![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Borshellb.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ANavalArch. Peer reviewers:
Kasedori.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Women weren't actually allowed to be samurai. Samurai is a masculine term, which means women couldn't be samurai. Women became Onna-bugeisha instead. Joshwada ( talk) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that samurai in Japan is never, ever used,and bushi is, samurai should redirect to bushi, not vice versa.
Frank (Urashima Tarō) ( talk) 05:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Rurouni_Kenshin
I think Rurouni Kenshin should be listed as well, especially since it happens during the transition of the samurai dominated era to the western era, with manga, anime, and live action films. It portrays a stylized view not often seen in most material, and similar to the setting in The Last Samurai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.156.254 ( talk) 19:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Samurai are most interesting warriors. With thir battle prowess and capabilities for both ranged and close-assault attacks, they are a formidable force. Their armor is highly useful and even represents their wealth. Samurai were wealthy japanese warriors and therefore had the best training, armor, and weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh421 ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Officials of and under the sixth rank were called simobito, or "people on the ground", as opposed to tenjoubito, "people in the audience hall", for those fifth rank and above. Samurai seems associated with the verb saburau meaning "to attend". Uses of the word 侍 was not associated with Samurai until the Kamukura period; previously, it referred to a range of attendants including secretaries and notaries, but not samurai as we know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y11971alex ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Samurai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
209.156.232.194 ( talk) 14:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
samurai often used the stars to tell when to atack
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete this duplicate word in the section " History" "of all all the classes during the Meiji revolution they were the most affected" 81.96.15.89 ( talk) 10:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
At some point, samurai were forbidden from joining the military or serving in government. Has this changed?
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section "Women" there is a tense disagreement in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph. The sentence should maintain the past tense of the rest of the article. (i.e. "A woman could divorce her husband if he did not treat her well or if he was a traitor to his wife's family.") Ideally, a citation would also be introduced. 142.118.156.185 ( talk) 16:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
to that paragraph. Thanks, ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?) 17:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)according to the guardian the "first samurai" in history was Taira no Masakado: "The tale of the ‘first samurai’ whose severed head still terrorises Tokyoites today is the story of the city itself" & "Eventually those rebels seized power for themselves through victory in combat, and Masakado was anointed the 'first samurai'." where does this source fit in the article? thank you Grandia01 ( talk) 05:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The myth and reality section of the article could use some further elaboration to some points it has already made, and some minor corrections.
Firstly, samurai never followed any sort of stable rigid "honor code" prior to when Bushido was written long after the samurai were gone. Of course there were guidelines as to how a warrior should train, what kind of skills and tactics they should learn, and basic etiquette, but these were far from any sort of ritualized honor code. It should be further emphasized that samurai, especially the earliest samurai clans (particularly during the Heian Period) behaved no better than pillaging bandits. [1] They also functioned as tax collectors, and were hired to routinely squash rebellions. Samurai committed quite a few atrocities as well, like the Enryaku-ji Massacre, and were also quite treacherous/brutal towards one another (Minamoto No Yoritomo executing his brothers Yoshitsune and Noriyori, The battle of Sekigahara, and pretty much any other significant historical event revolved around betrayal or slaughter just like anywhere else.) Samurai were largely self-interested, and their only real motivation was to gain land, power, and income, nevermind "honor" This is a good source for further information ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6xgz4p2d60) -- MountedSamurai ( talk) 18:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Came here to say this. Personal philosophies, either clan or self-imposed, existed — but they were nor universal nor monolithic, as described in the Bushido article itself with 5 different sources. The way the section is currently written is prone to misinterpretations. Queen of Wa, friend of Wei ( talk) 01:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on the page for Yasuke concerning an inaccurate definition of the word "samurai". The term was repeatedly removed from his article because someone wanted to define the samurai as hereditary, despite it not being in the dictionary definition or any of the cited sources—and despite the fact that virtually every source refers to Yasuke as a samurai.
This article includes him in the "Foreign Samurai" section, but there were similar (unsourced) edits added there to cast doubt on his status, and the main intro to the article also included the word "hereditary"—again without citation.
I've removed these erroneous additions. natemup ( talk) 11:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The Sengoku jidai ("warring states 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.
@ Natemup: Would you mind explaining this? I Ctrl+Fed both Edo and Edo period for "Duus" and "hereditary" and couldn't find what you were referring to: are you talking about a different article? Anyway, if you have not actually consulted the cited source but are instead copying information from within Wikipedia, it is inappropriate to include an inline citation of a separate source: you have been citing Wikipedia, not Duus. Courtesy pinging @ Goszei and Nishidani: What do you two make of this? (Sorry for bothering you with this, Nishidani; you're the one experienced Japanese history editor who I trust to disagree with me if you think that I'm wrong. Others might just assume that I'm right given my "qualifications" in this area, agree with me without looking into the matter carefully, and thus cause a concern of canvassing.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Positions within the samurai class were largely hereditary(emphasis added). This appears (to me as someone with a general awareness of pre-modern Japanese history but who has not read Duus) to refer to posts like chamberlain, master of arms, etc., not to shi status itself (which is referred to as being hereditary several times throughout the article). Do you understand how this is different from what your edit says? Anyway, citing a poorly-sourced article based almost exclusively on a source discussing a different period of history is even worse than citing just the average Wikipedia article. I will revert you in nine hours if you do not provide a source that actually supports your claim. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
It appears to be the case to me that idiosyncratic edits have damaged this and other articlesI could not agree more. [1] [2] [3] In all seriousness, the first "samurai" of which we have record are members of warrior clans of imperial ancestry, primarily the Minamoto and Taira. Later various figures of uncertain origin who may have originally been commoner peasants emerged and claimed to be of Minamoto or Taira ancestry, and if they managed to gain and hold on to political/military power, they invariably passed this down to their descendants. The fact that some or most of such individuals almost certainly were not of imperial or noble ancestry is irrelevant, since they claimed to be and they passed their status to their descendants. You have not cited a single reliably-sourced instance of someone possessing non-hereditary "samurai" status. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
[has] not publicly retreat[ed] from the initial, falsified assertionthat "samurai" status was not hereditary, he has now
offer[ed] a modified assertion that [the "samurai" status was only "sometimes" or "often" hereditary](I admit I'm fudging a bit here: the burden is not on me to demonstrate that Natemup is himself completely guilty of the exact logical fallacy he has baselessly accused me of), and the "no true Scotsman" thing is itself
using rhetoric. Yeah, there's a lot of fudging there, but I'm not the one making the positive claim here: none of this applies to my assertion, backed up by all reliable sources that address the matter, that in pre-modern Japan social class and occupation were, with few exceptions, hereditary, and that "samurai" status should be presumed to be the same pending at least one source that indicates otherwise. (I am not, mind you, presuming anything: I've read hundreds of sources supporting this assertion, and cited four inline [4] that I had to cherry-pick because Natemup was rejecting any source that didn't explicitly use the exact words "hereditary military aristocracy".) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The WP:LEDECITEs seem to still be necessary, so I've restored them, moved slightly to follow "nobility", since most of them also explicitly support not only "hereditary" but also "military nobility". I personally hate LEDECITEs in general, especially in cases like this where they expose, to this article's roughly 3,000 daily visitors, the fact that there is a dispute among Wikipedians (or, rather, between one Wikipedian and everyone else) regarding a fact that is uncontroversial outside of Wikipedia and was even uncontroversial here until a few weeks ago. The formatting is largely a result of me not wanting to format four templates for an ultimately temporary solution, but it also serves the purpose of keeping the lead "clean" of any more than one number and two square brackets; I would like to see this "dispute" resolved as quickly and cleanly as possible and the LEDECITEs (which I have formatted as a single citation of four ELs) removed or WP:COMMENTed out. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The word “predecessor” is misspelled in the first paragraph, but I don’t have the ability to edit it. Kashmirton ( talk) 00:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia article here and the Japanese Wikipedia articles at ja:侍 and ja:武士 diverge in worrisome ways. The English article starts off by conflating "samurai" and "bushi", two distinct groups in Japanese history, and claiming that this munged-together group has been around since the 1100s. The Japanese sources I've looked at instead describe the "samurai" as a hereditary nobility class, and the "bushi" as a warrior or soldier class. There was apparently overlap, but these were distinct groups.
Considering the subject matter, I find the Japanese content more credible. Notably, the Japanese article at ja:武士 explicitly states that the word "samurai" is not synonymous with "bushi".
As additional evidence of the distinction between the two terms, the 1603 Nippo Jisho entry for "saburai" (archaic form of modern samurai; see here, left column, halfway down) defines the term as follows:
Distinct from any "warrior" or "soldier" sense. I cannot find any instance of the term guerreiro ("warrior") in the Nippo Jisho, but it does have other entries defined as soldado, Portuguese for "soldier". I've copied the Nippo Jisho entry headline on each bullet point, with my transliterations, translations, and comments on the following two lines.
It would appear that our English-language article is in need of an overhaul. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Under the heading
"Foreign samurai" the lede states "Several people born in foreign countries were granted the title of samurai." What follow are five paragraphs with one or more persons described in each.
William Adams and
Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn are both well attested-to by contemporaneous documentation. But the two names mentioned after them --
Yasuke and
Giuseppe Chiara are decidedly not. The claim made for Chiara is rather fanciful -- that he married the widow of a samurai and thereby assumed her late husband's status as such. That is completely ahistorical. I have never been able to find any evidence that such a profound ascension in a person's caste status could automatically occur through marriage. As a vassal-at-arms to a daimyo, being a samurai was a position of great responsibility and considerable power, and one could not simply "marry into it". More often, things went in the opposite direction; a samurai could be disgraced and his entire family could lose their status.
The second claim -- that of Yasuke -- is no less problematic, since there is absolutely no contemporaneous record of him having been a samurai. He was a weapons-bearer to the daimyo, but he was not permitted to carry the daishō, nor is there mention of him having any of the other privileges that went with being a samurai (such as kiri-sute gomen -- the legal right to kill a commoner who insulted them). According to the article on Yasuke, he "was given his own residence and a short, ceremonial katana [dubious – discuss] by Nobunaga. Nobunaga also assigned him the duty of weapon bearer." The source cited for this is "...a variant text of the Shinchō-ki (信長記) owned by Sonkeikaku Bunko (尊経閣文庫), the archives of the Maeda clan" -- something not accessible via the internet, and therefore not possible to verify. I am not interested in disputing whatever claims are made in inaccessible sources, but even taking them as gospel, the source conspicuously does not claim that Yasuke was a samurai; it describes him as a "weapon bearer" who was granted a residence and possibly a short sword.
As it is dubious that these last two persons were actually samurai, they would not belong under a heading which describes "people born in foreign countries...granted the title of samurai". If they must be listed at all, they should be below a sub-heading labeled "Claimed foreign samurai" or some similar distinction from verified ones.
Bricology (
talk) 03:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
...そのまま岡本三右衛門の名を受け継いだ。幕府からは十人扶持を与えられたが、 切支丹屋敷から出ることは許されなかった。
... and thus he took on the name of Okamoto San'emon. The bakufu granted him a stipend of ten person's-worth of rice, but he was not allowed to leave the Christian yashiki [a specific manor or enclave in Edo where various Christians were effectively imprisoned].
- | Kuge Lord (公家領主) | Buke Lord (武家領主) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
- | Emperor and his Court | (Various Daimyo) 諸侯・諸大名 | Head Tokugawa Daimyo (Shogun and Bakufu) | ||||
- | Sekkanke (摂関家) | Outsider Daimyo (外様) | Insider Daimyo (譜代) | Tokugawa family Daimyo (親藩) | Hatamoto (旗本) | Bugyō | |
- | Upper class Kuge Houses | Upper class Bushi (上士, Jōshi) | Upper class Bushi | Upper class Gokenin | Yoriki | ||
- | Lower class Kuge Houses | Lower class Bushi (下士, Kashi) | Lower class Bushi | Lower class Gokenin | Dōshin | ||
- | (Komono - Servants) | (Komono 小者 - Servants of Buke) | (Komono) | (Komono) |
- | Gun-bu (郡部) - Kōri area | Toshi-bu (都市部) - Machi (Town area) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
(Lord) | Nanushi (名主) | Machi-Nanushi (町名主) | ||
(Officers) | Mura Yakunin | Machi Yakunin (町役人) | ||
Occupation | Farmers (農民) | Merchants (商人) | Craftsmen (職人・工人) | Special* |
Chief | Shōya (庄屋) | Shōka no Aruji (主人) | Oyakata, Kashira, Tōryō etc. | (various titles) |
Upper class | Jikanō (自家農)# | Bantō (番頭), Tedai (手代) | Hira Shokunin (平職人) | |
Lower class | Kosakunō (小作農)# | Minarai (見習い), Decchi (丁稚) | Minarai Shokunin (見習い) | |
Non-registered | Mushuku (無宿)* | |||
Lowest, Untouchable | Hinin (非人) |
Ultimately this comes down to, what do multiple reliable sources say? If multiple reliable sources say they're samurai, then they're samurai. If the reliable sources disagree on this then we can say that. At the end of the day our interpretation and research is not relevant to the topic only what the reliable sources state. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments needed concerning the historical figure Yasuke. /info/en/?search=Talk:Yasuke#Request_for_comment_on_samurai_terminology natemup ( talk) 03:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I have edited this page some, and I think it could use some fixing. Especially with the small section I put about ninja leaders being samurai.
The creator of the video does claim to have a history PhD, but I would like sources from a book about this and for the section to be expanded.
I also have a question. Did I cite the video correctly? I would like to know what the way to in-text cite a video, TV show, or film is for future edits on other pages. I could not find it. GoutComplex ( talk) 17:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
In the arts section of this article, the first paragraph is of St Francis Xavier. Besides being initially unclear who “Francis” is, this should be moved to the religion section and updated with a full name reference. Thoughts? I did not want to arbitrarily edit this article as I have no connection to it other than as a reader. Fax10 ( talk) 15:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
In the weapons section there is a photograph captioned 'antique Japanese Katana'. The image is almost certainly of a Tanto, a dagger length blade. As per the main page on Japanese swords, a Tanto is any blade under 1 shaku (about 30cm) long. A Katana is over 2 shaku (60cm) long. The blade in the image is undoubtedly not 60cm long, although it is not impossible it is marginally over 30cm long which would make it a wakizashi. But its far too thick for a wakizashi so I am certain it is a Tanto.
Either way, it is definately not a Katana. Can someone with edit power fix this, or find a different image of a Katana from the main page. 82.21.177.242 ( talk) 21:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the hierarchy chart, which is completely wrong. Such a hierarchical chart dividing peasants, craftsmen, and merchants into classes is based on an old academic theory from decades ago, and it has become clear in recent years that peasants (hyakushō), craftsmen, and merchants (chōnin) were equal in Japan. Such hierarchical charts have already been removed from Japanese textbooks. [5] [6] [7] [8]-- SLIMHANNYA ( talk) 08:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Removed statements that have nothing to do with samurai culture. In addition, these descriptions give inappropriate weight to the actions of some samurai at one time and their evaluation, and the source and the explanation based on it are quite inaccurate. For example, the explanation based on this source is inappropriate because it synthesizes information about tsuji-giri, a crime committed during the Sengoku period, and kiriste-gomen, a right of samurai in the Edo period that required various conditions for its execution. In addition, the description of "commoners and their village cultures, where pacifist movements flourished" is a strange explanation when it comes to historical facts. Furthermore, there is no source for the statement that the general public compared the actions of ninja and samurai and judged both as dishonorable. The general public's cultural views of the ninja were formed in the Edo period, beginning in the 17th century, and to describe them in combination with the behavior of the samurai during the Sengoku period is an inappropriate synthesis of information. In any case, this is not something that should be written in the section on samurai culture, so it has been deleted.-- SLIMHANNYA ( talk) 18:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
(Reposting this from Talk:Yasuke due to being related here, apologize if this is the wrong way to do it. I know the distinction is made in the Wikipedia article, but the term still gets confusion due to its use in other articles, see Yasuke and William Adams (pilot)).
For those who don't study Japanese history, it should be established that the Japanese language is highly contextual, where the same kanji symbols can mean different things based off of how they're pronounced as an example. Samurai, Bushi, and Ashigaru are terms that have been used interchangeably in the Japanese language, but they mean different things based off of the context. It would not be fair at all to use modern, loose definitions of "samurai" when they do not apply in its historical usage of the term.
It's already been said in this Talk Page that the concept of bushi and samurai are very distinct, but I don't think it offers enough explanation for those unfamiliar with the system. Therefore I think it should be a mission for Wikipedia to solidify this distinction by using the strict definitions that are based off of the historical tradition of the Japanese nobility during this time.
To be more clear: The warrior aristocratic class known as the samurai began to rise in power with the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate under the Minamoto lineage. Every single clan claims to be a descendant of an imperial lineage, whether it be the Minamoto, Taira, Fujiwara, or smaller noble families like the Tachibana. This goes the same for samurai as well: The most popular example of a peasant becoming a samurai, Toyotomi Hideyoshi well established himself as a trusted retainer of Oda Nobunaga after the Battle of Okehazama and was given many privileges, but Nobunaga had never made him a "samurai". He officially became a samurai when he married his wife One, who came from a Minamoto background.
A "samurai" is not a rank. It is a social class, and there are plenty of examples of lords and samurai, such as Imagawa Yoshimoto, who did not practice martial arts extensively like warriors would typically do. Imagawa Yoshimoto was very well versed with practicing renga poetry and mastering tea ceremony, and spent little time on martial arts.
There seems to be no actual example of a warrior being "promoted" to samurai anywhere; even William Adams could be argued as not actually being a samurai, because he was given the rank of Hatamoto, which is more of a rank than a social status like how a samurai is, and also that the Japanese woman he married was not from any noble lineage (And this is particularly the case following Toyotomi Hideyoshi who ironically made it harder for peasants to rise to the status of samurai). Arguably - unless they have been adopted into a samurai lineage or married someone from that lineage (I can only speak for Yasuke and William Adams, let me know if I'm wrong on others) - "foreign born samurai" have never existed; they were all "bushi".
Fiefdom isn't enough to consider someone a samurai either, jizamurai (name is confusing of course) are land-owning "peasant" warriors, specifically warriors who are NOT samurai, these people were still subjects to samurai above them. If we want to get technical, William Adams would be considered a jizamurai, but not a samurai. It doesn't matter how many privileges you are given, how much you are paid, or how much land you have, you can't be a samurai unless you are part of a samurai lineage.
William Adams is a particular case because from what I know, the Japanese don't seem to care for him either just like they do with Yasuke, at least before 2020. The thing with Yasuke is that he only became mainstream since 2020/2021 which is where all this sparked interest came from, and then the pop articles that claim he was a "samurai" when he was not. Unless there is any proof that Yasuke had married a Japanese noble woman, he cannot and will not ever be considered "samurai", no matter how many battles hes in, the most he can claim is "bushi", same case for William Adams. The reason why this matters so much is because the Japanese feudal system was obsessed with ancestral claims and ties, and titles that they could claim based off of that. Ieyasu changed his surname from Matsudaira to Tokugawa so he could claim to be a descendant from the Niita clan, a legendary clan that destroyed the Hojo regents and paved the way for the Ashikaga to take control. This was so he could have a stronger claim on the title of Mikawa-no-kami or "Lord of Mikawa [Province]".
The imperial court, despite being weakened during this period, was still very influential and that never really went away; these clans relied on the imperial court to give them these prestigious titles to further their own legitimacy, and sometimes they had to change names, be adopted into influential families (Toyotomi Hideyoshi threatened the Konoe clan of their destruction if they did not adopt him, he did this so he could claim Kampaku, the "Emperor's Chief Advisor" or regent), or make political marriages. The imperial court may not have had military power to back up demands, but they had the de jure legitimacy for it as backed by the Emperor.
The idea that the social structure fell apart during the Sengoku period is blatantly made up. It's simply the result of the conflation of the word "samurai" in place of the word "bushi", which are both synonymous but also distinct in the Japanese language. It is partially the fault of the Japanese language for being a very convoluted language, but it is also the fault of the English language for not recognizing this as such. These words have meanings and cannot be changed to fit a narrative.
Therefore, I ask that it be a mission for Wikipedia to make these two terms distinct in order to establish the true nature of our understanding of Japanese history, much of it is incredibly misunderstood in the English language and this is just one of many examples. Hexenakte ( talk) 16:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Stop spreading misinformation. Don Basura ( talk) 05:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
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. RomeshKubajali ( talk) 23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The current quotes cited in the Honor section are deeply racist and subjective, offering no insight into samurai philosophy, yet are presented in a way that they come across as evidence that the author is using to prove a point. The section simply ends with this disparaging comment towards other Asian warriors. These statements are the prejudiced and bigoted ramblings of some random European and bear no academic merit whatsoever. This approach to commentary throughout Wikipedia of using prejudiced remarks from Europeans hundreds of years ago in order to describe very real and very complex cultures of non-Europeans and presenting these statements as evidence of anything is highly disturbing. There are more than enough accounts from samurai themselves or even Japanese scholars which will give a reader a semblance of truthful insight into samurai philosophy. Finally, the end quote in that section spills over from Orientalizing Japanese people to insulting the honor of Chinese, Korean, and Filipino people. The only thing this quote reveals is that the person who said it was racist. Frost Rarely ( talk) 22:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Borshellb.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ANavalArch. Peer reviewers:
Kasedori.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Women weren't actually allowed to be samurai. Samurai is a masculine term, which means women couldn't be samurai. Women became Onna-bugeisha instead. Joshwada ( talk) 01:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that samurai in Japan is never, ever used,and bushi is, samurai should redirect to bushi, not vice versa.
Frank (Urashima Tarō) ( talk) 05:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Rurouni_Kenshin
I think Rurouni Kenshin should be listed as well, especially since it happens during the transition of the samurai dominated era to the western era, with manga, anime, and live action films. It portrays a stylized view not often seen in most material, and similar to the setting in The Last Samurai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.156.254 ( talk) 19:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Samurai are most interesting warriors. With thir battle prowess and capabilities for both ranged and close-assault attacks, they are a formidable force. Their armor is highly useful and even represents their wealth. Samurai were wealthy japanese warriors and therefore had the best training, armor, and weapons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh421 ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Officials of and under the sixth rank were called simobito, or "people on the ground", as opposed to tenjoubito, "people in the audience hall", for those fifth rank and above. Samurai seems associated with the verb saburau meaning "to attend". Uses of the word 侍 was not associated with Samurai until the Kamukura period; previously, it referred to a range of attendants including secretaries and notaries, but not samurai as we know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y11971alex ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Samurai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
209.156.232.194 ( talk) 14:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
samurai often used the stars to tell when to atack
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete this duplicate word in the section " History" "of all all the classes during the Meiji revolution they were the most affected" 81.96.15.89 ( talk) 10:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
At some point, samurai were forbidden from joining the military or serving in government. Has this changed?
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section "Women" there is a tense disagreement in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph. The sentence should maintain the past tense of the rest of the article. (i.e. "A woman could divorce her husband if he did not treat her well or if he was a traitor to his wife's family.") Ideally, a citation would also be introduced. 142.118.156.185 ( talk) 16:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
citation needed}}
to that paragraph. Thanks, ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?) 17:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)according to the guardian the "first samurai" in history was Taira no Masakado: "The tale of the ‘first samurai’ whose severed head still terrorises Tokyoites today is the story of the city itself" & "Eventually those rebels seized power for themselves through victory in combat, and Masakado was anointed the 'first samurai'." where does this source fit in the article? thank you Grandia01 ( talk) 05:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The myth and reality section of the article could use some further elaboration to some points it has already made, and some minor corrections.
Firstly, samurai never followed any sort of stable rigid "honor code" prior to when Bushido was written long after the samurai were gone. Of course there were guidelines as to how a warrior should train, what kind of skills and tactics they should learn, and basic etiquette, but these were far from any sort of ritualized honor code. It should be further emphasized that samurai, especially the earliest samurai clans (particularly during the Heian Period) behaved no better than pillaging bandits. [1] They also functioned as tax collectors, and were hired to routinely squash rebellions. Samurai committed quite a few atrocities as well, like the Enryaku-ji Massacre, and were also quite treacherous/brutal towards one another (Minamoto No Yoritomo executing his brothers Yoshitsune and Noriyori, The battle of Sekigahara, and pretty much any other significant historical event revolved around betrayal or slaughter just like anywhere else.) Samurai were largely self-interested, and their only real motivation was to gain land, power, and income, nevermind "honor" This is a good source for further information ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6xgz4p2d60) -- MountedSamurai ( talk) 18:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Came here to say this. Personal philosophies, either clan or self-imposed, existed — but they were nor universal nor monolithic, as described in the Bushido article itself with 5 different sources. The way the section is currently written is prone to misinterpretations. Queen of Wa, friend of Wei ( talk) 01:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on the page for Yasuke concerning an inaccurate definition of the word "samurai". The term was repeatedly removed from his article because someone wanted to define the samurai as hereditary, despite it not being in the dictionary definition or any of the cited sources—and despite the fact that virtually every source refers to Yasuke as a samurai.
This article includes him in the "Foreign Samurai" section, but there were similar (unsourced) edits added there to cast doubt on his status, and the main intro to the article also included the word "hereditary"—again without citation.
I've removed these erroneous additions. natemup ( talk) 11:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The Sengoku jidai ("warring states 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.
@ Natemup: Would you mind explaining this? I Ctrl+Fed both Edo and Edo period for "Duus" and "hereditary" and couldn't find what you were referring to: are you talking about a different article? Anyway, if you have not actually consulted the cited source but are instead copying information from within Wikipedia, it is inappropriate to include an inline citation of a separate source: you have been citing Wikipedia, not Duus. Courtesy pinging @ Goszei and Nishidani: What do you two make of this? (Sorry for bothering you with this, Nishidani; you're the one experienced Japanese history editor who I trust to disagree with me if you think that I'm wrong. Others might just assume that I'm right given my "qualifications" in this area, agree with me without looking into the matter carefully, and thus cause a concern of canvassing.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Positions within the samurai class were largely hereditary(emphasis added). This appears (to me as someone with a general awareness of pre-modern Japanese history but who has not read Duus) to refer to posts like chamberlain, master of arms, etc., not to shi status itself (which is referred to as being hereditary several times throughout the article). Do you understand how this is different from what your edit says? Anyway, citing a poorly-sourced article based almost exclusively on a source discussing a different period of history is even worse than citing just the average Wikipedia article. I will revert you in nine hours if you do not provide a source that actually supports your claim. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
It appears to be the case to me that idiosyncratic edits have damaged this and other articlesI could not agree more. [1] [2] [3] In all seriousness, the first "samurai" of which we have record are members of warrior clans of imperial ancestry, primarily the Minamoto and Taira. Later various figures of uncertain origin who may have originally been commoner peasants emerged and claimed to be of Minamoto or Taira ancestry, and if they managed to gain and hold on to political/military power, they invariably passed this down to their descendants. The fact that some or most of such individuals almost certainly were not of imperial or noble ancestry is irrelevant, since they claimed to be and they passed their status to their descendants. You have not cited a single reliably-sourced instance of someone possessing non-hereditary "samurai" status. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
[has] not publicly retreat[ed] from the initial, falsified assertionthat "samurai" status was not hereditary, he has now
offer[ed] a modified assertion that [the "samurai" status was only "sometimes" or "often" hereditary](I admit I'm fudging a bit here: the burden is not on me to demonstrate that Natemup is himself completely guilty of the exact logical fallacy he has baselessly accused me of), and the "no true Scotsman" thing is itself
using rhetoric. Yeah, there's a lot of fudging there, but I'm not the one making the positive claim here: none of this applies to my assertion, backed up by all reliable sources that address the matter, that in pre-modern Japan social class and occupation were, with few exceptions, hereditary, and that "samurai" status should be presumed to be the same pending at least one source that indicates otherwise. (I am not, mind you, presuming anything: I've read hundreds of sources supporting this assertion, and cited four inline [4] that I had to cherry-pick because Natemup was rejecting any source that didn't explicitly use the exact words "hereditary military aristocracy".) Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The WP:LEDECITEs seem to still be necessary, so I've restored them, moved slightly to follow "nobility", since most of them also explicitly support not only "hereditary" but also "military nobility". I personally hate LEDECITEs in general, especially in cases like this where they expose, to this article's roughly 3,000 daily visitors, the fact that there is a dispute among Wikipedians (or, rather, between one Wikipedian and everyone else) regarding a fact that is uncontroversial outside of Wikipedia and was even uncontroversial here until a few weeks ago. The formatting is largely a result of me not wanting to format four templates for an ultimately temporary solution, but it also serves the purpose of keeping the lead "clean" of any more than one number and two square brackets; I would like to see this "dispute" resolved as quickly and cleanly as possible and the LEDECITEs (which I have formatted as a single citation of four ELs) removed or WP:COMMENTed out. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The word “predecessor” is misspelled in the first paragraph, but I don’t have the ability to edit it. Kashmirton ( talk) 00:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia article here and the Japanese Wikipedia articles at ja:侍 and ja:武士 diverge in worrisome ways. The English article starts off by conflating "samurai" and "bushi", two distinct groups in Japanese history, and claiming that this munged-together group has been around since the 1100s. The Japanese sources I've looked at instead describe the "samurai" as a hereditary nobility class, and the "bushi" as a warrior or soldier class. There was apparently overlap, but these were distinct groups.
Considering the subject matter, I find the Japanese content more credible. Notably, the Japanese article at ja:武士 explicitly states that the word "samurai" is not synonymous with "bushi".
As additional evidence of the distinction between the two terms, the 1603 Nippo Jisho entry for "saburai" (archaic form of modern samurai; see here, left column, halfway down) defines the term as follows:
Distinct from any "warrior" or "soldier" sense. I cannot find any instance of the term guerreiro ("warrior") in the Nippo Jisho, but it does have other entries defined as soldado, Portuguese for "soldier". I've copied the Nippo Jisho entry headline on each bullet point, with my transliterations, translations, and comments on the following two lines.
It would appear that our English-language article is in need of an overhaul. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Under the heading
"Foreign samurai" the lede states "Several people born in foreign countries were granted the title of samurai." What follow are five paragraphs with one or more persons described in each.
William Adams and
Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn are both well attested-to by contemporaneous documentation. But the two names mentioned after them --
Yasuke and
Giuseppe Chiara are decidedly not. The claim made for Chiara is rather fanciful -- that he married the widow of a samurai and thereby assumed her late husband's status as such. That is completely ahistorical. I have never been able to find any evidence that such a profound ascension in a person's caste status could automatically occur through marriage. As a vassal-at-arms to a daimyo, being a samurai was a position of great responsibility and considerable power, and one could not simply "marry into it". More often, things went in the opposite direction; a samurai could be disgraced and his entire family could lose their status.
The second claim -- that of Yasuke -- is no less problematic, since there is absolutely no contemporaneous record of him having been a samurai. He was a weapons-bearer to the daimyo, but he was not permitted to carry the daishō, nor is there mention of him having any of the other privileges that went with being a samurai (such as kiri-sute gomen -- the legal right to kill a commoner who insulted them). According to the article on Yasuke, he "was given his own residence and a short, ceremonial katana [dubious – discuss] by Nobunaga. Nobunaga also assigned him the duty of weapon bearer." The source cited for this is "...a variant text of the Shinchō-ki (信長記) owned by Sonkeikaku Bunko (尊経閣文庫), the archives of the Maeda clan" -- something not accessible via the internet, and therefore not possible to verify. I am not interested in disputing whatever claims are made in inaccessible sources, but even taking them as gospel, the source conspicuously does not claim that Yasuke was a samurai; it describes him as a "weapon bearer" who was granted a residence and possibly a short sword.
As it is dubious that these last two persons were actually samurai, they would not belong under a heading which describes "people born in foreign countries...granted the title of samurai". If they must be listed at all, they should be below a sub-heading labeled "Claimed foreign samurai" or some similar distinction from verified ones.
Bricology (
talk) 03:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
...そのまま岡本三右衛門の名を受け継いだ。幕府からは十人扶持を与えられたが、 切支丹屋敷から出ることは許されなかった。
... and thus he took on the name of Okamoto San'emon. The bakufu granted him a stipend of ten person's-worth of rice, but he was not allowed to leave the Christian yashiki [a specific manor or enclave in Edo where various Christians were effectively imprisoned].
- | Kuge Lord (公家領主) | Buke Lord (武家領主) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
- | Emperor and his Court | (Various Daimyo) 諸侯・諸大名 | Head Tokugawa Daimyo (Shogun and Bakufu) | ||||
- | Sekkanke (摂関家) | Outsider Daimyo (外様) | Insider Daimyo (譜代) | Tokugawa family Daimyo (親藩) | Hatamoto (旗本) | Bugyō | |
- | Upper class Kuge Houses | Upper class Bushi (上士, Jōshi) | Upper class Bushi | Upper class Gokenin | Yoriki | ||
- | Lower class Kuge Houses | Lower class Bushi (下士, Kashi) | Lower class Bushi | Lower class Gokenin | Dōshin | ||
- | (Komono - Servants) | (Komono 小者 - Servants of Buke) | (Komono) | (Komono) |
- | Gun-bu (郡部) - Kōri area | Toshi-bu (都市部) - Machi (Town area) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
(Lord) | Nanushi (名主) | Machi-Nanushi (町名主) | ||
(Officers) | Mura Yakunin | Machi Yakunin (町役人) | ||
Occupation | Farmers (農民) | Merchants (商人) | Craftsmen (職人・工人) | Special* |
Chief | Shōya (庄屋) | Shōka no Aruji (主人) | Oyakata, Kashira, Tōryō etc. | (various titles) |
Upper class | Jikanō (自家農)# | Bantō (番頭), Tedai (手代) | Hira Shokunin (平職人) | |
Lower class | Kosakunō (小作農)# | Minarai (見習い), Decchi (丁稚) | Minarai Shokunin (見習い) | |
Non-registered | Mushuku (無宿)* | |||
Lowest, Untouchable | Hinin (非人) |
Ultimately this comes down to, what do multiple reliable sources say? If multiple reliable sources say they're samurai, then they're samurai. If the reliable sources disagree on this then we can say that. At the end of the day our interpretation and research is not relevant to the topic only what the reliable sources state. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments needed concerning the historical figure Yasuke. /info/en/?search=Talk:Yasuke#Request_for_comment_on_samurai_terminology natemup ( talk) 03:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I have edited this page some, and I think it could use some fixing. Especially with the small section I put about ninja leaders being samurai.
The creator of the video does claim to have a history PhD, but I would like sources from a book about this and for the section to be expanded.
I also have a question. Did I cite the video correctly? I would like to know what the way to in-text cite a video, TV show, or film is for future edits on other pages. I could not find it. GoutComplex ( talk) 17:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
In the arts section of this article, the first paragraph is of St Francis Xavier. Besides being initially unclear who “Francis” is, this should be moved to the religion section and updated with a full name reference. Thoughts? I did not want to arbitrarily edit this article as I have no connection to it other than as a reader. Fax10 ( talk) 15:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
In the weapons section there is a photograph captioned 'antique Japanese Katana'. The image is almost certainly of a Tanto, a dagger length blade. As per the main page on Japanese swords, a Tanto is any blade under 1 shaku (about 30cm) long. A Katana is over 2 shaku (60cm) long. The blade in the image is undoubtedly not 60cm long, although it is not impossible it is marginally over 30cm long which would make it a wakizashi. But its far too thick for a wakizashi so I am certain it is a Tanto.
Either way, it is definately not a Katana. Can someone with edit power fix this, or find a different image of a Katana from the main page. 82.21.177.242 ( talk) 21:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the hierarchy chart, which is completely wrong. Such a hierarchical chart dividing peasants, craftsmen, and merchants into classes is based on an old academic theory from decades ago, and it has become clear in recent years that peasants (hyakushō), craftsmen, and merchants (chōnin) were equal in Japan. Such hierarchical charts have already been removed from Japanese textbooks. [5] [6] [7] [8]-- SLIMHANNYA ( talk) 08:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Removed statements that have nothing to do with samurai culture. In addition, these descriptions give inappropriate weight to the actions of some samurai at one time and their evaluation, and the source and the explanation based on it are quite inaccurate. For example, the explanation based on this source is inappropriate because it synthesizes information about tsuji-giri, a crime committed during the Sengoku period, and kiriste-gomen, a right of samurai in the Edo period that required various conditions for its execution. In addition, the description of "commoners and their village cultures, where pacifist movements flourished" is a strange explanation when it comes to historical facts. Furthermore, there is no source for the statement that the general public compared the actions of ninja and samurai and judged both as dishonorable. The general public's cultural views of the ninja were formed in the Edo period, beginning in the 17th century, and to describe them in combination with the behavior of the samurai during the Sengoku period is an inappropriate synthesis of information. In any case, this is not something that should be written in the section on samurai culture, so it has been deleted.-- SLIMHANNYA ( talk) 18:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
(Reposting this from Talk:Yasuke due to being related here, apologize if this is the wrong way to do it. I know the distinction is made in the Wikipedia article, but the term still gets confusion due to its use in other articles, see Yasuke and William Adams (pilot)).
For those who don't study Japanese history, it should be established that the Japanese language is highly contextual, where the same kanji symbols can mean different things based off of how they're pronounced as an example. Samurai, Bushi, and Ashigaru are terms that have been used interchangeably in the Japanese language, but they mean different things based off of the context. It would not be fair at all to use modern, loose definitions of "samurai" when they do not apply in its historical usage of the term.
It's already been said in this Talk Page that the concept of bushi and samurai are very distinct, but I don't think it offers enough explanation for those unfamiliar with the system. Therefore I think it should be a mission for Wikipedia to solidify this distinction by using the strict definitions that are based off of the historical tradition of the Japanese nobility during this time.
To be more clear: The warrior aristocratic class known as the samurai began to rise in power with the establishment of the Kamakura shogunate under the Minamoto lineage. Every single clan claims to be a descendant of an imperial lineage, whether it be the Minamoto, Taira, Fujiwara, or smaller noble families like the Tachibana. This goes the same for samurai as well: The most popular example of a peasant becoming a samurai, Toyotomi Hideyoshi well established himself as a trusted retainer of Oda Nobunaga after the Battle of Okehazama and was given many privileges, but Nobunaga had never made him a "samurai". He officially became a samurai when he married his wife One, who came from a Minamoto background.
A "samurai" is not a rank. It is a social class, and there are plenty of examples of lords and samurai, such as Imagawa Yoshimoto, who did not practice martial arts extensively like warriors would typically do. Imagawa Yoshimoto was very well versed with practicing renga poetry and mastering tea ceremony, and spent little time on martial arts.
There seems to be no actual example of a warrior being "promoted" to samurai anywhere; even William Adams could be argued as not actually being a samurai, because he was given the rank of Hatamoto, which is more of a rank than a social status like how a samurai is, and also that the Japanese woman he married was not from any noble lineage (And this is particularly the case following Toyotomi Hideyoshi who ironically made it harder for peasants to rise to the status of samurai). Arguably - unless they have been adopted into a samurai lineage or married someone from that lineage (I can only speak for Yasuke and William Adams, let me know if I'm wrong on others) - "foreign born samurai" have never existed; they were all "bushi".
Fiefdom isn't enough to consider someone a samurai either, jizamurai (name is confusing of course) are land-owning "peasant" warriors, specifically warriors who are NOT samurai, these people were still subjects to samurai above them. If we want to get technical, William Adams would be considered a jizamurai, but not a samurai. It doesn't matter how many privileges you are given, how much you are paid, or how much land you have, you can't be a samurai unless you are part of a samurai lineage.
William Adams is a particular case because from what I know, the Japanese don't seem to care for him either just like they do with Yasuke, at least before 2020. The thing with Yasuke is that he only became mainstream since 2020/2021 which is where all this sparked interest came from, and then the pop articles that claim he was a "samurai" when he was not. Unless there is any proof that Yasuke had married a Japanese noble woman, he cannot and will not ever be considered "samurai", no matter how many battles hes in, the most he can claim is "bushi", same case for William Adams. The reason why this matters so much is because the Japanese feudal system was obsessed with ancestral claims and ties, and titles that they could claim based off of that. Ieyasu changed his surname from Matsudaira to Tokugawa so he could claim to be a descendant from the Niita clan, a legendary clan that destroyed the Hojo regents and paved the way for the Ashikaga to take control. This was so he could have a stronger claim on the title of Mikawa-no-kami or "Lord of Mikawa [Province]".
The imperial court, despite being weakened during this period, was still very influential and that never really went away; these clans relied on the imperial court to give them these prestigious titles to further their own legitimacy, and sometimes they had to change names, be adopted into influential families (Toyotomi Hideyoshi threatened the Konoe clan of their destruction if they did not adopt him, he did this so he could claim Kampaku, the "Emperor's Chief Advisor" or regent), or make political marriages. The imperial court may not have had military power to back up demands, but they had the de jure legitimacy for it as backed by the Emperor.
The idea that the social structure fell apart during the Sengoku period is blatantly made up. It's simply the result of the conflation of the word "samurai" in place of the word "bushi", which are both synonymous but also distinct in the Japanese language. It is partially the fault of the Japanese language for being a very convoluted language, but it is also the fault of the English language for not recognizing this as such. These words have meanings and cannot be changed to fit a narrative.
Therefore, I ask that it be a mission for Wikipedia to make these two terms distinct in order to establish the true nature of our understanding of Japanese history, much of it is incredibly misunderstood in the English language and this is just one of many examples. Hexenakte ( talk) 16:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Stop spreading misinformation. Don Basura ( talk) 05:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
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. RomeshKubajali ( talk) 23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
The current quotes cited in the Honor section are deeply racist and subjective, offering no insight into samurai philosophy, yet are presented in a way that they come across as evidence that the author is using to prove a point. The section simply ends with this disparaging comment towards other Asian warriors. These statements are the prejudiced and bigoted ramblings of some random European and bear no academic merit whatsoever. This approach to commentary throughout Wikipedia of using prejudiced remarks from Europeans hundreds of years ago in order to describe very real and very complex cultures of non-Europeans and presenting these statements as evidence of anything is highly disturbing. There are more than enough accounts from samurai themselves or even Japanese scholars which will give a reader a semblance of truthful insight into samurai philosophy. Finally, the end quote in that section spills over from Orientalizing Japanese people to insulting the honor of Chinese, Korean, and Filipino people. The only thing this quote reveals is that the person who said it was racist. Frost Rarely ( talk) 22:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)