|
::::::::::::::::::See also the following essays: [[Wikipedia:Inaccuracy]]; [[Wikipedia:Applying reliability guidelines#Editorial Discretion]] "There's a common but misguided fatalism among editors who feel everything in a reliable source must be regarded as true, ''but editors are meant to interrogate their sources''. If a source is inaccurate, other secondary sources cannot be depended on to notice the inaccuracy." (emphasis added); [[Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources)]]; [[Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy#Journalism and news are not guaranteed reliable or secondary sources]]
::::::::::::::::::I do concur that coverage in reliable secondary sources ought be a significant (but not sole) factor in determining ''general'' reliability. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] <sup>[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]</sup> 07:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I believe I made the mistake in my last few comments of falling into the reliable/unreliable dichotomy that I was actually warning against. News sources are generally reliable, but other sources are more reliable. The argument for removing the sources was replacing them with better sources. The argument for keeping the sources was WP:WEIGHT. Which didn’t make sense. The news articles don’t add weight, because they are based on the same research and same expert. Also, 4 sources say x and 1 says y, therefore x is the majority opinion isn’t how WEIGHT works.
:::::::::::::::::That said, there are specific problems with those sources that have already been mentioned. I haven’t gone too much into depth on the problems because Symphony Regalia has said that it is against policy to judge the quality of a source with how it’s statements align with current scholarship.
::::Citation bundles which result in obfuscation of a substitution of quantity of sources for quality of sources are not good. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] <sup>[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]</sup> 07:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::In the absence of extensive scholarly debate about Yasuke, it is significant that many news organisations (BBC, CNN, TIME, etc.) and history magazines (Smithsonian) have relied on Lockley's work. From Wikipedia's point of view, it is significant because of [[WP:USEBYOTHERS]]. From the point of view of our readers, it is significant because it shows that "Yasuke was a samurai" is not our own doing (original research), but is generally accepted by the sources on which Wikipedia relies (which are the sources available, of a more or less good quality). [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 08:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::I am not sure how it helps the reader to cite sources that contain obvious errors. In-line citations are not even needed in the lead, except where there are statements that are likely to be contested. It seems as if the in-line citations are being added, just to get the sources added, and not to support any particular statement. This isn’t about the claim that Yasuke is a samurai, which is poorly supported by CNN and Time anyway. The term samurai is vague, and the actual meaning doesn’t always line up with common understanding.
::::::I am trying to think how I can convince you. Do you believe that everything from CNN must be considered reliable? Or would showing you the mistakes in the article help? I think removing the poor quality citations is supported by essays and even wiki policy. Use by others helps establish that Lockley is viewed as an expert by various news media. We don’t need to cite every source in the lead to establish that. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 14:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|sources that contain obvious errors}}. Such as...? [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
== Tricks or Good Manners? ==
The article says that Yasuke preformed tricks. I have noticed other sources say that he had good manners or temperament. Is it possible there is a translation error? [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:Oka Mihoko points out that existing published translation is in error and that she would translate the relevant passage as "very powerful in strength and talented." (非常に力があり、資質に優れている) [https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1820863453609042172][https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1821043228742676680] [[User:Underbar dk|_dk]] ([[User talk:Underbar dk|talk]]) 23:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:There's almost certainly translation errors for a number of aspects. I'm currently looking at the various descriptions of Yasuke's meeting with Nobunaga and seeing examples of this.
:e.g. Frois, in his letter dated 14 April 1581, uses the words "estranha festa" (strange party) to describe Yasuke disrobing to prove that his skin colour was natural. Solier renders this as "grand feste" (great feast), and begins to separate the words from the disrobing. Lockley in Tsunagu Sekai Shi 2 has 盛大な宴。(grand banquet); in Britannica, more simply, "a banquet", and in "African Samurai" has around 12 pages (e-book) describing the party, conversations & actions of the participants.
:The key divergence appears to be in the translation from Frois' Portuguese to Solier's French.
:<small>For completeness: Lopez-Vera in both ''Toyotomi Hideyoshi y Los Europeos'' and ''History of the Samurai'', and Ota Gyuichi in both the standard & ''Sonkeikaku Bunko'' (SBV) versions of the ''Shincho Koki'' do not include mention of a party or banquet.</small>
:The "good manners or temperament", I recall also being potentially better translated as "in good health", which is how Lopez-Vera's ''THyLE'' renders it: "aparencia sana"; sourcing this to Ota Gyuichi's ''Shincho Koki''. The equivalent section in Elisonas & Lamers' translation of that work is rendered as "looked robust and had a good demeanor". The SBV version in Japanese has 彼男器量すくやかにて, (good looks, fine appearance) but Kaneko's book indicates that 器量 is an SBV unique addition; so the other versions would have 彼男すくやかにて, which is more in line with "healthy appearance". And that, in line with comments of Oka, mentioned above, seems a far better translation than alternatives which emphasise beauty or temperament.
:I will try to find similar translation chains for the tricks. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] <sup>[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]</sup> 00:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
::I found another source that mentions Yasuke. It approaches the subject from the viewpoint of Jesuits and race. They believe he arrived as a slave and translate the "estranha festa" as a strange celebration. The author, Liam Matthew Brockley, specializes in Portuguese and religious history. [https://www.google.de/books/edition/Jesuits_and_Race/RlfSEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jesuits+japan+armed+attendants&pg=PA82&printsec=frontcover]https://www.google.de/books/edition/Jesuits_and_Race/RlfSEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jesuits+japan+armed+attendants&pg=PA82&printsec=frontcover [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 14:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::What Oka Mihoko refered to is in this dictionary:
::[https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Vocabulario_portuguez_e_latino/H-NBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1]https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Vocabulario_portuguez_e_latino/H-NBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
::check on page 293 for expression "boas manhas" which Oka claims this expression to be "very talented" or "had multiple talents"
::but this is not proven to be correct translation though, the original manuscript says in portuguese "tinha muitas forcas & algumas manhas boas" and the traditional Japanese translation has been treated the word "manhas" as more like "tricks" or "skills" hence Japanese word "芸".
::It seems Oka's claim is to understand the word "manha" as "manner or talent" instead of something of physical techniques.
::if it were mean of "good talents" or "good manner(demeanor)" would the writer put the word "algumas";"some" in English equivalent, to count that noun. not to mention that "boas manhas" seem to be 2-word-expression like "fine-manners" or "fine-skills" in that dictionary and the original manuscript is "(algumas) manhas boas". problem is that these 3 words are pretty general and are to be used daily: algumas = some or several, boas = good or fine, manha = skills or manners
::so possible literal translation would be
::1: "some good skills" or "some skills that were good"
::2: "several good manners"
::3: "some level of good-manners"
::if anyone is familiar with ancient portuguese, please share your thoughts.
::*my opnion on Oka's claim:
::very strange, Oka's claim is in decisive tone, clearly stating that she found "mis-translation" on her X post, as you can see in the above 2 references.
::and, in the latter reference of X, the user of X questions her, is the word "manha" derived from the latin word "manus"? so that manha should be treated as "manners" instead of "skills". and Oka replies she does not know or she is not sure because she is not an expert of Lain or Romance derived languages.
::now check it out on the dictionary Oka posted, her decisive claim is based on page 293 and just 1 page before that (in page 292), there is the description of the word "manha" , remember that "boas manhas" is the expression rather than the single word. so the dictionary first states meaning of the word itself and then shows the example-use and expressions related.
::the very first line of manha , it clearly says that
::Manha: parece que le(?) deriva do latim Manus → it seems that it derives from Latin (word) "Manus"
::and yet Oka does not know this, why?
::she did not even check what manha as word means, and claimed that the existing translation to be wrong? [[User:KeiTakahashi999|KeiTakahashi999]] ([[User talk:KeiTakahashi999|talk]]) 03:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I don’t think the meaning of the Latin root is important. I don’t think that counts as ancient Portuguese, it is probably considered early modern- A lot of people make statements in decisive tone, especially on twitter. That dictionary might be too new, and really it would be best to have an expert translate it. The context seems manners, because apparently that was important to the Japanese at the time and is remarked upon by Europeans visiting. Also, from the context, it isn’t clear what skills Yasuke had and would have been seen. However, I don’t know any Portuguese. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Indeed, there is no record for content of "algumas manhas boas" which Yasuke had;
::::what skills Yasuke might have shown or what some-good-manners he was evaluated for.
::::it is just ,
::::"He(Yasuke) had A and B , (because of these) Nobunaga liked him ～"
::::A : clearly is "a lot of physical strength"
::::B : some (a few 'if counting' or middle degree of 'if not counting'), manhas (skills or manners ?), boas(good, fine)
::::you can see the translation and manuscript of this section here:
::::[[Talk:Yasuke/Archive 2#The Tono Notation|Talk:Yasuke/Archive 2#The Tono Notation]]
::::Because of the way manuscript continues, Japanese translation has been
::::"he was very strong and he could do a few tricks", of course done by the expert at the time,
::::Oka claimed that this is mistranslation and should be "had multiple good talents" without careful investigation of the very source she refered to.
::::There is no record of describing Yasuke's character like "good manner or demeanor", which Lockley kept insisting. Other possible expression "器量也" is also thought to be related to his healthy physical appearance. so this "algumas manhas boas" is almost the only key remains un-known, whether manhas might mean skills, manners, or characteristics one might have like calm or smart.
::::If anyone can show the Italian version of this section that would be helpful because someone said that this Portuguese version is rewritten due to the accident and Italian version remains original though it might not be perfectly equivalent. I am still curious what expression that it used for this part.
::::I see that this dictionary might not be good to refer, while I cannot find anything better. [[User:KeiTakahashi999|KeiTakahashi999]] ([[User talk:KeiTakahashi999|talk]]) 01:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think it is difficult if one is translating old-fashioned Portuguese to Japanese and then to English. "Could do a few tricks" and "is talented" are phrases that could mean the same thing, but have different connotations. If Oka was talking on twitter, then it was probably in the context of the reaction to assassin´s creed. Without getting into a discussion on AC, a lot of the characterizations of Yasuke were based on a poor understanding of the historical context and were poorly phrased. If experts were responding to these poorly phrased statements and questions, that might explain their poor answers. In this case, if people were saying that Yasuke was a pet, then him doing tricks sounds to support that, in a way that him being talented does not.
:::::I think we should less worry about what people say on twitter (it is where people put their worse foot forward) and think about the correct translation for the wikipedia article. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 15:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::If you dislike the existing translation of "tricks", maybe use "skills" or "performances" it would not twist (much) the meaning of the original text of Portuguese.
::::::Even Oka's dictionary does not suggest the words like "talent, one's future potentials, or demeanor" in the entry of "manha". I can only assume that manha eventually gained the meaning of "manner" because someone with skill is thought to have learnt "manha", hence a person who has manha is like trained-person or skilled-person but not in modern sense of respectful behavior like demeanor instantly.
::::::That dictionary seems to show straight conncections to the obvious "skill" or "ability" rather than invisible characteristics.
::::::Here are some excerpt from page 292-293;
::::::"com manha" : with ability
::::::From "boas manhas" : "dancing, leaping, and all the oher good-manhas" which is inclined to the specific skills or performances.
::::::Note that the other expression
::::::"ma manhas" has "bad habits" as its meaning and this is the closest it gets to the modern sense of "manner" perhaps
::::::check it out yourselves. [[User:KeiTakahashi999|KeiTakahashi999]] ([[User talk:KeiTakahashi999|talk]]) 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
== Weapon-bearer ==
Does anyone know about this weapon bearer thing? This is Yasuke´s only explicitly named duty as a samurai. I haven’t been able to find out any information on this position. Literature I found about different bearers lists them as ''Monomachi'', but none are called weapon-bearer. There are spear-bearers, and if weapons here means defensive weapons, there is also a helmet-bearer. Some sources refer to Yasuke as a sword-bearer, which seems to have been the job of a page. I think this is more important than if he is a samurai, because a samurai is such a wide category, and some authors claim it applies to people Chogen etc. However, weapon bearer is an explicit job. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 07:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
:The "weapon-bearer" to my understanding comes from an interpretation of a primary source (carried out by an already included secondary source?) of the sentence in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke#cite_note-34
:Is it ''monomachi'' or ''monomochi'' as in 物持ち? The position of weapon-bearer would be ''dougumochi'' as in here: https://kotobank.jp/word/%E9%81%93%E5%85%B7%E6%8C%81-580033 [[User:SmallMender|SmallMender]] ([[User talk:SmallMender|talk]]) 11:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
::<small>(Wading back in...)</small>
::There is a primary-source quotation from the ''Sonkeikaku'' version of the ''[[Shinchō Kōki]]'' that modern authors have apparently used as grounds for calling Yasuke "weapon-bearer", even though the source text itself doesn't use the specific title 道具持ち (''dōgu-mochi''). The primary-source text was discussed earlier here: [[Talk:Yasuke/Archive_4#c-Eirikr-20240725001500-J2UDY7r00CRjH-20240722082300]].
::@[[User:SmallMender|SmallMender]], <code>#cite_note_34</code> doesn't seem to exist as an anchor on the page. If you mean the cite note currently visibly numbered 34, that's the Yahoo! Japan article [https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/d194e53c49a9b820a56755a998831cd6ec13f430 【戦国こぼれ話】織田信長が登用した黒人武将・弥助とは、いったい何者なのか]. This contains various problems, such as this bit:
::<blockquote style="border:1px solid gray;padding:4px;">信長は弥助を武士として身辺に置き、将来的には城持ちにまで引き立てようとしたという。<br/>Nobunaga kept Yasuke nearby as a ''bushi'' [warrior], and was apparently going to promote him in the future to castle-owner.</blockquote>
::This is an apparent misunderstanding / misattribution of an episode related in Lourenço Mexía's letter, as excerpted and translated earlier here: [[Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-Eirikr-20240524224800-X0n10ox-20240524024300]]. In that letter, Mexía described the gossip around town, that Nobunaga might make Yasuke a ''tono''. But again, this was gossip from around town -- not anything that Mexía attributed to Nobunaga himself.
::However, I don't see any other instances of 持ち in the Yahoo! Japan article, nor of the word 道具...? ‑‑ [[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr Útlendi]] │<sup>''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala við mig]]''</sup> 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Apologies, it seems like the sources were moved around. I should've used a permanent link. The source I had in mind is this one:
:::Kaneko, Hiraku (2009). 織田信長という歴史 － 「信長記」の彼方へ [The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the Shinchōki] (in Japanese). Iwanami Shoten. p. 311. ISBN 978-4-585-05420-7.
:::It is currently used as an in-line citation for the quote from Shinchō Kōki of the Sonkeikaku Bunko (尊経閣文庫). [[User:SmallMender|SmallMender]] ([[User talk:SmallMender|talk]]) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:SmallMender|SmallMender]] — ah, yes, in that case, please review my earlier post [[Talk:Yasuke/Archive_4#c-Eirikr-20240725001500-J2UDY7r00CRjH-20240722082300|here]] (now archived) regarding the specific wording, particularly note 4. In a nutshell: Ōta himself would have known the title 道具持ち (''dōgu-mochi'', "tool/weapon-bearer"), so his decision to instead describe Yasuke using roundabout wording (「依時御道具なともたされられ候」 / ''"sometimes he was allowed to / was made to hold/carry the [master's] tools and other items"'') tells us that Yasuke did not have the "weapon-bearer" title.
::::As an alternative perspective, since this is apparently the text that appears only in the ''Sonkeikaku'' version, and this was possibly added by Ōta Gyūichi's fourth-generation descendant Ōta Yazaemon Kazuhiro (per Professor Kaneko's book), this wording could be understood as an even stronger indication that Yasuke was not acting in any official "weapon-bearer" capacity. ‑‑ [[User:Eirikr|Eiríkr Útlendi]] │<sup>''[[User talk:Eirikr|Tala við mig]]''</sup> 18:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::If Kaneko is specifically saying the text about Yasuke is possibly added later, that should be put in the article. Do you know if dōgu-mochi is generic, or if it has connotations of a specific weapon. It seems some think it means sword and others think it means spear. Some of the few sources I found on google books are about castle towns. Unfortunately, they only allow snippets, so I can’t say what they say about the role, but maybe it is a position for daimyos, or just another name for a spear carrier. One of the few sources I found with the term uses it to describe Yasuke, calling him a porter of Nobunaga´s straight headed yari spear as well as a shikan samurai. https://www.google.de/books/edition/Samurai_Road/0jvJDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=d%C5%8Dgu-mochi&pg=PT197&printsec=frontcover Despite the few secondary sources on Yasuke, there seems some disagreement about him. It shows how much is interpretation and how it is communicated with confidence. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 15:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::御道具 When saying "item" politely
::::::なと etc.
::::::もたさせられ be made to have
::::::候 A word used to politely end a sentence
::::::He was sometimes assigned the responsibility of carrying tools by Nobunaga or his close aides.
::::::When talking about what tools are, weapons are most likely.
::::::However, Nobunaga did not always fight.
::::::He would ride around the territory on horseback, practice martial arts, and sometimes hold tea ceremonies with his acquaintances.
::::::Just before the Honnoji Incident, Nobunaga entered the temple with several dozen of his close associates, carrying 38 tea ceremony utensils (tea bowls, tea whisks, etc.).
::::::He then invites several celebrities as guests and holds a tea ceremony using the tools.
::::::A tea ceremony cannot be held with just tools. Tea leaves and sweets are also needed. All of these are considered tools.
::::::Money, clothes, and other daily necessities are also tools.
::::::This goes without saying, but they probably transported it in a box or something.
::::::Yasuke was said to be a strong man, so he would have been ideal for carrying heavy loads.
::::::I think we can only imagine what they were carrying.
::::::It must not be dropped and broken.
::::::It's true that Yasuke had earned at least that level of trust.
::::::Honestly, there may not be much point in thinking about this. [[User:Tanukisann|Tanukisann]] ([[User talk:Tanukisann|talk]]) 18:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I had forgotten.
:::::::In the early Edo period, special roles like this were given to certain samurai.
:::::::Yaribugyo, the person in charge of carrying the spears and swords used by the master.
:::::::Flag magistrate, in charge of showing the enemy and ally that the master is here.
:::::::Usually, in historical dramas, it is the page who holds the sword or spear near the master.
:::::::However, in times of war, this role was taken over by a samurai who had received special orders.
:::::::But as the world returned to peace, this role was soon abolished.
:::::::This is about the Tokugawa family, so it may not apply to the Oda family. [[User:Tanukisann|Tanukisann]] ([[User talk:Tanukisann|talk]]) 18:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I have read that Yaribugyo is the commander of spears. Ceremonial spear-carriers seem to have been common for persons of rank. When [[Captain Saris]] went from Hirado with Adams to meet the Shogun, a spear bearer was provided to carry the captain’s pike "as was the custom." https://archive.org/details/captainjvoyageof00saririch/page/120/mode/2up?q=pike
::::::::A black spear bearer is also seen in the Nanban byōbu in the article.
::::::::I was under the assumption that dōgu meant weapon in the context. I have read that the Japanese placed a lot of value on etiquette and ceremony. Specific things had specific people to carry them. It would be strange if the same person carried both Nobunaga´s sword and his tea set, especially since he had so many servants, but also because he would have his swords with him all the time, and probably one of his spear-bearers would be also around.
:::::::: [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 15:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Kaneko doesn't say it definitively. Really, it's more of the same that Yuichi Goza states. Kaneko says that the possibility cannot be discounted that the reference to Yasuke was taken from the Ietada Diary, but also says that because the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript also includes a lot details of Yasuke's private life versus his public life, noting {{tq|しかしながら、右に掲げたすべての増補記事を書写過程でつけ加えられた創作 として無視 してしまうこともむずかしいに違いない}} which I translated as {{tq|However, it would be difficult to simply disregard all of the above as creations added in the process of transcription.}} and that {{tq|とりわけ巻五冒頭の記事のうち二月十三日条の鹿狩記事など、表向きというよりむしろプライベートな信長の行動を記述 した記録という意味で、逆に真実味を帯びているといえないだろうか。}} and my translation {{tq|In particular, the account at the beginning of the fifth volume, which describes a deer hunt on February 13, is more a record of Nobunaga's private activities rather than his outwardly public ones.}}
:::::::Realistically Kaneko is saying that some of the accounts of more minute details of Nobunaga's life that are only present in the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript, but aren't in other manuscripts, are likely true because they deal with Nobunaga's private affairs rather than stuff that was widely publicly known. I doubt he intended this sentiment to extend to the Yasuke claim, but my doubts are irrelevant to what goes in the Wikipedia article. That said, if you wanna throw in that Kaneko believes it possible the account was added later on (or at the very least, says it isn't something that can be ruled out), go forth and do it. You can find the quotes from the Kaneko book [[Talk:Yasuke#Requested_removal_of_possible_misattributed_quote_claiming_to_be_from_the_Shinchō_Kōki| above]]. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems</span>]]</b> 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::That seems to follow the pattern from academic sources I have read. The scholar will point out potential problems with a primary source, but then say why they say it is still useful. I believe Goza made a YouTube video where he goes in depth about Yasuke. He deserves credit for talking to the public the same way he would talk to scholars, but it is easy to misunderstand if you aren’t used to experts expressing doubts. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 07:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::Here is one of my sources: ''Warfare in Japan''[https://www.google.de/books/edition/Warfare_in_Japan/EkEYEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=yari-mochi&pg=PA129&printsec=frontcover] There are other sources that list the followers of a mounted samurai that are similar. Neither a sword bearer nor an equipment bearer is listed among them. Interestingly, the author puts "allows" in quotes suggesting perhaps that saying X was allowed to carrier his master's Y, might have been a typical phrasing. https://www.google.de/books/edition/An_Unabridged_Japanese_English_Dictionar/4WwuAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=d%C5%8Dgu-mochi&pg=PA177&printsec=frontcover This Dictionary says Dogumochi means Yarimochi. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 08:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I may just be misunderstanding what you are trying to use the source to suggest but from what I can tell reading the source it is referring to the Edo period rather than Sengoku Jidai. I think this is an important distinction given the context of the very rigid hierarchy established by the Bakufu reforms of the Tokugawa being discussed and how the text makes explicit mention of them when distinguishing the types of retainers. Furthermore it is stated on page 128 that "As 'bearers' (monomochi) their duty was faithfully to carry on to the battlefield and protect the objects assigned to them." Though the text on page 127 makes note of what a retinue was allowed to consist of, those reforms were from the later period, and it is explicitly stated in the context of individual cavalry soldiers rather than in the circumstances of a Diamyo or a higher ranking Samurai. In this light, it is possible that the Sakai house's cavalry under the reform were only permitted to have a spear bearer - rather than this being applicable to higher ranks as well. Though I am ignorant of the full details, it was a substantial part of the reforms of the Hideyoshi and early Tokugawa to regulate who could use certain weapons. [[User:Relmcheatham|Relm]] ([[User talk:Relmcheatham|talk]]) 10:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
==RfC on Yasuke Samurai Status==
{{rfc|hist|bio||rfcid=939A0C5}}
Should the article represent Yasuke's samurai status as debated? <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems</span>]]</b> 02:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:I think as long as the origin of dispute is clearly identified, then it is sufficient. I think currently there is a lack of clarity on whether Lockley was referring to 'some people (historians)' or just 'some people (general populace)' in the Britannica article. I think any dispute should center around the authenticity of the manuscript since this is the only identifiable dispute brought forward by Kaneko and Goza, with Yu and Lockley both affirming that if the manuscript is authentic then Yasuke was some form of a 'samurai' by some unclear definition of the term.
:<s>I would say '''Yes''', so far, although [[User:Symphony Regalia|Symphony Regalia]] may change my mind when/if s/he replies to my longer comment, or as I read through the continuing debate—so... provisional "Yes" only!</s> '''edit:''' ''not so sure now—holding off for a sec!''
:[[User:Himaldrmann|Himaldrmann]] ([[User talk:Himaldrmann|talk]]) 11:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
:* '''No''' because Yasuke's status as a samurai is not debated outside of this talk page, Reddit, YouTube and the like. We had an [[Talk:Yasuke/Archive 3#RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article|RfC on the same issue]] less than three months ago, and the consensus was that {{tq|it would be a violation of NPOV to depict [Yasuke's status as a samurai] as contested}} because {{tq|there have been no reliable sources furnished which contest [it]}}. The same is true today - nothing has changed substantially, including the boundless enthusiasm some editors have for debating this topic, even without any RS to support their POV (but note [https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/1814609906391200058?prefetchTimestamp=1725664304017 this tweet] by a Japanese [[Wikipedia:EXPERTSPS|subject-matter expert]]: "it's certain that he held the status of a "samurai"). I propose a WP:SNOWBALL closure and a '''one-year moratorium''' on the topic, because it has been disruptive for too long.
:[[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 23:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::How broad is this one year moratorium? The last RfC was used rather broadly to veto several changes that really didn’t contradict the consensus. A lot of the subject-matter experts have made comments that provide interesting nuance to the Yasuke´s status as a samurai. Cryns has even said that Yasuke may not be in the strictest sense a samurai. I think academics have given support to the idea that Bushi made be a better term to use etc. So while no academic has said that Yasuke was not a samurai, some have voiced uncertainty and others have said that the status doesn’t mean what people think. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 06:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::The broadest possible moratorium. Who is "Cryns"? I didn't find any mentions to Cryns on this talk page. And who are the academics that support the idea that ''bushi'' may be a better term? Note that at Yasuke's time, during the [[Azuchi–Momoyama period]], the word "samurai" referred to the "lowest-ranking ''bushi'' (see [[Samurai]] for sources), so that a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a "samurai" (see Wert [https://academic.oup.com/book/32797/chapter/274542399]). As far as I know, to this day no expert has ever denied that Yasuke can be called a samurai. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 09:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
! {{no}}, there are not sufficient sources to demonstrate doubt.
|-
| scope="col" width="50%" | New information has been found and published since the previous RfC, including Thomas Lockley's encyclopedia Britannica article, which demonstrates no clear academic consensus exists on the subject. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems</span>]]</b> 02:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
'''Yes''', Lockley himself has stated there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a samurai:
At the time of the finding of this quote there was debate as to the possibility of the debate referring to laymen, with historians actually being in agreement that Yasuke was a samurai. However, Yūichi Goza has since doubted that Yasuke can be certainly referred to as a samurai (although he does not say that he isn't a Samurai):
<Blockquote>The only basis for the theory that Yasuke was raised to the rank of samurai is the Sonkeikaku Bunko edition of "The Chronicles of Nobunaga," and '''we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a "black samurai."''' (emphasis added)</Blockquote> See [[Talk:Yasuke/Archive 4#New Japanese source(s)]] for more discussion of this source.
We have one of the main proponent of Ysauke being a samurai saying that there is debate, and a historian saying that we should be cautious in saying that Yasuke was a samurai. These two statements should be enough to change the article to at the very least mention directly that according to some historians there is not enough evidence to definitively state that Yasuke was a samurai. Considering how few historians have published any research on Yasuke, and the fact that most historians have not used the term 'samurai,' the lede should be changed to reflect this uncertainty.
This addresses the main deciding point from the previous [[Talk:Yasuke/Archive_3#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article|RfC]]:
<Blockquote>Rather than furnishing a source that argues or purports to argue that Yasuke was not a samurai, the opposition has maintained that they do not need to prove a negative. However, by NPOV as editors of Wikipedia all an editors job to do is to represent what is written in the Reliable Sources. Since there have been no reliable sources furnished which contest the status of Yasuke as a samurai, it would be a violation of NPOV to depict it as contested.</Blockquote>
Since the sources above were not discussed at the time of the RfC (one was not known and the other not yet published), that RfC documents outdated consensus and should be revised in light of new information.
Edit: In terms of the actual language of the article, I agree with Relm that "...though this status is in dispute" is not necessary, at least given the current sources, although that can change and we should mention in the closing of the RfC that if a substantial number of new reliable sources are found that dispute the current form of the article that a new RfC would not be needed to reflect that. The wording used in the current state could be something like "Some historians, such as Yuichi Goza, argue that there is insufficient evidence to conclusively state that Yasuke was a samurai, though they do not categorically reject this possibility either."
[[User:J2UDY7r00CRjH|J2UDY7r00CRjH]] ([[User talk:J2UDY7r00CRjH|talk]]) 03:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
| scope="col" width="50%" |
No. Since the conclusion of the previous RfC[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke/Archive_3#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article%20respecting%20established%20consensus] (which was recent, I might add) there has been essentially no published reliable sourcing that claims that Yasuke was not a samurai.
* The Smithsonian
* Time
* BBC
* Britannica
* CNN
* Vera's academic work
* Lockley's academic work
Claims that Yasuke was a samurai
* The Smithsonian
* Time
* BBC
* Britannica
* CNN
* Vera's academic work
* Lockley's academic work
*:As for {{tq| Japanese media interviews}}, per reliable source guidelines, Yuichi Goza as a Subject Expert Matter shouldn't just be ignored. But, even if we ignore Yuichi Goza, the primary evidence of Yasuke's status as a Samurai is derived from the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript. Hiraku Kaneko's book, which is presently cited in the article, contains a statement by Kaneko that it cannot be discounted that the information about Yasuke was added to the manuscript after the fact during the transcription process, and it is also notable that the information about Yasuke is not included in any of the other versions of the Nobunaga Koki, which, again, cannot be represented due to the prior RfC.
*:The actual {{tq|published scholarship}} amounts to a book by Lopez-Vera saying that Yasuke was a samurai. While a good quality source from an Academic Press, Lopez-Vera cites to the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript for the information about Yasuke, the same information which Hiraku Kaneko maintains in his book might have been added in the transcription process. Lockley's Britannica article says that the status of samurai has been disputed by some people, Yuichi Goza, a Japanese historian, has interviewed in the media and expressed doubt, and Hiraku Kaneko has expressed doubt in his book over the validity of the passage that is the very foundation of the claim.
*:It just seems appropriate to the enyclopedia that this should be represented. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems</span>]]</b> 03:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
*::What's interesting is that none of the references you noted are actually ones who dispute the statement. They just state things like "it cannot be discounted" in terms of additional possibilities, but the authors themselves don't actually directly state in their position that they dispute it. Even Goza just points out the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript without taking a position directly. So, who are the ones actually "disputing" it that we would be referring to? Because it's none of those you mentioned. This instead sounds like general scientific jargon of "well, it could also be this", but without anyone actually advocating for those alternative possibilities. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 03:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::>Even Goza just points out the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript without taking a position directly.
*:::::::::::This passage is full of errors: "guardian demon," "even providing him with his own servant." As far as I know, none of these claims are mentioned anywhere in primary sources and are complete speculation, yet are presented as fact. The "Daikokuten" quote seems to be an even further embellishment of this line from ''African Samurai.''
*:::::::::::<blockquote>Black was the color—if one believed in such things, which Nobunaga did not—of gods and demons. Not men. Nobunaga had seen such a “god,” Daikokuten, before in the Kiyomizu Temple, a short walk away. And, the protective guardian demons at the gates of most temples were often dark skinned: black or deep burgundy. [[User:J2UDY7r00CRjH|J2UDY7r00CRjH]] ([[User talk:J2UDY7r00CRjH|talk]]) 18:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)</blockquote>
*::Lockley uses the term "some people", choosing to not refer to them as historians. He makes clear that among experts there is a clear consensus that Yasuke was a samurai.
*::<blockquote>"'''Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded 'samurai' of foreign birth'''".</blockquote>
*::::::::::::It could be attributed directly to Lockley as a unique opinion with appropriate weight (that is to say, not much), but as it stands a weasel reference to an unattributed "some people" isn't very useful for building an encyclopedia and it doesn't really add to the article. And it certainly can't be used to depict Yasuke's samurai status as contested because as a unique opinion, it would violate NPOV, and also because there is still not a single RS arguing that he was not one. [[User:Symphony Regalia|Symphony Regalia]] ([[User talk:Symphony Regalia|talk]]) 04:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::I think the issue here is not weasel words, but the lack of collaboration. If we knew who was debating and what they were debating, then it wouldn’t be weasel words and there would be no problem with it. You are right that it would have to be attributed. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 08:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::I am aware of the problems with Lockley´s work, but the Britannica article is still the best we have. In the last RfC it was said that some sources could be reliable for some things and unreliable for others. This contradicts the idea that we have to accept everything a "reliable source" claims. We have to weigh claims in a source against other sources, secondary, tertiary and primary. Yes, even primary, as long as it isn’t OR, can be used. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 17:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I remember saying this a long time ago, but I've been using translation sites for a long time. I was taught everyday English conversation when I was a student, but since I haven't used it for a while, I've forgotten it. Before posting, I convert from Japanese to English, and then from English to Japanese to confirm that the content has not changed significantly, but it is difficult to match 100%. I apologize if it's hard to read.
*:I agree with your reasons for doubt. I believe some editors also doubt some of the sources, or at least interpret the experts as doubting the sources. I am sceptical of this, because the translations I have read seem to be typical source criticism that points out potential problems with the source, but doesn’t come to a definite conclusion.
*:I think the term samurai can be used, but where and how often is an open question. The previous RfC has been cited in a way that inhibits discussion about how exactly Yasuke is depicted as a samurai. There is literature that suggests bushi is the more proper term in general, but then uses samurai. So that isn’t clear either. There needs to be discussion about it, but if the last RfC froze the status of Yasuke to simply samurai, that can’t happen. [[User:Tinynanorobots|Tinynanorobots]] ([[User talk:Tinynanorobots|talk]]) 08:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment on the RfC.''' Honestly, this thing is a mess. Between the general inability of participants of being succint and getting to the point or stopping themselves from replying to everything and everyone they disagree with, resulting in a massive amount of [[WP:BLUDGEONING]], the lack of structure (which is something the previous RfC was already criticized for) where basically almost no one !voted due to not defining proper subsections, either soon enough or participants refusing to abide by them, resulting in massive amount of "[[WP:BLUDGEON|discussion]]" happening everywhere at once and a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality permeating every part of this talk page, I'm not surprised almost no one who wasn't already involved joined this RfC.
If I hadn't been myself involved on this talkpage, I'd be of a mind to close this RfC and simply tell people to do it again, properly this time and I don't envy whoever will actually have to waddle through this swamp in an attempt to extract a consensus out of this absolute mess. [[User:Yvan Part|Yvan Part]] ([[User talk:Yvan Part|talk]]) 01:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
| 