Talk:Samurai

Terminology

The explanation that "It was not until the 17th century that the term gradually became a title for military servants of warrior families" is incorrect; even before the 17th century, servants in the service of shogun and daimyo families were called samurai. Also, the explanation "a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a samurai" is not useful information because it does not provide a specific definition of "a warriors of elite status. Therefore, this explanation has been removed.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Some books like the African Samurai (2019) by Thomas Lockley implicitly make the distinction that there existed a nobility class of samurai alongside the ad hoc conscripted "samurai" warriors of Sengoku Jidai, however the same book also claims the general definition of "samurai" was more fluid and the distinction was not strict.

What would be helpful to demonstrate "It was not until the 17th century that the term gradually became a title for military servants of warrior families" is not correct is a secondary source (or a set of therefore) which show samurai families existed prior to 17th century and then apply Wikipedia:DUE accordingly. SmallMender (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with this revert by SLIMHANNYA. The removed text

Originally, the word samurai referred to anyone who served a lord, even in a non-military capacity. It was not until the 17th century that the term gradually became a title for military servants of warrior families, so that, according to Michael Wert, "a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a 'samurai'"

is supported by

• Wert, Michael (2021-04-01), "Becoming those who served", Samurai: A Very Short Introduction (1 ed.), Oxford University Press, pp. 4–11, doi:10.1093/actrade/9780190685072.003.0002, ISBN 978-0-19-068507-2, retrieved 2024-07-05

which qualifies as WP:SCHOLARSHIP - Michael Wert is a subject-matter expert [1], his book is on the topic of this article and is reputably published by OUP.

SLIMHANNYA's view that Wert is incorrect is not supported by sources and would be original research in any case. The fact that Wert does not give a specific definition of "a warriors of elite status" is immaterial: Wert says that elite warriors (i.e. samurai in one sense of the term) would not have used the word "samurai" to describe themselves before the 17th century. Arguably this is WP:DUE in the "Terminology" section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Several authoritative Japanese encyclopedias state that before the 17th century, in the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, samurai referred to high-ranking bushi (上級武士).[2] So the source you present, that it was an insult to call elite warriors samurai before the 17th century, is a non-mainstream academic theory. The encyclopedia says that during the Kamakura period, samurai directly under the shogun were called gokenin, and it also says that during the Sengoku period, the word "samurai" became synonymous with the word "bushi". In other words, bushi who served warrior families such as shoguns and feudal lords were also called samurai. Therefore, it is a non-mainstream theory that the title "samurai" gradually came to refer to military servants who served the warrior families in the 17th century. These are basic facts for Japanese interested in history. It is certain that even before the Edo period in the 17th century, the title samurai referred to military servants in the service of the warrior families. Japanese scholars do not know what heretical theories foreigners hold. Therefore, Japanese scholars do not refute false theories, and I cannot immediately find a source where a Japanese scholar directly contradicts the source you posted. Isn't it an abuse of the rules to apply the Wikipedia rules by the book and publish clearly heretical theories and false information? There are far too many sources and descriptions in the English Wikipedia that seem reliable to a foreigner without systematic and detailed knowledge of Japan, but strange to a Japanese like me.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, we shouldn't exclude a point of view from the article simply because it seems "heretical" from the perspective of mainstream Japanese history (assuming you have in-depth knowledge of Japanese historiography). We should include all significant points of view if they are not WP:FRINGE. So let's do this the right way: instead of removing well-sourced material, let's find sources that directly contradict or corroborate Wert and try to broaden the discussion in terms of sources and editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wert source you provided is a fringe theory and should be deleted. The explanation I showed, taken from several authoritative Japanese encyclopedias, is the mainstream theory. The explanation that samurais served shoguns in the Kamakura period and that the term samurai became synonymous with bushi in the Sengoku period has already been stated in the text.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

In the text of the temporary law enacted by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1591, just before the beginning of the 17th century, the word "samurai" refers to the wakatō (若党), the lowest-ranking bush or the highest-ranking part-time bushi.i[3][4][5] Wart may have argued, based on this article of the law, that it would be insulting to refer to the elite warriors before the 17th century as samurais. In other words, he may have extended the exceptional meaning of "samurai" in the Azuchi-momoyama period to apply to the word "samurai" in all periods before the 17th century. Perhaps he misunderstood because he lacked systematic and detailed knowledge.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you recent edits to the article. I didn't check the sources, but it seems to me that the text you added is consistent with Wert's claim and acutally corroborates it. Since During the Azuchi–Momoyama period (late Sengoku period), "samurai" often referred to wakatō (若党), the lowest-ranking bushi or the highest-ranking part-time bushi (the text you added), it's quite likely that a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a 'samurai' (Wert's thesis). The article is consistent and the "Terminology" section is now more informative. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the description of wakatō (若党) that I have presented clarifies the error in Wert's description. Since wakatō existed in the 16th century during the Azuchi-Momoyama period, we can see that the explanation that samurai gradually came to refer to military servants who served warrior families from the 17th century onward is incorrect. And in your writing, the problem is that the Heian period explanation of a person serving the nobility even in a non-military role is followed by an incorrect 17th century explanation. Even if the 17th century description is correct, you mislead the reader by omitting the description from the 12th to the 16th century. The description you want to keep alive should be deleted because it does not match the multiple sources that define the term "samurai" at different times. According to several sources, samurai were servants of warrior families before the 17th century. From the Kamakura period in the 12th century to the Muromachi period in the 15th century, samurai served the shoguns of the highest-ranking warrior families. During the Sengoku period of the 15th and 16th centuries, the definition of samurai was expanded to become synonymous with bushi. In other words, lower-ranking bushi who served the warrior family of the senior bushi were also called samurai. In the late 16th century, during the late Senghoku period, the definition of samurai was expanded to include wakatō, the lowest-ranking bushi who served the senior bushi. You have failed to provide a valid rebuttal to these facts. --SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what rebuttal you are asking me to provide. You say that "lower-ranking bushi who served the warrior family of the senior bushi were also called samurai" and you say that "In the late 16th century ... the definition of samurai was expanded to include wakatō, the lowest-ranking bushi who served the senior bushi". These statements are fully compatible with Wert's claim that "a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a 'samurai'". I don't see any inconsistency. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Please, answer my question. And please stop deliberately changing the subject. I have shown through multiple sources that samurai served warrior families such as shogun, daimyo, and high ranking bushi before the 17th century. I used wakatō, who existed in the 16th century, as an example. In other words, I am saying that your explanation that "It was not until the 17th century that the term gradually became a title for military servants of warrior families" is incorrect.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. I did not deny that "samurai served warrior families such as shogun, daimyo and high ranking bushi before the 17th century". Why do you say that I (or Wert) denied this? What Wert says is that the term referred to anyone who served a noble, even in a nonmilitary capacity - so it was basically a synonymous of "servant". Then, Wert says, the term gradually became a title for military servants of warrior families (my emphasis) and by the 16th century it referred to lower-ranking "military servants", i.e. low-ranking bushi, so that a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a 'samurai'. As I said, this is not "my explanation" - these are verbatim quotes from a reliable source. So if you don't agree, you should either provide high quality secondary sources that contradict these claims (and you have provided none), or start a thread on WP:FTN, or both. If you like, I can ping some editors who have a keen interest in Japanese history, who are familiar with the Japanese language, and who can help us better understand this point of contention. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there is an issue here of period terminology and modern terminology used to describe the period. Sometimes there is a conflict between the two. For example, Knight comes from a word that means boy. In German, the same root became to mean a servant. So, historians speak about William the Conquerors knights, although they might not have used that word. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

In terms of sources that might contradict or support Wert, I've recently read through Handbook to Life in Medieval and Early Modern Japan by Dr. William E. Deal.

In this book, he writes Below gokenin was the samurai class. Although we tend now to think of the term samurai (literally, “one who serves”) as a generic term for warrior, during the Kamakura period samurai referred to a specific social ranking. Samurai, though less powerful than gokenin, also commanded subvassals who were loyal to them. Like gokenin, samurai were cavalry soldiers. (Page 110) as well as Under the military rule that ensued from the Kamakura period onward, soldiers holding an official rank designated by the shogun or the imperial court were considered samurai. Thus, military figures serving in ranked positions were first distinguished from general infantry through terminology early in the medieval era. After reunification was achieved in the early modern period, the term samurai was used to indicate warriors of a comparatively high (upper-class) social status, although by that time many samurai no longer served a lord in the original military sense. From the Kamakura period, bushi were considered members of “warrior houses,” or buke, which in principle were regulated by the shogun or overseen on his behalf by a powerful lord, later known as a daimyo. The term buke came to refer generally to the warrior class and was used more or less interchangeably with the term bushi. As noted above, warrior bands (bushidan), situated on provincial shoen, came to exert significant influence in the provinces by the 10th century. Bushidan became private armies associated with specific lords (daimyo) from the time of the decline of the Ashikaga shogunate in the mid-15th century. The term daimyo was not used extensively to refer to regional lords until the Warring States period, when these domain rulers began to direct regional politics. The late medieval warrior negotiated a deceptive world in which rank and hierarchies were not always clear, and alliances could shift or disintegrate without warning. By contrast, in the Edo period, warriors were required to submit to a rigid system of socioeconomic classification with the shogun at the pinnacle (Page 137)

I added emphasis to the relevant sections. Brocade River Poems 07:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Good catch! That source and contents could be used to further enrich (at least) the terminology section. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I also found another book that says It was also the case that domains in financial trouble sold titles or perquisites of samurai rank, although Howell points out that high status was rarely sold" and that Some domains went so far as to print price lists...Non-cash contributions also counted, as local villages elites might be rewarded with military status for long service, for example. Or alternatively, through official service, they might acquire the privilege of bearing certain paraphernalia denotative of military rank, such as family names and swords

There's also this definition Gokenin. Direct vassals of a shogun. In the Kamakura period, term for some 2,000 samurai families who became hereditary vassals of Minamoto no Yoritomo and received land (ando) or became jitō or shūgo. The gokenin served as the shogun's personal guard and constituted the basis of his army. In the Muromachi period, the gokenin were divided into two classes, those under direct control of the shogun, the hōkōshū, and thuse under a shugo, the jitō-gokenin. During the Edo period, the gokenin were the shogun's lowest-ranked direct vassals, below the hatamoto, and did not have the privilege of being received by the shogun.

More also from the Routledge Handbook of Pre-Modern Japanese History that says Warrior identity remained fluid and open until the early modern unification, with villagers, shrine workers, pirates, and others all claiming the mantle of samurai ("we who serve") as a marker of status. As warfare became endemic and violence a way of life, "samurai" became conceptually tied to violence, but the term did not become equated with a "warrior class" until the early modern period" (Page 139)

But that's about the extent of where my research has taken me thus far. Brocade River Poems 09:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding was that the Imperial Court originally used Samurai to mean their servants, who were high ranking bushi, but also had non-military duties. Only when they coordinated the fight against the Ainu did they expand the term to other high ranking bushi. Gokenin were originally the direct vassals of the shogun. The hatamoto rank was added in the Edo period. Other lords also had direct vassals and rear vassals, but they could and did organize them as they pleased.

I think the idea that "samurai" was an insult is highly questionable. I am not sure if it qualifies as a theory. It is so against what everyone else says, it should be checked. Wert is an expert on early modern Japan, so in this case he is speaking outside his area of expertise. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

According to Turnbull in Weapons of the Samurai, Samurai had already taken on military connotations by the 12th century. In the Genpei War, the samurai weren’t the highest ranking Bushi, but rather their followers. Then in the 13th century the Gokein were direct landowning vassals of the Shogun, who were then served by samurai who fought on foot. Only in the Sengoku period did the meaning of samurai expand both up and down. This seems to match with what Wert is saying, if not as extreme. This suggests that originally and for a long time, samurai weren’t the highest ranking Bushi, but the second-highest ranking bushi. Gotekin were originally a type of "lord", but eventually became modestly ranked samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Confusing

This article is confusing, it uses a lot of Japanese terms that are defined by other Japanese terms. Sometimes the writing is also unclear. Example:

"During the Azuchi–Momoyama period (late Sengoku period), "samurai" often referred to wakatō (若党), the lowest-ranking bushi or the highest-ranking part-time bushi, as exemplified by the provisions of the temporary law Separation Edict enacted by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in 1591. This law regulated the transfer of status classes:samurai, chūgen (中間), komono (小者), and arashiko (荒子). These four classes and the ashigaru were chōnin (町人, townspeople) and peasants employed by the bushi and fell under the category of buke hōkōnin (武家奉公人, buke servants)"

So are wakato the lowest ranking bushi or high ranking part-time bushi or both? What is part-time Bushi mean? What are chugen, komono and arashiko? and how do these groups fit in with wakato and bushi? And this article is saying the samurai were townspeople and peasants. That can’t be right, that must be an error. It would be nice if some of these terms had wikipedia articles, I can’t even find some definitions with google.

It seems in general that the term "Samurai" covered a multiple level of ranks. It would help to know about these ranks. The article suffers also from mostly being about Japanese military history, as opposed to being about samurai in particular. The major problem is it doesn´t explain the distinctions between the different categories that is lists. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I see the whole section to which the mentioned paragraph belongs contains quite some citations, but it would probably help to move the citations which exemplify/clarify the terms you highlighted closer to the individual claims in the article. SmallMender (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of the citations are in Japanese. I can’t read Japanese. I read the English language source, and it doesn’t really fit in context. Morillo is talking about the difficulties of translating military terms, and his point is that samurai doesn’t describe military function but rather social function. A Samurai might be a horse archer, but he can also fight on foot with a musket. The rest of the paragraph focuses on the social context of samurai. https://www.japanesewiki.com gave me some of the meanings of the terms. It is really about the (military) household of bushi or samurai. According to Morillo, Bushi means warrior class and not the generic term for warrior. So ashigaru and bushi could both be samurai. If I understand japanesewiki.com correctly, then samurai referred to servants. What we think of as samurai are the servants of the Daimyo, but the servants of the samurai were either also called samurai or were the samurai. So possibly, the high status warriors are the Bushi, who were servants of the Daimyo or Shogun, but they also had their own servants, who weren’t Bushi, but were samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. I had a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, but there is no requirement to specifically insert the original text of the source + translation, unless it's a quotation or a discussion about the source itself.

Regarding the general confusion, I think the article might be due for a clean-up and perhaps it might make sense to first sort out the individual "sub-types" of samurai like ashigaru + add articles or sections into Samurai where appropriate for the other ranks and then proceed to the main article.

My long-term plan is to help as well, however I am still learning the ropes by working with smaller articles. I could help tackling the samurai "sub-types", though. SmallMender (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

During the Sengoku and Azuchi-Momoyama periods, wars were fought on a large scale, requiring the bushi (samurai) to hire townspeople and peasants as fighters and porters on annual contracts. The townspeople and peasants temporarily employed by the bushi fell into the category of bukehōkōnin (servants of the buke), of which the highest rank was wakatō, and others were ashigaru, chūgen, komono, and arashiko. Wakatō and ashigaru were fighters, while the others were porters. Since only wakatō were considered bushi, wakatō were the lowest-ranking bushi. The law of 1591 refers to the wakatō as "samurai". In other words, the townspeople and peasants temporarily employed by the bushi were also "samurai" at that time. The description of the highest-ranking part-time bushi was incorrect and has been removed. My point was that the wakatō had the highest status among the bukehōkōnin (servants of the buke).--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that how the definition of "samurai" has changed over time be written in one section. If the different definitions of "samurai" in different periods are divided into separate sections for each period in the History section, most people will not be able to understand how the definition of "samurai" has changed over time.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I would go further and say that the history section focuses too much on general Japanese history and not on the changing defintion of a samurai.

hereTshould be a short summary of the changes, and then each section should go into detail.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Article size

This article is too big in a way that makes it disorganized and therefore both difficult to read and to maintain. WP:TOOBIG I did a size check with prosesize and found that it has 14,170 words, putting it close to the "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" category. At the same time it could go more in depth in some areas. A lot of the sections could be their own article, and many are. We don´t need to list every Japanese weapon, foreign samurai or charts about military formations. The history part as written reads as if it is the general history of Japan more than the history of samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Samurai are best described as members of a warrior class.

Samurai are best described as members of a class. That the samurai make up a class is in a lot of sources, including Morillio, although he seems to have a minority view on the social component of samurai. Calling them soldiers is problematic, because they were retainers and not professional soldiers, additionally many didn’t fight. Their classification as a warrior class is based on how they saw themselves. Not all combatants were samurai, and not all samurai were combatants. I am not sure all samurai were retainers. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there could be some WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues with this (a class is not necessary the same as "the warrior class"). Can you list the exact sources?

I think this description could exclude a lot of people who qualify, and/or include people who may not qualify, as opposed to the current one which makes the relationship to a lord clear. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The description of samurai as definitionally those "who served as retainers to lords (including daimyo)" is patently incorrect: the very existence of rōnin, as masterless samurai, means that one does not need to serve a lord in order to be a samurai. Moreover, those who were daimyō or even shōgun were themselves of the samurai social class, despite not serving as retainers to another lord.

Your re-addition of the quoted text is therefore logically and historically incorrect. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

First, it looks like you are just vetoing change again, and that you are demanding I have sources, while providing none of your own. I think we need to discuss every point of the changes I made, because you reverted all of it.

Samurai are not soldiers. The exact definition of soldier varies, but they are often seen as professional warriors, professional meaning paid. In books such as The Soldier in Later Medieval England[6], spend a lot of time discussing the problems with using the word soldier and then do it anyway. However, that book is discussing high ranking vassals, retainers, indentured recruits, hired mercenaries and feudal levies. We are discussing samurai/bushi, which seemed to mostly have been retainers, but many had non-military duties, and may have included the lords themselves. Furthermore, I haven’t seen a source that defines them as soldiers.

As has been discussed elsewhere on this talkpage, this article treats Bushi and Samurai as the same thing, as do many English language works. Bushi is often translated as warrior. For a long time, I thought this meant that Bushi was the generic term for fighter, but it isn’t. It indicates a warrior by virtue of his class. Samurai armies also contained armed peasants, but the peasants weren’t Bushi. When using a source, it is important to be aware of how they are using the word Samurai. Morillo treats Samurai and Bushi as two different things, and is specifically talking about the Sengoku period.

As far as serving a lord, samurai and bushi are much older terms than daimyo. The bushi predated the Heian period, and many were lords themselves. I am not sure when exactly daimyo came into being, but they seem to have been most important in the Sengoku and Edo periods. Then there is the question of if the Shogun is a daimyo. Granted, Webster makes this mistake and in the first definition, defines the Samurai as serving a daimyo and following Bushido. That is very much an Edo period definition and very much flawed. Webster's second definition; as a military aristocracy, is better.

The idea that you don’t know that Samurai are a warrior class, astounds me. The fact that you except that the samurai could be a class, but that they might not be a military class baffles me. What kind of class do you think they should be? I think this thing almost falls into common knowledge. Sure, there are some people who think that samurai are simply swordsmen that follow a code, but there are also people who don’t know that the Pope is catholic. Bushi is a social class defined by warrior status. How explicit of a source do you need for that? Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tinynanorobots, samurai and bushi in the context of this article are terms specifically describing phenomena in the history of Japanese society. Relying on English-language dictionaries for these terms thus seems misguided, as the English terms and the Japanese terms are likely to have some mismatch: not least as the meanings of these terms changed over time.

For instance, during the Edo period, the only people who could serve in any capacity as bushi (professional warriors) were definitionally restricted to members of the samurai social class — no one else was legally allowed to carry weapons of war. This led to the common conflation of these two terms, which persists in much modern non-academic usage. However, during earlier time periods, bushi and samurai were not synonymous: when we first see the emergence of the samurai social class in the Heian period, these were petty nobility of the fifth or sixth imperial ranking, generally working as household staff of higher-ranking noble families and often not operating in any military or warrior role.

----

Regarding Morillo (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281209156), on page 178, he explicitly states (bolding mine):

Finally there is the term samurai. This noun derives from the verb saburau, to serve, and it is again a social marker, though it marks social function and not class. [...]

This claim that "samurai" is not a social class does not agree with other things I've read, nor does it agree with our article text. Consequently, I think Morillo is the wrong source to use as a reference in the second paragraph of our page, which describes "samurai" as a class. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Webster’s is a poor source. It can give us an idea of what samurai means in common usage, but especially the first definition is terrible. I thought Symphony might like it, though, and the second definition explicitly says that the samurai are a military class.

I like the big point that Morillo is making, but I have the same thoughts about his understanding. I also think the article he wrote is quite old, so he may have changed his understanding. His understanding seems based off of the etymology, and therefore he overlooks the semantic shift the word underwent by the time of the Senguko period. The other sources we have in the article also seem to conflict about what exactly the term samurai meant and when it changed its meaning. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Foreign-born Samurai Section

I propose we move the entire foreign born samurai section and merge it with List of foreign-born samurai in Japan This article is too long, and we don’t and don’t need a list section. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Support in case this is a merge proposal for reasons mentioned. Related to this, the Samurai#Famous samurai section could be moved/merged elsewhere as well. SmallMender (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Were all Samurai retainers?

The question is simple, but I believe the answer is complicated. Of course, Ronin are famous for being masterless samurai (although, they often had a master, but it was contract work). However, the samurai of Iga are said to have got rid of their overlord and therefore had no lord. My guess is that because they had land and weren’t reliant on a stipend, they could remain. Furthermore, high ranking lords are called samurai, especially in the context of samurai clans. It is also unclear what lord means. A mounted samurai had his own samurai as a retainer. Does that make him a lord? Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the sources are overall clear on this. They are not synonyms, but scholars seem to agree on the requirement of a relationship to a lord. Not all in service of lords were samurai, but all samurai became one in the context of service to a lord. Also, you cannot become a ronin without previously having had a lord. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have at least one source from a scholar on this? A lot of sources refer to Oba Nobunaga as a samurai, was he a retainer? Also, because Bushi is stated as a synonym, then everything in the lead should fit the definition of Bushi as well as Samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You'd get blood out of a stone before getting a reply regarding this. This user was recently site blocked from the Japanese wiki for brute forcing edits in the Japanese Yasuke page, sockpuppetry, harassing other users who were against their behaviour via false accusations and maliciously reverting edits of said Japanese users.

This user was previously under an RfC and a site block request. During the duration of both instances, this user made no attempt to defend themselves, ignoring both requests for comments, while continuing edits on the English side of things, only the socks gave replies to both incidences. The fact that this user is still allowed to freely edit articles, while still being hostile and with no improvement to their behaviour after 5 blocks (2 for EN, 3 for JP) for misconduct is rather mind boggling. 14.192.210.103 (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the user keeps reverting my edits, and has behaved aggressively, and I don’t know what to do about it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

None of this is true.

14.192.210.103 is a high risk, blacklisted proxy IP with a fraud score of 89/100 which leads me to believe this is an involved editor spreading false allegations. Symphony Regalia (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then this should be reported. False accusations like this shouldn’t be tolerated. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, a few that brooch this topic are.

• Nihon shi jiten. Ōbunsha, 旺文社. (Shohan. 3-teiban ed.). Ōbunsha. 2000. 家臣団.
• Sekai daihyakkajiten 2 世界大百科事典 第2版. Heibonsha 平凡社. 2006. 家中, 家来.
• Vaporis, Constantine Nomikos (14 March 2019). Samurai An Encyclopedia of Japan's Cultured Warriors
• Morillo, Stephen. “Milites, Knights and Samurai: Military Terminology, Comparative History, and the Problem of Translation

Example from Morillo: the term refers to "a retainer of a lord - usually ... the retainer of a daimyo" and that the term samurai "marks social function and not class", and "all sorts of soldiers, including pikemen, bowmen, musketeers and horsemen were samurai". Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already pointed out the problem with Morillo, if you could provide me with quotes and translations for the other sources, that would help. Thanks. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot of sources refer to Oba Nobunaga as a samurai, was he a retainer Legally, yes. Daimyo were retainers ostensibly to the Emperor, but in practice to the Shogunate. Nobunaga even installed a puppet Shogun in Ashikaga Yoshiaki at one point. When Nobunaga abolished the Ashikaga Shogunate, he still retained the court position Udaijin per Osamu, Wakita (1982), "The Emergence of the State in Sixteenth-Century Japan: From Oda to Tokugawa", The Journal of Japanese Studies, 8 (2): 343–67, doi:10.2307/132343. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is misleading, to make part of the definition of the samurai that they were retainers. Apparently, multiple Japanese words are translated as retainer or vassal, but they can describe different relationships. Especially because Japanese feudalism is not like European feudalism and less contractual. Part of what Conlan talks about in Largesse and the Limits of Loyalty is that the gokenin weren't contractually required to provide military service, but that they were rewarded for their service. There were also non gokenin, especially in the earlier eras. I think it is wrong to describe all samurai as retainers serving lords, because a lot of them were lords themselves, and the "retainer" status more a formality. The lowest bushi had at least some genin. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the main point, against mentioning being retainers in the lead, is that the lead refers to bushi as well as samurai. I think that samurai probably had the connotation of retainer, but many bushi weren’t retainer. Also, saying that they were retainers serving a lord is misleading for some periods. A lot of different Japanese terms are translated as vassal or retainer. However, often the retainers/vassals acted autonomously. Gokenin were vassals, but they often acted in their own interest, switched sides and served cadets fighting against the Shogun. I am not even sure who was their lord on paper. https://www.academia.edu/43024373/Conlan_Largesse_and_the_Limits_of_Loyalty Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I have been reading The Taming of the Samurai, which appears to be a standard work on samurai. It describes Samurai as landed lords, not servants of lords. Granted, this is under the context or being under the protection of higher ranking nobles, but still, they are not defined by their service, at least in the early periods. It seems that you are relying on the Edo Period definition of samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Samurai were often made lords, but this does not necessarily preclude the relationship to one. E.Q The members of the Tokugawa clan and fudai daimyo were appointed to posts at the top of the ruling structure, such as karō and bugyō. On the other hand, former retainers (kashin) of the local lord class (zaichi ryōshu-sō), who had served under Tokugawa clan, were appointed as tozama daimyo and kunimochi daimyo.

Might help if you have an exact quote. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

See, you are talking about the Tokugawa period, where yes it was true that pretty much all samurai were retainers that served daimyo. However, this was different in earlier periods. Part of this is confusing because bushi and samurai are used interchangeably, but that is also an Edo period thing. In the Heian period, for example, the word samurai was barely used, but was originally referred to specific warriors with court rank. So a Gokenin, in the Edo period, would be a samurai ranking below a hatamoto, but in the 14th century, he would be a land holding lord that owed service to the court, but would effectively choose which side he would fight on. At the same time, the gokenin wouldn’t be considered a samurai. This is why it is important to look at the context of the paragraph that you are editing. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"the Samurai clearly emerged as a class of landed lords" https://www.google.de/books/edition/The_Taming_of_the_Samurai/CL_8DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=samurai+were+landed++lords&pg=PA53&printsec=frontcover

"Before the unification of Japan around 1600 under Tokugawa, samurai were in essence landed military lords..." https://www.google.de/books/edition/Irregular_Armed_Forces_and_their_Role_in/D2YWVkj25zEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=samurai+were+landed++lords&pg=PA126&printsec=frontcover

Here are some other links:

https://www.google.de/books/edition/State_Formation_Property_Relations_the_D/MHlACwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=samurai+were+landed++lords&pg=PP16&printsec=frontcover

This one is interesting, it doesn’t even mention the word retainer, but it does talk about the various words and meaning for samurai. Clearly, in English, samurai refers not just to retainers, but to high ranking lords. https://www.google.de/books/edition/History_of_the_Samurai/qXvgDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

"Provincial figures, particularly those without the office of jitōō, favoured the term gokenin as a social marker. This means honorable houseman, and became the aspired status for descendants of those who had been known as zaichōō kanjin. Unlike the clearly defined holders of jitōō offices, a select group whose holdings were invariably formalised by the possession of documents of investiture or wills from previous jitōō holders, gokenin were determined on an ad hoc basis by protectors [shugo], who were responsible for policing the provinces and maintaining order. These protectors created a list of all prominent locals in a province, and those on the list became gokenin. With this designation came responsibilities, for those so named had to perform guard duty, or repair dykes, arrest criminals, or otherwise help to keep a province at peace." https://www.academia.edu/42268590/The_Rise_of_Warriors_During_the_Warring_States_Period

So gokenin were local lords, who were tied to a specific overlord, but rather switched allegiances based on their own interest. Granted, Conlan also says that the "dependent followers" aka retainers of the gokenin were called samurai. This lines up with what Turnbull has said. The issue is, that as the article is written, bushi and samurai are treated as the same thing. There isn’t even agreement on what samurai means in the sources. Most English language sources don’t make the distinction. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It is difficult to find a source that says that not all samurai/bushi are retainers, but I have collected some sources that define samurai, and they don't mention retainer. They either say member of the warrior class or a warrior. There are also books about samurai that don't even contain the word "retainer". Finally, there are sources that mention samurai as retainers, but put it clearly in the Tokugawa period. I will list the sources:

• World History Encylcopedia: "The Samurai (also bushi) were a class of warriors that arose in the 10th century in Japan and which performed military service until the 19th century."
• Britannica: "samurai, member of the Japanese warrior caste. The term samurai was originally used to denote the aristocratic warriors (bushi), but it came to apply to all the members of the warrior class that rose to power in the 12th century and dominated the Japanese government until the Meiji Restoration in 1868."
• Samurai, A Concise History by Michael Wert doesn't mention retainer.
• History of the Samurai, Legendary Warriors of Japan by Jonathan Lopez-Vera doesn' mention retainers either
• Once and Future Warriors: The Samurai in Japanese History by Karl Friday refers to samurai as warriors in the first few lines. Only later, when talking about the changes during the Tokugawa period does he say "The samurai thus became a legally-defined, legally-privileged, hereditary class, consisting of a very few enfeofed lords and a much larger body of stipended retainers". From the context of the article, it is clear that previously many "samurai" were land holding warriors, and while vassals of the shogunate, they didn't "serve lords" outside of occasionally following them into battle. Other sources that I have already posted argue even further that these warriors were autonymous, and would either stay home or choose to follow whichever Shogunate offical they wanted. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't agree. Just because something doesn't mention something doesn't mean they are denying it. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The point is that if all these sources don't mention it, then it isn't an essential part of being a samurai/bushi. It pretty much contradicts some of the sources, such as Conlan, and Friday explicitly says that some samurai were enfeofed lords and only in the Tokugawa Period were most Samurai stipended retainers. What is your counterargument? You have no source to back up your position, and this looks like you are reverting just because you disagree. I think both WP:BURDEN and WP:SATISFY apply here. This also applies to your reverting my other additions that are backed by sources. You are trying to force me to convince you, but giving no reason that supports your position. Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at them all the sources do mention it. Just because every source doesn't, doesn't mean it invalidates the ones that do. So the sources above don't actually back up your position which you haven't supported. As for the other edit I requested quotes because I looked at the sources and didn't see the text. Could you provide the quote? Thank you Ethiopian Epic (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Your statement doesn't make sense, and you appear to be misrepresenting the sources. My point is that other online encyclopedias simply define Samurai as the warrior class. Whole books about samurai don't mention the word retainer. Samurai An Encyclopedia of Japan's Cultured Warriors mentions retainer, but uses it only to refer to certain types of samurai.

As far as the quotes, I will need more specific information. Which claim are you doubting? and which sources have you read? WP:Burden says: Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back. (emphasis mine). Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If some sources say just warrior but other sources say that samurais work for nobles then it doesn't mean that the information about working for nobles can be removed if those sources are reliable. You would need a source that contradicts it but you haven't presented one here. I think your WP:Burden quote applies to your removal because the sources talk about it and you haven't presented a reason. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have presented a reason. Some samurai served nobles, but this article is about premodern Japanese warriors. Most of the samurai in this article aren't the servants of nobles, they are nobles. You are confusing the original definition of samurai with the modern English usage. The word retainer is also problematic. Depending on the author, it is used to translate various Japanese words, many of which are also translated as vassal, despite not really being the same as either the concept of vassal or retainer in the west. Sometimes it isn't a translation, but refers to the western concept of being a retainer. So even if Oda Nobunaga is in some legal sense under the authority of the Emperor, it would be in his capacity as either a subject or as an officer of state. Even then, it would be only theoretical. That also goes for Shoguns, who were often more reverent to the Emperor than Nobunaga. So any retainer status is disputed and abstract. Regarding serving that is certainly not the case. During the Warring States period there were numerous Daimyo that may have legally been someone's retainer, but didn't serve anyone. There were even jizamurai, such as those in Iga, who joined together and had no overlord. On the other hand, there were samurai whose masters don't qualify as nobles. The Kamakura Gokenin were considered the vassals of the Shogunate, but at times acted autonomously. So is it best to describe them as serving lords? Finally, there were a lot of bushi who weren't retainers. Morillio even says that explicitly[.https://www.google.de/books/edition/World_History_Encyclopedia/s5X3EAAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=bushi+world+history+encyclopedia&pg=RA5-PA539&printsec=frontcover] Page 608.

The real issue is that the sources use different definitions for samurai. That is why we should use the most broad and most used. Especially used by encyclopedias. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the source don't actually support what you are saying here. They say very clearly that samurai based on a relationship with nobles including the Morillio source. Morillio also makes a distinction between "regular" bushi and samurai. EEpic (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Morillio doesn't mention nobility in connection to the samurai, only when talking about knights. The sources don't support your changes. The first line of this article doesn't distinguish between the two word. The issue of the difference between Bushi and Samurai is discussed elsewhere on this talk page. The terminology section covers the difference between the two words. However, especially because the sources disagree about the meaning of "samurai", the first line of the lead should be kept general as possible. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Kotobank as a source

I see that as a source, Kotobank is cited a lot. It seems to not actually be a source, but rather an collection of sources. Therefore, I think we shouldn´t use it. Any thoughts? Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

For quick references in Talk discussions I think it should be acceptable, however for specific in-article terms and translations, a dictionary sourced in Kotobank should rather be used. SmallMender (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I counted 17 citations that use Kotobank, If no one has an objection, I will begin to remove them later this week. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds great! From my side I will take a look at other articles which also use Kotobank and add proper dictionary links. SmallMender (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2024

Kitex2002 (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do you want it to be protected? I was actually leaning towards removing the section. Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This reply appears to be in the wrong place? PianoDan (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Samurai Museums: Samurai Museum Berlin - Peter Janssen Collection

 Done PianoDan (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke has an RfC

Yasuke has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Brocade River Poems 02:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Feudal Japan

Is feudal Japan the right term? There is some criticism of the term, although still in use. It seems also to be defined as the time that samurai existed, so it is a bit circular to say that Samurai/Bushi are warriors in Feudal Japan. It also covers several periods. Other terms(Pre-modern, medieval etc.) seem to be more common in sources. Here are some sources:

https://www.academia.edu/11191366/_Feudal_Japan_Historiographical_Construction_or_Historical_Reality

https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2009.00664.x Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If possible, what about using specific period names if reliable sources give period names or even approximate dates? That is what I tried doing in other articles. SmallMender (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that samurai as a class were abolished in the Meiji Restoration I think it's an appropriate term that covers the relevant eras. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If you click Feudal Japan, you are redirected to the wikipage where it says the feudal period was from the Kamakura period till 1600. Other sources give the time period as from the Kamakura to the Meiji Restoration. Our article has the Samurai/bushi originating in the Heian period. Do you see the problem? We also have the date range in the next sentence. I get the feeling that you keep reverting my edits because they are my edits, and it has effectively become so that I always need your approval to make a change. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Other sources give the time period as from the Kamakura to the Meiji Restoration

This seems to be the generally accepted definition among scholars (I would not go by how the section headers are structured in the History of Japan article). Academia generally marks the Meiji Restoration as the end of the feudalism in Japan, as that is when the feudal systems were actually abolished. Some sources will say until the 17th century, but many say until the 19th century. The next sentence disambiguates it.

Is there a particular issue with the term? Something like "pre-modern Japan" is also an option, but "feudal" is more descriptive as the function of samurai were tied to the feudal structure of society itself.

Our article has the Samurai/bushi originating in the Heian period. Do you see the problem?

This article has predecessors/foundations originating in the Heian period, but samurai as we know them originating in the Kamakura period, which lines up quite nicely.

I get the feeling that you keep reverting my edits because they are my edits, and it has effectively become so that I always need your approval to make a change.

Not at all. You've made a large number of changes to the article, and I encourage you to do so. Please do.

For the most part the only changes I've touched have been what appears to be an attempt to brute force through first sentence changes concerning retainer usage. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I see the lead has changed, but now it doesn’t match the sources. The sources treat the Heian period warriors as samurai. Which is typical. Only some academic sources just refer to them as bushi or samurai. I am not sure what "Samurai as we know means". The Kamakura is the beginning of the Shogunate, and when scholars have said that the Samurai became the ruling class. However, this has been disputed in more recent scholarship. That is, the Shogunate was an important change for the military class and allowed them to have more power. However, the power shift from the Imperial Court to the Shogunate was gradual, and more gradual than usually depicted in the pop history books.

What does brute force mean? This is why I feel like you are watching over my edits, and I have to always seek your approval. That is not a reason that actually has to do with the article. It is that you suspect I made the change for the wrong reason. You revert my edit, because I keep trying to make it. I try and discuss it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The origin of Bushi/Samurai

I found an interesting source for the origin of Bushi. It is an undergraduate dissertation, and although not perfect, it has the advantage of comparing the opinions of different scholars.[[7]] It is a good starting point, and it lists sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Tinynanorobots, this edit removes a lot of longstanding sourced information on the noble relationship and other things. Can you find consensus before re-inserting through WP:BURDEN? Maybe you could make this edit without removing the existing sourced info but adding to it. Thanks EEpic (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It actually didn't remove that much information. Some was moved around, but as I explained here[8] I based it on different sources. This is part, because English sources cover English usage. Also, the sources used are probably not as good as the ones I added. William Scott Wilson is a translator writing in the 1985 and published by Black Belt Books. Furthermore, his definition, is more an etymology than a definition. This article doesn't really talk about samurai in that sense. It is about warriors. The line Samurai originally meant servant, and didn't have military connotations covers the same idea and is sourced to a better source. It also covers the same line Originally, the word samurai referred to anyone who served the emperor, the imperial family, or the imperial court nobility, even in a non-military capacity which was sourced to a museum and in Japanese. I am not sure of the quality of the museum website, but if it is of equal quality to Lopez-Vera then changing sources is in line with policy. The Werth quote isn't removed, just in a different place. According to WP:REVERT you shouldn't revert everything, just because part of it is wrong. You could easily have readded one of those lines as part of the paragraph as I had written it. Do you understand Japanese? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Your edit removes the relationship between samurai and nobility, which is sourced very well. Samurai originally meant servant, and didn't have military connotations does not cover the same idea because not all servants have relationships to nobility. EEpic (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Where is this source discussing the relationship between samurai and nobility. Morillo doesn't mention the nobility. He translates samurai as retainer, but he seems to be an outlier. In the context of Japan, nobility is not used consistently. Sometimes it is referred to the court nobility, but then in contrast the samurai are considered military nobility. Then again, some experts say that not all samurai were noble. That makes sense, as even the retainers of samurai could be considered samurai. The court nobles are often called courtiers in more recent scholarship. My version mentions samurai serving courtiers. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The relationship between samurai and nobility is mentioned in the cited academic source by William Scott and others as well. EEpic (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I created a section on RSN about the sources.[9] Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@EEpic and Tinynanorobots: There was a request for a Wikipedia:Third opinion to be provided here, but I have declined the request because it doesn't look like there'd been much discussion here yet. When the request was made, you had each only made a single comment in this section and it looked like it would still be very possible to come to consensus. Does the disagreement currently feel intractable already? I see there's been ongoing discussion about similar issues further up, so maybe you are already frustrated. I'd advise each trying to see the other's perspective and see if there is a version of the article you can both agree to, perhaps with the input of some other regular editors on this page? If that doesn't work after a few days of conversation and honest effort, a third opinion may be appropriate, but IMO you aren't quite ready yet. Additionally, if the issue has more to do with editor behavior, or an ongoing personality conflict than it does with this specific edit, WP:3O won't be able to help. If you disagree with my recommendation, you can re-add the request and see if someone else is willing to assist with a third opinion. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Penultimate supper The request originally included the section [[10]]. It was removed because other users were involved. However, one of those users stepped back from the topic and the other one received a TBAN so they are not involved. That is also where most of the sources I have shared regarding what a samurai is. Since EE's main objection is this idea of a "relationship" between samurai and nobility being essential to what a samurai is. Then at least the discussion between EE and I that took place in that section is relevant. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the revision history of WP:3O now and understand what you mean. I still think this is a bit too complicated and enmeshed with issues of RS and editor conduct, and history of disagreements between yourself and another editor for an informal, non-binding third opinion to be either appropriately rendered, or helpful if it was. Apologies. I see you've started a discussion on RSN, I hope that is more helpful. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tinynanorobots Please refrain from repeated removals of the same information such as this edit while discussion is going. I've opted to keep your additions while also keeping the sourced nobility information. EEpic (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you that shows an attempt to compromise. I still think that my version had much the same information as yours, so now the section is repetitive. I don't think the AE case will go anywhere. In order to resolve this dispute, I will ping all the editors who edited recently. @StarDate108 @HeadBomb @Schazjmd @City of Silver @Yr Enw @Gitz6666 @Yovt @M Frampton at Chigwell School. Hopefully, they can provide input, that can help us move forward. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Associated proverb

See also: Racial identity of Sakanoue no Tamuramaro

In Japan, the words samurai and bushi have been used for over 1000 years. Therefore, there are many proverbs related to samurai and bushi.[11] However, the proverb "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of Black blood" does not exist.[12]

I would like to suggest creating a section with the above content. This proverb is often used in conjunction with Sakanoue no Tamuramaro, but it is also used in a variety of situations, including Yasuke and the Sengoku period in general. If you search for it, you will find that it is used not just a few times, but many times in many places. 221.184.105.236 (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Your sources don't actually prove it doesn't exist. One mentions it, and the other doesn't Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you telling me to prove the devil? 221.184.105.236 (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Japan has probably many proverbs, and when one is not on a list, that doesn't mean it isn't a proverb. I believe you that it isn't a real proverb. The sources on Racial identity of Sakanoue no Tamuramaro point to that. However, I don't think it is WP:DUE on this page. It appears to be WP:FRINGE Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's too unfair to ask him to prove the devil, so I'll help him.

• Links to sources written by him.
  "Often cited as a Japanese Proverb, however, there is no evidence of its general use."
• 弥助 弥助：侍伝説の歴史学的検証(能出新陸 著) ISBN 9781763781108 kindle 90%～92%
  • メディアを通じた日本文化の拡大 § 主張の起源
    • ウマル・ジョンソンという、アフロセントリックな修辞で知られる論争的な人物が、「侍になるためには黒人の血が必要だ」と発言しているという主張が取りあげられています。この発言の起源は完全に現代発のものであり、日本発のものではありません。（略）侍の地位がアフリカ系の祖先や黒人の血に依存していたという歴史的証拠は、日本にも他のどの国にも存在しません。
  • メディアを通じた日本文化の拡大 § 日本の資料には根拠がない
    • 日本の資料には根拠がない「侍になるためには黒人の血が必要だ」という主張を裏付ける日本の歴史的な資料や信頼できる学術的な根拠は一切存在しないことを強調することが重要です。このようなフレーズは日本語の資料に現れず、侍がアフリカ系の血統を持つ必要があるという考えは、歴史的根拠のない現代の捏造です。
  • メディアを通じた日本文化の拡大 § 日本における「黒い血の誤解」
    • 日本語の比喩表現では、「黒い血」や黒さに関する言及は、しばしば人の無慈悲さや冷酷さを表すメタファーとして使われます。これは人種や民族に関連するものではなく、アフリカ系を意味するものでもありません。
  • メディアを通じた日本文化の拡大 § 文化の盗用とDEIにおける偽善
    • これは歴史的にも言語的にも根拠のない主張であり、日本の歴史や文化をアフロセントリズムの議題に合わせて共用しようとする明らかな試みです。
  • There is an English version of this book, but since I don't have it, I've written the source in Japanese as written in the Japanese version. Also, I use e-books instead of books. I'll try to translate it just to be sure, but the English version may have different sentences.
  • Expansion of Japanese culture through media § Origin of the claim
    • Umar Johnson, a controversial figure known for his Afrocentric rhetoric, is alleged to have said, "It takes black blood to be a samurai." (snip) The statement is of entirely modern origin and has no Japanese origins. There is no historical evidence in Japan or any other country that samurai status was dependent on African ancestry or black blood.
  • Expansion of Japanese culture through media § Japanese materials have no basis
    • It is important to emphasize that there are no Japanese historical sources or reliable academic evidence to support the claim that "you need black blood to be a samurai." Such a phrase does not appear in Japanese language sources, and the idea that samurai needed to be of African descent is a modern fabrication with no historical basis.
  • Expansion of Japanese culture through the media § “Black blood misunderstanding” in Japan
    • In Japanese figures of speech, references to "black blood" or blackness are often used as metaphors for a person's ruthlessness or ruthlessness. This is not related to race or ethnicity, and does not imply African descent.
  • Expanding Japanese culture through the media § Cultural appropriation and hypocrisy in DEI
    • This is a historically and linguistically unfounded claim and a clear attempt to co-opt Japanese history and culture to suit an Afrocentric agenda.
• First, translate the English sentence. Japanese has a rich vocabulary and expressions, and although the content changes slightly, the meanings are almost the same. () is an example of how to rephrase it.
  English;For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of Black blood.
  japanese;侍が勇敢であるためには、黒人の血を少しは受け継がなければならない(侍は勇ましくあるために、黒い血がちょっとは流れていなければならない)
  Search on Weblio. The same result is obtained when searching Kotobank. Does not exist.
  
  • 侍は 4hit
  • 侍が 2hit
  • 武士は 3hit
  • 武士が 1hit
  • 黒人の血 0hit
  • 黒い血 5hit

110.131.150.214 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the most important thing. 能出新陸 (Alaric Naudé) is a linguist, a doctor of education and a doctor of social sciences. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for repeating this, but there is also a paper on this claim that "the roots of the samurai are black."[13]

I don't think it's pointless to include and emphasize correct information. However, I think he suggests using See also because I don't think it needs to take up a lot of space on this page. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. You said everything I wanted to say without my knowledge. Sakagami Tamuramaro was one of the early Samurai of Japan who became the supreme Shogun.

Some say he was black, and some believe them, but they are wrong. Furthermore, they claim a proverb that does not exist. This is disrespectful not only to the Japanese but also to blacks.

Wikipedia doesn't need to point out mistakes, they just state the facts. 221.184.105.236 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources. I still don't think it belongs here. The article on the Moon doesn't say that it isn't made of cheese. The quote seems to have originated in relation to the theory that Japanese had "black" ancestry. Although it was originally meant dark skin Malaysians, not Africans. That is more relevant to articles specifically about Japan and ethnicity. Like Ethnic groups of Japan or Black people in Japan or persons that the quote is associated with. Like Sakanoue no Tamuramaro or Jimmu (who I believe it was attributed to). Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The proverb "For a Samurai to be brave, he must have a bit of Black blood" exists in Japan.

Because there were many black samurai in Japan.

The reason for this is that their first shogun, Sasanoue no Tamuramaro, was black.

The roots of Japanese samurai are black. The Japanese are hiding it.

This is what people who believe in the existence of this proverb think.[14][15][16][17]

Sakanoue no Tamuramaro is just one part of the process, and their real claim is that samurai are of black descent. In other words, the subject of this proverb is not Tamuramaro, but the samurai. I think that proverbs and samurai are related.

This proverb does not exist. Japanese people's roots are not black. It has been denied by many anthropological studies.

Things that are commonplace are not studied or recorded. Proving it is nothing but the devil's proof.

Why are you making the decision alone rather than discussing whether or not to include it in the article? Is this article yours? 140.227.46.9 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I am just the only one who has responded. If you had an account, it would be different. You can also ask other places along the guidelines of WP:APPNOTE. I suggest trying posting here: [18], you should also read this:[19]. If someone adds it, I won't oppose it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry. I can do that much work for you. However, this editorial proposal was submitted just the other day. Let's wait at least a week and see if there are any objections.

I'm currently in hospital, so I can only work on it when I have free time and can go somewhere with free WiFi. Tanukisann (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Whoa, wait, think about it. It is clearly a misconception that the theory seems to have arisen in connection with the theory that the Japanese have black ancestry.

Alexander Francis Chamberlain was the first to start saying the strangest of theories, in 1911. Georges Maget's letter was published as a paper in 1883. That makes Maget's claim earlier than Chamberlain's.

It is unclear why Maget said that black blood was necessary. Maybe Alaric Naudé is right and Maget wrote it without knowing what the Japanese word means.

One thing is for sure, there is absolutely no relationship between the two. They are connected on their own by people of today.

I agree that Chamberlain claims that Sakanoue no Tamuramaro is black, which is a heretical theory. However, this proverb is not about black people. This isn't even a story about Sakanoue no Tamuramaro. It's about samurai.

I think the content of the relevant section should be moved to this article. The original proposer did not propose such a drastic edit. He points out that such a saying is sometimes rumored to exist, but that no such thing exists, and urges readers to refer to another page for more information. I guess he is being modest. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)