary Engine ^talk 13:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I will restore this noting that he was present on the date of the inspection tour. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is relevant. I think that it probably falls into Wikipedia:NOTOBVIOUSSYNTH. But it also may be implying that Yasuke is a samurai because he was there for the inspection tour. It also doesn't fit in with the other listings, which don’t list campaigns. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I do think one of the characters for Yasuke (弥介) is incorrectly transcribed, and should be 弥助; and there may be other errors.

"Yasuke" is also a reading for 弥介. Think of it as an alternative way of writing his name. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Selection criteria and Definitions

It seems that the selection criteria and definition encourages WP:SYNTH and should be brought in line with WP:LSC and it is especially difficult because of the different and confusing definition. The definitions in the article seem to quote Japanese sources, but have a much stricter definition than other sources, in many cases disqualifying most if not all the listed persons, relies on dictionaries and not historians. Really, what should be used as criteria would be a RS describing the person as a samurai. Any caveats should be added to explain any considerations. I think the definition section needs updating. Does anyone have an opinion on this? @2804:29b8:509e:616d:48d5:e5c8:34c7:37c6@Gitz6666 @Gianmariot2 @Symphony Regalia @Rotary Engine@AndreSvyatoy @Sacchisachi@Eirikr@81.223.103.71 @Yvan Part@Thibaut120094 Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. We should simply drop the "Definition" section and stick to what reliable sources say. See for example Constantine Nomikos Vaporis, Samurai: An Encyclopedia of Japan's Cultured Warriors, ABC-CLIO, 2019 [3], with a chapter on "Foreign-born saumarai" listing Yasuke, William Adam (although "It is questionable whether or not we can consider Adams a samurai") and Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn, plus Jules Brunet and Eugene Collache (noting that Callace "appears to have worn samurai attire, including the two swords, but in neither case can they be considered samurai"). Vaporis writes that

A number of foreigners (non-native Japanese) during the Edo period were given special status in the form of a fief or stipend and the privilege of wearing two swords. In addition, during the period of unification prior to then (1568–1600), before the status system was established, several foreign-born people were granted a fief or stipend in rice by their lord. It is questionable whether or not these historical figures should be considered bushi (i.e., samurai in a general sense of the word).

At most, we could replace our overly detailed and arbitrary "Definition" section with a few lines of informative text sourced from Vaporis and others. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

This ping didn't worK @Symphony Regalia Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on using RS mentioning a given historical person of interest as being or not being a samurai instead of going by an extra Definition (or a dictionary definition) for the purpose of this article page. SmallMender (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I made some changes. I hope that will get the page moving in the right direction. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a good direction. —Alalch E. 16:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the selection criteria and definition sections. "Japanese warrior" is not a good definition for lines elsewhere though. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The definition is not "Japanese Warrior", the line about Japanese warrior is explaining how the term Samurai is often used. Also, why do you think it is not good? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, the sentence: Here it is taken to mean "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility" has two problems. The quote isn't found in the cited source, and the whole sentence doesn't apply to the list. The whole point is that this list doesn't use a single definition or any definition of samurai. "Those who serve in close attendance to the nobility" also doesn't apply to many of the listed persons. It depends on what "close attendance" means, but also nobility. Does nobility mean Kuge? Was Nobunaga a Kuge as well as a Bushi? That is the kind of dispute we want to avoid. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It is in the source and no definition will be perfect, but "Japanese warrior" isn't an improvement because the article is about counter-examples to that. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You think that "Japanese warrior" means person born in Japan who is a warrior. It means something more like, the type of warrior that is in Japan. Or it could be similar to a foreign born US soldier. Several of those listed could be said to have become "Japanese" to an extent. I am not sure what the legal situation was at the time regarding citizenship, but William Adams was treated in some ways like a Japanese person and in many ways acted as one.

The other point you miss is that the purpose of mentioning it, is to point out common usage of the term, not to act as criteria for the list. Yeah, a non-Japanese Samurai is a bit of an oximoron. The criteria for inclusion on the list is a RS calling them a samurai. That is the consensus. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's easily misinterpreted though it's not a very good definition. You could even say it actively causes some confusion. It also takes sourced information away while adding none. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The definition is sourced. Have you read the book? The version you were restoring was removing sourced information, but keeping the reference. That is even worse. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"Japanese warrior" is vague to the point of providing no utility to the reader. The status quo definition matches what sources say. EEpic (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666@Alalch E.@Ethiopian Epic@SmallMender I pinged everyone who took part in this discussion already. There is a dispute about the defintion used. Ethiopian Epic wants to removed the line explaining the generic usuage of the word samurai, and replace it with Here it is taken to mean "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility". I feel that this goes against consensus. There are other problems with it, such as the quote is not in Vaporis's book. His book does refer to a subset of samurai serving in close attendance to lords. It also doesn't apply to this list. Joosten and Adams, for example, did not serve in close attendance. It is even questionable if those who served as pages should count, because page is a job for youth. The quote is also on the Samurai article where the source is a William Wilson talking about the origin of the term, about 700-900, before it had military connotations. I don't have anything more to say on the subject. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll have a more careful look at this later. You can just remove badly sourced / unsourced / fake-sourced content yourself in the meantime. —Alalch E. 10:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a definition of "samurai" in this article. In any case, the definition "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility" is not supported by sources — at least, not by the quoted source, Vaporis. Besides, it seems wrong to me. Firstly, a defining feature of samurai is that they were warriors, i.e., they served in a military capacity. Secondly, they were not necessarily "in close attendance to the nobility": there were village chiefs (nanushi) and landowners (gokenin), as well as masterless samurai (ronin), who operated as independent mercenaries. I doubt this definition would apply to daimyo such as Oda Hidenobu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who served no one in the strict sense — they had no superiors — and yet are correctly described as "samurai" in their dedicated articles: they belonged to the warrior class, had military training and commanded armies. I'd say that samurai were high-ranking warriors in feudal Japan, not simply individuals who served in close proximity to the nobility. They were members of a hereditary class of warriors who served in military, administrative and landowning roles. As for foreign-born samurai, they were obviously not samurai by birth, but were admitted to the class through processes such as infeudation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is a link to the source[4]. The quote is about the origin of the word and what it meant before it referred to warriors. A more relative quote is this:

In English the use of " samurai " is both broader and narrower than in Japanese : broader in that it designates the entire bushi class and not just its upper levels, and narrower in that it fails to include Court or temple samurai who are not bushi[5]

I think either that we should accept that in this case samurai means bushi according to the common English usage, or change the name of the article to list of foreign-born bushi. Because a lot of Reliable sources say that samurai and bushi meant the same thing in the Edo period (which covers all the persons listed here), I think that the first option shouldn't be controversial. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an accurate representation. "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility" is sourced to Ideals of the Samurai: Writings of Japanese Warriors (ISBN 978-0-89750-081-4), and has been in both this article and the samurai article for over 10 years. Tinynanorobots wants to remove this line and replace it with The term is typically used generically to refer to Japanese warriors. I'm sure he has a good reason but I don't think it helps the article because it's redundant and because the article is about samurai who are not Japanese. EEpic (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't been able to check the source, Ideals of the Samurai, but that can't be an exhaustive definition. As I said, there were people who served the nobility who were not samurai (samurai served as warriors), and there were samurai who did not serve the nobility (e.g. ronin). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and these are interesting points. There are probably counterexamples, but "ronin" are only ronin because they previously had a master. Nanushi, gokenin, and so on are effectively classes of nobility. Nobility doesn't mean imperial it is based on social strata for example vassal. I also don't think it should be exhaustive, but since its sourced I don't think it should be outright removed and replaced with a new more vague definition though. EEpic (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Other content removals

The current article got striped bare by removing a lot of unrelated sections to the above discussion such as the "Foreign-born Samurai" which provides some long form details on the list entries, so I've restored those to keep the article from being a skeleton list. In the lead a new definition of The term is also typically used generically to refer to Japanese warriors was also inserted which I don't think adds any value, so I think the current status quo of those who serve in close attendance to the nobility is more informative. EEpic (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't repeat that. You've restored unsourced content. Please study the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. When you say "skeleton list" that doesn't mean anything. A list with little or no prose is a list, not a "skeleton list". Please study the style guideline on lists at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. —Alalch E. 09:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that any unsourced content should be removed. I'm referring to the removal of the "Foreign-born Samurai" section itself, not any particular line in it. A list with almost no prose does not make for a very good article (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) and that section was used to provide long form details that don't work well in tables. Most of the text that was in it can probably be sourced based on the citations in the relevant articles. Someone can take a look when they have time and re-add the portions that are verifiable. EEpic (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)