Talk:Yasuke#rfc 939A0C5

{{edit extended-protected|Yasuke|answered=yes}}

Requesting a "Yasuke Simulator" entry on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke#Video_games

For context, Yasuke Simulator is an indie, low budget, parody comedy game based on Yasuke and his life. 177.37.150.157 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Isnt this already on there at the bottom? 82.134.180.246 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Why would we include such blatant racism on the wiki page? You should be banned. 197.88.254.168 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::How is that racism? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's an actual game (regardless of it being a parody of Assassins Creed: Shadows) with Yasuke as the main protagonist. That should be enough to include the game in this page. Please elaborate on how it's inclusion is racist? Stjerneulv (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Ironic because i've been one of the editors who had defended Yasuke's historicity and his status as a real samurai the most on this website, yet, wanting a request edit on a new indie parody/comedy videogame featuring the guy is somehow "racist"? 177.37.150.229 (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:It's a "Work of minor significance" WP:IPCEXAMPLES so it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::[https://www.smashjt.com/post/yasuke-simulator-just-beat-assassin-s-creed-shadows-on-twitch-and-it-s-not-even-close Yasuke Simulator achieved higher twitch viewership than Assassins Creed: Shadows.] Failing to include it means we should also remove the mention for Assassins Creed: Shadows, if it's a matter of significance. Stjerneulv (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::SmashJT.com is neither an unbiased nor credible source of information, but even if that's true, WP:IPCEXAMPLES still applies. Assassins Creed: Shadows is a major release and part of a long running series of games from a major studio, "Yasuke Simulator" is the self-published and only release from an unknown indy developer. To paraphrase the "Works of minor significance" section of WP:IPCEXAMPLES, There is no encyclopedic interest in a famous historical figure being featured prominently in someone's self-published game. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: No sources provided. BrokenSquarePiece ^{(complete me)} 01:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::For reference, [https://store.steampowered.com/app/3272300/Yasuke_Simulator/ this is the game they're talking about.] I stand by my opinion that Wikipedia:IPCEXAMPLES section on "Works of minor significance" applies, as the game is the self-published and only release from an unknown indy developer with an all-time peak of 271 concurrent players (per SteamDB, compare to Assassin’s Creed Shadows All-time peak of 64,825). The game is only available on Steam as far as I can tell. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Being only on Steam and being from an independent developer shouldn't be relevant. The pop culture list contains films that aren't even in production yet, things that Yasuke isn't even in. The bar here is pretty low. Coverage by sources is what is relevant.CaptainSu (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Anyone can publish a game on Steam if they pay the fee and pass the pretty generous requirements involved is the thing. Movies in development by Lionsgate, MGM, and  Warner Bros. as reported on by Deadline and Variety are more significant than a self published game with no serious coverage. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Mainstream films have many millions of funding and culture significance. An unknown shovelware 'game' made by a random person doesn't. Koriodan (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Shovelware games can still receive notoriety, but they're rarely included on Wikipedia if they don't have reliable sources to back them up. If it's not on the list of video games considered the worst, then it probably shouldn't be mentioned - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 11:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Yasuke|answered=yes}}

CHANGE:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a samurai of African origin who served Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death.

TO: Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a retainer to Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582 during the Sengoku period. While he was given a residence, gifts, and possibly a katana, there is no historical evidence that he was formally granted samurai status under the bushi class system.

1. The Britannica reference is:

"Yasuke (born c. 1555, Eastern Africa) was a valet and bodyguard of the Jesuit missionary Alessandro Valignano who rose to become a member of the inner circle of the warlord Oda Nobunaga, Japan’s first “great unifier.” Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people."

This clearly states that there is debate as to whether or not Yasuke was a samurai. This must be acknowledged by the wikiarticle at the least, and if Wiki is to have integrity about it, make the edit I propose.

2. There is only ONE primary source: the Ōta Gyūichi's Shinchō Kōki - and its contents should be communicated clearly and without embellishment.

3. Modern usage of the term "samurai" in describing Yasuke is a retrospective interpretation not supported by primary evidence and conflates informal service with class status. Tadatomonakashima (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Tadatomonakashima (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with this change. There is no evidence that Yasuke was viewed as a samurai by his contemporaries. 2001:268:C20B:69C:1592:5502:9524:9DFA (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: please see question 1 in the frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::Apologies Ivanvector but it's seems in "RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article" a consensus was never truly reached and the argument was hijacked by bad faith actors that use original source from discredited and admonished historian. This discussion should be reopen and discussed 76.203.175.9 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:this is a correct change the only source of him being a "samurai" comes from the discredited and admonished historian Thomas Lockley, who writes more fiction than history 76.203.175.9 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::That's not true, Lopez-Vera also writes that Yasuke was a samurai. There are other historians as well. There is also more than one primary source about Yasuke. CaptainSu (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you have the names of any Japanese scholars (preferably with expertise in Japanese feudal history) that you could reference that support this? Stjerneulv (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with this change.

:The way it's currently written does not reflect a neutral view point on the subject and ignores a lot of expert opinions, especially Japanese ones. The way this is proposed solves the conflict so that it reflects the actual (limited) knowledge that we can all definitely agree upon. Besides, if Yasuke is being addressed as a samurai on the current write-up due to the word being treated as a "broad term", then it makes sense to be specific and pedantic about it to ensure good comprehension of the article and reflect actual information that's agreed upon at a scholarly level rather than use broad terms that can be wrongfully implemented.

:Please implement the changes noted here. Perhaps with an addendum saying that "while some secondary sources have called Yasuke a samurai, there is no consensus on this topic, especially amongst Japanese scholars." Stjerneulv (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Fine, I will reproduce the text from question 1 of the FAQ that you seem to be refusing to read:

::Q. Why is Yasuke described as a samurai, and not a retainer?

::A. A request for comment (Talk:Yasuke/Archive 3#RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article) found, based on the reliable sources that exist on the topic, {{tq|a clear consensus that Yasuke should be represented in the article as a samurai}}. Wikipedia describes things as they are described in reliable sources (see WP:NPOV). Any change to this consensus would likely require significant new sources to be presented.

:The prior discussion already considered Lockley and López-Vera, and Purdy's criticism of Lockley; if you want to know why this particular conclusion was reached, you can read the linked discussion. It has a helpful summary at the top in case you don't want to read the very long and very divisive full discussion. I have little interest in this topic and am not here to debate, I am here to moderate. Since all of the arguments that are being made here have already been discussed in that very long and very divisive discussion, and there are no new arguments nor new sources to discuss here, this edit request is declined.

:Wikipedia is not a forum for endless circular debates, and continuing attempts to restate old arguments are tendentious and disruptive. If you do have new sources to consider which were not already discussed in that long discussion, then by all means I encourage you to start a new discussion here and present your new arguments, but you will need to be familiar with the previous discussion first. If you are just going to try different ways to argue things that were already settled in that prior discussion, I am going to start removing comments rather than replying to them. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Of cource, it is not reached a new consensus to request admins to change the samurai status, the 1st argument of Tadao is not circular one. The page top Rfc consensus is based on "there have been no reliable sources furnished which contest the status of Yasuke as a samurai". The proposer understand the previous discussions well, and pointed out Britanica online (,which is now used multiply and being regarded as a reliable source) describes there are both pro/con positions whether Yasuke was a samurai.

::[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke The Britanica online] is used as a reference of "Yasuke was a samurai". However, reading it carefully, although the author Thomas Lockley takes pro position, he also admits there are also disagreements by others. We cannot assume there is a consensus for Yasuke's status by historians, from this source.

::I also found description in [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-real-history-of-yasuke-japans-first-black-samurai National geographis] that Yasuke's samurai status is still under debate by historians. (the last 3 paragraph of section of "Was Yasuke a samurai?") It says,

::{{blockquote|text=Historians debate whether Yasuke was technically a samurai, a term that denoted more than just a warrior.}}

::To support it, I link [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEpd2SVw0F8&t=852s a movie of WIRED] that a Japanese historian cast doubt on Yasuke's samurai status. (You can check it by Eng sub.) At 12:23 he says,

::{{blockquote|text=We don't know where Yasuke was ranked as. There's debate whether he was a samurai but there are not enough records left to prove that.}}

::I don't know this movie can be used as a reliable secondary source, but it would support there are no concensus for samurai status by historians, at least. NakajKak (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:::By the evidence of National Geographic article above, I will edit request again if there is no consern for using this article. Because there is a source which contests the status of Yasuke as a samurai, the previous RfC consensus would be invalid. The lead will be,

:::Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was an a samurai of African origin who served Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death. Historians debate whether Yasuke was a samurai.{{cite web |title=The real history of Yasuke, Japan’s first Black samurai |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-real-history-of-yasuke-japans-first-black-samurai |website=National Geographic |language=en |date=30 October 2024}}

:::According to historical accounts, ... He As a samurai, he was granted a sword... NakajKak (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There are other sources which contains negative arguments for Yasuke's samurai claims.([https://medium.com/the-sundial-acmrs/we-need-to-talk-about-yasuke-fact-fiction-and-history-with-the-african-samurai-part-1-528a75dcc5ae We Need to Talk About Yasuke: Fact, Fiction, and History with the ‘African Samurai’ Part 1], and [https://medium.com/the-sundial-acmrs/we-need-to-talk-about-yasuke-fact-fiction-and-history-with-the-african-samurai-part-2-4d470e3d3574 Part 2], you can check it briefly at the Part 2 lead that "(the authour) addressed some of the arguments that Yasuke wasn’t really a ‘samurai' (in part 1)", and

{{edit semi-protected|ans=y}}

:::I do edit request now and propose to invalidate the previous RfC consensus because there are sources which contest the status of Yasuke as a samurai. The actual edit request is to change the 1st paragraph of the lead, to

:::Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was an African who served Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death. Historians debate whether Yasuke was a samurai.{{cite web |title=The real history of Yasuke, Japan’s first Black samurai |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-real-history-of-yasuke-japans-first-black-samurai |website=National Geographic |language=en |date=30 October 2024}}

:::and remove "As a samurai" from 2nd paragraph. NakajKak (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This is by far the version that best conveys the academically agreed-upon information we have about Yasuke as a historical figure. Of which is to say, we have little conclusive evidence about him and as such, it's of paramount important to focus on the information that the specialists (not us) truly agree upon. Every other highly-debated aspect of Yasuke that's speculative needs to be clearly and unmistakably marked as such. Stjerneulv (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Historians debate whether Yasuke was technically a samurai, a term that denoted more than just a warrior.

:::Considering the [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-real-history-of-yasuke-japans-first-black-samurai National Geographic article] links to the [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke britannica.com] article that states:

:::"Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “[https://www.britannica.com/topic/samurai samurai]” of foreign birth, although this has been [https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/disputed disputed] by some people."

:::But provides no to links to said disputing opinions and also states:

:::"In an unpublished but extant document from about this time, Ōta states that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend. During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank. This is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates.

:::The Jesuit Lourenço Mexia, who was later with Yasuke in Nobunaga’s capital city, Azuchi (in modern-day [https://www.britannica.com/place/Shiga Shiga] prefecture), wrote that Nobunaga was very fond of and often talked with Yasuke. Mexia even reported rumors that Yasuke would be made tonō, or lord, which has been interpreted as meaning that he might have been in line for the bestowal of a fief."

:::Regarding the linked WIRED video, to quote the historian interviewed, "When Nobunaga saw him, he told Valignano that he wanted Yasuke as his retainer. In 1582, Nobunaga was killed by one of his retainers, Mitsuhide Akechi."

:::"We don't know where Yasuke was ranked as. There's a debate whether he was a samurai but there are not enough records left to prove that."

:::I'd argue if anything, these strengthens the use of samurai in the article, unless some actual scholarly dissenting opinions can be provided. Handwavy "it is disputed" comments without a link to specific scholarly dissenting opinions are simply not enough and fails Wikipedia:OR. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Japanese historian [https://www.nichibun.ac.jp/en/research/staff/s377/ Yuichi Goza], an academic with a Ph.D. in literature and whose field of specialty is japanese medieval history, actually [https://www.sankei.com/article/20240806-LVYJLBZM2ZHJTHAWC2Q2SHCTA4/ had an interview in 2024] where he talks about Yasuke, and how little is actually understood about him. He does highlight several important points:

::::: - "There is a description that Nobunaga gave Yasuke a sword and a residence, indicating that he was treated as a samurai. However, this only appears in this transmitted text among the dozens of copies of Shinchōkōki, and the possibility that it was added later during transcription cannot be ruled out."

::::: - "Also, even if he was a samurai, it may have been 'in name only.' For example, in the Edo period, daimyo who liked sumo wrestling had their own wrestlers. Formally, they were vassals, samurai who were employed and allowed to wear swords, but even if a war broke out, it was of course not expected that the wrestlers would fight on the battlefield."

::::: - "By keeping the black Yasuke close to him, he could attract attention and, in a sense, show off Nobunaga's 'power.' So, I think the most important purpose was to show him to everyone. Jesuit historical materials state that Yasuke was strong and had some talent for performing. I think the reality was that he was Nobunaga's bodyguard and entertainer."

::::He concludes that Yasuke is not a samurai, or representative of the samurai class, and should NOT be used as a symbol of the samurai and doing so might be an appropriation of Japanese culture. I highly recommend reading through the article as it provides a valuable insight into the japanese view on this subject, something that's been vastly lacking in the various sources presented so far. Stjerneulv (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm sure an academic being interviewed by Sankei Shimbun certainly gave the subject as much historical consideration as that paper gave Imperial Japanese war crimes in the book "History Wars: Japan – False Indictment of the Century" they published.

:::::Also Goza seems to not be unfamiliar with Jesuit sources as he continues to not use Luis Frois. [https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1820863453609042172 Oka Mihoko] ([https://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/focus/en/people/people001828.html an Associate Professor who specializes in Japanese History of the 16th and 17th centuries at the University of Tokyo's Historiographical Institute]) also points out the translation Goza uses is incorrect, and Lorenzo Mesia doesn't say Yasuke knew tricks, but that he had good substance/manners. So no, he wasn't an entertainer, or at least no historical sources say he was.

:::::Besides, even if we were to take his argument that Yasuke's samurai status was just only "in name", so what? Nobunaga's bodyguards were samurai, and if Yasuke was one of them (and while a valid assumption actually rests on less evidence than his samurai status) then Yasuke was a samurai. If he was a sumo employed as a samurai "in name only", then he was a samurai. In other words, what Goza has a problem with is not with Yasuke's samurai status, but how he's depicted in Assassins Creed (which he went into more detail in the article), which isn't the subject of this Wikipedia entry

:::::And while we're on the subject, let me [https://www.mofa.go.jp/af/af1/page25e_000086.html quote the Japanese government] on the status of Yasuke:

:::::

The Relationship between Mozambique and Japan The Japan-Mozambique relationship dates all the way back to the 16th century when Yasuke, a samurai warrior from Mozambique, became a retainer to one of Japan’s most famous daimyos during that turbulent period.

:::::DragonBrickLayer (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tq|I'd argue if anything, these strengthens the use of samurai in the article, unless some actual scholarly dissenting opinions can be provided.}}

:::::::"This source lacks evidence" is the same reason as many people used when they tried to remove samurai words, which were all rejected. Besides, it is unclear how "We don't know where Yasuke was ranked as" could strenghten samurai use.

::::::{{tq|"it is disputed" comments without a link to specific scholarly dissenting opinions are simply not enough and fails Wikipedia:OR.}}

:::::::The National Geographic article is a published reliable source. The requested edit cannot be OR.

::::::NakajKak (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The line your trying to use that source to cover " Historians debate whether Yasuke was a samurai." needs attribution that the source doesn't provide, it links to the Britannica article whose only answer is "by some people." Neither provides the specify required to support of the requested edit and would instantly and rightfully be requested to be tagged with Template:By_whom, as attribution has yet to be provided. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::never ever thought of as National Geographic as "reliable", they get the most basic stuff wrong it's sort of like discovery channel i always fact check their docs DarkShroom (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I have to ask why should one Japanese historian be taken as the authority over other Japanese historians like Yu Hirayama. Unfortunately the way the guy in the Wired said regular Japanese people don't know Yasuke is taken as ammo, considering Yasuke has been depicted plenty of times in Japanese media. It's like saying regular people wouldn't know Nikolas Tesla, but if you're even a bit invested in the field, you should know.

:::https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/arts/assassins-creed-shadows-yasuke-samurai-japan.html Suredeath (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{talk-ref}}

:File:X mark.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = THE FAQ. PLEASE READ THE FAQ,

| result = Stop rehashing the same complaints and read the FAQ. It's at the top of this page. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

}}

There's no proof or reliable sources confirming Yasuke to be a samurai nor is there any proof for him receiving a stipend in any primary source. The claim that Yasuke was granted a stipend, sword, and residence in 1581 is likely a modern interpretation or speculation in secondary sources. While it is true that he was treated with respect, no primary sources such as the Shinchō Kōki confirm that he was granted a stipend or formal samurai status. Therefore, this statement should be viewed with caution and is not fully supported by the most reliable historical records, such as the Shinchō Kōki (Maeda Version) or other contemporaneous documents. Nothing like this is mentioned in the Shinchō Kōki (信長公記), written by Ōta Gyūichi, a samurai who served Nobunaga. Which is considered the most reliable firsthand account of Nobunaga’s reign nor does the Maeda version of the Shinchō Kōki that is the most completed manuscript about that era provide any evidence that he received the official privileges of a samurai, such as a stipend or land. This strongly suggests that he was a high-ranking retainer or warrior, but not a full samurai in the traditional sense. There is more historical support for the argument that Yasuke was not a full-fledged samurai than for the idea that he was one. While he held a unique and respected position under Oda Nobunaga, he did not meet the full criteria traditionally required to be considered a samurai in Japan. This is why among Japanese historians and academics, the view that Yasuke was a warrior in Nobunaga’s service but not a samurai by traditional standards is the dominant opinion. These inaccurate claims stem from speculation found in many secondary sources, including books, articles, and documentaries, that might have inferred that Yasuke received a stipend or land based on his role as a trusted retainer of Nobunaga. While primary sources don’t mention this, some authors and historians may have assumed he was granted such privileges based on his status and importance in Nobunaga’s service. If the proof of Yasuke being a samurai is that he received a stipend but the assumption that he received one comes from the presupposition that Yasuke was a samurai this is question begging and a circular argument which is just fallacious reasoning. Him being a samurai is what's in question yet him being assumed to be a samurai is the very thing being used to speculate that he received the things that could be used as proof of him earning that status. The Wiki editors that are persistent in making these false claims are a joke with no credibility to be asserting things that go contrary to the dominant opinion of Japanese historians and academics, that hold the view that Yasuke was a warrior in Nobunaga’s service but not a samurai. Which is supported by things like his treatment after Nobunaga’s death as when Nobunaga died, Yasuke was captured by Akechi Mitsuhide, but instead of being executed as a samurai would have been, he was handed over to the Jesuits. No samurai family name either samurai were often granted a formal Japanese name, usually reflecting their integration into a warrior family. There is no evidence that Yasuke received such a name. Lack of a samurai stipend or fief samurai were typically granted land or a stipend from their lord, but there is no record of Yasuke receiving either as I've discussed above. As well as historical descriptions in contemporary records, like the Shinchō Kōki (信長公記), that describe Yasuke as a warrior but do not explicitly call him a samurai (侍). Xotimyth (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've removed two previous versions of this, and asked you to read this talkpage, the RfC, the FAQ, and the archives. You clearly have not done so. While I will not remove this a third time, please understand that this article is under editing restrictions, and that editors are expected to respect Wikipedia policies and consensus. See Ivanvector's note above, this is wasting peoples' time. Acroterion (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::I am considering placing this talkpage under at least semi-protection to keep discussions under some form of control. I suspect ECP is more likely to be effective with new editors who keep posting long complaints without reading the context, but won't go straight there. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Sorry for the fuss. This time I'm not asking that the word "Samurai" be changed. Japanese people have made this suggestion many times, but they have never listened to it, so I've given up.

My suggestion is to convey that information regarding Yasuke's status is not found in multiple reliable sources, is found in only a few documents, and therefore its authenticity is unknown.

• Before Edit
• According to historical accounts, Yasuke first arrived in Japan in the service of Italian Jesuit Alessandro Valignano.
• After editing
• There are very few documents remaining regarding Yasuke, and the reliability of much of the information cannot be confirmed. According to the little information available, Yasuke first arrived in Japan in the service of Italian Jesuit Alessandro Valignano.

Compared to before, the content has improved and there seems to be more Japanese references. However, the essential parts of the articles still use English references.

For example, the works of experts such as Britannica, CNN, E. Taylor Atkins, and Jonathan Lopez-Vera.

Now, take a look at this paper.

Manuscript Discrepancies and Historical Ambiguities: A Textual Study of the Shinchōkōki and Yasuke

https://www.jiesuwon.com/jieissue7volume1-2025-1-22-jie-journal

Using historical and linguistic models, the paper examines the reliability of the only manuscript that describes Yasuke and finds that its authenticity is highly questionable. The paper argues that English-speaking researchers rely too heavily on the Maeda version and do not provide adequate historical criticism. Furthermore, their Japanese language skills are inadequate to conduct research and to verify the original sources. As a result, the author notes, their studies create little loops that complement each other. In this loop, each researcher incorporates his or her own elements and modern ideas, and the chain of anachronisms is becoming more serious, according to the report.

This is the mainstream research result of current Western researchers.

Today, Wikipedia is written based on research and literature that was born from that chain of mistakes. That information becomes the source of information for various AIs, reinforcing false information and hindering correct information.

Many researchers in Japan have adopted the approach of seeing what they can learn from the limited information available about Yasuke. They do not supplement the story with delusions, as is the case in the West, or simply assume that something is correct because it is written in the Maeda version. They criticize the historical sources, asking why something is written in the Maeda version but not in other books.

Herein lies the difference between the Westerners who have monopolized this article until now, and the Japanese who have proposed edits and been rejected.

Japanese people have no materials. Because even if you look into it, you won't know. They know that they won't understand. This may seem meaningless, but it is actually very important.

Westerners have materials. There are various documents and materials. This is the result of inappropriate research, but since many other researchers are also following the same inappropriate information and thinking, it will never be corrected. They think they understand, but their knowledge is full of lies and in reality they don't understand anything at all. They present incorrect literature and materials as evidence and claim the legitimacy of their incorrect research. They don't understand the situation and do it unconsciously, which is a problem.

I'll leave these pages here for your reference. It looks like some of it has already been introduced, but the content has been updated. [https://sleepcratic-republic.hatenablog.com/entry/2024/07/30/225016][https://medium.com/the-sundial-acmrs/we-need-to-talk-about-yasuke-fact-fiction-and-history-with-the-african-samurai-part-1-528a75dcc5ae][https://medium.com/the-sundial-acmrs/we-need-to-talk-about-yasuke-fact-fiction-and-history-with-the-african-samurai-part-2-4d470e3d3574] Between work (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've checked the cited source: {{cite journal|last=Naudé|first=Alaric |title=Manuscript Discrepancies and Historical Ambiguities: A Textual Study of the Shinchōkōki and Yasuke|journal=Journal of International Education|date=2025|volume=7|issue=1|url=https://www.jiesuwon.com/jieissue7volume1-2025-1-22-jie-journal|issn=2586-6478}} Does it qualify as WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

:The "Journal of International Education" is not indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, has no impact factor, and is self-published by University of Suwon. On the plus side, it claims to use a peer-review process and is managed by an editorial committee. However, its stated focus is on {{tq|advancing scholarship in the field of teaching and learning}}, so it is not specialised in Japanese history.

:Nor is the author, Alaric Naudé, an expert in the field. He is apparently a professor of linguistics at the University of Suwon, but I was unable to find a faculty page to confirm this. He has published a book on Yasuke (possibly self-published), "THE REAL YASUKE: HISTORY BEYOND THE SAMURAI MYTH" (United Scholars Academic Press, 2024), which was discussed at RSN and not deemed reliable. He also maintains a personal blog where he has written about Yasuke and topics such as {{tq|the Afrocentric ideology in North America}} [https://www.modernerudite.com/p/yasuke-debunking-pseudo-historical?utm_source=publication-search].

:As for the content of the article, GPTZero flagged the first section (the only one I checked) as "100% AI generated"; "We are highly confident this text was AI generated". Grammarly also reports that "71% of this text appears to be AI-generated".

:Notably, the article claims that {{tqb|platforms like Wikipedia have adopted these claims [Lockley and what Naudé calls the "English orthodoxy"] as definitive. Wikipedia editors, by their own admission, often lack the requisite knowledge of Japanese to verify primary sources, yet they insist on maintaining the narrative of Yasuke as a "samurai," derived exclusively from English-language works such as Lockley’s. Dissenting perspectives rooted in Sengoku-period manuscripts or Japanese scholarship are routinely dismissed, creating an environment where historical critiques are marginalized in favor of perpetuating the prevailing myth}}

:In my view, we should dismiss also this contribution, which I don't think qualifies as WP:SCHOLARSHIP, given the lack of subject-matter expertise from both the journal and the author, and the evidence of AI-generated content. At the very least, the source is WP:BIASED and should be used with caution, but I think it should be disregarded entirely.

:I'm happy to discuss this further at WP:RSN if anyone disagrees. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with Gitz. I'd also argue that the proposed edit doesn't meet WP: NPOV, as it feels very leading with lines like "the reliability of much of the information cannot be confirmed". DragonBrickLayer (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Just noting that the author of the article, Alaric Naudé, has recently been the subject of an AfD discussion here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The user Between work knows, I looked into his edit history last night and found he edited that article and has commented here about Alaric Naudé before under his IP . DragonBrickLayer (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was just making a suggestion. If everyone disagrees with the opinion, then I'll stand by that decision.

:::::However, I would like to say a few things in Alaric Naudé's honor.

:::::*This paper uses linguistics to examine how much the Maeda version of the Shinchō Kōki is different from other versions, and whether there is a possibility that the content was added later. Also, if there have been changes in the content, the paper examines the social background and examines what triggered the change. So Alaric Naudé, a linguist and sociolinguist, becomes an expert. If it turns out that there is a possibility that the text may have been significantly altered in later generations, and many people are creating papers and news based on that, it is the job of scholars to sound the alarm.

:::::*You all conclude that Alaric Naudé must have used generative AI to create the paper, but that verification is probably wrong. The reason is explained in another paper. [https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/chatgpt-detectors-are-biased-and-easy-to-fool-research-shows/][https://www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(23)00130-7] When a tool is used to determine whether a paper written by a native English speaker and a paper written by a person who studied English at school or elsewhere were created by generative AI, it has been found that native speakers are less likely to be judged as having been written by AI, but papers written by people who studied English at school or elsewhere are extremely likely to be judged as having been written by AI. This is despite the fact that neither of them used generative AI. Alaric Naudé is a Korean scholar. This is probably the reason for the AI judgment.

:::::Between work (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Since I happened to be here today, I would like to provide you with information different from Alaric Naudé. This is about Ietada nikki. It is on page 10 of this paper. [https://www.hi.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publication/syoho/02/syoho0002-iwazawa.pdf][https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1520572359945518592][https://www.hi.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publication/syoho/2/]

::::::{{tqb|記載形式から見て、その各々の日にかかる記事とは解しがたい。内容から考へても、特別の繋日を必要としないその当時の見聞を記したものとみるべきであろう。}}

::::::{{tqb|Judging from the format, it is difficult to imagine that these articles were written on specific days. Judging from the content, they should be seen as records of events that occurred at the time, without the need for specific dates.}}

::::::If this supposition is correct, then the information that Yasuke was seen on this date may be incorrect. Maybe the date didn't matter and he just added it to the empty space. You may want to say that there is no way that could be the case, but the original Ietada nikki actually contains several illustrations that are related to the contents, as well as doodles that are unrelated. [https://wwwopac.komazawa-u.ac.jp/repo/repository/collections/41447/?lang=0&mode=0&opkey=R174296978353287] Ietada frequently made mistakes in dates, and sometimes when he received a gift or a major event, he realized his mistake and started writing the correct date from that day. The expert who wrote the paper introduced above also stated in his paper that "Ietada's writing style is so unique that there are parts that are difficult to read or understand."

::::::Information about Yasuke accidentally reached the Tokugawa clan, who were allies of the Oda clan, and Ietada may have simply added what he had heard. Of course, all of this is speculation. There is no information to substantiate this. Between work (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting article, but stumbled on this sentence (my italics):

"There are no historical documents to show the true meaning of Mitsuhide's statement, and it is not known whether it was a sign of his discriminatory mindset or an expedient to save Yasuke's life."

This is bad writing. Logically it's equivalent to a sentence like:

"There are no historical documents to show the true meaning of Mitsuhide's statement, and it is not known whether it was a sign of his fear of UFOs and alien abduction or an expedient to save Yasuke's life."

If there is no evidence to support a person's "discriminatory mindset," then introducing such a supposition is just wildly irresponsible conjecture. Absence of evidence can't be accepted as evidence of absence. — Muckapedia (talk) 21^e avr. 2025 10h17 (−4h) 14:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't like the "discriminatory mindset" terminology either and I suggest we drop it. If I'm not mistaken, it's only supported by the [https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/yasuke_jp_609347f7e4b09cce6c26a9b2 Japanese HuffPost], which is not an excellent source. It says (google translated): {{tqb|Akechi Mitsuhide's explanation that "black slaves were animals and knew nothing" is extremely racist. However, in his book, Professor Midori Fujita of Tohoku University speculates that this was a convenient way to avoid killing them. "It is not surprising that Mitsuhide would have found it unbearable to kill a servant who, although his skin was a different color, understood a little of the language and was loyal to his master until the end."}} Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)