Talk:Yasuke

Targetting

Came across this article while going through WP:Contentious topics (found sanctions for a single article topic area interesting). Also noticed disruption regarding this on Wikidata.

After [partially] reading through the Arb case and the archives here, it becomes clear that this page has been targetted by the Gamergate and Netto-uyoku campaigns (the latter also promoted through 5channel [formerly 2channel]). The jawiki page on this and Thomas Lockley having been seriously distorted (the latter now largely rendered as an attack page).

Lockley has been harassed to the point of deleting all his social media accounts (which the jawiki ironically notes) as have many Western scholars looking into the topic, historian Paula R. Curtis notes this in detail here.

Also fringe historians/sources have weighed in on the controversy, and have been picked up by the netto-uyoku. These include [1], thatparkplace, J. Mark Ramseyer among others.

Issues with the Japanese Wikipedia (specifically its connections with 4chan progenitor 2channel) are rife and are noted in our article on it; many a jawiki IP editors connected with this have engaged with our enwiki article looking to promote their extreme views on this and a number of a other related articles.

Just wanted to highlight the targetting of this enwiki article by various groups especially those from the jawiki and the fringe of the Japanese internet. Gotitbro (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Koriodan (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2025

I would like the opportunity to update this to be historically accurate as well as to add present day pop culture references as well as underline the importance of the bushido ideology that influenced yasuke and nobanagas Core values and to further detail their lives together using historical documentation from Japan i am very passionate about history and i look forward to adding to many articles and making Wikipedia that much more insightful and helpful to the world i hope to add a detailed account of yasukes battle to this as well thank you for your consideration on this matter i look forward to your reply with eagerness, Count Rainer , The Historical Account, P.S. I cant wait to work with Wikipedia. The Historical Account (Count Rainer) (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 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. Cannolis (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

There are pop culture references already. Bladeandroid (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

not a samurai

Yasuke was a slave, not a samurai. He is a fictional folk legend, not a real person either. There is no:

1) Record of him being a samurai, nothing from that actually period state he was a samurai. 2) as above, owning his own samurai sword. 3) Being taught to use a sword for battle.

In fact he was so irrelevant, he vanished into thin air after a few years, also slavery was ripe within the time period, nobles globally parading black servant's around as a statement of their dominace over man, England, France, Arabian Asia.

So where does this fabricated lie come from.

Predominantly,

a man who made up a fantasy novel, in modern times a kids computer game service modeled a character on the myth, since stating they apologies for the misunderstanding.

Sure there are waking loks and sources, you trace them to their origin and none go back to the lifetime of the individual during his life.

There in a record held from that time period that names "all" known samurai, no mention of this mythological samurai.

Again, it goes back to years of peoppe stating Wikipedia can be used and is used as a platform to promote ideologies and fantasy as somewhat factual.

. 2600:100A:B034:9981:E870:2DFF:FE9D:BEB2 (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. You are supposed to provide reliable sources backing your claims if you want this to be discussed once again. Azuredivay (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the Shinchō Kōki (The Nobunaga Chronicles) not a record of him supposedly being nominally samurai class? It isn't a perfect source but it clearly says he was awarded a stipend (an exclusive proxy for and interchangeable with samurai status) and that he carried some aspect of Nobunaga's belongings (or literally 'tools') as koshō (samurai status again). Servants normatively weren't allowed to carry swords. According to the Shinchō Kōki, another of Nobunaga's koshō was supposedly a sumo wrestler by the name of Tomo Shōrin who was awarded swords and inferently samurai status if he didn't hold it already.

To say with conviction that Yasuke is 'fictional', 'not a real person', and a 'fabricated lie' is pretty egregious and I don't think you're objective in the slightest. It seems you're more lamenting about the liberties taken with his depiction in the upcoming Assassin's Creed: Shadows game (and also parroting unreliable sources). That game is historical fiction and as such it has a license to use the historical record as a jumping off point, with a focus on character and story rather than objective analysis. Yasuke was extremely unlikely to have been a samurai in the true sense and in ACII, players fistfought the Pope.

Did you even read your own source? 2A00:23C5:11E:F901:40CC:F60C:4F63:45AF (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Yasuke Image

There has been a silent back and forth over the past month which has carried on in regards to the usage of the suzuri-bako image being used in the lede. I don't recall it ever being discussed and it never stayed long on the page.

I disagree with the usage of the suzuri-bako, unless it is stated in the caption as "a dark-skinned man in Portuguese clothing" rather than presenting it as Yasuke, as our sources do not directly link it to Yasuke.

I think using the Sumo Yurakuzu Byobu depiction would be more apt since we have more sources directly hypothesizing that it is Yasuke being depicted, especially given its relation to Oda Nobunaga and wrestling which make it far more relevant to Yasuke as a subject. If there is opposition to this then I will likely ask for comment from Wikiproject History (here) since I feel that discussion is more aptly about whether it is appropriate to use an image which is not certain to be the subject - however there are several times where statues, coins, tapestries, etc which are only hypothesized to be a particular figure are used. I likewise found nothing in the MOS for images suggesting this would be inappropriate.

• 
  Detail from the Sumō Yūrakuzu Byōbu

Relm (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view about which of the two images should be used for the infobox, but I would argue against removing the suzuri-bako from the article. We don't know if the black man in Portuguese clothes is Yasuke, but as Lockley notes in his book on Yasuke, the writing box shows clearly that not all Africans were slaves or indentured workers; the man portrayed here is quite clearly rich and prosperous [...] This is all evidence of a particular fascination the Japanese of the era had for markedly dark skin as evidenced by the public reaction—and Nobunaga’s forthcoming extreme favor toward Yasuke [...] Africans were rare but became very respected, and indeed popular, in Japan. MOS:IMAGEREL says that "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context", and this is an image of good quality which is clearly relevant to illustrate, if not the subject of the article, at least its social context. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has suggested to remove it from the page at all. Here I only believe that it should be the primary image used on the page if that context is with it to indicate what the sources say about the image rather than implying it is Yasuke by omission in the infobox. Relm (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The image of the ink-box should not be used in the info box at least, because it will mislead people's impression, with or without any comments attached. The info box definitely will be seen as major image of the subject by the reader and is not sincere to show the image with no evidence to the subject.

The article has section named "Possible depictions of Yasuke", this is problematic too, only one of three (Sumo restler) is argued that it could be Yasuke, though this is not supported by Japanese historians either. the Ink box and Nanban Screen only serve to add the context of this article rather than "Possible depictions of Yasuke". 2001:F74:8C00:2200:F0B0:1B90:D3B:111B (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's okay to use the ink-box. It has the strongest source of the three. 87.157.137.221 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't fool around, the Nanban Screens has the strongest source of the three.

Well, say it with the source if you believe so. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It was in the infobox for 3 months, so at least its been there for a while. Bladeandroid (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I will await for others to express their opinions, but I am sure that what you are doing will

only cause more repeated reverts. Currently, Yasuke page on Brittanica does not state that the ink stone box depiction is possibly Yasuke, maybe it may have been changed from before, and we know the Brittanica page is the product of Thomas Lockely.

the current source is "信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍" which I am able to check. the cited pages 147 and 148 do not seem adequate. p.147 says, roughly, "there is depiction of very tall man which seems to be Yasuke" as caption and nothing to back up his idea, it is just "it looks like Yasuke because he is tall" as bad as this.

and NOTHING about the ink stone box on p148.

on p.150 it says that the man in the ink stone box seems rich and generous, thus may be a goods-trader or some important / independent figure, and Lockley speculates that Yasuke might be hidden (depicted) in one of these art works.

It says other things that I can share, but I hope I do not have to write all. But this is it,

Lockley himself does not claim it strongly before and now (Brittanica). KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That's two mentions on p.147 and p.150. And he doesn't have to "back up his idea", to whatever standard of someone online (no offense!), if it's his expert professional view which it is since he published it. Bladeandroid (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Wrong understanding of Wikipedia, it needs consensus which is obviously missing here. Because it needs consensus, you should persuade editors here why the ink-stone-box depiction should be in the info box among the others.

The editor who reverts your edit says there is "zero evidence" and also "no consensus on the use of info box" (which I do not know the past discussions).

At least, I checked the source and found what I wrote above, and you are not reading it right. p.150 Lockley definitely does not claim "the painting in the ink stone box" to be Yasuke.

the Sumo wrestling painting has better chance only if I have to pick one. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It was in the infobox for 3 months, so it has consensus. You would need consensus to remove it. Bladeandroid (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Avoid stating opinions as facts(WP:WIKIVOICE).

"there is depiction of very tall man which seems to be Yasuke" is Lockely's opinion. Ink box picture with Yasuke name and born/died years suggests that the person is Yasuke, which is a fact. "There are mentions on the source" are not enouth to show them as facts, because secondary sources contain both opinions and facts of the topic, generally. NakajKak (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless historians were there in person it will be the historian's opinion after evaluating the evidence. This applies to every image on Wikipedia of every pre-modern historical figure, every roman bust, every painting. Yasuke shouldn't be singled out over gamergate outrage. Wikis are based on the views of the experts. It is an image connected to Yasuke by an expert in a reliable published source which is a very high standard. Higher than used in most places.

MOS:IMAGEREL says it is fine to use. Bladeandroid (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If the person of the figure, bust, or painting is identifed as a fact by historians, it is allowed to show the person of the picture as the person himself/herself as a fact. Fact is something that can be proved by anyone. Lockly just showed his opinion. Nobody can prove the person of the ink box is Yasuke so far. NakajKak (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

NakajKak is far more convincing than Bladeandroid.

I believe that the editors has tried not to use episodes that only comes from Lockely's book, though difference in the stance of the editors, that was for good for the article. Now it is loosing up or what. I hope the reverting of it do not become my daily chore lol. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In response to NajakKak, Lockley's opinion does matter. I can not count how many statues and artistic depictions would have to be scrubbed from Wikipedia pages for the ancient and early medieval periods if we could not rely on subject matter experts. If Lockley has said that it seems to be Yasuke in a peer reviewed publishing then that should be ascribed to Lockley directly as per the prior discussions about Lockley.

In response to Bladeandroid, silence is not consensus - especially when it was not raised on the talk page.

In response to KeiTakahashi999, this is clearly not the consensus of prior discussions about Lockley. The RSN and talk page discussion found consensus that Lockley's book African Samurai would not be used but that he qualifies as a valid subject matter expert and his more academic works are sufficient - though if he is the only one saying something that it should be directly attributed. You have cited "Lockley's episodes" to describe anything which relies on African Samurai, but the source provided is not from that book and should not be dismissed due to it being Lockley who wrote it as per the RSN. Lockley is used on the page in several places with direct attribution when it is only on his word. This is a case which seems to be only on his word.

Despite all of this, I would still prefer the Sumō Yūrakuzu Byōbu. It has been used to depict Yasuke elsewhere on Wikipedia already and seems more firmly connected in the sources. Relm (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Re the Sumō Yūrakuzu Byōbu [...] seems more firmly connected in the sources, I'd like to know which sources, apart from Lockley, connect the sumo wrestler to Yasuke. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

NajakKak stated the guideline of Wikipedia, you stated your opinion on other articles in Wikipedia.

To be fair and accurate to the readers, we need to be careful on what the secondary source truely is. The consensus on Lockley's product (non-novel ones) which I am aware, not all of the information written in those books be usable because some of them lack the source/citation. As NajakKak said, those are opinions and not facts, in that sense, that part (like this case of Ink stone box) is not a secondary source to anything, though the book itself may have the consensus as the secondary source.

If editors neglect that distinction, and claim they have consensus to be able to use them, the article would become a disaster because certainly Lockley says maaaany things in his book some of which editors here will not appriciate. Editors are equally valid to exploit those opinions with "Lockley suggests that..." while the others try to decline it based on their preferences, which will contradict their consensus.

The current article is not that way as you see, why? that is what I meant. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You need to read WP:QUO and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS which says "To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion" which means that your position on this is disruptive. 88.218.156.181 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have made no edits to the article removing or adding any images - I have just made a topic to discuss it to avoid even more of the edit warring that has been occuring. My position is not at all disruptive. WP:QUO also states that edit warring to maintain the status quo is disruptive. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS likewise states: "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted."

It was disputed and reverted.

There has never been talk page consensus for the edit, and the reason it is being discussed now is that there have been several different views on the image. What you are proposing is veering into WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING territory. Relm (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally I don't think the reasons here are good ones to remove the suzuri-bako from the lead. It should remain. 2A04:CEC2:5:680D:608E:D4DD:2937:F828 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I did some digging into the edit history:

• The first image to be added was a cropped version of the sumo depiction added on 27th of October [2]
• It was changed a few times and later replaced with the full image.
• Symphony Regalia changed it to the Suzuri-bako image on the 7th of November as one of their last edits to the page prior to their topic ban. There was no talk page discussion and the edit summary shows it was a matter of preference. [3]
• It stayed on the page static until it was first removed by Meeepmep on 25th of December. [4]
• It was then re-added by EEpic on 28th December as one of their last edits before their topic ban. [5]
• It was then re-removed by Meeepmep the following day. [6]
• Blueandroid then re-added the image on the 12th of January a few days ago. [7]

That is when the edit war began. There has never been a talk page consensus, only that the image remained on the page for approximately a month and a half. EEpic nor Meeepmep made an attempt to discuss their view on the talk page that I can find. The diffs show that it is largely a matter of preference between editors. I believe that this amount of edit warring over preference can not continue and that this may suggest that a formal RFC is required to prevent this from continuing to be an issue. Relm (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

As a 3rd party observer, I think you are being disruptive and tenacious. ~2 months present in the article has a strong implicit consensus that you aren't accepting. You're also bludgeoning in this topic when there isn't a strong agreement for the removal you want. 88.218.156.181 (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not arguing for its removal, I'm in favor of either image over no image. I just believe that an rfc may be needed to prevent further edit warring. Relm (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I'm now restoring the controversial image. I invite anyone who doesn't want it and prefers the sumo wrestler to start and RfC on the matter. Having no image at all is far worse than having the writing box, and replacing the writing box with the sumo wrestler requires consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2025

Hello, I'd like to add art that provides context to Yasuke in popular culture.

African Samurai

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yasuke_by_Anthony_Azekwoh.jpg NgAfLit (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I checked to make sure, and this seems to have been uploaded by an account alleging to be the artist (Anthony Azekwoh) to creative commons. They were contacted twice about not having fulfilled the requirements to submit it for usage, but I can't find the deletion discussions. I would be for adding it if it is in compliance but I am too inexperienced in that area and will defer to others. Relm (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am the artist Anthony Azekwoh and to prove it, I will tweet "wiki2025" exactly five minutes from this message. I did this painting in service to the history of this individual and I think it's been an important part of the culture 5 years later. If you can point me where I need to go to fulfil the requirements. I'd be happy to, apologies I missed these earlier. NgAfLit (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

[8]https://x.com/AnthonyAzekwoh/status/1880057973965480437 NgAfLit (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Wikipedia relies on common license in order to avoid lawsuits. I am largely unfamiliar with the process but it was linked to the uploader's wikimedia account here: [9]

Please refer to the posts there for details, and at this link: [10]

I hope this helps. @NgAfLit

While here, please refer to WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION irt editing about content related to yourself as it is a guideline that users are expected to follow. Relm (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)