Fact check: Thomas Lockley was often used as a historical citation when discussing Yasuke. But, his research has been significantly into question.

1. Summary of the results

1. Summary of the results:

The analyses consistently confirm that Thomas Lockley's research on Yasuke has been significantly questioned by historians and academics. His work has been criticized for presenting different narratives in English versus Japanese publications, making unsubstantiated claims, and mixing historical facts with speculation. Specific issues include claims about Yasuke's samurai status and relationship with Nobunaga without proper historical evidence.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints:

The original statement omits several crucial pieces of context:

• Lockley's Japanese peer-reviewed works are reportedly more factually based than his English publications
• There appears to be a Wikipedia editing controversy where Lockley was suspected of promoting his own narrative
• The statement doesn't mention that only a few historical sentences actually exist about Yasuke, making any extensive research inherently speculative
• The commercial success of Lockley's book "African Samurai" (400 pages) suggests financial incentives may have influenced the presentation of the material

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement:

While the statement itself is accurate, it understates the severity of the situation by using mild language ("significantly into question"). The analyses reveal more serious accusations, including:

• Deliberate fabrication of historical details
• Presenting different narratives in different languages
• Mistranslation and misinterpretation of historical texts
• Potential manipulation of Wikipedia content to promote his narrative

The controversy appears to be more about active misrepresentation of historical facts rather than just questionable research methods.