Eisspeedway

Talk:Yasuke

Yasuke Status as a Slave

@NutmegCoffeeTea This section is about discussing whether it should be included that Yasuke was a slave, before serving Nobunaga. Please don't bring up the possibility of him being a slave afterwards, because that could disrail the discussion. There are plenty of sources that say he was a slave. Besides the sources cited in the article, most times that Lockley mentions that Yasuke was free at the time he came to Japan, the existence of other theories is acknowledged, also he usually phrases it as "I believe" In his 2017 paper, he lists the idea of Yasuke being a freedman as just one possibility. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we could have some verbatim quotations from the sources (with references) dealing with the slave issue, that would be helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although you have probably read some of them before.
Some have said that Yasuke was a slave, and Lockley acknowledges the theory but disagrees. “Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. The author speculates that given the circumstances of how the African man arrived at his employment with Valignano, it’s possible that Yasuke was enslaved as a child and taken from Africa to India. There, Lockley said the man could have been a military slave or an indentured soldier, but he “probably got his freedom before meeting Valignano.”[1]
So, even as he disagrees, Lockley mentions that Yasuke being a military slave was a possibility.
It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyo's service[2]
Lopez writes this after referring to Yasuke as a slave 3 times.
a mob in Kyoto broke down the door of a Jesuit residence in their eagerness to see an African slave.[3]
an African slave in the retinue of a visiting superior...[4]
There are some other sources that mention that Yasuke was a slave, but aren't clear if that was just when he was a child, or also when he arrived in Japan. What is actually wrong with the disputed sentence? It isn't weasel words, and the last challenge was just, this was removed before. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, then I see no problem with the proposed text, Some historians believe that he was a slave when he arrived in Japan, only gaining his freedom when serving Nobunaga. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is due at all especially with a major source disputing it. EEpic (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What major source is disputing that some historians say Yasuke was a slave upon arrival?
Himaldrmann (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "some"? Lockley disputes it Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor. EEpic (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that you know it does not really matter, "personally I think" here.
and Why editors here still regard Lockley's statements to be arguable opinions when many of his statements are mere speculations that are based on "if"s and "might have been"s.
One must check on how other Black men served the Portuguese missionaries around the time of 1580, and on what circumstances they become non-slaves (I know the missionaries did not use the term slave which seems like just a "guise") and what changes would that mean when they gain freedom (if such really was a rule) outside their homeland, what could they do really? buy a ticket to their homeland? or they may choose to continue serving the same master?
and of course the Argument is still not be applicable to Yasuke himself, who does not have much record other than being called like "(our) Cafre" in the missionary's letters. 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it in context, Lockley lists several options and says which one he leans towards. Compare this to who he talks about Yasuke's place of origin. Lockley wrote in 2017 that there were 4 possibilities. In 2019 he had settled on one, and even said in an interview that it was pretty much certain. However, he has also admitted that the majority opinion is that Yasuke was from Mozambique. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, I may have misunderstood what you meant---I was trying to say that I think that "some historians believe Yasuke was a slave at his coming to Japan" is true, but that "Yasuke was definitely a slave when he arrived at Japan" is disputed. I.e., it is true to say the former ("some dispute whether he was a slave..."), but not the latter ("he was a slave..."); or, at least, not without qualification.
IMO, it seems almost certain that Yasuke was not a slave upon arrival---it wouldn't have been too uncommon, esp. given the company he was traveling with (though not a universal qualm, many Jesuit missionaries were opposed to slavery, as was---IIRC---Valignano); and Yasuke appears to have been a relatively independent agent soon after arrival (with no intervening record of "Padre Valignano freed his slave yesterday" or the like, AFAIK)...
(...but, as the unnamed commenter above notes, I suppose an "IMO" carries little weight, heh.)
Himaldrmann (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not oppose if the article writes Yasuke is believed to be from Mozambique.
I am just not sure what exactly what this section is aiming at, whether Lockley insists that Yasuke was from region A or B, such definitive primary source has not been found to pin down the truth. Valigniano once received 3 Cafres in Mozanbique and kept 1 Cafre with him during his travel, and even that is impossible to say that the it really was Yasuke, this is the fact that the discoverer of this source admits and is how little the primary source is left about Yasuke.
That make it nonsense to further-speculate that he was a "free actor" or a "slave", because there is no primary source for Yasuke to prove it, not to mention there may be badly speculated products out there with full of "if so, it might have been" s, I wonder whether they really are qualified as secondary source when sources/citations are not to be verified.
On contrary, there is missionary's letter (Cartas de Evora, definitive prime source) which touches on Cafre (Yasuke ) that missionarys think because Japanese people wanted to see black man eagerly, they can easily make a lot of money if they showcase him. Is this what you think of a treatment of "non-slave but free actor"? 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point!
(...on the other hand, I'd showcase myself to Japanese people all day, no problem, if some missionaries came up & told me we'd make a lot of money doing it--) [*cough*]
Himaldrmann (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can answer the question, "was Yasuke a slave?". The question is do historians think he is a slave? The answer is yes, some do. It actually appears to be the majority opinion, and I don't understand giving Lockley's personal belief more weight than the opinions of experts more qualified than him. Brockey specializes in Portuguese and Jesuit history. Lockley also said in his 2017 paper that Yasuke probably didn't have much of a choice if he served Nobunaga or not. Lockley himself says that some historians believe that he was a slave, so that he could be cited as a source.
So is it okay to restore Some historians believe that he was a slave when he arrived in Japan, only gaining his freedom when serving Nobunaga. I think that it would go against NPOV not to. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a footnote that is contested by historians. You seem to have a fixtation with denying that Yasuke was a samurai and calling him a slave. 79.199.139.135 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
even Lockley called him in a youtube video 2021 a slave. You have a different fixation to erase slave history to be able to justify, that he was only a samurai. I can pull out a source from 2009, that calls him a slave too, if you need a RS, btw. the author is already mentioned in this article as a source in a different content.-- ErikWar19 (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please give the source then. Lockley's interview on youtube is not as high quality or recent as his other works where he suggests otherwise. I have not reviewed a lot of the sources in a while though so I am unsure what his most recent view is. Relm (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"...indicating Samurai status" and fixing the last portion of the first paragraph

@Tinynanorobots @Gitz6666

Apologies for the pings. The AE case caused me to realize that at some point Tinynanorobots changed the lede away from the prior RFC consensus to refer to Yasuke as a Samurai without qualifier in the lede. It was apart of the same edit reverted by EthiopianEpic that was discussed in the 'Some Recent Edits' section. In that section, Tinynanorobots claimed that Gitz had agreed to the changes - however, when I reviewed that section it was not clear to me that it was what they acquiesced to.

A consistent issue I've been noticing with the page is that several edits that occured during or just after the Arbcom case when most frequent editors of the page were otherwise preoccupied have remained without discussion, causing several 'trip ups' in regards to what has been on the page and for how long. In this regard I just want to confirm whether some form of agreement occurred since this seems like it goes against the RFC. Relm (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving the above as it is, I initially made a mistake caused by some of the diffs having very different versions, leading me to think 'as a samurai...' had been removed from the lede, rather than just adding a clarification to the second paragraph. I still think this skirts the RFC, but I do not *disagree* with the edit.
I am instead now using this as a chance to fix the first paragraph. The former is how the page was before my edit, the latter is my patch that is closer to the original wording that has been on the page for months. Despite my best efforts, I still feel the sentence is clunky and insufficient.

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

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

What I am looking to ask is how y'all believe the latter half should reference service under both Oda Nobunaga and Oda Nobutada until their deaths? Would replacing Oda Nobunaga to "the Oda clan" be preferable, or would that constitute synthesis? My current thought would be an edit along the lines of:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a samurai to the Oda clan between 1581 and 1582, until the death of Nobunaga's heir, Oda Nobutada.

Relm (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comes across as casting aspersions to me. First, I don't think that the lead was stable, and I don't think anyone sneakily changed things as is implied. After the ArbCom, most of the frequent editors were banned, and the others seemed to stay away.
I understand that when the RfC said "without qualifications" it meant words like "possibly" but mainly in wikivoice. I don't see how one can argue that Gitz objected to my change, because he didn't object.
I agree that the line is chunky. My attempts to make the first line less chunky have been viewed as controversial. I think breaking up the sentence is the best way to go. What information is actually needed? The rest can go in another sentence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for any aspersions, they were not intentional. The initial portion came out of me misreading the inline citation's quote from vera as having replaced it in the first paragraph when viewed in the edit view and me scrambling to figure out when that happened and failing to do so until after I reread it a fourth time and caught myself. The portion about my thoughts on the state of the page are not an accusation about any particular editor, and moreso acknowledging that there was a significant drop in talk page activity relative to the changes being made on the page - some from editors who have since been put under sanctions for those edits. I understand your reaction to it, I could have worded myself more clearly, but it was just trying to denote that the page has changed a lot in a variety of small ways over the past month, and not all of them are easy to trace back.
For the second paragraph, phrases like 'signifying samurai status' were objected to pretty strongly during the second RFC. The way it is included in the lede seems perfectly fine to me though, which is why I noted that it seemed to conflict - but that I would support the edit. Likewise the assent from Gitz (here) did not seem clear as to what specifically they supported from the edit.
As for the opening sentence, I think it may be easier to get as much of it in one sentence as possible then work the rest into the next paragraph, but welcome any suggestions. My current thought for what that opening sentence would look like is:

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

The main issue with the sentence is that it tries to clarify that they began their service under Oda Nobunaga and it ended with the death of Oda Nobutada. The next paragraph includes the portion about Oda Nobunaga, so perhaps working the Oda Nobutada part into the next paragraph instead and reverting the first sentence to how it was prior to that insertion would work? Relm (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this change. I agree that none of this affects the RfC consensus; the previous text was consistent with the RfC, as is the current one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this and think the old text was better because Nobunaga is a lot more known. Based on the suggestion above I split it into two lines which should fix the clunkiness. EEpic (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You split the wrong sentence. Also, it seems that you are the only one here who think that indicating samurai status is against RfC. indicating samurai status matches Britannica, written by Lockley and Atkins. Additionally, the meaning is clearer. The fact that being given a stipend, house and sword are indications of samurai status is not likely known to the layman. These things aren't always mentioned in books about samurai, either. As a samurai isn't really supported by any source. CNN writes Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend. This line indicates that the house and stipend were in addition to becoming a samurai, although related to it. Not every samurai had a stipend or house. Some had fiefs instead of stipends, and others lived in barracks. "As a samurai" isn't as clear. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC says There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification. Removing As a samurai and writing things like implying samurai status or indicating samurai status is adding a qualifier against what the RFC says. EEpic (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither indicating nor implying are qualifiers. No one is suggesting the article says implying. Who are you quoting? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. Misunderstandings happen, and I am glad we could clear this up.
I think the lead sentence had three different way to describe the time. First with dates, then with the period, and finally with an event that ends the service. I am not sure all these things are need in the first sentence. I am also not sure why the first paragraph needs to be one sentence. Thinking about it, Yasuke's service to the Oda clan probably ended with his capture, which I think was after Nobutada died (the Oda clan lost power, but did survive). His service to Nobunaga is more important than his service to Nobutada. Perhaps something like this would make sense:
Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a samurai of African origin. He served Oda Nobunaga from sometime in 1581 until the Honnō-ji incident in 1582, when Nobunaga died and Yasuke was captured.
The Honno-ji and Nobunaga are well known, so their mention indicates the time period. Those wanting to know more can click the links or read further. I would then change the line in the second paragraph about him accompanying Nobunaga, to something like this:
After Nobunaga died and Yasuke went to his heir and fought until captured. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being captured didn't end his service. Yasuke's service as a samurai to Nobunaga ended because the Oda clan was killed. EEpic (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oda clan survives to this day. Nobutada's son was brought away from the Honno-ji incident, and one of his brothers also escaped. Other members of the family nearby and survived. I don't understand your comment in this diff[5] Which editor were you referring to? If the only thing you object to is about Yasuke being captured, then why revert everything? Also, what is your objection to mentioning that Yasuke was captured? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being captured has nothing to do with his samurai service. His service to Nobunaga as a samurai ended with the death of Nobunaga. EEpic (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Him being captured prevented him from serving one of Nobunaga's sons or brothers. Also, it provides important context for Yasuke being returned to the Jesuits. I also don't think any of those reasons are grounds for exclusion. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is speculation to justify undue focus on a topic that has almost nothing to do with it. EEpic (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinynanorobots I just saw the recent change and was wondering if you proposed that wording elsewhere and I am just not seeing it here.
The current first sentence of the lede being "Yasuke was a man of african origin." in my view fails the Wikipedia:Lead section TT first sentence content test.
Yasuke is not notable for being an african man. He is notable for being a samurai of African origin and serving Oda Nobunaga. I am thus reconnecting the sentences with a ", who..." Relm (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Yasuke was a samurai of African origin who served..." would be simpler and better, more compliant with MOS:FIRST Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is fine. The change that moves the article away from consensus is the repeat removal of "As a samurai" to change it out for "signifying samurai status" which is against There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification. EEpic (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's just never any middle ground with you people. It's always your way or the highway. 59.11.212.79 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually just one person who is objecting. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are all in agreement on most of the topics here. EEpic (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The language proposed by Tinynanorobots is well suited for the article. It's more consistent with the text used in the secondary sources as mentioned above. Green Caffeine (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a clear RfC violation. 221.158.127.77 (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which way? It doesn't contain a qualifier, ("indicating" is a verb) and it is written in WikiVoice and doesn't cast doubt on Yasuke's status. Which one of these sentences is logical?
A ...indicating samurai status, therefore Yasuke is a samurai.
B ...indicating samurai status, therefore Yasuke is a not samurai.
Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Samurai article, the term "samurai" was vague during Sengoku Period. So, whether Yasuke was a samurai or not is biased opinion.
We need to obey WP:SUBSTANTIATE rule here;

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution.

NakajKak (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why those like Tinynanorobots and NakajKak (possible sock of Tinynanorobots) are still attempting to downplay that Yasuke was a samurai when it's already widely known, but it's not productive. 79.199.139.135 (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange for me to say this, but I'll reply.
No clear evidence exists that Yasuke is a samurai. This article states that he is a samurai, but this was decided in a situation where there were only Westerners. Currently, the agreement at that time is valid, so it is not allowed to be changed. If the Japanese had known that such a discussion was taking place, they might have submitted negative opinions one after another and the proposal would have been rejected. That is how fragile the evidence that he is a samurai is. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the word samurai itself does not fully express various Japanese words, and that there are limits to the expressiveness of English.
Japanese people can read primary and secondary sources written in Japanese. They can use various words other than samurai. In the article on Yasuke on the Japanese Wikipedia, the words samurai and bushi do not appear even once. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually annoyed at NakajKak. I think he read the topic heading and thinks this is a discussion about samurai status and not about wording. His post is counterproductive and off-topic. Yasuke being a samurai is current scholarship, although there are experts that are uncertain. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange that you would accuse Tinynanorobots of being a sock after EEpic was accused of being a sock of Symphony Regalia.
I strongly believe that YOU are the sock of Symphony Regalia/EEpic once again engaging in disruptive behavior. 183.98.166.195 (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true and the IP User:183.98.166.195 is blocked as a proxy. EEpic (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Frois

Luis Frois' report to Jesuit Society, November 5, 1582:

And the cafre the Visitador [Alessandro Valignano] gave to Nobunaga on his request, after his death went to the mansion of his heir and fought there for a long time, but when one of Akechi's vassals got close and asked him give up his sword, he handed it over. The vassals went and asked Akechi what to do with the cafre [sic: term referencing yasuke meaning slave/savage], he said the cafre is like an animal and knows nothing, and he's not Japanese so don't kill him and give him to the church of the Indian padre. With this we were a bit relieved.

sources:

https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/bg5/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18_item1/P744.html

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/164

Is this account valid to be added to the article in some way, or due to the type of source it is does it need some other type of reference? This clearly shines a different light on Yasuke's status/view among his contemporaries. Tofflenheim (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The account is covered in the article. If you are asking if you can put the quote back in, it was removed mainly because of concerns about the translation. The original language is Portuguese, but it was translated from Japanese, and was inconsistent with how it translated words. There are some scholarly sources that discuss it, though. I think we should get a better translation before entering it. Cafre doesn't mean savage. It meant black African, it could refer to free Africans, but it had a connotation of slave. The Portuguese had slaves and servants from other parts of Asia in Japan as well as Africa, so this one way it is known that Yasuke is black and not Indian or Malaysian. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is relatively rare that it touches on Yasuke (only mentioned as Cafre) in some length, and should be put back in the page.
I do not think there is translation problem in the Japanese sources for there are at least
2 major translations by professionals I think (I mean PortugueseToJapanese here).
and going from Japanese to English, we can easily verify with various machine translations nowadays.
Plus, problems with translation are not really a excuse not to have in the article, or you can leave the word Cafre as it is if that is the word-in-question with some comments why doing so.
While it may not be difficult to find the english web article that touches on this material, why try finding less professional? One cannot claim that Japanese professional works are wrong in translation(Portuguese to Japanese), it does not mean anything saying so, or it will not be disqualified as the secondary source even some errors are contained (and I do not think there are crucial errors).
Some sources used in this article are Japanese and of Japanese web articles and editors put their own translations which may contain error of course, and how is this different? 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good content to return to in the article. If you are concerned about the translation content, write in both Portuguese and Japanese. Readers can choose whichever is easier for them to read. If the translation is incorrect, someone who knows Portuguese will probably notice and tell you.
For example, like this article.[6] 140.227.46.9 (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the relevant manual of style: MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. It also should be applied to the other quotes here. There is no objection to putting the quote in. Although I wonder if it is needed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it should always be pointed out, that the term cafre was not simply used to describe black africans, it was more specific used to describe non-muslim in eastern-africa and was adopted for these eastern african natives/slaves and with a similar view on it, like the N-word in the Atlantic slave trade, it was used in the Asian slave-trade for slaves from this location.
i will just add, that the article should and is stating, that Cafre is a term regularly used to describe slaves in Portuguese in these times, explicit in their colonies...-- ErikWar19 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several other editors contested this as inaccurate and/or OR - including when it was brought up by you in the past. (1) (2) (3) Relm (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this will improve the article, especially with the poor translation, and because it's already covered. EEpic (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

2601:344:4100:2320:3457:66A7:3EA2:715B (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YASUKE WAS NEVER CONFIRMED AS SAMURAI SO DONT LIE THAT HE WAS YOU ARE CONFUSING MILLIONS OF BLACK AMERICANS INTO BELIEVING DELUSION

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Hi @Tofflenheim,

1. This edit removes As a samurai and replaces it with indicating samurai status which is against the RFC consensus: "There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification"

2. This edit adds Captured which was discussed above and doesn't have talk page consensus on account of it not being related to the duration of his samurai service. Similar comments in respect to edits inserting "slave".

By WP:ONUS can you seek consensus first before making these changes? EEpic (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

indicating samurai status is not a qualification. He is plainly stated as a samurai in the first sentence.
2. "Yasuke was captured by Mitsuhide’s vassals" this is from Thomas Lockley's brittanica article, the same source used as the rest. There is no clear reason why the sentence can only be about the duration of his service. Tofflenheim (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo of As a samurai is a direct statement. Removing that and replacing it with indicating samurai status is introducing uncertainty which is against the RFC consensus, which says that it should not be qualified or presented as an object of debate.
For this and the captured change, as well as editing that labels him as a slave, you should follow the consensus building process outlined in WP:ONUS and seek consensus prior to reinserting them given that they've been contested by editors. Hope that helps. EEpic (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear about the sequence of events.
After the RFC, well before you started editing, the article read as follows: "He was granted a sword, a house and a stipend." No mention of the word samurai at all in this sentence, for months after the RFC.
It wasn't until this diff by Symphony Regalia (now topic banned for adversarial behavior from this article) in Nov, well after RFC, that this "as a samurai" line was added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=1255054230&oldid=1255051519
Since then, it was edited, removed, in various ways and SR kept reintroducing it using the same line of argument you are using until he was topic banned at which point you promptly picked up the cause.
This line is not part of the RFC. The RFC line in the first sentence is clearly indicated in a comment when you edit the source.
On top of this, the phrase you are trying to edit, "indicating samurai status" clearly states that he is recognized as a samurai, it does not go against RFC whatsoever and is not a qualifying statement at all.
The other edit about him being captured is not a comment about him being a slaved. It is a direct quote from the Brittanica Article by Lockley, I quote: "Yasuke was captured by Mitsuhide’s vassals, but Mitsuhide saw him and released him, describing him in bestial terms. Mitsuhide suggested that because Yasuke wasn’t Japanese, his life should be spared; he was not expected to perform seppuku as had Nobutada and the other defeated samurai. Yasuke was accompanied by Mitsuhide’s vassals to the Jesuit church, and it is reported that the missionaries gave thanks to God for his deliverance. This is the last confirmed record of Yasuke." This is merely a sequence of events that occurred. Also, I have not mentioned anything about slaving or being a slave in this series of edits. Please be clear / don't muddy the water with other topics which don't have to do with these reverts.
Please wait for consensus for making changes before editing the article with your own POV. If you want to revert, then revert to the status quo before disruptive editor Symphony Regalia added POV.
Hope that helps. Tofflenheim (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked and "As a samurai" was present as far back as June in response to the RFC consensus, so it has long been the status quo. EEpic (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"As a samurai" replaced "as a retainer". You didn't just discover that. It was already mentioned as part of the SPI. "As a samurai" was challenged and arguably had no consensus. That isn't important though. Being status quo isn't an argument against change. Several users support "signifying samurai status". A compromise could be to remove both until consensus is found. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that removing "As a samurai" looks to be the intention, that's not a compromise. RFCs are not supposed to be overturned by one or two editors. EEpic (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any form of consensus for removing As a samurai or such wording from the article. SilverserenC 22:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed by Tinynanrobots and Gitz during the arbcom case. Gitz assented to it but I did not think it was clear. It was clarified and assented to by myself (here).
Tinynanrobots and EEpic were topic banned at Arb Enforcement yesterday and can no longer comment - but I will give my attempt at the argument.
"As a samurai, Yasuke recieved x y and z" the first portion 'As a Samurai' implies he recieved these things as part of his service after obtaining that status. Cutting that first clause and adding ", indicating samurai status" to the end is closer to the sources (the phrasing is borrowed largely from Atkins Vera if I recall) who use this to assert that Yasuke was a Samurai.
The only way this could be interpreted as violating the RFC is if 'status' is taken as a qualifier. I fail to understand any other way to phrase the sentence, so to me it looks like:
1. The more rigid interpretation of the RFC which was only ever held to by Symphony Regalia and EEpic who are both topic banned stands and the version SR added is kept. I would still contest that the clause 'as a samurai' does nothing in the sentence but make it more confusing what it is attempting to say. I would be open to rewordings.
2. The sentence is altered to Tinynanorobots suggestion, maybe with a rephrasing of 'samurai status' though I am unsure what that would be.
3. The entire sentence, as its purpose is to describe why Historians assert that Yasuke was a samurai, is a qualifier in and of itself and is moved to the body of the article rather than the lede. Relm (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"qualification" is still confusing word for me, and I'm not sure the word stands for qualifier in English grammar as Tinynanorobots interpreted. Though, I disagree with Symphony Regalia/EEpic version which adds a new nuance that is not mentionted in the original source. I think Tinynanorobots/Tofflenheim version is better one. Although someone may feel inserting "indicating/signifying..." will generate uncertainty of samurai status, this just suggests that the source has such uncetainty originally.
Moving the sentence or "indicating..." phrase whould be the best one personally. From "According to historical accounts," to the end of the lede focuses on the historic records. Inserting historians' assertation there will generate misleadingness. Though, I concern that some people here think "indicating samurai status" is historical fact rather than historians' assertation. NakajKak (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it at all suggested uncertainty I would be against the wording. I am arguing that it doesn't, because it is at its core the explanation for the historical interpretation. English Wikipedia prioritizes secondary scholarship interpretation of primary sources over primary sources - for good reason. The 'without qualifier' was part of the RFC because of many attempts to subvert the RFC by placing primary sources higher than their secondary scholarship.
'indicating' and 'signifying' are not words that denote lack of certainty, they attribute reasons for an interpretation. Relm (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rfc consensus phrase "There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification" is somewhat vague and misleading. It is not fully explained there. EEpic interprets this phrase that the description of samurai status of Yasuke have to be definitive form. Tofflenheim probably interprets this as citation manner; "without qualification" means without authors' attribution, such as "according to (author)" or "(authour) aruges".NakajKak (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was apart of that RFC, 'without qualifier' requires some context. Prior to the RFC many people desired a full change from samurai to retainer and/or servant. At the time (and still to now) there were not reliable sources to make such a change. After that conversation stalled, many attempted to situate 'samurai' within a larger qualification of that term to indicate that it was illegitimate. 'Without qualifier' as I always understood the RFC was to avoid people attempting to place asterisks in the lede to the term to otherwise bypass the consensus. Relm (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke