RfC on Infobox Image

Which image should be used in the Infobox? There has been consistent edit warring and changes to the infobox image since October. [1] A discussion was had on which - or if any - image should be used to depict Yasuke (link to discussion topic) where no consensus was reached. Two of the images (the Sumō Yūrakuzu Byōbu and Rinpa Suzuri-bako) are discussed as possible depictions by sources and discussed on the page already. For more information on the sources, Rotary Engine compiled the current mentions in their comment (here). Another option proposed using a modern artwork depiction by Anthony Azekwoh. Another option was to use no image in the infobox at all. Relm (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Options

Cast your !vote
  • Option A. Sumō Yūrakuzu Byōbu
    Option A. Sumō Yūrakuzu Byōbu
  • Option B. Rinpa style ink-stone box (Suzuri-bako)
    Option B. Rinpa style ink-stone box (Suzuri-bako)
  • Option B2. Cropped and zoomed version of B
    Option B2. Cropped and zoomed version of B
  • Option C. Yasuke by Anthony Azekwoh
    Option C. Yasuke by Anthony Azekwoh
  • Option D. No image
    Option D. No image

Polling

  • Option A I believe this image has sufficient sourcing, and is closely related to major portions of Yasuke's life as documented (Sumo wrestling and his connection to Oda Nobunaga). Relm (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that though I favor option A, I favor either of option A or B over C or D. I believe both captions currently used on the page for A and B accurately reflect the lack of certainty of the sources regarding the likelihood they depict Yasuke specifically. Relm (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or B: These two images have sufficient sourcing. Thibaut (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, I don't think any of these images should be used in the infobox as there are no claims that any of them are actually Yasuke. I think it's ok to use both A and B in the body of the article but I don't think either should be in the infobox when we don't actually know if that was him. As far as C goes, there is even less reason for using that because it's just some randoms drawing of what they think a African samurai would look like. TarnishedPathtalk 11:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update to my !vote. I think Option B2 is better than the A, B or C and would preference it above them. However I maintain my same critique of all images in that we don't know if any of them are actually Yasuke (and C most certainly isn't). If an image is to be used B2 is the best, Option D is still the best for me. TarnishedPathtalk 02:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Option D : Thank you Relm for creating the section. During the discussion I pushed on not having any image, so here I am. If I had an second choice, probably Option A is better among the other. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slight preference for Option B (status quo) followed by Option A. If either A or B is chosen, the infobox should state "possibly depicting Yasuke" as per sources. I have already given my reasons here and here (B over A: B is less stereotypical) and here (against C). Option D (no image) seems pejorative: even if A and B do not depict Yasuke (though they might), they still offer valuable encyclopedic contextual information. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I update my !vote: Option B2 is better than Option B and is my first choice. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option B2 per @Gitz reasoning. Dw31415 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summoned from notification in WP:JAPAN I prefer Option D. I oppose other options, especially C because the "African Samurai would look like this" thing has no place here, especially in a infobox. For the other two, we aren't even sure if they are actually Yasuke. Literally just that. If an image is selected I'd prefer option B, but I feel like having them in the body of the article, similar to what jawiki does is the best option here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (In light of B2 appearing, if there is consensus to add an image I prefer B2.) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or B, with a preference toward B. Since that's the most well confirmed of being Yasuke himself. SilverserenC 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B Option B (status quo) as it has the stronger sourcing per Silverseren. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, Tarnished Path has it.Halbared (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or B, or Both - A is sourced to a historian's expert opinion, and is a clearer image of a person. B is has more evidence and weight to it, but is not a very clear representation. I think both are valid, for the infobox, and in fact, a number of articles (cities, in particular) will use multiple images in an array in the infobox, and I don't see a good reason not to do that here. If we need to limit it to one, I lean slightly more in favor of A than B, but my preference is slight here. Both A and B are strongly preferred to D. C is inappropriate for the infobox, but I don't object to it in the Popular Culture section as being illustrative there. Fieari (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the cropped version existing, I strongly prefer option B2 over B, and I think I even prefer it to A, but not as strenuously. I would still support both A and B2 appearing simultaneously. If B2 is used, the uncropped B version could be placed in the body of the article. In order of preference, I now think I prefer A + B2 > B2 >> A >>> B, with a strong objection to both C and D. (where additional >'s indicate stronger preference) My reasoning is that B2 focuses on the subject where Yasuke is presumed to be depicted... this article is not about the ink box, but the person... yes, the person is depicted on the ink box, but the ink box does not need to be displayed. In the uncropped version, Yasuke is much harder to make out and distinguish... even zoomed in, the face is very indistinct, but you can make it out if you look closely-- something much harder to do with the full ink box version. I still support A in the lead/infobox because it does have some academic support, meaning we don't need to discount it entirely, and it is a pretty illustrative image-- it also depicts the sort of activity Yasuke would engage in. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, Highest quality evidence plus sources, and it's the most clear who the subject is. I don't see anything supporting a change from B. Bladeandroid (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Option B2 added. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C is best suited to promoting the social justice mission. Coresly (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC) (User was blocked for WP:NOTHERE)[reply]
  • Comment: Pinging @Bladeandroid, @NutmegCoffeeTea, @Silver seren, @Thibaut120094 and @RelmC as editors who have expressed any sort of preference for B as it has now been deleted for a second time (first from Commons and now from Wikipedia). TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, None of the pictures are mentioned by enough researchers. Pushing certain persons' view point is wrong. (WP:BALANCE) /Option A is mentioned by 2 sources; Britanica and Ayukawa. The former is written by Thomas Lockley. The later contains Lockley's interview. We shouldn't count them as "2". Both article says there are some reseachers who think this may be Yasuke. However, the people are not clarified there, and we don't have any other sources written by "the other researchers". /Option B is mentioned only by Lockley. /Option C is not mentioned by any reliable source. There is no reason to pick up it. NakajKak (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or Option C; in order of preference. Generally prefer an image to no image, and concur with Relm & Gitz that any image should have an appropriate caption. Oppose Options B & B2 as lower quality images; highly unlikely to depict the article subject. In these images, at the size in the Infobox, the leftmost man's head is a small, amorphous blob; dull blue-grey in colour (a tone common in Japanese lacquerware of the period as the inlaid lead, pewter or silver tarnishes from its original bright lustre); detail of the face has been lost due to deterioration of the metal inlay. This same dull blue-grey is commonly seen in contemporaneous Momoyama era and later Edo and Meiji lacquerware - in depictions of stereotypically white objects: the moon, herons & cranes, snow on trees, snow-capped Mt. Fuji, plum blossoms, cascading streams and foaming surf. (More examples at Wikimedia Commons). This colour is not seen on black objects, which are typically rendered, not with metal, but with black lacquer; as used in the same work for the buttons on the larger man's doublet and for the hair & beard on the second man. Despite the current state of the image, the likelihood that the artwork portrays an African man is vanishingly small.
    Zooming into the image, some additional details can be seen: the man has a moustache and goatee (common in depictions of Portuguese of the period); displays male-pattern baldness and has prominent jowls, a double chin, and drooping eyes, indicating that the figure is likely middle-aged or older, and overweight. None of these characteristics seem to align with our, admittedly limited, knowledge of Yasuke; nor do they align with contemporaneous depictions of Africans in Japanese art. Using an image of a jowly, double-chinned, bald, middle-aged Portuguese man as the Infobox image would be a disservice to the article subject, and to the reader.
    As for policies & guidelines: MOS:LEADIMAGE includes Lead images ... should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works ...; in this sense, sterotypicality is actually a positive. Option A is used by Britannica (twice, including as the lead image). It also appears in the Smithsonian Magazine (lead image); Time Magazine; and National Geographic. Option C is commonly found in online news & magazine articles on Yasuke (perhaps due to the free use license). Option B is found only in Lockley's 2017 book, in non-reliable sources (e.g. Fandom), and in our article here. It is mentioned in a footnote in Atkins 2022, but is outside the scope of that work, which covers popular culture from the 17th century onward, and is likely citogenetic. I cannot find any reliable sources to support the claims that B is the most well confirmed of being Yasuke or has the stronger sourcing; and challenge editors to provide those sources.
    For MOS:LEADIMAGE purposes, Option A simply has the better of it - it is not only of the type used, it is the image actually used by high-quality works. Rotary Engine talk 22:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • I have notified Wikiproject Japan and all editors involved in the earlier image discussion. Relm (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified Wikiproject Biography and Africa. TarnishedPathtalk 12:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been brought to my attention I missed informing @NakajKak, apologies this was unintentional. Relm (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused, some are saying the A is more likely to be Yasuke and others say B is. I read the source for A. Does someone have a quote from the source for B? Both works were made after Yasuke disappeared from the record and possibly left Japan. Area said that he became either a Jesuit bodyguard or a sailor. DrGlef (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    well, the related discussion is above here. I hope people would read it before casting the vote. The option D is not meant for mocking purpose, but rather to hold fairness to avoid stating images which are questionable, and to avoid displaying it where the readers will see it as principal. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see now, you have already put some quotes. It seems that Lockley 2017 doesn't support saying that the man on the inkbox is wearing high class clothing. Maybe that should be changed. The clothing looks similar to that of the boy carrying the stick thing. There wasn't that much difference between high class and middle class clothing anyway. DrGlef (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the interesting observation of you that the clothing is not different from those of children in the art-work, nobody has ever pointed that out as far as I know.
    While the polling is going, I would like to ask those who have voted (strongly) for Option B , which sources are you refering to? namingly; Gitz, Silverseren, NutmegCoffeeTea, Bladeandroid, etc.
    Though Gitz and Bladeandroid has participated the discussion here : Talk:Yasuke#Yasuke Image their claims in the discussion were not really of fact-based or secondary-source-based, to compete with the "Sumo Wrestler One" to me.
    The rest of B-voters who had not participated in that discussion say too there are the strong evidences for Option B, but we have never seen it in this Talk Page discussion. Can anyone guide me to the strong evidence to Option B which DrGlef had asked? I do not need to know anything that have already discussed the above link. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the image for Option B has been removed from Wikimedia [2] for unknown author and license. This throws a wrench at those who voted B. Relm (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666 @Silver_seren @NutmegCoffeeTea @Bladeandroid pinging you as the ones who voted for Option B or expressed a slight preference for it over A in case you want to amend your votes or go through the process of re-adding the image if applicable. Relm (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about this image? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that image was extracted from the option B image I'd suggest that isn't a safe alternative. TarnishedPathtalk 23:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked @Túrelio here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! after I left my message I noticed Túrelio's reply here, where they say that the remaining one is 2-dimensional and thereby o.k. per PD-Art, as the depicted original work is PD since long. So I think we should replace the old "Option B" image with this new one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I have boldly done so with this edit. 00:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Upload it locally. Never upload to Commons. I do my best to avoid ever uploading any of my article images to Commons, especially since they have no intention of notifying you if there's a deletion discussion. SilverserenC 23:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added this image while correctly filing it under public domain. The creator of the depicted work passed away in the 16th century.[3][4][5] Either way it would be fair use locally. Bladeandroid (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that "derivative works" of public domain works can be copywritten, and apparently, according to the copywrite gurus at commons, a photo of a 3D work counts as derivative and thus eligible for copyright (to the photographer) distinct from the work being depicted, while a pure "2D" representation of just the images on the 3D work... isn't. I guess it makes a strange sort of sense... a photo can have artistic qualities distinct from the work being photographed. (Personally, I'm a copyright abolitionist, so most copyright stuff is absurd to me and I hate it, but given the framework copyright works in, I kinda get it) Fieari (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's only if the photograph is intended to be creative Such rights derive from the creativity involved in the positioning of camera, lighting, and other variables, which is not the case here. Basically, non-creative works are ineligible by WP:NONCREATIVE. Bladeandroid (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I don't necessarily disagree. This may be a case of the commons people being over zealous about such things. If wikipedia standards allow it while commons does not, well, I guess that's a thing? That said, I actually prefer the cropped version as being a much clearer depiction of our subject Yasuke here. Do you want to put up the old image as well, and have the cropped version be discussed separately? Or should we just leave it as the cropped version? Bah, either way I forsee confusion, since we're mid RFC. Fieari (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it back. You're right that it could probably cause confusion to switch it. Maybe it could be discussed separately. Bladeandroid (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added B2 for the cropped version (which I prefer). Fieari (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Slaves" are designated as "Followers", as a means of censorship

This is the 16th century, where Africans were slaves, I hardly find it to believe those are followers... followers of what, exactly?

What exactly is a follower and in which context? (Personal attack removed) But they failed to define it, while they reverted to the article to censored from the word "slaves"

This is the first time I am reading an article that addresses African slaves as followers. Is this the new definition of slaves" by the WOKE/DEI?

The source I have linked to the image, is the exact same source where the image was extracted from. The image "Nanban byōbu by Kano Naizen" has the official description as follows and quote: "slaves" not "followers".

Quote: "The procession is composed of a Captain-Major, standing underneath a state parasol surrounded by other officers, as well as sailors, African slaves, Indians and Malays."Source: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pescaterian (talk •

contribs) 08:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A historian directly disputes that Yasuke was a slave: Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor[7]. This source calls them "members of the crew".[8] This source by an expert calls them "crew".[9] This source says that accounts differ on whether they were slaves or not.[10] Even one of the sources you cited also mentioned "attendants". It can also be pointed out that many sources describe the Portuguese as barbarians in the context of the paintings. I've yet to see anyone caption all Portuguese subjects as "barbarians", which I would oppose for similar reasons. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the "source", that claims, that only a singular African slave would have been freed, called it himself a speculation on his own accord, that he speculated him to be not a slave at that time, because he would to be for him a free actor.
the full quote is therefore cut off to mislead his actual intentions for your argument.
"Some have said that Yasuke was a slave, and Lockley acknowledges the theory but disagrees. “Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. The author speculates that given the circumstances of how the African man arrived at his employment with Valignano, it’s possible that Yasuke was enslaved as a child and taken from Africa to India."
In an Youtube-Interview by said historian, more recent that this old Time-Article, he called Yasuke a slave himself as well, as
Even this historian speculated, that Yasuke was a victim of slavery in his early live and clearly highlighted multiple times, that his claim, that he was not a slave, would just be his own speculation in the source you provided yourself. 2003:DF:A718:9800:8897:DAE9:B5E1:5585 (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Yasuke was a samurai. Check the facts. Coresly (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to 1 dude, Lockley. Even the comment above uses Lockleys own claim that he was a samurai and not a slave to defend that he "don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor" He also edited Wikipedia by citing his own, at the time, unpublished research, establishing himself as the expert on the subject. 82.134.180.246 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you racists so obssesed with Lockley? does Luís Frois(who lived at the same time as Yasuke) doesn't exist to you? 177.37.150.229 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yasuke was not a samurai. It is well established and was well understood before his appearance in AC Shadows. Only recently is there even a debate, and yet this article presents an entirely biased one-sided approach to the question that undermines the sentiment of this website as a whole. 207.216.184.136 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Yasuke was a samurai, this was always the histrorical consensus even among japanese historians and even before Thomas Lockley was born, it wasn't until 2024 with that mediocre ubisoft game that white racists and japanese far-right wingers started to question his historicity. 177.37.150.229 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so anyone that is a Japanese historian that says otherwise is far right? what an absolute childish statement and clownish attitude. The only racist here are you, people trying to rewrite another cultures history just to fit their distorted world view. What a disgrace
and PS this is Japanese historian correcting you 76.203.175.9 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the word sounds simply violation of WP:Verifiability for me. "follower" is not synonym for "slave". NakajKak (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork at [11], which is described at that site using the term "slaves", is a different artwork from that which appears in our article. We shouldn't take a description of one image and apply it to another. Rotary Engine talk 23:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be different versions of Nanban byōbu. I didn't notice. It will be better to write neither "followers" nor "slaves" as the image description. Or switching to the linked version above may be much better because there are enough description. I still disagree to use "followers" in the text, because Daimon describe him as a "servant(slave)" "使用人（奴隷）". NakajKak (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about attendant? Or one could just avoid describing them. Everyone who see the picture can see what they are doing, so does it really need to be described. Follower does seem awkward to me. The men are literally following others, still. Webster lists retainer as the first definition. However, neither Cambridge nor Collins list retainer as a definition, but both define follower as a supporter or believer. DrGlef (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yasuke is disputed as being a slave by a number of historians, and pointing out that there were other African slaves does not prove that Yasuke was a slave at all. Dapike42 (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dapike42: "enslaved", please. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most historians believe Yasuke was a slave before becoming a samurai. CaptainSu (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor

what is this nonsense "Wikipedia is explicitly a place where secondary source scholarship takes precedence over primary sources" by relm This is terrible historiography, we value primary sources above secondary sources. What the hell is wrong with you? 2603:6011:F400:DAC:5404:AD4E:8147:9CF (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not an academic institution or a secondary source. We are a tertiary source, meaning we compile and summarize what others have already said. Our systems and collaborative method is not equipped to do research or be peer reviewed, so primary sources can only be used as direct quotes with no interpretation whatsoever, and only in the context of reporting findings made by secondary sources, who have been reviewed and researched by experts that are reliable. This is a core foundation of wikipedia, and what allows us to be trusted. If wikipedia allowed original research by interpreting primary sources, then any jack or jill could fill our articles with nonsense-- we'd have no mechanism to weed out good research from bad. So we don't allow it at all. If you want your original research to be added to wikipedia, please find a reliable publisher outside of wikipedia first. Fieari (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary source interpretation is the job of experts on those subjects. Encyclopedia's do not reproduce explicitly what primary sources say, rather they work with or from how experts have come to understand these texts in their original context. The comment you are responding to from me points to the policies which govern this for Wikipedia, but this is the practice of every major encyclopedia. Britannica for example often directly enlists subject matter experts to write articles in their field (though not all of their articles are of this quality). As Fieari put above me, this is a safeguard against bad research which is incapable of scrutinizing primary sources. Terrible historiography is taking primary sources at face value and rejecting academic consensus. Relm (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the functioning is vastly different from Bitannica, then. Trusting only secondary sources reports the issue, as non-experts are also often incapable of properly scrutinizing secondary sources - and they do need scrutinizing, especially when it's a buzzing subject recently picked up by generalist media usually deemed reputable ...
Dura lex sed lex I guess (i'm rambling in general, not just talking about this particular instance) DommageCritique (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Britannica ranges in quality depending on the article. Some are just written by staff writers with no subject expertise, but many (especially ones about historical figures) are often written by subject matter experts or biographers and then fact checked by an editorial commission. This is not feasible to replicate on Wikipedia, which is why secondary sources are preferred over primary. See WP:TRUTH and WP:RGW for some examples of why, editorially, Wikipedia is mandated to prioritize what reliable secondary sources say. WP:DUE WP:BALANCE and other policies center around this same idea as well. If we take primary sources and try to put them as more important than secondary, it would result in severe WP:OR WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH violations that can not be untangled from any individual editor's pov. It is not the job of an individual editor to determine what is true when the accounts of Abul Fazl and ʽAbd al-Qadir Badayuni contradict each other, but instead to use a set of principles to determine what secondary sources are reliable, and then take what they say about their writings and report that.
In this vein, it was determined early on in the discussions here a few things:
1. There is no reason to believe Lockley is of low academic standing to where he would not qualify as a subject matter expert, however if a claim is his alone it should be cited to him in the text.
2. Lockley's coauthored work which is pop history/fiction is not a reliable source, but his academic works are.
3. Many typically reliable news sources such as CNN which covered the story of Lockley did so off of #2, and were evaluated to be insufficient for reporting statements of historical fact. They could however be used for reporting what Lockley said in those interviews, or for covering other aspects.
The sources on this page have probably been scrutinized more than any b-class article on Wikipedia have been. You're welcome to take a crack at them, I would just encourage to check previous discussions in the talk page archive to see if anything you find has been discussed before. Relm (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> There is no reason to believe Lockley is of low academic standing to where he would not qualify as a subject matter expert
Nihon University erased Associate Professor Lockley's resume after the whole "Yasuke was tono (samurai)" fiasco. Is that not enough to question his academic standing? 46.32.78.252 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the reliable source noticeboard discussion. [12]
As for his Nihon University Resume... It is still there. Feel free to check for yourself: [13]
During the height of the drama, there were various unreliable sources claiming various things such as Lockley being fired but these were untrue. Unless something happened in the past two weeks, there is still no reason to question his academic standing. Relm (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is all the reason to question his validity. If he is the only source on the subject then its basically worthless. Yasuke was never a samurai. The only person claiming he was is Thomas Lockley, while citing his own work as the source. Maybe an honorary samurai at most. Ive been an adamant denfender of Wikipedia as an okay source for information. But if its this easy to lie and misinform then I dont think I will continue to use any but the most heavily curated and sourced Wikipedia articles. This is a joke. 82.134.180.246 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RTCGS (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yasuke is a retainer. Please edit wikipedia. Watch this Japanese historian saying there is no valid sources claiming Yasuke is a samurai (12:32) in youtube. (Japanese Historians answer samurai questions) the link is here >>> I just remove the youtube part. (IEpd2SVw0F8?si=UeeBM7AmCHYkRJc9) RTCGS (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
other sources (https://www.modernerudite.com/p/yasuke-debunking-pseudo-historical) RTCGS (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Lockley as a credible/not credible source "https://thatparkplace.com/japanese-government-exposes-another-lie-of-assassins-creed-shadows-collaborater-thomas-lockley/" RTCGS (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference from actual Japanese historian with his own sources.https://japan-forward.com/interview-yasuke-and-assassins-creed-shadows-a-japanese-historians-perspective/ RTCGS (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Goza is saying that Yasuke was treated as a samurai. Also, that Yasuke didn't have a command position. He says that Yasuke didn't defeat "his foes one after another with a sword." But that is pretty much true of every samurai. Elite warriors aren't super heroes even if they are Japanese, and samurai used primarily other weapons besides the sword in battle. This is mainly criticizing Ubisoft's depiction of Yasuke., and more relevant to the AC article. I don't see Goza's comments as at odds with Wikipedia. DrGlef (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of samurais serving under the big names like Takeda, Uesugi, and Nobunaga were defeated their foes with a sword. Your description of samurai only fits to lesser warlords.84.54.73.2 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you wield a sword doesn't mean you're a samurai - OpalYosutebito (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that historical context he was, He was the retainer of Nobunaga, he had a sword and armor, he was considered part of the bushi/warrior class, he had a salary and even some lands. He fit all the characteristics of a samurai. 177.37.150.229 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does everybody keep deleting the word retainer after his "Samurai" claimed name. Here's several Oda clan samurai retainers with the word retainer after the samurai title Aochi Shigetsuna and Maeba Yoshitsugu for example. People are deliberately trying to leave out the word 'retainer' even though by definition he was one. Also, most cannot verify the claim he was given land it was a quote from a Thomas Lockley who's been called out for fabricating information. Most historical accounts don't believe he was granted land. Hatrick24 (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your edit was reverted on procedural grounds. I don't get it. Samurai and retainer are practically synonymous in this context. Often the term samurai is applied to persons that aren't retainers. Still, I don't see it added any new information and the formulation "samurai retainer" seems unusual to me. You are responsible for the two examples you provided. A search of google books shows that it is not unique. DrGlef (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OpalYosutebito The main weapon of samurai is not the sword, but according to some historians it does. Level of skill as a swordsman is irrelevant to samurai status. Historians often apply the Tokugawa definition retroactively. Since the Tokugawa limited who could wear the long sword, then that is what is important. Really, the stipend is probably more important an indicator of samurai status and the house too.
Lockley includes the following footnote in his peer-reviewed article: "It should be noted here that in 1581 the concept of samurai was not yet formalized
as a caste in legal code as it would later become. It simply indicated a higher
status warrior connected to a master, with a stipend or fief."
The first part of the quote is consensus. I have read books where both the "higher status" distinction and the connection to a master were contradicted. Lockley himself has contradicted this. Then again, he changed his mind on a lot of things written in his article. DrGlef (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2025

this page on yasuke is giving false information and the source cited can not be located by any means either this gets fixed or this page should be taken down

2A0A:EF40:EE0:BE02:DA0B:E47:5DBF:9676 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 21:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2025

Yasuke isn't a Samurai but a retainer. TerryC3201929 (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please post an actual link indicating what you want someone to read. RTFM comments aren't helpful. Haruyasha (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about "read the FAQ at the top of this page." Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The FAQ mentions a "consensus", but that consensus seems to exist only on this Wikipedia talk page. The way the first paragraph of the article is written makes it sound like Yasuke being samurai is seen as a matter of fact, which is false.
1) The very first reference in the page supporting this claim is Thomas Lockley (an english professor, not historian), a source that's been heavily criticized due to not being seen as reliable source of information on this topic, being put under investigation by the Japanese Government for his work on the book for including false statements. Not to mention that those statements change based on which language you read the book. This implies a lack of consensus over this source both at an academic and governmental level, not to mention a lack of consensus between the author and himself. On that note, every reference in that first paragraph with the statement that Yasuke is a samurai... does not include a single Japanese source.
2) Japanese historian Yuichi Goza, an academic with a Ph.D. in literature and whose field of specialty is japanese medieval history, actually had an interview in 2024 where he talks about Yasuke, and how little is actually understood about him. He does highlight several important points:
- "There is a description that Nobunaga gave Yasuke a sword and a residence, indicating that he was treated as a samurai. However, this only appears in this transmitted text among the dozens of copies of Shinchōkōki, and the possibility that it was added later during transcription cannot be ruled out."
- "Also, even if he was a samurai, it may have been 'in name only.' For example, in the Edo period, daimyo who liked sumo wrestling had their own wrestlers. Formally, they were vassals, samurai who were employed and allowed to wear swords, but even if a war broke out, it was of course not expected that the wrestlers would fight on the battlefield."
- "By keeping the black Yasuke close to him, he could attract attention and, in a sense, show off Nobunaga's 'power.' So, I think the most important purpose was to show him to everyone. Jesuit historical materials state that Yasuke was strong and had some talent for performing. I think the reality was that he was Nobunaga's bodyguard and entertainer."
3) The English-language for Yasuke's page is the ONLY that calls him a samurai. Various other pages either refer to him as a noteable figure in Nobunaga's retinue, or use other titles. This implies a lack of consensus with every single other language regarding this topic. Unless you're making the claim that every other wikipedia editor team is wrong?
The gripe a lot of people have with this wikipedia page is that it treats a very contested topic in a way that many consider to be dismissive of facts and reality. The first paragraph of this page needs to be more clear with both the lack of consensus on this topic and address Yasuke as a noteable figure from literature, and highlight the divisive nature of his actual rank/status within Nobunaga's circle. The paragraph should also say in very clear terms that we do NOT know if Yasuke was as samurai, and even if he were to be called that, he'd be a samurai in name only. Additionally, consider removing all references linking to Thomas Lockley's work. You wouldn't use Narnia as a reference for the history of the UK. Stjerneulv (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of being treated as a samurai may have been added later. However, there is no reason to think it was. Why would someone add that? Wikipedia calls him a samurai and a bodyguard (wouldn't the bodyguard of a daimyo be a samurai? Samurai is a very broad term, although sometimes it is equated with knights and other times includes low ranking military retainers or even temple cooks!). If he is a samurai "in name only" then calling him a samurai is justified. Wikipedia is not claiming that he was a highly skilled swordsman. DrGlef (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How was Yasuke treated by his contemporaries outside of Nobunaga? 2001:268:C200:6FDF:E9FE:3333:6A7F:E0C1 (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was a samurai. Koriodan (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2025 (2)

The lead says "Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits." but the section Honno-ji Incident says "However, there are no historical sources about him since then and it is not clear what happened to him afterwards." The lead should be changed to say that it is not clear what happened to him. I don't read Japanese, but machine translation of the Japanese Huffington Post article cited in the lead doesn't seem to say that he was taken by the Jesuit missionaries, only treated by them. If there are theories as to what happened to him backed by reliable sources, they can be listed as possible explanations. Truthnope (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Please continue the discussion, and make a new request once consensus is settled. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than changing the lead, we should probably add a line of text to the "Honnō-ji Incident" section. Yasuke's release to the Jesuits is well documented in sources, for example:
  • Yasuke was accompanied by Mitsuhide’s vassals to the Jesuit church, and it is reported that the missionaries gave thanks to God for his deliverance. This is the last confirmed record of Yasuke (Lockley, Britannica [14])
  • So, he was given back to the Jesuits and from that moment on history loses track of him (Lopez-Vera)
  • There was no further mention of him in the historical record after his release to the Jesuits (Vaporis)
  • The last known record of Yasuke describes him being escorted to a Jesuit mission by Mitsuhide’s warriors (Smithsonian Magazine [15])
  • The last record of Yasuke is of the man being escorted by Akechi’s troops to a Jesuit mission house (TIME [16])
We could have the following text:

It is certain that Yasuke did not die. Mitsuhide's vassals accompanied him to the Jesuit church, and Luís Fróis wrote five months after the Honnō-ji Incident thanking God that he did not lose his life. However, there are no historical sources about him since then and what happened to him afterwards is unknown.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Loki (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the text to be more clear. Additionally the phrasing 'There are no subsequent records of his life.' in the lede has never sat well with me. It sounds like we are definitively stating that there are no extant documents when it is more apt to refer to the 'last known/confirmed record' as that instead. This is also what the sources do. Additionally, lockley is referring to it as 'the' jesuit church because he already mentioned it in the britannica page, it was not the only jesuit mission/church in Japan. The first sentence is made redundant by the mention of Lois Frois proclaiming thanks that Yasuke was not killed.
As such I suggest the following modifications:

It is certain that Yasuke did not die. "In the last confirmed records of Yasuke's life, Mitsuhide's vassals accompanied him to a Jesuit church, and Luís Fróis wrote five months after the Honnō-ji Incident thanking God that he did not lose his life."

Relm (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Luís Fróis thanking God that Yasuke did not lose his life, or that he Luís Fróis did not lose his life? It is IMO unclear from the current phrasing. Loki (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It specifically says "Yasuke was accompanied by Mitsuhide’s vassals to the Jesuit church, and it is reported that the missionaries gave thanks to God for his deliverance." which seems to make the most sense if 'his' = Yasuke given the usage of 'deliverance' after discussing Yasuke being delivered to them. Though in a Christian context 'deliverance' can be used to refer to being removed from danger in general - the only one who was in any danger as written in this context is Yasuke. Relm (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original text of "Luís Fróis wrote five months after the Honnō-ji Incident" is here and there is no text like "thanking God that he did not lose his life". If you want to mention about "deliverance", you should refer Lockley, not Fróis. 2400:4050:CC43:EF00:50BE:C1C0:87D2:AD7A (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I am pretty strongly for Gitz's version over yours. The explicit confirmation that Yasuke did not die is IMO quite important. And I also prefer explicitly acknowledging we don't know what happened to him after that. Your version strikes me as too indirect and unclear. Loki (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine to concede on that then; I assume the small shift from 'the church' to 'a church' is fine? Relm (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it if we have some good reason to believe there was more than one Jesuit church in Japan at the time. Loki (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have:
"to the Jesuit church" (Britannica article)
"to a Jesuit mission" (Smithsonian)
"to a Jesuit mission house" (TIME)
The reason Britannica says 'the' is because they already mentioned that specific mission is because Lockley already mentioned that church early in the article:

Close to the Jesuit church where Yasuke had taken refuge was Honnō-ji, a temple which Nobunaga had established as his residence in Miyako. The sound of the riot reached Nobunaga’s ears, and he ordered its cause, Yasuke, to be brought before him. Ōta Gyūichi, present at the audience, reported that Yasuke had the “strength of ten men” and a good demeanor, but Nobunaga could not trust the color of his skin and had his retainers scrub him, suspecting that the black pigment was artificial. Realizing that Yasuke’s skin color was natural, Nobunaga called for three of his sons who happened to be nearby and held a banquet to welcome this astonishing visitor, finally rewarding Yasuke with a large sum of money.

Many churches/missions were established well before this time - especially in Kyushu. There were even Christian Diamyos decades prior to Yasuke's arrival such as Ōmura Sumitada. Relm (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's go for "a Jesuit church". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should leave out "church" altogether. This is what Vaporis and Lopez-Vera do. The other quotes are all based on the same expert. Two experts say that Yasuke was returned or released to the Jesuits. Lockley's version of being escorted to the church does match up with the primary source, but I think it is more awkward. The vital fact is not what building he went to, but that he went to the Jesuits. DrGlef (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A" sounds good to me then. Loki (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2025

Requesting a "Yasuke Simulator" entry on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke#Video_games

For context, Yasuke Simulator is an indie, low budget, parody comedy game based on Yasuke and his life. 177.37.150.157 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt this already on there at the bottom? 82.134.180.246 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we include such blatant racism on the wiki page? You should be banned. 197.88.254.168 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is that racism? - OpalYosutebito (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an actual game (regardless of it being a parody of Assassins Creed: Shadows) with Yasuke as the main protagonist. That should be enough to include the game in this page. Please elaborate on how it's inclusion is racist? Stjerneulv (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic because i've been one of the editors who had defended Yasuke's historicity and his status as a real samurai the most on this website, yet, wanting a request edit on a new indie parody/comedy videogame featuring the guy is somehow "racist"? 177.37.150.229 (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "Work of minor significance" WP:IPCEXAMPLES so it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yasuke Simulator achieved higher twitch viewership than Assassins Creed: Shadows. Failing to include it means we should also remove the mention for Assassins Creed: Shadows, if it's a matter of significance. Stjerneulv (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SmashJT.com is neither an unbiased nor credible source of information, but even if that's true, WP:IPCEXAMPLES still applies. Assassins Creed: Shadows is a major release and part of a long running series of games from a major studio, "Yasuke Simulator" is the self-published and only release from an unknown indy developer. To paraphrase the "Works of minor significance" section of WP:IPCEXAMPLES, There is no encyclopedic interest in a famous historical figure being featured prominently in someone's self-published game. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: No sources provided. BrokenSquarePiece (complete me) 01:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and implausible historical account

Thomas Lockley is not British academic. He’s just self-proclaimed historian. 92.247.50.178 (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuke was a real samurai, and it wasn't lockley who invented this, this was the consensus even before he was born, i agree Lockley is not a reliable source on Yasuke and his life, but that's because his book is "pop-history", if you can find actual academic sources that could be used as replacement for Lockley's as long as they don't contradict the historical consensus then it's fine. 177.37.150.229 (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware the historical consensus is that yasuke is a samurai, it looks like the misconceptions comes from the romanticism view regarding samurais and not their actual meaning which ranges from a lot of positions. As it stands the sources here seem fine. Question169 (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2025

There is no *proof* Yasuke was ever a "samurai". This needs to be mentioned in the article. We don't know whether he was or not, and to say anything more specific is just dishonest. 77.96.250.39 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please see question 1 in the FAQ at the top of the page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed lead rewrite

Current version of lead (refs removed):

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a samurai of African origin who served Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death.
According to historical accounts, Yasuke first arrived in Japan in the service of Italian Jesuit Alessandro Valignano. Nobunaga summoned him out of a desire to see a black man. Subsequently, Nobunaga took him into his service and gave him the name Yasuke. As a samurai, he was granted a sword, a house and a stipend. Yasuke accompanied Nobunaga until his death and fought at the Honnō-ji Incident until the death of Oda Nobutada. Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits. There are no subsequent records of his life.

Proposed replacement:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 or 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]; c. 1555 – after 1582) was a samurai of African origin who served Oda Nobunaga during the Sengoku period of Japanese history.
Likely of East African origin, Yasuke arrived in Japan in 1579 in the service of the Jesuit missionary Alessandro Valignano. In 1581, his striking appearance and physical prowess drew the attention of Nobunaga, who took a interest in him and granted him a stipend, sword, and private residence; at times, he was also entrusted with carrying Nobunaga's weapons. Yasuke accompanied Nobunaga in the military campaigns leading up to the Honnō-ji Incident in 1582, where he was betrayed by his general Akechi Mitsuhide and forced to commit seppuku. Yasuke was captured by Akechi's forces, after which he was handed over to the Jesuit missionaries; his later fate is unknown. Yasuke's life, while sparsely documented, has inspired modern portrayals in literature, film, and popular culture.

I believe that my proposal improves on the current lead in all respects, including clarity, inclusion of important details, and the crucial mention of modern media portrayals which have made Yasuke a well-known figure. — Goszei (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this rewrite, although I'd like to see a version with references. I think it succinctly hits the key points of his life clearly, and makes note of the pop culture influence. Relm (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's a good proposal. My only concern is with the sentence Yasuke accompanied Nobunaga in the military campaigns leading up to the Honnō-ji Incident in 1582, where he was betrayed.... Firstly, this phrasing suggests a causal relationship between Nobunaga's campaigns and Mitsuhide's betrayal. I'm not sure if this is supported by sources and it certainly doesn't reflect the content of the article. Secondly, while we know that Yasuke accompanied Nobunaga on an inspection tour of Kōshū after its conquest, we don't have evidence that he participated in the military campaign itself. Perhaps we could instead use Yasuke served Nobunaga during his military campaigns and was with him at the Honnō-ji Incident in 1582, when Nobunaga was betrayed...
Aside from this minor point, I think the proposed new lead is an improvement. It aligns better with MOS:LEAD ("summary of its most important contents") and I support the replacement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This adds fluff but I don't think it improves upon the existing lead. "His striking appearance" is also a bit weird and I don't think anyone has referred to him that way. "Yasuke's life, while sparsely documented, has inspired modern portrayals" seems to be casting doubt on everything above it. I'd potentially support a slight rewording of "There are no subsequent records of his life" but I think that line communicates well enough. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2025

CHANGE: Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a samurai of African origin who served Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death.

TO: Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a retainer to Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582 during the Sengoku period. While he was given a residence, gifts, and possibly a katana, there is no historical evidence that he was formally granted samurai status under the bushi class system.

1. The Britannica reference is: "Yasuke (born c. 1555, Eastern Africa) was a valet and bodyguard of the Jesuit missionary Alessandro Valignano who rose to become a member of the inner circle of the warlord Oda Nobunaga, Japan’s first “great unifier.” Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people."

This clearly states that there is debate as to whether or not Yasuke was a samurai. This must be acknowledged by the wikiarticle at the least, and if Wiki is to have integrity about it, make the edit I propose.

2. There is only ONE primary source: the Ōta Gyūichi's Shinchō Kōki - and its contents should be communicated clearly and without embellishment.

3. Modern usage of the term "samurai" in describing Yasuke is a retrospective interpretation not supported by primary evidence and conflates informal service with class status. Tadatomonakashima (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC) Tadatomonakashima (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this change. There is no evidence that Yasuke was viewed as a samurai by his contemporaries. 2001:268:C20B:69C:1592:5502:9524:9DFA (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please see question 1 in the frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of this page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Ivanvector but it's seems in "RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article" a consensus was never truly reached and the argument was hijacked by bad faith actors that use original source from discredited and admonished historian. This discussion should be reopen and discussed 76.203.175.9 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is a correct change the only source of him being a "samurai" comes from the discredited and admonished historian Thomas Lockley, who writes more fiction than history 76.203.175.9 (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, Lopez-Vera also writes that Yasuke was a samurai. There are other historians as well. There is also more than one primary source about Yasuke. CaptainSu (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the names of any Japanese scholars (preferably with expertise in Japanese feudal history) that you could reference that support this? Stjerneulv (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this change.
The way it's currently written does not reflect a neutral view point on the subject and ignores a lot of expert opinions, especially Japanese ones. The way this is proposed solves the conflict so that it reflects the actual (limited) knowledge that we can all definitely agree upon. Besides, if Yasuke is being addressed as a samurai on the current write-up due to the word being treated as a "broad term", then it makes sense to be specific and pedantic about it to ensure good comprehension of the article and reflect actual information that's agreed upon at a scholarly level rather than use broad terms that can be wrongfully implemented.
Please implement the changes noted here. Perhaps with an addendum saying that "while some secondary sources have called Yasuke a samurai, there is no consensus on this topic, especially amongst Japanese scholars." Stjerneulv (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, I will reproduce the text from question 1 of the FAQ that you seem to be refusing to read:
Q. Why is Yasuke described as a samurai, and not a retainer?
A. A request for comment (Talk:Yasuke/Archive 3#RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article) found, based on the reliable sources that exist on the topic, a clear consensus that Yasuke should be represented in the article as a samurai. Wikipedia describes things as they are described in reliable sources (see WP:NPOV). Any change to this consensus would likely require significant new sources to be presented.
The prior discussion already considered Lockley and López-Vera, and Purdy's criticism of Lockley; if you want to know why this particular conclusion was reached, you can read the linked discussion. It has a helpful summary at the top in case you don't want to read the very long and very divisive full discussion. I have little interest in this topic and am not here to debate, I am here to moderate. Since all of the arguments that are being made here have already been discussed in that very long and very divisive discussion, and there are no new arguments nor new sources to discuss here, this edit request is declined.
Wikipedia is not a forum for endless circular debates, and continuing attempts to restate old arguments are tendentious and disruptive. If you do have new sources to consider which were not already discussed in that long discussion, then by all means I encourage you to start a new discussion here and present your new arguments, but you will need to be familiar with the previous discussion first. If you are just going to try different ways to argue things that were already settled in that prior discussion, I am going to start removing comments rather than replying to them. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke
No tags for this post.