User talk:Hexenakte

Welcome!
Hi Hexenakte! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Yasuke. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that, that comment was my fault, but Theozilla is clearly arguing in bad faith and outright ignoring the others arguments, continues to insist he's right, and he was also the one to vandalize the wiki article. Is there some way where he can be blocked from editing from this article? His sources are all from reddit or unreliable sources and he dismisses primary source evidence, he never addresses the argument about warriors who were once non-samurai became samurai did so because they joined a noble family and refuses to prove with evidence the contrary which is the main argument, it's becoming an issue. He's clearly not interested in having a constructive debate, it is like talking to a wall. Hexenakte (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right now no one can edit the article (well, I can, and so can other administrators). I don't know what Theozilla is supposed to have done wrong--they removed what was clearly inappropriate content here, a couple of times, and here, also a few times. That's disruptive because they couldn't be bothered to explain, but that editorial commentary ("it is important to note") is simply not allowed in article space, so they certainly weren't a vandal. They could have been blocked for other kinds of disruption, but that's not vandalism. I'm not interested in having a discussion about content with you here--that's for the talk page, which is illegible right now in part because you and Theozilla have added 50k of text. Wikipedia is not a news site, we're not here for today--we're here for the long run and there is no rush to get things right. I looked at your recent comments and I'm glad there's no attacks like in the edit I removed, so thanks for that, and rest assured that we as admins don't take sides; I've already critiqued Theozilla as well. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the due diligence. Hexenakte (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke
Hi there Hexenakte, I've noticed you're interested in the Yasuke page. Apparently there's a coordinated effort to rewrite all this. People are acting strange. Too much insistence. They have recently added Yasuke to List of foreign-born samurai in Japan. Just wanted to let you know since you seem particularly passionate and knowledgeable about this topic. DemianStratford (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Your talk page behaviour
As I already told you at the article for Yasuke, talk pages are for discussing changes to the article based on sourcing, not for editors to argue based on Reddit posts and google translate what they think should be included. Please read WP:NOTFORUM before participating again on a talk page. XeCyranium (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That post was 5 days ago and I posted a more updated post below replying to _dk in Talk:Yasuke and an additional reply to X0n right below that, with plenty of secondary sources if you want to check that out. I apologize for the initial lack of secondary sources since I am new to the Wikipedia platform and I am used to defaulting to primary sources when making my point, hope you can understand. Hexenakte (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke2
With regard to of yours, I'm not suggesting that you are in bad faith, but there may be an issue of WP:CIR here. That kind of in-depth scrutiny of sources that you are inflicting on other editors on that talk page is inappropriate for WP editors and, in the case of Lockley's work, it borders on a BLP violation (WP:BLPTALK). If you don't agree with Lockley, please publish the results of your own research elsewhere than on a WP talk page. We WP editors are anonymous amateurs, and we are entitled not to know anything about Japanese medieval history - we rely on reliable sources. If many RSes say "X", then WP:NPOV implies that X is a significant viewpoint that we should include in the article. If all RSes say "X" an no source says "not X", then we include X as a fact in wikivoice, even if some editors claim X is wrong. The overall quality of WP would not improve if we editors were allowed to question TIME, BBC, CNN, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc., based on our prior knowledge of the subject: WP cannot be better than its sources. So these are basic notions of WP editing, which editors on that talk page have already explained multiple times. Please be humble and learn how things get done here, or if you don't believe us, then just go to WP:RSN and ask for better answers. Regards, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That kind of in-depth scrutiny of sources that you are inflicting on other editors on that talk page is inappropriate for WP editors and, in the case of Lockley's work, it borders on a BLP violation (WP:BLPTALK). If you don't agree with Lockley, please publish the results of your own research elsewhere than on a WP talk page. We WP editors are anonymous amateurs, and we are entitled not to know anything about Japanese medieval history - we rely on reliable sources.
 * Stating that Lockley's work is unreliable is not BLP, this is not libel on the character of Lockley, nor is it an attack on him personally. I don't understand how you could actually say this with sincerity considering the main role of WP editors is to scrutinize sources and see if they are reliable enough to present on Wikipedia. With zero in-line citations, academic peer reviews stating that his research is not academic and is considered popular history/historical fiction, and sometimes outright fabrications in other sources, this point makes zero sense. Wikipedia policy makes it abundantly clear that editors must use their own judgement on this matter and that the content of the source is considered a factor in determining reliability, see WP:REPUTABLE, WP:SOURCEDEF, WP:RSCONTEXT. This is an important process as part of our role on this site, and to suggest anything otherwise is naive at best and dishonest at worst. My participation on the talk page is documented well throughout the page, with a plethora of secondary sources which you can check for yourself, as well as the analyzing of Lockley and other academic sources work.
 * If many RSes say "X", then WP:NPOV implies that X is a significant viewpoint that we should include in the article. If all RSes say "X" an no source says "not X", then we include X as a fact in wikivoice, even if some editors claim X is wrong. The overall quality of WP would not improve if we editors were allowed to question TIME, BBC, CNN, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc., based on our prior knowledge of the subject: WP cannot be better than its sources.
 * We as Wikipedia editors are not obligated to add sources that are unable to verify their own citations, or incorrectly attribute information that was not covered by their citations. Simply analyzing the sources themselves and how they handle their citations is enough to consider its reliability, which is all we are doing. We are not doing any original research, we are seeing if there are any citations for their claims and if it matches what they say, and in nearly every single case regarding Yasuke, it has failed that. Lockley's book contains zero in-line citations and fails a peer review which deems it as not academic, Manatasha's citations in his paper do not match his claims, Lopez-Vera also lacks in-line citations (or any citations for that matter) regarding Yasuke. You can check these things yourself, this is basic verification, and in no way encapsulates original research.
 * So these are basic notions of WP editing, which editors on that talk page have already explained multiple times. Please be humble and learn how things get done here, or if you don't believe us, then just go to WP:RSN and ask for better answers.
 * Again, Wikipedia policy allows us to exert our own judgement on what the reliability of sources are. If their citations matched their claims, then this would not be an issue. The offhand remark about how they would "need a laugh" about this from your comment earlier shows you are not really interested in engaging honestly in this topic, and you yourself have claimed you do not know Japanese history. That isn't to say that I am always correct on what I say, because I am not, and when I recognize that I am wrong I will do my best to correct it. But I have demonstrated quite enough in the talk page to show I have a sufficient grasp on this time period, so please do not insinuate that I am on a high horse here, I am always welcomed to being proven wrong, and I have nothing against Yasuke being stated as a samurai if they had actually properly cited their claims, which they have not. Eirikr, who is also active within the talk page, has been on Wikipedia for 19 years and has demonstrated expertly his understanding of Japanese etymology, so you would think he would know enough about Wikipedia policy to know what he is talking about and what extent he has as an editor on Wikipedia. He is not making any original claims, he is simply analyzing the sources given and if their claims match those citations, and in cases of specific definitions, using reliable Japanese dictionaries such as Kotobank, etc.
 * I keep seeing you claim these sources are reliable. Can you actually tell me what is considered reliable to you? Because you nor have the remaining holdouts have not adequately explained why these sources are reliable, or why their claims are supported adequately with proper citations. If you want further engagement on the talk page I suggest you start actually addressing the issues, because every editor who has addressed our issues thus far, even initially disagreeing, have come to realize just how poorly done it was. Please actually prove that their citations match, or that they have adequately cited their sources, this is not a difficult request, and I have given you all the sections in which I talk in detail specifically about these sources. If you do not know anything about Japanese history, with all due respect, this is not necessarily the right talk page for you. Hexenakte (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Your comments on Wikitionary
Hi, just wanna clear some things up here. ''' I am not a Wikipedia admin, nor have I purported to be or represented myself as such.  RfC Closures can be handled by any editor''' as long as the editor is an uninvolved third party. I have assesed, summarized, and closed the discussion. I have summarized the arguments which were made, assessed them, and formally closed the subject. Moreover, The consensus was clear, even if you do not agree with it and the topic really shouldn't have moved to Closure Requests in the first place. If you have a problem with the results of the RfC, take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard, not a Wikitionary Talkpage where it looks very much like you are attempting to organize an WP:FILIBUSTER. I would also suggest you read What adminship is not and familiarize yourself with it, as you continually post on the Wikitionary page about getting admins/moderators involved to subvert the consensus because you do not agree with the consensus, which isn't how adminship works on Wikipedia. Likewise, you may wish to familiarize yourself with some of the many policies of Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia is not a dictionary,  Wikipedia is not a forum for personal essays, and that  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in which we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. If you wish to contend with the reliability of a source, there are processes for doing so beyond a Wikitionary talkpage or an article take page, see Reliable Source Noitceboard where you can have the veracity of a source discussed. Everything on Wikipedia is done by consensus, and there are processes that you appear to be trying to bruteforce through. As for your concerns that I am see WP:USEBYOTHERS

Lopez-Vera has been pointed out on the discussion to be cited numerous times academically, likewise the Lockley is used widespread as the opponents note that a wide array of sources should be stricken from the record because they cite Lockley. I am not taking their academic credentials as "Word of God", Lopez-Vera's credentials in particular would make him a reliable source on the subject as he meets all of the criteria. And, at the end of the day,  all Wikipedia does is summarize what the sources say . If you want to contest Lopez-Vera's reliability, or any of them, you can ask the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to weigh in on the subject. However, we cannot, as of present, just dismiss an academically published book that went through a peer review process and is highly-cited just because any handful of editors does not like what the source has to say.

I would also recommend you familiarize yourself with Tag team, because it seems to be what you are unknowingly engaging in on Wikitionary. Chrhns (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, just wanna clear some things up here. I am not a Wikipedia admin, nor have I purported to be or represented myself as such. RfC Closures can be handled by any editor as long as the editor is an uninvolved third party.
 * This was my fault, I apologize for stating you as an admin, this was a misunderstanding on my part and I will edit my response to remove the mention of you being an admin on the talk page. Thank you for clearing this up for me.
 * The consensus was clear, even if you do not agree with it and the topic really shouldn't have moved to Closure Requests in the first place. If you have a problem with the results of the RfC, take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard, not a Wikitionary Talkpage where it looks very much like you are attempting to organize an WP:FILIBUSTER. I would also suggest you read Wikipedia:What adminship is not and familiarize yourself with it, as you continually post on the Wikitionary page about getting admins/moderators involved to subvert the consensus because you do not agree with the consensus, which isn't how adminship works on Wikipedia. Likewise, you may wish to familiarize yourself with some of the many policies of Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a forum for personal essays, and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in which we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. If you wish to contend with the reliability of a source, there are processes for doing so beyond a Wikitionary talkpage or an article take page, see Reliable Source Noitceboard where you can have the veracity of a source discussed. Everything on Wikipedia is done by consensus, and there are processes that you appear to be trying to bruteforce through.
 * Just to clear things up, the point of me on the Wiktionary talk page was to verify the existence of a specific quote within the Wikipedia article, which from what we understand the quote is locked behind closed doors and the only mention of its existence stems back to Hiraku Kaneko. We've still yet to analyze what Kaneko said on the matter specifically, which will come in due time.
 * Also, the RfC in place was worded in a very confusing manner, as several of the "Yes" votes on the RfC pertained it on the condition specifically to be a significant minority view and not as a statement of fact, so it cannot be meaningfully said that "The consensus was clear". Out of the 15 "Yes" votes, 5 of them wanted it as a significant minority, not a majority, and this is not including the "No" votes.
 * Please do understand I am not trying to filibuster the process, but rather the RfC did not consider the issues of the secondary sources provided, and only a handful of the participants in the RfC have not participated much further in the talk page, so it is unknowing whether they understand the severity of the issue. It can be argued that the vice versa is occurring, where multiple outside editors who have not contributed much, if at all, to the talk page on the issue of Yasuke being a samurai, or the fact they continually refuse to address the blatant issues with the sources provided, which closes in as disruptive as part of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I will be more than welcomed to accept the responsibility for my actions, I hope I have made that clear with how I have behaved throughout the talk page, because all I want is for proper verification of the claims in the secondary sources provided, which is in line with WP:SOURCEDEF, WP:REPUTABLE, and WP:CONTEXTFACTS. We as editors reserve the right to make our own reasonable judgement if the secondary sources are able to properly cite their claims, which they simply have not. It is either lacking citations or a complete misattribution of its citations. That being said, the direction to WP:RSN will be the most likely option, however the reducing of an editor's role of verifiability is just academic credentials or citations by others, and not the actual content itself as outlined very clearly in WP:SOURCEDEF is absurd.
 * My view of Yasuke is irrelevant to the facts at hand, I do not care if he was a samurai or not as long as it has been supported properly, this is not my personal opinion, and I am completely fine with being wrong on this. The fact is that the many claims made about Yasuke are unsubstantiated, and that includes him being a samurai. I do not want to explicitly state he wasn't a samurai or reduce him into something less than he actually is, as some are insisting that he must be referred to as a slave, which we simply do not have enough context or evidence for that. What we do have is that he was retained as an attendant of some role, as no title of his was mentioned, and this is supported by those same secondary sources such as Russell being mentioned within the talk page, which that information is properly supported by citations, this is how we can properly implement WP:NPOV on the subject matter.
 * As for your concerns that I am straight up using Lockley's and Lopez-Vera's academic credentials as a Word of God see WP:USEBYOTHERS
 * Just to clear something up, I did not mean to assert you specifically said that - and I will edit my statement to contextualize it more - but rather the many disruptive editors who refuse to answer our questions of why these sources are considered reliable or the gaslighting that editors are not allowed to do basic verification of the evidence cited (or lack thereof) for their claims, again WP:CONTEXTFACTS allows this. The assertion of academic credentials should not discount the factor of the content itself, otherwise why even include "content is a factor that can affect reliability" in Wikipedia policy? It makes it clear that this allows editors to do more than just see the sources at face value. So right now yes, it is being treated as a Word of God, because their authority on the subject overrules any criticism in the support of these claims according to these arguments.
 * Lopez-Vera has been pointed out on the discussion to be cited numerous times academically, likewise the Lockley is used widespread as the opponents note that a wide array of sources should be stricken from the record because they cite Lockley. I am not taking their academic credentials as "Word of God", Lopez-Vera's credentials in particular would make him a reliable source on the subject as he meets all of the criteria. And, at the end of the day, all Wikipedia does is summarize what the sources say. If you want to contest Lopez-Vera's reliability, or any of them, you can ask the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to weigh in on the subject. However, we cannot, as of present, just dismiss an academically published book that went through a peer review process and is highly-cited just because any handful of editors does not like what the source has to say.
 * Lopez-Vera only includes one box of information on Yasuke with no citation on where that information had come from, and also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the source of Lopez-Vera was never centered around Yasuke in the first place, it was on the History of Samurai as a whole. It is not unreasonable to ask for proper citation of a claim that hinges on these academic sources alone, especially if more and more surrounding the topic are all having similar problems with their citations.
 * One thing I want to make clear is that I am in no shape or form advocating for an explicit mention of Yasuke not being a samurai in the Wikipedia article, the negative claim against Yasuke being a samurai would simply regard it as a theory rather than objective fact, as most of the support for the positive claim hinges on an argument from ignorance. I am not against mentioning Lockley and Lopez-Vera's claims on the Wikipedia article, but they cannot be taken as fact, especially when you consider that Lockley has failed a peer review by Purdy, who emphasizes the lack of citations and describes his work as "popular history" and "historical fiction". There are several other academic sources mentioned, at least 3 or 4 others, who also make this positive claim, and yet they continue to have the same issues Lockley had with their research. If this is not alarming to you, I don't know what is.
 * Now, instead of that, I have been proposing a positive claim as a substitute for Yasuke since I joined the talk page, that he was retained as an attendant, this is supported by those same academic sources but this time with proper citation and mention in historical record. I have no problem with this, what I do have a problem is those who are emotionally tied to Yasuke being a samurai, which is evident based off of what I've said already, they refuse to address the issues and insist that we can't do anything about it. I think Yasuke is a particularly interesting historical figure in Japan, but let's not overdo ourselves here.
 * I would also recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Tag team, because it seems to be what you are unknowingly engaging in on Wikitionary.
 * Again, the main reason I went to Eirikr's Talk Page was because I recognized his expertise in Japanese etymology and wanted assistance in doing a search on one of the quotes provided, because I could not find the quote's existence anywhere. We are still looking for this quote, and we will come back with a definitive answer hopefully in the future, as we want to put as much care as possible and cover all possible avenues. He is a well-seasoned Wikipedia editor who has been part of the platform for 19 years, so I trust that his judgement is in good faith and is well versed in Wikipedia policy, and he has been very thorough with his posts. Do understand that we do not have any ulterior motives, we both have made it clear of our position on the issue, we both are interested in verifying the information, not pushing our own personal views. I have even made my personal views on Yasuke clear for the sake of the matter at hand, but my view isn't going to be reflected in what I want the Wikipedia article to say about Yasuke, only things that have been verified about him. My only stake in this matter is the pursuit of truth and nothing more, and I will happily concede if I turn out to be wrong.
 * I apologize if what I said came across as bad faith, this is not my intention. I am always welcome to further cooperation, and I will take the necessary avenues to resolve this matter. Hexenakte (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am thankful for the correction. I am also not saying you are filibustering or tagteaming but that when you have these long conversations about Yasuke on an unrelated talkpage off of Wikipedia it does not appear good. While you went there for a translation, you and other editors have continued to engage and coordinate regarding changes to the Yasuke article. Erikr even states at one point that they are not overly knowledgeable about processes on Wikipedia because they primarily deal on Wikitionary. It creates an appearance of wrongdoing, one that should ideally be avoided whenever possible.
 * As for the rest of your arguments, you have presented arguments for why you believe the policy should be applied one way and they for why it should be applied another way. Just as you feel strongly that Lockley's book is unreliable in some facts, others feel it is reliable. The academic review which was furnished as a criticism declares the book a work of popular history, but works of popular history can be used as reliable sources on Wikipedia. As a Historian, as argued on the page, Lopez-Vera is allowed to read from primary sources and draw conclusions which can be represented in an article. Your argument that the mention is a small box or that it lacks an in-text citation doesn't negate the fact that his academically published book with in-text citation still notes Yasuke as a Samurai. Scholars cite their own texts often and there has been no sources that are not derived from editors own knowledge or research that would give cause to believe that an academic peer reviewed book that is widely cited would be unreliable. Moreover, the fact that it is widely cited and nobody has apparently refuted in a publication the notation of Yasuke as a samurai means that there is no basis to believe or represent that Scholarship is opposed to the idea of it. In the multitude of times Lopez-Vera has been cited if the claim were so egregious and wrong, someone would have noted it. My point about a source being reliable for some facts and unreliable for others is solely from the Purdy review. While Purdy calls attention to several instances of dubious scholarship by Lockley, he does not do so with the core conceit of Yasuke being a samurai. That is what I mean by a source which is unreliable for some facts can be deemed reliable for others. If Purdy, the reviewing historian, had found the claim dubious he would have done so. If Purdy had called the entire book unhistoric fictional hogwash we could declare the entire thing a loss, but he didn't. The arguments presented by both sides were well reasoned, but representing the consensus as minority without substantiated oppositional sources is editorializing by Wikipedia standards.
 * As for the activity of participants in the RfC process, the entire point is to get a wider consensus from Wikipedia editors and to get the opinions of those who are uninvolved with the topic. There is no criteria to engage with the talk page beyond the RfC, and not engaging with the talkpage further does not invalidate their votes.
 * As for any discussion outside of my own rationale I am uninterested. I do not have a dog in the race, so to speak, and feel that closing the RfC is the best possible outcome as with the amount of argumentation happening on the talk page it is more appropriate to take this to dispute resolution.
 * RfC is for simple issues
 * Dispute resolution is for complex issues.
 * Doing an RfC was perhaps not the best tool for trying to resolve this dispute.
 * In regard to your despondent comments on the Wikitionary talk page about not seeing the point, you may want to step away and engage in editing elsewhere on Wikipedia rather than making a hotbed issue your primary focus. It might help you shake the bad feelings you currently have toward editing Wikipedia. Sorry if there are formatting issues, this was written from my phone.
 * Cheers. Chrhns (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, but I want to say that I believe you are correct in this assessment, and that you have good intentions, now that I know the reason behind closing the RfC. Dispute resolution might have been the most logical approach to this situation due to how complex it is, so that is likely the next approach.
 * As for the cooperation with other editors such as Eirikr, while I do understand how it can look bad, it often seems to be the case that that is the first assumption that many other editors (not you, but in general) have, especially if they are in disagreement (which I am also at fault of, evidenced by this discussion we are having now). It mainly just seems like a lot of people are out for blood, and half of the discussions in the Yasuke talk page were accusations of original research, where in some cases it was applied (like my initial posts; I have corrected this after being told), but most times it was not. I will take this into consideration in the upcoming future, however I do intend on working with Eirikr possibly with other projects as his knowledge in Japanese etymology is particularly helpful for a Japanese learner such as I am.
 * As for my own personal choice for involving myself in this matter...I do admit it was emotional in the sense that this is a historical period I am very particularly passionate about, and most of the documentation of this period is not in English, where many academics in the English field for Japanese history often make several mistakes - whether intended or not - about what actually occurred. I am not interested in pushing for a specific view or agenda, but what I do want is historical truth, it is very troubling to see many people make bold claims for something they are unfamiliar with or being too trusting as a crutch for supposed inadequacy. Anyone can read these sources and know they are troubling because they do not properly cite the claims they make. It is hard to accept something of this magnitude for which very few records on a historical figure exists, that it is pretty much necessary for citation. That being said that is not an argument for here but rather the dispute resolution, which soon I will take this matter to.
 * Thank you for giving me this message and clearing up any misunderstandings, I hope this first impression doesn't shake any bad feelings between us, I really apologize for that.
 * Cheers. Hexenakte (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no feelings of resentment or anything. I merely wished to set the record straight regarding my participation and how an RfC works. For clarification so that there is no future misunderstanding, a DRN process will involve a conversation between yourselves, those you are arguing against, and a third-party mediator so that the conversation is productive. The mediator will be an entirely uninvolved party and the purpose of the discussion is to come to an agreement. That said, it is also posible that the DRN will look at what is presented and side with the RfC result, or kick it to another, more specific RfC. Cheers, good luck. Chrhns (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @Chrhns, chiming in on a few points.
 * You stated above, with regard to López-Vera's book (emphasis mine): "However, we cannot, as of present, just dismiss an academically published book that went through a peer review process and is highly-cited just because any handful of editors does not like what the source has to say."
 * What "peer review process"? Honest question.  To my knowledge, papers published in academic periodicals go through a peer review process.  Books typically do not.
 * Also, upon exploring the "highly-cited" detail brought up earlier by X0n10ox (now apparently renamed and retired as User:Renamed_user_157yagz5r48a5f1a1f1235ad123), I could not find any citations of López-Vera with regard to his short mini-section about Yasuke, visible here in Google Books. If you are aware of any citations of his book, specifically of the section about Yasuke, I would be interested to see them.
 * "As a Historian, as argued on the page, Lopez-Vera is allowed to read from primary sources and draw conclusions which can be represented in an article."
 * An issue I take with this is that López-Vera does not present Yasuke's samurai-ness by "draw[ing] a conclusion". He just presents it as (uncited) fact.  If López-Vera, or Lockley, or any other author, had written that "because of historical facts 1, 2, 3 (with references), I reason that Yasuke was a samurai," I would be wholly supportive of including such in our article (with proper citations).  This would be a presentation of the author's opinion based on reasoning and supportive facts.  But neither López-Vera nor Lockely do that — they do not lay out any kind of case, they do not cite any source material of any kind (primary, secondary, what-have-you), they just state, as fact without any backing, that Yasuke was a samurai.  López-Vera comes close to that, by laying out his reasoning for why we should not consider Yasuke a slave after joining Nobunaga ("It is worth pointing out that henceforth he [Yasuke] was no longer a slave, since he received a salary [...]"), but he makes no such reasoned argument for samurai-ness and just states it as uncited, unsupported fact ("He was granted the rank of samurai [...]").
 * Where does López-Vera come by this idea? He never explains: no citations, no reasoning.
 * "Your argument that the mention is a small box or that it lacks an in-text citation doesn't negate the fact that his academically published book with in-text citation still notes Yasuke as a Samurai."
 * Is the bolded bit here a typo? The major problem Hexenakte and I see in López-Vera's book is precisely that it does not have in-text citations.  You can see for yourself by viewing at Google Books: it's not just the mini-section about Yasuke that is missing citations, it is the entire work.
 * "Scholars cite their own texts often and there has been no sources that are not derived from editors own knowledge or research that would give cause to believe that an academic peer reviewed book that is widely cited would be unreliable."
 * Again, what "peer review"? Books are not peer-reviewed as part of the publication process.
 * "Moreover, the fact that it is widely cited and nobody has apparently refuted in a publication the notation of Yasuke as a samurai means that there is no basis to believe or represent that Scholarship is opposed to the idea of it."
 * X0n was kind enough to post his findings on citations of López-Vera in the Talk:Yasuke threads.
 * Here are the 20 citations in Spanish:
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10552859144397501960&as_sdt=5,39&sciodt=0,39&hl=en
 * Of these, one is López-Vera's own doctoral thesis of 2019-07-15, two fail to load, and one is behind a paywall (but likely irrelevant: "Orígenes y vanguardia de la aviación en Asia Oriental. Con un análisis de Porco Rosso (1992), de Studio Ghibli" / "Origins and vanguard of aviation in East Asia. With an analysis of Porco Rosso (1992), by Studio Ghibli").  Of the remaining 16, only one mentions Yasuke: "Lights and shadows of the samurai myth through cinema: an evolution from warrior to icon", by one Nuria Sánchez Bautista as her final paper for the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters in November 2021.  However, regarding Yasuke, she doesn't cite López-Vera's book, but rather his website.
 * Here are the 3 in English:
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14339645511786518627&as_sdt=5,39&sciodt=0,39&hl=en
 * Only two are actually in English, one is in Greek. (Yay, Google. 😕)  Of the three, one I can only access an abstract, but that has no instances of "Yasuke", and the subject matter seems unrelated (toxic masculinity and ritual combat); I had a look at JStor and Academia.edu, but it's not there, and I'm not willing to pay money to access.  The other is a book available via Google Books, and that contains zero instances of "Yasuke".  Likewise, the Greek paper doesn't mention "Yasuke" either; while I do not know how to spell "Yasuke" in Greek, I was able to at least confirm that the paper contains zero instances of the word σαμουράι ("samurai"), nor indeed the name "López-Vera".
 * So "widely cited" boils down to four "maybes" (the ones I cannot access), and one "definite" for mention of Yasuke — albeit in an unrelated field (cinema).
 * "In the multitude of times Lopez-Vera has been cited if the claim were so egregious and wrong, someone would have noted it."
 * As noted above, López-Vera's book Historia de los samuráis has apparently only been cited (not by himself) once for certain in any work that also mentions Yasuke, and that was in a university paper about cinema, not anything focused on history. It is entirely possible that the lack of criticism is simply due to the relative newness of the book — googling about just now, I cannot find any academic reviews of it.  The Spanish version has apparently been out since 2016, but the English version only since June 2020.
 * I recognize this is a lot of text. I am keen on digging into what the sources say, how they say it, and where they came by their information or reasoning.  Much (most?) of the disagreements at Talk:Yasuke come down to sourcing.  I am hopeful that we can clear up at least some of the confusion about sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: I had written most of the above before being pulled away from my desk for a bit, and after I got back, I saw the DRN notice. Apologies for any confusion on my part. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will try to answer your questions, but you need to understand that closing the RfC just means summarizing the arguments given by both sides and assesing them, it does not make me a subject matter expert on history, nor am I "involved" in the disputes regarding Yasuke beyond the fact that I have seen avenues far more productive for solving these issues than people arguing in circles on a talk-page.
 * Academic books which are published go through a rigorous review process, usually by the editorial team of the press (so it is perhaps not strictly correct to call it 'peer review') especially if they are published by an academic press. Moreover, the book Toyotomi Hideyoshi y Los Europeos was Lopez-Vera's PhD dissertation, which does mean that he had to defend it to his dissertation committee and that the book was reviewed by his peers in the process. While it might not be a "blind peer review" as is typically common in academic periodicals, it is still a fairly involved process, with an editorial board consisting of "Consejo Editorial Directores: Joan-Lluís Palos (Universidad de Barcelona) Joan-Pau Rubiés (Universidad Pompeu Fabra)
 * Secretario: Diego Sola (Universidad de Barcelona)
 * Melissa Calaressu (Universidad de Cambridge)
 * Diana Carrió-Invernizzi (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia)
 * Alejandra Osorio (Wellesley College)
 * Paola Volpini (Universidad de Roma La Sapienza)"
 * Simply put, it's not my job to look them up, it's my job to summarize the arguments. I looked at what was presented, and summarized the argument. The particular citations do not need to be of the section about Yasuke to make the source reliable, the criteria is simply that the source is being used by others. If you want to take it up for argument, the Reliable Source Noticeboard is for that. My point in my commenting about my rationale is that even if the sources citing Lopez-Vera are not citing the Yasuke section, those are sources which are seeing Lopez-Vera say Yasuke is a samurai, who are not seeing fit to contend it.
 * It's his prerogative to do so, and it is the prerogative to academia to correct him if they find him to have erred. He can present his argument as fact (yes, even uncited) precisely because there isn't any academic consensus that exists saying he is not a samurai. He can (and probably did) argue that Yasuke seems to fit the definition of Sengoku-era samurai and wrote it down.
 * Per the arguments on the talk page, yes, Lopez-Vera's History of the Samurai does not have in-text citations. Lopez-Vera's Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos has an extensive bibliography and in-text citations present.
 * Again, mostly referring to the dissertation committee and editorial board of Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos.
 * I've addressed this before, but the context in which they are cited doesn't particular matter for the overall reliability of the book. It is not in the realm or expectation of any editor of Wikipedia to have a deeply expert knowledge of a subject, nor is it expected of an RfC closure to investigate the individual reliability of every single claim made by an academic source, least of all when no academic sources contending the reliability of the claim have been provided in the argument process. Further, there are two different Lopez-Vera books which were discussed, and in formulating my assesment of the RfC arguments, focused on Lopez-Vera's Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos that was brought up in the discussion precisely because it has more academic grounding.
 * Even if you discount the Lockley, the sources using Lockely, and the Lopez-Vera History of the Samurai, Lopez-Vera's Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos still refers to Yasuke as a samurai. Hence my judgment that by Wikipedia standards against editorializing, the vote that Yasuke was a samurai cannot be represented as a minority opinion because there is nothing contesting it. If there are a bunch of academics saying "Yasuke was a retainer", and only one academic source saying "Yasuke was a samurai", and samurai were historically retainers, and no academic sources have said Yasuke was a retainer, but not a samurai, the statement that "Yasuke was a samurai" is not inherently contested by "Yasuke was a retainer".
 * And, again. I am not here to debate the reliability of sources or the veracity of the claim that Yasuke was a samurai with you. My job was only to summarize and asses the arguments given and close the RfC. Mine is not a mind you need to change or an opinion which should be swayed to your side. I do not care one way or the other what the article says about Yasuke, at this juncture, I am just attempting to push things through to the proper channels and processes which have gone thusfar unused. Chrhns (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that if you feel my closure was improper, you can also contest it here: Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closing Chrhns (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, mostly referring to the dissertation committee and editorial board of Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos.
 * I've addressed this before, but the context in which they are cited doesn't particular matter for the overall reliability of the book. It is not in the realm or expectation of any editor of Wikipedia to have a deeply expert knowledge of a subject, nor is it expected of an RfC closure to investigate the individual reliability of every single claim made by an academic source, least of all when no academic sources contending the reliability of the claim have been provided in the argument process. Further, there are two different Lopez-Vera books which were discussed, and in formulating my assesment of the RfC arguments, focused on Lopez-Vera's Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos that was brought up in the discussion precisely because it has more academic grounding.
 * Even if you discount the Lockley, the sources using Lockely, and the Lopez-Vera History of the Samurai, Lopez-Vera's Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos still refers to Yasuke as a samurai. Hence my judgment that by Wikipedia standards against editorializing, the vote that Yasuke was a samurai cannot be represented as a minority opinion because there is nothing contesting it. If there are a bunch of academics saying "Yasuke was a retainer", and only one academic source saying "Yasuke was a samurai", and samurai were historically retainers, and no academic sources have said Yasuke was a retainer, but not a samurai, the statement that "Yasuke was a samurai" is not inherently contested by "Yasuke was a retainer".
 * And, again. I am not here to debate the reliability of sources or the veracity of the claim that Yasuke was a samurai with you. My job was only to summarize and asses the arguments given and close the RfC. Mine is not a mind you need to change or an opinion which should be swayed to your side. I do not care one way or the other what the article says about Yasuke, at this juncture, I am just attempting to push things through to the proper channels and processes which have gone thusfar unused. Chrhns (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that if you feel my closure was improper, you can also contest it here: Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closing Chrhns (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if you discount the Lockley, the sources using Lockely, and the Lopez-Vera History of the Samurai, Lopez-Vera's Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos still refers to Yasuke as a samurai. Hence my judgment that by Wikipedia standards against editorializing, the vote that Yasuke was a samurai cannot be represented as a minority opinion because there is nothing contesting it. If there are a bunch of academics saying "Yasuke was a retainer", and only one academic source saying "Yasuke was a samurai", and samurai were historically retainers, and no academic sources have said Yasuke was a retainer, but not a samurai, the statement that "Yasuke was a samurai" is not inherently contested by "Yasuke was a retainer".
 * And, again. I am not here to debate the reliability of sources or the veracity of the claim that Yasuke was a samurai with you. My job was only to summarize and asses the arguments given and close the RfC. Mine is not a mind you need to change or an opinion which should be swayed to your side. I do not care one way or the other what the article says about Yasuke, at this juncture, I am just attempting to push things through to the proper channels and processes which have gone thusfar unused. Chrhns (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that if you feel my closure was improper, you can also contest it here: Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_a_closing Chrhns (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI: Talk Yasuke
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chrhns (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I am currently busy at the moment but I will see if I can get to it later tonight. Hexenakte (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hexenaktei mentioned you on the section about me on this Incident. ErikWar19 (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)