Talk:Yasuke/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Yasuke. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the changes proposed do not change that.

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

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

Yasuke was a man of African origin. Yes.

Yasuke was a samurai. Yes.

Yasuke served Nobunaga. Yes.

Yasuke served for appoximately 15 months. Yes.

Yasuke served until Nobunaga's death. Yes.

Yasuke served Nobunaga as a samurai. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning CNN and Britannica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added "approximately" to account for this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from an article on journalism: Just under three-quarters (74%) of journalists say they produce content in addition to online and print, such as newsletters (17%) and podcasts (15%). Half of journalists publish five or more stories per week, with a third publishing eight or more a week [1]https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220315005368/en/Survey-Data-Shows-Journalists-Are-Covering-More-Beats-Two-Thirds-Produce-Content-for-More-Than-One-Medium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In general, the most reliable sources are:

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

CNN is a major news publication and is a reliable source [2]. In terms of providing tertiary weight, it is a textbook example as it means the secondary claims in them have passed 3rd party fact checking and editorial muster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Today's history is news. Yesterday's news is history." Sixteenth century Japan is, by any reasonable definition, history; not news. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you conclude that a generally reliable source ... is unreliable regarding a specific article's content, that conclusion must be based on other, more reliable secondary sources.

That's a very interesting point of view. I couldn't, however, find anything in policy supporting it. WP:RS@WP:RSCONTEXT, which requires that we examine reliability in the context of both the nature and the specific use of a source, does not suggest that we need rely on secondary sources to perform that examination.

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. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

re it mentions that he served 15 months as a samurai. A few days ago, I removed (unchallenged) this information which, as far as I can see, is not supported by sources. The 15-month figure was added (here) when the text did not yet include the word "samurai". The length of Yasuke's service then probably coincided with the period from 27 March 1581 (audience with Nobunaga) to 21 June 1582 (Honnō-ji Incident, death of Nobunaga), that is, 15 months. Arguably this is routine calculation per WP:2+2=4, but still it is questionable. We don't know for sure neither that his service started immediately after the audience with Nobunaga, nor that it finished with Nobunaga's death: according to Lockley's article, Yasuke joined the forces of the new lord of the Oda clan. Anyway, at the time the text cited this Japanese source; since I don't read Japanese, can anyone please confirm that the 15-month figure is not supported by sources? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 The relevant text in the source originally cited is "織田信長の伝記である『信長公記』には、イエズス会司祭ヴァリニャーノが従者として連れており、その後信長に仕えることとなった「黒坊主」が登場します。「彼男健やかに器量也爾も強力十之人に勝タリ」と描写されており、信長をはじめ、当時の人々に高く評価されたことがうかがえます。日本では「弥助」と呼ばれたそうですが、アフリカでの本当の名前はどのようなものだったのでしょうか。". By my reading, this references the Shincho Koki for the story of Yasuke coming to Japan with Valignano and later serving Nobunaga; repeats the description from that source (healthy, "stronger than ten men"); suggests he was held in high regard; and finishes with his Japanese name "Yasuke", and poses the question of his "true" African name. It does not specify a duration for his service to Nobunaga; nor mention the dates on which service started or ended.

I do not recall having found any sources which directly state a 15 month period; but they may exist.

A couple of aspects of your comment are interesting:

Nor that it finished with Nobunaga's death: according to Lockley's article, Yasuke joined the forces of the new lord of the Oda clan.; After the attack on Honnoji, Yasuke is recorded as having joined Nobunaga's son Oda Nobutada; who was attacked by Akechi Mitsuhide's forces on the same night and besieged at Nijo castle. Nobutada is recorded as having committed suicide the same day, 21 June 1582 (Julian calendar); and Yasuke recorded as having been captured & returned to the Jesuits. The length of service to the Oda clan does not seem to extend beyond that date.

We don't know for sure neither that his service started immediately after the audience with Nobunaga; This is the very interesting question. The Jesuit letters have only one record of Yasuke between the initial meeting with Nobunaga, documented in Mexia's letter 8 October 1581, and the Honnoji Incident, documented in Frois' letter 5 November 1582; I discuss that single record below.

The contemporaneous Japanese source is Ota Gyuichi's Shincho Koki, which dates the initial meeting to 二月二十三日, corresponding to 27 March 1581 (Julian). Yasuke's being given "fuchi" by Nobunaga, which is the likely indicator of service, is mentioned in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the chronicle for that date; but not in other versions. If Ota is writing the diary on a daily basis, and not later backfilling explanatory material, and if it was not added during later transcriptions of the document, then that might be interpreted as the start date. But that's quite a very, very big if; it would be better to rely on others to make that conclusion.

Matsudaira Ietada's diary entry is dated 四月十九日 of the following year: 11 May 1582 (Julian); but that meeting probably happened well after the start of Yasuke's service to Nobunaga.

Speaking against a start date in March 1581 is Frois' letter of 19 May 1581, which describes Yasuke as being with the Jesuits at Pentecost (dia do Espirito Santo), which was Sunday, 14 May 1581. (Discussed briefly: Talk:Yasuke/Archive 6#Yasuke in Echizen Province)

So, starting no earlier that 27 March 1581, probably after 19 May 1581 and probably before 8 October 1581, and certainly no later than 11 May 1582. And ending 21 June 1582.

All of which is to say that it's not easy to tell. While differencing two certain dates is (IMHO) WP:2+2=4, we don't really have certainty on the start date. It would then be best to find some high quality reliable sources which form a conclusion. Or, if none can be found, to err on the side of non-specificity. Rotary Engine ^talk 02:19, 21 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation bundles which result in obfuscation of a substitution of quantity of sources for quality of sources are not good. Rotary Engine ^talk 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). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Not certain that there is a link between "poor sources hiding in citation bundles" and UBO, but do note that, per that policy, UBO is evidentiary or indicative; not prescriptive. And not a sole factor. A source may have significant use by others and still not be reliable (as meant by that WP term of art). This source springs to mind as an example. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS is very relevant here. Editors personally not liking the content of sources is not grounds for sources becoming unreliable.

Wikipedia editors are not WP:TRUTHFINDERS. Per WP:V the job of Wikipedia is to represent what is in reliable sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Editors are referred the previous comment: 1. UBO is not particularly germane to discussion of citation bundles. 2. UBO is evidentiary or indicative; not prescriptive. 3. A source may have significant use by others and still not be reliable. (ADD: As an illustration, one of my daily newspapers regularly includes content syndicated from the Daily Mail, as do many other newspapers. This is significant use by others in reliable sources; but it does not make the DM reliable for our purposes; because they regularly inventconjure stories into existence.)

WP:V requires that all article content be verifiable in reliable sources. It does not require that all that is in sources be included in article content.

WP:TRUTHFINDERS initial sentences are Wikipedia doesn't reproduce verbatim text from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes should belong in the Wikipedia article in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. (emphasis added); which seems misaligned with the intent to which is has been repeatedly put on this Talk page.

The implication that editors are rejecting sources based on personal dislike is unfounded. Editors are rejecting a source on the basis that it is demonstrably inaccurate.

We are entirely within policy to exclude sources on that basis, and to determine inaccuracy by any means. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:V requires that all article content be verifiable in reliable sources. It does not require that all that is in sources be included in article content.

Indeed, and no one has made that argument. If anything this is actually a point in favor of why the blanket dismissal of a reliable source based on editor WP:OR would be an egregious policy violation.

Unique claims are not wrong simply because editors do not like them, and in-text attribution as well as weight handles hypothetical unique claims quite nicely.

The implication that editors are rejecting sources based on personal dislike is unfounded.

It is not though. Observe the following list of "obvious errors":

"Yasuke’s origins remain a mystery as historical sources are scant. While some researchers believe he was from Mozambique, others suggest Sudan" Saying sources about Yasuke´s origin are scant is overstating it.

"He trained other militiamen and likely learned new techniques himself, including Japanese martial arts and sword skills." This line is suspect.

"The attack, which triggered what was known as the Battle of Honno-ji Temple..." The attack is called "the Honnō-ji Incident"

"But while Yasuke became Japan’s most famous foreign-born warrior, his time with Oda was short-lived." This is wrong or misleading. William Adams is the most famous foreign born bushi

These "errors" are almost entirely editor WP:OR, editor speculation, and editor opinion. This is exactly the kind of WP:OR-based POV pushing that Wikipedia needs to avoid. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also struggling to see how UBO is relevant to a discussion of the use of the CNN Travel article. In a discussion on the reliability of Lockley & Girard's historical novelisation, African Samurai, it would be a reasonable, but not dispositive, point - that work has significant use by others.

But we have no evidence that the CNN Travel article has been used or referenced by any other reliable source. UBO is an indicator of reliability of the "used" source, not reliability of the "using" source. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:29, 10 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. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

sources that contain obvious errors. Such as...? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

- CNN claims that Nobunaga believed Yasuke was a god. This isn’t directly attributed to Lockley, but Encyclopedia Britannica makes it clear that the theory is just Lockley´s. Furthermore, Lockley claims that Nobunaga, specifically, did not believe Yasuke to be divine. Nobunaga being irreligious matches other secondary sources. So we have CNN portraying, Lockley´s speculation as fact, but also getting Lockley´s idea wrong in the specifics.

- "In an era racked by political espionage, merciless assassinations and ninja attacks, Yasuke was seen as an asset. Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records." The first part of this quote is very pop history. It sounds exciting, but it isn’t very clear what it means, but it sounds misleading. Shinonbi no Mono were a normal part of armies, but was the era racked by "ninja attacks"? The real error though is the misattribution of the source. The source mentioning the servant, house and stipend is not Jesuit, but Japanese.

- "Yasuke’s origins remain a mystery as historical sources are scant. While some researchers believe he was from Mozambique, others suggest Sudan" Saying sources about Yasuke´s origin are scant is overstating it. Especially since the letter from Mozambique was found after the article was written. The only researcher suggesting Sudan is Lockley, who I believe got the suggestion from an ambassador from Mozambique.

-"He trained other militiamen and likely learned new techniques himself, including Japanese martial arts and sword skills." This line is suspect. Who are militiamen in the context of Sengoku period? "Other militiamen" suggest that Yasuke was a militiaman, but he was a retainer and possibly a mercenary before that.

-"The attack, which triggered what was known as the Battle of Honno-ji Temple..." The attack is called "the Honnō-ji Incident"

-"But while Yasuke became Japan’s most famous foreign-born warrior, his time with Oda was short-lived." This is wrong or misleading. William Adams is the most famous foreign born bushi, which in the context of Japan, is the meaning of warrior. Yasuke doesn’t appear to have been that famous in his own time, and there were probably times when Korean samurai were more famous. I wouldn’t be surprised if Korea samurai were more well known in Japan today, well at least at the time the article was written.

Not all these things might be considered errors, and some might be considered small. There are some other things that might be wrong, but are attributed to Lockley, so are assumed accurate in reporting what Lockley said. Also, when comparing claims Lockley makes, Encyclopædia Britannica should be preferred because of the greater oversight and that it is more recent. So if Lockley made a claim in 2019, but it didn’t make it into the Britannica article, we should ask why. Is it because Lockley has changed his mind? The Britannica article also does a better job of making clear what is speculation and what is fact. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Concur with the above, and add: The source mentioning the servant, house and stipend is not Jesuit, but Japanese., the Japanese source does not mention a servant. He trained other militiamen ..., this is not evidenced in the primary sources. But while Yasuke became Japan’s most famous foreign-born warrior, "warrior" is not evidenced in the primary sources; the only record of fighting is when attacked in the aftermath of the Honnoji Incident.

But all of these are found in the various works of pop history/speculative history/historical fiction. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I checked via google books and African Samurai has Yasuke training militiamen.

I don’t know how we are going to resolve this dispute. I think everything has been said, that can be said. I can point out problems with the other news articles, but @Symphony Regalia keeps reverting, but isn’t taking part in the discussion. Do we need an RfC for this? Clearly Symphony Regalia and @Gitz6666 are the two dissenters as various other editors have voiced criticism of CNN. The other sources are not as bad, but the relevant essays and policies are clear, that news sources are inferior in the context of history and the lead only needs inline citations for claims likely to be contested. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A reliable source (WP:RSPCNN) does not become unreliable simply because it contradicts editor WP:OR.

Additionally, there is no policy at Wikipedia that says that news sources are "inferior" or should not be used in bibliographies.

We are engaging in discussion with you, but you should understand that this has already been discussed tirelessly and at a certain point WP:DROPPINGTHESTICK is more productive. The reliability of CNN has been affirmed again as recently as 2024 by community consensus. Time and The Smithsonian are also well-known reliable sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OVERKILL is only an essay, but I find the rationale it expresses under WP:CITEMERGE quite convincing in the circumstances of this article: clutter may be avoided by merging citations into a single footnote if there's any good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information. Edit war and disruptive editing are a real issue here. Besides, since some of our readers may be interested in researching the way Yasuke has been represented (or misrepresented) in the popular press - which is definitely an element of the "Yasuke case" - I think a collection of NEWSORG sources on Yasuke would be helpful. Unless editors object, I'd like to add such a collection of sources to the most contentious content of this article - the opening sentence ...served as a samurai.... Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what the purpose of adding these citations. Is it to support the statement with sources, or to show readers recommended reading on the topic? I mean that as a sincere question and not as a rhetorical one.

I think that in both cases, academic sources would accomplish that better. I don’t see how the news sources provide a range of beneficial information, because they contain mostly the same information. There are some sources that go into more detail about Yasuke´s status as a samurai, but they are for some reason not taken into account. There may be good reason for that. Part of the problem with the lead, is that it implies that Yasuke was made a samurai as soon as he entered Nobunaga´s service. Personally, I believe that is probably the case, however I am not an expert. Lockley clearly believes that Yasuke started out as a non-samurai retainer and worked his way up, thus only being "promoted" to samurai at a later date.

I find that adding NEWSORG sources would be unhelpful. Especially at the beginning of the article. The claim that Yasuke is a samurai is supported by academic sources, leading with a selection of news sources that are mainly covering entertainment and don’t explain the conclusions gives the impression that the article is making a claim based on a weaker basis than it is. The Encyclopedia Britannica article, for example, explains why historians think Yasuke is a samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've already answered your "sincere, non-rethorical question". Please re-read the comment you're replying to if you're interested in the purpose of adding more citations. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I did read the comment. What you are saying isn’t clear to me. That is why I am asking for clarification and elaboration. Maybe I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t make any sense to me, so I think you must mean something else. Maybe I am missing something. I can't read minds.

It doesn’t make sense to use inline citations because readers are interested in what the popular press says. On one hand, most readers probably not going to read the citations, and the selection bias for those that do, will be people who are curious, or more sceptical. I think those people would be disappointed in the popular press. Maybe the sources should be added to the Pop culture section? After all, the Time article is under the Entertainment section of the website, and all the NEWSORG sources discuss the media adaptions of Yasuke´s story. Would that be a compromise? Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's try this way. Objectives:

1. To avoid edit warring/disruptive editing by making it clear that the content about Yasuke's status as a samurai is well supported by sources;
2. If a reader is interested in the general coverage of the news organisations, they'll find what they're looking for.

I don't understand your comment: most readers probably not going to read the citations.... So what? Someone might be interested in checking the sources, why should we disappoint them? ...and the selection bias for those that do, will be people who are curious, or more sceptical I don't understand this sentence/argument. I think those people would be disappointed in the popular press This is just speculation. Wikipedia's mission is to spread knowledge; if the readers want to check the "popular press", they can do so, if they don't want, they won't. So what's the problem? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it is clearer now.

The problems with your objectives are:

1. Adding newsorg to the citation is more likely to cause edit warring, because they are lower quality sources compared to other available sources, being newsorg and old. The fact that there has practically been an edit war over the inclusion of NEWSORG citations is evidence of it.
2. I don’t think the assumption that people want to read news articles from 2019 is a valid reason to put inline citations in the lead, or anywhere. I also don’t find the assumption correct, I at least personally want well written, well researched sources that explain how they come to their conclusions and have a factual tone and don’t spend the first half of the article talking about an anime from 5 years ago.

I think the main difference for our disagreement is that you see no problem with the sources, whereas I think that NEWSORG are bad for history in general and that this CNN article in particular is bad. The other articles also don’t contain any extra information that makes them useful or interesting. I am backed up in my views by WP:NEWSORG and WP:HISTRS. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Do not concur that these are good reasons for including lower quality sources (as determined per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:HISTRS).

Do not concur that these are appropriate reasons for citation bundling, if the effect of that bundling is to obscure the use of lower quality sources; to obscure a substitution of quantity for quality.

Additionally re:

1. Where editors have policy compliant concerns about article content, those concerns should be heard, and responded to substantively. Where concerns are not supported by policy, a collection of sources is unlikely to be preventative. Als: "well supported by sources" appears a key point of contention on this Talk page. Such contention should not be resolved by artificial "massaging" of content (including citations), but by formation of consensus through normal processes.

2. "Wikipedia is not a search engine". We should not include sources simply that a reader might discover them. We include sources because they are specifically reliable in the context for which they are used, and they are the best sources for that content.

Not seeing a great deal of recent edit warring on the article, other than as regards the use of lower quality sources (CNN Travel et al); for which there does not seem to be a consensus for inclusion. In that regard, WP:ONUS would seem relevant.

Specifically re:

Unless editors object, I'd like to add such a collection of sources to the most contentious content of this article ...

Editors object. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

My proposal to add two citation bundles - one for academic sources and one for news organisations - would not obscure the use of lower quality sources: on the contrary, it would make explicit what is high quality and what is not. The two citation bundles would not prevent editors from expressing their concerns on the talk page, but would be informative for readers and perhaps discourage reckless removal of text.

Anyway, there's no consensus on my proposal, but WP:ONUS works both ways: the same goes for removing the contested sources. Smithsonian magazine has been in the article since March 2024, and CNN since 2019. Given that we have not had an RfC on this, and that there have been few comments in this thread, your claim that there does not seem to be a consensus for inclusion is purely speculative. WP:NOCON applies here and the contested sources should not be removed until a consensus emerges. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has been running in circles and going nowhere for a while now. At this point I'll just tell eveyone involved to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard and let other people settle the dispute. Yvan Part (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: WP:ONUS works both ways: the same goes for removing the contested sources.

Have you actually read the policy?!

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

The policy is explicitly not bidirectional. If there is a contention, and there is not a consensus for inclusion, the content should not be included in the article. This is not difficult. Rotary Engine ^talk 14:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not difficult, but it is wrong. There is no preference for removal over inclusion (except in the case of BLPs, copyright violations and external link disputes). WP:ONUS is about verifiability (which does not imply inclusion) but the policy on (lack of) consensus is WP:CON. Please read it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Would concur that, by some readings, WP:ONUS & WP:NOCON would appear to be inconsistent as to how an absence of consensus should be treated.; iff the {{tq|the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit}, which NOCON suggests should be retained is assumed to be the (implicit consensus?) version prior to removal. (If the "prior version" is assumed to be the version prior to the bold addition of content, then the two policies are aligned).

Reviewing both policies, I noticed a large discussion on the Talk page of WP:CON, which mentions WP:ONUS multiple times. Am reviewing further the archives of prior discussions on that page.

If the policies are indeed misaligned, then it would be best to have that resolved at the policy level. Do not yet see anything to suggest one policy ought to be preferred over the other. Will look to open a discussion topic at either policy's Talk page (cross-posting to the other) or at VPP.

Did also notice now the comment above: Given that we have not had an RfC on this, and that there have been few comments in this thread, your claim that there does not seem to be a consensus for inclusion is purely speculative. (emphasis adjusted to fit "tq"). Where we have not had an RfC; where we have not had a formally closed discussion; and where there is not an agreement between editors (albeit a small number of editors), it does seem reasonable to say that a consensus has not yet been formed. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON are in contradiction only if you asssume that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content (per ONUS) implies that the responsibility for achieving consensus for removal is not on those seeking to remove disputed content. But there's no reason to make this assumption because 1) WP:ONUS is concerned with verifiability and establishes that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; it doesn’t say or imply anything about removal. 2) That assumption would contradict WP:NOCON (When discussions of proposals to ... remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal [to remove]). The best way to establish consensus is with an RfC or by seeking the input of uninvolved editors at the appropriate noticeboard. If you think that there's not a consensus for inclusion [better, retention] of news sources, you should either start an RfC or open a thread at a noticeboard, as Tinynanorobots did on 8 September (without notifying the editors who were discussing the same issue) here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Waxing philosophical, I would say that it matters whether the implied consensus (essay, but linked in-text from WP:CON) for a bold addition of content collapses or survives the initial removal. If the former, there has never been consensus for inclusion, and ONUS applies. If the latter, perhaps it does not.

On the other hand, if there is an explicit consensus, that would mean ONUS was satisfied and NOCON applies to removal. (The easiest resolution in such case would be to point to that consensus.)

Not, however, minded that it would be the best option to start an RfC on sources already being discussed at RSN and/or a discussion of a policy already being discussed on that policy's Talk page. The discussions are already underway. Rotary Engine ^talk 09:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I made an edit yesterday that adds two citation bundles: Special:Diff/1246177149https. I think it's an improvement, but if you disagree, feel free to undo it or, better still, remove the second citation, which includes journalistic sources. It seems to me that the layout of the article is now much cleaner and tidier, and the two footnotes provide vital information for the reader interested in how the Yasuke controversy unfolded in the mainstream media. It would be a shame to confine all these materials to talk page discussions only. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting: I thank you for the message above. I did see the edit when it was made. The concerns previously expressed remain - that multiple lower quality sources are not a substitution for higher quality sources; that citation bundling obfuscates this; and that the stated benefits are unlikely to be realised - citation bundling has not reduced the continued edit requests. And the citation bundling remains objected to on those bases. I did not revert the change, in part to allow evidence on the question of effectiveness to emerge, and in part due to the current ArbCom case - the dust on which I would like to see settle before major changes to the article. I also did not revert the later removal of the second "journalistic" bundle, nor its subsequent re-addition. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will remove the journalistic sources. I will point out that I don’t think that japandigest.de is a RS. The author is a student of Japanology, which probably makes her more qualified than Ziegler or Small on the topic. Still, a Japanologist isn’t an expert on Samurai and the requirements for the writing an article there seem to be the ability to speak Japanese and having been to Japan. The fact that an article by an editor on ninjas repeats myths and seems to be based entirely on a tourist attraction suggests that it isn’t very rigorous. The only useful part of the NYT article is the quote from Yu. Why don’t we just cite his tweet? Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Restoring the journalist sources, because it reduces the quality of the article to exclude them, and there is no consensus for their removal. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a consensus, because Gitz said that I can remove them. Please address my specific concerns. Thank you. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a consensus, because Gitz said that I can remove them. I said you or others can remove the journalistic sources because, based on the discussion we've had, it's not clear whether there's a consensus for including or removing them and, in the former case, whether there's a consensus for using a citation bundle. But I did not say or imply that I agree with the removal - on the contrary, I disagree.

An alternative to leaving things as they are or restoring the status quo ante (including CNN etc.) would be to remove the less relevant sources, e.g. japandigest.de, and call it a day. Perhaps we could also shorten the verbatim quotes, or even remove them altogether, per WP:TOOMUCH. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood, it seemed like you were suggesting a compromise. It looks like the ArbCom is the only way to address the issue. I won’t change the citations, but I will point out the problems with them, and if you think they are valid you can make changes.

If I understand you correctly, is that you want to prevent unnecessary reverts. I think your specific choice of sources is possibly counterproductive. It makes more sense to cite sources that don’t rely on Lockley as well as ones that don’t frame the issue in terms of the culture war. For example, books written by authors from before this whole thing blew up.

Second, the notes are probably too long, and the japandigest.de note translates Anwesen as Estate, but also says the Anwesen is in the Castle. It probably means castle town. Estate has connotations of a country house, not an urban villa. The source for the article is the African Samurai book, so whatever word Lockley used, could be used. Japandigest.de isn’t irrelevant, it is unreliable. It also refers to the deep meaning of the katana, which is like the "soul of the samurai" idea which is an Edo period idea. This also doesn’t match with expert opinion such as by Yu and Gozi.

You have also used overcite as a reason to expand citations from four to twelve. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I doubt that ArbCom will deal with this kind of issue, which is about content/sources, not behaviour. Anyway, the situation is pretty clear: two editors oppose and/or removed the citation bundle (Tinynanorobots and Rotary Engine), and two editors support and/or restored it (Symphony Regalia and myself). For the time being, there's no consensus for its inclusion, and later (I can't now) I will self-revert. However, I will restore the status quo prior to Tinynanorobots's bold edit of 29 July - the article will be restored to the state it was in prior to the long-lasting edit war, which means that CNN, Smithsonian magazine, and TIME will remain alongside the citation clutter until a consensus for removal is reached. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done, as described, here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

These are not errors. They are differences in analysis, which is allowed. Sources do not have to agree with your views.

Also, when comparing claims Lockley makes, Encyclopædia Britannica should be preferred because of the greater oversight and that it is more recent. So if Lockley made a claim in 2019, but it didn’t make it into the Britannica article, we should ask why. Is it because Lockley has changed his mind?

This is speculation (for instance it's possible that certain claims are made in his academic works, as opposed to a relatively short tertiary article on Britannica, because he is allowed to go into more detail).

As for CNN and Britannica both are reliable sources, and sources should not be arbitrary preferred based on editor speculation. WP:WEIGHT will handle this naturally. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I said. I am not basing this on my own opinion, but on what the secondary sources and experts said. I am saying that we should compare what Lockley said in different sources and at different times. :AGEMATTERS, but it is only one factor to consider. I think it is more clear-cut if he mentions something in an interview compared to an academic source. The length allowed is also a factor to consider, I agree with you there. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a coin made with a depiction of Yasuke on it. Which section would that fit in? https://www.vcoins.com/de/stores/power_coin/300/product/yasuke_2_oz_silver_coin_10000_francs_chad_2021/1545301/Default.aspx

Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

On 17 Sep I added the subsection "2024 Controversy over Assassin's Creed Shadows" [3]. Symphony Regalia changed the heading per WP:CSECTION [4] and Bird244 removed the heading and made it a bulleted list entry in "In popular culture>Video games" [5]. Other users edited the (former) subsection, including J2UDY7r00CRjH. Now Tinynanorobots has wiped out almost everything here [6], so I'm opening a discussion. My preferred solution: an indipendent subsection, as shown here. This is massively DUE given the huge coverage. The template:See also I added [7] is useful for readers seeking more information, but I feel that some content should be included also in this article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it is more fitting for the Assassin’s Creed Shadow article. What is important to people on twitter, is not what determines weight. An encyclopedia is different from a newspaper, and this is an article on a historical figure, not the game. As far as it should be mentioned here, it should be described according to wikipedia policy, not reflecting the practice of a NYT article in the entertainment section. This isn’t really huge. I doubt few people know about the controversy outside a few chronically online persons. Just because it is big on twitter, doesn’t make it big. Probably the peak of the real world results was when it was discussed in the Japanese Diet. Really though, it is a subtopic of a subtopic, but that subtopic has its own article now. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

DUE isn't entirely about coverage, but also about importance for the subject matter of the article. Otherwise most historical figures would have massive sections about modern usages, which they don't. They sometimes have In Popular Culture sections with single line mentions, but that's it. I don't think an entire section about a video game is appropriate for a historical figure. Silverseren^C 16:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point, and maybe you're right, but it's hard for us editors to judge importance for the subject matter independently of coverage. In the case of Yasuke, given that he was discovered by the general public only recently, he is, in a sense, not only a historical figure but also a contemporary of ours, not unlike, say, Josephine Baker, who was largely forgotten until The Josephine Baker Story won an Emmy Award - so the article on Baker has an extensive section on Works portraying or inspired by Baker, and rightly so. It wouldn't make much sense to have an extensive "In popular culture" section for Julius Ceaser, but perhaps Yasuke's case is different.

Besides, most of our readers (as well as us editors) are on this article because of the Assassin's Creed Shadows controversy: I think it makes sense to highlight the information they might be interested in with a standalone subsection on the controversy. The article as it is now puts that controversy on the same level as content ("Yasuke inspired the 1971 satirical novel Kuronbō", "Yasuke plays a minor role in the 2005 to 2017 manga series Hyouge Mono", "In April 2019, MGM announced plans for their own live-action film about Yasuke", "A black samurai inspired by Yasuke, named Nagoriyuki, appears in Arc System Works' 2021 fighting game", etc.) which is less significant in terms of coverage/impact, and I doubt that this complies with WP:WEIGHT. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

For the past two to three weeks, @Eirikr and I have been working hard to verify the origin of a quote mentioned to be from the Shinchō Kōki[8] (transcription by editor Kondō Heijō, Editor's notes here talking about Oze Hoan as mentioned below[9]) on the Yasuke article, as it had been noticeably missing from the J.S.A Eliasonas and J.P Lamers Academic Translation of the Shinchō Kōki.[10] The missing quote is as follows:

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

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

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

That being said, we made sure to check other avenues such as the Shincho-ki, which is NOT the Shinchō Kōki. The Shincho-ki (or commonly known as Nobunaga-ki) was written by Oze Hoan, a Confucian scholar who was notably plagiarizing Ota Gyuichi's Shinchō Kōki by romanticizing the events or even making entire fabrications (J.S.A Eliasonas and J.P Lamers talks about this in their introductory page). So when we checked Hoan's Shincho-ki,[11][12] the quote was also missing. We had also checked for the Azuchi Nikki, which was in possession of the Maeda clan (we could not find a Maeda version of Shinchō Kōki). @Eirikr states his findings as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

He also added this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember: "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth".

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

Thank you for taking the time and resources to solve this problem with us. It is important to know a few key factors to keep in mind: What Kaneko claims, the source text, and where does he claim it is from, since there seems to be a bit of confusion on whether it's referred to as the Shinchō Kōki or the Shincho-ki, which the title of his book and according to this[13] (which also talks about Kaneko's review of Lockley's work, however I could not find his actual review, if anyone has a link to it it would be greatly appreciated) it's reaffirmed to be referring to the Shincho-ki, so it is important to know what document he is specifically referring to.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the requested pages.

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

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

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

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

「◎巻十四

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

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

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

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

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

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

There might be a misunderstanding from the word Kaneko uses (屋敷) could be misinterpreted to mean "mansion" and this was evident when I put it through a machine translation, but the word also refers to residence, estate, etc., and when checking kotobank,[14] it seems to refer to a main residence, as a proper house. However, it doesn't match the same kanji used in the transcript above (私宅), Eirikr might provide context on this matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, has the quote been verified or not? Could you please provide a reference? Otherwise, if it has never been published before, either in Japanese or in English, we'll have to remove it and use Lockley's article in Britannica to support that Ōta states that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend [15]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you all for the recent pings.

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

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