There have beenattempts torecruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input, such asrequest for comments,third opinions, posting to noticeboard, or other mechanisms based on neutral criteria. If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Remember that, on Wikipedia, disputes are resolved bycommunity consensus, not by majority vote.
Q2: Why can't I use my own expertise or reading of the primary sources?
A2: PerWP:V, etc,content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. See alsoWP:OR,WP:NPOV for more information.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofJapan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like toparticipate, please visit theproject page, where you can join the project, participate inrelevant discussions, and seelists of open tasks.JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAfrica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
"Assassin's Creed Shadows sparks Wikipedia edit war over Yasuke". nichegamer.com. May 15, 2024. RetrievedMay 16, 2024.The Wikipedia page as it reads now, paints a more ambiguous picture as records of Yasuke appear to be few and far between (the article even says he was "likely" of African origin). However the real excitement is happening in the Talk page for the article.
Shinichiro Kageyama (July 22, 2024)."New Ubisoft Game 'Assassin's Creed Shadows:' Why the Criticism?".Japan Forward. RetrievedJuly 24, 2024.These inaccuracies have been widely accepted as historical facts internationally. And many in Japan have also come to partially believe them. This misunderstanding was further fueled by repeated additions to Yasuke's Wikipedia entry since 2015. The edits claim that "Yasuke was a samurai."
Sorry for the fuss. This time I'm not asking that the word "Samurai" be changed. Japanese people have made this suggestion many times, but they have never listened to it, so I've given up.My suggestion is to convey that information regarding Yasuke's status is not found in multiple reliable sources, is found in only a few documents, and therefore its authenticity is unknown.
Before Edit
According to historical accounts, Yasuke first arrived in Japan in the service of Italian Jesuit Alessandro Valignano.
After editing
There are very few documents remaining regarding Yasuke, and the reliability of much of the information cannot be confirmed. According to the little information available, Yasuke first arrived in Japan in the service of Italian Jesuit Alessandro Valignano.
Compared to before, the content has improved and there seems to be more Japanese references. However, the essential parts of the articles still use English references.For example, the works of experts such as Britannica, CNN, E. Taylor Atkins, and Jonathan Lopez-Vera.
Using historical and linguistic models, the paper examines the reliability of the only manuscript that describes Yasuke and finds that its authenticity is highly questionable. The paper argues that English-speaking researchers rely too heavily on the Maeda version and do not provide adequate historical criticism. Furthermore, their Japanese language skills are inadequate to conduct research and to verify the original sources. As a result, the author notes, their studies create little loops that complement each other. In this loop, each researcher incorporates his or her own elements and modern ideas, and the chain of anachronisms is becoming more serious, according to the report. This is the mainstream research result of current Western researchers. Today, Wikipedia is written based on research and literature that was born from that chain of mistakes. That information becomes the source of information for various AIs, reinforcing false information and hindering correct information.
Many researchers in Japan have adopted the approach of seeing what they can learn from the limited information available about Yasuke. They do not supplement the story with delusions, as is the case in the West, or simply assume that something is correct because it is written in the Maeda version. They criticize the historical sources, asking why something is written in the Maeda version but not in other books. Herein lies the difference between the Westerners who have monopolized this article until now, and the Japanese who have proposed edits and been rejected.
Japanese people have no materials. Because even if you look into it, you won't know. They know that they won't understand. This may seem meaningless, but it is actually very important. Westerners have materials. There are various documents and materials. This is the result of inappropriate research, but since many other researchers are also following the same inappropriate information and thinking, it will never be corrected. They think they understand, but their knowledge is full of lies and in reality they don't understand anything at all. They present incorrect literature and materials as evidence and claim the legitimacy of their incorrect research. They don't understand the situation and do it unconsciously, which is a problem.
The "Journal of International Education" is not indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, has no impact factor, and is self-published byUniversity of Suwon. On the plus side, it claims to use a peer-review process and is managed by an editorial committee. However, its stated focus is onadvancing scholarship in the field of teaching and learning, so it is not specialised in Japanese history.
Nor is the author, Alaric Naudé, an expert in the field. He is apparently a professor of linguistics at the University of Suwon, but I was unable to find a faculty page to confirm this. He has published a book on Yasuke (possibly self-published), "THE REAL YASUKE: HISTORY BEYOND THE SAMURAI MYTH" (United Scholars Academic Press, 2024), which was discussed at RSN andnot deemed reliable. He also maintains a personal blog where he has written about Yasuke and topics such asthe Afrocentric ideology in North America[4].
As for the content of the article, GPTZero flagged the first section (the only one I checked) as "100% AI generated"; "We are highly confident this text was AI generated". Grammarly also reports that "71% of this text appears to be AI-generated".
Notably, the article claims that
platforms like Wikipedia have adopted these claims [Lockley and what Naudé calls the "English orthodoxy"] as definitive. Wikipedia editors, by their own admission, often lack the requisite knowledge of Japanese to verify primary sources, yet they insist on maintaining the narrative of Yasuke as a "samurai," derived exclusively from English-language works such as Lockley’s. Dissenting perspectives rooted in Sengoku-period manuscripts or Japanese scholarship are routinely dismissed, creating an environment where historical critiques are marginalized in favor of perpetuating the prevailing myth
In my view, we should dismiss also this contribution, which I don't think qualifies asWP:SCHOLARSHIP, given the lack of subject-matter expertise from both the journal and the author, and the evidence of AI-generated content. At the very least, the source isWP:BIASED and should be used with caution, but I think it should be disregarded entirely.
I agree with Gitz. I'd also argue that the proposed edit doesn't meetWP: NPOV, as it feels very leading with lines like "the reliability of much of the information cannot be confirmed".DragonBrickLayer (talk)03:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was just making a suggestion. If everyone disagrees with the opinion, then I'll stand by that decision.
However, I would like to say a few things in Alaric Naudé's honor.
This paper uses linguistics to examine how much the Maeda version of theShinchō Kōki is different from other versions, and whether there is a possibility that the content was added later. Also, if there have been changes in the content, the paper examines the social background and examines what triggered the change. So Alaric Naudé, a linguist and sociolinguist, becomes an expert. If it turns out that there is a possibility that the text may have been significantly altered in later generations, and many people are creating papers and news based on that, it is the job of scholars to sound the alarm.
You all conclude that Alaric Naudé must have used generative AI to create the paper, but that verification is probably wrong. The reason is explained in another paper.[5][6] When a tool is used to determine whether a paper written by a native English speaker and a paper written by a person who studied English at school or elsewhere were created by generative AI, it has been found that native speakers are less likely to be judged as having been written by AI, but papers written by people who studied English at school or elsewhere are extremely likely to be judged as having been written by AI. This is despite the fact that neither of them used generative AI. Alaric Naudé is a Korean scholar. This is probably the reason for the AI judgment.
Since I happened to be here today, I would like to provide you with information different from Alaric Naudé. This is about Ietada nikki. It is on page 10 of this paper.[7][8][9]
Judging from the format, it is difficult to imagine that these articles were written on specific days. Judging from the content, they should be seen as records of events that occurred at the time, without the need for specific dates.
If this supposition is correct, then the information that Yasuke was seen on this date may be incorrect. Maybe the date didn't matter and he just added it to the empty space. You may want to say that there is no way that could be the case, but the original Ietada nikki actually contains several illustrations that are related to the contents, as well as doodles that are unrelated.[10] Ietada frequently made mistakes in dates, and sometimes when he received a gift or a major event, he realized his mistake and started writing the correct date from that day. The expert who wrote the paper introduced above also stated in his paper that "Ietada's writing style is so unique that there are parts that are difficult to read or understand."
Information about Yasuke accidentally reached the Tokugawa clan, who were allies of the Oda clan, and Ietada may have simply added what he had heard. Of course, all of this is speculation. There is no information to substantiate this.Between work (talk)02:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that in the time since the the study wasnot deemed reliable by that RSN,the Publisher has completely given up the illusion of being unconnected to Alaric Naudé. It's listed as operating from 301 Nosong Building, Geumho Rd., Suwon, Republic of Korea (registered in Australia) and it'sEditorial Review Panel is made up almost exclusively of University of Suwon/Suwon Science College staff. The only one listed not from there is listed as a professor from "Jungbu University" (I'm sure they meanJoongbu University). To say I have my doubts about this source is an understatement.DragonBrickLayer (talk)21:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely skeptical of the person's credentials on the subjects. The person went on an interview on a small YouTube dedicated to making cases why there are only two genders. So linguistics professors are being invited by right wingers to make fringe cases on science and historySuredeath (talk)10:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you posted that to the wrong conversation, Suredeath. That said, the "International" mailing address is to a "Mail Ect." (a small business offering mailbox rentals, notary services, and shipping services) in Washington State that likely forwards his mail. This is also likely a rebrand of his "City University of Paris" (not to be confused with the illustriousUniversité Paris Cité) that was brought up duringthe RSN of the author's wikipedia page. The publisher of his book that started this conversation was also modified. Really makes me want to take a closer look at the peer review group of the "Journal of International Education" and whether: 1) it actually exists as more than an electronic text on a website, and 2) if they actually exist (unlike the ones that "peer reviewed" his book). Given his credentials as the University's English Dept. head, it wouldn't surprise me if he has control over their English language webpage (which appears to be down right now).DragonBrickLayer (talk)03:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article refers to English language scholarship, but only refers to things written by Lockley, two of which are written in Japanese. The argument about circular sources doesn't provide a full circle. It also doesn't cite anything for the claims made about samurai. The only source seems to be the Japanese-Portuguese dictionary, which is used as a primary source, but conflicts with other records using the term samurai. Kleinschmidt discusses the dictionary in his bookWarfare in Japan and claims the Portuguese misunderstood the full meaning of samurai. If this is scholarship, it isn't very good.DrGlef (talk)14:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I tried to analyze the mathematical portion of Naudé's paper and couldn't make much sense of several of the choices made therein; I e-mailed Naudé to ask for clarification (e.g. stuff like "hey it seems like this term is 'double-counting' the possibility of manuscript corruption; am I misreading?", IIRC), and never received any reply.
If anyone is interested, and/or thinks they can clarify what exactly he's doing there, I can dig up the write-up I did about it—I don't claim that this is for sure his error & not mine, but at the very least I thought he'd be willing to point me toward the literature whence he derived the expression (if that's how he got it) / explain why I had misunderstood (if it was entirely original)!
Update, 10/18: Dr. Naude got back to me after all! I withdraw the above concerns, as it appears that the mathematical portion of the paper is sound after all.
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
I request for where it says "African origin" to be changed to "sub-Saharan African origin" since only sub-Saharan Africans are black. North Africans areArabs,Berbers, and EgyptianCopts, not black people. North Africans are a different race to sub-Saharan Africans, similar to how East Asians are a different race to South Asians.2A0A:EF40:1281:8E01:A4FE:F20A:395C:86D7 (talk)15:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The article's reference to Yasuke being of African origin simply means that he came from the continent of Africa; nothing more, nothing less. The contemporary racial categories you mention aren't particularly relevant in the context of Sengoku period Japan.Day Creature (talk)16:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Yasuke was black, then he would obviously be specifically from sub-Saharan Africa since sub-Saharan Africa are the only regions in Africa where black people come from. Also the article said that Yasuke most likely came fromMozambique, which is a country in sub-Saharan Africa.2A0A:EF40:1281:8E01:F829:8FE1:A59F:EE50 (talk)12:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to get that specific in the opening sentence. It's adequate to just say that he was of African origin and then expand more on what part of Africa he may have been from later in the article. At this point, your edit request has been answered and is not going to be implemented, so there is no reason to continue discussing it here.Day Creature (talk)14:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not. That's frankly a bizarre statement. Yasuke lived his life well before the advent of modern racial classifications. Even for figures likeMartin Luther King Jr. orW.E.B. Du Bois, it would be strange to insist that the reader must be immediately alerted to their race in the opening sentence.
Not to mention it's based on the incorrect view of "Black= always sub-Saharan" when there are plenty of peoples who would be considered "Black" native to theSahel and we have no evidence that he was or wasn't from any specific region or ethnic group. Hell, he could have beenHaratin from North Africa for all the evidence we have.DragonBrickLayer (talk)00:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2025 (2)
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
In the "Documented Life in Japan" section, four paragraphs down and under the extract of the Shinchō Kōki manuscript, I noticed that it said that "He," in reference to Nobunaga, "gave him the Japanese name Yasuke,[c] accepted him as attendant at his side and made him the first recorded foreigner to receive the rank of samurai." There should be an "an" in between "as" and "attendant". That's all.PGC18491 (talk)15:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what made up nonsense internet posts you've been reading,86.10.237.23, but Lockley wasn't fired in any fashion, not was his work deleted or destroyed. He still works as Nihon University, same as before, as shownhere. All he did was delete his personal social media accounts, nothing else. We've also had multiple discussions both on this talk page and at the reliable source noticeboard and he is still considered 100% reliable as a professor.SilverserenC21:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redacted comments above are derogatory information about a living person, and I have removed them as a violation of thebiographies of living persons policy. If you would like to discuss the reliability of a source for this topic, fine, but if you start that discussion with a diatribe attacking a living person's academic credentials, it will be removed. If you're going to start a discussion about Lockley, read these discussions in fullfirst:
As you can see there has already beenextensive discussion about Lockley's work and its use in this article. It is very likely that your concern has already been discussed, and repeatedly starting new discussions about the same issue isdisruptive. Please donot start a new discussion if you have nothing new to add, and even if you think you do have something new to discuss, you must provide reliable sources supporting your position. Your own analysis, personal beliefs, or things you read on an internet forum, areoriginal research and will be removed from this page without further discussion. Thank you.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)21:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The article's reference to Yasuke being of African origin simply means that he came from the continent of Africa; nothing more, nothing less. The contemporary racial categories you mention aren't particularly relevant in the context of Sengoku period Japan.Day Creature (talk)16:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 areliable source if appropriate. Also, a track listing probably isn't a sufficient source to make that claim in general.Nubzor[T][C]15:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done,thanks for noticingSlomo666 (talk)16:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)