Talk:Yasuke/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lockley's article on Yasuke in Britannica

Britannica has just published a new article about Yasuke, written by Lockley [1]. Leaving aside the samurai issue (Lockley basically restates his view: since Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend [...] historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank), editors interested in Yasuke should check our article to see if it corresponds to Lockley's account. In fact, Lockley's article seems to be the best (more comprehensive, if not accurate) source we have on the subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.

That seems to match his latest peer-reviewed work about Yasuke (full article). Thibaut (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"Comprehensive, but not accurate" doesn't sound very good to me. 😄

Separately, I keep seeing Lockley mention that Yasuke had servants. Are there any other secondary sources that also make this claim? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think they meant more comprehensive and also potentially more accurate, not that it wasn't accurate CambrianCrab (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this claim supported by any of the primary sources? Within the primary sources I only saw the following privileges granted to Yasuke:

- house/residence (私宅; secondary source interpretation required to understand usage in context - was it a residence? a regular house? any private quarters?)

- sword (sayamaki; secondary source interpretation required)

- stipend (扶持; was it a one-time payment or an ongoing stipend? again, secondary source interpretation required) SmallMender (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley in this article claims that Japanese historians agree Yasuke was a "samurai," yet he does not give any specific names. In fact, one well-known Japanese historian Daimon Watanabe, who is also the director of publishing company 株式会社歴史と文化の研究所 which publishes many peer-reviewed historical books, has written his own comprehensive factual report on Yasuke in response to popular media depictions and did NOT claim once Yasuke to be a samurai to which 侍 is ascribed. The closest he gets to attributing Yasuke a warrior status is when he writes "it is said that Nobunaga wanted to keep Yasuke as a 武士 [warrior] and bring him up to become a castle owner sometime in the future." (I see Google translate translates 武士 to samurai which may lead to confusion)

Lockley's claims about what these "Japanese historians think" needs to be scrutinized and validated with actual credible names. 天罰れい子 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

From what I am aware of, Yahoo Japan articles are normally not accessible outside of Japan. In such cases is an Archive mirror of the article acceptable?

Regarding the use of 武士 by Daimon Watanabe and the use of quotation marks by Lockley himself, I think in the near future it may help to better disambiguate 武士 and 侍 also on the English Wikipedia. Here is the suggestion I posted in Samurai: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1234038781 SmallMender (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point, thank you for that suggestion. I believe an Archive mirror should be generally okay but this Yahoo JP article should also be accessible to overseas given it is also cited by the main page. I also agree that the distinction between 侍 and 武士 is highly important and we should always make sure to check the original source in that regard.

With regards to your suggestion, I think that is a good starting point to make the distinction between Samurai and Warrior, though as far as common Japanese usage is concerned, I do not believe the two are used interchangeably nowadays if there is uncertainty, e.g. the distinction is clearly laid out in some popular museum web articles. As many Japanese people both in articles and social media (X) point out, it generally refers to a combatant servant that is higher social class/caste and fulfilled specific requirements, such as having surname, given a a fiaf of certain value, their own land, treated as a 侍 on field, etc. This was especially true in the Sengoku period as many were under the employment of a 大名. A 侍 is a 武士 but the reverse is not always true. 天罰れい子 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that the latest writing on the samurai matter from its scholarly originator should be followed by our article—that is, the controversy about Yasuke's samurai status should be reflected in our lead, just as Lockley reflects it in the lead of his new Britannica article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Said “scholarly originator” precedes the dispute statement with yet another unverified and baseless consensus “commonly held by Japanese historians,” as a way to strengthen the position on one side without direct proof. It is clear throughout the article that Lockley also opts out terms normally ascribed to Yasuke like 黒奴 (black slave or servant), which is what is explicitly written in the official translations of the Annual Jesuit reports by the National Diet of Japan (Japan legislature), instead opting for “attendant bodyguard” which is his own personal interpretation and fails to state that. 天罰れい子 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly, the subtitle of the article has changed from "Black samurai" to "African-born Japanese warrior", although this doesn't directly prove anything one way or another. Also, the line "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people" is a bit strange, as most historians have not said one way or another whether Yasuke is a samurai, and I think Lockley is the only one to say he is the first foreign one to my knowledge. That said, perhaps the "foreign born" part is obvious as there is no other evidence for other foreign born samurai? Although perhaps maybe some Toraijin might have become samurai, although these people seem to have come to Japan from before samurai was a thing? Not fully sure what he means with this line. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley is someone who added themselves as a source to this very Wikipedia page, which I consider to be sketchy so we should see this person's writings as someone who is aware of what is on Wikipedia and may want to influence it and the viewpoint of English speakers on the topic. Is it possible this person has a quirky eccentric theory and they're trying to push it? We should treat this source with skepticism. Ultimately we cite sources based on their fact-checking and quality control of the publishers. Is it possible that Britannica is only relying upon him on this issue, and would have no one else on hand to fact-check this very niche issue? Why are we relying upon this one English speaker, when it should be an issue of consensus for Japanese historians? I consider this mostly a moutain in a mole-hill: It seems to be mostly Lockley who is really pushing the samurai status issue, and other sources are mostly pop-history pages talking about this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Care should be taken here in how Lockley is treated as a source. His statements are more tempered in Japanese texts, where he is writing in a more academic context. For example, here he is writing in the Japanese social studies textbook.

"Tsunagu Sekaishi" (translation not mine):

"During this time, the boundaries between samurai and other social classes were unclear. And although there is debate about whether Yasuke truly became a samurai, it is believed that he was undoubtedly viewed as a vassal of Nobunaga, at least during his life."

So, here "there is debate".

Can we even believe Lockley that Yasuke was "undoubtedly viewed as a vassal"? Is that based off of the primary sources? What if he was just gifted a sword after winning some sumo matches?

I wonder, is there any academic source from before 2010 or so that describes Yasuke as a "samurai", or is all of this just elaborate circular Wikipedia conjecture planted by Lockley to sell his books?

BassHistory (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think we have to choose between completely disregarding Lockley or embracing everything. We should treat every work and statement individually. His previous self-promotion is irrelevant, and mentioning it is just poisoning the well. Newer works should be prioritized over older, more academic (but not necessarily peer-reviewed) should be preferred to less formal works and published works are better than interviews. So, we know that Lockley has some theories and personal beliefs from recent interviews, but his article in Encyclopedia Brittanica is his most recent published work and most cautious and should be seen as reliable. His novel should be treated as a novel, with some historical notes attached. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Not only is Thomas Lockley not the best source but he actually made up most of the things he wrote in the English version of his books and articles and falsely claimed to have been fact checked. If you do a modicum of research on him you will find that the English and Japanese versions of his book are not only diametrically opposed in tonality but they also actively contradict each other. Trusting him as a source is no better than trusting Alex Jones.