Yasuke wasn't a samurai

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

Indeed, he should be listed among those potentially samurai, since nothing is certain. Eccekevin (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no information means he wasn't foreign samurai, obviously 31.40.131.100 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
that's not how that works. you can't russel's teapot this. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Russel's teapot" is a terrible argument against God's existence anyways, so i really don't expect those historical revisionists to not use bad faith arguments to deny Yasuke's status as a samurai (which he was) 2804:29B8:509E:616D:48D5:E5C8:34C7:37C6 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese wikipedia disagrees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the list says, it's not evidence. Wikipedia, as you are well-aware, can be edited by anyone. If I go to that list and add Abraham Lincoln to it, it doesn't make Lincoln a samurai. This is a bad standard.
If you think the Japanese wikipedia is a good authority for information, perhaps you should read the page for the man in question:
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BC%A5%E5%8A%A9
One of the sources for the information is a letter from a priest, father Luis Frois, which happens to be the chief source of information about Yasuke. Frois was an eye-witness to the events and reported what happened in a letter he wrote 5 months after Nobunaga's death. The source in the wikipedia linked at source number 49 describes what happened to Yasuke after Nobunaga's death.
You can read it here yourself, without any proxies:
https://purl.pt/15229/4/
If you read that, let's recap what happened:
Yasuke walked to the prince's house armed with a katana, which he handed over to a servant of Akechi Mitsuhide. The latter said he should be spared because he was basically an animal, he had no understanding of any of the current events and should reside with the priests in India.
If Yasuke were a samurai, he would first understand what as being said, he would not hand over his sword and/or he would have followed the bushido code. He would not be quiet while being treated as an inferior and might probably be fully equipped.
Nothing about Yasuke's action or the Japanese, or what father Frois wrote give any hint of Yasuke being more than a servant or slave. In the letter it's actually implicit he belonged to Nobunaga as a gift from the priest who brought him. Nobunaga wanted Yasuke and the priest gave him to Nobunaga.
If you didn't read the document, because I don't think you read it, I will transcribe and translate for you. Because I can read it and I can translate it myself.
Here is the original in 16th century Portuguese:
Page 127
Carta do padre Luis Froes ſobre a morte de Nobunánga, pera o muito Reuerendo, padre Geral da Cópanhia de IESVS, de Cochinocçú, aos cinco de Nouẽbro de 1582.
Page 136
Temiamos mais porque hum cafre que o padre Viſitador deixou a Nobunanga polo deſejar, depois de Nobunanga ſer morto ſe foi a caſa do principe, & ali eſteue pelejando hũ grande pedaço: hum criado de Aquechí ſe chegou a elle, & lhe pedio a cataná, que não tiueſſe medo elle lha entregou, & o outro foi perguntar a Aquechi, que faria do cafre, reſpondeo: eſſe cafre he beſtial, que não ſabe nada, nem he Iapão, não no matem, la o depoſitem na igreja dos padres da India, polo qual nos começamos aquietar algũa couſa (...)
Here is the same text brought into modern Portuguese syntax and style:
Page 127
Carta do padre Luis Froes sobre a morte de Nobunaga, para o muito Reverendo padre Geral da Companhia de JESUS, de Cochinchina, aos cinco de Novembro de 1582.
Page 136
Temíamos mais porque um cafre que o padre visitador deixou a Nobunaga por o desejar, depois de Nobunaga ser morto se foi à casa do príncipe, e ali esteve pelejando um grande pedaço: um criado de Akechi se chegou a ele, e lhe pediu a cataná, que não tivesse medo. Ele a entregou, e o outro foi perguntar a Akechi o que faria do cafre, ao que ele respondeu: "Esse cafre é bestial, que não sabe nada, e nem é japonês. Não o matem, o depositem na igreja dos padres da Índia", pelo qual nos começamos aquietar alguma coisa (...)
And here is the English translation:
Page 127
Letter from father Luis Froes about the death of Nobunaga, to the very venerable father general of the JESUS Company, from Cochinchina, on the fifth of November, 1582.
Page 136
We were most afraid because a kaffir that the visiting father left to Nobunaga for wanting him, after Nobugana's death went to the house of the prince, and there a great argument had issued: a servant of Akechi approached him and asked him to hand over his katana, and be not afraid. He handed it over, and the other asked Akechi what to do about the kaffir, to which he answered: "This kaffir is bestial, doesn't know anything, and is not even Japanese. Do not kill him, send him to the priests' church in India", after which we started to calm down a little (...)
Notice how they call Yasuke by the slur "kaffir", in Portuguese, "cafre", which means a man from "Cafraria", a very large portion of the south of the African continent. The name comes from the Arabic word for "infidel", and the Portuguese imported into their lexicon to mean Africans who were not Muslims.
When the priest says that the visiting priest "left him" to Nobunaga, it implies property. Like a thing. In Portuguese, if you leave a person with another person, you would use a different combination of word, roughly equivalent to "leave him [with / along with] Nobunaga", while this describes Yasuke "[with/under care of/under possession] of Nobunaga". That's the treatment Portuguese gave to slaves. Froes saw Yasuke as a slave and so did the Japanese.
It's fun to entertain the idea of a black samurai, but Yasuke was not a samurai. Wishful thinking doesn't describe reality. Unfortunately, this man was a slave and nothing is known of his destiny after taht day described in the letter. Gianmariot2 (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Yasuke article, you'll find (now in footnote 2) a list of academic sources describing Yasuke as a samurai. Footnote 3 lists news organizations that also do this. One of them, the New York Times [1], quotes a Japanese historian stating, "there’s no doubt that he was a ‘samurai’". In fact, all reliable sources available today describe him as a samurai, and none deny this. Some scholars argue that the fact that Yasuke was given a sword, a stipend and a house is a clear indicator that he was a samurai. Per policy (WP:PRIMARY) we must prioritize secondary sources over primary sources – historians are better equipped to interpret primary sources than we are. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
using wikipedia as a source? ok do you have a source beyond that? THAT'S not how it works. MisteOsoTruth (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a disingenious examination of the Japanese language being used in the Japanese Wikipedia. For starters, 武士 states that "Bushi" in modern Japanese is used essentially interchangeably with Wikt:侍 Moreover, if you go to ja:海外出身の武士の一覧 You can see in the article that they write "日本の武家の一員となった人物を列記する". With "日本の武家" being "Nihon no Buke". The special emphasis here being on the "武家", which is defined here Wikt: 武家 as specifically "Samurai", "Samurai Family", "Samurai Class". The full sentence of "日本の武家の一員となった人物を列記する" can be read "those who became members of the Japanese samurai class". I do not think this is a good-faith argument. For additional evidence, you can even look the Kanji on a Kanji dictionary and see that buke is defined as Samurai. If the list on the Japanese wikipedia was truly not intending to convey "Samurai" with "Bushi", they likely would not have referred in-article as members who became Japanese buke. You should just as well argue that the Wikipedia page for "Knight" isn't referring to Knights because it doesn't use "cniht". Bushi, in modern common Japanese understanding, is used interchangably with Samurai. And much the same way that "cniht" redirects to knight, Wikipedia redirects Bushi to Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other posters have already laid out some of the clearer differences between bushi and samurai. This thread in particular might be useful to reference. The tables given there describe the social structure during the Edo period, later than Yasuke's time, but still relevant as they show how bushi and samurai were not entirely synonymous terms.
That said, let's take a step back.
The only case we have historically for Yasuke fighting at all, which is a core part of what either bushi or samurai were expected to do at this point in history, was during the Honnō-ji Incident and its immediate aftermath. Notably, the Honnō-ji incident was an ambush, not a planned battle, so Yasuke fighting here is not necessarily indicative of any official role he might have had: he was simply there, and part of the group being attacked.
As such, it is not clear that we even have grounds for calling Yasuke a bushi, in the stricter sense of "someone who engages in military activities as a livelihood".
Looking again at the ja:海外出身の武士の一覧 page, their "Definition" section also appears to rule out Yasuke's inclusion:

定義

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

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

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

Definitions

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

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

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

Yasuke was clearly born overseas, no question there.
As far as bushi-ness is concerned, this was prior to the Edo period, so we must ask if he received benefits or treatment equivalent to the military caste of later years. He received no fief, so we can rule that out. While he was paid a stipend, it is unclear to me if this amount was equivalent to what an Edo-period military caste member would have received. One standard mentioned in the Talk:Samurai#Separate_section_needed_for_claimed_foreign_samurai thread mentions 150 koku, or enough rice to feed 150 people for a year. I would be surprised if Yasuke were paid that generously, but this certainly bears looking into. The Japanese Wikipedia page about Yasuke, at ja:弥助, does mention him receiving a stipend, but parenthetically comments that to call it "food": 「扶持（食べ物）を与えられ」 ("was granted a stipend (food)..."). This is sourced to this 2009 work, which I unfortunately do not have access to: https://books.google.com/books?id=LmRwQgAACAAJ (no preview available at Google Books).
Alternatively, we must ask if Yasuke were appointed to a relevant official position. He was not Hatamoto, but he is described by some as being appointed as a koshō or Page (servant). At present, I see that our Yasuke page relies on two references for this, the HuffPost Japan article at https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/yasuke_jp_609347f7e4b09cce6c26a9b2, and the Waraku Web article at https://intojapanwaraku.com/rock/culture-rock/28746/.
However, the article gives no sources, so we cannot evaluate where they came by this information. For all we can tell, this might be a fiction invented by the article author.
Moreover, the writing appears to rely in various places on inference and dramatic supposition: "信長が小姓の一人として、弥助に信頼を置いていたことがうかがえるのではないだろうか。 / It really seems like it must be the case that it looks like Nobunaga put his trust in Yasuke as one of his pages."
The Japanese Wikipedia article about Yasuke does not include the word 小姓 (koshō, "page") anywhere, nor does the ja:海外出身の武士の一覧 page listing foreign-born bushi. The Shinchō Kōki text that I've seen describes him as 依時御道具なともたさせられ候 ("sometimes he was allowed to carry [Nobunaga's] tools and other items..."), with no mention of any specific title.
Unless we can find clear historical textual evidence that Yasuke was granted a specific rank like koshō, it appears that calling him koshō is an inference and not an attested fact. By the definitions on the ja:海外出身の武士の一覧 page, it might not be correct to even list him as a bushi, let alone as having the hereditary nobility social status of samurai. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not written in old language, with old understanding. Your contention is that the Japanese Wikipedia page is not saying "a list of foreign Samurai" but rather "a list of foreign Bushi", it is a difference without distinction in modern Japanese.
Your argument about "by their definition he's not applicable" is also wrong, the translation provided by you here reads:
"For cases prior to the Edo period when the military caste was established, someone who has served as a warrior such as by fighting in battles, while also receiving benefits/treatment equivalent to the military caste of later years, such as a fief or stipend."
Yasuke "SUCH AS A FIEF OR STIPEND". Yasuke is documented as having served as a warrior, and he also received Fuchi from Nobunaga. And again, you are choosing to translate the "道具" in "依時御道具なともたさせられ候" as "tools", when the own website you used to link to the definition of "道具" provides it the meaning of a Samurai's Spear or other armanents Prior to the 17th Century.
Again, Yasuke was in attendance with Nobunaga when all of Nobunaga's ordinary soldiers were dismissed. But this is besides the point, I am not here to argue with you more about your extremely contrarian view of established scholarly practice and history. Rather, the contention at hand in this discussion is the fact that you are deliberately misinterperting the Japanese wiki's intention by saying they refer to "Bushi" not "Samurai", when from the Meiji Period onwards, Bushi is synonymous with Samurai. Saying the Japanese don't list him as "foreign Samurai" but rather "Foreign Bushi" is engaging in pointless pedantic exercises because in the modern usage the two words are one in the same. Even the dictionary you frequently quote, Kotobank, lists Bushi and Samurai as synonymous. X0n10ox (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in your statement regarding 「扶持（食べ物）を与えられ」, you have again conveniently snippped what you wished to snip and then disingeniously translated it. The full sentence being 「には、この黒人・弥助が住処（部屋）と扶持（食べ物）を与えられ、道具持ちをしていたという記述があるという」 which means "Yasuke is a black man who was given a place to live and a stipend, who worked as a weapon bearer". You can even see here that the Japanese understanding was that 戦国時代の『道具持ち』＝『槍持ち』ですか. As the answer given to that question by the native Japanese expert was 「そのとおりです。武士の表道具は槍ですから」. "That is correct. The main tool of the Samurai was the spear". X0n10ox (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual source text of the Shinchō Kōki says 道具なともたさせられ (dōgu nato motasaserare). Note that なと (nato): spelled in modern texts as など (nado) with the dakuten, meaning something like "et cetera, and so forth, and others". This doesn't describe a title as in the secondary sources that use the term 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi), and is instead a description as part of a verbal phrase, "he was allowed to / made to carry [Nobunaga's] dōgu and other things" (setting aside how to translate 道具 dōgu). Taking from this that Yasuke must have had the title of dōgu-mochi or "weapon-bearer" is itself an inference. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't ascribe motive to my actions, as in your claim that I "conveniently snippped what you wished to snip and then disingeniously translated it." My point with that quote was relevant to the stipend that was the topic of discussion, the dōgu part of the source was not irrelevant and thus would not have made sense to include. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Yasuke is documented as having served as a warrior,"
Where is this documented?
Serious question.
We know from primary documents that Yasuke fought at the Honnō-ji Incident. This is not "serving as a warrior", this is "being on the receiving end of an ambush and fighting for one's life".
I've already responded elsewhere about 道具.
About synonyms, context is important. When discussing historical periods, and especially when discussing how words were used in those periods, one must be aware of what those words meant at that time. In modern casual usage, sure, "samurai" and "bushi" are used mostly interchangeably. In academic discussions of social status in previous eras, "samurai" and "bushi" are not interchangeable.
In the context of Yasuke, and our page about him, we must be clear about how these terms are used. Is Yasuke a "samurai"? Depends. If we use the modern loose definition, then sure, Yasuke was a "samurai". If we use the definition relevant during Yasuke's time in Japan, then no, he wasn't, at least not according to any primary sources found so far. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there in falls the crux of the problem "If we use the modern loose definition, then sure, Yasuke was a "samurai""
Wikipedia:Use plain English and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) which states "use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". We do not have categories of "Bushi" or "Bujin" or any other such cause because in the common English understanding, they all mean Samurai. In a modern Japanese dictionary, they are listed as synonymous. See also Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED and that is why "Bushi" just redirects to "Samurai" because the modern understanding is that they are functionally the same thing.
The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be written in a manner to understand the subtle nuances of feudal Japanese politics and the changing definition or classification of a Samurai, least of all on a page about an individual. If, by modern commonly understood and agreed upon definition, he was a Samurai, than it is perfectly acceptable to say he was a Samurai.
In the context of Yasuke, and our page about him, it needs to be concise and understandable and needs to Wikipedia:Remember the reader. If people want to learn about the nuances of what it means to be a Samurai, I would wager that Samurai is a far better place to expand upon the myriad shifting definitions of the word than to argue on a page about a man who, you concede, by "loose modern understanding" would be considered a Samurai. It is one thing to say "There are disagreements as to whether Yasuke could be considered a Samurai", or "It is unclear whether Yasuke was considered a Samurai in his own time, though he is considered a Samurai by moden convention" and another thing entirely to assert, full stop, with no sources explicitly saying so, that Yasuke was not a Samurai.
To your point of "In modern casual usage, sure, "samurai" and "bushi" are used mostly interchangeably. In academic discussions of social status in previous eras, "samurai" and "bushi" are not interchangeable."
I simply direct you to Wikipedia:NOTEVERYTHING| "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" as well as Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK, "the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter" and "Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic".
The Wikipedia article for Yasuke is not the palce to have an intricate academic discussion on what a Samurai was at the time that Yasuke was alive. If, by modern understanding, Yasuke would be considered a Samurai, that is really all that needs to be known. X0n10ox (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“If, by modern understanding, Yasuke would be considered a Samurai, that is really all that needs to be known.”
I profoundly disagree. Such an approach would render the vast bulk of Wikipedia's articles about historical subjects a confusing mess of sloppy terminology. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 10:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately for you, your profound disagreement isn't really applicable. Again, Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK. Do you know what renders Wikipedia articles a confusing mess of sloppy terminology? Dredging up archaic terminology that contradicts modern understanding of the language at work. If you want to profoundly disagree with it, take it up with the Admins and the people who laid out the policies of Wikipedia, but it is what it is. We do not list French Knights as Chevalier instead of Knight because it is understood that those two things are synonymous even though an English cniht has very little in common with a French chevalier. Or do you intend to go scour the depths of Wikipedia now changing this Samurai or that Samurai to 武者, or 武人, or もののふ, or 侍, or 武士? Especially when all of those terms mean effectively the same thing in the modern understanding of the language. We have Category:Medieval French knights not Category:Medieval French Chevalier. The point of Wikipedia is to be accessible, again, "by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field", if people understand "Bushi" and "Bujin" and "Buke" and "Musha" to all be the same thing as "Samurai", there is absolutely no reason to create separate classifications of "Bushi" from "Foreign-born Samurai". If, by modern understanding, Yasuke is something which the average reader understands to be a Samurai, then he belongs on this list.
Again Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED, with extra emphasis :
"If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.
" X0n10ox (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Must confess to being puzzled at this point - I thought that primary source confirmation was needed for statements on wikipedia, but this is reading a lot like OR stating that "he was basically a samurai based on our interpretation." Surely we either have primary sources saying that he was, or lacking that he wasn't? Happy to be told I'm wrong, but that's how I've seen things done here in the past, but admit I've not been here too much. 92.236.123.233 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, my apologies, I'm getting primary and secondary sources mixed up. So my understanding is that secondary sources are needed - surely if they exist this whole debate is easily smoothed over? 92.236.123.233 (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is secondary sources do exist which refer to Yasuke as a Samurai, but they are arguing that the source is unreliable and a big basis of their interpertation of the book as unreliable is that their own personal translation differs from what the source author translates. The primary sources do not definitively state Yasuke was or was not considered a Samurai, but there are secondary sources which interpert the primary sources as indicating Yasuke was considered a Samurai of Nobunaga by basis of being paid a stipend as well as a translation that can indicate that Yasuke was a weapon-bearer for Nobunaga, which was generally only done by young Samurai in service of an older Samurai. Most famously, Ranmaru Mori was also considered a "page" of Nobunaga's. It is not OR "he was basically a Samurai based on our interpretation", the issue at hand in this conversation is they contention that "Foreign Born Bushi" should be separated from "Foreign Born Samurai", when by modern language understanding, "Bushi" and "Samurai" mean the exact same thing. While there was a difference once upon a time, categorically for the purposes of Wikipedia, it does not matter because Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED. You cannot create a list called "Foreign born Bushi", for instance, because "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources".
If, by modern understanding, Yasuke classifies as a Samurai, then he belongs on the list of "Foreign-born Samurai in Japan". It does not matter if Yasuke was or was not considered a Samurai in the feudal period. There are numerous secondary sources, provided elsewhere on this page, that all refer to Yasuke as a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if Yasuke was or was not considered a Samurai in the feudal period.
This is quite interesting - shouldn't facts be judged in the context of their period, or at least framed in that context? Saying "he was samurai" feels very different from "he was samurai based on the modern interpretation of the word."
At any rate clearly the debate has a load of political baggage atm, give it a few months and I'm sure sensible heads will prevail. Thanks for the explanation. 92.236.123.233 (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should.
If he was not given a Samurai rank or a koku salary then there's precious little justification, even circumstantial, for him to be given the title in an article.
The article even adds "nobunaga paid a salary" but there's no evidence of this except a one-time payment by Oda Nobonaga's kin, not Oda Nobunaga himself. The author of the Yasuke entry explicitly misleads the reader by not specifying which Nobunaga paid the "salary". FifteenthClause (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they shouldn't. Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH There are secondary sources which say that Yasuke was a Samurai. There are no reliable sources that explicitly say he was not, and the primary documentation, likewise, does not say that he was not. Furthermore, the list isn't specific to any chronological period, it is simply "Foreign-born Samurai in Japan". If, by the modern understanding of Samurai, per Wikipedia:ENGLISH "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources".
Arguing that he should be on a list of Foreign Born Bushi, or anything of the sort, brings us right back to him being on this list because Bushi just redirects to Samurai on Wikipedia. As stated in the initial comment which was being replied to the contention is ""Foreign Born Bushi" should be separated from "Foreign Born Samurai", when by modern language understanding, "Bushi" and "Samurai" mean the exact same thing". Since Bushi and Samurai are understood to mean the same thing in common usage in English, it brings us right back to if Yasuke is understood to be a Foreign Born Bushi and should be on a list of Foreign Born Bushi, then he should be on the Foreign Born Samurai list.
Again. The name of categories and pages on Wikipedia are based upon the common usage in modern language. If one searches for "Bushi" on Wikipedia and gets directed to Samurai, one would then expect that someone who is "Just a Bushi" would be present on a list of Samurai because as far as Wikipedia is presently concerned Bushi and Samurai are synonymous.
This list doesn't say anything, really, about any of the subjects on it, except biographical information about the Samurai in question with links to their individual pages which goes into a deeper explanation of the individuals in question. To quote the actual page of the list we are arguing about:
"The word samurai has had a variety of meanings historically; here it is taken to mean "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility". This list includes the following people.
  • Foreign soldiers and generals who served daimyō directly during the Sengoku period (1467–1615) and Azuchi-Momoyama period (1568–1600) before the unification of Japan by Toyotomi Hideyoshi. In this period, many emerging forces like Jizamurai call themselves samurai. Hideyoshi himself was born as a son of a peasant-ashigaru. The definition of samurai was obscure in those periods"
and
"The following people are treated as "people who could be foreign-born samurai".
  • "Foreign-born samurai" whose existence is uncertain.
  • Foreign-born people who were given territory or rice as salary by lords, whose occupations were unclear."
By the pre-defined definition of what the list presents, Yasuke should be on the list even if the contention is that he was a "foreign born Bushi" and not a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is not documented as serving as a warrior. Speculative articles with no reference to primary sources, such as the ones which claim he was a warrior, are kind of useless.
You're also demanding we use modern English universal definition of samurai but a specific obscure definition of a Japanese term "tools". You're demanding two different readings to reflect your activist desires here. FifteenthClause (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am pointing out the way Wikipedia works in that categories have to adhere to common usage and since Bushi and Samurai are synonymous in modern English, they cannot (or at least presently do not) have two separate pages, one for "Foreign Born Bushi" and one for "Foreign Born Samurai" as had been proposed.
My conversation about the "obscure definition of a Japanese term 'tools'" is in response to someone providing their own translation of a primary source and saying that it doesn't mean weapons, it means tools, and me providing context to the fact that the word for "tools" used in the primary source is understood during the Sengoku period to have also meant a Samurai's weapons.
I am not "demanding two different readings to reflect my activist desires".
Both are Wikipedia policy.
See Wikipedia:NOENG for information about editors providing translations, and then see also Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED for the argument as to whether "Foreign Born Bushi" or "Foreign Born Samurai" matter. As per modern understanding and definition and Wikipedia's policy "Bushi" and "Samurai" mean the same thing. Bushi redirects to Samurai. In this sense, generally speaking, creating a separate category as was proposed for "Foreign Born Bushi" would be going against Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED.
They are two entirely separate concerns and I would also remind you Wikipedia:NOPA and WP:GOODFAITH X0n10ox (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese part of this page still didn't list him as a samurai. And I dont think you who didn't even speak Japanese know better than them Devilhacker86 (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how wikipedia works. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuke at the Conquest of Koshu?

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

@Gitz6666, This is an interesting one. Started off reading the page in the link. The third paragraph (reading right to left), which begins "バーク" contains a description of Yasuke meeting Nobunaga, Nobunaga's amazement at seeing Yasuke, and having him strip to show the skin on his body. Yasuke is not mentioned by name, but using the characters "黒奴". Looking over the rest of those pages, I didn't see anything else relating to Yasuke, but I skimmed it fairly quickly. Then noticed a search box at the top right. Searching for 弥助 (Yasuke), 甲州 (Koshu), 武田 (Takeda, the conquered clan in that conquest), all yielded no results; and there is only that one instance of 黒奴.
Then returned to the article to check that the link was correct and noticed something strange... the link is as in the reference, but the description in the article does not match the linked document. The description "松平家忠、「家忠日記」、文科大学史誌叢書第2巻、吉川半七、1897年、54頁" is the Ietada diary, which describes Ietada meeting Nobunaga during the latter's post-conquest tour of the conquered territory, and Yasuke being with him. The linked document 日本西教史 上巻 is a "History of Western Religion, Vol. 1". The Ietada diary was initially referenced without a link. Searching the page history, the link was added in this edit by @Tinynanorobots, which is to a different section, but uses the same named ref tags. Probably a copy/paste error. Rotary Engine talk 10:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let's hear from Tinynanorobots. If no one has access to the original source, the Ietada diary (松平家忠、「家忠日記」、文科大学史誌叢書第2巻、吉川半七、1897年、54頁) I think we should should remove the reference to Yasuke participating in the conquest of Koshu, as I've never found it mentioned in any other source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a copy of the Ietada diary here. The relevant diary entry is on the far left of those pages, dated "十九日" (Day 19). It's handwritten cursive script, which is harder to read. Have found some transcriptions which match the more easily discernible characters, but not yet found any in reliable sources. The text as presented in those transcriptions is, 上様御ふち候大うす進上申候、くろ男御つれ候、身ハすみノコトク、タケハ六尺 二分、名ハ弥介と云, which for the most part aligns with my reading of the cursive. I do think one of the characters for Yasuke (弥介) is incorrectly transcribed, and should be 弥助; and there may be other errors.
My own reading of the text as transcribed is that it mentions Yasuke's name, height, body colour, that he was accompanied or was with Nobunaga, was given by the Jesuits (here 大うす), and received stipend or sustenance (ふち) from Nobunaga (referred to as 上様).
English translation on another of the non-reliable sites is, On the 19th (of April,) 1586, it rained. The lord (Nobunaga) took with him a black man, who has been given provisions by Nobunaga and presented by the missionaries. His body was like black ink, standing at six shaku and two bu (approximately six feet), and his name was Yasuke., which is not unreasonable. Rotary Engine talk 12:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, nothing to do with the "Conquest of Koshu", whatever it is, so I'm now removing text and reference. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The link is that on that date (Tensho 10 Month 4 Day 19), Nobunaga was returning from having inspected the conquered territory of Koshu (Kai Province). But the war against the Takeda clan in Koshu was carried out by Nobunaga's son, Oda Nobutada (see section "Conquest of Koshu"), and the fighting was over prior to Nobunaga's arrival.
Certainly, the Ietada diary does not directly support saying that Yasuke was involved in the conquest itself. He may have been, but he may have just been part of Nobunaga's subsequent inspection tour.
Comfortable with the removal. Rotary Engine talk 13:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will restore this noting that he was present on the date of the inspection tour. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that it is relevant. I think that it probably falls into Wikipedia:NOTOBVIOUSSYNTH. But it also may be implying that Yasuke is a samurai because he was there for the inspection tour. It also doesn't fit in with the other listings, which don’t list campaigns. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think one of the characters for Yasuke (弥介) is incorrectly transcribed, and should be 弥助; and there may be other errors.
"Yasuke" is also a reading for 弥介. Think of it as an alternative way of writing his name. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and Why is Yasuke being participating in the "inspection tour" treated as his "achievement in Japan?" Isn't it just taking a look at the already concurred land? and Yasuke was ,most likely, ordered to join the walk. Does it mean anything to the Japanese history? is there any other obvious achievement for him which does not seem questionable? 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also perplexed by this edit.[2] The reason given was restoring source, but what it was doing was replacing information based on a secondary source with a primary source. "Participating" in the inspection tour is vague, and given the context suggests that he was an inspector. That would be OR. The experts say that Yasuke was an attendant, like a bodyguard and carried Nobunaga's weapons. That is his occupation. Being in Koshu is just where someone saw him and wrote about it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit trying to erase the Yasuke's participation in Koshu inspection tour has reverted.
This has been discussed with some length here and I do not see any valid opnion that Yasuke's presence at the inspection tour being his "achievement in Japan", and some editors suggested removal already I see.
I believe the editors here know that this is from the Ietada Diary which only touches on Yasuke's physical appearance and the impression that the observer (Ietada) held, and not of Yasuke's role or the content of his duty.
the section of the article is named "Occupation and achievements in Japan",
so something equivalent to "being the retainer of Nobunaga" be enough for Yasuke I think and I propose the removal of the Koshu tour part.
By the way, the adding of this line does not seems to have consensus to start with, it is just a left as so, as the result of edit-war and giving up or the banning of the editors perhaps, No? KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the last overdramatic statement, I agree. I wouldn't rely on primary sources alone anyway, and if im not mistaken on the past I had already removed that reference to Koshi. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hear from @RelmC. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I did not see a talk page edit from Kei who removed it. I will self revert since there was clearly a discussion. Relm (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for quick reply. I will wait for others to react. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced source, the Ietada diary, does not directly support the removed article text, which was: He participated in the inspection tour of Koshu following its conquest.. As correctly pointed out by Gitz, above, the source does not mention Koshu at all.
In addition: Oda Nobunaga's inspection of Koshu was from Tensho 10, Month 4, Day 3 (at the latest), when he inspected Tsutsujigasaki Castle, to Day 10, when he departed Koshu; returning to Azuchi castle via the Tōkaidō (road).
Ietada's diary entry is dated Tensho 10, Month 4, Day 19 - nine days later. On that date, Oda was somewhere between Hamamatsu (Day 16) in Tōtōmi Province (two provinces west of Koshu) and Azuchi Castle (Day 21).
Is it possible, or probable, that Yasuke went with Nobunaga for the whole trip? Yes. Do the available sources verify that he did? No.
Comfortable with the removal. Rotary Engine talk 11:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narrowing down the location. On Month 4, Day 19, the day that the Ietada Diary says they met, Nobunaga is recorded in Ota Gyuichi's Shincho Koki as having spent the previous night in Chiryū, Mikawa Province, and staying the night at Kiyosu, Owari Province; both locations now in Aichi Prefecture. Rotary Engine talk 07:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is both relevant to the subject and interesting in my opinion. I don't think any of the reasons here are good reasons to remove this (?) since it's confirmed that it was in the original source. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NutmegCoffeeTea Why do say that it's confirmed that it was in the original source? Did you read Rotary Engine's comments here above? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above post says Certainly, the Ietada diary does not directly support saying that Yasuke was involved in the conquest itself. He may have been, but he may have just been part of Nobunaga's subsequent inspection tour. I read this Yasuke may have fought in the conquest itself, but we know he was at the inspection tour. The one above that also says On the 19th (of April,) 1586, it rained. The lord (Nobunaga) took with him a black man, who has been given provisions by Nobunaga. In Google Maps the distance from Koshu to Kyoto is 400 km/200 miles. To be at an inspection tour with the ruler of Japan is definitely notable enough for a single mention. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Appreciated.
Confirming that the referenced source, Matsudaira Ietada's Diary, does not directly support the current article content, He participated in the inspection tour of Koshu following its conquest.
As Gitz correctly pointed out earlier, the source is silent as to Yasuke's presence during the Koshu part of Nobunaga's tour.
It would be WP:OR to conclude that, because Ietada's diary entry for 4-19 mentions Yasuke as being a companion of Nobunaga, he was also with Nobunaga from 4-3 to 4-11; the dates of the Koshu inspection.
Clarifying, also, that the earlier comment, ... but he may have just been part of Nobunaga's subsequent inspection tour, should not be read as implying that we know that he was; nor that we have reliable sources which verify that he was. The article text at the time was He participated in the Conquest of Koshu [ja]; the actual fighting. This was even more of a stretch claim - Nobunaga, himself, wasn't involved in the fighting; he wasn't in Koshu.
Also noting that, in the article text, the verb "participated" is ambiguous; lifting more weight than verifiable. Nobunaga's inspection of Koshu was not simply a sight-seeing tour. Rotary Engine talk 02:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comes across as a moving of the goalposts. If I understand the history correctly the article previously said he participated in the conquest itself, implying he fought. You wanted that removed so you made the statement the Ietada diary, which describes Ietada meeting Nobunaga during the latter's post-conquest tour of the conquered territory, and Yasuke being with him. Now that the article notes his presence and does not assume whether he actually fought or not, you are redefining your own position to cast doubt on whether he was even there at all. The problem is that you are utilizing WP:OR to do so. If the text says he went with Nobunaga on the inspection tour (... which it does The lord (Nobunaga) took with him a black man) then it is your original research to assume he was not present. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should use primary sources in the dedicated article and especially here, where we provide a brief summary of key events. Anyway, could you please translate the whole passage? E.g. "took [Yasuke] with him" where and when? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lord Nobunaga was accompanied by a black man, whom has been given provisions by Nobunaga and presented by the missionaries. His body was like ink, his height 6 shaku 2 sun (188 cm), and his name was Yasuke. The diary says that this occasion was when Nobunaga came from the inspection of Koshu. A Britannica article about Yasuke supports this too: From April to May 1582, the Oda clan launched an expedition against Takeda Katsuyori in the Kōshū region ... upon victory Nobunaga—with Yasuke at his side—toured the new territory under his control. So Yasuke's presence with Nobunaga when he toured the territory is supported by the primary sources and has secondary sourcing as well. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is your original research to claim "I think he fought in Koshu." the editors here questioned whether he joined the tour with Nobunaga is the "accomplishment" of him to have in this article. the other listed people in the article have xx koku they received, that is the accomplishment. Coming to Japan, serving Jesuit, or walking around the city of Kyoto is not accomplishment to show in the wikipedia (now this is IMO). KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds notable to me. Bladeandroid (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds not to me! KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have a secondary source (and a primary source as well) the content is verifiable and probably also DUE: joining this expedition is one of the few things we know Yasuke did when he was a samurai at Nobunaga's service. So I'm fine with restoring it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gitz, then you need to explain how the possible participation is the "occupation and achievements in Japan". if you believe Ietada texts explains some Yasuke's role/action at the "Koshu inspection tour", what did he do in that tour? and what is the achievement of Yasuke there? If it is not known, I do not consider it as one's achievement in Japan. this discussion has already touched on it I think.
Anything written in the primary source or the secondary source are not automatically usable in that specific section, please explain it with the comparison to the other people listed in the article already. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selection criteria and Definitions

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

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

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

At most, we could replace our overly detailed and arbitrary "Definition" section with a few lines of informative text sourced from Vaporis and others. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This ping didn't worK @Symphony Regalia Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on using RS mentioning a given historical person of interest as being or not being a samurai instead of going by an extra Definition (or a dictionary definition) for the purpose of this article page. SmallMender (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes. I hope that will get the page moving in the right direction. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is a good direction. —Alalch E. 16:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the selection criteria and definition sections. "Japanese warrior" is not a good definition for lines elsewhere though. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is not "Japanese Warrior", the line about Japanese warrior is explaining how the term Samurai is often used. Also, why do you think it is not good? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the sentence: Here it is taken to mean "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility" has two problems. The quote isn't found in the cited source, and the whole sentence doesn't apply to the list. The whole point is that this list doesn't use a single definition or any definition of samurai. "Those who serve in close attendance to the nobility" also doesn't apply to many of the listed persons. It depends on what "close attendance" means, but also nobility. Does nobility mean Kuge? Was Nobunaga a Kuge as well as a Bushi? That is the kind of dispute we want to avoid. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the source and no definition will be perfect, but "Japanese warrior" isn't an improvement because the article is about counter-examples to that. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. You think that "Japanese warrior" means person born in Japan who is a warrior. It means something more like, the type of warrior that is in Japan. Or it could be similar to a foreign born US soldier. Several of those listed could be said to have become "Japanese" to an extent. I am not sure what the legal situation was at the time regarding citizenship, but William Adams was treated in some ways like a Japanese person and in many ways acted as one.
The other point you miss is that the purpose of mentioning it, is to point out common usage of the term, not to act as criteria for the list. Yeah, a non-Japanese Samurai is a bit of an oximoron. The criteria for inclusion on the list is a RS calling them a samurai. That is the consensus. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's easily misinterpreted though it's not a very good definition. You could even say it actively causes some confusion. It also takes sourced information away while adding none. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is sourced. Have you read the book? The version you were restoring was removing sourced information, but keeping the reference. That is even worse. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Japanese warrior" is vague to the point of providing no utility to the reader. The status quo definition matches what sources say. EEpic (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gitz6666@Alalch E.@Ethiopian Epic@SmallMender I pinged everyone who took part in this discussion already. There is a dispute about the defintion used. Ethiopian Epic wants to removed the line explaining the generic usuage of the word samurai, and replace it with Here it is taken to mean "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility". I feel that this goes against consensus. There are other problems with it, such as the quote is not in Vaporis's book. His book does refer to a subset of samurai serving in close attendance to lords. It also doesn't apply to this list. Joosten and Adams, for example, did not serve in close attendance. It is even questionable if those who served as pages should count, because page is a job for youth. The quote is also on the Samurai article where the source is a William Wilson talking about the origin of the term, about 700-900, before it had military connotations. I don't have anything more to say on the subject. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'll have a more careful look at this later. You can just remove badly sourced / unsourced / fake-sourced content yourself in the meantime. —Alalch E. 10:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need a definition of "samurai" in this article. In any case, the definition "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility" is not supported by sources — at least, not by the quoted source, Vaporis. Besides, it seems wrong to me. Firstly, a defining feature of samurai is that they were warriors, i.e., they served in a military capacity. Secondly, they were not necessarily "in close attendance to the nobility": there were village chiefs (nanushi) and landowners (gokenin), as well as masterless samurai (ronin), who operated as independent mercenaries. I doubt this definition would apply to daimyo such as Oda Hidenobu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who served no one in the strict sense — they had no superiors — and yet are correctly described as "samurai" in their dedicated articles: they belonged to the warrior class, had military training and commanded armies. I'd say that samurai were high-ranking warriors in feudal Japan, not simply individuals who served in close proximity to the nobility. They were members of a hereditary class of warriors who served in military, administrative and landowning roles. As for foreign-born samurai, they were obviously not samurai by birth, but were admitted to the class through processes such as infeudation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the source[4]. The quote is about the origin of the word and what it meant before it referred to warriors. A more relative quote is this:
In English the use of " samurai " is both broader and narrower than in Japanese : broader in that it designates the entire bushi class and not just its upper levels, and narrower in that it fails to include Court or temple samurai who are not bushi[5]
I think either that we should accept that in this case samurai means bushi according to the common English usage, or change the name of the article to list of foreign-born bushi. Because a lot of Reliable sources say that samurai and bushi meant the same thing in the Edo period (which covers all the persons listed here), I think that the first option shouldn't be controversial. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an accurate representation. "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility" is sourced to Ideals of the Samurai: Writings of Japanese Warriors (ISBN 978-0-89750-081-4), and has been in both this article and the samurai article for over 10 years. Tinynanorobots wants to remove this line and replace it with The term is typically used generically to refer to Japanese warriors. I'm sure he has a good reason but I don't think it helps the article because it's redundant and because the article is about samurai who are not Japanese. EEpic (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I haven't been able to check the source, Ideals of the Samurai, but that can't be an exhaustive definition. As I said, there were people who served the nobility who were not samurai (samurai served as warriors), and there were samurai who did not serve the nobility (e.g. ronin). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and these are interesting points. There are probably counterexamples, but "ronin" are only ronin because they previously had a master. Nanushi, gokenin, and so on are effectively classes of nobility. Nobility doesn't mean imperial it is based on social strata for example vassal. I also don't think it should be exhaustive, but since its sourced I don't think it should be outright removed and replaced with a new more vague definition though. EEpic (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! As a broad point I see 2 possibilities which either way would side step the ask about the particular definition:
- using the Samurai article as a source for the definition
- using Reliable Sources which mention specific persons of foreign birth as "samurai" + referencing the Samurai article for the complete definition used by Wikipedia (preferred) SmallMender (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other content removals

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

Don't repeat that. You've restored unsourced content. Please study the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. When you say "skeleton list" that doesn't mean anything. A list with little or no prose is a list, not a "skeleton list". Please study the style guideline on lists at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists. —Alalch E. 09:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any unsourced content should be removed. I'm referring to the removal of the "Foreign-born Samurai" section itself, not any particular line in it. A list with almost no prose does not make for a very good article (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) and that section was used to provide long form details that don't work well in tables. Most of the text that was in it can probably be sourced based on the citations in the relevant articles. Someone can take a look when they have time and re-add the portions that are verifiable. EEpic (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

List of foreign-born samurai in Japan


I've listed this article for peer review because I implemented changes how it functioned. As a list, it described various definitions of samurai, and editors were expected to use their own judgement to see if the historical figures qualified. This was an invitation to SYNTH and disputes. I discussed it with other editors, and it was decided to rely on if the character is referred to as a samurai in RS. I wonder if the list can be further improved and changes made to further reflect reliable sources over OR.

Thanks, Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the image of Eugène Collache included if they are not a member of the list? At least under the RS method for inclusion that you outline
Would it be possible to include when the privileges were granted, within the information of the privileges column.
Perhaps a slightly larger explanation as to the what the historical debate is regarding if these people were samurai, might improve the comprehensiveness of the topic LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi Tinynanorobots, I will try to review this list. Please look at LCP's comments above too. My comments:

  • Link to Bushi (warrior) in the lead?
  • Link to the Mōri clan?
  • Translate menkyo as license for the Motohiro entry?
  • Clarify that the Yagyū Shinkage-ryū was a swordman school for the Motohiro entry, per NOFORCELINK?
  • Translate Hatamoto as direct retainers?
  • "Under the Tokugawa Shogunate, he chartered several Red Seal Ships"; "He was granted the rank of Hatamoto, a fief and 80-90 servants. Interpreter and shipwright of the Tokugawa Shogunate. Adams was the model for the character John Blackthorne in James Clavell's novel Shōgun (1975)"; "Served the Aizu domain as a military instructor and procurer of weapons. Given the right to bear swords, a mansion in the castle town of Wakamatsu and retainers.": Add a citation for these claims.
  • Please add translated titles for all the Japanese sources you have used.

That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_foreign-born_samurai_in_Japan
No tags for this post.