Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC: The Times of India

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that additional considerations apply to the Times of India (TOI). There is a rough consensus that TOI has sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking and that its use should be evaluated with caution. Editors should ensure that they do not use paid advertorials to verify information or establish notability. Paid advertorials may be of particular concern in topics such as entertainment. Editors should also be aware that TOI may have published at least one AI-generated article.

There was also unrebutted evidence that TOI has only published paid advertorials since 1950 at the earliest, and that additional considerations therefore should not apply to pre-1950 TOI articles. Based upon recent practice at this noticeboard, I believe that this point is uncontroversial and I will limit this consensus to post-1950 TOI. This is without prejudice to moving the date forward in the future if consensus develops.

There was no consensus to adopt option 3 (generally unreliable). Some editors argued that nothing has changed since the last RfC, but more editors were of the opinion that that was a reason to maintain the status quo. Other arguments focused on one allegedly AI-generated article. However, more editors considered that point to be weak, and some pointed out that one instance of alleged AI use is insufficient to declare a source generally unreliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

---

What is the reliability of The Times of India?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

-- Amigao (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• timesofindia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• timesofindia.indiatimes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Survey (The Times of India)

• Option 3 There's nothing to indicate the prior issues with paid coverage and bias have been cleared up, and the Munger article indicated a considerable lack of fact-checking - if it's AI-published, that's a cardinal sin of news media. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've removed my "/4" with respect to it being a paper of record, but I'm sticking at 3 - regardless of how widely-read it is, AI generation and/or poor fact-checking don't speak to reliability. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Times of India is the world's largest English-language newspaper, and the largest in India. It is has some occasional problems, but there has been no systematic evaluation to show the problem is so severe as to eliminate 10s of thousands of citations on Enwiki. Most ToI links predate ChatGPT. -- GreenC 00:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 As per GreenC.The Times of India has been published since 1838 and it is a Newspaper of Record there are only 2 Indian newspapers which can claim so.It has been India's most reliable newspaper for large part of the time. It is politically neutral not aligned to the right or the left unlike most other Indian newspapers. There are occasional problems, but there has been no systematic evaluation to show the problem is so severe as to eliminate 10s of thousands of citations on English Wiki.It is also India's most trusted English newspaper.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  Our article on TOI gives examples of promoting political coverage in exchange for pay--they may not have an explicit partisan affiliation to any one political party, but that doesn't mean they're neutral. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 This is an invaluable source. As other editors said, it's the largest English-language newspaper in the world, and the largest in India. I'd have to see a lot more bad things from them to consider option 3, and option 4 is completely off the table for me. Pecopteris (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I have to echo the above. Its usually been fairly good with its standard of reporting given its status but it does appear that recently there have been a few AI articles that have slipped under the editorial radar. Certainly nothing major to warrant depreciation but it is something worth keeping an eye on. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 In the previous RfC the TOI was judged to be somewhere between Option 2 and Option 3, mainly because of its poor fact-checking and the fact that it regularly runs paid advertorials and sponsored content that are not admitted to be as such (see The_Times_of_India#Paid_news). None of this appears to have improved at all, and when you add the issue of AI content into the mix then I can't see how it can be trusted, certainly for anything contentious. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• It's cases like this where I wish there was an option 21⁄2. Broadly speaking it is definitely pushing limits (in a bad way), but does not fit very well into the definition of general unreliability for some of the reasons laid out above. I think leaving it in option 2 and assessing case-by-case makes better sense, though perhaps some sort of GUNREL post-X year should be considered. Curbon7 (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 I don't think it puts past citations in danger or requires deprecation, but the embrace AI when combined with the other problems puts it "over the top" for me. I would endorse Curbon's idea just above me about post-X year, but we'd have to debate just what X should equal, and until that's sorted out, I prefer discretion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3 - I agree with the general criticisms that have been voiced by others. The paper may be a historic paper-of-record in India, but as documented by our Wikipedia article about it, it's also arguably a big part of why English-language press in India is so terrible, whether through its embrace of corrupt pay-for-play practices or through anti-competitive pricing that drove away its competition (and now it's adding AI to the mix, apparently). In a sense it's a free-market mirror image of the situation we end up in with Xinhua--it's one of the best major journalistic sources in the country, but that doesn't mean it's actually reliable or impartial to the extent that we would generally expect a newspaper of record to be. I have primarily encountered TOI's coverage of the Indian entertainment industry, and its average article on such topics is abysmal to such a degree that their content is typically indistinguishable from PR. That having been said, due to its readership, its opinions and perspectives will likely be DUE in many contexts to a degree that arguably outstrips its reliability for Wikivoice claims. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for the time being, retaining the current considerations. It has many faults but also has useful uncontroversial content as well, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. The Times of India has a history of dodgy fact-checking, but hasn't quite sunken into tabloid territory. I think it's an alright source for uncontroversial information. However, it should not be used for anything contentious that isn't independently backed up. Cortador (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. It has some dodgy qualities, which should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, leaning Option 4. If they can't even be bothered to do a simple fact check about Munger currently being alive or not, I'm not sure why we'd even use them as a source at this point. I understand they're the large newspaper as explained, but this is getting silly. They've almost fallen to the level of tabloid media where they make up stories about Elvis being alive. AI generation (declared or not) being published as fact is shameful. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2/3. While many of its old articles are good, it has become pro-government in the recent years though it still published about a number of incidents which the ruling government may not like. I don't see any reason to change the current consensus for this outlet. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option #2 The consideration for verifiability is expertise and objectivity with respect to the text which cited it. Also in our system which has a flaw in this are, the same classification is used for wp:weight in wp:npov and so knocking a major source in this area would also create a POV distortion. Which leads to that I'm against nearly all blanket deprecations/ overgeneralizations. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 The issues with undisclosed advertorials is already known and documented, an issue not confined to TOI or even the Indian news media. The AI issue becomes another problem to watch for, but I don't think it's enough to mark all it's content as unreliable. Caution should be used, and articles evaluated on a case by case basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Markets for news media the world over are being squeezed, so AI and the more profitable types of advertising (such as undisclosed advertorials) are becoming more prevalent. It's something editors will need to keep in mind when evaluating such sources, and make sure to double check anything exceptional or unexpected. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 Generally unreliable but tending to deprecated. I had been reading this paper regularly since before "paid news" came into vogue. Now I do not find it reliable at all. It is definitely not fit to be a Wikipedia reliable source. Chaipau (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Yes TOI has issues, but the recurring problems with sponsored content are addressed in WP:RSNOI. This is a singular example of possible AI generated reporting, and although irresponsible on TOIs part, I don't think its cause for deprecation. We should monitor as part of larger efforts to reel in AI reporting in news media (as has been discussed many times on this noticeboard). Schwinnspeed (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I hate that it's come to this because we're basically screwing over a country of 1 billion people. I doubt the issue is "AI" in general; any decent large-language model can rewrite a news article while keeping the facts intact. Contrast the Times of India, which has consistently been unable to do that even before LLMs became commonplace. If the Times of India is using "AI", their complete disregard of quality means they've decided OpenAI's $1.50 for 1 million tokens (750,000 words) [1] is too expensive, which honestly is quite plausible.

Aside from that, the question I think we should be asking ourselves is whether it's better to have false information on a country of 1 billion people or no information at all. A vote for option 3 is "no information at all", and that's preferable since false information in one topic area ruins the credibility of the rest of the encyclopedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. The well documented issues with undisclosed advertorials should mean that we use the source with care. I don't see strong reasons for considering the source as unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 13:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC "Option 4" deprecation ((or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is) should only be proposed as part of an RfC with a very good reason, it should not be a standard option on an RfC at this noticeboard. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. There has been an ongoing issue with rampant paid coverage in Times of India, which wouldn't be considered reliable, and this problem has not abated. In fact, if TOI is now using AI to write articles, which in typical AI fashion would have a confident forthright and neutral journalistic tone while presenting bullshit, there's no good way to know what we're getting. The fact that it's the world's largest English-language newspaper is irrelevant if it cannot be trusted to be reliable. I would even lean to option 4 non-retroactively on a probationary basis. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3: Undisclosed paid advert news articles, failure to fact-check that Robert Hale Jr. had become the late Charlie Munger as the main subject of their article, referencing Wikipedia articles. Just as The New Yorker described, the TOI does not worry about editorial independence and the poor quality of the journalism attracts the heaviest criticism.
  Size/distribution is independent to reliability. Very important newspaper, yes. Reliable newspaper, no. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • In agreement with James500's point below, no problem with leaving pre-1950 Times of India as-is. All of these reliability issues are relatively recent. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. My belief is Option 3 based on what I have read in this discussion, as well as in their articles, but as Schwinnspeed explained, RSNOI actually covers all of these concerns regarding paid reporting. Personally I think this section of RSP should be reviewed, and possibly overturned, but not via an RfC over a single paper. The lack of disclosure requirement is extremely concerning, given it's more-or-less law to disclose advertising in some Western countries, but otherwise as I said this is a broader issue beyond ToI. CNC (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• In the absence of additional evidence, option 1 for information within the expertise of newspaper journalists in editions of TOI published before 1950. No evidence has been presented that there was any paid news at that time: In 2010, the Press Council of India said paid news had existed for six decades. Consideration should be given to any other content that appears to be unpaid, and which is not objectionable for some other policy based reason. The paid content is said to be marked as such, and TOI denies publishing "paid news", as opposed to clearly marked advertorials in supplements and Medianet. In any event this is covered by WP:RSNOI. The Times of India is said to be accurate: [2]. The "poor quality" comment in the New Yorker actually says that the paper changed at an unspecified point before 2002. What Fernandes says is "This wasn’t the paper I had idolized all my life", which appears to mean it was different in the past. The New Yorker says that "private treaties" began in 2005, and therefore are not an issue for earlier editions of the newspaper. According to the New Yorker, the Press Council says the newspaper changed from the 1980s. I could go further, but I do not see any evidence for the period before 1950. We should not downgrade the paper all the way back to 1838 unless we actually have evidence going back that far. James500 (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  All of the arguments surrounding AI only make sense post-2021 when ChatGPT was released. I agree that we should limit the scope of this RfC. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. WP:RSNOI covers the paid articles, which are supposedly marked as such. The Munger story is indeed concerning but still it's just one example. According to The Times of India article, BBC called them one of six world's best newspapers in 1991, so Option 1 for content generated before that. Alaexis_¿question? 11:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  WP:RSNOI states that sponsored content often has "inadequate or no disclosure." Are paid TOI articles typically marked differently from unpaid articles? - Amigao (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  The New Yorker article says that the paid articles are marked in the paper edition "Tucked under the section’s masthead, four words in small type inform the reader that the contents are an “advertorial, entertainment promotional feature.”" Do you know if this is the case online as well? Alaexis_¿question? 19:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 Ideally Option 4 They had a long history of using paid promotional editing that are open and openly disguised as journalistially written fact-checked articles when they haven't been and its been shown time and time again. I've came across it both Afd, extensively in the last 15 years and in AFC/NPP particularly. So much its beyond belief really. I vaguely remember it was one of the core reason that AFC was established. There is much of it, that I've no confidence that the average editor can tell the difference. It puts a unnecessary burden on these type of editors. It will do and has done lasting damage to Wikipedia. It should be deprecated. I don't like that WP:RSNOI clause. Never did. Its was and is sop to inaction and an appeal to inclusiveness, instead of taking action to address it at the time. The whole thing, something which is considered absolutely abnormal in the west, is unbelievable really, perhaps because its so pervasive. I think its probably linked to corruption somehow. scope_creep^Talk 17:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Flatly against any more restrictive overgeneralization. North8000 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - One thing we are running into with film related articles are references falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and the TOI is being cited to support notability of topics. The issue is that many are not bylined articles and pure WP:CHURNALISM. I do not think it needs depreciated, but also do not feel that content mill type pieces should be used. Bylined references from actual journalists could be given consideration though. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - TOI is a widely trusted newspaper across platforms. Sometimes the content is promoted especially regarding Bollywood and real estate, or else the general World and News info is pretty accurate and balanced.
• Option 3 or Option 4 - TOI has been accsued of being an unreliable cite and using paid editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 because very little has changed since the last discussion on ToI I participated in (March 2020), if anything the newspaper is less reliable, as India's mainstream press has outdone itself in slavishly cheering the backsliding of the country's democracy. See El_C's closing note there. I am reproducing my comment from March 2020: *Option 2–3 Option 2 for matter-of-fact reporting such as the weather; but Option 3 in any topic with political ramifications, such as the numbers of people who may have died in a riot, or the numbers of malnutritioned chidren, because of the newspaper's history of a pro-government bias, especially after the 1970s. It is India's second-oldest newspaper after the Statesman, founded in 1838, and for many decades carrying only advertisements and obituaries on its front page. I own some historic editions: the beginning and end of WW2, India's independence, Gandhi's assassination, Nehru's death, ... If I have time, I'll take a look at the older editions to examine their quality. However, by the 1970s when Indian newspapers had come out of the shadow of nationalism and begun to show their independence, the Times did not quite. It has some major people writing in its op-ed columns; those are definitely worth a read, but not for citing on WP. Britannica 's lead sentence says it all: "The Times of India, English-language morning daily newspaper published in Mumbai, Ahmadabad, and Delhi. It is one of India's most influential papers, and its voice has frequently coincided with that of the national government." F&f 12:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per the statement made by CommunityNotesContributor, and could get behind supporting Option 1 for articles pre-1950 as James500 pointed out. Cheers! Johnson524 03:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per arguments against removing a large amount of good references. "Additional considerations" of WP:NEWSORGINDIA apply to "Even legitimate Indian news organizations" and we should not deprecate common practice at "the world's largest English-language newspaper" and other sources. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, generally. If there are specific allegations of paid placement in the source, let them be made with respect to specific articles. BD2412 T 01:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (The Times of India)

@Amigao: Would you like to make this discussion a formal request for comment? If so, please apply the {{rfc}} template immediately under the section header per WP:RFCST, and place a copy of your signature immediately after the four options to ensure that the RfC statement is "neutral", per WP:RFCNEUTRAL. If not, please remove "RfC:" from the section heading. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Newslinger - Amigao (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion here and at WP:TOI identified various issues with The Times of India. Mostly recently, on 31 May 2024, TOI published an article stating that the late Charlie Munger (who died in 2023) was alive and making donations. Whether AI-generated or not, there was no fact-checking going on here and the article remains live as of this time stamp. - Amigao (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The Times of India article claims that the published information was obtained from "a report in the Insider". Assuming that refers to Business Insider (RSP entry), which was rebranded as Insider from 2021 to 2023, the corresponding Business Insider article is "Billionaire CEO gifts 1,200 UMass grads 'envelopes full of cash' totaling about $1.2 million — but there's a catch", which states that "Robert Hale Jr., the CEO of Granite Telecommunications", was the actual person who made the donation to University of Massachusetts Dartmouth graduates. Hale is also described as the donor by Associated Press (RSP entry), The Boston Globe, and many other outlets.

As an example of inaccurate reporting, this reflects very poorly on The Times of India. Munger's name is mentioned in the article 13 times and he was described as "the vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway", which shows that there was no confusion about Munger's identity. The article looks like a hallucination from a large language model. I'd like to see if there are any more examples of this kind of error on TOI that establish a pattern of relying on AI-generated reporting. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Edited 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics — Newslinger talk 10:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

National Post, Toronto Star, Toronto Sun

for the sake of everyone's sanity, moving the following into its own section; left collapsed in original thread for attribution

offtopic but apparently needed discussion moved here from Catholic Register thread

::When did the National Post and the Toronto Sun become unreliable?? I can't find these "archived discussions" you refer to and there's no WP:RSP listing (perhaps we need an RfC?). The best is an opinion column from the National Post accusing others of plagiarism.[3] These are two of Canada's most-circulated newspapers. [4] You can't just handwave them away as being unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The National Post put an op-ed piece by Jason Kenney on its front page. In it, he said that people need to just get over these little matters of genocide and move on for the the good of the country, and this right after the discovery of graves in Kamloops. That was unforgivable. I didn't know questions had been raised about it, and I do not know why, but I definitely applaud the sentiment. And yes, it is one of Canada's highest-circulation newspapers. Which is terrifying. As for the Toronto Star, do you dispute it? I am not in Ontario so I don't see the print publication, but I've described their recent offerings (possibly even here) as akin to People magazine, so I definitely wouldn't use it for anything more complicated than 'on this day person x said y', and certainly not for a fraught and nuanced topic like the genocide at residential schools in Canada.Elinruby (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun you shouldn't be judging Canadian newspapers. Vague claims that a publication is like People magazine is not enough to make a source unreliable.

WP:RSOPINION says you can't cite op-eds anyways. To declare the National Post as unreliable you should be showing how citing it can be used to support untrue information on-wiki, not just publishing editorials you disagree with. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this needs its own thread. But a) I am talking about the Star, ie the one with the star in its logo. I was until now blissfully unaware that there was a Toronto Sun, I think. And worse, you say, huh. b) I would never cite Jason Kenney except in a discussion of the problems in Canadian political discourse c) yes, op-eds are inherently unreliable, and that is why they shouldn't be on the front page. It really bothers me that I have to explain this d) I am as patriotic as the next person and probably more so, but the ostrich approach to the issue isn't solving anything. e) The National Post may need to be used for traffic news in Ontario or inside baseball on the budget bill perhaps, but in general it should be avoided imho. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Being amongst a country's most circulated newspapers does not speak in the slightest towards a publication's reliability. TarnishedPath^talk 10:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Flippantly excluding it as unreliable would affect any article on Canada. [5] Both the Toronto Sun and the National Post regularly win National Newspaper Awards (Canadian Pulitzer) because they are recognized by their peers as being of high quality. [6] [7] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

{{failed verification}} Ok the Star won for photography and the National Post for a column. About the shameful Hunka episode to boot. This is not the flex you think it is. Elinruby (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat again that the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun are two very different newspapers, despite being named after astronomical objects. If you look at the full awards list [8] the National Post has won 13 NNAs in its 25 year history, 11 of which were not in editorials or columns. The Toronto Sun has won 22, 5 of which were not editorial cartoons/photos.

Clearly we need a new discussion on this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Look, of course the sun is a star, but I am talking about the Toronto Star. The fact that I offtopicto your offtopic post in the offtopic spinoff from my original question does not make me the one that is confused here. I am taking your post as support for refactoring however.Elinruby (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I was just looking at prior discussions of those sources on this noticeboard that turned up when I searched the archives, in which it looked like editors thought they were unreliable; if you read those discussions differently and/or think it's important to start an RFC on either source, feel free. I suggest starting a new section for it, as this section has already left its initial topic (Catholic Reporter) in the dust and is now even veering off even the secondary topic it had veered onto (that Blacklock's has no reputation for fact-checking, use by other RS, etc, and in general has no signs of being RS). -sche (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Catholic Register, actually, which I would like to get back to, since it is actually used in an article I am trying to clean up. Considering sorting this into three separate threads.Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

TL;DR from the above: The National Post put an op-ed by a politician on the front page of its print edition. Apparently @Chess: feels this has no bearing on the newspaper's reliability. There also seems to be some disagreement about the reliability of the Toronto Sun and the Toronto Star. I consider that they are mostly irrelevant, but usable for simple statements of fact like "x said y on this day". This is in part due to their intense absorption with their own region, probably. Maybe they are reliable for national politics also. I avoid them because I don't care who got arrested in Hamilton. For British Columbia, which is all I am talking about right now, much better sources exist for the most part, although I may recall one or two long-form explainers from them that were pretty good. Unsure.

The third Toronto paper, The Globe and Mail, is unquestionably reliable, if a but stodgy and banker-ish. I have compared it to the New York Times; we can discuss that too if anyone wants to.

As for the Sun and the Star, meh, I would put reliability on a par with, idk, have previously said People magazine for the Star, but I admit it's a little more newsy than that. Not much, though. And to be fair, I have to say that I never see the print edition of either one, so that may be part of it too,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The complaint is that the National Post ran an op-ed? Can you explain how that has bearing on the WP:NEWSORG's reliability for news reporting? I'm struggling to see why running a labeled opinion piece is relevant to the Flagship PostMedia paper's reliability. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where a paper puts its op-eds. WP:RSOPINION still applies, no matter whether we agree or disagree with the opinion. I'm getting flashbacks to the New York Times Tom Cotton editorial fracas. Offensive or controversial editorials, be they by a Premier of Alberta or a US Senator, might suggest an editorial bias, but bias in op-eds does not mean unreliable for factual reporting elsewhere. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

On the front page of the print edition above the fold? And yes, obviously newspapers publish opinion. It is supposed to go in the opinion section however. Elinruby (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

We do not require this of sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

maybe you don't. After all it's only the most sacred tenet in print journalism. NBD. Elinruby (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Op-Ed content masquerading as news would be a big deal. But we don’t require sources to follow any particular layout. They can put an op-ed on the front page if they want to. So can we have a look at the front page in question? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC

They can indeed do anything they want, and we can evaluate their actions on the basis of our policy in turn. But to be clear it wasn't masquerading as anything but the opinion of the then-premier of Alberta. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a link to a copy of that front page? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw it on paper, which is how I know that it was above the fold, but yes, I am sure there must be one. I will find it once I get done adding diffs to the Arbcom clarification request that this got added to, which is what I am in here for right now. Do I need to explain Jason Kenney when I do that? Elinruby (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: here. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh Jesus Christ, if that's the "unforgiveable" op-ed that single-handedly makes the National Post unreliable (no matter where it originally appeared in print), then nothing is reliable. Although online it's categorized under opinion, the article's intro and ending suggest an interview ("Asked Tuesday whether Calgary’s Sir John A. Macdonald school should be renamed... This transcript has been edited for clarity."). Kenney said: "We should learn from our achievements but also our failures. Canada is doing that, just as Prime Minister Harper made the official apology for the terrible injustice of the Indian residential school system" and concludes with "I think that’s the solution, which is to present young people and all Canadians, including new Canadians with a balanced depiction of our history, including the terrible gross injustice and tragedy of the Indian residential schools." (emphasis mine). He acknowledged horrors of the past, but simply holds the view that statues of the Macdonald needn't be toppled nationwide. Hard to conclude he wants to ignore or just get over genocide. And again, this is only a single op-ed that you apparently didn't like. That's not relevant to WP:NEWSORG. Which policy does it break? The post has an editorial team. Its journalists and columnists have been National Newspaper Award winners and nominees. Nothing is 100% accurate all the time, and bias in story selection or presentation is WP:BIASED, not unreliable. Unless solid evidence can be found that this or source lacks routinely fails fact-checking, lacks journalistic standards or other criteria of WP:GUNREL, it should be considered generally appropriate. And of course, per WP:NEWSORG: Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What is unforgivable is failing to maintain the firewall between reporting and opinion. Opinion goes on the opinion page. If the opinions of Jason Kenney were deemed newsworthy they should have been quoted in a news story. But of course they weren't because nobody within light-years with any familiarity with the man was surprised at what he had to say Elinruby (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that you don't like that they placed it on the front page in print. But it's clearly labeled as opinion online, and the online headline Jason Kenney: Cancel John A. Macdonald and we might as well cancel all of Canadian history makes it clear that the words are Kenney's take. Was the headline different in print? I'm struggling to comprehend why running this op-ed have any bearing on the reliability of National Post, which by all accounts appears to be a standard established Canadian WP:NEWSORG that is generally reliable for news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if one finds Jason Kenney's op-ed in the National Post distasteful, did it contain misinformation? Or did it merely contain value judgements and recommendations for future behavior that one may find odious? If it's only the latter, that doesn't suggest that the National Post is unreliable. Also, we still don't know if those are graves in Kamloops. And even if those are graves of children from the school, that doesn't necessarily mean children were murdered. The crime we know happened was forcefully removing children from their families. Beaulieu's 2021 radar survey has not demonstrated crimes beyond that. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the only unreliable thing happening here is summarising that op-ed/comment/interview as In it, he said that people need to just get over these little matters of genocide and move on for the the good of the country. That was an atrocious misrepresentation. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No policy-based evidence that these two newspapers are unreliable has been presented here. Judging the the description of the Toronto Sun here it's an established and reliable media outlet. Alaexis_¿question? 13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun are two wildly different papers and only the later is owned by the same people as the National post, I don't see any reason why we are discussing them in relation to nat post op ed! —blindlynx 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

My bad, thanks for spotting it. Alaexis_¿question? 21:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit sharp. It's an understandable mistake given their confused a few times in this thread—blindlynx 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun is more of a tabloid paper (they still publish sexy photos of fully clothed women), they aim for the more blue collar audience. But they don't make things up. Still a RS. Biased, but not unreliable. Toronto Star has always been a middle of the road newspaper, pushing for social betterment. One is different from the other, but neither is unreliable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: National Post

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a resounding consensus that the National Post is generally reliable. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

---

National Post is a Canadian newspaper that serves as the flagship publication of Postmedia Network. Which of the following best describes the reliability of National Post for its news reporting?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey: National Post

• Option 1. National Post is a fairly standard national Canadian NEWSORG that has a history of excellent reporting. It regularly is nominated for and wins awards at the National Newspaper Awards, Canada's equivalent to the Pulitzer Prizes. As an established news organization with a reputation for accuracy in reporting, this appears to be a generally reliable newspaper. Its opinion content should be handled by WP:RSOPINION, just like that of other news organizations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk's arguments. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 .... Award-winning publication used by academics for research.Moxy🍁 00:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural Close: We should not open an RfC because one editor has claimed that a source is unreliable because it ran an op-ed that that editor didn't like. There's a

clear consensus in the discussion above. Everyone should move on. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've seen it discounted in ways that I don't think best in other discussions, such as this one. There are also a couple of discussions way back, and I do think we benefit from an RfC in the present. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I counted at least two others that disagreed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Chess: One vs. three editors doesn't really chanhe my analysis. Consensus is determined by strength of argument. We don't just start RfCs because a few people spuriously disagree with everyone else. Regarding -sche, who you cite below, all they did was suggest an RfC if others thought it necessary. Not sure who your third person is. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  We can WP:SNOW close this in a week if the consensus is really clear. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 12:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  But it is baffling that you feel the need to do that. And no, consensus is not clear, at all. Where have you announced this RfC? Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Elinruby, @Red-tailed hawk announced it at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. There's a comment below where they advise that. TarnishedPath^talk 05:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  um. Judging by the complete lack of reaction to previous announcements there about the Western Standard, I am not certain that that amounts to publicity. I will have to give some thought to where else would be a good place. Elinruby (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think this is really needed given the discussion above. My only comment in that discussion was to say that being amongst a country's most widely distributed papers does not speak to its reliability. If it did then Melbourne's Herald Sun would be reliable and it's not. Beyond that I'm not sufficiently aware of the source to provide any opinion. If this RfC does proceed, I've linked previous discussions below and pinged involved editors. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk. -sche and Elinruby seem to agree the National Post is something other than reliable, based on historical discussions here at WP:RSN. We should correct the record. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - for reasons given by red-tailed hawk and MOXY. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC - This was originally an off-topic discussion moved into its own section. I don't think there has been enough discussion to hold an RfC. If someone insists though, special considerations apply to the Sun and the Star for general cluelessness outside of the Ontario news bubble. Probably reliable for dates and facts when it comes to national news. Not reliable at all for Quebec. National Post sometimes does not distinguish between fact and commentary, so while I have used it, it should ideally be avoided. Neither deserves deprecation at this time since the issue is not so much accuracy as slant. Also should be avoided for Quebec. Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence for your assertions? voorts (talk/contributions) 11:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  my assertions? This RfC was started by someone who seems to feel the need to defend the newspaper. why, I am not sure. I don't suppose anyone voting 1 realizes that the publication was founded by convicted fraudster Conrad Black for explicitly partisan purposes. Or has heard of the Telegraph or the Jerusalem Post? This thread continues to be a huge distraction from what I actually came here to talk about (Catholic Register) but I suppose I'll have to compile some stuff now, just to add some facts into this attempt to justify the Post coverage. I realize it's what we've got, God help us, but that doesn't mean we need to call it good. Elinruby (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. It seems to be a standard WP:NEWSORG source with standard editorial controls. I have seen no evidence of unreliability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 I don't particularly like the post as it has a strong editorial bias. That said it generally has a commitment to factual and reliable reporting—blindlynx 13:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

As long as the facts suit its purpose, yes. If the Post says that Trudeau said x, odds are good that Trudeau did say those words. Pertinent facts may well be missing however. Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that black is a hack and that this paper is partisan BUT it does not publish factually incorrect stuff or have wildly glareding omissions. It's fine for citing statements of fact which what policy says WP:NEWSORG are for—blindlynx 15:0a 1, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To a very limited extent I actually agree with that, and have in fact recently cited it when dealing with people claiming that something did not happen that manifestly did. But take a good look at the examples above. Is it indeed a fact that Freeland talks nonsense, that Trudeau has a blind hatred of the unvaccinated or that indigenous people oppose pipelines because they have a "handout mentality"? Only from a fairly hateful frame of reference, I submit. I am going to point out again that my question here is about the Catholic Register not the sad state of Canadian media, so I am going to restart a thread on that; but this RfC should not confuse "what we have" with "good journalism" Elinruby (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously that stuff is awful but no one should be citing opinion as fact, from the post or anywhere else—blindlynx 13:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 though a publisher of terrible opinions by awful people, it's factual reporting is not in question. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

maybe you can show everyone some examples of the excellence of its factual reporting. I didn't find much, but you of course will be able to do so, being Headbomb, and I will off somewhere else using better sources than that wherever possible. It's an RfC. Let's let other people talk, hmm? Or not. Your call, but I am gone. Elinruby (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Pick any story in the news section, e.g. https://nationalpost.com/category/news/canada/ or https://nationalpost.com/category/news/world/ Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. Per Red-tailed hawk's arguments and since no examples of unreliable reporting were presented. Alaexis_¿question? 07:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. There doesn't seem to be any indication that there are problems with the accuracy of its reporting, just a complaint over where they put an opinion piece, so I'm not even sure this RFC is warranted. XeCyranium (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. No issues with factual reporting, even if the opinion columns are bad. Biased, but not to an extent that a formal caution to try and find a breadth of sources, which should be SOP for general editing anyway, would be required. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 (maybe Option 2): Having an editorial bias is not a criteria for unreliability or deprecation. Even a bias in hard news story selection or interview subjects would not be a mark of unreliability (do we expect that liberal publications like The Nation are eager to cover every mistake or misdeed by liberals with the same level of detail and ferocity that they cover conservatives?). That the Post sometimes places commentary on the front page is a made up 'unforgiveable' sin in the mind of one editor: it appears to be clearly marked as commentary/analysis both online and in print (e.g. [9], [10][11]). The "founded by convicted fraudster Conrad Black" is a red-herring - he was convicted in 2007, 9 years after the Post was founded, and there is little evidence Black has played much role in the Post in the past 20 years. Having a few failed fact checks or controversies is not necessarily indicative of an unreliable, see: List of The New York Times controversies. It is true that we need not use the National Post for every topic mentioned in its archives, but the same is true of any source per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:NEWSORG and WP:COMMONSENSE. Deliberately and systematically downgrading conservative publications, or commentary by significant people, is the exact opposite of WP:NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC) Addendum: The National Post is not only a member of the National NewsMedia Council[12], which promotes ethics in journalism, but Post editor-in-chief Rob Robertson is a council member, which lends greater evidence of reliability, professionalism, and a reputation for standard journalism. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: It would be good if everyone electing for Option 1 could take another look at the huge red flag that the National Post appears to throw up in the domain of climate change reporting. See the below discussion thread on the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. No compelling reason for anything else. This paper happens to do a lot of opinion piece, which are as opinion pieces are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. I don't see issues with this source that would lead to problems on WP. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:NEWSORG. Climate change is irrelevant because it falls under WP:MEDPOP which says "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles" (my emphasis). Climate change appears to be "scientific" and presumably needs an expert source. Something written by . . . a climate change scientist, perhaps? GREL only applies to topics that are actually within the professional competence of the source. You might as well complain that the journalists do not understand the finer points of the tensor calculus. For example, I suspect most newspapers would probably tell you that the Moon orbits the Earth, and that is not actually true (because both objects orbit their common centre of gravity, or barycentre, which happens to be deep inside the Earth at all times). If you search Google News for "moon orbits the earth" you will find many news sources that make this mistake, because they are not astronomers, and the mistake says nothing about their general reliability. James500 (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per James500.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1: Its factual reporting is not and has never been an issue. Sure, it may be biased, but that is not relevant here. Opinion pieces should be treated like any other WP:RSOPINION. C F A 💬 22:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 as per WP:NEWSORG and arguments by Red-tailed hawk. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 They're certainly biased but aren't unreliable... They play to the left-leaning folks in Canada. They (not to my knowledge) have never made things up. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion: National Post

• I've moved this RFC to its own second level header. That way the large 'before' discussion can be archived without having to wait for the RFC to finish. Please revert if you disagree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging @Chess, Elinruby, TarnishedPath, -sche, Animalparty, Barnards.tar.gz, Jweiss11, Alaexis, and Blindlynx:, who participated in the preceding discussion immediately above. If there is someone I have missed, please ping them to alert them to this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  WikiProject Canada has been notified. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I've found the previous discussions at WP:RS/N:
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#National_Post
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 23#National Post Rejected as Reliable_Source
  • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269#National Post: Accusations of Plagriarism made in an opinion column
  • Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 28#National Post blog
• Pinging @ATren, Metropolitan90, DGG, Stephan Schulz, Mattnad, Collect, Blueboar, PluniaZ, Simonm223, Simpsons contributor, Squidfryerchef, and Thivierr: as editors involved in previous discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 01:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why has this come up is there someone claiming otherwise that it's not reliable? Moxy🍁 01:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  See the preceding discussion for one example. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ohhhhh....I see....it's an ongoing problem with the ability to evaluate sources I got it. Moxy🍁 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Don't think we are going to hear from DGG. Everyone pour one out for that wiki-OG. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS says Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. I am alarmed by the fact that some editors do not see the problem with not distinguishing between news fact and opinion about the news. There is a very large one: opinion about the news is never considered reliable except for the opinion of the writer. I have done a fast survey of National Post online coverage -- nobody around here sells the print edition -- and find the problem is if anything worse that I thought. If while looking at an article that is definitely about a news event (the French election for example) the reader should click on a main menu item for "Canada" or "World", the resulting list of links seems to consistently contain more than 50% opinion pieces. Nor could I find a retraction policy, as per WP:RS at Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.

This is further discussed here; [13], here and About the Committee on Publication Ethics here and here. A lot of the publications that follow this policy are journals: Springer, Nature, British Medical Journal; however this standard is by no means limited to peer-reviewed publications. CBC has a corrections policy[14]. The Globe and Mail has a formal retraction policy [15] and the Washington Post has a form where readers can request corrections [16]. Even the very middlebrow USA Today has a corrections policy [17].

(*=labeled as comment)

I did not find any sort of retraction or editorial policy for the National Post. It also quotes the disparaged Blacklock's Reporter (see above)[18] and published a fawning review of a book by a writer at True North, which apparently is never RS, per comments elsewhere.[19].

On specific issues, I did not find any neutral news coverage of COVID vaccines at all, although perhaps there was some at the time.[20]* ("blind hate?) [21]*,[22]* [23][24][25]*

Coverage of the trucker protests of the vaccine mandates, which it called "Freedom Convoy", was extremely sympathetic. [26]*, [27]*, [28], [29]. The current coverage of the insurrectionist truckers charged with attempted murder of a police officer in the border blockade is more neutral and mostly rewritten from Canadian Press coverage, but still framed in a sympathetic manner: [30][31][32] Indigenous protests met rants about "handout culture" however, and coverage of Gaza is lurid. [33], and not labelled as comment: “the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR.”.

In politics, the pattern persists: the language in news stories is far from neutral, and many opinion pieces are linked from the news menu, like this one [34]*, [35]*, [36]*, [37]*. Not labelled as opinion: [38]. Yesterday's lead article on the front page of the print edition, with a headline in 72pt type or possibly higher: Does Trudeau plan to put the squeeze on older home owners?* Today it is somebody calling for a boycott of Kentucky Fried Chicken for introducing halal chicken. Since there isn't a KFC within a couple of hundred miles of here at least -- maybe in Vancouver -- this couldn't be more irrelevant to the concern in my community right now: the next wildfire.

On climate change, Climate change in the Arctic is often framed through the lens of Canadian national interests, which downplays climate‐related social impacts that are already occurring at subnational political and geographical scales (Cunsolo Willox et al. [ 10] ; Trainor et al. [ 39] ). As such, the climate justice dimensions of climate change in the Arctic are often not being translated to audiences through (the National Post and Globe and Mail ) while also undermining government efforts:The media is more interested in sensational and controversial stories than they are in simply supporting the status quo Elinruby (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the National Post is a conservative paper. Everyone knows this. That does not make it unreliable. That makes it, at worst, biased. some editors do not see the problem with not distinguishing between news fact and opinion about the news the only person to have a problem with this is you. To everyone else, it's clear what is opinion and what is news reporting in the National Post. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal, Globe and Mail and London Times are conservative publications. The National Post is more akin to Fox News.Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an insular view of conservatism that unfairly delegitimizes political ideologies that are not aligned with neoliberalism and free market economy. By this, you are basically saying an outlet is conservative only if it doesn't terribly upset you. Motjustescribe (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the casual racism and climate science denial are the bigger problems (and bad medical advice?), but fear not! – it appears to still be considered gold standard. Perhaps these things are the gold standard for a crochety old Western conservative rag, whose target audience is a very specific demographic. And clearly anyone who thinks this is a stellar source with no conceivable issues – that merely presents another valid viewpoint, and definitely doesn't allow any of the fairly psychotic material that it allows to be passed off as valid commentary in its opinion section, or be given free reign to in its interviews, to bleed into its voice and affect the overall quality as a publication – is in excellent company. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

With respect to I did not find any sort of retraction or editorial policy for the National Post, they do appear to issue corrections, even in their opinion section. One such correction from an opinion piece can be found here, and one for a wire story can be found here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Neither of those is a published retraction policy; see examples provided from other publications. Elinruby (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I could go point-by-point through this to refute the examples, but I do not want to write a novella in doing so. Here are five clear examples of where you appear to be misreading the source, objecting to an opinion piece, or attributing something to the voice of the paper rather than to someone the paper is quoting or attributing a statement to:

• "Blind hatred" appears in an opinion piece, not a news piece. And, even it it were a news piece, the objected bit appears in a headline, and WP:RSHEADLINES notes that Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article.
• This is an opinion piece.
• This is also an opinion piece.
• Michael Higgins: Does Trudeau plan to put the squeeze on older homeowners? is an opinion piece.
• the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR does appear in this piece, and that piece indeed is a news piece. But you are misrepresenting the quote as if it were in the publication's voice when it is not—it appears in quotation marks, and the full paragraph (Still, jihadists believe that the destruction and civilian casualties are the cost necessary to destroy Israel, Kedar said. The Quaran preaches that dying for Islam is praiseworthy, he said, and therefore “the tantrum over civilians killed is for the foreign media. It’s good PR.” makes it incredibly clear that they are reporting a properly attributed quote from Mordechai Kedar.

I understand that you object to the reliability of their comment (i.e. opinion) pieces. So does our guideline on reliable sources. But that has no bearing on the reliability of the news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

You understand no such thing, since this is not the case. Well. I do find their polemics tiresome, but apparently I did not make it clear enough that I marked each opinion piece with an asterix (*) to indicate that once you get to the page it is tagged as an opinion piece (although not before). The more pertinent point is that most of their coverage consists of opinion pieces, which are after all easier and cheaper to produce than fact-based journalism, and that the slant and loaded language is present even in what they are calling news. This is why I avoid using them in my editing, and replace them as a source where this can be done without going down a rabbit hole. I have zero interest in arguing with people who want to defend the virtue of Conrad Black, and am now going back to what I was doing before my thread was hijacked into this RfC, which I believe is premature. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Best be honest with your usage. What it looks like to an outsiders is if you don't like what a source says ...it simply becomes unreliable, but can be used if you like what it says. Moxy🍁 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Moxy I don't know why it would look like that to you. I really don't what part of this do you think I merely dislike, rather than consider a problem. I really don't know why *you* do not consider it a problem that the most widely circulated news paper in Canada is primarily composed of opinions pieces, but then I don't know why you think that 300-page reports don't need to have page numbers, either. But I am formally requesting that you stop making fact-free accusations about something or other you think in your head about what I like. I like sources that like facts. Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes sources is a problem in most of your assertions "news paper in Canada is primarily composes of opinions pieces" {fact}. Moxy🍁 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Of course it's an attributed quote. The entire article is an extended quote. Why are they giving that quote that much oxygen? Of the very few articles about events outside of Canada, that was one of them. @Iskander: says there are additional problems with the article. What makes you think I am representing it as anything but inappropropriate media coverage? I am sorry you are having so much trouble reading what I said -- this is the second time I have had to explain the post to you -- but I did my best to be clear, and I am baffled at the passion and vituperation you are putting into this. Someone started a Request for Comment because they didn't like what I said about the National Post and here, in the RfC, I commented, with multiple examples of ok and bad coverage, an attempt to cover several problem topics, and academic references even. I don't even care about this publication at the moment. Why do you? I doubt it's your first choice for a reference either. In any even making wild accusations over a nuanced and sources comment in an RfC is inappropriate. Elinruby (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

One would hope that this is one of Canada's lesser sources, because if this is what passes for a good source in Canada then its entire media landscape is the lesser. That piece quoting Kedar's vitriolic and deeply prejudiced ranting is pretty vile stuff, and made yet worse by the inept framing by the author of the piece, who has either actively, or through ignorance, also populated the content outside of the quotes with more mistruth, if not utter misinformation. If there's much more material of this tone and tenor in circulation on the site then this source should be a hard pass. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of pretty good hyperlocal sources, at least in British Columbia. But yes, this is the "national newspaper", God help us. Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Did The Globe and Mail stop existing in the two whopping minutes since I last went to its website? Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the National papers. If you want less opiniated coverage, don't read the opinion pieces. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Except that piece isn't tagged as comment or opinion, but as news, and then bragged about as an exclusive "special to NP". Also, if you were going to call it anything other than news it would be an interview, since the main voice is someone who's been interviewed by the author, not the author. But on no level does it fall into the category of opinion in any normal sense. That it reads like a trashy opinion piece, despite being news, is exactly the issue at hand. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

References

National Post on climate change

Before everyone gets too excited voting that the National Post has no problems apart from its frequently vile and inappropriate comments, opinion and sometimes news, there's at least one issue where option 1 appears demonstrably inadequate: climate change. In this peer -reviewed, journal-hosted media review assessing 17 sources over 15 years across 5 countries (US, UK, AUS, CAN, NZ), the National Post came out as the hands down least objective source on climate change ... And that's with the UK's Daily Mail also in the running. The National Post was found to represent scientific consensus only 70.83% of the time, while 9.17% of the time it presented anthropogenic climate change and natural climatic variance as equally relevant (basically climate change denial-lite) and 20% of the time, in one-in-five articles, presented anthropogenic climate change as a negligible phenomena (full-throated climate change denial). So basically 30% of everything that the National Post publishes on climate change is unscientific nonsense. That alone should be worthy of Option 2 (additional considerations apply) on the count of: don't touch with a bargepole on climate change-related issues and related politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If you read the report a bit closer, you will note that In addition to news articles, the analysis included letters, editorials, and other publications that contained the keywords 'global warming' or 'climate change'. These latter units of analysis may be outside the bounds of journalistic norms—for example, the author of a letter or editorial may not follow guidelines on balance or 'truth' in reporting—but these still reflect the overall content of the sources in which they are published and, thereby, impact readers. In other words, the analysis lumps together news reporting alongside opinion pieces, and concludes that the paper (when including opinion pieces) does not do great on climate change. And that's no surprise for a newspaper that existed in the first decade of the 2000s and had a conservative editorial outlook (or had a conservative audience, considering that letters to the editor are included in the analysis). But that sort of study is somewhat useless here, since it muddles news reporting (which is WP:GREL) with opinion reporting (which, per WP:RSEDITORIAL, are are rarely reliable for statements of fact), and we only care about the news reporting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: True, but from the examples further above, we also know that the publication's opinion-like content bleeds into its non-opinion material. Regardless, this report should still serve as a disturbing bellwether. The National Post came out worst. Not just in the mix. Worst. And would you treat other topics like this? Would a publication be ok if 30% of its content doubted evolution or took up some other fringe position. Labelling content as "opinion" isn't a get out of jail free card. It is still published. The paper still owns it. If a publication only spewed 30% fascistic hate, but covered local news ok, would that make for a sound source? Still 70% GREL? Iskandar323 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor, for a very long time, was an organization that was widely subscribed to for its extremely good investigative reporting, and it won several Pulitzer Prizes for this sort of stuff. It also long-carried a column that has had several names but now is "A Christian Science Perspective". If you look through the history of that column, you will surely find tons of evidence that the magazine has promoted relying on Christian Science prayer to treat disease instead of mainstream medicine. And this goes back quite a while. If you were to run a study on it, and you'd want to identify misinformation in the realm of Medicine, it would surely have problems if that column were included. But it's an opinion column, presented as such, and it carries the perspective of Christian Science.

When we smush together opinion columns and standard news reporting, and treat them as if they are one and the same, we distract from our task at hand—evaluating the reliability of the source's news reporting. And, like The Christian Science Monitor, National Post both wins national awards for its news reporting and has topics where its opinion pages just aren't in touch with reality on a science issue. But if there is separation between the editorial structure on the news side and the opinion side, as there is at most major papers, this sort of thing is not cause for concern on the news side. And, I really don't see evidence that the news reporting is anything other than that which we would expect from a standard national WP:NEWSORG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of the material that they have been publishing specifically on climate change have been so bad that it has drawn ethics complaints on the subject. This article focuses on an interview (so not op-ed) and guest column allotted to promoting a book by a climate science science denier. The column then ran beneath the headline “De-bunking climate and other varieties of alarmism.” A subhead stated that Moore’s book shows how environmental claims are “fake news and fake science.” In the interview, where the interviewee's views went unchallenged, the guy also misrepresented the research of actual climate scientists. When the newspaper was contacted to either retract the material or add a caveat to the articles promoting the book to let readers know they contained “numerous demonstrable misrepresentations of scientific sources and findings” they did neither. Very editorially responsible. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

And if you look at their climate change tab, their news coverage employs quite an extraordinary degree of omission – basically, they simply avoid addressing the causes of climate change wherever possible. There's even this story about the climate minister flying around in private jets, and the only complaint is the cost; they don't even hint at private jets being high in emissions as some sort of a problem in the very specific and ironic context. The only mention of "carbon" that I could even find anywhere in there stories on the tab was in reference to "carbon tax", not emissions. Most stories, while begrudgingly dealing with the realities of policies to address climate change still act as if the subject itself is purely in the realm of some sort of mysterious natural phenomena. There's an entire story on climate change-driven wildfires that only begrudgingly admits that climate change is the cause in the form of quote by a minister more than half down the piece where it states "Climate change is an essential threat to Canadian tourism". It then proceeds to make no reference to the potential causes of climate change in this uniquely apt piece for just this type of rather key background information. If you look at the pattern, it is pretty clear that the National Post is as intentionally misleading as possible on the issue wherever it can be. In op-eds it spews outright denialism, in interviews it entertains denialism without rebuttal, and in is news it at best references climate change, but avoids any risk of dialogue on the topic by simply ignoring the matter of causation altogether. If one were going to be less sympathetic, one might call this "denial by omission". Iskandar323 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You're describing WP:BIAS in story selection and presentation, which does not mean unreliable. To be blunt, It sounds like you're imposing your own standards of what you want every newspaper to report every time it mentions climate. That is simply not realistic. This article by the way is syndicated from The Canadian Press, so you'd best start trying to deprecate that agency next. Luckily, there happens to be more than 1 newspaper in the world we can cite on most issues, plus a bevy of books and scientific papers that, together, can provide a more complete view of a topic or story. Purity crusades to purge sources that don't spend enough ink on a given topic are silly. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ha! Ok, well the syndication is amusing. I know that North America is famously shit at covering climate change, but I guess Canada really is the worst. Little wonder that Canada has the most embarrassimg climate record of the G7 nations. With friends like Canada's media, why even bother dealing with reality? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Animalparty: What purity crusade? I began this thread by presenting peer-reviewed research on the shocking bias and denialism endemic to the National Post. You can take that or leave it, and even dismiss it as a non-issue, but the issue is a documented one. Don't make it personal or an attack. Also, please don't be misrepresent things. No one has even mentioned deprecation. I suggested that "additional considerations may apply" for a single issue. Yeah? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Opinions, even *bad* ones, appear in op-eds and letters as people seek to influence society. That's democracy, which is decidedly messy (If only people all thought the way I do! Maybe we should make wrong opinions illegal). Luckily we aren't AI robots immediately transposing every bit of text on the internet into a Wikipedia article. We look at context, relevance, and prominence of the views and facts expressed. We are in no way whatsoever beholden to use the 30% of unscientific climate content for assertion of fact (you also overlook the presumably 70% that is perfectly acceptable and in-line with science). Hell the Wall Street Journal is generally reliable at WP:RSPS, and even everyone's favorite boogeyman Fox News is marginally reliable outside of talk shows, politics & science. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, the 70% merely represents content where it is admitted that anthropogenic climate change has a significant impact, as opposed to actively minimizing or outright denying it. This doesn't mean that it fairly represents the issue or makes much effort to present the facts, just that it acknowledges the issue. So this is just "not actively lying on the issue" 70% of the time. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Move away from opinion pieces and editorials, and you have perfectly sane and normal coverage of climate change here

Last year, the country recorded the worst fire season in its history. Drier and hotter conditions in many parts of the country caused by climate change have increased the risk of major fires in recent years, according to experts. Canada is currently battling 575 active fires with more than 400 considered out of control. Many fires have broken out in recent days, particularly in the west of the country that has experienced a heat wave.

and here

Blair Feltmate, head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo, noted that these heavy rain events are driven by climate change that has already happened and is irreversible, so cities and their citizens must adapt. “We are not going backwards on climate change. We can slow it down but we can’t stop it,” Feltmate said. “So yes, we should be mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to slow down the rate of change, but also recognizing that we need to adapt to the extreme weather conditions that are upon us with increasing frequency; flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, etc.”

Nowhere are these undercut, diluted, or otherwise whitewashed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The first quote does not address the causes of climate change. Most climate change denialism doesn't deny that the climate is changing, but deny that humanity has a role or major role to play. The second quote exemplifies the only form of concession that the National Post seems to make on positions that it doesn't like: it will include a brief comment from someone respectable on the matter and bury it well down the piece. What you will also notice is that nowhere in the same story does the Post even touch the word "emissions" in its own voice. This is a clear pattern, and I would definitely call that dilution. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not every single article a source puts out on climate change needs to include something to the extent of "there is scientific consensus that climate change is largely anthropogenic and is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere". But I will note that the first piece is from Agence France-Presse rather than having been written from some Postmedia entity. (If you'd like to knock AFP down a notch because you don't like how it's covering climate change, feel free to open another discussion, but I don't think it's going anywhere).

In any case, what we're seeing here is that Postmedia and The National Post are more or less within the mainstream on how newspapers write about this stuff. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't opened it up, but yes, it's just a brief news update from AFP that's so short one wouldn't expect it to contain much context. I didn't present it as an example of anything; I merely noted that the quote presented wasn't indicate of anything as it didn't address any causes. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You didn't open up the piece, and you concluded that there is a clear pattern, and I would definitely call that dilution? I'm a bit confused here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't open up that piece because the quote presented by Headbomb was irrelevant either way. Since it's AFP, it's doubly irrelevant. The clear pattern that I was referring to was with reference to the second quote and article: the couching of statements on climate change within quotes, not in its own voice, and the placement of them low down on the page. What I haven't seen is a news piece where the National Post says anything genuine about climate change whatsoever in its own voice. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason to believe that the use of NP as a source relating to climate change would lead to problems. Notable opinions would be attributed; omissions in the NP's coverage would be filled in by other sources, if the omitted material is really notable. Unless they actually get facts wrong, I don't think we need any additional considerations for them. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Reliability of Thomas Lockley

There is considerable on-going dispute at Talk:Yasuke regarding the reliability of the source "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" by Thomas Lockley, which has been used as a citation in the article at various times, as well as cited by a number of tertiary sources which were utilized throughout the Wikipedia article. Chiefly, opponents of the inclusion of the Lockley source contend that because Lockley does not use in-text citations and that the source is categorized as popular history, that it should not be considered reliable. They point to the review by historian Roger W. Purdy and his criticism of Lockley's lack of in-text citations as making it hard to easily verify the claims. However, the proponents of the Lockley book have argued that Purdy still recommends the book in his review and explicitly states that he is not questioning the veracity of the scholarship and that while Purdy specifically calls out a number of elements of Lockley's book as incorrect, he does not call out the conceit that Yasuke is a samurai. Moreover, historian Jonathan Lopez-Vera's History of the Samurai also notes Yasuke as a samurai, as well as his Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los europeos which reads "El nombre que se le dio fue Yasuke (h. 1555-?), y desde ese momento acompañó siempre a Nobunaga como unaespecie de guardaespaldas. Cabe destacar que a partir de entonces dejó de ser un esclavo, puesto que al estar al servicio del daimyō recibió un estipendio como el resto de vasallos, obteniendo así la condición de samurái" (175-176). In Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos, the Lopez-Vera does utilize in-text citation. The dispute boils down to whether or not Lockley's assumption that Yasuke is a samurai is reliable for the purpose of the article, given the amount of tertiary sources that are citing Lockley. As neither party of the debate has made use of the RSN, I am bringing the issue up here in the hope of forming a consensus to put an end to the back-and-forth arguing about the reliability of the Lockley. Chrhns (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick note about López-Vera: the section about Yasuke in his Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los europeos appears to be a copy-paste of the same text from his university thesis paper visible here: https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/667523#page=437. There are two inline citations in that work in the section about Yasuke. One cites Ōta Gyūichi (author of the Shinchō Kōki) for a physical description of Yasuke (about which there is no dispute), and the other cites his own 2016 book Historia de los samuráis for a description of where Yasuke may have gone after disappearing from the historical record (about which there is also no dispute; he is last mentioned being handed over to the Jesuits after the Honnō-ji Incident). No citations regarding Yasuke's status as a samurai, which is the core of the issue at hand here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

First, many thanks for starting this RSN thread!

While I understand you are mostly relaying the points from proponents of Lockley's book, there are some I would like to address:

and his criticism of Lockley's lack of in-text citations as making it hard to easily verify the claims.

This takes the criticism of the lack of citations out of a broader context of Purdy's review which provides the necessary weight to this statement. It is not merely a problem of lacking citations, but the fact that Lockley's book contains a mixture of facts drawn from primary sources and other secondary sources, possible speculations as well as direct accounts from Yasuke himself. The narrative style of the book coupled with the lack of in-line citations creates the difficulty Purdy mentions in his review.

and that while Purdy specifically calls out a number of elements of Lockley's book as incorrect, he does not call out the conceit that Yasuke is a samurai.

The reasoning of this statement is in my opinion flawed for 2 reasons:

- It requires Purdy to name all singular details of Yasuke's life he finds in the book dubious, otherwise it is assumed he agrees with Lockley's assertions by default. Purdy mentions a handful elements he found problematic, but there is no reason to believe this is an exhaustive list.

- It ignores the weight of Purdy's comments on the details he did list, coupled with comments made in parallel about in-line citations and narrative style.

There are additional aspects of Lockley's book which affect its use as a Reliable Source. Apologies if some comments enter SYNTH and OR:

1. Book type (strictly historical vs (speculative) historical fiction)

- Roger W. Purdy in his review of Lockley's book makes comments about creative embellishments and a mixed narrative style (retelling of historical facts, possible speculations without indicating them as such and personal reactions from Yasuke himself).

- Lockley himself mentioned in an interview that assumptions had to be made to fill in gaps.

- Many readers online on platforms such as Goodreads and personal blogs highlighted that the book is more historical fiction than a purely historical one. While admittedly of much lesser importance, it shows that it is a more broadly shared opinion, not merely limited to Wikipedia editors.

2. Verifiability

- Lockley makes a number of statements which cannot be directly traced to listed primary sources.

- SYNTH: Some claims stand in conflict with listed or related primary sources (for instance, recollections of the Honno-ji Incident which do not show Yasuke's involvement in Oda Nobunaga's seppuku).

- Possible speculative claims without clearly qualifying them as such. 37.131.135.117 (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If it is true that this book is the source of a number of historical claims that are made without apparent reference to primary sources, nor explanation for how the author came to them, then that is a problem. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's published works have been peer reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts, who also support the claims in them. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

How? Who? Where? When?

And even if so, that cannot suffice. In determinations of fact where one claim's legitimacy is substantially supported by some and challenged by others, using the support of authority alone as evidence of accuracy is invalid. The burden of proof is on one who asserts a claim as historical fact, not on critical parties to somehow demonstrate the antithesis of that claim. 66.27.64.79 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

His work published in Japanese is peer reviewed and the Britannica article that was previously written off of his work has since been made a formal editorial commission (many including myself have accidentally and wrongly referred to it as Lockley's article having been revised) of Lockley and Ethan Teekah which puts it at a much higher quality of a source. Other than that I must seriously encourage you as someone new to wikipedia to familiarize yourself with the policies of an encyclopedia and how to utilize secondary sources to help clear up the confusion. As for these sources, when there is a paucity of primary source documents, Wikipedia leans on historians for their interpretive capabilities (which is arguably the most important ability of a historian - to place primary source documents into their original context). Relm (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

i will once again point at the Time article often used on this talk page to "prove" the statement about Yasuke being a samurai. The article uses comments of Lockley as a source. https://time.com/6039381/yasuke-black-samurai-true-story/

a) the article is not about Yasuke.

It is about a netflix show, that depicts Yasuke as a samurai and than asks about the historic base for this claim of the show, that Yasuke would be a samurai. The newsarticle, could be argued, doesn't talk about the historic figure, but about the show and is thereby about the fictional Yasuke.

b) Even Lockley himself uses other terms than samurai in the article to describe the historic facts about Yasuke.

He said:

Lockley says, he is widely regarded as the first-ever foreigner to be given warrior status in Japan.

He calls him afterward a bodyguard and than a [...] valets —manservants if you’d like-[...].

It seems like he was a confidant, [...],” Lockley said in a follow-up email. “He was also a weapon bearer, and probably served in some kind of bodyguard capacity.”

In other words, Lockley called in this article Yasuke never a samurai and uses multiple other terms to describe Yasuke's services.

c) Lockley even gave zero sources in the article, why he speculated, that Yasuke, would have been freed at some point.

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 “probably got his freedom before meeting Valignano.”

Lockley uses here various terms to highlight, that this is only his speculative personal view and not supported by historic sources.

d) The sole statement of Lockley about samurai is a general statement about the term samurai, that already highlights the problem of Lockley talking about this term in general and using him as a reliable source for Yasuke, at least in the matter of him being a samurai. He describes a samurai at the time of Yasuke based on this article as followed:

“Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai.”

This is against the definition of this term by our own samurai-article here on Wikipedia.

There is seemingly zero interest to adopt this form of definition of this term samurai by Lockley to any other page on Wikipedia about any other samurai or non-samurai on Wikipedia.

And in all honest it would make any farmer, called to arms by their lord automatic a samurai, while we know, that they were treated and called drastical different, Ashigaru, because they were not even warriors.

Summary:

Even Lockley calls Yasuke even in fictional context only a samurai in the argument, that Yasuke would be a trained and non-official warrior, presented as a servant, for the Jesuits. He doesn't have any source to back this theory up. And the term samurai is only mentioned by Lockley, because he sees every common warrior as a samurai by default. Even Lockley is not a frontrow-supporter of this term for Yasuke and rather choose other terms to describe his services for Nobunaga. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Two different issues (1) reliability of "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan", by Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girard, as a source for the life and deeds of Yasuke; (2) whether Thomas Lockley [39] is a subject-matter expert who can be relied upon for the statement that Yasuke was a samurai.

1. As to the first question, I would answer No. This review by Laurence Green (MA in Japanese studies at SOAS [40]) on the website of The Japan Society of the UK praises the book but speaks of "a uniquely imagined ‘eye-witness’ viewpoint" full of "quasi-fictional narrative embellishments", "the most readable histories to grace the field of Japanese Studies in a while" blending "history and dramatic narrative". This review by R.W. Purdy (professor at John Carroll University [41]) explains that "The book is clearly intended as popular history": "The omission of citations is not necessarily a question a veracity of the scholarship, but the authors frequently go into detail about Yasuke and his personal reactions, like his kidnapping from Africa and his sword fight with a young enemy samurai, with no cited documentation (...) without specific references, details often seem like creative embellishments, rather than historical narrative". Geoffrey Girard is an author of historical fiction. So their book is not a WP:RS on Yasuke. Using it as such would be like using Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall as a reliable source on Thomas Cromwell, or using the Cicero Trilogy by Robert Harris (novelist) as a reliable source on Cicero.
2. As to the second question, I'd say Yes. The two reviews cited don't point out any factual errors on the part of Lockley and Girard. Primary sources provide enough information about Yasuke (e.g., he had a servant, a house, carried a sword, had a direct personal relationship with his lord, and his contemporaries believed that he might be a "tono", a commander or lord) from which a professional historian could infer his status as a samurai. This is what Lockley himself stated in an interview published by The Japan Times, [42]. This article also points out that "no reputable Japanese historian has raised doubts about Yasuke’s samurai bonafides", which is quite significant because Lockley and Girard's book has not gone unnoticed: either quoting Lockley or omitting any reference to Lockley, no less than Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN and France Info have published articles on the "black samurai". If it were wrong to call Yasuke a samurai, some professional historian would have pointed it out, which has never happened.

To sum up, I would not use Lockley's book as a source for any controversial or WP:exceptional claim, but I would cite the sources I mentioned for Yasuke's status as a samurai, regardless of whether they quote or mention Lockley. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

just wanna add again, that the claimed reference in the Time, linked there is exactly the newsarticle highlighted by me already, who uses Lockley as an expert and has him calling Yasuke, a warrior, a valet, a manservant, a confidant, a bodyguard and not a samurai by Lockley.

Lockley didn't called Yasuke in this source as a historic fact a samurai. This is of course missed, if some people just copy-paste sources as reliable without actual reading these articles 3-4 times.

These personal claims of Lockley in his fictional books were called for these kind of statements of Lockley in newsarticles a bending of history and will obviously not get any attention of a professional historian beyond that field of critic. You don't write as an historian a review on a newsarticle about a netflix-show. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Lockley is reliable. There are editors pushing personal/political agendas via original research over published peer reviewed sourcing. Mainly the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing culture war crowd. These people are starting from the conclusion they want, and then working backwards to attempt to discredit any published sourcing that contradicts it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to politely ask that you strike your aspersions out, and provide a policy based argument for why he's reliable. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia is the guy, who claimed yesterda yon the talk page, that there would be an angered ultra-nationalist group, or right-wing Japanese racial purist group, in Japan, who are the ones trying to revise history in Wikipedia in spite of a documented fact about Yasuke, and accused one person to be such a racist, correct?. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, you should generally provide diffs when you accuse people of misconduct. It helps to bury them and saves others time, and makes you look better when there's extreme accusations.

I would recommend escalating this to ANI and recommending a topic ban for symphony. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This has already escalated to ANI, here. DarmaniLink, who complains that Symphony Regalia is casting aspersions by mentioning the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing assault on the Yasuke article, began their first comment on the Yasuke talk page with Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained about black supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera. They would like Wikipedia to ignore these sources because of an endless stream of unsupported theories about what a samurai truly was and about Yasuke. I agree with DarmaniLink: enough of this, it's ANI time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

As a side-note about sources: Please stop relying on Britannica (entirely unsourced tertiary), Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, and the BBC (all also tertiary, entirely dependent on Lockley for statements about Yasuke's status). These are all ignorable not "because of an endless stream of unsupported theories about what a samurai truly was and about Yasuke", but instead because they literally have nothing of their own to say about Yasuke at all: they are just repeating Lockley. Lockley's and López-Vera's books, whatever their other issues, are at least secondary sources that include primary works in their bibliographies. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If other reliable sources have seen fit to repeat Lockley, their acceptance is a strong indication that Lockley is reliable. MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you really think that TIME Magazine has the expertise on staff to evaluate the accuracy of Lockley's statements? I don't. Thus, I do not view TIME as a reliable source on the subject of Yasuke. Likewise for the BBC, etc. I have read the articles in their entireties, and even looked into the published bios of the authors, where available. I see no indication of the competencies required to evaluate Lockley. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't agree. Firstly, they are not all relying on Lockley. Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't even mention Lockley. Smithsonian Magazine interviewed Natalia Doan, described as a historian at the University of Oxford. BBC interviewed Floyd Webb and Deborah DeSnoo, described as filmmakers working on a documentary about Yasuke. CNN claimed that Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan. Secondly, by interviewing and quoting Lockley, these sources have shown that they consider him to be an expert, a reliable source of information, and in doing so they have strengthened his status as an RS whose views are far more authoritative for Wikipedia than the views of us anonymous editors arguing to the contrary on a talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"Firstly, they are not all relying on Lockley."

I never said that Britannica mentions Lockley. I said that Britannica doesn't mention any sources at all — which I think is much worse.

Regarding the other tertiary sources, I said that they are (emphasis added) "entirely dependent on Lockley for statements about Yasuke's status".

None of the Smithsonian article's quotes from Natalie Doan make any statement about Yasuke being a samurai. None of her quotes touch on any of the issues under contention with our article at [[Yasuke]].

The BBC article's quotes from Webb and DeSnoo likewise do not state that Yasuke was a samurai.

The line from the CNN article isn't worth much: this is a broad statement with zero backing. No source except the article author themselves: one Emiko Jozuka, who, despite her Japanese name, self-describes her Japanese as only "proficient", as compared to "fluent in English, French, Spanish, [and] Turkish".

"[...] these sources have shown that they consider him to be an expert, a reliable source of information, [...]"

I have looked into the bios of these article authors. They appear to lack the competencies and expertise to evaluate Lockley as a reliable and academic historical source. How are we to trust their expertise enough for their (implicit, not explicitly stated) trust of Lockley to be worth anything to us?

Moreover, if all we have is one secondary source, and umpteen other people parroting that one source, we still have just one secondary source. We should quote the secondary source: not the other people playing "telephone". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Eirikr and also echo Buidhe: these sources are reliable for some things, but they are not reliable for historical fact, especially when there is any trouble in the scholarship, which they cannot be relied upon to review and take into account in their coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's published works have been peer reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts, who also support the claims in them. There is no controversy with them aside from certain editors pushing OR. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean, Zanahary, when you say especially when there is any trouble in the scholarship? There has never been any scholarly debate on this. Apart from some very argumentative editors on the Yasuke discussion page, no one has ever denied that Yasuke was a samurai. The only reason it seems necessary to attribute the claim that Yasuke was a samurai to Lockley is the fact that Yasuke was a black man of African descent. But this is not a good reason: there were foreign samurai in Japan. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know if you’re saying that I want to attribute the claim because Yasuke was black, but please don’t make that accusation. By problem in the scholarship, I mean that Lockley’s book is somewhat fictionalized and doesn’t directly cite sources for its claims, particularly the novel claim that Yasuke was a samurai. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you wanted to attribute the claim because Yasuke was black. If that's how my words came across, I apologise. My point was simply that there's no scholarly debate about Yasuke's status as a samurai because no reliable source denies it. There is only a culture war about Yasuke as a samurai, which is affecting Wikipedia ([43] [44][45]) and which I believe is due to the fact that Yasuke was black. But I'm sure that many editors find the sources that call Yasuke a samurai unreliable for reasons that have nothing to do with his race and in no way imply racism on their part. I am sorry if I gave the impression of insinuating anything else. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not necessarily the case. If a secondary source (in this case, Lockley's book) is dubious, tertiary sources repeating claims made in the secondary source without either the needed competence or qualification, do not make the secondary source more reliable. This is an example of circular reporting.

The Britannica entry about Yasuke was already discussed before, but I will highlight the issues with sourcing. The entry lacks in-text citations, but there is a separate References & Edit History section (@Eirikr ) which lists:

- Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girard, African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan (2019). (the topic of this RSN thread)

In the edit history we also see the following sources:

- BBC News - Yasuke: The mysterious African samurai. (the BBC article referenced prior in this RSN thread)

- Ancient Origins - The amazing story of Yasuke, The forgotten African Samurai. (tertiary source, written by a graduate student in planetary science; the site can't be linked, because it's blocked by Wikipedia as a source)

The Britannica article itself was written by a history Bachelor graduate (according to the bio) in collaboration with 2 other editors whose credentials are not listed in their bios. This is good, but the article is still only a tertiary source.

I haven't before, but I now read the Smithsonian article more carefully as well. It quotes the CNN article for its claim about Yasuke being a samurai, in addition to quoting statements from Lockley verbatim or indirectly. The author is a reporter and staff contributor for Smithsonian, but at least based on her bio not a historian.

In other words, as has been stated before, we are dealing with tertiary sources which merely echo claims made by Lockley without providing additional high value information. 37.131.135.117 (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Based on this review, I think Lockley's findings can be cited but should probably be attributed. I agree that he should be cited directly rather than based on news coverage of his work. I'm not a big fan of the use of news articles for historical events because I've often found them to be wrong or uninformed. (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Given all the information provided by Eirikr, Gitz, and ErikWar (as well as Hexenakte) I don't think Lockley should be cited for this claim. This is within the bounds of WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, and not WP:OR. In this case I also don't support using a tertiary source; it is known that tertiary sources which are generally reliable, such as Britannica, can still have unreliable entries...especially for non-Western figures where both contemporary and historical translation difficulties and cultural barriers come into play...and even more so for those subjects that are obscure (or were obscure until relatively recently, at least for Western audiences). A reliable secondary source is most appropriate in this case. Green Caffeine (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I will refer to:

"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"

and

We publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted source material for themselves.

Lockley's published works have been peer reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts, who also support the claims in them. As mentioned by someone in the RFC, there have been no reliable sources furnished which contest the status of Yasuke as a samurai so WP:RSCONTEXT has already been factored in and does not apply here. As for the editors you've mentioned, the posts are largely speculative/WP:OR. Encyclopedias should not be written based on editors interpretations or what editors personally believe is right or wrong. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The review I linked does question some of his conclusions and the evidence or lack thereof behind them. It seems to be unclear how much of it is based on historical documents vs. educated guesses/speculation. That's why the findings can be covered in the article, but should be attributed. (t · c) buidhe 07:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

May I ask you, Buidhe, when you found certain news articles to be unreliable sources for historical events because they were wrong or uninformed, did you have any reliable sources to the contrary, or did you rely only on your personal knowledge of the historical events in question? Because here we have editors arguing that they know that Yasuke was not a samurai "properly called", a samurai "in the strict sense of the word", but they cannot provide any sources to support their knowledge (see lastly this comment by DarmaniLink, who also removed the policy-based comment made by an unregistred editor).

I wouldn't say that Yasuke's status as a samura is a finding of Lockley's research: it's just an undisputed statement of fact from a reliable source (subject-matter expert), which is also consistent with identical statements on the matter from several other academics (see Silver seren's excerpts from academic sources).

Apparently the only reason why editors find Lockley's statement WP:EXCEPTIONAL is that Yasuke was black - there's really no other reasons, since primary sources are clear about the higher social status of Yasuke, who carried a sword, had a servant, a house, and had a direct personal relationship with his lord; according to primary sources, his contemporaries thought that Yasuke was treated by his lord (or was likely to become) a "tono" ("dizem que o fara Tono" [46]), that is a chief, commander or lord of the castle. We should call him as all reliable sources call him: a retainer or vassel of Oda Nobunaga, a warrier of higher standing, that is, a samurai. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed comments from an editor who wrote inflammatory messages in google translated japanese if you look earlier in the thread, once it became clear they were sealioning.

It's not that I can't find *any* sources, it's that most academic sources either don't state it while discussing his background (omission, though they describe him as a warrior and a retainer) even though they refer to fictional works that imagine him as a samurai shortly after, and call him a samurai in the context of the fiction there only, and the only definitive "he was not a samurai" sources are pop culture sites I don't feel comfortable using, for the same reason I don't feel comfortable using Lockey or any of the informational incest derived from it. After spending more than 30 minutes digging through sources in japanese trying to find one that was both academic and definitely stated this, it stopped being worth it. For a source to do this, they would have to be explicitly challenging the notion, which, when its not a common conception outside of fiction, likely won't happen too often. All samurai are retainers. Not all retainers are samurai. If he was a samurai, you could infer he's a vassal. Vice versa does not work, however. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

you say that the notion of Yasuke as a samurai is not a common conception outside of fiction, but Silver seren's source analysis suggests that it is also common in the English-speaking academic literature, apart from Lockley. Since you speak Japanese, may I suggest that you do some similar research on Japanese academic sources? That might be helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It has two different meanings to me, the english loan word and the historical japanese term.

The English loan word you could make a very strong case for calling him a samurai by the usage of the term in english. I said this on Talk:Yasuke too, but you should probably add in a efn saying, more academically, "hey, we're using this as the english loan word which may have some discrepancies with the historical term used in Japanese."

That's a compromise I'm fully willing to go with. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the historical Japanese term "samurai" is that, according to at least one reliable source (Michael Wert, Samurai. A Very Short Introduction, OUP, 2019) at the time of Yasuke that word referred to anyone who served a noble, even in a nonmilitary capacity, so that a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a “samurai.” The fact that later on, in the 17th century, the samurai became a relatively closed and prestigious hereditary class is irrelevant to the question of Yasuke's status. We should use the modern and contemporary notion of samurai - a warrior of higher ranking, a title for military servants of warrior families - which is certainly the notion used by the academic RSes referring to Yasuke as a samurai (Lockley, Lopez-Vera, E. Taylor Atkins, Esi Edugyan). Otherwise, it would be simply impossible to have a List of foreign-born samurai in Japan. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of the forgein born samurai were granted the rank of such, so i wouldn't quite say it's impossible.

Like I said in the second half of what I said before, we use the contemporary, English meaning of the word, detached from the strict, warrior nobility meaning, and stick an efn in there that basically outlines a brief history on the term, and why we use the contemporary meaning.

Everyone's happy. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Bit of a disclaimer this is a response to the entire current chain, not this specific comment:

I've made lengthy posts detailing a proper, comprehensive definition of samurai and the importance of nobility (petty nobility?) with the samurai from its inception in the Kamakura period to its most fluid state during the Sengoku period to a more restrictive state in the Edo period, with a plethora of secondary sources, which you can read my post on a comprehensive definition of a samurai and initial analysis of Lockley, an additional reply to X0n under that in the Samurai status subsection, as well as comparing it to Lockley's definition of a samurai and lack of proper citation and comparing Lockley's definition to other academic definitions of samurai and related arguments. Just to be clear, the sources provided are by no means a comprehensive list, and was collected for the sake of time saving and demonstrating that I did not do WP:OR. In the future, when I get more time, I will look further for academic secondary sources that make these arguments as well (which I know of their existence but do not have at hand at the moment), and honestly it is already reflected in the Samurai wikipedia article, but nonetheless a consistent definition is required. When we talk about historical topics, we must use historical definitions, as modern definitions are not aligned with the past. As I noted before when @Theozilla brought up that Pluto switched from planet status to dwarf planet status by the scientific community, this is a correct statement. However, that does not change the fact that Pluto was considered a planet historically before that definition change. We should not be using modern definitions for historical topics.

Also the thing I do not understand most about this entire argument is the insistence that we are using "editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information" for our contentions. We have made it abundantly clear that we are not, I do not care one way or the other if Yasuke was a samurai, but to paraphrase @Eirikr, it has to be proven with proper citation and research for the sake of academic integrity. I keep seeing that Lockley was "peer reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts, who also support the claims in them," yet everytime Purdy is mentioned, his peer review is downplayed and completely diminished! And any time we try to bring up this as well as the lack of in-line text citations (which Purdy based his review off of), it is completely ignored. I do not know what else to say here, but the lack of acknowledgement and insistence on repeating the same thing over and over as some here are doing almost seems like desperation to get this topic settled as soon as possible, relying solely on academic background rather than the apparent poor research applied, which editors are allowed to make their own reasonable judgement on in accordance with WP:REPUTABLE, WP:SOURCEDEF, and WP:CONTEXTFACTS. I've still yet to see one that is still pushing Lockley as reliable to actually acknowledge these points.

Also just to quote Gitz, who seemingly is making implications on other editors intent by saying "Apparently the only reason why editors find Lockley's statement WP:EXCEPTIONAL is that Yasuke was black," this is not the reason why. The reason why it is an exceptional claim is that it was not the default status for Japanese people in Japan nor retainers/warriors. Toyotomi Hideyoshi is a prime example of this (which I go into detail in the diffs I posted) where he was explicitly stated as not a samurai and only properly became one with his marriage to his wife One in 1561 (at minimum, or his adoption by Oda senior vassals when he gained the surname Hashiba, the documentation on Hideyoshi is not so great before he gained the Hashiba surname), which took years of service with Nobunaga, and even as a personal sandal bearer for Nobunaga, he was still not considered a samurai, instead being an ashigaru. So yes, it is an exceptional claim on those grounds, not because of contemporary race politics, which I do not understand why people are still bringing up. Hexenakte (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Journalists are frequently not subject matter experts on what they are reporting on. If we can cite an academic who has actually read the sources and is familiar with all the context, you are much more likely to get an accurate result. Even for more serious outlets, they still rely on interesting or unexpected news to get readers to click and subscribe, meaning that sensationalism is incentivized. For example, the Raoul Wallenberg article used to claim that he rescued 100,000 Jews based on some credulous journalists who had made this claim. Historians have concluded that it was an order of magnitude less. (t · c) buidhe 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's "African Samurai" is "Not refereed" according to his publication list.

So this book cannot be treated as peer-reviewed by other historians or experts. R.stst (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what "not refereed" means so I looked at the Japanese version of the same page and it says "査読無し" which means "not peer-reviewed". Thibaut (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to 37.131.135.117 above, we now know that the article from Britannica is based on that same non-peer-reviewed book. Thibaut (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Lockley's works have indeed been reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts, who also support the claims in them. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you give some citations? Thibaut (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The published book in particular was reviewed by R.W. Purdy. Lockley's works in つなぐ世界史2 also went through some form of review by the nature of their inclusion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a massive misattribution of Purdy, who does not, in fact, support the claims of Lockley. He had not suggested anything that supports Lockley's claims, only the opposite, stating that his claims are weak due to the lack of citations; he even called it historical fiction of popular history. Please do not misconstrue what Purdy actually said in his peer review of his book. Hexenakte (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The only massive misattribution would be ignoring that Purdy does not actually contend the assertion of Yasuke being a samurai, and still recommends the book. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, let's look at how Purdy recommends the book, in Purdy's own words. From the review as posted here on Academia.edu:

Although this lens may not be detailed enough for the academic, African Samurai’s lively writing style does offer the reader of popular history and historical fiction a glimpse of samurai values from late sixteenth-century Japan.

Purdy recommends the book explicitly not to academics, but rather to readers "of popular history and historical fiction". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Purdy's primary issue is one of "form" (as supposed to substance) in that the sourcing is mostly put within reading sections at the back of the book, which makes it harder for people to build off of Lockley's research.

He still recommends it to some readers and seems to agree with some of the claims in it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Purdy does not recommend the book to researchers:

>Lockley and Girard have scoured Japanese and Jesuit sources, but, unfortunately, the lack of detailed citations means that much of their effort ends with this volume. Scholars researching related topics such as Oda Nobunaga, Akechi Mitsuhide, or the Jesuit role in the Asian slave trade will not find this work as helpful as it might have been.

To be clear on this point, Purdy likely does not recommend this book for those researching Yasuke either. He is just mentioning areas of established fields of research as those studying these topics are the likely audience. I don't see him recommend the book to anyone. He only mentions that the intended audience is "the reader of popular history and historical fiction." Wikipedia does not fall into this category. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

He is stating that it may be difficult to build off of the research in that work done due to the citation format (but still do-able), and is not contending with most of the claims in the book. He agrees with some of the claims which is why he ultimately still recommends it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A book review is not a peer review. The section in つなぐ世界史2 is, per the Nihon University website, refereed (peer reviewed); but that review is not transferable to other, non-peer-reviewed, works. Rotary Engine ^talk 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Prior to now I have followed the situation without commenting at length but I think now is a good time to post my understanding.

Lockley's book 'African Samurai' is reasonable to call Pop history. It is co-authored with a novelist and takes artistic liberty with describing events. The purpose of the book as Purdy points out is to place Yasuke in time and place and to bring him to life for a modern audience with the hope of catching the imaginations of the modern reader. This is why the book should not be the main source of claims that Yasuke being a Samurai given the existence of much better works.

Lockley is an academic however, with this as his main topic so far in his career. Just because his book is pop history does not mean his other works are - which is why the link above lists an article

'Nobunaga's Black 'Samurai' Yasuke

Thomas Lockley

つなぐ世界史, Jun. 2023, Refereed, Invited'

This work likewise seems to attribute the title to Yasuke and is listed as peer reviewed - I can not find it however and would like to point it out here for others who might be able to.

Purdy's review notably also refers to Yasuke as having been a Samurai in the opening paragraph of his review:

"In this turbulent era, the authors introduce Yasuke, a black African brought to

Japan by the Jesuits and presented as a gift to arguably the most powerful feudal lord at the time, Oda Nobunaga, who raised him to the rank of samurai."

As well as his summary of the content:

"Part 2, “Samurai,” recounts Yasuke’s association with Nobunaga until the warlord’s death in June 1582. During this fifteen-month period, Nobunaga elevated Yasuke to samurai rank, and the two formed a close bond. The section ends with Yasuke defending Nobunaga against the warriors of the traitorous Akechi Mitsuhide at the warlord’s Kyoto stronghold, Honno-ji Temple."

One could interpret the latter as just restating Lockley's unsourced conjecture, but contrast it to how he writes of Lockley's other conjecture immediately after where that is made explicitly clear:

"The final section, “Legend,” includes a speculative chapter on Yasuke’s activities after the death of Nobunaga — Lockley and Girard suggest he joined the forces that Nobunaga’s successor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, dispatched to conquer Korea—and a chapter on Yasuke’s post-Nobunaga legacy and reinvention in the mass media."

Purdy's review, while casting doubt on Lockley's book as a reliable source, does show that he seems to agree with the attribution of Samurai - and that he is familiar with the requisite primary sources of Yasuke enough to have cast doubt on this claim if he did not also agree. Purdy's primary issue with Lockley is that the sources are all shoved into a 'recommended' and 'associated' reading section at the back of the book, with any research lockley did not being able to be built upon by others. I would suggest this is why the concrete facts of Yasuke's life are stated plainly by Purdy, while he explicitly states what is purely speculation and artistic invention. Those citing this source only to discredit Lockley's book should likewise recognize it's support for the attribution of the title Samurai - and that Lockley has additional works that have not been discussed or brought forward by the most active participants in the discussion.

Lockley has three major assertions that I believe are seemingly unique to him irt Yasuke that he mentions in various interviews, recorded talks, and other works I have seen from him that are likewise present in his book here - none of which are mentioned on the Yasuke page:

1. That Yasuke potentially originated from South Sudan

2. A different version of the timeline of how Yasuke became associated with the jesuits in India prior to departing for Japan

3. That Yasuke potentially joined Hideyoshi and participated in the failed invasion of Korea after disappearing from the records.

These three things are beliefs that I have only seen from Lockley on my admittedly far from comprehensive dive into the subject. I would agree that inclusion of any of these would have to be a direct attribution to Lockley, especially if it is referencing the book alone (I am unfamiliar with how Wikipedia handles video interviews as sources on matters like this). Such conjecture are rather common from what I've seen on Wikipedia, with biographers (who aren't always historians for that matter) frequently having their conjecture cited. An example that comes to mind is Ellen Ternan having her possibly-unreciprocated affair with Charles Dickens covered on a variety of pages alongside assertions of secret childbirth, abortions, homewrecking, and a last minute visit to Dickens before his death all attributed by name to whichever author made such claims in their biographies. I think given the prominence that Yasuke has had in media in the past few years (Nioh, the Netflix series, Assassins Creed, etc) that such things might make more sense to include in their own section in the body of the text alongside fleshing out the section on his depiction in media to improve the article significantly.

The claim of Yasuke having been a Samurai however seems to be the current consensus in English, and even if Lockley's book is not a reliable source for establishing this, there are others that have been presented for this. Relm (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Relmcheatham for your thorough research, I didn't notice that peer-reviewed article from Lockley!

It can be found here. Thibaut (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Likewise thanks for finding it! That looks like it would definitely constitute a reliable source publication, though I am reasonably hesitant to cite it's title alone without having access to the text! 2500 yen sounds like a very low price for what it is though. Relm (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Ordering it. Thibaut (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Relm: I should receive the book on the 15th. Thibaut (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Relm: Here's the full article. Thibaut (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094 @Relmcheatham Note this quote on page 32:

この時代、武士とそれ以外の身分の垣根は曖昧であり、本当に弥助が「サ ムライ」となったのかについては議論があるものの、少なくともその身一代においては、彼は間違いなく信長の家臣に取り立てられたと考えられている。

In this era, the boundaries between samurai and other classes were unclear, and there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a "samurai," but it is believed that, at least for his lifetime, he was undoubtedly appointed as a vassal of Nobunaga. (edit: this quote is already discussed more bellow. feel free to ignore my ping.) J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the relevant quote. There has been a clear discrepancy between the Japanese edition and the English novel on Yasuke, I think this should be reflected since Lockley himself stated that the Japanese edition was the "more academic version". Hexenakte (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Some things of note about this article:

1. It is only a handful of pages compared to the co-authored book.

2. I want to preface by qualifying that though I have taken courses in Japanese and am at an advanced level, I am by no means able to be quick or accurate for an academic paper's level of reading - and have had to rely on dictionaries while parsing through the text. I am not able to read all of it at the moment but what caught my eye was in the first paragraph was this line: "彼の従者の名は日本の史料によると［弥助］、サムライ としては極めて特異な存在であって。" which clearly states: "According to Japanese historical documents, [Oda Nobunaga]'s retainer's* name was Yasuke, and as a Samurai** he is extremely unique."

• = Jusha (従者) as I understand it is the word explicitly stated in the primary source for Yasuke and is loosely denoted as being a word to describe someone who is in the company of an employer.
  • = 'サムライ' is stated here as a descriptor for Yasuke in no uncertain terms.

3. Though he references Yasuke as a Samurai throughout, the quote referenced above by J2UDY7r00CRjH does not contain an elaboration on this - though from watching some of Lockley's interviews and webinars he has broken this down before. I don't believe this work contradicts his other work from what I've read in it, but given it's short length I would say it is definitively a watered down version of his narrative cut free from speculation. What interests me is that he cites himself from 2017 to another peer reviewed text that I believe we have also yet to look over.

I want to emphasize given how much of the spotlight has been on Lockley that what he wrote so far has not had any issue with self contradiction. His explanation for Yasuke's samurai status in the Time article for example, while simple and brief, does not contradict his view here which is that due to the fluidity of social statuses, that Yasuke having been a vassal of Nobunaga (Jiachen 家臣 whether Chinese or Japanese is 100% definitively referring to a high ranking vassal as far as I have ever seen it employed) who was an admired and close attendant/retainer/etc who likewise served on military expedition (some of which is talked about here in ways that could be utilized to improve the Yasuke page for one willing to ensure it is translated correctly) is reasonable to be referred to as a Samurai. Relm (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A few points.

• As a word, 従者 is more like "follower" than "retainer" strictly speaking, as a compound of 従 ("to follow, to obey") + 者 ("person").
• In the Japanese text, the intentional spelling of samurai as サムライ in katakana is a strange stylistic decision; this is spelled in kanji as 侍 in other texts. This katakana spelling parses out like putting something in quotes in English, as a means of indicating that the author is using the word in a non-standard way.

I wonder how this fits with Lockley's other statements in English, such as he was quoted in a TIME magazine article that “Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai.” This definition is in line with vaguer English usage, but it is at odds with Japanese sources. Even as English, Yasuke is only recorded as taking up arms during the Honnō-ji incident, which was an ambush, not an organized engagement. Yasuke's involvement in this hardly makes him a samurai even by Lockley's loose definition. Akechi Mitsuhide certainly didn't think so, as he is quoted as saying at the time.

• I haven't seen other sources calling Yasuke a 家臣 (kashin, "vassal"). I have seen the word 家来 (kerai) used, but this also had broader meanings that could include any of a household's employees, including cooks and cleaning staff. This use of kashin is an interesting departure. Are there any other authors who use this term kashin to describe Yasuke?
• Additionally, re: "who likewise served on military expedition", what expedition is Yasuke to have served on? The only military anything where we have clear documented proof of Yasuke's participation is the Honnō-ji incident itself, which was an ambush rather than an expedition.

I take your point that Lockley doesn't seem to contradict himself. However, the issue is more that he contradicts other authors: particularly in how he defines the term "samurai".

I have only just recently received Lockley's 2017 book, Yasuke: In search of the African Samurai. I will gather my notes as I read through this. Of note right at the start, the book jacket mini-bio for the author points out that Lockley's area of research is language learning, not history.

Confusingly, this book is only available translated into Japanese (not by Lockley himself, but rather by Yoshiko Fuji / 不二淑子), and I can find no record of the English-language version: Google searches seem to point me instead to the Lockley / Girard book African Samurai. I am not sure if might just be Google "being helpful" and ignoring that I am attempting to do a "perfect match" search with a quoted string. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• UPDATE: The source text doesn't just spell samurai in non-standard katakana, it also puts it in quotes. Here's the actual text (emphasis mine):

この時代、武士とそれ以外の身分の垣根は曖昧であり、本当に弥助が「サムライ」となったのかについては議論があるものの、少なくともその身一代においては、彼は間違いなく信長の家臣に取り立てられたと考えられている。

Skimming just now through the rest of the article's six pages, the only instances of samurai are in spelled in katakana, and put in quotation marks.

Separately, I do notice on page 34 that Lockley says this:

結局、信長と確認できる死骸は見つからなかった。
Ultimately, no remains confirmable as Nobunaga's were found.

This makes sense, as reports state that the Honnō-ji temple buildings were on fire. However, this also contradicts Lockley's later statements in English that Yasuke somehow retrieved Nobunaga's head and escaped with it — a contention that Lockley is unique in making, as far as I'm aware.

@Relm, looking at the 参考文献 (Sankō Bunken, "Reference Texts") section at the bottom, Lockley's 2017 work mentioned there is the same Yasuke: In search of the African Samurai book I have here now on my desk. The main text is 259 pages, FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

> it also puts it in quotes

Is there such a thing as something like scare quotes in in Japanese though? I tried to look into this and it seemed from a very quick search that it may not be the case. Eg. in English, 'Nobunaga's "Samurai"' would read like the writer doesn't really believe that he is a Samurai. Like in the sentnece 'John's "car" only has one seat,' when the "car" is really a bike. Does such a grammar exist is Japanese?

>However, this also contradicts Lockley's later statements in English that Yasuke somehow retrieved Nobunaga's head

It's mentioned in what seems to be an interview with Lockley from time: https://time.com/6039381/yasuke-black-samurai-true-story/

>“There’s no record, but tradition holds it that [Yasuke] was the one who took Nobunaga’s head to save it from the enemy,” Lockley said

Not sure if this is from the interview or his book but it is strange how he seems to be creating almost two separate accounts of Yasuke between the peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed works. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the conversation of Nobunaga's corpse is an interesting topic since it is open to speculation - something that we are all aware Lockley loves presenting. I think Lockley's handling in the Time article, as commented elsewhere, may just be a case of tailoring an explanation to a different, more general and less academic, audience - though I agree it was poorly quoted or stated relative to his qualified statement with its doubt at its most charitable. The speculation is derived in both cases and qualified with 'this comes from the descendents of Nobunaga' which is something I have not seen backed by other sources and which is not cited to anything in the works that I have seen. Relm (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. Given the other descriptions of Yasuke's time with Nobunaga, I do tend to lean more towards 'retainer' as a translation for 従者 ince it still denotes the relationship between the two as including an economic component whereas follower could be misconstrued.

I likewise agree that it is a little odd. I think the Japanese side of this argument, given that history includes having to incorporate modern context, could be a result of a more general modern view of what 'Samurai' means (I give an example later on in this post irt Naoto) to the Japanese layman or even academics. I think the usage could imply that the language and cultural barrier is more substantial. Forgive me but though I think it's a fascinating subject, I don't want to speculate too much on this.

To answer your question to your fourth point the text says that he was apart of Nobunaga's retinue during the campaign against Takeda Katsuyori by citing Ietada Matsudaira's diary - it notes that Nobutada's force engaged the enemy, but just says that Yasuke is present during the campaign. This is at the bottom of page 33. Tying this to your second point, one can still serve in a Lord's military, go their entire career having not shed or dropped a drop of blood on a battlefield, and would still have the associated rank, compensation, etc. I do not believe it is necessary that Yasuke fought on a battlefield to fit what Lockley ascribes in this manner.

The third point I would say is also interesting, but is beyond my scope other than to note its connotation as being about high ranking vassals - and that at a minimum it is apart of the publication.

I feel that I'm losing my point somewhere in all these posts so I want to try and summarize it with this: I am similarly confused by the phrasing of that paragraph, but given that it still fits with Lockley's other definitions of Samurai for the time that I am content with it as still suggesting Yasuke was a Samurai. I think it does lend credence to the notion that in Japan there are those who contend Yasuke is not a Samurai (academic or in Japanese popular belief it is unclear; e.g. Japanese with Naoto as mentioned on another reply chain makes a distinction between samurai and 'metaphorical' samurai in a way that seems poised for retroactive categorization either way you look at it). I ultimately think that these contentions must be brought forward from reliable sources, be given more contextualization by Lockley himself, or similarly be founded in more than OR. Either way I do not believe that this is discrediting of Lockley as an academic. Relm (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Either way I do not believe that this is discrediting of Lockley as an academic."

I confess to growing concern that Lockley seems to be presenting two versions of his story (one in Japanese and including more peer-reviewed works, one in English and apparently not peer-reviewed).

Setting that aside at the moment, I am not opposed to including Lockley's viewpoints in the [[Yasuke]] article, provided that they are clearly attributed to Lockley. (And to one of his other works as discussed more recently on this page, not African Samurai written jointly with Girard.)

At present, much of the rationale for using "wikivoice" to state that Yasuke was a samurai, as a matter of unattributed fact, seems to rest mostly on Lockley, with tons of tertiary sources quoting Lockley, and some support from a short citation-less blurb written by López-Vera. That strikes me as a weak foundation for any "wikivoice" statement. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think that the resolution from the RfC should be revisited, given that we didn't have access to all of Lockley's work at the time of that RfC which itself was primarily based on Lockley. I'm not sure what the protocol is for that though. Is it creating a new RfC? In any case, I think we should give other editors at least another day or two to read the points mentioned here before making any changes to the article itself. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

None of this is new information. Symphony Regalia (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

>It is only a handful of pages compared to the co-authored book.

I don't think that is an important factor here. I think the important factor is the reliability of the publication.

>I don't believe this work contradicts his other work from what I've read in it

It doesn't change that he believes Yasuke to be a Samurai but it does change the claims made in the RfC that no reliable sources dispute him being a Samurai. If Lockley himself says there is dispute to his claims then that should be noted in the article.

>Yasuke having been a vassal of Nobunaga (Jiachen 家臣 [...]) who likewise served on military expedition [...] is reasonable to be referred to as a Samurai.

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. 家臣 and Samurai are not interchangeable words. Similarly, serving on military expeditions and being a Samurai are not interchangeable. Therefore I don't think combining these two things makes one a Samurai, especially when there are claims to the contrary according to the author who made the claim. Also, the way it is written implies that he does not feel he can fully prove that Yasuke was a Samurai either. If he did he would right something like eg. "While others do not agree Yasuke was a Samurai, I believe that he was because [reason]." And the way he writes "he was at least a retainer" implies that that is the maximum one can say about the matter uncontroversially. For example, I would not say we can all agree that 5 is at least greater than 3 if I can prove that it is also greater than 4. That is, he is not saying that "some people think he was not but we can ignore them" but "some people think he was not and all we can say for sure is that he was Nobunaga's retainer." In fact, he writes that "its is believed" that he was Nobunaga's retainer, although that could be more of a Japanese expresion than real uncertainty. Although I doubt you would say "it is believed" that the declaration of independence was in 1776, even in Japanese. I think we should consider not describing Yasuke as a Samurai in Wikivoice. It could be written something like "While there is debate as to whether Yasuke meets the definition of "samurai," he was appointed as a personal retainer of Nobunaga. According to Lockley, he can be considered a Samurai because [reason]." (And while there was not a tight definition of Samurai, we also can't say any retainer is a Samurai.)

>definitively a watered down version of his narrative cut free from speculation

I don't see at as "watered down" in a bad way. The issue with his other work according to that other historian that reviewed him was exactly that it embellished the primary sources and was written as a novel instead of a work of history. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the argument around his samurai status stems from the lack of an explicit confirmation in the primary sources, and is derivative of interpretations which have listed him as such. It could be reasoned that Lockley is referring to this lack of explicit naming rather than to a lack of general academic consensus - especially since as of yet there have not been provided reliable sources to the contrary (though they are welcomed!). For an example of this in practice, if I were to write a summary of Robert E. Lee's military career and wrote:

"Robert E Lee's status as a General is debatable, with the Records of the USMA listing only up to his rank of Colonel on record prior to resigning his commission in the United States Military. What is clear, however, is that he served the Confederacy in the role of a General."

Nothing in this text is factually wrong, and even if this example has to bend it to be misleading to make my point, it shows that nuance can be breached via positing someone's status as 'arguable' and then following it with the counterpoint. In this instance Lockley could be reasonably be said to be using Jiachen to say that even if one does not accept the interpretation of him having been a Samurai, it is clear that he was a high ranking vassal of some manner - which fits into that paragraph being nestled between statements of his privileged status amongst Nobunaga's retinue and his participation in his campaign against the Takeda. Disagreement should generally be identifiable in character from a reliable source - as if we were to list "some argue Yasuke is not a Samurai" all that would be listed is this source, which begs these questions:

Who is some?

Is 'some' Academic peers in the field?

Are 'some' the general consensus of Japanese historians?

Are 'some' the general populace of Japan?

Are 'some' a fringe subsect of Japan or Japanese Nationalist groups of some kind who may be biased on this issue?

What is this disagreement based in?

Is it based in strict adherence to the primary source text above any interpretation?

Is it based in some retroactive application of the current Japanese populace's understanding of what a Samurai is?

etc etc etc

This is why including it off of this line alone is something that causes more issues than it solves. As noted in an above reply, it suggests that there may be genuine disagreement on the Japanese side of things. While people who are dedicated to this ultra specific topic delve into it further, if it is there it will be found in time, and in the meantime it does not stand to be included for Wikipedia purposes. I hope this clarifies my view succinctly. Relm (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

> It could be reasoned that Lockley is referring to this lack of explicit naming rather than to a lack of general academic consensus

Even if that is what he meant, it would still be notable and should be mentioned in the article in some way. Eg. "Primary sources do not qualify Yasuke as a Samurai, only as a retainer." I don't think that is the case, however, because he directly states that there is debate about the claim, not that it is unknown due to lack of primary sources.

>nuance can be breached via positing someone's status as 'arguable' and then following it with the counterpoint.

He didn't say the point was arguable but that other argue about it. There is a big difference there.

I don't get your point about Robert E. Lee. His status as a general is not debatable. He was the General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States. Not sure why the Records of the USMA are relevant being he was the general of a different army. And that he severed as the role of a general (ei. the position of the claim) is different than Lockley who said he served as retainer (a different position).

>Disagreement should generally be identifiable in character from a reliable source

Do you have a source for this? If he says it debated, it probably is.

>Are 'some' the general populace of Japan?

>Are 'some' a fringe subsect of Japan or Japanese Nationalist groups of some kind who may be biased on this issue?

Why would he be referring to such a group? Do you think he would quote non academic sources without attribution in that way? And then why follow it up with "all we know is that he was a least a retainer"? If he was just referring to the general lack of sources like you said earlier, that part would make sense. But if he is referring to laymen like you posit here, then it doesn't make sense to say "laymen disagree about this claim, and all we know is that primary sources say he was a retainer." That would mean the first part of the sentence is about the people who debate the claim and the second part is about the lack of sources which is unrelated to the first point. Do you have any examples of a history book that quotes the view of laymen on a topic as "there is debate" without specifying somewhere that those who are debating are really laymen?

>Disagreement should generally be identifiable in character from a reliable source - as if we were to list "some argue Yasuke is not a Samurai" all that would be listed is this source

Why would Lockley himself not be a valid source for the claim that others debate his point? If he is an expert on this topic, then he would know if others debate his point. It is clear that he takes that side seriously, or else he would mention it. That being the case, those who debate his claim could be his colleagues that he spoke to while researching the topic. But it is clear that he takes this debate seriously as he takes the time to note it in his otherwise short article and then goes on to say that all he knows for sure is that he was a retainer J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel youre getting close to battle or bludgeoning here. Your posts have been coming off as kind of aggressive about this as though you were arguing on reddit or something and not here on wikipedia. 216.138.9.189 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came off that way and it is not my intention. I do not have a Reddit account. Reading WP:BLUDGEONING, I don't think my comments are considered bludgeoning :

>In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions.

I have made a high number of posts, but each post made different points. For example in this last post I was responding to points that have not yet been made before, such as about whether Lockely's statement that 'there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a "samurai"' can be attributed to the view laymen and not other academic sources. This is not a point that was made before and I did not respond to such a point before.

I also have not responded to multiple people here. Except on other person that I agreed with, so that can't be bludgeoning. There was also one person who was a WP:SPA who I responded to but did not engage with beyond a single sentence. I also did not go back to previous discussions in this thread and repost my argument to everyone who disagrees with me.

Lastly, there is at least one account here who I do think falls in the category of bludgeoning (not anyone I responded to) that has continually responded with the same exact argument to multiple editors, even going as far as to go to the Japanese talk page and make comments there as well, which certainly falls into across related discussions.

About 'related discussions,' I did post in the Yasuke talk page as well, but that is because this article is about the reliability of Yasuke and my point at the talk page was explicitly not about his reliability but what he said. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The 2017 citation in the article you provided appears to be the Japanese edition of Lockley's book about Yasuke. Or did you mean that book itself contains a citation to a paper from 2017? SmallMender (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CONTEXTFACTS I disagree that the book can be labeled as "pop history", which is a bit of a buzzword and does not have a clear definition. I also do not think the majority view in reliable sources needs attribution. Lockley has a variety of works and I am not against citing any of them, as the relevant claims have been vetted by other subject matter experts and his works all meet WP:RS criteria. Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying this, and you have not yet given any references or links.

Why are you ignoring multiple other editors all asking you for references or links to back up your claims about Lockley? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is discussed above, as well as in other relevant threads. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In this Youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFbL9pf08ec), he describes the Japanese version of the book as factual, and explains he was approached to team up with Geoffrey Girard to write a narrative version (8 min 32 sec).

So to be clear, while Thomas Lockley perhaps can be considered an expert as he has an academic book on the subject in Japanese titled "‘Nobunaga and Yasuke’ and ‘African Samurai’" where he says it is debated whether Yasuke was a Samurai.

The narrative version of this book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" should not be considered a credible source as the information is different from what is presented in his peer-reviewed work. More examples can be found here (I did not double check these specific claims, but the difference between the two books have been pointed out by others): https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/07/10/perfidious-historian-thomas-lockley/ 50.35.65.134 (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I already mentioned in past discussions that I honestly don't care much about Lockley. Purdy's review is enough that we can set that source aside regardless, since we have plenty of other academic sources to use instead of him. Which I also already posted in the past and which Gitz linked to above. Here's excerpts from them:

"It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyō’s service and enjoyed the same comforts as other vassals. He was granted the rank of samurai and occasionally even shared a table with Nobunaga himself, a privilege few of his trusted vassals were afforded."

Lopez-Vera, Jonathan (2020-06-02). A History of the Samurai. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-2134-8.

"...Yasuke's height and strength (which "surpassed that of ten men"), Nobunaga gave him a sword signifying bushi status. Yasuke served as Nobunaga's retainer and conversation partner for the last year of the warlord's life, defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces in 1582, where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuki). Although there are no known portraits of the African samurai, there are some pictorial depictions of dark-skinned men (in one of which he is sumo wrestling) from the early Edo period that historians speculate could be Yasuke."

Atkins, E. Taylor (2017-10-19), A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4742-5857-9

...Yasuke already possessed skills as a warrior, as he is believed to have become a samurai after only one year, a remarkably short period of time. Samurai usually trained from boyhood. Nobunaga granted Yasuke the role of sword bearer in the royal guard, for he felt Yasuke had the "might as that of ten men." This was an era in which Japan was still suffering the aftershocks of a civil war in which hundreds of petty warlords had vied for control of the country."

On a separate page,

"Nobunaga had believed that Yasuke must either be a guardian demon or a god; he was black as only temple statues were black. But touching Yasuke, hearing him speak his rich, inimitable foreigner's Japanese, Nobunaga realized he was only a man. He threw a feast in Yasuke's honour, made him gifts of money, and requested that they train him to become a samurai - an honor never before bestowed upon any foreigner. It would elevate him into Japan's warrior class, the top echelon of society. Yasuke accepted and was granted a house, a stipend, and even, in a turn that may have felt uncomfortable to him, his own manservant. That Yasuke had arrived fluent in Japanese was a great asset."

Edugyan, Esi (2021). Out of the Sun: On Race and Storytelling. House of Anansi Press. ISBN 978-1-4870-0988-5.

So take Lockley out and put these in instead. We can even use refquote with the quotes above so more explicit detail is included. Silverseren^C 15:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And this is the thing, if you just copy-paste your claims over weeks without having an interest of a compromise in mind. We already used terminology of Taylor Atkins in your own quote. "Yasuke served as Nobunaga's retainer [...] for the last year of the warlord's life". The article refereed him as a retainer prior to the term samurai. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea that Wikipedia articles should be a compromise between a consistent view present in all reliable sources on the subject and the negation of that, because there are a bunch of angry people on the internet who just know the reliable sources are wrong, is essentially the antithesis of our core content policy WP:NPOV. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't compromise with your belief about a subject when it is unsupported by sources. You have to "compromise" and accept that sources disagree with you. XeCyranium (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

So take Lockley out and put these in instead.

That’d be a good compromise, both López-Vera and Atkins actually have a PhD in Japanese history.

I’m optimistic that all the drama around Yasuke will push scholars to publish new (peer-reviewed) research on him, based on the primary sources that have been extensively discussed in the talk page (and elsewhere on the web), we just have to be patient. Thibaut (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Edugyan, she's a Canadian novelist (see her page here at Esi Edugyan), not an historian; she seems to rely on tertiary sources, which is fine for her work (as suggested by the title Out of the Sun: On Race and Storytelling), but is less usable for us.

Esi Edugyan's sources for Yasuke, as best I can glean from Google Books' limited preview:

• "The African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, Japan's Legendary Black Warrior.” Matthew Hernon (Senior Editor), Tokyo Weekender. 17 September 2020. https://www.tokyoweekender.com/2020/09/, updated URL — https://www.tokyoweekender.com/art_and_culture/japanese-culture/yasuke-african-samurai-japan/

Appears to rely heavily on Lockley.

• "Yasuke: The mysterious African samurai.” BBC News. 14 October 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48542673 by Naima Mohamud.

Appears to rely heavily on Lockley.

Also relies on "Floyd Webb and Deborah DeSnoo, filmmakers working on a documentary about him,", of unclear credentials.

Contains some factual mistakes:

"Before long, he was speaking Japanese fluently and riding alongside Nobunaga in battle."

→ We have no record of him fighting other than in the Honnō-ji Incident, which pointedly did not involve "riding ... in battle". We also have no record of Nobunaga being directly involved in any other conflict during the time when Yasuke was with him.

“"His height was 6 shaku 2 sun (roughly 6 feet, 2 inches (1.88m)... he was black, and his skin was like charcoal," a fellow samurai, Matsudaira Ietada, described him in his diary in 1579.”

→ Minor error: it was 2 fun, not sun. See also Talk:Yasuke#Yasuke’s_height.

“As the first foreign-born samurai, Yasuke fought important battles alongside Oda Nobunaga.”

→ As best we can tell, he fought in the Honnō-ji ambush and immediate aftermath, but otherwise is not documented as fighting at all.

Re: López-Vera and Atkins, I think these would be good to use as attributed references. Both are historians, with a focus on Japan. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The 3rd source was already analyzed by @Eirikr, but just a general comment, because I see a similar issue cropped up before when discussing Lockley's book. If a book directly ascribes personal impressions, feelings, etc. to either Yasuke or Nobunaga in their relationship, it most certainly is historical fiction. The prose-like writing style makes it fairly clear.

The 1st and 2nd source look promising, however I see 2nd source mentions Nobunaga committed seppuku at Azuchi castle. Did he not commit suicide at Honnou-ji, however? The source also makes it sound as if Yasuke was involved in fights in Azuchi and I am not sure if it temporarily agrees with other sources. Apologies if it already falls under SYNTH. 37.131.135.117 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reliability is contextual. There's certainly enough secondary coverage of Lockley that it doesn't make sense to treat him as generally unreliable. And, crucially, as the other sources show, the specific claim being made here is un-exceptional, despite the massive debate over it here and on social media - no reliable sources contest the fact that Yasuke is a samurai. A few exist that don't use the term, but given the massive coverage across all levels of sourcing and the high-profile focus on this specific question, it's reasonable to say that if there were a serious dispute about it, at least one high-quality source would actively contest it; I'm not usually a huge fan of relying on tertiary sources, but the fact that Brittancia's article calls him a Samurai repeatedly, from start to finish, shows that it's such a high-profile view that it's reasonable to require some RS actually dispute it, if editors want to try and present it as contested. Yet over the course of a monthlong RFC on Yasuke, none of the people trying to argue against that assertion were able to turn up even a single source of that nature. Notably, the academic review of Lockley cited above, while it has some other points of disagreement, does not dispute that basic premise (which is, after all, central to Lockley's history and not something that you'd expect would go without question if it was in any doubt.) This falls under WP:NPOV's requirement to avoid stating facts as opinions - we cannot attribute this statement to Lockley in the article text without manufacturing, whole-cloth, a sense of doubt that Yasuke was a samurai, which is entirely unsupported by any source; therefore, Lockley can reasonably be used to state unattributed in the article voice that Yasuke was a samurai (as the recent RFC on the topic concluded!); and nothing should be stated or implied that might cast doubt on that, anywhere in the article, unless actual sources unambiguously casting that doubt can be found. The quibbling over precisely how high-quality Lockley is misses the point; it is a sufficient source for unexceptional and uncontested statements like these. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  You are correct that reliability is contextual, in accordance with WP:CONTEXTFACTS, and it is because of that policy point that individual verification of claims made in these academic sources necessary. Lockley does not make the attempt to make proper use of citations for any of his claims, and when we're dealing with historical terminology, we must keep in mind that it is separate from our modern understanding of what a samurai is. So far, none of the academic sources provided in support of the positive claim that Yasuke is a samurai can agree on what a samurai is, and Lockley's definition of samurai contrasts with other academic sources on Yasuke and their definition of samurai. Also the claim that samurai have nothing to do with nobility also needs proper citation, as plenty of documentation is done on the Ritsuryo system and its relation to the samurai caste during the Sengoku period. Do note that the titles of Daijo daijin, Kampaku, Shogun, etc., all originated from the Ritsuryo system, and plenty of lords such as Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu all received these titles respectively. Looking at the List of Daijō-daijin for example, note how Nobunaga is referred to as "Taira no Nobunaga", Hideyoshi as "Fujiwara no Hideyoshi", and Ieyasu as "Minamoto no Ieyasu" in relation to that title, because they claim ancestral ties to these imperial families. Without those ties, they could not be appointed to the title. This is not even considering all throughout the Kamakura or Muromachi periods, which you can see is just as extensive.

  When you think about what it means to be nobility, it is the noble's relationship and privileges in regards to the Monarch/Emperor/Imperial Court, which the samurai have done extensively throughout the Sengoku period. If there are contrasts to this idea, it must be provided with evidence, and from what I've seen, Lockley nor any of the other academic sources make an attempt to even address the Ritsuryo system or the Imperial Court. If we are going to challenge the idea of the samurai noble caste - which Lockley appears to be doing - this must be addressed. Hexenakte (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I have three points of contention:

  1.) As I commented on above, there does seem to be a peer reviewed academic publication from Lockley attributing 'Samurai' to Yasuke published last year. Even if we are unable to access the text, it is an example of a Japanese publication publishing Lockley's claim of Yasuke being a Samurai - with a Japanese institution providing the translation to English of 'Samurai' in the title of the work. Even if you specifically have not said it to my memory, I think I want to emphasize generally that Lockley having written a pop history book in collaboration with a novelist does not make him an unreliable source otherwise.

  2.) Piggybacking on Aquillion here, the point I believe they were getting at is that the clear academic and non-academic concensus in secondary and tertiary sources is that Yasuke was a Samurai. They don't need to agree with each other on a definition if there is no dissenting voice to the claim from a reliable source. In the now months that this has gone on for I have only ever seen OR presented in opposition, but there has not been a single reliable source presented. Many of the users involved have some level of Japanese fluency, so I am curious why there has not been any dissenting voice presented from the Japanese academic sources. Again, not being accusatory, there is still an issue as pointed out by Gitz and others that the only reason this discussion is happening right now is the recent announcement of Ubisoft's newest AC game, and the culture-war backlash it recieved from figures like Mark Kern. Many of the details involved have included blatant misinformation such as this instance of a troll impersonating a Tokyo University professor and farming ragebait from Kern and others for getting blocked by Ubisoft. The only instance of a claim purporting to be from an academic on the subject linked in opposition on the talk page was from an unverified user on twitter likewise saying they were a Japanese professor and were actively farming engagement with these same people - frankly I don't trust that, Wikipedia shouldn't trust that, and if that view is representitive of Japanese academia then such sources should be available from reliable sources (though notably as mentioned in #1, Lockley has peer review published a paper on Yasuke as a Samurai in Japanese). Back to direct response here, these things you and others have pointed out have yet to lay a foundation in academic sources distinct from OR - and this shows in that whenever sources are questioned, there are more sources that can be cited for the view of Yasuke being a Samurai, but so far none other than that tweet thread and talk page OR have been asserted for the latter.

  3.) I think focusing on nobility here is anachronistic. The Samurai page on wikipedia for Sengoku Jidai states:

  "This period was marked by the loosening of samurai culture, with people born into other social strata sometimes making a name for themselves as warriors and thus becoming de facto samurai. One such example is Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a well-known figure who rose from a peasant background to become a samurai, sengoku daimyo, and kampaku (Imperial Regent)." and later, "With By the end of the Sengoku period, allegiances between warrior vassals, also known as military retainers, and lords were solidified." These are both sourced claims, the former being from a japanese source. Citing Hideyoshi here in your explanation if anything shows why Yasuke could have been a Samurai (and by the definition on the Samurai page, classifies as a retainer who recieved property in return for service to a lord) due to how loose the social heirarchy had become, allowing a peasant to rise to the rank of emperor through making these distinctions arbitrary and second to their practical needs. If you intend to set the record straight on Samurai such as Yasuke for the Sengoku Jidai period, you would likewise need to contest the Samurai page as well. I would agree with your analysis for later or earlier generations when the system was made more rigid - but it is a matter of incontrovertible fact that both Hideyoshi and Ieyasu imposed severe and strict limitations after the Sengoku Jidai that prevented the same promotions that allowed for people like Hideyoshi to raise their status during a turbulent time period where merit and capability was rewarded by bending the system.

  TL;DR:

  1.) Lockley is a reliable source in other matters, with peer reviewed publications that call Yasuke a Samurai. Even if his novel is discounted, his views otherwise need more than OR to discredit him as a reliable source in general.

  2.) The side wishing to remove the title of Samurai from the Yasuke page have only produced a tweet thread from an unverified account and talk thread OR. To challenge a clearly established consensus requires reliable sources to be given due weight to these claims for encyclopedic purposes.

  3.) Hideyoshi rose from a peasant to samurai and later shogun. The page for Samurai for Sengoku Jidai if anything suggests that Yasuke would definitively have been considered a Samurai for the time, so to challenge the academic consensus for Yasuke would likewise require contesting the Sengoku Jidai section of that page. Relm (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for being respectful in your contention points, this is highly appreciated in spite of the disagreements, and it is refreshing to see no accusations being thrown.

  Just one thing to note, because I am short on time with these posts I ask that you assume that this is already cited from previous discussions from the diff links I posted unless I state otherwise (for the sake of discussion), and if you have questions or concerns on particular claims, please ask before claiming WP:OR (not you, since you did not say I did OR, this is more in response to @XeCyranium below), I am merely repeating sources that I have found which have been very consistent in contrast to the topic of Yasuke. That being said, these contention points were considered:

  1) You are correct that yes, the collaboration effort itself would not make himself unreliable, if we had not been using his novel in the first place added on top of the fact it is being purported as objective fact. @Eirikr has ordered Lockley's Japanese edition of the book, which is supposedly more academic, however Lockley did say in his interview (mentioned in one of the diff links I posted) that he did not translate it himself. That being said this edition is not being dismissed and will be given a proper analysis when Eirikr receives the book.

  2) The sources themselves seem to be in contention with one another on what a samurai is, regardless if they agree or not on whether Yasuke is a samurai. This only makes the case more confusing as more sources are being added in support of the positive claim of his samurai status, since as I said before, we must understand the historical usage of the word rather than our modern understanding of it, as they are completely distinct.

  Because we are dealing with the word "samurai" in regards to Yasuke, the definition is important to have, especially when such a title had strong noble ties.

  3) And this is exactly why I brought up Toyotomi Hideyoshi. I apologize for forgetting to link one of my diff links regarding that (more specifically here in this topic for other diff links), but we must keep in mind I have been talking about the de jure stipulations which have largely stayed the same from the Kamakura to the Muromachi all the way throughout the Sengoku period, with its enforcement on how social mobility works varying, which is the de facto.

  This can be very confusing for those who haven't delved past the English field of Japanese history, where many of it is obscured in Japanese or, if you're lucky, the outskirts of the internet that somehow has it in English. Most Japanese history in English is covered by figures such as Stephen Turnbull, who I have mentioned in the past is known for making a lot of mistakes in his research in this field, and as pointed out by @Hemiauchenia here on the confusion of the term:

  [According to Morillo, there] does seem to result in confusion even among academics [on the definition of samurai] (at least around 2001 when the chapter was written).

  Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a peasant who rose to samurai status, but the question you should really be keeping in mind, is how he did it. I do not blame people for not studying enough about the Imperial Court and the Ritsuryo system or anything regarding that because when people think of "de jure power" they think it is useless and cast it aside, I get it. But this system has been preserved in spite of its weakness, and this is reflected in almost all of the Wikipedia articles on the Japanese emperors, for example in this specific period we see in Emperor Ōgimachi#Kugyō, it says this:

  Kugyō (公卿) is a collective term for the very few most powerful men attached to the court of the Emperor of Japan in pre-Meiji eras. Even during those years in which the court's actual influence outside the palace walls was minimal, the hierarchic organization persisted. (Emphasis mine)

  This is also reflected in the plethora of sources I have provided in my other diff links, but this goes to show that this view is already established on Wikipedia.

  You might ask, how did Toyotomi Hideyoshi rise in status? He got into political marriages (his wife One in 1561 gave him Minamoto lineage), family adoptions by Oda's senior vassals (got the surname Hashiba from two of Oda's senior vassals, both samurai, which gave him Taira lineage), adopted by a powerful kuge family (adopted by Konoe Sakihisa, which gave him Fujiwara lineage and right to hold the Kampaku title), and finally, imperial proclamation by the Emperor himself to establish his own namesake as an imperial family alongside the Gen-pei-to-kitsu, the Toyotomi clan, which is an unprecedented move. How he got there was of course through his recognized service by his Lord Oda Nobunaga who gave him the surname Hashiba, and military power later on when he threatened to destroy the Konoe if they did not adopt him. This is what it means when the social mobility is fluid, it became easier to rise to nobility, not that the nobility itself ceased. In other words, Hideyoshi's low-birth is not an issue if he could just get adopted by a higher-birth family. There's no suggesting that Yasuke couldn't do this; there is just no evidence nor claims made that he did. Which is why it behooves me to emphasize that there must be an acknowledgement of this system because of how closely tied the samurai are to it.

  Again, I don't blame people for not knowing this, since it is rarely talked about due to perceived lessened importance in the Imperial Court during this period. However that does not mean it should be dismissed. The perception that the Ritsuryo system ceased to exist by the Kamakura or Sengoku period is a bit flawed; it ceased to be enforced through, say, its law code, where local daimyo would enforce their own territory laws of course, but the court rank system itself was still preserved and respected; after all, Toyotomi Hideyoshi fought tooth and nail just to become Kampaku, which gave him overwhelming influence over other daimyo. It was more for legitimacy and privileges purposes among the Imperial Court, which is the entire point of a nobility class in the first place, and entirely reflective among the samurai. Hexenakte (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise thanks for the polite and thorough response. I will also clarify that I was hesitant to make specific attributions due to having not engaged directly with the discourse until it spilled over to ANI and RSN, which has led me to conflate who said what and when over that time aside from generally remembering which user supports what general course of action. I have followed the entire situation out of curiosity since it's adjacent to my interests, but I acknowledge it's outside my subject expertise. I will also empathize on how difficult it is to pierce the language barrier for claims at times, as I recently heard a claim of "Sengoku Jidai Samurai didn't fight on horseback outside of the Takeda because Japanese horses were generally less capable in combat" and intuitively knew it was wrong and guessed why, but it was painful to dig out the academic sources discussing unit organizational changes, Japanese horses, etc in a way which could be explained to an American audience whose main exposure to the material would be in video games like Samurai Warriors and Total War Shogun - or in Youtube series like the erroneous Extra Credits series on the subject.

  To this same end I am sympathetic to arguments rooted in primary source discussion attempting to set the record straight, but at the same time Wikipedia would require a reliable source to dissent here to contest the English academic consensus - as muddied as it is. I have not seen Lockley's definition of Samurai outside of what I felt like was a clearly condensed and simplified explanation he gave for the TIME piece:

  Standing at more than six feet tall and described as having the strength of 10 men, Yasuke left a strong impression on Nobunaga. “It seems like he was a confidant, Nobunaga is recorded as talking often with him,” Lockley said in a follow-up email. “He was also a weapon bearer, and probably served in some kind of bodyguard capacity.” Lockley also explained that in Yasuke’s time, the idea of a “samurai” was a very fluid concept. “You don’t have to possess any particular killing skills to be a samurai,” the author said. “Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai.”

  I do think that this is a reductive answer, but given the context of the article I understand why. I would say that while the example of Hideyoshi shows how much effort he expended to legitimize his rise up the social ladder, it could likewise be said that Yasuke having been given property, a position in Nobunaga's retinue, and other context is the root of many historians viewing that if he was not formally considered a samurai via the exact customs and noble requirements commonly attached to that rank, he was clearly of a status that was indistinguishable from such rank. I would even contend that one could say Nobunaga's awarding Yasuke property could demonstrate intent to have Yasuke meet the basic expectations.

  It was previously stated elsewhere that the root of contention is in Yasuke's having been black. I disagree with this as I think arguments like yours are more aptly summarized as 'he is not Japanese' which is less about race which does seem irrelevant, and more his lack of connection to the land and thus less able to integrate into the hierarchy in such a short period of time. I want to reiterate that I do not say this to denigrate this line of argument or categorize it as racist, as it is a valid concern. I hoped by refocusing the Yasuke question to one about the greater status and expectations of Samurai in the period that it would remove this association. To this end I would like to establish that my knowledge on the specific distinctions of samurai are limited, but that there are clearly different ranks of samurai and different expectations applied to each and how the titles are or are not passed down. Given that Oda Nobunaga was indisputably the most powerful man at the time, Yasuke very easily could have had the rules bent to give him the bare minimum requirements and serve amongst Nobunaga's retinue as a person of status - thus Yasuke's non-native origin is unconvincing on its own, especially with the later examples of other non Japanese being given positions, new names entirely, property, etc in the centuries after during the persecution of Christian missionaries either with death or forced conversion where thereafter they'd serve the government or a specific patron translating European books of interest to Japanese.

  To recenter the topic onto Samurai again, that lack of a clear concensus definition would be a problem, and one worth raising on the talk page of Samurai, but until the point that scholars come to a better concensus, the matter of Yasuke is clearly a concensus in academia that he was a Samurai - which is what Wikipedia should follow for the time being until sources casting doubt on this can be brought forward and given their due weight on such pages. Relm (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I will also empathize on how difficult it is to pierce the language barrier for claims at times, as I recently heard a claim of "Sengoku Jidai Samurai didn't fight on horseback outside of the Takeda because Japanese horses were generally less capable in combat" and intuitively knew it was wrong and guessed why, but it was painful to dig out the academic sources discussing unit organizational changes, Japanese horses, etc in a way which could be explained to an American audience whose main exposure to the material would be in video games like Samurai Warriors and Total War Shogun - or in Youtube series like the erroneous Extra Credits series on the subject.

  This is kind of the problem we're at now, as you say, it is painful to dig out academic sources on these nuances, and even more so when they are in Japanese instead of English. Then on top of that, because Japanese is such a highly contextualized language, sentences are often mistranslated or misunderstood, such as this quote translated by Lockley:

  Source text: 然に彼黒坊被成御扶持、名をハ号弥助と、さや巻之のし付幷私宅等迄被仰付、依時御道具なともたさせられ候、

  Lockley's translation: This black man called Yasuke was given a stipend, a private residence, etc., and was given a short sword with a decorative sheath. He is sometimes seen in the role of weapon bearer.

  Translation on Wikipedia article: A black man was taken on as a vassal by Nobunaga-sama and received a stipend. His name was decided to be Yasuke. He was also given a short sword and a house. He was sometimes made to carry Nobunaga-sama's tools.

  There is also the context of what the "short sword" was, where @Eirikr was helpful enough to find this out:

  Going back to the source material provided earlier today by @Thibaut, the Japanese uses the term さや巻 (sayamaki), also spelled in modern dictionaries as 鞘巻 (sayamaki, literally saya "scabbard, sheath" + maki "winding", in reference to decorations on the sheath). If you can read Japanese, the Japanese Wikipedia article at ja:短刀 describes the sayamaki as a specific kind of tantō. See also the entries here at Kotobank, further describing this as a kind of 腰刀 (koshi-gatana, "hip-sword").

  ...

  However, a sayamaki is not any kind of knife or dagger that is smaller than a wakizashi. The main difference between the sayamaki and the wakizashi is not size, but rather that the sayamaki has no tsuba or hilt-guard, whereas the wakizashi does have one.

  Basically, with the English translation in both of them, we are not exactly getting the full story. There is also the misinterpretation of fuchi as a samurai salary, when it could either refer to tangible currency or rice:[47]

  (disclaimer this is a machine translation of this section as I am still a beginner in Japanese, @Eirikr would be more suited to provide any missing context/insight)

  Source text:

  １ 助けること。扶助すること。

  ２ 主君から家臣に給与した俸禄。江戸時代には、<人1日玄米5合を標準とし、この1年分を米または金で給与した。

  ３ 俸禄を支給して臣下とすること。

  Machine translation:

  1. To help. To provide assistance.

  2 A stipend paid by a lord to his vassals. During the Edo period, the standard was 5 cups of brown rice per person per day, and this year's worth was paid in rice or gold.

  ３ To pay a stipend and make him a vassal.

  To point something out, the third point uses 俸禄 (Houroku) instead of 扶持 (Fuchi), which was pointed out in the diff I posted, however there was no houroku mentioned in the Shincho Koki, so it is probably safe to say we can rule that out.

  I do think that this is a reductive answer, but given the context of the article I understand why. I would say that while the example of Hideyoshi shows how much effort he expended to legitimize his rise up the social ladder, it could likewise be said that Yasuke having been given property, a position in Nobunaga's retinue, and other context is the root of many historians viewing that if he was not formally considered a samurai via the exact customs and noble requirements commonly attached to that rank, he was clearly of a status that was indistinguishable from such rank. I would even contend that one could say Nobunaga's awarding Yasuke property could demonstrate intent to have Yasuke meet the basic expectations.

  I understand the conclusion to that, however as noted in the stated quote above regarding that, it is difficult to say because of lack of context given, and misinterpretation of a term that isn't easy to determine what exactly kind of sword it was. As Eirikr pointed out, it was a sword of some kind that had no tsuba (hilt). This could be from a tanto (which typically, but not always, lacked a tsuba) to a tachi (which, I will admit, I would not know the reason as to why a tachi would lack a tsuba, this part is OR and pure speculation).

  It might also be worth pointing out that another individual named in the Shincho Koki - presumably a samurai because of it, but not making a definitive statement - as Tomo Shorin, provided in this collection of excerpts in the Shincho Koki academic translation, states the following:

  Source text: 甲賀の伴正林と申者年齡十八九に候歟能相撲七番打仕候次日又御相撲有此時も取すぐり則御扶持人に被召出鐵炮屋與四郞折節御折檻にて籠へ被入置彼與四郞私宅資財雜具共に御知行百石熨斗付の太刀脇指大小二ツ御小袖御馬皆具其に拜領名譽の次第也

  Academic translation: A man from Kōka whose name was Tomo Shōrin, some eighteen or nineteen years old, showed good skills and scored seven wins. The next day, too, Nobunaga put on sumo matches, and Tomo again outclassed the others. As a result, Nobunaga selected Tomo to become his stipendiary. At about that time Nobunaga had to take disciplinary measures against a gunsmith by the name of Yoshirō, whom he locked up in a cage. Now Tomo Shōrin received the private residence, household goods, and other possessions of this Yoshirō. Nobunaga also gave him an estate of one hundred koku, a sword and a dagger with gold-encrusted sheaths, a lined silk garment, and a horse with a complete set of gear—glorious recognition for Tomo.

  We can see here that Tomo Shorin was given far more than Yasuke, noting specifically a koku estate, a daisho set 大小 (tachi 太刀 and wakizashi 脇指), a kosode (小袖; translated as lined silk garment; wide sleeved version and predecessor of the kimono), and a horse (馬; Uma) with a set of gear (皆具; Kaigu) (unsure if it means gear for the horse or that Shorin was given gear such as armor). Based off the fact that Shorin has been given a 100 koku estate, the privilege of riding horseback, and was clearly given a daisho set - all of these common hints and indicators of samurai status, as well as a surname - it would certainly be a logical conclusion, most particularly the horseback one, however again I cannot be definitive in this statement, this is moreso for the sake of this discussion.

  That being said, there is very little indication given by these quotes, and the claims given by Lockley are often uncited as we previously discussed on Purdy's review of Lockley (however we will analyze the Japanese edition to get a more objective response on this). It is more muddied by the fact that these translations are certainly not perfect (in Lockley's case) and miss important context, or add context that was never implied, such as the declaration that Yasuke was a weapons bearer. There is also the current concern that this quote in particular is missing from the public eye, which the quote has a [failed verification] on it as a result until we can verify the quote's origin, which we could only pinpoint it in Kaneko Hiraku's book as mentioned in the section. @Eirikr and @Thibaut120094 have both been kind enough to purchase this book in order to settle this issue, which we still have to wait for a proper objective analysis.

  As for the rest of your post, I think it is a very fair viewpoint to make, however the main issue we have is that the statement is being used as objective fact rather than as a claim made by Lockley. It has been made clear throughout this topic, the one in ANI, and the Yasuke talk page that we are fine with presenting Lockley's case as an argument or theory - such as the Female Uesugi Kenshin theory or the Separation Edict#Theory of Shosaku Takagi- but not as a statement of fact, simply because of these reasons. This is especially a problem when certain editors want to solidify this in wikivoice as an unattributed statement of fact. I do plan on taking this issue up to the Samurai talk page itself with a more thorough comprehensive list of secondary academic sources - to clear this definition issue up once and for all - as it is clear that not enough is being done to emphasize the nobility part in the Samurai.

  I apologize for the long posts, but I feel this is all necessary to consider just due to how muddy these waters are, and I really appreciate your understanding in this complex matter, as an outsider I believe you have demonstrated in being fair and understanding for both sides. Hexenakte (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is the original research I was referring to. As editors, it's not our decision that the translation is wrong, you need sources specifically saying that it is wrong. Given your lack of proficiency in the language your opinion on what the Japanese text actually means is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Much of this kerfuffle is dominated by amateur editors asserting a litany of problems with sources without providing reliable reviews that support their assertions. It's not within our purview to decide that the definitions of scholars are wrong, we need sources that say explicitly "the definition employed by Lockley/Lopez-Vera/everybody else is incorrect in the context in which they employed it." Essentially what you need are sources that say "the assertion that Yasuke was a samurai is incorrect". None have been provided, and no amount of handwringing about how you think other definitions are used in other contexts makes a difference. The endless walls of text and sophistry are unhelpful. XeCyranium (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think your assertion that this is WP:OR despite me stating I rather you ask me on sources for my claims rather than accusing OR is uncalled for. I have done this in the assumption you have already read my diff links that I posted, which are all supported by secondary sources. I am not conducting OR unless I explicitly state it so; I mentioned for the sayamaki tachi part, that was OR, I recognized it was OR, but I felt it necessary for the sake of discussion; it is not a suggestion of changing anything on any Wikipedia article. If you still feel I have not adequately cited what I state, then ask me for those specific claims, I will do my best to provide them. This accusation is simply not helpful at all and your continuance despite my clarification makes it extremely difficult to converse with you. Also, while I stated that I am a beginner in Japanese, Eirikr is not, and he is welcomed and encouraged to chime in for any missing context; he clearly displays a proficiency in the language and moreso evident by his wiktionary talk page. Even so, these are not our claims, they are backed by Japanese dictionaries as well as plenty of secondary sources, but I will state which parts are OR for transparency purposes, because I want to be as honest as possible. I simply cannot cite every single source in every single post because I do not have time for that, I can simply redirect you to the posts which have those sources, so please, I ask that you look at them, and if you are still not satisfied, please ask, and do not continue these accusations. Hexenakte (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I hate to jump into a discussion that’s already so much of a WP:TEXTWALL, but I do want to try to help clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding about the WP:OR accusation. I don’t think @XeCyranium (and XeCyranium please correct me if I’m wrong) is accusing you pulling this information out of nowhere, rather they're saying your comments are an example of WP:SYNTH (the second example is particularly similar to this). Bringing up literature that is not about Yasuke (including dictionaries) to argue that literature about Yasuke is incorrect, is improper synthesis. That there is literature talking about varying definitions of “samurai” is not relevant to the article on Yasuke unless it explicitly mentions Yasuke, and using said literature to debunk or otherwise question scholarship on Yasuke is WP:SYNTH. As far as I can tell, none of the links you have supplied were to an RS stating that Yasuke was not a samurai, and thus aren't really relevant for this discussion. I do second the suggestion to take your research to the page on samurai, as I'm sure it would be very helpful there! CambrianCrab (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate the clearing up of the issue, however I think there is also a misunderstanding of what I am trying to say. I am not suggesting putting anything in the Yasuke Wikipedia article that states Yasuke as explicitly not a samurai, I am completely aware that sources that make that claim are required to state that claim. What I am suggesting is to not state Lockley's findings as an objective fact, but rather a theory, much like the Female Uesugi Kenshin theory and Separation Edict#Theory of Shosaku Takagi. Yasuke being claimed as a samurai is within the similar realms of Uesugi Kenshin being female, I am unsure why if it is acknowledged the amount of issues that Lockley has with his findings, that we must state it as a fact and enshrine it in Wikivoice, if other historical findings such as the two I listed as examples are treated as theories, .

  Again, I have to reiterate, I am not arguing for the explicit statement that Yasuke is not a samurai in the Wikipedia article, I am simply not for explicitly stating it as an objective fact. I have stated many times my willingness to accept Lockley's work as a claim, just not as a fact, because of the many issues that Lockley has that was already stated. The arguments I have laid out are yes, they are for the definition of samurai, and are more fit to be discussed for the Samurai article, however I have not suggested to have changed anything in this article, not even once, throughout those arguments I have made. I do not think it is therefore considered WP:SYNTH since most of what I was arguing for was for the sake of the discussion, as we are in a talk page and not editing the actual article. I hope you understand where I am coming from, and I apologize if I did not make this clear enough.

  Also @Relmcheatham, just saw your post, I hope this better states my position on the matter. Hexenakte (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  As mentioned elsewhere the reason it does not need to be directly attributed is because it is the clear academic consensus of the sources provided. If someone were to add one of Lockley's attempts to speculate and place Yasuke in the context of the time period as he does on some cases I have listed prior from having watched his interviews and read exceprts of his book, then yeah I would agree with direct attribution. Given that with one or two exceptions those here who have supported the maintaining of 'samurai' in Yasuke's lead have agreed that there are much better sources than Lockley's non peer reviewed and co-authored work of pop history. If the post you just made is your full position then I don't think we actually disagree on anything, I am however saying that there are other sources than lockley that have been provided. I hope this likewise clarifies. Relm (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am glad we are getting somewhere. Also yes we have considered other sources such as Lopez-Vera, Edugyan, Atkins, Manatsha, etc.

  • From what we have gathered from verifying the claims in those sources, Lopez-Vera lacked the proper in-line citation for Yasuke, and it was limited to a box in one page, as his paper was not focused on Yasuke but rather the "History of the Samurai", and because of that I believe in accordance with WP:CONTEXTFACTS that verification is needed for this one.

  • From what @Eirikr could find on Edugyan, she is a novelist and not a historian who relies on Lockley and tertiary sources, as well as several verifiable factual mistakes. We should not be using her.

  • After a quick look at the Yasuke talk page, we have not properly analyzed Atkins, but I do see that we would be using his source that Yasuke was retained by Nobunaga, I just don't particularly agree with the "bushi status" comment. His seems to be the least muddy of the list suggested, but a check on his citations would not hurt nonetheless.

  • Manatsha's¹ paper² as well as sources cited by Manatsha's sources³ (not fault of Russell) contain very gross factual errors and blatant misattributions of claims from his citations that question the veracity of his claims, as well as his reliability. I do not believe we should be using Manatsha.

  Do note that as long as these claims are attributed and not stated as an objective fact, I would be fine with their inclusion in the Yasuke article. If we were to give Yasuke a title that is unattributed, it should be a retainer/attendant/retainer attendant, as these claims seem to be reflected in several of the secondary academic sources mentioned and are properly cited and supported, then we can put the positive claim of his samurai-ness in a separate section of the article where it is "claimed" and attributed. I would very much agree to this arrangement instead. Hexenakte (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  As has already been pointed out to you many times, this is not the kind of source analysis we are supposed to be doing according to policy. Several editors have already told you that this kind of activity, verifying the claims in those sources, agree[ing] with the [source's] comment and correcting the source's factual errors and blatant misattributions, is not our job. Per WP:NOR, we should disseminate the existing body of knowledge on a subject as reflected in reliable sources, not add to it and improve it by correcting what reliable sources claim. Your interpretation of WP:CONTEXTFACTS is simply wrong. This guideline does not say or imply that editors are entitled to review and validate or falsify the claims made by the sources; it says that in order to understand what those claims are, we need to take context into account, e.g., a literature professor who uses an analogy with Einstein's theory of relativity to explain a philosophical concept is not a reliable source on Einstein's theory of relativity. How can you argue that Jonathan Lopez-Vera's book History of the Samurai cannot be used as a reliable source on Yazuke's status as a samurai because of WP: CONTEXTFACTS? This is what Lopez-Vera says:

  It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyō’s service and enjoyed the same comforts as other vassals. He was granted the rank of samurai and occasionally even shared a table with Nobunaga himself, a privilege few of his trusted vassals were afforded

  . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  As has already been pointed out to you many times, this is not the kind of source analysis we are supposed to be doing according to policy.

  ...

  Your interpretation of WP:CONTEXTFACTS is simply wrong. This guideline does not say or imply that editors are entitled to review and validate or falsify the claims made by the sources; it says that in order to understand what those claims are, we need to take context into account, e.g., a literature professor who uses an analogy with Einstein's theory of relativity to explain a philosophical concept is not a reliable source on Einstein's theory of relativity. How can you argue that Jonathan Lopez-Vera's book History of the Samurai cannot be used as a reliable source on Yazuke's status as a samurai because of WP: CONTEXTFACTS?

  My noting of WP:CONTEXTFACTS has to do with the fact that individual claims can be analyzed, as it is stated:

  The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc.

  This makes it very clear as well as WP:REPUTABLE ("Editors must use their own judgement to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement.") and WP:SOURCEDEF ("The piece of work itself (the article, book)...can affect reliability.") that editors do in fact have the power to do this kind of source analysis. I have yet to see an explanation where this is somehow wrong.

  Because Lopez-Vera's book is not on Yasuke and does not focus on Yasuke with the exception of a single blurb in his research with no in-text citation (the context needed), it can affect the veracity of his claims, of which we can draw reasonable judgement that he did not apply the necessary due diligence because of its lack of focus in comparison to the rest of his book. This is not claiming that Lopez-Vera himself is unreliable, but that this specific claim is not necessarily reliable because he didn't provide any citations for the claim and that Yasuke was never his focal point, it was treated more like a "fun fact" and then moved on from it.

  Per WP:NOR, we should disseminate the existing body of knowledge on a subject as reflected in reliable sources, not add to it and improve it by correcting what reliable sources claim.

  ...

  [...]editors are [not] entitled to review and validate or falsify the claims made by the sources[...]

  I think you are mistaken; I have not claimed to add to anything that these sources did not say? Can you show me where I said that? What claims have I falsified?

  And can you explain how this is original research when all I am doing here is simply looking at what the sources say themselves? The information on, for example, the factual errors/misattributions made by Manatsha as listed from the diff links above by Eirikr:

  The Southern Tang is not the Tang. Claiming that an incident in 976 happened "at the court of the Tang Emperor" is problematic wording. Moreover, the Southern Tang fell in 975, as described at Song conquest of Southern Tang.

  ...

  Russell himself dates the Tang Dynasty as ending in 907, and the mention of 976 is in a quote that Russell includes from a different work, "(Coupland, quoted in Filesi 1962, 21)". Filesi 1962 is listed in Russell's bibliography as China and Africa in the Middle Ages, which I cannot currently track down (though I will look more later).

  ...

  Manatsha does not cite Russell, but rather "(Tsujiuchi, 1998; Wyatt, 2010; Welsh, 2012)" for the mention of kuronbo and kunlun.

  ...

  Tsujiuchi makes no mention of kurombo / kuronbo / kurobo anywhere in the body of the text, and only mentions kurobo in the bibliography as part of a title. No mention of kunlun.

  I don't want to drown out this page with this many quotes - which you can read in full here along with all of the cited sources which Eirikr provided in that diff link - but you get the point. I am not making any claims here, this is simple verification to see if the cited sources actually say what they say. Please stop misinterpreting this as OR. Hexenakte (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  To provide a little context to the Tang dynasty claim, it is very confusing even to me as someone who studies Chinese history. Southern Tang ended in December 975. The Chinese use a very different calendar and what happened to Li Yu after the dynasty ended is likewise very nuanced. I would suggest the following 3 as being the most likely explanations:

  1. The incident happened in 975, but the year was calculated wrong (either a proper clerical error, or just failing to adjust the date on the documents - which is common)

  2. The incident happend in Li Yu's court after the invasion of Song Taizong. The Southern Tang formally ended with the capture of Li Yu, but he and his family were retained as nobles with Li Yu being a Marquis until his execution.

  I am interested in getting ahold of those myself honestly. Messing up a date by a year is so common for people within the discipline that I wouldn't necessarily call the work into question for it alone. Relm (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  There's more about the Song Tang Dynasty claims in the thread at Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#Why_not_just_add_a_section_about_the_samourai_status. The whole thread is a bit long, so search for the text The actual source for the "Tang Court" claim can be traced back to, the start of a paragraph where an anon gave us a link to the sources where this content originated. Apparently, somewhere along the line of authors playing "telephone", the original statement was alterered. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I can no longer reply there so I will respond to it here:

  The 'Tang' being referenced is clearly in reference to New Book of Tang which is why on page eleven this segment starts with "The history of tne T'ang Dynasty mentions the Arabian Empire last in 796 a.d. In the ninth century nothing more is said of it." The New Book of Tang is the main source for the Southern Tang and was compiled by court historians during the Song dynasty from the court records handed down. Bretschneider was certainly ahead of his time in regards to his forwarding the theory on Kunlun (island) being what is now regarded as the correct answer of Côn Sơn Island which the British briefly held and referred to by the Malay name of Pulu Condore. What is notable to me is that Bretschneider does refer to the inhabitants as native to the land, yet I would be surprised for a Chinese court to be stunned at a Malay given the history of tribute and trade that is well documented. I will probably dig into this later and maybe write on it academically at some point since the New Book of Tang is pretty untapped in English - and this might suggest African traders settling in, being recruited to mercantile ventures which ended up in China. Coupland as someone who is not a historian and certainly not familiar with Chinese history - seems to have misunderstood that the New Book of Tang Bretschneider referred to was in regards to the source rather than to the dynasty the event occured under. I wouldn't question Coupland's expertise on Japan for it, but I would put the rest of the work's claims under scrutiny (though as a non Historian I would imagine Coupland was drawing from other sources when writing on Yasuke?) Thanks for linking this to me nonetheless. Relm (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly right, thanks for saying it on my behalf. XeCyranium (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  If the Lockley / Girard book's statement that Yasuke is a samurai is based on a definition of the word "samurai" that is at odds with the definition used elsewhere in academic discussions of the Sengoku period, surely that is relevant to this discussion?

  Honest question. I am confused by the suggestion that we should ignore how the word "samurai" is used, when that is the keystone on which so much of this controversy appears to rest. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  Again thanks for the reply. I am aware of the case as argued on the talk page, but it is still OR. This is not a knock against the veracity or validity in and of itself, just that it is outside of the purview of Wikipedia to incorporate it without reliable sources - just imagine how many contentious pages would be mired in editors primary source interpretations on Holocaust death statistics, the Pentagon Papers, or a misunderstanding as I remember seeing happen on a page like The Finders (movement) where a user kept insisting on asserting the existence of tunnels underneath a preschool because an FBI file stated it. This interpretation was clearly wrong as the context of the FBI document shows it was a diagram obtained by the FBI and did not reflect reality or the assertion of the FBI - such specific and nuanced interpretation is unsuitable for an encyclopedia else this would become a forum for academic discussion rather than an encyclopedia of reliable source information. As a more critical response I would emphasize that we have both acknowledged our limited understanding of the Japanese language, whereas Lockley and other scholars that have been cited have histories demonstrating clear fluency, living and working in Japan at Japanese universities - I see no reason to not trust Lockley's translation off of the details listed, and believe that even if the article he wrote does not address those specific claims that they don't need to in order to qualify as a source for the claim. I primarily study China. Chinese translations to English are notoriously difficult to make, have been mired in the confusing development of the language over the past century, and traditional chinese which most sources are translated from are tantamount to learning a second language on top of mandarin due to how different the characters can be. If I open up Denis Twitchett and see a claim that is slightly different as to the title/position afforded to a person by Dong Zhuo than I see in Rafe de Crespigny - I know that they are both working off of a limited selection of primary sources and/or context and such an issue can be figured out from there. This doesn't lesson the scholarship of either person, and is just apart of the academic process. Here for Yasuke however we have an even less ambiguous case in the sources, as despite what has been percieved as an issue with the state of Yasuke's scholarship and scholarship on Samurai as a rank in general, there has not been a single reliable source dissenting with the assertion of Yasuke being a Samurai. This indicates that those who are fluent and have read the same primary sources we are all reading (including Purdy who notes them explicitly in his review) have not found reason to cast doubt on this, and have not felt the need to justify it at length either.

  All in all, my suggestion would be to find reliable secondary sources which cast doubt on the claim, or wait for further scholarship now that there is interest in Yasuke as a person. Until either, I think the situation as to the page is firmly that the OR is insufficient to contest the weight of academic consensus on the matter. Relm (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  While I would agree a lot of this falls under OR (especially the interpretation of the impact of fuchi and sayamaki on Yasuke's samurainess), it highlights a problem with how primary sources on Yasuke are being approached.

  
  

  The primary sources are extremely scarce and in all fairness do not give a clear answer to Yasuke's role as part of Nobunaga's entourage, be it weapon bearer, bodyguard, samurai, etc. Some don't mention Yasuke by name, some are actually second-hand accounts based on word-of-mouth information.

  
  

  A good example of the above is the "tono" claim. Some secondary sources state the claim directly - Nobunaga would make Yasuke a "tono". While in reality it was town gossip as reported second-hand by a Jesuit missionary, making the original claim unreliable by definition.

  
  

  And that's the issue - secondary sources and tertiary sources almost never acknowledge the scarcity or reliability of primary sources and either present speculation as fact or go into the realm of fantasy like the books from Lockley and Edugyan.

  
  

  Even though I am not a Wikipedia editor and have no decisive say in the discussion, I still wanted to contribute in a way. All things considered, I think it's fair to call Yasuke a samurai, but either attribute that claim to historians or at least acknowledge the scarcity of primary sources and highlight it's a possibility, not definite fact. 81.223.103.71 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Others have already attributed the claim of Yasuke being a Samurai to many historians - and there has yet to be one which has asserted otherwise. These historians are people who have dedicated their career to understanding the context and nuances of these sorts of things so that they can interpret these primary source documents to a greater level of understanding in their original context than those who are just passing through the subject matter could hope to. This is why when all the sources seem to be in consensus that Yasuke is a samurai it is not the place of editors to justify or denigrate that claim with OR for reasons previously stated. Many sources from qualified figures have been presented which state that Yasuke was a samurai. Without any reliable source to state otherwise it should be unequivocally stated that he was a Samurai. When it comes to actual speculation, such things that are speculation (such as claims made by individual historians disagreeing on Yasuke's origin, or what occurred after his last appearance in the historical record) if they are to appear in the article would be directly attributed by the name of the author (see my example of Ellen Ternan and how despite her affair with Dicken's being unconfirmed, possibly one sided, or non existent at all - around ~3/4ths of that section is dedicated to peddling speculation from various biographers of Dickens. That treatment is not needed for the claim of Yasuke being a Samurai as there is no reliable source calling it into question or even softing doubt on the claim despite most of the ones I have read in the process of these conversations making mention of the scarcity of primary sources.

  In regards to Edugyan and Lockley... I frankly do not understand the fixation on them. Since the announcement of Assassins Creed: Shadows, both have received death threats, hate mail, and the latter has even claimed that it might seriously hinder his career. These two did not 'go into the realm of fantasy'. Edugyan's book is focused on how African's are represented in media in various places, with Yasuke - as one of few black figures prominent in East Asian media - serving as an example when discussing Asian depictions. Their work is not suitable for citing specific historical claims, that much can be agreed to but to call it fantasy is denying it for what sort of scholarship it actually is because it doesn't meet the niche criteria for this that it was never meant to. For Lockley as pointed out he has the qualifications and has published peer reviewed work on Yasuke on many occasions, with atleast one directly stating that Yasuke is a Samurai in the title. Lockley having co-authored a pop history book on Yasuke with a novelist just means that the book is not a reliable source and if cited for any claim alone should be directly attributed - it does not mean that Lockley leans into fantasy. From what I read in the reviews and from reading segments of the book it is clear when there is dramatic writing which fluffs out scenes by trying to inspire awe through writing (as pop history biographies all tend to do) and with purely speculative claims (such as Yasuke's possible participation in the Imjin War) they are presented in that light - speculation. This is very different from say, Craig Shreve's book which is explicitly meant to be historical fiction.

  This RSN has gone on for quite a while with almost all involved originally presenting their cases. Many have even started tailoring their discussions away from specifically lockley and more towards what follows from the general consensus here:

  • Lockley's coauthored and un-peer reviewed book is not suitable for citing when there are better sources which others have recommended be cited instead.

  • Lockley's more specific claims, if included in the article anywhere should be directly attributed.

  • Lockley's other scholarship has no reason presented to be called into doubt aside from OR oriented claims that his definition to the author of the TIME piece he gave a brief definition of Samurai which some have argued is too reductive.

  • There is acknowledged from many that there is no dissenting voice from a reliable source to contest the current academic consensus, with those wishing for the claim to be weighed as speculative only having OR to cite on this matter.

  This is all in line with Wikipedia's policies, and given the result of the RFC I too believe that this RSN is reaching near its end with it devolving into an extension of the discussions that should more properly be happening on the Yasuke and Samurai pages respectively - with reliable sources being cited rather than OR. Relm (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:CONTEXTFACTS I disagree that the book can be labeled as "pop history", which is a bit of a buzzword and does not have a clear definition. I am also not against citing any of Lockley's works, as they've all gone through some sort of scholarly review and/or vetting. Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  If not "going into the realm of fantasy", how else would you describe speculations on the relationship between Oda Nobunaga and Yasuke which include personal impressions and emotions, and detailed descriptions of events not mentioned in any of the original, primary sources?

  
  

  I am personally not familiar with the current situation of Edugyan, however it is apparent that Lockley's and Girard's book inspired a number of highly speculative tertiary sources and pop articles which confuse speculations and fictional depictions of Yasuke with his historical figure, making it challenging to identify reliable historical sources.

  
  

  I agree on the remaining points, however. The RSN should've focused strictly on Lockley and his more reliable works. 81.223.103.71 (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Lockley has many works on Yasuke. Focusing entirely on his work of pop history is unhelpful for either side when he has other works that attribute the title of Samurai to Yasuke that are peer reviewed. Lockley is a scholar on the subject, and the view of Yasuke being a Samurai predates his book both in English and in Japanese as has been shown in various places previously. One could strike Lockley's name from the article entirely and it would not change the status of the claim as being the prevailing academic consensus in the reliable sources. I agree that any source which purely relies on a work of pop history should be weighed and scrutinized for doing such, but in this case I do not think that is quite what is happening. Many articles which interviewed Lockley are interviewing a scholar on the topic with peer reviewed works on Yasuke being a Samurai - Lockley's having coauthored a pop history book on Yasuke does not detract from this. This is why the one contention I have noticed to discredit Lockley as a source has been that his definition of Samurai is very reductive or loose - however it seems to be in line with the Samurai page on wikipedia, the other sources provided, and so on for the period - as well as working with the primary sources on Yasuke. It was in error that the page used Lockley's pop history book to cite for the claim, to that I think most people here agree, but I don't believe there has been anything presented which would doubt Lockley's general body of scholarship.

  1. In summary, the one attempt I saw to discredit outright discredit Lockley's entire work anywhere in these discussions was a claim working backwards from a conclusion which stated that 'since Lockley called Yasuke a Samurai he must be discredited'. If people have reason to question Lockley's qualifications or have sources in opposition to his general scholarship, then these should be presented.

  2. 'Fantasy' when attributed to a scholar carries the connotation that the work is improbable/ludicrous/discredited or that it is outright false in most aspects. Historical Fiction can have fantastical elements (such as a series of novels about the napoleonic wars but with dragons tossed in, or a series which puts magic into a historical setting as a mamtter of fact), but it is not necessarily overlapping. If I or others were to cite Lockley, I do agree that for his more speculative claims such as Yasuke's origin in Sudan or his speculation that Yasuke might have participated in the Imjin War, that they should be directly attributed to his name and preferably cited from his other more academic works or his interviews.

  I hope this clarifies my position, I am admittedly tired of how circular a lot of this discussion has become across all three places, and just wish that people could put it on pause until more searching can be done for other sources as well as looking into the previously non-accessed sources discussed elsewhere. Relm (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Many thanks for the patience and clarifying your position. I would also like to apologize if it seemed I am trying to disparage Lockley as a scholar. That was indeed not my intention. I am likewise tired of how much the discussion has expanded and unfortunately on a personal level as a researcher myself also frustrated by how much various speculations around Yasuke are treated as objective fact.

  
  

  Going forward I will leave the discussion here and on the main Yasuke Talk page to proper Wikipedia editors. 81.223.103.71 (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Then perhaps you should find a source saying so. As of course, original research is not allowed. XeCyranium (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out a couple of sources on Yasuke that might be helpful. None of them is exceptional, but they add to the pile.

  • Zehra Sagra, Yasuke: Der legendäre „schwarze Samurai“ (Yasuke: The legendary "black samurai"), in JapanDigest, 9 February 2024: Yasuke was the first samurai of African descent, if not the first non-Japanese samurai in Japanese history (Google translation). The author is described as a "prospective Japanologist at Freie Universität Berlin" [48]) and JapanDigest is a specialised online magazine published by the Japanese media company News Digest International. The article looks like an accurate summary of published material and primary sources on Yasuke. Among the former, the article relies heavily on Lockley, plus a couple of essays published in the "Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies", 1998, which have already been analysed on the talk page (they neither call Yasuke a "samurai" nor exclude that he became a samurai).
  • "La légende retrouvée de Yasuke, le premier samouraï noir du Japon" (The rediscovered legend of Yasuke, Japan's first black samurai), Le Monde, 24 January 2018: A former slave born on the East African coast in the mid-16th century, Yasuke became the first foreign samurai in Japanese history (DeepL transaltion). The article was published before the publication of Lockley's book and has nothing to do with it. It is based on a French book about Yasuke as a samurai, Yasuke, le samurai noir by Serge Bilé (Owen, 2018), which is defined by the publisher as an "essay, fictional biography" (essai, biographie romancée) [49]. The article also includes an interview with Julien Peltier, author of "Samouraïs, dix destins incroyables" (Prisma, 2016).

  None of these sources are high quality academic sources and yet, as I said, they add to the pile. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666, thank you for the additions.

  Digging in, the German article seems to be backed by Lockley / Girard for its claims on Yasuke and samurai status. Towards the bottom of that article:

Weiterführende Literatur ["Continuing Literature", i.e. "See also"]:

• Lockley, Thomas & Girard Geoffrey (2019): African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan, Herausgeber: Hanover Square Press
• Tsujiuchi, Makoto (1998): Historical Context of Black Studies in Japan, in: Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, 30, No. 2, pp. 95-100
• Wright, David (1998): The use of Race and Racial Perceptions among Asians and Blacks: The case of the Japanese and African Americans, in: Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2

We previously examined Tsujiuchi and found no mention of "samurai", as detailed at Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Samurai_status.

Wright's paper here via JStor only mentions Yasuke twice, if the search feature is working correctly, and it makes no statement that Yasuke was or was not a samurai.

The French article does indeed seem to rely on Serge Bilé's book, which, as a fictional biography, would not seem to be a reliable source for our purposes. There is but one quote from Julien Peltier, and he makes no statement about samurai status with regard to Yasuke (translation via Google, lightly tweaked):

« Il est aujourd’hui impossible de connaître la fin de Yasuke, explique Julien Peltier, auteur de Samouraïs, dix destins incroyables (éd. Prisma, 2016). Yasuke était un homme respecté et on peut aussi envisager qu’il soit resté au Japon. Mais c’est spéculatif. »

“Today it is impossible to know the end of Yasuke,” explains Julien Peltier, author of Samurai, ten incredible destinies (ed. Prisma, 2016). “Yasuke was a respected man and we can also imagine that he remained in Japan. But that's speculative.”

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Lockley's book - the page where Lockley reconstructs Yasuke's status as a samurai (or better a "hatamoto", he claims). I know nothing about Japanese history, but it is clear that this is one of the most academic and least fictional parts of the book. This does not mean that Lockley is right in his reconstruction, of course, but anyone can see that it is a well-reasoned and deliberate assessment on his part.

Lockley on Yasuke as a samurai

During the fifteenth century and The Age of the Country at War, the endless battles took their toll on the limited ranks of the traditional samurai families, and many daimyō lords decided they needed to expand their armies. Gone were the days when a few hundred highly trained, magnificently attired samurai squared off against each other with swords in battle. By Yasuke’s era, the armies were tens of thousands strong and the need for cheap soldiers had provisionally overridden the need to keep peasants exclusively growing rice. Many men now regularly dropped their tools and lofted spears when they were called upon, leaving the women, elderly and children to work the fields until they returned, if they ever did. Eventually, as the wars expanded in scope, the distances covered made returning home regularly an impossibility. Many of the peasants now found themselves receiving regular wages and better arms from their lords and they held an ambiguous dual status as farmers and lower-ranking samurai, known as ashigaru. (The key difference from traditional samurai being that ashigaru were not normally permanently retained, nor did they hold fiefs.) This development led in many areas to a more assertive lower class with a sense of their own power and military utility. These farmers had now also been to war, and held a spear or fired a gun. No longer would they be so easily bullied around by the samurai. They wanted a bigger portion of the proverbial rice bowl, perhaps even with some real rice in it. Thus, following The Age of the Country at War, there was no shortage of “samurai” in Japan. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps up to half a million, could have claimed the epithet, though few would have any real family pedigree beyond the last couple of generations in the elite warrior world. A daimyō could call upon both direct personal retainers such as Yasuke, and part-time ashigaru warriors to swell his ranks. The direct personal retainers could be classified into four groups. Family members, hereditary vassals, officers of the levies and hatamoto, who were the lord’s personal attendants. Family members and vassals who held their own fiefs were expected to bring their own samurai and ashigaru with them when called upon to fight. It is not known exactly which rank Yasuke held, but it would probably have been equivalent to hatamoto. The hatamoto saw to the lord’s needs, handling everything from finance to transport, communications to trade. They were also the bodyguards and pages to the warlord, traveling with him and spending their days in his company.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This is indeed a very well-structured paragraph, thank you for bringing it up! It belongs to the 2019 African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan book, correct?

While I am not extremely intimate with Japanese history, I do have some familiarity and speak Japanese. Based on how Lockley uses the word "samurai" here:

- ashigaru (足軽) are mentioned as lower-ranking samurai, but later he mentions samurai and ashigaru separately

- in some sentences "samurai" seems to refer to the nobility class implicitly ("No longer would they be so easily bullied around by the samurai.")

- "samurai" is put in quotes, possibly intentionally, to highlight it could've been treated as more of a blanket term to describe retained warriors in Sengoku Jidai?

To me it seems like what Lockley really means in the case of Yasuke is bushi (武士, warrior). There is a partial overlap between "bushi" and "samurai" where in Japanese sources "bushi" is used to distinguish a regular warrior from the samurai nobility when needed (specific sources would need to be provided for this claim, of course). Incidentally, it's also used to talk about Yasuke in Atkins, E. Taylor (2017-10-19), A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4742-5857-9

Unfortunately, this complicates things a little bit, because it seems like rather than Yasuke being described as "samurai nobility", he is a "samurai warrior/warrior". Lockley seems to echo a similar sentiment in the interview for TIME magazine.

Regarding hatamoto (旗本), I would say that title was reserved for higher ranking samurai, but Lockley himself rolls also bodyguards and pages under the "hatamoto" term which makes it way broader and unclear what kind of hatamoto was Yasuke in his opinion. SmallMender (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the excerpt in the hat is was taken from chapter 13 of African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan, by Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girard. I've just come across another passage in the book that might be of interest here, as it deals with the concept of "samurai" and how it changed in Yasuke's time, at the end of the sixteenth century. This is taken from the selected bibliography at the end of chapter 13:

Lockley on the Samurai as caste

The Samurai as caste: In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. At the end of The Age of the Country at War, around the end of the sixteenth century, most of those who’d fought on the samurai side in the civil wars, even some of the peasants, pirates and ninja, were classified as “samurai” in a formalized caste structure with the samurai at the top—a hereditary warrior/administrator/ruling class. The caste ranking continued with peasants, artisans and merchants, who took the lowest status (because they lived off everybody else’s hard work). Outside of the scope of the caste system were eta, impure people who dealt with death, and hinin, nonpersons such as ex-convicts and vagrants who worked as town guards, street cleaners or entertainers. Legally speaking, an eta was worth one-seventh of a human being. The Age of the Country at War had been probably the most socially fluid period since the eighth century. Able men and women, like Yasuke, were able to rise through the ranks due to the chaos. No more. From this time until their caste was abolished by law in 1873, the samurai were forbidden (in most of the country) to farm or engage in mercantile activity and had to live in castle towns rather than country villages. This was the time when the word samurai takes on its modern meaning of a warrior caste rather than actual warrior role. In the virtual absence of war or any challenge from below between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, the samurai caste had little warring to do and the martial arts we now associate with this class were codified and formed the roots of modern sports like kendo, judo and aikido. Samurai were still furnished with a stipend by their lord, determined by rank, although over time, the value of the stipend was devalued so much by inflation that many samurai families were forced to find other ways to make ends meet. A few, such as the Mitsui family, founders of the modern-day multinational conglomerate, gave up their samurai swords and lowered themselves to merchant status. For the overwhelming majority, this was a step too far, and they starved or lived in abject poverty rather than “lower” themselves.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the detailed description of how the meaning of "samurai" changed over time and the fact that Lockley distinguishes the samurai nobility as a separate caste tracks with other sources. These less speculative sections of the book also prove it can be used as a reliable secondary source in the Yasuke article and later in the Samurai article if it requires further clean-up and making the "samurai" vs samurai distinction clearer.

However, it might now pose challenges in understanding other secondary sources which either call Yasuke a samurai without elaborating what is meant by that or use expressions such as "he was given the rank/status of samurai by Nobunaga", which is confusing, because

A) The general Sengoku Jidai warrior "samurai" was not a rank, but a broad description of conscripted fighters of different ranks

B) Outside of specific privileges Yasuke clearly received (per primary sources), there is no mention of rank or role he was given and secondary/tertiary sources use a variety of terms (a kind of bodyguard, samurai, kosho, retainer, hatamoto, etc.)

Apologies if the 2nd paragraph goes too much into OR or SYNTH. SmallMender (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, as I understand the terms in B, they are not mutually exclusive. A lot of the sources I have read describing Yasuke interpret the primary sources as suggesting that Yasuke had Nobunaga's favor, and carried items for him which was a privilege generally afforded to very high ranking samurai. Whether it was weaponry or something else, there is little to suggest that any of these terms would contradict another aside from potentially a minor disagreement over whether a person carrying their lords weapon would also be a 'bodyguard' at the same time in that duty - which is pedantic to the point it is not worth arguing relative to everything else going on with the Yasuke page. Relm (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct, they are not mutually exclusive, but in this case which one should be used to talk about Yasuke's role in respect to Nobunaga? The one which is most commonly used by historians or all of them with appropriate attributions?

Also, regarding "samurai". Lockley makes it quite clear what he means when he refers to Yasuke as a samurai, but what about the other sources? Do they mean a regular employed warrior or the hereditary samurai nobility caste? SmallMender (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I do not think the distinction must be firmly stated for Wikipedia's purposes even if academically I do think the lack of defining the term clearly is a disservice. Such conversations more aptly belong on the Samurai talk page, as if even if the authors here disagree about the specifics it is clear that they still call Yasuke a Samurai. Given how widespread this claim is, and that most authors did not feel they needed to specifically state the full reasoning in their interpretations of the primary sources - it is something that would still require a dissenting reliable source to begin weighing the two, which is something that could be expected to come into existence as Yasuke continues to become more relevant as a cultural figure. In regards to the role in respect to Nobunaga I believe 'Samurai' should remain in the lead as per the RFC, but that any discussion of his roles in service to nobunaga be in the body - with any speculative attributions being given direct attribution. Relm (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Given how widespread this claim is [that Yasuke was a samurai],"

How widespread is it, actually? In academia, and outside of the popular press, I mean?

I took a chunk of time today and went through the list of references at Yasuke#Citations.

After omitting those only concerned with the Yasuke#In_popular_culture section (starting from ref # 36), and removing duplicates, we have 30.

Of these, three appear to be secondary sources that mention Yasuke and "samurai".

• Lockley's 2017 book Yasuke: In search of the African Samurai, as published in Japanese translation as 「信長と弥助：本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍」 [Nobunaga and Yasuke: The black samurai who survived Honnō-ji]. I just received my copy of this yesterday.

Oddly, while the Japanese book is clearly marked as a translation of an English-language book, all my attempts at finding the original Yasuke: In search of the African Samurai seem to point instead at the Lockley / Girard book African Samurai. See also the hits at https://www.google.com/search?q=%22yasuke:+in+search+of+the+african+samurai%22+%22lockley%22.

As a side-note, the author's bio in this Japanese book states that Lockley's area of research is language learning, not history.

• López-Vera's A History of the Samurai: Legendary Warriors of Japan. Briefly mentions Yasuke as a samurai, no inline citations, no reasoning given for the statement. Relevant section viewable here in Google Books.
• Atkins's A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present (2nd ed.). No preview available in Google Books. The quotation given in the refs (emphasis mine):

"Impressed with Yasuke's height and strength (which "surpassed that of ten men"), Nobunaga gave him a sword signifying bushi status. Yasuke served as Nobunaga's retainer and conversation partner for the last year of the warlord's life, defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces in 1582, where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuku). Although there are no known portraits of the "African samurai," there are some pictorial depictions of dark-skinned men (in one of which he is sumo wrestling) from the early Edo period that historians speculate could be Yasuke."

The author's use of quotes here appears to indicate that he is not himself calling Yasuke a samurai, but rather referencing what others have been calling him.

There are a couple I have not been able to evaluate.

• Possibly: Fujita's アフリカ「発見」日本におけるアフリカ像の変遷 [Discover Africa―History of African image in Japan (World History series)] (in Japanese).
• Possibly: Turnbull's The Samurai Sourcebook.

No preview available on Google Books, no quotes given, for either work. I'm not sure if these are secondary or tertiary sources. Outside of the context in which they are used as citations on the [[Yasuke]] page, I have no other detail on specifically what claims they make regarding Yasuke. At any rate, neither is currently used to cite the claim of Yasuke as a samurai.

It looks like we have only two secondary sources that claim Yasuke was a samurai. That doesn't seem widespread, to me.

Are there other secondary sources not yet listed, that also make this claim? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think when they say he was a samurai the reasonable conclusion to draw from that description is that they believe he was a samurai, which is sufficient for our purposes. If you wish to interrogate the meaning of the word there are more appropriate articles. XeCyranium (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

According to this page,[50] Lockley spread different information in Japanese and English, and while his writings in Japanese are mostly based on historical facts, his writings in English seem to be full of fanciful statements.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think the self-published research (personal blog post) of Naoto, who describes themselves as "Japanese teacher ... a huge fan of anime and games" [51], should have any bearing on this discussion? With all the media hype about Yasuke, it's surprising that no expert historian of Japan has bothered to publicly correct the inaccuracies about his samurai status in reports by major outlets such as CNN, BBC, TIME, Britannica, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This page is a personal blog, but I thought it would be helpful to have a detailed comparison and analysis of Lockley's book. Of course, a personal blog is not a site that meets Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability, but I thought it could be used as a reference for discussion on the talk page. The reason why Japanese history experts do not correct incorrect information is that they do not know what theories are being spread outside of Japan and cannot communicate them in English due to a lack of English proficiency. For example, an old and erroneous theory about the existence of the Shi-nō-kō-shō (士農工商, samurai, peasants (hyakushō), craftsmen, and merchants) status system in the Edo period still exists outside Japan, but no Japanese historian has attempted to correct it for over 30 years. Nor have the mainstream theories of Japanese scholars about the Mongol invasion of Japan spread outside Japan at all.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed helpful (thanks for sharing) because it contains an extract from "信長の黒人「さむらい」弥助" (in "つなぐ世界史", 2023), one of the only peer-reviewed works by Lockley about Yasuke, according to his Nippon University profile (the other one being 'The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga's African Retainer', 2016). This is the article that @Relm and I were looking for.

この時代，武士とそれ以外の身分の垣根は曖味であり、本当に弥助が「サムライ」となったのかについては議論があるものの、少なくともその身一代においては、彼は間違いなく信長の家臣に取り立てられたと考えられている。

In this period, the boundaries between samurai and other statuses were blurred, and although there is some debate as to whether Yasuke really became a 'samurai', it is believed that he was definitely taken on as a vassal/retainer of Nobunaga, at least in his own lifetime.

If Lockley makes contradictory statements depending on whether his work is peer-reviewed or not, it is a problem.

I should receive the journal tomorrow, so I'll check and share a scan here. Thibaut (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The quotation is genuine (p. 32). Thibaut (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. So in this paper, Lockley appears to set aside the question of whether Yasuke was definitively a samurai? While in other non-peer-reviewed works, he states that Yasuke was definitively a samurai? That is concerning.

I am also concerned by Lockley's unattributed use of the passive 「と考えられている」 ("it is thought that"). Who thinks this? Seems like a {{cn}} is needed for that statement.

(Side note: translating 身一代 as "his lifetime" seems like a mistake for a couple reasons: 1) the Japanese term can refer to a portion of one's life; 2) the antecedent in the Japanese appears to be Yasuke, while in the English it could be Nobunaga [which would make more sense].) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

To my understanding と考えられている is used to highlight that something is an established consensus based on previous knowledge, in which case explicit attribution is not needed. It's more a figure of speech. The sources are listed on page 35, at the end and I think all of them were already mentioned one way or another in the Yasuke article.

As for 身一代 I understood it as referring to the period at the beginning of the sentence, however the alternative would more likely be Yasuke (その身 + 一代 and not 身一代) - throughout his lifetime. SmallMender (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed about 一代 being the focus part. However, as this is phrased in Japanese, I cannot parse that to mean "in his lifetime" and have that make sense. Specifically: Yasuke lived past the Honnō-ji incident, and given that he was apparently remanded to the custody of the Jesuits by Akechi, and that he disappears from Japanese records, he wasn't of any particular Japanese social status for the remainder of his life.

I am curious to read the article in its entirety; time is my current limiter. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in another comment elsewhere, the first page contains the following:

彼の従者の名は日本の史料によると［弥助］、サムライ としては極めて特異な存在であって。

Which very clearly refers to Yasuke as a Samurai in no uncertain terms. I think this segment, especially given its place in the text, serves as him addressing the status by saying that given the other details about him that he was a Samurai. I am vehemently against the softening of 家臣 to 'retainer/vassal' when in both Chinese and Japanese it has always been in reference to a higher ranking vassal in every instance I have seen it in. Relm (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've commented about the wording and spelling choices here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think, that this article is at least in one regard relevant.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2024/05/25/digital/yasuke-assasins-creed-samurai/

in this article, Lockley makes some comments, who seem to me a bit strange, but he distance himself from the game of ubisoft too. This is kinda irrelevant.

But it should be noticed, that Lockley claimed, that the historian Sakujin Kirino would have peer-reviewed his work from 2019 and this seem to be incorrect and had to be corrected in the article. https://twitter.com/kirinosakujin/status/1795768862652449021 these posts seem to have created the change in the article. notice, that his comment about the book was from 2017 and that he reacted to the recent article of the japan times and the question of a person, who is cleary critical to Lockney https://twitter.com/laymans8/status/1812338780248170548 as seen in this post, explicit about his actions on wikipedia in the past...btw: what were the actions of the Japanese wikipedia about this stuff?

Lockley believed the peer-reviewing in the article to be the case on this work from 2019, maybe it is not updated on his profil site.

just if this news was missed.

https://twitter.com/kirinosakujin

Sakujin Kirino is by his twitter account an Historical writer. Visiting researcher at Musashino University's Institute of Political and Economic Research. Mainly interested in Oda Nobunaga and the history of Kagoshima.

He has also a blog. http://dangodazo.blog83.fc2.com/ so i think, it is his legit account on twitter. He released books too, but not about Yasuke. ErikWar19 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, the article has retracted the claim the book was fact checked by Kirino, but did not state that Lockley claimed it as such. Do you have a source for that claim? The tweet from Kirino suggests that he read and gave feedback but was not a fact checker in his own words. This makes sense given he is a writer and not a historian.

Likewise the tweet from Laymans8 has been deleted and can not be accessed through that link. Relm (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the first I've seen mention of that textbook - which given how textbooks are written I am skeptical is 'solely' written by Lockley. The textbook, if true, is concerning irt how information is being presented but is far from out of the norm for what is actually in many such textbooks. I looked and found most of those claims sourced to the Togetter aggregate for a twitter user whose threads are entirely rage-baiting Japanese Nationalists with hyperbolic titles about how Lockley's work is racist towards Japanese people. Naoto similarly cites Mark Kern on his initial post on the issue of Yasuke, which gives the impression that Naoto's information is derived from a bubble consisting of the german video, right wing culture war rage bait, and their own personal experience. I had heard of Naoto before and watched some of their videos - they are not qualified to assess the validity of Lockley, and I think relying on an OR aggregate that is clearly leaning towards one side of the issue is woefully painting an incomplete picture. I could link many examples of redditors who have cited their credentials or the associated megathreads aggregating such posts and trying to validate a view which is pro-samurai irt Yasuke. The issue with these sources is that they are all outside of the scope of Wikipedia, and they are for the subject matter experts in those fields to handle with the care that is needed. When Oliver Jia as cited by Naoto says he intends to publish a response to Lockley, he did so not in a reliable source but through his own paywalled blogpost.

As a historian myself I am a bit disheartened so see that someone like Lockley could be vilified as he is here by comparing him to 'perfidious albion' when all that is being shown here falls into three camps:

1. Cherrypicking and comparing similar statements for a man with many dozens of interviews. If you ask a historian to explain something in historical context, it is understandable that they would tailor their explanation to their audience or that their method of conveying this information would change. Given the time between each of the associated statements and the context of their utterance it is silly to attribute pure malice to it as Naoto does.

2. The textbook as mentioned earlier, which is at worst showing a poor choice of citation from someone outside his discipline

3. Non verifiable or poorly sourced statements from other users. Relm (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

>As a historian myself I am a bit disheartened so see that someone like Lockley could be vilified as he is here by comparing him to 'perfidious albion'

I'm not a historian, but I do read some history, and I've never read an author that wrote his work in the form of a novel. I think that is the thing that is catching Lockley so much flack. And that isn't due to the "method of conveying information" changing, but the information being conveyed itself changing. And that critisism comes from other historians, such as Kaneko and Purdy. Some quotes from Purdy:

>The writing is lively and energetic and reads more like James Clavell’s 1995 novel Shogun, perhaps because one of the authors, Girard, is a novelist with an MFA in creative writing. The book is clearly intended for the reader of popular history.

>The challenge in this historic account of the legendary African warrior is that there is precious little primary evidence about him. Yasuke left no account of his own, and, according to the authors, only four people could be considered witnesses to his experience in Japan.

On the "admired and close attendant" point you mentioned above:

>Likewise, there is no discussion of the evidence that explains how, in just fifteen months, Yasuke and Nobunaga developed such a close relationship. Was it just Yasuke’s height and skin color? Presumably, much of this might come from Frois based on reasonable speculation, but, without specific references, details often seem like creative embellishments, rather than historical narrative.

I don't think its fair to characterize Lockley as being criticized completely unfairly from right wing pundits when other historians are doing the same. Like I said I've never seen a respected historian do this. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it definitely raises questions for me. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never read an author that wrote his work in the form of a novel. - some of the olds like me may remember Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Historians co author with novelists rather often. It's reductive to say Lockley's book is 'just a novel' when it is pop history with a flare of historical fiction, written with Lockley's interpretation of the history at its core with the flow of a novel to flesh out those events and describe to an a non-Japanese audience what Yasuke's contemporary life was like. I have agreed elsewhere on this RSN that it is not worth citing over other works which speak to Lockley as a scholar more directly which serve as better sources, but likewise I've also read Purdy's review fully and have commented about it on this talk page in detail. Purdy's review states all of this irt Lockley's book while also:

1. engaging with how little there is about Yasuke in the primary sources

2. having Purdy Refer to Yasuke as a Samurai

3. primarily criticizing the book's method of giving 'suggested reading' and the list of primary sources without attribution or in-line citation

4. Purdy does not call Lockley as an author into question, he calls the book for what it is - and that is a substantial difference. I am again reminded of however many civil war biography or 'all encompassing' books have similar reviews which trash the presentation of books for a mass market while not calling the authors entire body of scholarship into question.

Lockley's book is one piece of his larger contribution to academia, and it should be taken for what it is rather than made to seem like something it is not meant to be. This is the characterization of his work that I am criticizing as far too reductive. Relm (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

>having Purdy Refer to Yasuke as a Samurai

I don't think that counts as Purdy endorsing Yasuke as a Samurai as it is in the summary part of the review, not the analysis. He quotes other claims by Lockley in the summary without challenging them there either:

>During this fifteen-month period, Nobunaga elevated Yasuke to samurai rank, and the two formed a close bond.

He later goes on to question the second part of the claim in analysis. So what he quotes from Lockley in the summary is not an endorsement. In general the format for historical book reviews is summary then analysis, at least from what I remember from my history professor in University, which seems correct from a quick search eg. [here:

>Summarize the book’s organization and give a little more detail about the author’s sub-arguments. Here you would also work in your assessment of the evidence and sources used.

>Strengths and weaknesses or flaws in the book are usually discussed next.

I don't take Purdy's review as an in depth discussion of Lockley. To me, it seems like he read the book and saw there were problems with the way it is written and put that into his review. It is clear that Purdy would not use Lockley as a source without checking for that information elsewhere.

>engaging with how little there is about Yasuke in the primary sources

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't think its valid to make up facts where there is little to go off of. In fact it is worse then because there is no way to prove the person wring by counter-example. ie. you can't say "this didn't happen because this other event is what actually did happen, and here are my sources for that." J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think it's valid.." - after reading all of this, ultimately, is your argument that Lockley is unreliable that you don't think its valid? 弥助は本物の忍者だった (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Some of Lockley's works are absolutely not valid (such as his novel). My argument above, however, is not about whether Lockley is valid in general but about if criticism of Lockley is justified. Also, I invite you to read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Just about the textbook — 『英語で読む　外国人がほんとに知りたい日本の文化と歴史』 appears to be this work:

• Google Books: https://www.google.com/books/edition/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%A7%E8%AA%AD%E3%82%80%E5%A4%96%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E3%81%8C%E3%81%BB%E3%82%93%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AB/wN7sxwEACAAJ?hl=en
• Amazon.co.jp: https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%A7%E8%AA%AD%E3%82%80%E5%A4%96%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E3%81%8C%E3%81%BB%E3%82%93%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AB%E7%9F%A5%E3%82%8A%E3%81%9F%E3%81%84%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E6%96%87%E5%8C%96%E3%81%A8%E6%AD%B4%E5%8F%B2-Lockley-Thomas/dp/4487812887/ref=sr_1_1

From what I can see in the book's listings, Lockley is the sole credited author.

Looking some at the content previews in Amazon, this content seems appropriate for Lockley's stated research field of language learning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

ohhh boy. @Relmcheatham

i can sadly no longer verify to 100% the content of the original article, as the internet archives don't show this part any more, it was more meant to highlight a potential problem of claiming, that Lockleys works were peer read. I don't have his works, so i posted it more as information with links to allow everyone to look it up himself. I dont even know, if the term peer-reading other user used, is identical with fact checker of the article. But an article had to be changed, so we should probably look into it to secure the reliability of this source, right? i want to add, that you can see the questionable area on the "german video" at 24:52 and i presumed it to be from the original claim, as it was changed after the release of this video.

i dont really understand the broken link, it is still on his twitter page. So i will post again the link (https://twitter.com/laymans8/status/1812844234078322899)and i will add (https://twitter.com/laymans8) his general page, it should be at 15 Jul 2024.

I will add, that while i don't know, if laymans8 is part of this group or just finding out about these things and getting discovered by them, the german video is "Einfach Japanisch" and i think, it is just awkward position, but this person itself is not right-wing or political active, in fact, the german state media praises his works https://www.ndr.de/kultur/kunst/Einfach-japanisch-Influencer-Hiro-Yamada-erklaert-Japans-Kultur-,hiroyamada100.html 2 weeks ago and he is a big translator, explicit for the Carlsen-Verlag in Germany. "not qualified to assess the validity of Lockley" is not correct in this area of competence. Him pointing at the differences of his recent Japanese publications and his former english publications is revealing.

additional, i want to add, that the video highlights at least a contradiction of Lockley in in the CNN news article, usually posted here about Lockley.

(Additional i want to add, that there is not a massive discussion from historians about Yasuke in general, not about him being "not a samurai" or that he was "not a slave", maybe because both of these claims are simply irrelevant small opinions of few experts against the majority of historians, who view Yasuke without any need to declare for him any form of rank. In general, I think WP articles are the better the closer they are to the terms used in primary historic sources.)

-- ErikWar19 (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You can view the original on archive.is J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

attempted and failed, the screenshot only shows the start of the article, that didn't changed. Can you see the full article on the archive? ErikWar19 (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought you were talking abut the japantimes article? If so, yes, the oldest of the three snapshots shows the original. But reading the thread again it seems maybe you are talking about a different article. If so then never mind. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please watch this video[52] with English subtitles. This video shows in detail the contradictions between the descriptions in the primary sources that describe Yasuke and the descriptions in several books that are secondary sources presented by Lockley. He changes the descriptions in the Japanese and English books, and in the English books he often presents speculation and fantasy as historical fact. Therefore, I do not believe that Thomas Lockley's sources or sources based on his sources are reliable. All of his sources should be rejected. Rather than the issue of whether or not to describe Yasuke as a samurai, I think a more serious issue is the spread of Lockley's speculative and fanciful descriptions and statements to the world as historical fact.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley & Girard's works "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" & "Yasuke: The true story of the legendary African Samurai" clearly contain a significant amount of speculative or fictional historical content which is not based on, or is contradicted by, known historical record. Examples include: Yasuke's origins in North East Africa (contradicted by Solier); Yasuke's childhood training as a Habshi warrior (unsourced); Yasuke's position as a bodyguard for Valignano (unsourced); Yasuke's travels in India and China prior to arriving in Japan (speculative); Japanese viewing Yasuke as a god, demon or Buddha (unsourced); Yasuke's Japanese language prowess (presented as greater than in the sources); Yasuke training in Japanese martial arts (unsourced); Yasuke taking Oda Nobunaga's head after the Honnoji Incident (attributed to "Oda family legend"); Yasuke's involvement in battles (only his being attacked while with Nobunaga's brother after the Honnoji attack is in the sources); Yasuke's travels after Oda's death (unsourced); A black man, possibly Yasuke, being represented on a lacquerware inkstone box (speculative, erroneous).
A staff review from the Peabody Institute Library includes the following:

Yasuke’s story is extremely compelling and Lockley tells it in a fast pace intimate fashion. Sometimes a little to intimate. He often refers to Yasuke’s facial expressions in different situations and it always made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end “how could he know that?” Historical documents are rarely that specific. And it turns out that much of the specifics story of the book were based on educated guesses. Most of what is known of about Yasuke comes from letters written by the Jesuits which are admittedly detailed for the time. He is also occasionally referenced by Japanese diarists. But facial expressions and discussions of what he was thinking are the authors creation not that of the historical record. ... So if you are prepared to take some of Yasuke’s story with a grain of salt it will be a very enjoyable and educational read.

I have no idea how reliable the Peabody Institute Library is, but that seems a fair enough summary.
Lockley & Girard's works are not always clear as to what is known, sourced, fact, and what is "educated guesses" or speculative fiction.
Given the amount of speculative or unsupported content, it is difficult to conceive of the book being generally reliable on the subject of Yasuke.
Same or similar speculations are also present in Lockley's interviews & presentations in support of his work, which would suggest that these too are not generally reliable on the subject.
As the writer of the only book on Yasuke, Lockley's views have had heavy influence on a broad range of downstream sources; including the tertiary news & current affairs sources mentioned above, which might normally be considered reliable. Yasuke as (super?)heroic warrior samurai is a nice story which suits the present Zeitgeist, and has captured the imagination. Given the context, however, we should consider that these news sources are not situationally or contextually reliable for historical fact. Per WP:BESTSOURCES (and Hemiauchenia's comments elsewhere), we should be preferring academic scholarship over current affairs sources.
Suggest that Lockley's views, where & if included, should be attributed, unless corroborated by other independent scholarship; and that, where corroborated, we might prefer that other scholarship. Rotary Engine ^talk 13:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this suggestion, which echoes Eirikr's suggestion to include Lockley's viewpoints in the Yasuke article, provided that they are clearly attributed to Lockley. We have a few experts (Lockley, Lopez-Vera and Atkins) who speak of Yasuke as a samurai, and in the case of Lockley they also explain their reasons for doing so. Then we have an abundance of news sources (BBC, CNN, TIME, etc.) and tertiary sources (Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine) that do the same; some of these sources predate Lockley's book (see Le Monde and Serge Bilé's book). On the other hand, we don't have any reliable scholar or news organisation that explicitly disagrees with them. I feel that if we were to attribute "Yasuke as a samurai" to Lockley, we would be suggesting that this view is controversial, as if there were an academic debate about Yasuke's status, which isn't the case: there is a huge debate on the WP talk pages, as we can see, and in various online communities, blogs, social media, but no controversy among historians.

Why is there no controversy between historians? There may be several plausible explanations for this, and one is the following: it may well be that in English (and in languages other than Japanese) there is nothing wrong with calling a warrior of high rank and prestige, who belongs to the retinue of a warlord and has direct personal relations with his lord, 'samurai'. It is possible that this is particularly true before the Edo period if, as Lockley claims, In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. Obviously Yasuke did not belong to a caste and was not a hereditary warrior known for his martial skills and code of honor. And yet it is possible that for professional historians there is nothing wrong with calling him samurai.

Let's make an analogy to clarify the point. We call, as many reliable sources do, Julius Caesar a "general". Yet the Romans called him something else: dux and imperator (as well as by the names of other offices he held: dictator, consul, tribune of the plebs, pontifex maximus, etc.). Caesar was not a general in the technical sense that the word takes on in modern armies (say, someone below the minister of war or defence and above lieutenants and captains). But he was a general in the sense of supreme commander of the army, just as Yasuke was a high-ranking swordsman in feudal Japan who lent his services to a warlord. Is there any scholarly controversy about Caesar's status as a general? No, therefore we don't write "According to John Doe, Caesar was a general", because that would be misleading and wrong, and would only serve to appease those online communities that have built an ideological trench around the word "general". We stick to the sources, that's it.

In general, I think WP articles are the better the closer they are to the sources. People should learn to read our articles not as 'The Definitive Truth' about something, but as a tentative, source-based description that can be used to get a flavour of the topic and start researching by going to the sources. But I digress, sorry. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, we don't have any reliable scholar or news organisation that explicitly disagrees with them. I feel that if we were to attribute "Yasuke as a samurai" to Lockley, we would be suggesting that this view is controversial, as if there were an academic debate about Yasuke's status, which isn't the case: there is a huge debate on the WP talk pages, as we can see, and in various online communities, blogs, social media, but no controversy among historians.

Let me just set the record that Yasuke's obscurity is the most likely reason for the lack of opposing coverage on the idea of him being a samurai. Right now, there is an inquiry recognized by a Japanese politician that plans on bringing this issue to the National Diet,[53] describing it as "cultural [theft/invasion]". We should expect to see actual opposition to this status, now that Yasuke is in mainstream light.

Furthermore, let me take the opportunity to bring up a case of WP:ACTUALCOI (link for easy timeline),[54] where Lockley, on his WP account Tottoritom has made several Wikipedia edits dating back years before writing his book. This was even pointed out in 2018 for a deletion of Thomas Lockley's Wikipedia page,[55] stating it as a case of COI. Months after this article deletion was closed, he made an additional edit to Yasuke's article to add in his own book which was unreleased at the time of January 25th, 2019, and even giving it the wrong date. Now to give Lockley the benefit of the doubt, it was possibly a typo/error on his part, which this was later corrected two months later, however this was still before the actual publishing date, which was on April 30th, 2019, a month before that edit was made. Why was this book kept on the page if it was not even out yet?

Also, his involvement on the Yasuke Wikipedia article years before his book suggests an implication to influence the article with the release of his book, or vice versa. While I do not want to assume what Lockley's mind was going through as he was trying to add his own book to the article, the way he went about it suggests that he did not need to participate on Wikipedia anymore once it was released, hence why that 2019 edit was the last edit he made on Wikipedia. This is extremely concerning as the call of COI was actually made before and it had been forgotten by the time this edit was made, and even with the edit to add the correct publication date, it was still kept on the article, despite being inaccessible at that time.

I believe the best way to handle this situation is call on the man himself, whether it be through Wikipedia or through the Japanese National Diet, or any other official manner really, to explain the decisions he made, because this is extremely dishonest.

__

Why is there no controversy between historians? There may be several plausible explanations for this, and one is the following: it may well be that in English (and in languages other than Japanese) there is nothing wrong with calling a warrior of high rank and prestige, who belongs to the retinue of a warlord and has direct personal relations with his lord, 'samurai'. It is possible that this is particularly true before the Edo period if, as Lockley claims, In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. Obviously Yasuke did not belong to a caste and was not a hereditary warrior known for his martial skills and code of honor. And yet it is possible that for professional historians there is nothing wrong with calling him samurai.

The problem I have here is that Lockley's definition of samurai is not aligned with anyone else's. In fact, he stands alone on this, because he switched the modern understanding of bushi/samurai being synonymous and the historical understanding of the words. Other sources proposed suggested that Yasuke was actually part of the caste, while Lockley doesn't. This also doesn't make sense when you consider it as a specialized profession as you stated; is there any mention of Yasuke doing any form of military engagement outside of Honno-ji, which was an ambush and not an actual military expedition under Nobunaga?

Like I mentioned above, Yasuke's obscurity in history as well as how new this theory is, being presented within the last 10 years, is the most likely reason why there is "no opposition". The reality is that the "lack of opposition" is entirely artificial, and this will be reflected in the near future.

Let's make an analogy to clarify the point. We call, as many reliable sources do, Julius Caesar a "general". Yet the Romans called him something else: dux and imperator (as well as by the names of other offices he held: dictator, consul, tribune of the plebs, pontifex maximus, etc.). Caesar was not a general in the technical sense that the word takes on in modern armies (say, someone below the minister of war or defence and above lieutenants and captains). But he was a general in the sense of supreme commander of the army, just as Yasuke was a high-ranking swordsman in feudal Japan who lent his services to a warlord. Is there any scholarly controversy about Caesar's status as a general? No, therefore we don't write "According to John Doe, Caesar was a general", because that would be misleading and wrong, and would only serve to appease those online communities that have built an ideological trench around the word "general". We stick to the sources, that's it.

This can be said the same for the term Bushou (武将), which is treated as a general descriptor of the term general rather than a title. Using a job description and using a title are completely distinct, as both a Taishou (大将) and Sodaishou (総大将) are both Bushou (武将), however Sodaishou (総大将) outranks Taishou (大将) (@Eirikr did a great job on explaining this here).

The same is said for Samurai. Samurai is treated as a social caste/nobility, while Bushi is more of a job description; a professional warrior. I've pointed this out in previous discussions listed here (Comprehensive analysis on the definition of samurai with support of secondary sources, an additional reply to X0n relating to the previous post, Lockley's definition of samurai and analysis of his lack of inline citations, Comparing other proposed academic sources on Yasuke and their definition of samurai, and related arguments from other academic sources).

In general, I think WP articles are the better the closer they are to the sources. People should learn to read our articles not as 'The Definitive Truth' about something, but as a tentative, source-based description that can be used to get a flavour of the topic and start researching by going to the sources.

Unfortunately, to most people, it is not seen that way, and it honestly shouldn't; we should not expect people to dig for these sources (especially if unattributed and enshrined in wikivoice), and when there is such a confliction or question of reliability among claims by these secondary sources, these must be addressed and attributed. It's especially contradictory to suggest that you want the claim unattributed yet you want Wikipedia to be treated as a place where people can do their own research through said attributed claims. Hexenakte (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The respectfulness is genuinely appreciated, and mutual. But I fear the point has been somewhat missed. Much of the reply is responding to arguments which I have not made; and seems singularly fixed on the question of whether we should describe Yasuke as a "samurai" in Wikipedia voice; an aspect which I have not addressed. It may be that we should; it may be that we should not. I simply opine that Lockley & Girard's works are consistently speculative beyond what can be independently verified, a fact which Lockley acknowledges, and which is commented on in book reviews; and that it is difficult to tell which parts of those works are speculative and which are not; meaning that it is problematic to determine that the work is reliable.

I further opine that:

a) Be there an abundance or dearth thereof, news sources are not the WP:BESTSOURCES for historical fact.

b) Where news &/or tertiary sources rely significantly on Lockley & Girard's work, they inherit the issues around speculation & lack of reliability.

I have read Lopez-Vera's "A History of the Samurai", and enjoyed it. I note that, while Lopez-Vera is an historian, the book is published by a popular, not academic, press, and is apparently a reproduction of his pre-doctoral work; but these are minor points. I am hopeful to obtain a copy of the original Spanish version "Historia de los samuráis". I will take the question of Atkins "on notice".

Le Monde and Serge Bilé predate Lockley and Girard's 2019 publications, but not Lockley's previous 2016 works which suffer from many of the same issues. Bilé's book does however, disprove the claim that Lockley's work is the only book on Yasuke. However, the Le Monde is a news article (see a), above), and is heavily informed by Bilé's work. Bilé's book is described by the publisher as "Essai, biographie romancée". My French is a bit rusty, but the fr.Wikipedia article describes the latter as celui du roman, c'est-à-dire que l'on insiste sur la narration parfois en introduisant des épisodes non avérés emphasis added. Bilé suffers from the same issues as Lockley & Girard; his work is explicitly speculative. This is not a bad thing; works of speculative or functional history should be produced, but we should not regard them as reliable for unattributed factual statements. Bilé, Girard & Lockley might well be correct, but the speculative nature of their works means those works (and derivatives thereof) are not reliable.

For Lockley & Girard's work, I felt this aspect was covered quite well in part 1 of your comment at 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC); with which I broadly concur.

Why is there no controversy between historians?

It is likely because there is no real meat into which historians might sink their teeth. The historical records on Yasuke are incredibly thin. There's just not that much there to study. And consequently there hasn't been much study.

And this is where the Caesar analogy fails. We have a comparative abundance of sources for the life of Caesar. I have at least a couple on my bookshelf right now.

Where the analogy does succeed, is in highlighting that in calling Caesar a "general", we are using the plain English definition of the word. The argument, expressed elsewhere, that we should describe Yasuke as a "samurai" (in English) based on a changing Japanese definition of 侍 (from "one who serves a lord" to "a warrior who serves a lord" to an hereditary class) is lacking in merit. If we describe something using a term which has a plain meaning in English, we should mean that meaning.

I'm not convinced that attributing viewpoints, including "Yasuke as a samurai", to Lockley, Girard et Bilé, would be suggesting that this view is controversial. It would be suggesting that it is their opinion, not a matter of established historical fact; which would align with WP:NPOV. It is a viewpoint which appears in a small minority of academic sources, if we cast the net wide enough to include sources on Oda Nobunaga, the Jesuits in Japan, and the period of the late 1570s & early 1580s in Japan; as we ought do.

For the record, I am unconcerned and uncaring about various online communities, blogs, social media and any ideological trenches they might have dug. I care about us, ourselves; and how we accurately reflect the quality of sources and sourced content.

I do largely concur with In general, I think WP articles are the better the closer they are to the reliable sources, with that one, important addition.

Side note: Yasuke was a high-ranking swordsman in feudal Japan who lent his services to a warlord There are no historical sources which support the italicised text. Descriptions of Yasuke as a warrior or swordsman appear only in speculative histories. Lockley assumes warrior and backfills his rationale. This is particularly apparent with his heterodox claim in African Samurai's end notes that Yasuke is originally from the Sudan or Ethiopia, in part because the Makua people of Mozambique are too peaceful. Rotary Engine ^talk 16:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A couple points I'd like to respond to.

• "We have a few experts (Lockley, Lopez-Vera and Atkins) who speak of Yasuke as a samurai, [...]"

Atkins notably does not state in his own words that Yasuke was a samurai. Here is his only mention of "samurai" in relation to Yasuke:

Although there are no known portraits of the "African samurai," there are some pictorial depictions [...]

Atkins's use of quotation marks appears to indicate that he is quoting others, not using this descriptor as his own words.

• "Then we have an abundance of news sources (BBC, CNN, TIME, etc.) and tertiary sources (Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine) that do the same [speak of Yasuke as a samurai]; [...]"

Aside from Britannica, which does not cite its sources, the Smithsonian, BBC, CNN, etc. all quote Lockley for any mention of Yasuke as a samurai. While these tertiary sources (including the news sources) may be useful for illustrating the discussion about Yasuke in the media and broader public, inasmuch as they have done no demonstrable research of their own, we should not be giving these any weight with regard to the claim that the historical Yasuke was a samurai.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

>Aside from Britannica, which does not cite its sources

Britanica until today cited Lockley as the only source in its Additional Reading section here. As of today(!), the article has been rewritten and is actually authored by Lockley himself now.

>Written by Thomas Lockley

>Last Updated: Jul 16, 2024

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Eirikr, I don't think this is correct.

Firstly, the use of quotation marks does not necessarily indicate that that Atkin is quoting others; the simplest interpretation is that Atkins uses quotation marks because the "African samurai" is an epithet, just like Thatcher, the "Iron Lady" or Diana, the "People's Princess". You wouldn't use these epithets (especially in an academic text) without quotation marks; in fact, "Yasuke, the African samurai" would be quite weird.

Secondly, Smithsonian, BBC, CNN are not only useful to illustrate the discussion about Yasuke in the media: they lend credibility to Lockley, they make Lockley less suspect in the eyes of WP. Since these news organisations are reliable sources, and they treat Lockley as a reliable source, in principle we should do the same. I want Wikipedia to be good, but I don't think it can be much better than Smithsonian, BBC, CNN, TIME and Britannica combined; if they're wrong about Lockley, I'm happy to be wrong with them. In-depth source analysis by samurai enthusiasts is likely to be less accurate than the scrutiny to which they subject their sources.

Thirdly, these sources are not tertiary sources reporting about Lockley's views: they are news organisations and they speak in their own voices. Yes, they interview Lockley (whom they consider reliable), but they also interview other people (including experts) and so it is likely that if one of them had raised an eyebrow at "Yasuke as a samurai" they would have been less committed to this content.

One last point: if and when other historians will add to the body of scholarship on Yasuke and will contradict Lockley, we will stop using wikivoice and we will cover their views. But until that happens, we cannot do their work. We cannot be more reliable than our sources, and our sources are not Reddit, You Tube and original research posted on WP talk pages. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• "[...] the simplest interpretation is that Atkins uses quotation marks because the "African samurai" is an epithet, [...]"

If Atkins is using this as an epithet, then that is again not his own words, but rather ... an epithet. In other words, Atkins is not literally saying that Yasuke is an "African samurai", any more than Thatcher is literally an "Iron Lady".

• "Secondly, Smithsonian, BBC, CNN are not only useful to illustrate the discussion about Yasuke in the media: they lend credibility to Lockley, [...]"

Others have also pointed out that news organizations are not known as experts on historical arcana.

• "[...] if they're wrong about Lockley, I'm happy to be wrong with them."

I am not.

I think we do Wikipedia, and our readers, a disservice by not avoiding visible mistakes of this sort: mistakes that we can see and evaluate.

• "[...] these sources are not tertiary sources reporting about Lockley's views [...]"

I am very confused by your contention here.

These are media outlets. What they do is report.

They are not primary sources (at least, in this context about Yasuke): they are not direct eyewitnesses of the events.

They are not secondary sources: most have not demonstrated any contact at all with the primary sources (the Portuguese letters, the Shinchō Kōki, Ietada's diary).

If they are not primary, and not secondary, then the best they could be is tertiary.  ???

• "[...] if and when other historians will add to the body of scholarship on Yasuke and will contradict Lockley, we will stop using wikivoice [...]"

Why do we need to wait until then?

I do not agree that we need to condition any change from "wikivoice" to attributions on waiting for future historians' publications.

I have contended throughout this entire kerfuffle that we have no business using "wikivoice" in the first place for any statement that Yasuke is a samurai.

We have all of two secondary sources that state that Yasuke was a samurai, in unambiguous terms: López-Vera (with no citations or rationale given), and Lockley (problematic as currently under discussion). This is not a strong foundation for any unattributed "wikivoice" statements.

• "We cannot be more reliable than our sources [...]"

When we make unattributed "wikivoice" statements, that is what we purport to be: so reliable that we don't need to cite any source.

We should be citing statements so that we are clear to our readers about what is coming from our sources.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The new version of the article is considerably more factual. Notably, Lockley uses quotations in all instances of "samurai" and in one instance equates it to meaning "warrior". In addition, he almost directly relates the facts as presented in primary sources, creating a coherent historical narrative from them.

There are some points which intrigued me like the mention of the consensus among Japanese historians in the lead of the article, but I don't want to personally engage in SYNTH to dig deeper. SmallMender (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Frankly, I feel that this thread has lost all interest since the publication of Lockley's article in Britannica. There is no doubt (in my mind) that this article qualifies as WP:RS - I'm not saying that it is the ultimate definitive truth and nothing but the truth, but it is a reliable source that can be cited for the purposes of writing an article on WP. As for the book, it is based on serious historical research, but it also contains fictional elements and dramatisations. Since we editors can't be trusted to distinguish between research and fiction, we'd better not use the book - it's not a reliable source - and use the article instead. I think we can all agree on this, so perhaps there's no point in discussing the book further on this noticeboard. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside any of Lockley's other works and looking just at the Lockley / Girard book African Samurai, if we are determining that this is not a reliable source, should we also remove other references that rely on this book, for any claims for which we are using them as references? (Sorry that's a bit of a mouthful. 😄) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing those tertiary sources which make it clear they rely on African Samurai and/or echo the more speculative claims from the book without attribution and without clear signs of them being reliable sources (for instance, written by a matter expert, etc.). Does it require an extra RfC and/or a different voting approach? SmallMender (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that in the current state the Britannica article works as a reliable source.

Regarding the 2019 book, I agree with the research vs fiction assertion and I think if that one is put aside in favor of other less fictional and/or peer-reviewed works from Lockley (for instance, the Japanese edition of the book, from 2017) that would also work for the purpose of the Yasuke article. SmallMender (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There is the issue of the apparently unsupported assertion of general consensus among Japanese historians of Yasuke as a samurai. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think resolving this one might be difficult. Even if one collects reliable secondary sources written by Japanese historians (specifically about Yasuke), we would run into the following issues:

- if these sources translated into English use "samurai" to mean "bushi", because in English the terms are often used interchangeably, that supports Lockley's claim

- if these sources are untranslated and use 武士, it is debatable which term should be used in English (going by Wikipedia's policies, to my understanding, that would also be "samurai")

Also, Lockley uses quotations for the term "samurai" (even though the Britannica article then redirects to their own samurai article), which makes it difficult to understand what he means specifically. Does he mean bushi, but writes "samurai" to indicate that? SmallMender (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he even frames the samurai status in the lead as being a disputed common consideration by historians—not uncontroversial fact. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, he frames it as a common consideration which is not disputed by historians, but by "some people":

Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people

Also in the article body the claim is presented as commonly accepted by "historians":

During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank. This is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates.

I don't think these two quotations support the view that there's a controversy among historians about Yasuke's status as a samurai. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus among Japanese historians that Yasuke was a Samurai, nor has any notable Japanese historian come out publicly to say unambiguously that he was one. Even the historian Sakujin Kirino who Lockley previously claimed fact-checked his book has come out to say he did not do that:

https://x.com/kirinosakujin/status/1795768862652449021?s=61&t=oW-zJ2zqNqwwnjQg6PFz3Q 天罰れい子 (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If this is the case the article should not call him a samurai in wiki-voice in the lede or elsewhere. Alaexis_¿question? 09:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No, 天罰れい子's assertion that There is no consensus among Japanese historians that Yasuke was a Samurai is not proved. Neither they nor others have yet provided a quotation from a single Japanese or non-Japanese historian stating that Yasuke was not a samurai. On the other hand, Lockley writes "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians" and "historians think that". Is he wrong, is he lying? We don't know - since he's signing the article in Britannica, he's taking full scientific responsibility for what he claims (contrary to us anonymous WP editors); if he's wrong, someone would or could contradict him. But until this happens, we have a reliable source saying that the view commonly accepted by contemporary historians is that Yasuke was a samurai. Frankly, that's all we need. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

One American researcher criticized Lockly harshly!

https://x.com/OliverJia1014/status/1813842217989234785?t=OK3Bw2iqsDOPxOiZOTEktQ&s=19

In addiction, he used camouflaged resorces in Wikipedia!

https://togetter.com/li/2401301

Most of his reports about Yasuke seem not to be investigated, and another is only a school organ. Furthermore, I found one book "つなぐ世界史" introduced as an investigated paper!

https://researcher-web.nihon-u.ac.jp/search/detail?systemId=b821967215ac2300740660f458cd5cad&lang=ja

I heard too many other proprems about him to tell here. SilverSpeech (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@SilverSpeech beat me to it, but first a Kyoto-based researcher named Oliver Jia has explicitly contested Lockley’s claim.

https://www.foreignperspectives.net/p/yasuke-african-samurai-myth-or-neither

Second, economist and researcher Nobuo Ikeda has also disputed the claim. https://x.com/ikedanob/status/1814154868577415507?s=46&t=yrRZ-ANZh6EBs7xwgJNlcg

https://x.com/ikedanob/status/1813938630815363136?s=46&t=yrRZ-ANZh6EBs7xwgJNlcg

He is also disputing Lockley’s credibility, who has deleted his social media, is being investigated by Nihon University, and is accused of fabricating an entire NHK program, which could be one of the biggest scandals in Japanese TV history. And apparently, Lockley wrote a paper based on his fabricated Wikipedia entry, and used it as a credit to get a job at Nihon University's Faculty of Law

Lockley is NOT a reliable source. His book hinges on several speculations. He has been found guilty of lying about lack of involvement in Ubisoft.

I find it dishonest that instead of simply writing “Yasuke is speculated to be a Samurai [by a law professor researcher]” the Wiki page authoritatively refers to him as one. This is a twisted interpretation of current historical facts. Lockley’s “credibility” is being seen as a complete sham to the entire country. 天罰れい子 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Heaping personal attacks on Lockley, (or repeating comments from social media) is not helpful, and is a violation of WP:BLP. Kindly stop. MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am merely contending the claim that he is a “reliable source.” I apologize if my counterarguments come off as personal attacks, which are not my intention. But there is no doubt that his recent, strange actions contrary to a “reliable source” have come under intense scrutiny and investigation by Japan. 天罰れい子 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Except japanese historians (actual historians with masters in the field and several books on the specific period because thats the entire field of study) have sided with Lockley on the issue of Yasuke being a samurai - see https://x.com/HIRAYAMAYUUKAIN/status/1814356500326035650?t=HsAtshtZEq4YcTm0QNDIsQ&s=19 he even contests ikedanob and points out he doesn't actually know much about history despite his claims. 216.138.9.189 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The “historian” you just cited is a professor at the University of Health Sciences in Satte, Japan. Why is a “historian” who supposedly has expertise with 600 year old samurais working at school primarily for nurses? 24.140.17.144 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There's really no point in arguing with a person whose sourcing is twitter threads. 185.104.138.48 (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yu Hirayama is a historian who has published several books specifically on the Sengoku Jidai. He would certainly qualify as a reliable source on the period. As noted on the profile, and on the website [Here] for the University of Health Sciences, Yu Hirayama is a specially appointed professor. What this means is that Yu is hired by the university under specific terms, but is not a full time professor - He has no classes scheduled for 2024 and given the context one can find in the course offerings and Yu's publication history it is possible he spends much of his time writing his books with a less rigorous teaching schedule relative to a full time professor. Also shown by the course offerings, the university is a private university in Japan, and still offers general subject matter courses which is what many of these specially appointed professors actually teach at the university. The relation Yu Hirayama has with this university, and the kind of university it is, has literally nothing to do with Yu Hirayama's qualifications as a historian. In America many academics who prefer writing books to teaching take similar adjunct positions at private colleges for a variety of reasons related to pay, time to research, and contract expectations. Relm (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

For clarity I am not saying the tweets themselves qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, I am saying that this individual is a historian. Whether in favor or not in favor of the Samurai attribution - neither should be sourcing from twitter. What I am saying here however is that Yu Hirayama is certainly a qualified historian, and if they publish on the matter, or a reliable source picks up the matter, that can be used. Relm (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"[...] we have a reliable source saying [...]"

I don't think a single source, one that is embroiled in a controversy big enough that a member of the upper House of Councillors of Japan's National Diet is publicly calling for an investigation (see https://www.kurashikiooya.com/2024/07/11/post-18998/, in Japanese), is enough for us to be making unattributed statements of fact in "wikivoice".

If we want to use Lockley's non-fictional works as references, we should be using them for attributed statements. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

According to X users like this:[56]https://x.com/Mangalawyer/status/1814496562283708882 Thomas Lockley has been discredited from Nihon university and his programm erased. 2A02:587:5514:9200:2EA1:4C17:55A1:8769 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This can be considered a WP:BLP violation, or a partisan smear. This is entirely false and has been debunked. His page on Nihon University is available[57]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Without getting into the merits of Lockley himself I do not think his work should be dismissed because it is “popular history” which is a somewhat nebulous term.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3Kingdoms (talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@3Kingdoms, I think the main thrust here is evaluating the book African Samurai, written jointly by Lockley and Girard. That book has sections that are fictionalized: see also Talk:Yasuke/Archive_4#c-Eirikr-20240705224100-24.205.146.71-20240705205000 for two excerpts of such content. Due to the lack of any inline citations, the pure-fiction elements and actual-history elements are all mixed in and impossible for the reader to tell apart. This makes this particular book, African Samurai, an unreliable source for our purposes. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The assertion that anything in the book is "fiction" is a clear WP:OR violation. Purdy does not contend with Lockley's assertion that Yasuke is a samurai. Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake. Purdy doesn't specifically "contend with" (and you better look up contend in a dictionary) that point, he "contends with" the entire book:

The book is clearly intended as popular history, and, while it might be unfair to judge a book by what is it not, the scarcity of primary sources on Yasuke is compounded by the lack of scholarly citations or other means to document the narrative. ... Likewise, there is no discussion of the evidence that explains how, in just fifteen months, Yasuke and Nobunaga developed such a close relationship. Was it just Yasuke’s height and skin color? Presumably, much of this might come from Frois or be based on reasonable speculation, but, without specific references, details often seem like creative embellishments, rather than historical narrative. ... Although African Samurai might tell a good story, it needs documentation.

The idea that we'd use something like this as a fact source is just laughable. EEng 13:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Some context on Purdy's full text, sourcing, and additional reviews provided in the response below[58]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been unwillingly following this discussion because I have RSN, ANI and (after commenting there some years ago) Eirikr's Wiktionary talkpage on my watchlist. On one hand, I've seen Eirikr's great work on Japanese entries, and how he and Hexenakte have dug through primary sources, and as a person, living my life, I'm inclined to trust that when he says the historical sources he's looked through don't call Yasuke by the Japanese term that reflects the narrower interpretation of 'samurai', that's true... but as a Wikipedia editor, writing Wikipedia, I know we can only say what's verifiable in reliable sources (including modern, non-contemporary ones, as mentioned above w.r.t to Caesar), not editorial original research. Many sources (even independent of Lockley) are cited above by Silverseren and others, saying Yasuke was a samurai.
I have not seen a reliable source (only tweets) presented that says "Yasuke wasn't a samurai". Even Purdy's review of Lockley doesn't dispute that: some editors say even Purdy seems to accept Yasuke as a samurai, others argue Purdy's mention of Yasuke's samurai-ness shouldn't be taken as agreeing he was a samurai, but no-one can show that Purdy or any Reliable Source states Yasuke wasn't a samurai. (As the claim of Yasuke being a samurai is the very title of Lockley's work, it seems implausible Purdy or anyone else would've forgotten to dispute it, had they meant to, but more importantly, even if the reason no RS say something is that they all forgot to say it... we can't say it.) Our policies specifically say not to "attribute" facts like this, which many RS report and none dispute, as if they were personal opinions (as some have suggested here); we have to present them as facts. (Attributing the statement to Lockley would be particularly incorrect given the other sources saying the same thing.)
We can indeed hope the attention on him will prompt scholars to write new reliable sources which either support or contradict the idea that he was a samurai, but... This has been putting me in mind of the Timothy Messer-Kruse spat, where he wanted to change Wikipedia to say "the truth" but couldn't do that until his (Reliable) book came out, and then Wikipedia got bad press for being so resistant to "correct" changes... and yet, when we and reliable sources looked into it, it was determined based on the totality of available reliable sources that what we'd been saying was broadly more correct than what Kruse was saying, and so our article is still much closer to the scholarly consensus than to some of Kruse's outlier claims.
Since several RS have discussed Yasuke and called him a samurai and none have disputed it yet, our article should continue to reflect the fact that RS call him a samurai, until and unless the 'expected' new RS come out... and as with Kruse, it's notably possible those new RS will conclude the same thing that reliable sources so far have concluded, that he was a samurai.
As to the specific point which started this RSN discussion, I find Gitz's point above persuasive, that the number of other reliable sources which have treated Lockley as a subject-matter expert (including now Encyclopedia Britannica, which had him write their article) is suggestive that he is indeed an expert (until such time as the contradictory sources some people think will materialize do materialize), but as Silverseren and others said, even if we dismiss Lockley's African Samurai, or even other works by Lockley, we still have other sources making the same claim and (again) no RS claiming otherwise. If people think that Lockley's Britannica article, Lockley's Japanese article, Lopez-Vera, and/or Atkins are better sources than Lockley's African Samurai, I have no problem with just citing the sentences about Yasuke being a samurai to those works instead.
As for the question of other content which is currently sourced only to Lockley's African Samurai: if no other sources for it can be found, I humbly suggest it would be best to start a separate discussion very specifically and narrowly about those other non-samurai claim(s), because the odds of anyone reaching or divining a consensus about that kind of secondary issue in this long discussion (not to mention its other half over on AN), focussed as it is mostly on the samurai claim, seem low. -sche (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree to discuss about non-samrai claims.

Some of Japnese are censuring Lockly and his followers severely, not because they regard Yasuke as a samurai, but because they make serious mistakes about Japan and contradict Japanese history.

Such probrem seem to start from Lockly's edit of Wikipedia in 2015. Many Japanese are disappointed that the wrong article has remained uncorrected for too long time, but most of them don't know how to join Wikipedia!

It is not a severe probrem whether Yasuke is a samrai. It is much graver that many sources about Yasuke are clearly based on inaccurate knowledge about Japan. SilverSpeech (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Another review of Lockley

From Geographical v91n6 (June 2019) p. 55:

The narrative leans lustily towards Game of Thrones, and the boisterous prose is well stocked with unverifiable adjectives, use of the word "likely"... The extensive research is amply evidenced, but the delivery (there are no footnotes per se) leaves the reader unclear as to which threads are the solid historical warp and weft and which are the more speculative embroidery... All of this, however, opens plenty of interesting windows, and the considerable endnotes and bibliography will be a trove for anyone who might prefer a more scholarly approach.

Needless to say, a source with a scholarly approach (i.e. not Lockley) is an absolute requirement for this samurai claim. I'll also point out that only one major academic library anywhere owns a copy. Add in Purdy and honestly, there's nothing to discuss here. EEng 17:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Geographical is a non-peer-reviewed magazine published by the Royal Geographical Society.

The author goes by the name A.S.H. Smyth and uses title FRGS (Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society).

The review is available on the author's website supposedly intact and in full. Timppis (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Reviewing the whole of the book review, EEng's summation would seem to be correct. I'll add that we would not expect book reviews to be "peer reviewed", they are explicitly opinion. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not heard of Geographical. Is it a magazine? Do you have a link? I am interested in reading the relevant section.

As for Purdy, something being left out is that he still recommends the book and doesn't contend with the assertion that Yasuke is a samurai, but explicitly contends other details. There are other experts (Lopez-Vera and Atkins) who speak of Yasuke as a samurai, and Lockley has gone on to further support his conclusion in a recent article published on Britannica. Per a comment on Purdy's full review posted above[59]:

Purdy's review notably also refers to Yasuke as having been a Samurai in the opening paragraph of his review: "In this turbulent era, the authors introduce Yasuke, a black African brought to Japan by the Jesuits and presented as a gift to arguably the most powerful feudal lord at the time, Oda Nobunaga, who raised him to the rank of samurai." As well as his summary of the content: "Part 2, “Samurai,” ... During this fifteen-month period, Nobunaga elevated Yasuke to samurai rank, and the two formed a close bond. The section ends with Yasuke defending Nobunaga against the warriors of the traitorous Akechi Mitsuhide at the warlord’s Kyoto stronghold, Honno-ji Temple." One could interpret the latter as just restating Lockley's unsourced conjecture, but contrast it to how he writes of Lockley's other conjecture immediately after where that is made explicitly clear: "The final section, “Legend,” includes a speculative chapter on Yasuke’s activities after the death of Nobunaga — Lockley and Girard suggest he joined the forces that Nobunaga’s successor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, dispatched to conquer Korea—and a chapter on Yasuke’s post-Nobunaga legacy and reinvention in the mass media." Purdy's review ... does show that he seems to agree with the attribution of Samurai - and that he is familiar with the requisite primary sources of Yasuke enough to have cast doubt on this claim if he did not also agree. Purdy's primary issue with Lockley is that the sources are all shoved into a 'recommended' and 'associated' reading section at the back of the book, with any research lockley did not being able to be built upon by others.

Thus per WP:CONTEXTFACTS I think the book is fine in respect to Yasuke's status as a samurai. As for Lockley in general, he has a multitude of works. One of those being a section written by him in, "つなぐ世界史2" which was peer-reviewed, and which also refers to Yasuke as a samurai.

I will also include some of the other reviews of his book (most relevant parts bolded):

As for the amount of books Lockley has published, the complete list is:

• A Gentleman from Japan: The Untold Story of an Incredible Journey from Asia to Queen Elizabeth’s Court Hardcover – May 21, 2024
• The Women Who Built Japanese History 東京書籍, Mar 30, 2022
• Japanese Culture and History Tokyo Shoseki, Aug 1, 2019
• 英語で読む外国人がほんとうに知りたい日本文化と歴史 東京書籍, Jul 24, 2019 (ISBN: 4487812887)
• African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan Hanover Square Press (Harper Collins), May 2, 2019 (ISBN: 9781335141026)
• 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍 ロックリー トーマス (Original Author(s): ロックリー トーマス) 太田出版, Jan 25, 2017 (ISBN: 9784778315566)

... Lockley's book has been at multiple academic talks and is in Academic Libraries and in professional development reading groups, some of which are at highly reputable and respectable institutions such as Berkley.

Lockley's book was reviewed by John Rodzvilla of Emerson College in "Library Journal. Mar 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 2, p128-128", with Rodzvilla writing: "Lockley (Nihon Univ., Sch. of Law, Tokyo) and Girard (Cain’s Blood) use primary sources to piece together Yasuke’s immersion into Japanese culture with a novelistic history that takes place at the height of one of Japan’s most important cultural and political moments ... Highly recommended"

And again, in "Library Journal. Winter 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 12, p80-80" as an "Essential Title in Social Studies".

Symphony Regalia (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I appreciate your gathering of sources, but I am a little confused about your reasoning to their inclusion as an academic source.

Does the article in つなぐ世界史2 refer to Yasuke as a samurai, in Japanese? If that's the case, then case closed, that is a peer reviewed source and would put this entire thing to rest.

Although I do not have access to the journal, I see on its (admittedly translated) purchasing page samurai is under scare quotes, which in English often indicates that something isn't actually what it is being refereed to as. I understand that this might constitute some amount of original research, but if it is being used as a source, should we not be certain that it actually specifically refers to him with such a title in the paper itself, rather than relying on the title of the section? Has anybody here accessed this article?

I don't quite understand why the book's inclusion and use in academic talks and libraries would also give it more credit as a primary source, as it still lacks sources within itself and is ostensibly a historical narrative and not a peer reviewed scholarly article. I don't think Lockley's accuracy has really been called into question until this point, and even historical narratives can be used as a tool to learn, so I don't know if its inclusion in scholarly libraries indicates that it is any more than a tool to instigate discussion.

To Purdy's thing, yes, absolutely, he could have used that time to refute Lockley, but if what EEng said above is accurate, he did so after saying Lockley's work has a lack of scholarly citations. Purdy not disagreeing with something would not in and of itself qualify as a source, correct?

To the other sources mentioned, (Britannica, Lopez-Vera) ALL of them lead back source-wise to Lockley's books, which are the ones that are being called into question as usable sources to begin with. If a source uses a book that has no scholarly citations as a reference, how could we justify using its descendants (Britannica, Lopez-Vera.) 68.95.59.152 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have read both referenced works (The peer reviewed publication in Japanese, and Purdy's review of African Samurai). Purdy refers to Yasuke as a Samurai in his own voice, engages with the lack of primary source material being drawn from, and differentiates what is speculation from pop history, to academic claims. Purdy calls the book for what it is - pop history; Purdy does not discredit Lockley as a scholar as some have claimed. This is generally why user consensus seems to be to use sources other than African Samurai. The Britannica article has undergone a editorial revision due to the increased scrutiny and controversy (meaning it has been peer reviewed and is of a higher standard than the previous iteration of the article.) and the Lopez-Vera citation which is quoted in reference five clearly demonstrates that whether the author is citing Lockley or not that they are engaging with the same primary sources and interpreting them the same way as Lockley - which is not disqualifying by any means. For Lockley's Japanese publication it explicitly refers to Yasuke as a Samurai throughout the text, but as noted it refers to him in katakana and with quotation marks - which is something I've noticed Lockley do in both English and Japanese. Other users have suggested that this means we must take this claim as not sufficient to call Yasuke a samurai, but the text is clear in constantly referring to Yasuke a Samurai. If the text explains this usage as part of some academic-definition or cultural connotation then it goes unstated in the text and any attempt to explain it would veer dangerously towards OR and Synethesis. Relm (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Concerning:

To the other sources mentioned, (Britannica, Lopez-Vera) ALL of them lead back source-wise to Lockley's books

This is not true. As noted by an editor in a previous discussion, Lopez-Vera's dissertation "Toyotomi Hideyoshi y Europa" was published by a University Press, overseen by a scholarly editorial board, and was published with no problem with him noting that Yasuke was a Samurai. Lopez-Vera's other book, Historia de los samuráis likewise clears the bar for Wikipedia's requirements for reliable scholarship and it was first published in 2016, which pre-dates or occurs simultaneously with Lockley's own research. That makes two scholars at a relatively similar time, neither of which cites the other, coming to the same conclusion about Yasuke, both of whom succeed in getting published. Lockley's conclusions mirror the majority opinion on this topic.

I don't quite understand why the book's inclusion and use in academic talks and libraries would also give it more credit as a primary source, as it still ... not a peer reviewed scholarly article.

As for Lockley's book not being an academic article, that is not a requirement. It was reviewed by multiple experts who did not contend with the relevant claim, Lockley makes the same claim in an academic essay, and editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses"

Harper Collins is indeed a respected publishing house. Symphony Regalia (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"つなぐ世界史2" is not an academic paper! Shimizu shoin, the publisher of the book, classifies it as a general book.

https://www.shimizushoin.co.jp/books/view/763

In addition, Oka mihoko, one of the　editorial board members for "つなぐ世界史", talks about Lockly in X (twitter). She seems to regard Lockly as an amateur, not an academic.

https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1813714544474399183?t=zYG7yR1zFTvfXFLoeV7Wfg&s=19 SilverSpeech (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

つなぐ世界史 is a collection of academic essays. Such works are rather common in east Asia (I bought several Chinese language essay collections on history like this when I saw them in bookstores), even if they're kind of antiquated in Western countries irt publishing. Nihon University lists Lockley's essay in the work as Peer reviewed.

The twitter account you are referring to joined in april, only started posting in June, only posts about Lockley and Yasuke, and has mismatched usernames. There is nothing to verify this person as who they claim to be, and they are not a source. Please stop posting unverifiable claims from twitter and blogs, they are irrelevant to the discussion for the purposes of wikipedia until they are properly sourced. Relm (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you see this page?

https://researcher-web.nihon-u.ac.jp/search/detail?systemId=b821967215ac2300740660f458cd5cad&lang=ja

This page, about Lockly in Nihon University, makes clear mistake. つなぐ世界史 is listed as an academic paper! In Japan, such books must be not classified as an academic paper. In addition, I have never heard such books regarded as "査読済み (peer-reviewed)". "査読済み" must be used for formal achademic papers.

I only want to what Japanese think about this probrem. One investigates Lockly's edit in Wikipedia. Some reseacher talk about this problem, but they don't have official account. Such people don't know how to join Wikipedia, but some of them show enough source for Wikipedia. SilverSpeech (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any source or proper reason that I can give weight to for why a collection of essays in print form can't be peer reviewed? This seems silly given that this is the primary way academic essays were published for a long period of time before the internet. I have many such books on the shelf to my right as I'm sitting here writing this. Go to a used bookstore and find old style TPB books and you'll probably find a few. The official page says '査読有り' which is unmistakably 'Peer-reviewed'. The wikipedia claims have already been discussed on the ANI and talk page both and generally agreed to not be COI editing. You criticizing Lockley for not being Japanese is pushing the boundary of what is permissible. If you don't want Lockley's peer reviewed published work explicitly calling Yasuke a Samurai to be cited on Wikipedia you are going to need one or multiple of the following:

1. Another reliable source clarifying the error, or putting your claim that such work 'could not be' peer reviewed to show that there is contention whether the nihon university page is in error. I sincerely doubt this exists.

2. A formal retraction from the publisher or author. As far as I am aware, neither has happened.

3. A Reliable Source calling this specific paper or publication into question. It's not on any Beal's list I have access to, and I have access to several in use by Asian university programs to filter predatory publications in Japan and China. Twitter users are not reliable sources. Personal blogs are not reliable sources. "Japanese people" are not a monolith who hold a universal view on this topic (and if all of Japan were truly that united on the matter, then publications that are reliable which contend with the matter will be published in the coming months and years, in which case as an encyclopedia we would just have to wait) and can not be cited in such a vague and broad way.

Until you have one of these three, it is simply not worth continuing to discuss the matter. Wikipedia works off of reliable and verifiable secondary sources, and so far in this discussion the side asking for Lockley's total discrediting has failed to produce any. You ask what the Japanese think - well if you look on the Japanese version of Lockley's talk page you will find that they have also yet to find a reliable source discrediting Lockley despite actively looking for one to begin a section on criticism and the controversy (they even removed a hastily edited in version of such a section if I recall correctly). Please stop making assertions against Lockley's credibility without citations to reliable sources. If those do not exist and all you have is non-reliable sources then wikipedia can't help you. Relm (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

While I don't agree that edited volumes are "kind of antiquated in Western countries", I also strongly disagree with the idea that they should be considered unreliable or somehow not peer-reviewed. I would say the rigour for edited volumes is in general lower than academic articles published in reputable journals, but they are still usually peer-reviewed by the editor(s) of the volume, who will very likely be academics. They are not the same as journal articles, but a lot of good and reliable academic work appears in edited volumes. Retinalsummer (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Do you have any source or proper reason that I can give weight to for why a collection of essays in print form can't be peer reviewed? Generally speaking, because essays consist of the opinion of the author, they are not peer-reviewed. Conference papers are the same. We should consider them as WP:RSEDITORIAL or WP:RSOPINION tier. Rotary Engine ^talk 22:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not wishing to prolong this any further, but noting, for the record, another review of African Samurai by Jonathan Clements, British historian, author, screenwriter. He acknowledges the book for what it is. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

A blog post on All The Anime is a really weird place for such a review. Silverseren^C 01:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. But Clements is, according to the sources referenced at our biography of him, also a scholar of Anime & Japanese TV drama; which may be the connection. Clements has also written several books on Japanese history (again listed at his biographical article). I would consider him a subject matter expert, and the location of the review to not be an impediment to taking his views into account in determining the reliability of the reviewed book. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources critical of the works discussed

Noting that, in the past few days, a number of articles published in the Sankei Shimbun, and on it's English language Japan Forward website, which provide reliably sourced coverage of Japanese criticisms of the conclusions reached by Lockley.

• 黒人侍「弥助」の仏ゲーム、文科省「公序良俗反するなら慎重に対応」　浜田聡氏に回答 2024/07/24 14:07
• 「日本史を侮辱」戦国時代舞台の仏ゲーム、発売中止署名に９万超　主人公「弥助」巡り論争 2024/07/24 12:28
• 戦国舞台ゲーム「弥助」の誤認識拡散、内藤陽介氏「正確な情報発信を」栃木「正論」友の会 2024/07/23 14:54
• New Ubisoft Game 'Assassin's Creed Shadows:' Why the Criticism? 2024/07/22

In addition, prominent Japanese persons have written about the matter on their blogs - certainly some are supportive, but the majority seem to find fault in the scholarship. Examples:

• 信長に気に入られた黒人男性、弥助（やすけ）　そしてアサシンクリードシャドウズについて Hamada Satoshi, Diet member
• 弥助に関する歴史問題について Sakamoto Masahiko (ja), prominent Tokyo local government official
• アサクリ問題まとめ：弥助は黒人奴隷から侍に成り上がったのか Ikeda Nobuo, economics professor
• 織田信長に仕えた黒人「弥助」とはどのような人物だったのか？ Hamada Koichiro (ja), historian & author

I don't suggest that we should replace Lockley's views with those in the links above. I don't suggest that we should base article content on these blogs. But they do provide reliable sources which clearly show that Lockley's views are contested. As above, I suggest that those views should be attributed. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

So let's go though this list of sources:

A civil servant replying to a politician

A news article about an opinion poll

An article about a lecture by an author and scholar bug I can't find any details about his area of expertise, although given "If we leave (the issue) unchecked, we could end up in the same situation as when the comfort women issue spread..." I wonder how much credibility he has outside Japan.

A opinion piece by a Journalist

A politician

A politician

An economist

But! Finally a post by an actual historian,and he says Lockley has courted controversy. However although he doesn't say Yasuke was a Samurai, he also doesn't say he wasn't, and at no point does he say Lockley was wrong. (Archive link to article if you need it[60])

This thread has now generated nearly 300k of text, and has obviously gone of the rails.

I suggest that any new posts that don't contain sources from historians questioning the reliability of Lockleys work should just be immediately hatted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

To be very clear I don't have an opinion on the reliability of Lockley or whether Yasuke was, or wasn't, a samurai. But discussion of whether Lockley is reliable should be around reliable sources from historians, not opinion pieces by journalists or articles about how politicians feel about the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the topics discussed in this thread belong on the article's talk page, not RSN, which is why I mostly stopped replying to this thread a while ago. To the specific point about using these people above's poition as an argument I am less sold as Lockley is not a historian by training either to my knowlege. So it needs more consideration how much those other people mentioned are familiar with Japanese history unless we are going to discount anything not written by a historian, in which case Lockley would be discounted as well.J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

But there are academic sources supporting Lockley, so again they should be answered with other academic sources not newspaper opinion pieces. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

All I mean is that the official position of these authors may not be enough to discount them using our current criteria for Lockley. For example if they have published in a history journal that should increase their reliability to the same level as Lockley. I agree that that is unlikely though. It was more of a technical point. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree on that point, if there was an academic on a different field who was also published in historical journals that would give them more credibility. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This thread ... has obviously gone off the rails. It went off the rails a long, long, long time ago.

It ought to have been a simple enough examination of the nature of Lockley's various works. e.g. "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" - an historical novelisation is not reliable for unattributed statements of fact. I have a copy of the book; and am enjoying reading it. But I wouldn't use it to support article content that Yasuke fought exactly three opponents at Honnō-ji (as described in the Prelude); because that's an invention that's not in the historical records. (There's no historical record that he fought at Honnō-ji at all.) Nor would I use it to support content that Yasuke seconded Ranmaru's seppuku, as described in Chapter 20; again, that's not in the historical records.

But this thread got bogged down in a re-run of the Samurai question, and in "well this source agrees" (on a particular point) so that makes Lockley & Girard's African Samurai reliable (generally speaking); and "no sources disagree" (about a particular point), so reliable (generally speaking); which is not how reliability works. This section does not appear without those Furphys.

To continue the issue, "academic sources supporting" doesn't necessarily bear scrutiny. Of the sources listed here (and above): the first is published by a general, popular (non-academic) publisher, the second is a passing mention in the negative, the third and fourth are from a series of lectures, which are reliable for opinion only. Looking further afield, Ivorian journalist Serge Bilé's similar book in French is also published by a popular press, and, therefore, not an academic work. Purdy is a book review (and is describing the narrative of the book)...

We don't get a list of opinion tier sources disagreeing if we don't first assemble a list of opinion tier sources agreeing.

But again, that's not how reliability works. A source is reliable based on how it is produced, not who agrees with some of its contents.

And if there are genuinely academic sources which have the history of Yasuke as their central focus, we should use those sources in preference to popular historical novelisations.

I quite like African Samurai: ...; I quite like historical novelisation. But we should accept it for what it is: an effort to bring the history to life; not try to make it what it is not. Rotary Engine ^talk 22:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

RSOPINION applies to Wikipedia sourcing, it has nothing to do with academic lectures. If academics make some note in a lecture we can use their opinion in evaluating resources (dependant on their expertise), even if it wouldn't be useful for verifying content. Our personal opinions on the matter carry no weight, especially in regard to primary source interpretation - which should be left to experts.

Again I'm ultimately not interested in the question being asked, but trying to get editors to focus on better sources. What do reliable secondary academic sources say about Lockley, and if Lockley isn't going to be used what reliable secondary academic sources should be used. Neither of these things should be based on newspaper pieces about politicians opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, for the most part, I agree. Article content should be based on the WP:BESTSOURCES; RSOPINION applies in that context alone. Do not suggest that the opinions documented in the sources should be used for anything other than ...:

In the discussion above (and on the article Talk page) it is asserted that no reliable sources document dispute of Lockley's claims; and that therefore, all of his works are reliable. I include the list above in rebuttal of the premise of that assertion. I would further dispute the conclusion that the truthiness of a source's claims should be used as a basis for determining its reliability.

In the discussion above, it is also asserted that all the academic sources agree with Lockley. On examination, those sources do not appear to be particularly academic. The lecture series is by Esi Edugyan, a Canadian novelist; and merely repeats Lockley's claims. (The video is available here; it's a touch under 6 minutes; Lockley & Girard's book "African Samurai" appears @5:13.)

Would love for us to base an assessment of reliability on what reliable secondary academic sources say about Lockley. But, other than book reviews (which suggest that parts of the work cannot be based in historical fact; a point which Lockley acknowledges in his reply to a question in this video (@1:02:16)); he hasn't been the subject of academic study. There are barely any genuinely academic sources on the subject of his work, Yasuke.

Sources which are not academic have been (mis?)represented as though they were. The idea that there is an academic consensus on either Lockley or Yasuke is erroneous.

I can agree that we ought not make an assessment of the reliability of "African Samurai" (or of Lockley's earlier 『信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍』 which Lockley attests (@8:20) is the more "academic" of the two works, and which does not include the more extraordinary claims) on the opinions of journalists, politicians, economists & bureaucrats. But let's also not base it on the opinions of journalists & novelists; on what book reviews don't say; on an incorrect assertion that there is no disagreement; or a representation of non-academic sources as though they were academic.

A quote from the CBC webpage on Edugyan's lecture series is apt: "Perhaps the problem of Yasuke is that he has always been forced to mean something." Rotary Engine ^talk 01:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess to make it clearer, we are not historians using our knowledge to evaluate a source, we are Wikipedia editors who should be using the opinions of experts to guide our use of sources.

If a historian (who's an expert in this specific field) writes a post on Facebook we could use their opinion in helping that evaluation. Obviously better sources are better, but the post would be fine to help with the evaluation of whether the source is reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this still talking about the Lockley / Girard book African Samurai? I've honestly lost the thread.

My impression was that we'd already decided against using this particular book, and indeed it is not listed in the references / sources over on the Yasuke page (although various tertiary sources that quote from it are still there). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hm? We have not decided against using African Samurai. It meets WP:RS criteria and consensus appears to be in favor of using it as long as WP:RSCONTEXT is taken into account (which should apply to any given work by anyone, really). Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

>consensus appears to be in favor of using it

There is definitely not consensus for using it.

Here is how Relm described the consensus:

>what follows from the general consensus here:

>• Lockley's coauthored and un-peer reviewed book is not suitable for citing when there are better sources which others have recommended be cited instead.

>• Lockley's more specific claims, if included in the article anywhere should be directly attributed

>as long as WP:RSCONTEXT is taken into account

Looking at RSCONTEXT, I don't see support for using African Samurai there:

>In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication

This obviously only applies when those scrutinizations yield positive results, which was not the case with African Samurai. The review of African Samurai by Purdey explicitly said that researchers will not find the source useful as they will have to find sources for the claims made by Lockely in that book themselves. That means that the only possible usages from African Samurai would be facts already cited by other sources, (as mentioned by Relm) at which point, why cite African Samurai at all? We should just use the one that can actually be used in general. If African Samurai is not suitable for citing when other sources exist, and the claims he makes that are not backed up by other sources are subject to question (as per Purdy) then we are left with no other usages of African Samurai. To me, that has been the consensus here about this specific book. RSCONTEXT may apply to using Lockley's other works despite this one not being reliable, but that is not what is being discussed here. (ping @Relmcheatham if I misconstrued what I quoted you as saying). J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus here for not using African Samurai. Consensus appears to be in favor of it being reliable per WP:RSCONTEXT, since the scholarly reviews of the book support the relevant claim.

This was also recently discussed at length with outside input from uninvolved editors [61]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think an RFC can override a result from RSN. Also, the main statement from that RFC about using African Samurai is against how Wikipedia uses history sources elsewhere.

>it is possible for Lockley's book to be considered reliable for one fact, while being unreliable for others. It is not on Wikipedia editors to declare that the source is an unreliable source for other sources that state Yasuke is a samurai on the basis of Purdy's review when Purdy still ultimately recommended the book to certain audiences

from WP:HISTRS:

>Historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible.

>Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used.

similarly:

>Popular publications by non-historians that were reviewed favourably in explicit book reviews or review-articles by historians in scholarly peer-reviewed journals

African Samurai was not reviewed favorably.

I see no reason to go against both the consensus here on RSN, which is explicitly about discussing if a source is reliable, and against WP:HISTRS (which is an essay, not a guideline, albeit) in favor of an RFC. Also, he Purdey never actually recommended the book to anyone, so on a factual level the RFC has issues and shouldn't be relied on for this particular point. All Purdey said was that "African Samurai’s lively writing style does offer the reader of popular history and historical fiction a glimpse of samurai values." I would not call that a recommendation. Even if it is, he would then only be recommending it for "getting a glimpse of samurai values," not for any factual information about historical events. It would be like if someone recommended a flawed math textbook for its beautiful diagrams. That is not a recommendation for us to use it in a math article.

On the point of WP:CONTEXTFACTS, it says that "The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another." But Purdey's review showed that the book itself is unreliable. There is no "one fact" here. For some facts he explicitly states they are incorrect, but he also calls the whole book into question. So this isn't really a relevant point.J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think an RFC can override a result from RSN.

I am not seeing a consensus in favor of your position. There seems to be a consensus that Lockley's other works should probably get preference, but that is not really something we needed consensus on and there is no consensus that African Samurai can't be used.

We received guidance above stating "I suggest that any new posts that don't contain sources from historians questioning the reliability of Lockleys work should just be immediately hatted."

Purdy was critical but supports the samurai claim in the book which is why per WP:CONTEXTFACTS, consensus seems to be that the book is fine in respect to Yasuke's status as a samurai.

... Lockley's book has been at multiple academic talks and is in Academic Libraries and in professional development reading groups, some of which are at highly reputable and respectable institutions such as Berkley.

Lockley's book was reviewed by John Rodzvilla of Emerson College in "Library Journal. Mar 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 2, p128-128", with Rodzvilla writing:

"Lockley (Nihon Univ., Sch. of Law, Tokyo) and Girard (Cain’s Blood) use primary sources to piece together Yasuke’s immersion into Japanese culture with a novelistic history that takes place at the height of one of Japan’s most important cultural and political moments ... Highly recommended"

And again, in "Library Journal. Winter 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 12, p80-80" as an "Essential Title in Social Studies".

The overall expert reception of the book is generally positive and most of them recommend it.

I don't think an RFC can override a result from RSN.

It's generally the other way around. Most of the editors here are personally involved and are thus not entirely neutral. Something the recent discussion here did is bring in uninvolved, outsider editors. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

>Lockley's other works should probably get preference

"is not suitable for citing" seems very different from "should probably get preference." And i quoted here an opinion from someone who does believe the sources indicate that Yasuke was a samurai, so the point about "not entirely neutral" doesn't seem relevant here.

>that is not really something we needed consensus on

So if I tried to add to the page that Yasuke fought in the Battle of Okitanawate, would you remove it? If so, for what resaon? From the book:

>It’s also possible that the African warrior sent by the Jesuits may have been another man entirely. Historic conjecture suggests otherwise. It’s highly likely Yasuke *was* the African gunner at the Battle of Okitanawate and, as likely, that he survived.

What about this event:

>Nobunaga called for his globe to the great satisfaction of all present. This

was one of his newest and most treasured possessions and he brought it out

whenever he found an opportunity. Yasuke had never seen such a

contraption, but he’d heard of them; the earth was round and you could see

it rotating on these “globes.” Not only that, you could see all the lands and

seas pictured too. Amazing. Most of the room had never seen one before

either.

>Nobunaga asked Yasuke to point to the place where he was born (a place

the Japanese knew vaguely of as Rimia, derived from the name of the

country we now know as Libya—it was sometimes mixed up with the name

Korobou, a Japanese rendering of Colombo in modern-day Sri Lanka, and

the blanket term for dark-skinned people), on the globe. This was difficult

as Yasuke still had no real concept of where parts of the world were. Maps

were the domain of navigators and nobles, and ordinary people rarely saw

these precious and ever-changing records of geographical knowledge. The

globe, a map stretched round a ball to represent the believed shape of God’s

creations was still a stupefying concept to most in 1581. These were the

latest thing, cost a king’s ransom and most people had never even heard of

their existence, let alone seen one.

>Luckily, Father Organtino was there, and he stepped forward to help.

He’d only ever seen this one globe, but was now quite familiar with it. In

fact, he’d personally presented it to Lord Nobunaga several years before as

a gift on behalf of the Jesuits.

If either of these accounts were published in a history journal we would obviously add it to the article. Yet I don't see it there. For the first example, Purdey says the following:

>the final section, “Legend,” includes a speculative chapter on Yasuke’s activities after the death of Nobunaga — Lockley and Girard suggest he joined the forces that Nobunaga’s successor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi

Does this imply that we should or should not include the statement and attribute it to Lockley? After all, this is not stated in a narrative voice, rather as a matter of fact. Purdey does not outright say anywhere that Lockley is wrong on this point, he just says that the section in general is "speculative" and that Lockley "suggests" that he joins Hideyoshi.

For the second example, this is the format of almost the entire book: a detailed account of an event in a narrative format. If we can't use this, then what can we use? And more importantly, why can't we use it? I have no doubt that if this event was recorded in a history journal, we would at least attribute it it to the author and include it. The obvious answer is that the book is in general unreliable. The specific example here seems to be based on discussions Nobunaga had with Organtino and Frois about India and the rest of the world. Although it doesn't seem that Organtino was the one who gave Nobunaga the globe, and doesn't mention Yasuke. (see https://www.jstor.org/stable/2383173). In general, there are a lot of otherwise notable events that are elaborated on in African Samurai, why should we not add those extra details that other sources have not covered? If for each statement made by Lockley, we can't use it because it is speculation or narrative exaggeration, then what can we use? Isn't saying 99% of the book can't be used the same as saying it should not be used? If you would like, we could say the consensus is that African Samurai can't be used for all speculative and narrative details, is that better? If that is not good, then what stops me from using those details on the main page? Are we going to say there is a case by case basis for each narrative event, while the book is in general reliable, instead of saying the book is in general not reliable?

tl;dr: If you say there is no consensus not to use it, then what would you use it for? In general, the only statements in African Samurai that are possibly usable are ones that are repeated elsewhere. To give an extreme example, I don't think we would starting using books about aliens building the pyramids to show that there are at least in fact pyramids in Egypt. True, those aspects have been verified by other sources. But that does not mean the source in question is reliable. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ending this discussion

There seems to be some agreement that this issue has been dealt with, at least in relation to the specific work by Lockley and it's use in the Yasuke article that this thread was started with. I think any further discussion about which sources should be used in the article should be carried out on the articles talk page, as that is not just an issue of source reliability. Therefore, unless anyone opposes doing so, I will archive this thread tomorrow. This usually happens after five days, but as the sheer scale of this discussion is an issue with the proper working of the board it needs to be moved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No complaints from me. Relm (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 from me as well. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do. Loki (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

+1. Thibaut (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

New posts above make it seem consensus is completely clear. Can I suggest that anyone wanting to pursue this further may want to start a RFC on the matter (either here or on the article talk page). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If this comes up again (as it may, since it seems like some people may be expressing different understandings of what this discussion reached consensus for, and it's so long and not laid out with the standard options that I'd be surprised if anyone were willing to try to formally close), I a) echo ActivelyDisinterested's suggestion to have an actual RFC with clear options, and b) suggest we at least consider imposing word limits next time to keep the discussion to a length that a closer could reasonably read. -sche (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: NewsClick

An investigative piece titled "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul" was published by The New York Times in August of 2023. The inquiry examined the reported network of groups and persons that American tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham sponsors in order promote Chinese government agendas and interests across the globe. One of organizations apparently getting financing from Singham's network was named in the report specifically as NewsClick. It said NewsClick's coverage presented a positive image of China and at times resembled talking points of the Chinese government.

The reliability of NewsClick is:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

• newsclick.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwan0031461/: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-singham-china-propaganda.html: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

14:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Survey (NewsClick)

• Bad RfC. ND61F has not indicated what Wikipedia article has disputed cites, and four-way forms with blanket-ban options are always bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am counting 4 uses of this as a reference, using a very silly search. [62] I am not quite sure it is used extensively enough to warrant an RFC as well. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Using insource is a better way, as it can see the URLs hidden inside cites.[63] Using that shows 333 pages with references using the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  OHH. did not know about that. thank you! Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 with a note warning about bias and a lack of independence related to the Chinese government and its talking points. I can understand the concerns about the lack of prior discussion, but I think this is clear-cut enough that we don't have to waste time on it unless someone wants to argue for unreliability or deprecation (which it could still be downgraded to in a later discussion if evidence comes up or if it remains an issue.) There are sufficient reasons to believe it is biased that some sort of warning where people will see it is called for; while it isn't perennial yet, RSP is the only logical place to put such a warning, and a source like this shouldn't be used 300+ time without at least some indicator of the problems where people might see them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (NewsClick)

• For reference the New York Times articles can be found here or in this archive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Was there any WP:RFCBEFORE relevant to this RFC? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Let's do RFCBEFORE now. The source is used quite extensively, including for topics like Right-wing politics (the right-wing tendency to elect or appoint politicians and government officials based on aristocratic and religious ties is common to almost all the states of India) and Cryptocurrency (Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism"). If there are credible accusations of this outlet spreading Chinese propaganda, we should at least note its bias and make sure it's not given undue weight. Mostly it's used for India-related topics and I'm not really qualified to judge the quality of the articles used there. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  The source is only briefly mentioned in the NYT article, with it showing bias towards China and talking points of the Chinese government. Would a note about these issues be enough? If so is a RFC even necessary. In the first example you give above the source is one of four used to support the statement, the second is used to support an attributed statement by David Golumbia who according to his obituary[64] was "an expert on cyberlibertarianism, bitcoin, blockchain". Is there any concerns with the reliability of these statements?

  To be clear my point about RFCBEFORE was that it could make the whole RFC unnecessary, not that discussion shouldn't happen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would suggest we close the formal RFC (unanswered) … and continue to explore several of the citations that use this source and the context in which they use it. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. Alaexis_¿question? 12:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  If so I would suggest a note be added about the validity of the concern of Chinese bias, lest the closure of this RFC become a way to brush those off. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would have thought that, and that it probably shouldn't be used for reporting on the Chinese government or Chinese history. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that at the very least noting its biases is worth doing, and that even in the absence of previous disputes over it it's worth adding something like that to RSP (or somewhere) in situations, like this one, where it wouldn't otherwise be obvious. The problem is that AFAIK we can't actually add something to RSP without a designation, or at least it would be fairly awkward to do so. Would it just default to a yellow "unclear" entry, if we don't discuss it in any context except its bias? At the bare minimum concerns over its biases appear serious enough to be an "other stuff applies" situation even if the rest were reliable (which we haven't really examined.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is a point I would love clarity on; I was considering for some weeks now starting a discussion about the related question of: where and how do we discuss that a source is biased? Because WP:RSP records when sources are biased, but the "standard options" for RSN RFCs are only about reliability (not bias, which editors have to decide on their own to mention); if someone doesn't dispute the overall reliability of a source (let's even say, one that's already present on RSP, so how to colour-code its reliability isn't an issue), but wants to discuss adding that it's biased, where do they do that? Here? How, a custom RFC which people will complain doesn't have the "standard options"? And then, yes, as you ask, how do we note the outcome / bias in RSP if all we want to note is "unexpectedly, this source is biased about X" and not "this source is reliable/unreliable"? Should there be a separate page—or section of WP:RSP—WP:RSPOVP, where this is noted? -sche (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, nothing prevents us from adding a new record to the RSP table with blank status and a note about the bias in the summary field. Alaexis_¿question? 08:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bias is even more contextual than reliability. I think that it's valuable to note it down precisely because of sources like this one (where the bias is clear-cut but may not be obvious at a casual glance); to me, part of the value of RSP is to give people an at-a-glance sense of a source in order to provide a starting point for local discussions. I don't think we need an entire column for it or more details than that - it's the kind of thing where if there's a dispute or problem related to it you really want to read the entire entry and think about how it applies to using that specific source in that specific context anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this important point regarding the evaluation and documentation of source bias. Your observation highlights a significant gap in our current processes for assessing source reliability and identifying potential biases. The current system, while effective for determining overall source reliability, does not adequately address the nuanced issue of bias. As you correctly point out, the absence of a dedicated platform for discusing source bias creates challenges for editors seeking to address this critical aspect of source evaluation.

I agree that clarifying the appropriate forum for discussing source bias is essential. A dedicated page or selction within WP:RSP, as you suggest, could provide a structued approach to these discussions. Addtionally, developing standardized criteria for assessing bias and documanting finding would enhance consistency and transparency in process. I propose we initiate a formal discussion to explore potential solutions for this issue. This could involve creating a task force in order to develop recommendation for addresing the evaluation and documantation of source bias. I look forward to collaboratng with you and other interested editors to find a satisfactory resolution.

Please let me know if you would like to proceed with creating a task force. ND61F (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that RFC is not necessary. The fact that NewsClick is heavly influenced by Chinese gov propaganda is a serious allegation that requires detail investigation and talk. It can't be dismissed with a simple note. 333 unchecked citations of NewsClick are alarming. It is imperative that we review these instances to analyze impact of this potentialy biased source on our articls. I understand your concern about the length of the RFC proces, but in this case, it's essential to ensure accuracy and neutrality of our content. A well structred RFC can expedte the process by focusing the discussion and gatherings. The NYT article provides imp evidence of NewsClick bias, but it' is not enough. We need a comprehensive analysis of the source, including its editoril policies, funding, connection to the Chinese government. RFC will allow to collect evidence, check the source content, and reach a consensus on its reliability . ND61F (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC Sihang Warehouse - Questionable English Sources?

Japanese primary sources and contemporary newspapers state X force was engaged in the battle, newer English sources generally with few or no citations assert Y force was engaged in the battle, academic English source notes Y force as not being present in said battle. I am requesting a comment on the reliability of the four English sources in question and additional comments on any of the other sources mentioned would be greatly appreciated too. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing dispute for about 2 years now regarding the participating sources during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse and more recently a dispute regarding the subsection covering the same event's subsection on the Battle of Shanghai Article. As the battle seems to have been of little significance in Japanese history, most of the known Japanese sources are un-detailed reports from the Japanese military itself or contemporary news reports. Japanese sources state the participating forces were a reinforced battalion and some artillery companies of the Japanese NAVAL landing forces. Contemporary Japanese newspapers also state the Warehouse was captured by naval landing force units. Likewise, contemporary English news reports support this, noting the participation of the Japanese Naval Landing Forces or "marines." When the warehouse was occupied by the Japanese, it was repeated in a major China-based English newspaper that the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who had taken it.

However several newer English-language sources assert it was the Japanese ARMY's 3rd Division. These assertions not only contradict primary Japanese-language sources and contemporary news reports, but also an academic English-language essay authored by reputable historians which documents the IJA 3rd Division as being outside of the city attempting to cross Suzhou River (while the Defense of Sihang Warehouse took place). A look into the references shows this essay was based largely on primary sources authored by the Japanese military.

Other editors have understandably taken issue with the use of Japanese primary sources for the Japanese Order of Battle and have disputed them with several English language sources.

The main English sources being used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement are as follows:

1. "Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai" by James Paulose. Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd DIvision.
2. Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. There are a number of passages stating the IJA 3rd Division's involvement but the majority lack citations for where this information came from. One page cites "Hatttori, Satoshi, with Dera [misspelled], Edward J., 'Japanese Operations from July to December 1937', The Battle for China, 169" which is from the same English-language essay mentioned above which states only pages later the IJA 3rd Division had already left Shanghai by October 26, 1937 (a day before the Defense of Sihang Warehouse in Shanghai occurred).
3. Niderost, Eric (2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse". Warfare History Network. Web article with no citations.
4. C. Peter Chen (2012). "Second Battle of Shanghai". World War II Database. Web article with no citations.

Adachi1939 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I added a summary of mostly secondary and a couple primary Japanese-language sources and their translations on the talk page for the Defense of SIhang Warehouse article.

These sources conclude the participants on the Japanese side were indeed the Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces (mostly from the Shanghai SNLF) and the IJA 3rd Division albeit nearby, was outside the city preparing for/engaging in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation.

Given the English sources I presented above are in direct conflict with all of these Japanese language sources, including ostensibly reliable secondary sources compiled by Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies, I feel it is safe to conclude they are not reliable.

However if it is solely my opinion on this matter presented, editors on the contested articles are likely going to keep reverting my changes. I would really appreciate some comments or any input from others regarding these sources. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Gerontology research group

I do not think that the grg should be considered Reliable they have been "validating" hundreds of supercentenarians that have been convenientlly years before serveal other organizations existed so they can claim to have validated them beforehand also some of the "vaildations" have little to 0 actual documentation such as 2 instances in the oldest verified people article Furthermore the people credited with "Vaildating" them were not a part of the group back at the time the cases were allegedly vaildated Wwew345t (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/brazil/ several of these cases that were alleged vaildated include people who didn't even work at the grg at the time and some of these cases are in the pages for both Vaildated Supercentenarians and Validated Brazilian Supercentenarians Wwew345t (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of these cases were not on the site until the last few weeks and have been given fake Vaildation dates that predates any competitions so essentially they are speed validating fake claims and giving fake Validation dates in a attempt to look more credible Wwew345t (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you post the examples? Hard to evaluate just based on what you've said. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking about from the link I provided pretty much all but a dozen of them were not validated until recently for example comparing https://web.archive.org/web/20240720234253/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2021-validations/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20240720234253/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2021-validations/ Wwew345t (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There are several more instances of this Wwew345t (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

the point is they are faking the validation of hundreds of cases Wwew345t (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, I think people are having trouble understanding what the goal is. So maybe it'd help if you could list out the standard information. Try this format:

• Link to article or section:
• Link or citation for source:
• Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article:

For example, you might say something like:

• Link to article or section: Lee Longlife
• Link or citation for source: https://www.example.com/page.html
• Exact text you want to add, remove, or change in the Wikipedia article: I want to remove the sentence that says "They claim to be the first to discover it."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have provided the link to the source and evidence proving it's inaccuracies I move to delete every "retroactive" vaildation added to List of the verifed oldest people that has been added in the last 2 months due to a"retroactive vaildation" by the grg on the grounds that the grg is faking the vaildations to make it look like they did it way before anyone else could've done it in a attempt to look more credible Wwew345t (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems I am having issue linking the page but that is the name of it The cases on the lists I am Referring to are Easter Wiggins, Magdalena Oliver Gabarró, Diolinda Maria da Conceição, Ophelia Burks, Olindina Juvêncio da Silva, Horacio Celi Mendoza, Maximinao José dos Santos, James King, Jules Théobald,Victor Santos, Efraín Nunez, João Zanol ,Silverio Ayala, Frank Morimitsu, Faustino Perez (this one has a reliable link from another source that can be used as a replacement) Jesus Perez, Henry Tseng and Rodger Auvin, Wwew345t (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They may all seem different and there are a lot of them but they hav several things in commen none of them were on the old grg website all of them were just added recently with dates that conveniently predate the founding of a group that removed Robert Young one of the administrators of the grg and all of them were Added after they hired a new assistant Administrator (who was the same person who created an sockpuppet pretending to be Ilie ciocans Granddaughter) Wwew345t (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that these "Vaildations" are an attempt by the grg to look credible it is no coincidence that they all started popping up right when the new assistant Administrator was promted who has been permablock from this platform Wwew345t (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't going to base its assessment of the source on discussions of internal disputes at the GRG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The internal issues are why the source has become unreliable also I am not arguing for the complete and total removal of the source I am arguing for the removal on the above mention "retroactive" Validations that have just recently been added I do not think that we should be using a source that is using poorly rushed results that they are doing to make themselves look good Wwew345t (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I have just written. We don't base decisions regarding the validity of sources on personal opinions regarding unverifiable claims about internal disputes. Repeating yourself isn't going to change this. Provide independent verifiable evidence regarding the unreliability of the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have already sent proof that these cases were not validated at the time they claim to be do you want me to post the proof of the other 12 or so instances? Wwew345t (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the 'proof' you posted here [65], the two links are identical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me post them again there seem to have been an issue https://web.archive.org/web/20240509181035/https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2022-validations/ Wwew345t (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Throught the use of the wayback machine you can see that these cases were not there Wwew345t (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Also if these cases were really validated in those years then they wouldnt have just been added last month but they have Wwew345t (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You really aren't helping yourself. Please explain what it is exactly we are supposed to be looking at: provide specific examples which clearly show that a record is being falsified. We aren't going to compare two entire documents to look at differences, and even if we did, we'd need more to go on than vague assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

They are not there if to take the lists and look at the version on May 6th furthermore none of these cases were added onto wikpeida at the time they were supposedly validated because they were not I will provide more info when I have the time (probably tomorrow) Wwew345t (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wwew345t, are you talking about List of the verified oldest people? Just this one page, or others?

Are you trying to change the actual words in the article, or just the refs (the little blue numbers that look like )?

(For your technical problem: See those buttons just above the Reply box? Try using them, especially when you need to make a link to another article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The refs I dont not think the grg ones are trustworthy since they lie about the date they were Vaildated Wwew345t (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

None of those cases were vaildated by the grg in 2019 2020 2021 or 2022 edits on this website on the various longevity lists prove that Wwew345t (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That is my main argument Wwew345t (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And that is easily proven the grg website that I posted ago was only invented last year after all these supposed dates and the old one https://grg.org/Archives/E.HTM was last updated in 2015 so how did these Vaildates exist? Because they didn't they are fabrications Wwew345t (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And yes what I'm referring to are a couple of the refs on the oldest verified people Wwew345t (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so there's a spot in the table that says:

Kane Tanaka

and you don't like the source being cited, so you want to remove it. Do you have a {{better source}} that you could cite instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Not kane Tanaka the names I posted a few comments above and the sad thing is not all of them have a replacement source because most of them either refused documentation or have none Faustino Perez is the only one who is actually validated of those names Wwew345t (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The ones that have all been added this year with fake dates that make them look as if they were Vaildated years ago Wwew345t (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It would help if you could focus on exactly one small change, so other people can figure out what you're talking about. Are you unhappy with the line that says:

Easter Wiggins

and which cites https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/2020-validations/ ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes cause that case and many others were not Vaildated in the year that they list (in this case 2020) Wwew345t (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, are we arguing as to whether the supercentenarians listed by GRG are not actually as old as GRG certifies them to be? I don't feel that the date of the verification or the identity of the GRG people doing the verification is particularly relevant to that information. BD2412 T 01:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes and no I am arguing that the cases that I listed either dont have any proof of their age or that they dont have any yet and that the grg is rushing them in a attempt to look more credible Wwew345t (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

dsogaming.com for technical analysis in video games

(reposting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video_games/Sources#DSOGaming as that forum seems to be inactive)

Edit: here is the specific claim I want to source from DSOG:

   article: Ride 5
   sentence I want to add: "Ride 5 uses Unreal Engine 4."
   source: https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/ride-5-pc-performance-analysis/
   sentence from source: "Powered by Unreal Engine 4, it’s time now to benchmark RIDE 5 and examine its performance on the PC platform"

Last reviewed in 2012 here.

Going through the issues mentioned there:

>Fairly new site

Now more than a decade old.

>no staff or review process information that I could find

staff page here: https://www.dsogaming.com/staff/ It is mainly one full time writer with two others mentioned on that page having contributed this year.

>absolutely plastered in advertisements

I disabled Ublock to test this and strangely I didn't see any advertisements at all. I also tried multiple networks to make sure I didn't have Network-level blocking enabled. It seems the website is mainly supported by Patreon.

DSOG has had interviews with NVIDIA, IdTech, CD Projekt, Unity and CryTek as well as with researchers (eg). You can see the list here: https://www.dsogaming.com/category/interviews/

Interestingly, DSOG seems to be sourced in a few books/journals. The most notable of which is "Moral Rights and Mods: Protecting Integrity Rights in Video Games" published in University of British Columbia Law Review, Volume 46, Issue 3, by Michela Fiorido (university page) which can be viewed here and "Violent Games: Rules, Realism and Effect" in Approaches to Digital Game Studies Volume 3 published by Bloomsbury Academic and authored by Gareth Schott, who is a professor and researcher at University of Waikato (university page, publications)

Here is the relevant quote from Schott (pp. 158-159):

the extent of the input required to generate an outcome, proves relevant to definitions of interactivity as “either the performer’s actions affecting the computer’s output, or the computer’s action affecting the performer’s output” (Garnett 2001). With reference to the latter, gaming software again becomes relevant in the evaluation of performance. Take, for example, Dark Side of Gaming’s PC performance analyses of games, and consider Papadopoulos’s (2014) review of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare:

While the game came with somewhat low CPU requirements, it listed 6GB of RAM as its minimum RAM requirement. Contrary to COD: Ghosts’ Story, however, Advanced Warfare really needs more than 4GB of RAM . . . the actual game used more than 3.6GB of RAM. This suggests that even if PC gamers find a way to run this title with 4GB of RAM, they will face major stuttering issues . . . In order to find out whether this title can be played with constant 60fps on a variety of PC systems, we simulated a dual- core, a tri- core and a quad-core system. All of the aforementioned systems were able to push constant 60fps. However, we do have to note that on our simulated dual-core system there were noticeable stuttering issues that went away as soon as we enabled Hyper Threading.

DSOG also appears as the source for the Giant Pink Scorpion in Giant Pink Scorpions: Fighting Piracy with Novel Digital Rights Management Technology by Andrew V. Moshirnia (university page) in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology& Intellectual Property Law Volume 23 Issue 1: (pdf)

Croteam, developer of the Serious Sam first person shooter ("FPS") franchise, inserted such whimsical obstacles into its game Serious Sam 3: Before First Encounter.[201] As Sam "Serious" Stone, the player takes control of a wide arsenal of weapons to fight a variety of monsters. If the game detects an unlicensed copy, it triggers a giant, invincible, pink scorpion armed with two shotguns that relentlessly hunts the player.

In general, if you look at the citations DSOG receives in academic works, it is generally about technical details such as modding, performance, and DRM. There are some more citations on Google Scholar and I can show more examples if that would help.

Lastly, the previous discussion seems to be about using DSOG for game reviews ("no review process information I could find"). I am not suggesting here that we use DSOG for reviews, only certain technical details.

The reason I bring this up is that DSOG goes into more technical detail than most video game news sources, especially in the field of game engines. For example it is the only site that reported on GameTrailers' interview with Tim Sweeney about Unreal Engine 4's abandoning of Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination, which is now unavailable as GameTrailers has been shut down for years. (For the record, I did not add that source to UE4, it was already there in the Unreal Engine article and I don't think it should be removed. I did spend a few hours trying to find that interview, however, but to no avail, as it seems not to have been archived, with IA only having archived the page itself and not the video.) And as I mentioned above DSOG does interviews with game engine developers and hardware companies. I think those interviews show both the usefulness and credibility of DSOG, at least in the specific field of game engines, and at least where there is no other source that it can be replaced with.

The particular point I would currently like to source from DSOG is that Ride 5 uses Unreal Engine 4, which no other site has reported. (GamingBolt reports that it uses Unreal Engine). J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable or not, if only one site reports on something or goes into detail that far exceeds other sources, then it's likely WP:UNDUE. Woodroar (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I am not suggesting to use one of DSOG's in depth analyses as a sole source for any topic. I only want to use it for a single factual claim (ie. without opinion attached to it such as a critical review or commentary on any fact presented by them). Thanks for clearing up that point. In terms of the specific point about DSOG being the only one to mention Ride 5 using unreal engine 4, it is also the only one to have done a performance analysis of the game. (The game seems to have mediocre sales and from what I've read it is considered worse than its predecessor Ride 4 so in depth review is scarce.) So it is not unexpected that other sites do not report on it. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@J2UDY7r00CRjH, this sounds like trying to get the whole site declared Officially™ Reliable, but what we actually want on this board is to know the article you want to edit, the sentence you want to add, and the exact source (=not the whole website) you want to use.

Try filling in this little form:

• Link to article or section:
• Link or citation for source:
• Exact text you want to add to the Wikipedia article:

This will help us understand what you want to accomplish. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing

article: Ride 5

sentence I want to add: "Ride 5 uses Unreal Engine 4"

source: https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/ride-5-pc-performance-analysis/

sentence from source: "Powered by Unreal Engine 4, it’s time now to benchmark RIDE 5 and examine its performance on the PC platform" J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

Now, does anyone actually believe that this website is unreliable for this specific sentence, in the specific article Ride 5? Note that "unreliable" means you've got some concern that the fact in question might be untrue, so we shouldn't trust that the source got the facts right. If your only concern is about whether it's UNDUE, then that's not a question that affects reliability. That question needs to be answered, but it does not need to be answered here at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. That's a question for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or for the article's own talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried using this source but it was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ride_5&oldid=1236682642 with the edit comment reading "Not a reliable source." I'll revert it back now based on your input. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that you first talk to User:NinjaRobotPirate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement with sources, so I have amended the article to list that it either UE4 or UE5. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Undid the edit as I don't know if I should participate there when I saw this discussion first. But there does seem to be some disagreement. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Super Goku V The engine is almost definitely Unreal Engine 4, as I showed below (starting from "I installed the game") albeit using original research. The only actual question is whether we can use the DSOG source or not. I wouldn't lend to much weight to IGN's "features" infobox. I'm pretty sure it has been wrong a few times, although I can't remember the exact ones that were wrong as I've viewed a few hundred of these engine related articles and I may be wrong entirely here. It's not really an article, its just a tag they added to the game's page, and probably is not held to the same editorial standards that the main articles have. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The only actual question is whether we can use the DSOG source or not. It does seem like IGN isn't an accurate assessment in this case, plus this is about DSOG. I will drop the matter as I don't believe I can help that much then. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@J2UDY7r00CRjH: Excuse me, but where is the consensus that this is a reliable source? All I see here is one person saying that it's likely undue emphasis, and another person saying that you should talk to me. It's still listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources as an unreliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, taking the model of 'All sources are reliable for something, and no source is reliable for everything', do you think this source is unreliable for the specific statement in question? A WikiProject doesn't have the right to completely ban sources from all uses per WP:LOCALCON and WP:PROJPAGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoa there. No one is talking about banning. The video game Wikiproject has a consensus on the use of a video game website as a source on video game articles. The editor posing this question wishes to use it on articles related to video games. There's nothing wrong with any of that. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me be a little clearer then, @Sergecross73: "The video game Wikiproject" isn't actually allowed to have "a consensus" about what other editors get to do in video game articles. See WP:PROJPAGE (an actual community-approved formal guideline): "An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor."

The list seems very helpful in general, but it is not actually a valid reason to prevent someone from citing a source in a specific article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

But no one is saying this RSN discussion's consensus wouldn't supersede a local consensus if it's created here. Ninja was simply explaining their revert. They agreed with previous editors who felt it was an unreliable source. This is all healthy, constructive discussion. You're looking too hard for misconduct here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So far, the valid (i.e., a reason that is not directly prohibited by PROJPAGE and LOCALCON) reasons that Ninja has given is "it looks like a self-published group blog to me. And, no, I don't trust random blogs". This seems like a common sense objection to me.

You haven't provided any reasons based in either policy or common sense. Would you like to? It's difficult to form a consensus when editors don't provide valid reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't provided any reasons because I haven't provided any stance at all yet. I merely interjected because I objected to your comments to Ninja. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

>where is the consensus that this is a reliable source

If you would like, I can revert the edit again and wait for more responses on this page to see if anyone else disagrees with using this source for this specific claim.

>one person saying that it's likely undue emphasis

I don't think it is undue because the engine version is always notable, that's why it is a field in the video game infobox, and there is no opposing view that says otherwise to what DSOG stated, which is the main point of WP:UNDUE. That point from Woodroar seems to me like it was more of a general statement which I then clarified.

>another person saying that you should talk to me

That was after I already reverted the edit.

(I respond to these points above as only as clarification, not to imply you hold contrary to these two points I just made, as you mention them only in respect to the lack of consensus, ie, that "two people said something, and what they said was not something that contributed to consensus, rather the folowing: [...]," not as reasons for why the source is unreliable.) (Also, I did alert you to the discussion here, again, not to imply you have held otherwise.) J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I've been an administrator for almost 8 years and a user for 15 years. I think I've read one of Wikipedia's core policies at least once. That's simply where the previous discussions about the site's reliability were, and the consensus of those discussions – much like WP:RSP, which is also an advice page that belongs to the WikiProject WP:Help Project. But since you seem to be interested in scoring petty points, here's one for you: WP:VG/RS is linked from MOS:VG, which is an official site-wide guideline, as a continuation of the statements about reliability.

As for this site, it looks like a self-published group blog to me. And, no, I don't trust random blogs. They tend to guess at stuff like this and phrase it authoritatively. When I do a google search for "ride 5" "unreal engine 5", the first result I get says "Ride 5 is developed by Milestone using Unreal Engine 5 and released 24th August 2023 for PC, PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X" What makes this random source less reliable? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Said random source seems to have questionable reliability, though it is cited 57 times on en Wikipedia currently. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think about it I did see that site traxion.gg but it looked like a content farm so I quickly left the site after seeing they didn't site any sources.

>They tend to guess at stuff like this and phrase it authoritatively

This is an author whose specialty is reporting on game engines an performance analysis. And its not hard to find out if a game is using UE4 or 5. It can be seen in multiple ways for anyone who knows how to check. For example you can usually tell for error log. See for example this error for Ride 5: "The UE4-Ride 5 game will close:" https://www.reddit.com/r/CrackSupport/comments/1arorge/recently_got_ride_5_from_fitgirl_i_get_this_when/

Also, I don't think that @WhatamIdoing is trying to score "petty points." They are likely trying to have a meaningful discussion about the topic at hand, as evidenced by the fact that they phrased it as a question, not a statement or accusation. That doesn't seem like the right way for an admin to discuss issues. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Do not worry if we seem snippy, J2DUY; Ninja and I have both been around almost forever, known each other for years, and I like and value him. (He undersells himself: his account is 17.4 years old.) I wrote a good deal of both the LOCALCON and PROJPAGE rules back in the day, and the bottom line is that advice from a WikiProject, like advice from an individual, can be excellent advice, but if you want to think of it in legal terms, it's non-binding advice. (RSP is not an WP:Advice page written by members of a WP:WikiProject; it is an Wikipedia:Information page that documents the results of widely publicized RFCs and the most active content noticeboard.)

@NinjaRobotPirate, the OP says that the sole informal, unadvertised chat about this website at WT:VG/RS was a dozen years ago, and that the chat focused on facts that no longer appear to be true. Therefore, unlike anything at RSP, there is a risk that it is documenting a former consensus. For example, it is declared unreliable because one editor says "I couldn't find any staff page" – but that was true in 2012 and is not true now: https://www.dsogaming.com/staff/ Another says it is unreliable because in 2012 it was "absolutely plastered in advertisements" (a criteria that you will find in WP:ELNO but never in WP:V or WP:RS) – but when I checked a few pages just now, I saw no ads at all. If the 2024 version of the website were re-evaluated according to the criteria used in that discussion, it's possible that the result would be different.

Additionally, I am telling you that, unlike anything listed at RSP, this website was determined to be 'unreliable' as a result of one (1) discussion chat between exactly two (2) editors. Additionally, those two editors were considering only its general or hypothetical value, which can't overrule a choice to accept it for a specific instance. Many sources are generally unreliable for most uses but absolutely the best possible source for very specific instances (e.g., direct quotations, which should normally be cited to the original, authoritative primary source).

I'm hoping that we could actually treat this like a normal RSN question, in which editors look at the specific source (not primarily the whole website, but focusing on the individual page) and the specific fact that needs cited, instead of a knee-jerk reaction of "but it's on VG/RS and that proves that it's unreliable for anything and everything forever". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I installed the game, and used the method here to see the engine version, which showed unreal engine 4.27. Both methods work to show this. You can go to ride5/Binaries/Win64/ride5-Win64-Shipping and view the "File version" field in the "Details" tab in the exe's properties which will read "4.27.2.0". Or you can view the unreal version listed in %localappdata%/UnrealEngine. Additionally, PhysX3 can be seen in Engine/Binaries/ThirdParty. PhysX is not used in unreal engine 5. It was last used in Unreal Engine 4 (see Unreal_Engine_5#Other_features: "UE5 uses Niagara for fluid and particle dynamics and its own Chaos physics engine in place of PhysX.") Lastly, I opened ride5-Win64-Shipping.exe in Ghidra and searched for "UE4" which returned "++UE4+Release-4.27" which is the standard version label for Unreal Engine (screenshot). "UE5" returned no results. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Associated Press famous birthdays lists

The only prior discussion I could find regarding this on one of the main talk pages was here, but I feel like a discussion regarding the birthdays sourced to The Associated Press birthday lists may be relevant. There are several issues in my opinion, but the main one is that when changes are made they are not noted or marked as corrections, and The Associated Press has never stated where they obtain their birthdays from. Both Rebecca De Mornay and Doris Day have other newspapers commenting on the AP discrepencies included below, as well.

Lou Ferrigno - born 1951. AP had birthday year as 1952 from 2002 until 2009, then changed it to 1951. 2002 (50),  2003 (51), 2004 (52), 2005 (53), 2006 (54), 2007 (55), 2008 (56), 2009 (58), 2010 (59)

Scarface (rapper) - Born 1970. AP had birthday year as 1969 from 2002 until 2009, then changed it to 1970. 2002 (33), 2003 (34), 2004 (35), 2005 (36), 2006 (37), 2007 (38), 2008 (39), 2009 (39), 2010 (40),

Pepa (rapper) - Born 1969, AP had her birthday year as 1969 from 2003 until 2020, when it was changed to 1964. 2003 (34), 2004 (35), 2005 (36) 2006 (37), 2008 (39), 2009 (40), 2010 (41), 2019 (50), 2020 (56), 2023 (59)

John Leguizamo - born 1964, according to both Mr Leguizamo, the copyright.gov office, his book, etc. AP changed birthday to 1960 in 2020. 2019 (55), 2020 (60)

Doris Day - sources put birth at 1924 as well as Doris Day herself. In 2017, her birth certificate was found to have a birthday of 1922 by the AP. From 2009-2015, they had her year of birth as 1923. Their 2008 birthday was originally for 1924.

2008 (84), 2009 (86), 2010 (87) and noted here.
2012 (89), 2013 (90), 2015 (92)

Rebecca De Mornay  - Born 1959; AP had year of birth as 1962 from 2004 until 2009, then switched it to 1959. 2004 (42), 2005 (43), 2007 (45) (also noted in USA Today), 2008 (46), 2009 (50), 2010 (51)

Michael Jai White - Born 1967, according to his Facebook, being 27 in 1995, and interviews since 2001 putting his birth year as 1967. Associated Press has listed his birthday as 1964 since adding it in 2003.

According to their values and principles, When we’re wrong, we must say so as soon as possible. When we make a correction, we point it out both to subscriber editors (e.g. in Editor’s notes, metadata, advisories to TV newsrooms) and in ways that news consumers can see it (bottom-of-story corrections, correction notes on graphics, photo captions, etc.)
A correction must always be labeled a correction. We do not use euphemisms such as “recasts,” “fixes,” “clarifies,” “minor edits” or “changes” when correcting a factual error.

Awshort (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't see them as reliable on even a case by case basis due to their issues with corrections that aren't labeled as such or are just randomly added with no explanation, inability to respond to issues presented to them*, and lack of openess on where their information is obtained from.

I contacted both the FactCheck email address, as well as used their Contact Us form February 6, 2024 to find out where they had sourced their birthdays from and note the error on Michael jai White - I never heard back. Awshort (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• If a birth date/year is missing, use AP (latest iteration) unless something contradicts it. This seems a no-brainer -- AP is consider an independent WP:RS, and if nothing contradicts it, use it. If it is contradicted by something else, then either discuss on talkpage, or with discretion use what seems to be more reliable (knowing that other editors may contest whatever source that is). Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Softlavender: I appreciate the reply. I agree with that, except AP is consider an independent WP:RS is the exact reason I brought this up here since the reliability of their birthdays section has never been discussed in depth, and most discussions brought to talk pages point back to 'The Associated Press is a reliable source'.

  To put it another way - we have disallowed WP:FAMOUSBIRTHDAYS on BLP articles for not providing their sources of their content, or providing fact checking for it's material. In that respect I feel it warrants discussion when other well used sources do the same.

  Awshort (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• In general, the AP is reliable. It does seem that the "Today in History" section occasionally has errors in the ages reported. We should prefer sources for birthdates which explicitly say the year, but I don't see a need to WP:RSP-style deprecate this based on occasional errors. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• I would assume the AP probably publishes a lot more birth dates than many other outlets and is therefore going to have more errors. Newspapers in general are far lower in terms of quality of sourcing when compared to academic articles or research books, especially when it comes to things like lists. Birthdays should be widely found in multiple sources per WP:DOB to avoid concerns with one source getting it wrong. – notwally (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I can see no evidence presented here for the proposition that "newspapers are in general are far lower in terms of quality of sourcing". For contrary evidence about historians, see for example: Betty Radice in the introduction to "The War with Hannibal"; and "The King's Parliament of England" by G O Sayles. James500 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did not present any evidence for my statement. It is simply a fact. WP:NEWSORG also discusses this. Just because higher quality sources also sometimes contradict themselves does not change the fact that news sources get information wrong far more than academic sources. If you think that human interest news stories have the same general quality as peer-reviewed academic articles, then you are just wrong. – notwally (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Unreliability not proved. WP:NEWSORG says that "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors". A small number of cherry picked errors does not indicate whether a publication is reliable. If you want to know how accurate the AP really is, you need a sample that is large enough and random enough to be statistically significant, and you need the actual percentage error rate. Seven errors is a very small number and is not enough to prove that the AP is even less than 99% accurate. What is ideally needed is commentary on the accuracy of the AP from independent sources that have studied its accuracy properly. The birthdays of celebrities are frequently extensively disputed by numerous sources. Indeed, they are frequently unknown. It is no good cherry picking celebrities such as Rebecca De Mornay whose WP article gives three different alleged years (1959, 1961 and 1962) supported by six different sources that do not agree with each other. That disputed birthday is a cherry picked and useless example. You need to use people whose birthdays you actually know for certain. Your claim to have contacted AP and not received a response is useless evidence, because we only have your unverifiable good word for that. The AP's failure to disclose their source of information is irrelevant, because that is normal for news sources. I suspect that it could be quite normal to simply ask a celebrity what their birthday is. That depends on the honesty of celebrity. Since we can probably guess that a minority of people are in the habit of pretending to be younger than they really are for vanity reasons, birthday errors are likely a poor indicator of general reliability. It is not clear that clippings from single individual newspapers are capable of proving whether the AP failed to disclose their source, or failed to disclose that they made a correction. How do we know it is not the newspaper doing that? The AP is a news agency, not a newspaper. Why would it be able to control what newspapers print? For that matter, how do we know that the "discrepencies" are not cherry picked typos from particular newspapers, rather than actual discrepencies in the AP's reporting? The point is that AP reports printed in a newspaper are being filtered through that newspaper, and the accuracy of that newspaper may be entirely dependent on that newspaper. Some newspapers have a reputation for typos, which may not even be deserved, since it might be due to the quality of the readership rather than the typesetters. There is no evidence that the AP are less reliable or accurate or contain more birthday errors than any other publication in this field, and no apparent reason to single out the AP in particular. Numbers, such as birthdays, are more vulnerable to typos than words and may therefore be a particularly poor indicator of general reliability. I am under the impression that some "journalistic" sources might regard birthdays as a weapon with which to attack the reputations of other sources they do not like. I am skeptical about the utility of using celebrity birthdays to gauge the reliability of sources. James500 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists

Is the Union of Concerned Scientists a reliable source for the following attributed statement at ThorCon nuclear reactor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

The Union of Concerned Scientists has expressed worries with the liquid-fueled MSR reactor pattern about issues with safety, environmental impacts, and nuclear proliferation.

References

VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have less familiarity with their work on reactors, but they are not a reliable source when it comes to missile defense and countermeasures (most notably due to their partnership with MIT and their reliance on the debunked work of Ted Postol); they've presented misleading popular science with regards to the blast effects of nuclear weapons, and at a minimum I'd say they are biased enough to require attribution. My take is that they're probably Generally unreliable on issues of nuclear weapons and missile defense, and additional considerations (requiring attribution) for issues in other subject matter areas. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the membership is open to the general population, this is not a legitimate scientific organization, but a lobby group. I'll concur with SWATJester here that this is not a reliable source, though WP:DUE may apply, and if so the opinion should be attributed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

My point is that unless UCS's statement is published in an Independent Source it is WP:UNDUE to mention it at all, even when attributed. Should every advocacy group which exists and has a website be allowed to be a SOLE source for content? I am arguing that their opinion is Undue to mention unless an Independent Source reports on their opinion (the Independent Source thereby judging who gets to have opinions and who doesn't, rather than Wikipedia editors.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The membership is open to the general population, but statements of the group aren't written by the members, they're written by the staff (obviously). My understanding is that UCS staff involved in writing position papers are scientifically trained (see here and check for yourself I guess); certainly this was true of the founders. Obviously this is an organization with a point of view, but so is Amnesty International and they are obviously usable as a source for facts within their expertise. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The policy here is WP:USEBYOTHERS : reputable news organizations and those in the scientific fields are not using UCS as a source of facts. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn’t responding to you, but actually news organizations turn to them frequently when they need a science-advocacy viewpoint: [66] [67] [68]. These aren’t really great examples of use, but that’s because I only spent 5 minutes of effort with one newspaper; even so, they’re enough to make it obvious that UCS is turned to routinely by news organizations when they need advocacy quotes from a pro-science perspective (just as Amnesty is turned to routinely by news organizations when they need advocacy quotes from a pro-human rights perspective). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester: to be clear yes, this is an attributed statement as proposed. Would proliferation fall under the umbrella of nuclear weapons in your opinion, in the context of your reply? VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that there was a specific statement you were asking about. In this context, I wouldn't count it under the same umbrella -- I was referring more to proliferation of delivery systems and completed weapons, moreso than proliferation of fissile material. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The UCS is an advocacy organization making a lot of money selling fear of nuclear power. They write impressive, voluminous reports with no fact checking on important claims, like the one disputed in the ThorCon article. These are not just "simple mistakes in reporting". Read the UCS statement in full context with the response by the ThorCon design engineer in Citizendium's Debate Guide. The engineer's response is more than he "disagrees with a conclusion". It is a statement of fact that can be easily checked.

WP needs to treat Citizendium as a reliable source, not for the details of the reactor design, but as good journalism with fact checking and reliable sources for the details.

I've heard the criticism that we should eliminate the "middleman" and go straight to the reliable sources. The problem with that is you need more that a small section of an article to fully and fairly cover the debate. You need something like Citizendium's Debate Guide pages.

I've heard the criticism that CZ is "user generated" content, like WP, but there is a big difference. CZ looks like WP (same software), but it has much better editorial control. CZ is more like a traditional publisher. Authors are carefully selected for their expertise. Peer reviews are solicited, with special attention to getting responses from both sides on any controversial issue. If there is disagreement on the content of the article, each side can summarize their argument, in their own words, on the Debate Guide page.

Let's treat CZ and WP as partners, not competitors. CZ can do the deep-dive investigative journalism that WP cannot. WP can provide the enormous breadth of coverage that CZ cannot. On the topic of nuclear power, CZ can get responses from nuclear engineers who have nothing but contempt for WP. David MacQuigg 20:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No - Note that at WP:RSP there are no advocacy groups listed; that's because they fall under Self-Published Sources WP:SPS. Biased sources like advocacy groups are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); they'll never publish research with findings contrary to their policy position(s).

Using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in proper balance with others as presented in Independent Sources WP:IS.

---Avatar317^(talk) 21:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

at WP:RSP there are no advocacy groups listed is flatly false: SPLC, Amnesty International, and probably others are listed at WP:RSP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course the organization is a reliable source for their own views. That is always the case except for rare exceptions when organizations have proven to be inherently untrustworthy and we can't believe what they say even about themselves. That doesn't mean that their view is WP:DUE or should be presented without further commentary or views from other sources. If, as other editors are saying, they are not experts in this area then their view doesn't seem like it should be included unless there is a particular reason to do so. ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This off-topic discussion rife with personal attacks has gone on long enough. ElKevbo (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any convincing evidence offered above of lack of expertise: I see one obviously pro-nuclear editor who very much doesn't like the UCS for that reason but thinks Citizendium is a reliable source, and one editor who claims that UCS's partnership with MIT makes it less reliable than it otherwise would be (???) -- not exactly compelling! (Before this generates any responses about nukes: everyone is aware of the futility of trying to reason with people who have strong views about nuclear energy on the internet, and I have no intention of engaging in any conversation on that subject with anyone.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC) The problem with UCS as the sole source, unchallenged, in criticism of a reactor design is their anti-nuclear bias, NOT their lack of expertise. That bias has lead to statements that are demonstrably false. Citizendium is NOT pro-nuclear. I am NOT pro-nuclear. I get flack from both sides. If you doubt that, read the Debate Guide pages of any article in our series on Nuclear Power. Suggestions for better neutrality are welcome. My goal as Engineering Editor at Citizendium is to get the best from both sides. Facts go in the main article. Advocates' arguments, in their own words, are published in the Debate Guide pages. Ed Lyman at UCS was invited to participate and declined. David MacQuigg 11:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC) The problems with Citizendium as a source (1) are incredibly obvious and (2) have been explained to you repeatedly at the relevant talk-page; they are about much more fundamental issues than potential bias. (I am the same person as 100.36.106.199.) 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Tell us one problem with Citizendium's coverage of this debate. [69] David MacQuigg 15:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Here is all past substantial discussion of Citizendium in this forum: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_7#another_wiki? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Citizendium_(aka,_sub-academic-quality_peer_review) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175#c-PBS-2014-08-15T12:25:00.000Z-DrFleischman-2014-08-15T05:45:00.000Z Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_202#c-SMcCandlish-2016-01-27T04:48:00.000Z-Darkfrog24-2016-01-24T03:31:00.000Z It doesn't come up very often because it is obviously a poor source (for anything, anywhere), suffering from simultaneously the weaknesses of WP:UGC and WP:TERTIARY. (Please note that it doesn't matter whether you personally are satisfied on this point WP:SATISFY: zero other people have endorsed your idea that it should be relied upon here, and at some point you should understand this WP:CONSENSUS and stop repeating yourself.) 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC) I don't have time to read all of your links, but I assume they are just repeats of the first sentence in your first link: "Citizendium claims to have the sort of peer review that could establish a reliable source, but Wikis should usually be avoided as references. And the thing is, if it actually is a reliable source, then it doesn't need to be referenced! Because if it's reliable, then its claims must be backed by references of their own, and it is these that should be cited. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)" I can't defend what happened with CZ in 2008, but we can all verify its current objectivity and independence, and that unlike WP it is not filled with unreliable UGC. At the risk of repetition, we do have peer review on our nuclear power articles, better than most academic journals. Our reviewers can put their critiques on the Debate page, right alongside the article. At the risk of repetition, most of these debates can't be fairly summarized in a short paragraph. We need a whole page like Citizendium provides, with the best arguments summarized in the words of the advocates. What WP can do with a vague statement about "safety, environmental impacts, and nuclear proliferation" is link to the CZ Debate Guide, where these complaints are spelled out, and responses from experts are provided. Why are you hiding behind an IP address? Are you from UCS? David MacQuigg 16:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Oh, good, your paranoid conspiricism has now extended to personal attacks. I think we're done. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Yes. With your permission, I will delete this rabbit hole up to where I requested an example of Citizendium's coverage of the current debate.David MacQuigg 18:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC) @Macquigg, if a portion of the conversation is a tangent, you can collapse it (see template:collapse top) but do not delete it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Let's keep the debate on topic, avoid personal attacks, and not waste anyone's time. David MacQuigg 18:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Again, tell us one problem with Citizendium's coverage of this debate. David MacQuigg 16:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable for statements of fact in general (although from a quick look, they seem perfectly sane & science-based); reliable for their own view (as usual). Why would one ever want to use them though? Our need for NPOV would mean: don't, and use better more authoritative sources.Bon courage (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I fixed MOS:LISTGAP problems in this thread with this edit. On the substance, there is no reliability issue with sourcing an opinion statement to a person/organization themselves. Of course an individual/organization's official website is a reliable source for their own opinion. The question is whether it is due weight to include that opinion in the article/section in question. That is a question for WP:NPOVN or the article talk page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In support of what other editors behave already said, they are likely reliable for attributed statements of their own opinions, but not for statements of fact in wikivoice. However just because something can be verified doesn't mean it must be included. Whether something should be included or not isn't a question of reliability, and should be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I would note that if the author is a subject matter expert who has been previously published in other reliable sources then it could be useable per WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: the author of this source is Edwin Lyman. Isn't this a novel interpretation of WP:SPS, though? (That might look sarcastic but it isn't, genuine question). It's not self-published, it's a viewpoint published by a well-known organization directed by the author. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In prior cases there have been instances where the publisher isn't considered reliable, and this idea has been used. It's not novel, but not uniformly accepted.
Say an author is an expert in the field and has been previously published by independent reliable sources per WP:SPS but chooses to publish in an unreliable source, does that mean that the article can't be used but it could if the author reposted it to wordpress? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As they seem to have "many private citizens" as members, only with attribution. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This off-topic discussion rife with personal attacks has gone on long enough, too. ElKevbo (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that they should be used with attribution, but the logical structure of this comment is nonsensical: the membership doesn't produce the official statements of the organization, who they are is irrelevant to its validity as a source and whether or not its statements should be attributed. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC) But it may imply that not everything is produced by relevant experts. What is their editorial policy? Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Mate, it's a membership organization, just like Amnesty International: anyone who wants to send them money can be a member, and totally separately from that they have a staff who does the work. No one is preventing you from doing a bit of reading, so please give your opinion after you've looked into it, not before. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC) I looked, and could not find one, so its down to those who want to use it to show me it has one. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC) No, actually, no one has to show you personally anything. UCS is an advocacy organization, not a magazine or journal; the question "what is their editorial policy" doesn't fundamentally make sense in context. Please in the future try to familiarize yourself with the basic details of a topic before you start offering nonsensical comments. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC) (To the IP editor:) How did you get involved in this discussion? You hadn't been editing the ThorCon reactor article. Your first edit was: I endorse everything VQuakr has said in this section and the previous one." [70]. Did VQuakr invite you to this discussion off-wiki? For the record, "meatpuppeting" is against Wikipedia policy: WP:MEATPUPPETRY. ---Avatar317(talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Have you tried to turn your amazing powers of deduction to looking at the order in which I made my edits, or in general to examining my edit history at all? Is something in the water in the nuke subject area that makes some of its editors fall back on unfounded aspersions and conspiracizing, despite our very clear guidelines on this point? 128.164.177.55 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Your edit history isn't available when you hop IP's and choose not to get a username. New users coming to a discussion out of the blue doesn't give the appearance of honesty and credibility. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC) "I am too lazy to check what I'm talking about" is not an exception to WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, or WP:ASPERSIONS, oddly. It's interesting how you have not yet retracted any of the unambiguously false statements you've made in this discussion -- almost as if you aren't so concerned with the appearance of honesty or credibility. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC) (To spell it out clearly, although why your bullshit personal attacks should deserve that I don't know: my first edit on this topic was [71]; I found this discussion because I often browse the noticeboards, as you could easily check from my editing history. That comment is still awaiting you to acknowledge the unambiguous falseness of your statement, by the way -- will that be coming before or after the apology for the unfounded aspersions?) 128.164.177.55 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Any issues with editors behaviour should be handled at the appropriate forums, which this is not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources on Jordan Peterson and Climate Change

Sources:

1. The Guardian, [72]: Canadian psychologist and darling of conservatives and the alt-right, Jordan Peterson, has been on an all-out attack on the science of climate change and the risks of global heating.
2. DeSmog, [73]: ...Peterson is among the most visible promoters of climate crisis denial.
3. Chapter in Open Universe book, [74]: Peterson has downplayed climate change and promoted a denialist message.

Content currently in the article Jordan Peterson): Peterson is a climate-change denier...

Are these sources sufficient for this content?

I think the Guardian is RS for "Peterson has attacked the science of climate change."

I think DeSmog (which has been discussed previously on RSN [75], [76]), which appears to be a group blog (formerly called "DeSmog Blog") is a biased source that would require attribution.

The Open Universe volume is non-refereed, the chapter is written by a philosopher, and the press is the source of the "pop culture and philosophy" volumes which are generally marketed to a popular audience, so I'm not inclined to think this is RS on the topic of climate change. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The usual way to handle this is with language closer to the language of the sources (denial as a verb or denialist attached to the content rather than to the person, see e.g. Patrick Michaels wrote a number of books and papers denying or minimizing climate change, Fred Singer was best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking). These sources would be fine for that. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the correct direction here. The Guardian is a generally RS. DeSmog is an activist organization so their views, if due, should be attributed. The book is likely good for fact but we should probably be careful regarding using it for subjective claims. That said, the claim in question, with attribution seems reasonable. The summary that Peterson is a "climate change denier" is problematic since the sources don't actually say that and, as is said above, the language of the sources are a better way to handle this. I would also note that the definition of "climate change denier" varies by source. Some, including the Wikipedia article, use the term to mean someone who either denies anthropogenic climate change or those who accept anthropogenic climate change but doubt the extent or otherwise undermine actions to address it. Peterson appears to fit into the latter category. However, the latter is not compatible with, for example, the Marriam Webster definition which only refers to not accepting anthropogenic climate change.[77] Thus I would say these sources are not sufficient to support the LABEL, "climate change denier" but they are sufficient to support the claim that Peterson's statements attack climate change since and the risks associated with global heating and that his comments deny a climate crisis while giving support to a denialist message. Springee (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, phrases I think these sources clearly support include:

• Peterson denies the scientific consensus on climate change (my first preference)
• Peterson opposes the scientific consensus on climate change (my second preference)

My ranking of these two options follows the overall tendency of sources on climate change in general, where "deny/denial" is generally preferred over "oppose/opposition".

Also, since the filer has not pointed this out, it seems relevant that the Catholic Reporter has chosen to re-publish this particular DeSmog piece as a news article, thus lending it strong WP:USEBYOTHERS support for inclusion.

And as a parenthesis, a chapter by a philosopher, with scholarly apparatus and coming from an established publisher, seems to me more than an adequate source to characterize comments Peterson, psychologist of meaning and YouTube philosopher, has offered about climate science. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems the issue is really what is written about Peterson in the wikiarticle. Perhaps rewording to something Newimpartial has proposed (I say second preference) would solve this. Are there other better sources on this? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think either of those statements are logically supported by the claims in the sources. Thinking of it as a Boolean, While the group of people who have done the things provided by the sources above logically can be filled by someone who denies anthropogenic CC, it also could be filled by someone who accepts anthropogenic CC but dismisses/discounts the magnitude of the issue. For that reason it is better to stick with language that is truer to the sources. Springee (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think Shinealittlelight is asking if the sources are sufficient. I would say that there should be better sources for this claim. DeSmog does not look like a good source. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

DeSmog are an advocacy organisation but known for high-quality research.[78] It has a heavyweight team. It co-publishes with The Nation and The Intercept[79] and is cited by RSs such as The Guardian.[80][81][82] Definitely usable, preferably with attribution.

The book chapter is from a book published by Carus Books, a hundred year old US-based small publisher specialising in environmental issues and philosophy. The author is an associate professor of philosophy at Tampere University. The book is edited by an associate teaching professor in philosophy at Arizona State University. I think this is a borderline scholarly source we can cite but if so should attribute. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian piece appears in the opinion section of the website, "commentisfree", and would need attribution. DeSmog, as an advocacy organisation; and the book chapter likewise should be attributed. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Other possibly relevant sources?

• Weeks, Carly (23 August 2023). "Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 1 August 2024.

  Dr. Peterson rose to prominence in 2016, following the release of videos criticizing federal legislation designed to prevent discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression.
  Since then, he has gained a worldwide following and regularly posts anti-transgender content, climate change denial and criticism of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau online.

  Bon courage (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In context this is a weak source since the full extent of the paper's discussion of Peterson's comments on climate change is literally "regularly posts ... climate change denial, ..." Absent any explanation of what he posts that would be a poor source. I would say we are better off using the original three sources and crafting a sentence that is closer to their actual claims since those sources support the claims. Since this is a BLP we need to be careful about disparaging claims that aren't supported within the source. Springee (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Additional source

• Landy, D.; Lentin, R.; McCarthy, C. (2020). Enforcing Silence: Academic Freedom, Palestine and the Criticism of Israel. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78699-652-7. chapter "Privilege, Platforms, and Power: Uses and Abuses of Academic Freedom" p. 310 by Arianne Shahvisi: "Thus conservative controversialist Jordan Peterson’s damaging and misleading misogyny, transphobia, and climate-change denial are bolstered by the platforms and credibility his academic post affords him"

(t · c) buidhe 15:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to attribute, per Bobfrombrockley, on any sources used for the claim. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree: where there are several sources saying the same thing, attribution is often unnecessary and impractical. (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WP:YESPOV comes into play. This looks like a case where attribution would likely have the unfortunate effect of watering-down & would smell of POV-pushing. Just WP:ASSERT as there's no doubt in RS what this guy says and does on this topic. Anyway, we're straying from the purpose here. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I honestly cannot tell what content Bon courage or Buidhe are claiming to be reliably sourced, or to what sources they are appealing. Could either of you (or both of you) clarify content and source please? Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient sourcing to state either: 1) JP is a climate change denier or 2) JP promotes climate change denial

Since it seems to be somewhat controversial among editors you can just throw all the sources from this thread into the article. (t · c) buidhe 14:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, seems kind of an unexceptional claim given the sourcing. Hard to see what the fuss is about. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a fuss. Denying everything relevant to climate change makes one a climate changed denier. Stating "I do not deny climate change" and then continuing to *deny climate change* doesn't work. The attempted repackaging of "climate change skeptic" or "denies some tenets of climate change" are just obvious attempts to make any ensuing statements more palatable.

We have in this very discussion both evidence of the individual *denying climate change* and material calling him a *climate change denier*. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the source that says Peterson is denying everything relevant to climate change? When applying a contentious LABEL we need to be careful to stick with the sources. Springee (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the sources. Seem like we've already been over this. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You made the claim, please provide the quotes that support what you have specifically said, that he has "denied everything relevant to climate change". Springee (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Springee, the policy-compliant terrain for this discussion is what independent, secondary sources say about Peterson, not what he says in his own words (and our interpretation). Newimpartial (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The issue is sources don't call him a denier Springee (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are trying to split the hair between "denier", "denying" and "promoting denial" - well, I don't think other editors see those as distinctions relevant either to our P&Gs or to the literature on climate change denial. This "issue" looks from the outside like some kind of language game. Newimpartial (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We frequently do that. We say politician X's ideas are far-right vs politician X is far right. The other way to avoid this issue is focus less on the label and more on what the person said and how other people say that is wrong. For example we can find a RS that provides a summary of Peterson's complaints. We don't have to provide much detail but sufficient so the nature of the complaint is clear. We follow that with the reactions from RSs. When the section starts off with LABELs it looks like writing to persuade rather than inform. I don't recall where I read it but somewhere there was a comment about the issue with front loading the negative in this way. To the uninformed reader it comes off as editors having a bone to pick. However, when the statements of the subject are fully presented and then the reaction from experts are also presented it comes off as editors working on being impartial and trying to inform. Springee (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Springee: we should definitely stay close to the sources. So, to be clear, Springee is not alone here. Moreover, it's not just me and Springee. So let's try to work to a constructive comprormise that will improve this section of the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The CCDH does a good job of articulating "new denial". Effectively, now that saying climate change isn't real or outright denying that humans have anything to do with it has become too unpopular or ridiculous, the new strategy for climate change denial is to challenge that humans have much to do with it, trying to undermine efforts to fix it, saying it's real but none of the solutions put forward by science actually help, etc. Kind of like the white supremacists in the US don't wear pointy hoods anymore -- they've moved on to talk about things like the Great Replacement, migrant crime, the history of slavery/the Civil War, etc. In other words, it's climate change denial intended to make it harder to use that label. According to the report, Peterson is a leading figure in this "new denial". The report itself wouldn't carry a ton of weight as a primary source, but it's been reported in the verge, newsweek, bloomberg, etc. In the end what we have are a bunch of sources explicitly calling him a climate change denier (see above), a bunch of sources associating him with this "new" form of climate change denial, and a bunch of sources using other language to describe the same behaviors captured by the terms "climate change denial" or "new climate change denial". I'd get the argument that "we shouldn't use the term if people describe behaviors characterized as denial but don't use the term themselves", but that's not the case here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the measured and thoughtful reply. I do have a concern regarding "new denial". The problem is not everyone reading "denial" will realize what "new denial" includes. Many may assume denial aligns with the more traditional definition [83] of someone who denies human caused climate change. The other issue is trying to assign intent. As an example, someone who opposed school bussing in the 1970s may have done it for racist reasons. However, they also may have done it for practical, non-racists reasons. Someone who is concerned about uncontrolled immigration into the US may feel that way because they are racist. However, they also might feel that way because they think immigration outside of the legal process is wrong etc. Certainly someone who is racists will be happy to use an argument, even a legitimate one, that supports their side as justification to get the outcome they want without having to provide a racist reason. The problem is how can we tell the difference? There has been a concern in academia that the system can sometimes be biased against outside ideas etc. I certainly saw people who understood how to write grant proposals to appeal to those with the purse rather than what might have been the best way to increase knowledge in the subject area. So someone arguing that politics associated with climate change may be resulting in less than idea research and public policy certainly should be a reasonable claim (assuming it's properly supported with evidence). I think it would be hard to argue that, at least at some marginal level, politics and questionable policies aren't associated with climate change even if only at the very marginal level. So if someone points this out, by the new definition they are undermining efforts to stop climate change and their arguments may be abused by those who are clearly opposed to climate change efforts. Does that mean the original concerns are invalid? When we start getting into slippery slope, political definitions we really should err on the side of not using them and instead state the facts (Peterson has argued XYZ, expert in the field says the idea is crap because of ABC). Springee (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I (newspaper)

I have a question about i (newspaper)'s reliabilty. I looked for John Anderson (TV personality) sources and came across this I article that appeared to cite from our Wikipedia article about him. Per WP:WINARS and WP:CIRC, does that mean we need to have a discussion about the reliabilty of the i newspaper? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the explicit citation to Wikipedia, or is there more than that? Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: It was originally just that one but I have done a deeper dive and it does appear they have done it for a while (see here and here). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a reliability issue. Copying from Wikipedia articles would be an issue. But an article having a single sentence saying "Wikipedia says..." is very different to that. Silverseren^C 21:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Silverseren here. I could see it being a problem if the article were largely based on Wikipedia, but a properly attributed aside like the one in the first article doesn't strike me as a problem. As ever, though, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Dumuzid (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• No. I doubt it is worth having a discussion over three articles, of which one is an opinion piece. WP:NEWSORG says "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains" content we do not want to use as a source on Wikipedia. If you think that a source has copied Wikipedia, you could find another source. There are numerous obituaries for John Anderson. There are books and newspaper articles from the pre-wikipedia and indeed pre-internet 1980s and 1990s, such as Adrianne Blue, "Queen of the Track" (1992), and Jane Wyatt, "Anderson handed a key role", The Times, 15 January 1992, p 32. I get the impression that CIRC is meant to primarily apply to sources that use a computer program to scrape Wikipedia, or journalists who indiscriminately copy content they do not know to be true, which they have not verified elsewhere. How do you know they are relying on the Wikipedia article and not on the sources cited in the article such as "anentscottishrunning"? I can see, in particular, that the i has used the identical wording to the first paragraph in the body of the WP article (from "Plaudits included" to "Maryhill Ladies AC in Glasgow"), but the facts appear to be verified by "anentscottishrunning" (assuming that site is reliable). Indeed some of the wording in enWP comes from "anentscottishrunning". And if "anentscottishrunning" is reliable (and I make no comment about its reliability), why do we need to use the i to reference the same claims? As for the other paragraph (from "He was coach" to "Field event"), both Wikipedia and the i use effectively the same wording as "ucoach", so you cannot claim that is copied from Wikipedia instead of "ucoach", and CIRC does not apply at all. The fact that two documents are identical does not prove that one was copied from the other: It may prove that both are copied from an earlier source. James500 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Given that the Daily Mail has been excommunicated here so thoroughly, it seems odd that its housemate is even considered as reliable. It's not the paper it was back in 2016. It's not targeting the same Sidebar of Shame subjects, but the writing and research quality has tanked. And like the Mail, the online version is even more so. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've only used i newspaper once that I can remember, in The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes, but the article from it was very much the exact opposite of the bigoted trash one sees in the Daily Mail. And the article I used was from 2021. Silverseren^C 22:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• It is not apparent to me that ownership is conclusive. The last time I looked at it, the Mail was a tabloid and it was written like a tabloid for an audience of tabloid readers. If a broadsheet or quality newspaper and a tabloid newspaper are owned by the same company, I am not prepared to simply assume that the tabloid automatically "taints" the other. They are written for different audiences and they are presumably not going to be the same because their purpose is to make money and they have to satisfy their audience to make money. Are there any reliable sources that say that the i is no longer a "quality" newspaper or that it has accuracy problems? Can anyone here produce any actual evidence of any actual factually inaccurate claims in the i? James500 (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• @James500: It's not the factual accuracy I am questioning, its the fact that they appear to be using Wikipedia as a source and publishing it. For example on the Anderson article, they mention his wife but that was unsourced in the Wikipedia article at the time. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• The problem is not that the i is bigoted as a matter of policy (as the Mail is), but that it's unreliable. I would refer the interested to Private Eye, who are perhaps the best catalogue of such things. When they bother to write a decent article, written by a real journalist, then it's fine and as good as ever. But this isn't guaranteed. Just as with Reach publications and seemingly every local newspaper website, there's an air of penny-pinching about it all. Too many pieces written sloppily by juniors, without adequate subediting, without the fact-checking that was always the hallmark of UK journalism amongst our litigious court system. So one article might be good, but another not so - and it's hard for us to rely on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Just a comment, Private Eye itself shows up as generally unreliable on the cite script. Is that not an accurate assessment of it, then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• What do you mean by that? Private Eye is not shown as unreliable at WP:RSP? Black Kite (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Headbomb's cite script (which mostly reflects RSP, but also includes stuff from this board that hasn't been "perennial") which highlights cite reliability shows it as generally unreliable. AFAIK this only gets added if there was some discussion somewhere where people questioned its reliability. So why would that be? PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• PE is a satirical magazine but it does have strong editorial oversight and has a reputation for unearthing scandals that aren't reported on elsewhere. The only discussions I can find are this from 2009 and this from 2011, neither of which appear to show much consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Private Eye does not exactly have a reputation for 100% accuracy. For example, in the famous case of Goldsmith v Pressdram Ltd [1977] QB 83 [1977] 2 All ER 557 at 563, they admitted that allegations they had published were false. The editor is said to be "the most sued man in English legal history" and he does not "require as much evidence as legal teams on newspapers" because they are frightened of libel proceedings and he is not: [84]. And I could go on in this fashion for some time. Even if I was accept that Private Eye is useful for "intelligence gathering": It would be helpful for you to provide citations to specific articles in Private Eye, and an explanation of what, and how many, errors in the i they have actually found. It would be even more helpful for you to provide links to i articles that contain errors and an explanation of what the errors are. When I run a Google search for "the i" over private-eye.co.uk, I find nothing. If you want me to look at physical copies of Private Eye, it would be helpful for you to tell me which ones. I have managed to look at Private Eye 1587 and I cannot find anything about errors in the i in the "Street of Shame" section. If you want me to look behind the paywall on private-eye.co.uk, it would be helpful for you to actually say that is what you want. What is not helpful is vaguely waving at a paywalled publication without telling me exactly which parts of it you want me to look at and presumably purchase. James500 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought they have court-ordered editorial independence separate from the Mail, so they're run in a different way? VintageVernacular (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would personally consider the I generally reliable. While they may be owned by the DMGT, they have much higher editorial standards and don't engage in the tabloid coverage that Wikipedia editors find so problematic about the Mail. If there are suspicions that this particular article is a circular ref then I would avoid citing it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Blabbermouth

https://blabbermouth.net/news/james-hetfield-is-honored-metallica-music-was-used-by-us-military-to-help-us-stay-safe

I was planning to pull the following quotation for the James Hetfield article: "I'm honored my country is using something to help us stay safe, if they are. But then again, once the music is out, I don't have control over that. Just like how someone's giving it away online. They're using it to do what they do." However, the site it pulls the interview, Thrasher, accepts user submissions with an unclear level of scrutiny given. Is it OK to include the quotation given above? Based5290 (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Accepting freelance journalists' submissions is not the same as accepting user submissions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was bit unclear. It appears that you just need to email your article to get it in the magazine. Its possible that there's some more comprehensive requirements or review behind the scene, but the fact that no extra requirements beyond formatting are listed seems to be suspicious (for me, at least). Is this type of thing common among reputable publications that take freelance journalists' submissions? Based5290 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I should have explained a bit more. That page looks like a standard submission page for a small magazine; there's nothing suspicious about it. Nothing indicates that they're just publishing everything that they receive by email and not reviewing or fact-checking them. Submissions, int his context, generally means just that: you can submit, and we will review and tell you if we want to buy the story. To be sure, there's no published editorial standards on the website, but it looks like pretty legit music journalism. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As both a freelance writer and a publisher, I'm going to echo what voorts says here. "Accepting submissions" merely means that you just look at and consider material sent in from outside the staff. It in no way implies that you're going to run everything (or even anything) submitted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSMUSIC classifies it as reliable, but to exercise caution with WP:BLP related issues. I'd say that sounds about right here too. Sometimes reliable sources pull information from lesser ones. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

International Olympic Committee

The reliability of the IOC website (Olympics.com) from https://olympics.com/en/news/paris-2024-swimming-france-leon-marchand-greatest-double showing Leon Marchand's article as a reliable primary or secondary source? 49.150.12.163 (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify your question? The Olympics website would certainly be reliable for details of the Olympic games and events happening at them, it would be a primary source for such information. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a primary source. And it would be reliable since it is the official Olympics site. See how wikipedia considers a source reliable here WP:RS. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we request for comment before listing to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? 49.150.12.163 (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not. Not every source needs to be listed at RSP; not every source should be listed at RSP. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The RSP is for sources that have been regularly discussed here, or are contentious in some way. It's not meant to list all sources. There is no need to list this, as there isn't any question of it's reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Locus Mag

This source was added to Taral Wayne citing the subject's death. I am not certain if it is a reliable source for birth or death dates, given that it has submission guidelines indicating they accept articles from people without journalistic merit. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I am missing where they say they "accept articles from people without journalistic merit." They do say "We have a staff of writers and rarely take pitched articles or interviews, with the exception of international reports, obituaries, and the occasional convention report", but that does not say that they take those from people without "journalistic merit", whatever that may mean. The item is an obituary, so it may or may not have been written by the staff, as there is no writing credit, but there's no visible reason to assume it was not subject to an editorial process. They do accept press releases, is that what you mean? Most journalistic endeavors will at least take a look at press releases. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Locus (magazine) is an old, well-established, and widely known and respected trade magazine. I have no reason to doubt its reliability and this post does not supply any such reason. There is another obituary on File 770, which appears to be more of a one-man operation (the one man being Mike Glyer, both the site operator and the listed author of the obituary) but still maybe also usable (File 770 is mentioned, often as a reference for various awards, in some 280 of our articles). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

South African RS / non-RS sources

Simple question: does a list exist somewhere on Wikipedia showing which South African media sources are counted as RS and non-RS? Any help gratefully appreciated... Axad12 (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I've found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_South_African_Sources Axad12 (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: It's not on the list but personally I would not consider The South African to be an RS. I had been meaning to start an RFC in light of the previous time I came across it when it seemed to copy from Wikipedia. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks.

If anyone is familiar with South African media sources their assistance would be very welcome here [85].

The ex-politician subject of a BLP has requested the removal of some material via a COI edit request. The material has two sources ('IOL News' and 'Sowetan', references 15 and 16 in the main article). According to the 'Reliable South African Sources' link (above) the former source is described as 'Usable but be cautious', the latter source is not mentioned.

I'm wary of removing sourced material unless the sources can be categorised as unreliable. Given the subject's status as an ex-politician there may also be some degree of bias in the coverage, but I'm unable to assess whether that is likely to be the case here. Axad12 (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note: the thread at the article talk page is rather long and there is probably no need to read it in its entirety. By the end it boils down to the simple question of whether the quality of the sourcing in refs 15 & 16 justifies the inclusion of the relevant material in the article. Axad12 (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Novinite

This news site seems to be publishing for more than 20 years and has been used in over 800 articles. I could not find any discussion on it. Changeworld1984 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Any particular concerns you can present in accord with the instructions at the top of this page? Bon courage (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking if we can do RfC? Changeworld1984 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't do RfCs unless there is a reason to. Which requires somebody to explain what the issue is regarding the source in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You should only come to RSN if you have particular questions about a source, per the instructions at the top of this page:

• Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

If there's a particular article where you think this source is a problem, then we can have a discussion about it. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It is about this article. https://www.novinite.com/articles/84477/Japan+Plans+to+Build+World%27s+Tallest+Building

I wanted ask abou reliabiliy of Novinite. Changeworld1984 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's a no. the X-Seed building was a concept and never intended to be built, and no one ever planned to do so. It was supposed to be an engineering challenge to come up with ways of solving future problems not an actual building. Canterbury Tail talk 18:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that. I wanted to add his wikipedia article as a citation. Changeworld1984 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If you know it is wrong about the building, why are you proposing to cite it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

FilmDaze

I used this for an anime-related article. The author seems aware of the creator's interviews and POV about the anti-otaku theme; I can't see something wrong in this essay. This is their policy and staff: they proundly state to have high-quality essays with no clickbait and spam. What's your opinion? Is reliable enough to use for entertainment articles? TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Which article and what content? Rotary Engine ^talk 09:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hedgehog's Dilemma (Neon Genesis Evangelion). TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Federalist

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.

---

In the light of the controversy at the Olympics, I want to let you know about this news site.

http://thefederalist.com/2024/07/29/anti-christian-olympic-opening-ceremony-heralds-the-rise-of-a-neopagan-west

This news site is known to promote conspiracy theories especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

Echovita

Echovita is an obituary website that steals obits from funeral homes and AI-rejiggles them into innacurate messes. See [86] and [87] for details.

We currently have 114 articles citing them. Help cleaning this up would be appreciated. I've added the site to WP:UPSD to facilitate cleanup.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Republishing obituaries without permission and selling products unwanted by the families off the back of those obituaries, sounds like a scam site. Certain not a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, definitely unreliable. Also note the quote from Echovita "I would like to add the information we share was not private as stated, since the original obituary was posted publicly on the internet", which would seem to be a flawed understanding of copyright and makes linking to the site problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Tinkoff Journal

Can some articles published on https://journal.tinkoff.ru (Tinkoff Journal; ru:Тинькофф Журнал) be considered reliable sources as long as the author of the article can be proven to be a professional writer in the relevant domain, seeing how Tinkoff Journal has editorial oversight and an editor-in-chief (https://journal.tinkoff.ru/about/ – Sergey Antonov as of my leaving this comment) and an editorial policy of sorts including the rule that articles must not include false information (rule no. 5).

In specific context: Can this article be used as a source for content about Amogus, seeing how its author appears to be a professional internet writer who was the editor and (briefly) also the editor-in-chief of another Russian online media outlet, TJ (Tjournal.ru), now defunct, which former outlet does not appear to be a non-reliable source to me, and is frequently cited on the Russian Wikipedia which has an "authoritative sources" guideline which is generally compatible with our WP:RS? (TJ is also cited 93 times in the English Wikipedia)

My assessment is: the author is an internet journalist who has been covering internet topics + the outlet has editorial oversight + the material does not exhibit obvious problems = the specific published article is not WP:SPS and not WP:UGC and can be used for a particular internet topic. Would you agree? —Alalch E. 21:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Example of a Dasha Leizarenko (Лейзаренко, Даша) article in TJ currently used as a source (#21) in a different article: Special:PermanentLink/1236454334: link —Alalch E. 21:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Google Search results

I just want to confirm that Google Search is not a reliable source, since there has been very little discussion (I could only find one discussion here), links to Google searches are very common (currently in over 5000 articles), and the citations almost always seem inappropriate except when the material is about Google Search itself. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Search engines aren't a source period. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Global Times as primary source for editorial comment on WSJ controversy

This is regarding the deletion [[88]]

@Amigao's concern is that a reliable and non-deprecated source for factual claims, not WP:GLOBALTIMES

However, as discussed on Amigao's talk page, I believe this is reliable sourcing as the content is a primary source for an opinion, and WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL apply. It is not factual content of a kind where WP:GLOBALTIMES prohibition should apply. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. Editorial commentary is a reliable primary source for statements attributed to that editor. 14.201.39.78 (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Global Times was deprecated after a RFC in 2020. In general deprecation means the source shouldn't be used for anything other than statements about the source itself. I would suggest finding a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Is https://www.science-advance.com/en-1/ the Wiley Journal?

It doesn't appear to be. A new user is using it for Draft:Nucleon induced gravity Doug Weller talk 10:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I would point out that the link in that draft, science-advance.com/finite-gravity, isn't valid. There's no such article on the site. I can't find any evidence it's associated with Wiley, which particular Wiley journal where you thinking of? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thr author is a medical doctor[89], and their prior work has been in that area. I can't find any third party discussion of science-advance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The article at Science Advance (not to be confused with Science Advances) appears to be this one. Science-Advance.com calls itself an open-access peer-reviewed journal,[90]. They're not Wiley nor AAAS. Beyond that, I am not competent to evaluate their claim, the citation or the draft article. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Bloody Elbow

What is the reliability of Bloody Elbow pre-2024?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Bloody Elbow)

• Option 3 See previous discussions at RSN:[91] [92] Three of the four editors who weighed in, not counting me, considered it a blog that was generally unreliable. One editor pointed out it had been cited more than 500 times, but did not otherwise weigh in. Please note that I have a conflict of interest as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki.com, hired by ONE Championship which has been covered in Bloody Elbow,

While Bloody Elbow currently seems to be a reliable source under the new ownership, (See their editorial policy, prior to this, Bloody Elbow was a small blog. When GRV bought Bloody Elbow in 2024, [93] it laid off the existing staff and deleted most of its archival content, indicating a lack of confidence in the site’s past work.

Most of the citations to Bloody Elbow on Wikipedia no longer work and can’t be rescued. On the Ultimate Fighting Championship page, for example, of the 35 citations to Bloody Elbow, only five links work - three go to the Ghost Archives, one to the Internet Archive, and only one to Bloody Elbow. I tried to find the 29 sources on the Internet Archives and the Ghost Archives and I could not locate them.

When deciding whether a source is reliable WP:USEBYOTHERS says: “How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.” The media rarely cited to Bloody Elbow over its 16 year history. I found only three reliable sources pre-March 2024 that cite to it, two of which described it as a blog. A story written by a contributor on a site called “Fannation” uses Bloody Elbow as a news source. The two other reliable sources that refer to it as a blog are a small Florida publication and Washington Post sports blog. The Post seems to have used it exclusively to reprint quotes from fighters attributed to the Bloody Elbow blog E.g. [94], [95], [96].

My suggestion is that Bloody Elbow pre-March 2024 be treated as unreliable for statements of fact, but can be used for statements of opinion, if attributed. Regardless, editors are going to need to replace the hundreds of dead links with new citations. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this RFC? The consensus from previous discussions is that it isn't reliable. That is also the case with previous discussions on SBNation blogs in general. Has there been any disagreement with that assessment? If not this seems a waste of editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

profootballarchives.com

Upon a cursory glance, nothing about https://www.profootballarchives.com looks like a reliable source. There's nothing at that site about its authorial or content policies. In fact, aside from apparently originally-sourced statistical data, there's nothing there about the site itself. It's been cited in maybe 1500 articles, but I can't find any other discussions about its reliability. Does anybody have any insight or thoughts on this one? Much obliged! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree that the site should be deemed unreliable by default, since there's no indication as to where the information is coming from, or who's behind the site. Are there reliable alternative sites available that offer similar information? Perhaps those can be used to replace usages of this website. Left guide (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Searching on Google shows it's a regularly used citation in books from seemingly reputable publishers, which could make it reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The site was founded and ran by a man named Tod Maher, who may actually be considered a subject matter expert based on the number of books associated with their name. I don't agree that it should be deemed unreliable, as they've actually been cited quite a number of times, as ActivelyDisinterested mentioned, but @BeanieFan11 can probably speak more on the experience of the site owner. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WSJ says it can't prove claims that 10% of UNWRA staff had ties to militant groups

• Tani, Max (2024-08-04). "Journal still can't confirm January story about UN agency for Palestinians". Semafor. Retrieved 2024-08-07.

“The fact that the Israeli claims haven’t been backed up by solid evidence doesn’t mean our reporting was inaccurate or misleading, that we have walked it back or that there is a correctable error here,” Elena Cherney, the chief news editor, wrote in an email earlier this year seen by Semafor. That one of the paper’s biggest and most impactful stories about the war was based on information it could not verify is a startling acknowledgement, and calls into question the validity of the claims as reported in the Journal. The piece had major reverberations internally and raised serious concerns among some staff. According to three people familiar with the situation, since the story was published earlier this year, reporters have tried and failed to corroborate the 10% claim at the center of the story.

To clarify, The Wall Street Journal has not retracted its original story and stands by it.

I'm just posting it here for the record. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)