User talk:RelmC
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, RelmC! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place
{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. |
|---|
|
|
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
On the topic of negative reception of Lockley’s book in Japan
[edit]Hi Relm,
I apologize for adding this as a topic on your talk page, since the Yasuke talk page is semi-protected and I cannot currently reply to it. I just wanted to provide the main source for negative reception of Lockley’s book “Nobunaga and Yasuke,” the reviews on Amazon with the number of people upvoting it: https://www.amazon.co.jp/-/en/product-reviews/4778315561/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewopt_sr?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=1#reviews-filter-bar
As you can see, there is a good number of people who are not happy with the way that the book presents itself. Even some of the positive reviews admit it is a novel rather than a non-fiction book.
I would also like to redirect you to the Japanese talk page on Yasuke, where almost everyone agrees that Lockley is unreliable over primary sources: https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88:%E5%BC%A5%E5%8A%A9
There is also a user called Symphony Regalia who has been trolling the Japanese talk page, being exposed as using multiple proxy accounts to try and promote the viewpoint of Yasuke = 侍 with no credible sources other than Lockley (which itself is seen as uncredible to the Japanese editors). The same user is also on the EN talk page promoting the same viewpoint, by the way. 天罰れい子 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- This book was released in 2017. All of its positive reviews are from various dates and times over the last near-decade this book has been available. Every single negative review is from the past two months. I think it is pretty clear that the book is being brigaded by people who have probably not read the book and are partaking in a culture war. When I presented that Lockley had another work that was reliable I was referring to his peer reviewed paper published in 2023 in a Japanese journal.
- For the other point, I don't disagree that Lockley's co-authored work is not reliable to source for the claim - but it is the academic consensus even without his work cited for it. Lockley is not a primary source, but those who describe him as a samurai do so off of interpretation of those primary sources. This is part of the historical process, and so far no one across the ANI, RFC, talk page, or RSN have presented a reliable source claiming otherwise.
- I would also caution that every wiki is managed differently, and is subject to their own biases. There have been wikis that have succumbed to periods of rampant nationalism or are still known for such behaviors. The Japanese wiki is no more reliable than any wiki is - and I have seen many examples in my time studying events like Sook Ching for my studies on SE Asia and China that show JP wiki still has many pages which violate NPOV and try to deny warcrimes (e.g. Nanking), present loosely sourced hagiography (e.g. Akiyama Yoshifuru), and to justify war criminals actions (e.g. The pinning of Sook Ching on Col. Tsuji alone by saying the others involved and tried for the genocide disagreed when many documents exist to the contrary.).
- I want to emphasize two things. The first is that Lockley has been the most scrutinized historian as apart of the drama surrounding the game's announcement, and so the current wave of bad reviews from people no one could know the origin of (esp when there are cases that have happened on wikipedia and twitter of brigading with fake, google translated Japanese accounts to spread misinformation) is not indicative of academic opposition to his work. The second is that Japanese wiki and its users do not assume primacy on the Samurai status of Yasuke. Their sources and reasonings are equally up to scrutiny along Wikipedia policies, and with the issue rooted in such specific context and terms even fluency in Japanese is insufficient to properly contextualize the primary sources. So far those wishing to lower the status of Yasuke as a Samurai on the English page have yet to provide reliable sources to the contrary - the Japanesse page as I last read through it wanted to keep it specific to what is explicitly stated in the primary source document without the interpretations.
- As an addendum to the latter, I also want to say that though there is a noticeable issue with nationalism on JP wiki, no wiki is immune from such examples and I do not want to diminish the contributions of their editors. I am presenting these examples to explain why individual wikis do not hold primacy on any page, and there is no need to defer to the opinions of users on matters of history even if it is rooted in their native language. Being a historian specializing on a topic, period, etc gives one academic weight by showing they have the credentials to suggest authority on their ability to analyze primary sources within their contemporary context. Fluency in Japanese alone does not afford one the ability to analyze these documents to the level that matters for wikipedia standards like Lockley's credentials and published peer reviewed work would suggest. Relm (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Relm -
- I've been following the Yasuke article for awhile now after I learned about the battleground status. I think I made some kind of IP comment complaining about the quality of sources a couple months ago. I became particularly frustrated because it seemed like certain users were trying to create a false consensus using multiple trusted sources (particularly in the RFC) that were simply repeating claims of Lockley's personal interpretation of sources that do not directly give a title to the man himself. You seem to have a role in maintaining this article so I wanted to know your opinion on this.
- My question is this - I am well aware that there are multiple academic sources (mind you, all published after Lockley's original Japanese book in February 2017) that name Yasuke as samurai. All of these still suffer from the same issue of there simply not being a primary source that directly and factually makes the claim. While we are not meant to interpret things ourselves, why can we simply not have the wording be something like "Yasuke is a man of African origin who served under Nobunaga and is WIDELY BELIEVED by historians to have been granted Samurai status?" Since we are simply reporting what our trusted sources say, should it not also reflect that? If the Japanese wiki (regardless of potential nationalism) is willing to use primary sources to justify specific wording would that not set a precedent for us to try something similar if a consensus is reached?
- Frankly I think Yasuke was a samurai. However, I don't think the article currently reflects the actual scholarly consensus, which seems to be more like "we don't know, but probably," and less, "yes, he was, unequivocally." My primary concern is legitimately just accuracy. It's really unfortunate that this article seems to have become an ideological battleground rather than an informative piece about an extremely interesting man. SinisterOcean (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1. In regards to Lockley, the RSN was very clear that he is a reliable source, just that his pop history book is not. The page likewise showed 'samurai' without controversy even before Lockley's alleged (though probable) editing on either wiki. There were some sources that made the claim prior to Lockley that at one time were on the page but have since been replaced with more recent sources. The fixation on Lockley and the myth that he orchestrated some form of fraud has yet to be backed up by anything. Months ago people were spreading links to nationalist websites making claims like he had been fired (he wasn't). It is very clear that many different historians view Yasuke as some form of Samurai. This can not be summarized to Lockley alone just because he is the scholar who has done the most work on Yasuke.
- 2. The lack of a direct statement in primary texts is not an 'issue' when it comes to historical interpretation as it is what historians do - they interpret what the primary sources mean. In academic circles has generally shown that if the shincho koki (Sonkeikaku Bunko) is legitimate, that it would indicate Yasuke has the status of a Samurai. If I have subject matter expertise and did not have a primary source referring to someone as a magistrate in a particular place at a particular time, but I had a primary source saying that aforementioned person performed x ceremony for that place, and that ceremony was only performed by a particular kind of magistrate - then I would say that he was the magistrate and then give the explanation in a footnote. Historians do not just repackage primary sources over and over again - they seek to understand them in their original context and interpret them through various means.
- 3. The RFC agreed to refer to Yasuke as a Samurai without a qualifier. 'widely believed' in this case would be a qualifier. The second RFC was called because the Lockley rewrite of the Britannica article had a phrase which was unclear whether it meant that some people disagreed with Yasuke being a Samurai, or if some scholars in good standing disagreed. Many arguments were had about whether this was sufficient to add a qualifier like the one you suggested, but as per WP:WEASEL and WP:VERIFY it was determined that since it was unclear whether that met WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. (To summarize that so you don't have to read all four of those, it means that because it is not clearly identified who disagrees or why, we can't determine if that voice should be given due weight or if it is fringe or etc)
- 4. Every wiki is different. The Japanese version of Thomas Lockley would be a major BLP violation here. The selective emphasis on primary sources on Japanese wiki is something I have never liked as it is typically used to whitewash the secondary source analysis of Japan's warcrimes in WW2 by replacing that scholarship with contemporary newspapers, Japanese contemporary writings, and sometimes I've even seen the tokyo trials testimony of many generals horrifically mischaracterized and cited in related articles to pin blame on specific officers and absolve others. JP wiki for years has been known to have significant nationalist tendencies, and aside from Yasuke I spent a lot of my edits on Wikipedia looking through those kinds of pages across both wikis. English wikipedia's standards are high, and its policies on primary vs secondary sources should not be budged to subvert the secondary sources. That lends itself only to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.
- The issue with the article currently is that the talk page and main article get vandalized often - and when the game releases (presumably on valentines day) this will probably happen more frequently for a while. Many of the most active editors of the page have bowed out due to stress or to avoid the WP:CTOP hammer. Many were hit in the Arbcom case or enforcement. I remain because I am stubborn and I get the feeling the previous months of arguments would be lost in the archives if I wasn't acting as a living index to them on the talk page. What the page really needs are veteran editors who could weave the nuance together into the body of the article, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon due to the CTOP and active vandalism.
- I think the drama will spur documentaries, articles, etc to be written about Yasuke, and over time the dust can settle and people will have more to work with. I hope this helps to explain my position. My thoughts and views have evolved over the months as I've learned more about the topic and more has been published. Relm (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your detailed response, I appreciate the specific guidelines. At this point, I don't think the qualifier would be necessary either, I think it's all pretty solid, not that my personal opinion matters much when it comes to sourcing.
- And agreed, the discourse has settled a bit online, but I am anticipating it to come back full force once the game is released, particularly if it isn't well received or pushed as some kind of example of failed "pandering." Which all in all, is not fair to the real human being everybody is talking about to begin with. I am only familiar with all this background because I have the time to comb through the RfCs and Arbcom and even then I still felt like I had to ask you for clarification, haha. Your stubbornness is much appreciated, there's already so much archived and I still see new people come swinging into the talk page with big ideas about how things should be (like me!)
- Hopefully other experienced editors will take a look at the page once release comes around and help stem the tide. SinisterOcean (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Relm (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Your comment in the RfC on Yasuke
[edit]Hi, Relm, I have WP:REFACTORed the RfC on Yasuke, here, and in so doing I've taken the liberty of adding a word in bold font, "Comment", to your comment, here. However, if your comment was not just a comment but rather a !vote, then please replace "Comment" with "Yes" or "No". In that case, you can also replace the heading Replies to Relm's comment with "Replies to Relm's !vote". Thank you, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Sweet6970 (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red
[edit]Hi there, RelmC, and welcome to Women in Red. Given your fluency in Chinese and your interest in East Asian history and culture, you should be a useful member of the project. When you feel ready to create your first biography of a woman, you might like to look through our Primer. If you would like others to see your interest in the project, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I had already looked at making a page on Wu Zhiying from the red link list on the china section, but the page creation process looked like a lot to take in at first. I'll let you know if I need help beyong what is in the dedicated 'making your first page' guide. Relm (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2024
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Ipigott (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red November 2024
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2024
[edit]
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Rude behavior
[edit]I'dd very much appreciate if you'd not vandalize and remove my topic in a talk page in the future.
Thank you.
BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @BrazilianNormalGuy Please review WP:SOAPBOX and the 'contentious topic - Yasuke' sanctions. Relm (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- My point do stand. I merely gave my opinion in the talk page about the questionable neutrality of the page and sources and the fact it has not been impartial from a academic point of view. It was an active conversation that did not warrant a rude removal out of the blue. BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- It warranted removal due to it being used as a WP:SOAPBOX to launch accusations (WP:Aspersions) at editors. Unsubstantiated blind accusations do not have a place on Wikipedia. Relm (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- My point do stand. I merely gave my opinion in the talk page about the questionable neutrality of the page and sources and the fact it has not been impartial from a academic point of view. It was an active conversation that did not warrant a rude removal out of the blue. BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2025
[edit] 
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 17:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
from 140.227.46.9
[edit]I've been told by others, not just you, to make an account if I have any complaints. I wasn't going to make one, but I did, and I'll move the contents of the IP page to my page and delete it. I don't know if I'll be able to respond, because as the name suggests, I just post and edit to escape reality while I'm at work. I don't know how tanukisann edits wikipedia, but if you ever use the free wifi my workplace provides, I think we could be on the same IP. The network has one for employees and one for general provision, but the IPs are the same. Between work (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)