@Tinynanorobots @Gitz6666

Apologies for the pings. The AE case caused me to realize that at some point Tinynanorobots changed the lede away from the prior RFC consensus to refer to Yasuke as a Samurai without qualifier in the lede. It was apart of the same edit reverted by EthiopianEpic that was discussed in the 'Some Recent Edits' section. In that section, Tinynanorobots claimed that Gitz had agreed to the changes - however, when I reviewed that section it was not clear to me that it was what they acquiesced to.

A consistent issue I've been noticing with the page is that several edits that occured during or just after the Arbcom case when most frequent editors of the page were otherwise preoccupied have remained without discussion, causing several 'trip ups' in regards to what has been on the page and for how long. In this regard I just want to confirm whether some form of agreement occurred since this seems like it goes against the RFC. Relm (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am leaving the above as it is, I initially made a mistake caused by some of the diffs having very different versions, leading me to think 'as a samurai...' had been removed from the lede, rather than just adding a clarification to the second paragraph. I still think this skirts the RFC, but I do not *disagree* with the edit.

I am instead now using this as a chance to fix the first paragraph. The former is how the page was before my edit, the latter is my patch that is closer to the original wording that has been on the page for months. Despite my best efforts, I still feel the sentence is clunky and insufficient.

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

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a samurai to Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, until the death of Nobunaga's heir, Oda Nobutada.

What I am looking to ask is how y'all believe the latter half should reference service under both Oda Nobunaga and Oda Nobutada until their deaths? Would replacing Oda Nobunaga to "the Oda clan" be preferable, or would that constitute synthesis? My current thought would be an edit along the lines of:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a samurai to the Oda clan between 1581 and 1582, until the death of Nobunaga's heir, Oda Nobutada.

Relm (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This comes across as casting aspersions to me. First, I don't think that the lead was stable, and I don't think anyone sneakily changed things as is implied. After the ArbCom, most of the frequent editors were banned, and the others seemed to stay away.

I understand that when the RfC said "without qualifications" it meant words like "possibly" but mainly in wikivoice. I don't see how one can argue that Gitz objected to my change, because he didn't object.

I agree that the line is chunky. My attempts to make the first line less chunky have been viewed as controversial. I think breaking up the sentence is the best way to go. What information is actually needed? The rest can go in another sentence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for any aspersions, they were not intentional. The initial portion came out of me misreading the inline citation's quote from vera as having replaced it in the first paragraph when viewed in the edit view and me scrambling to figure out when that happened and failing to do so until after I reread it a fourth time and caught myself. The portion about my thoughts on the state of the page are not an accusation about any particular editor, and moreso acknowledging that there was a significant drop in talk page activity relative to the changes being made on the page - some from editors who have since been put under sanctions for those edits. I understand your reaction to it, I could have worded myself more clearly, but it was just trying to denote that the page has changed a lot in a variety of small ways over the past month, and not all of them are easy to trace back.

For the second paragraph, phrases like 'signifying samurai status' were objected to pretty strongly during the second RFC. The way it is included in the lede seems perfectly fine to me though, which is why I noted that it seemed to conflict - but that I would support the edit. Likewise the assent from Gitz (here) did not seem clear as to what specifically they supported from the edit.

As for the opening sentence, I think it may be easier to get as much of it in one sentence as possible then work the rest into the next paragraph, but welcome any suggestions. My current thought for what that opening sentence would look like is:

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

The main issue with the sentence is that it tries to clarify that they began their service under Oda Nobunaga and it ended with the death of Oda Nobutada. The next paragraph includes the portion about Oda Nobunaga, so perhaps working the Oda Nobutada part into the next paragraph instead and reverting the first sentence to how it was prior to that insertion would work? Relm (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this change. I agree that none of this affects the RfC consensus; the previous text was consistent with the RfC, as is the current one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this and think the old text was better because Nobunaga is a lot more known. Based on the suggestion above I split it into two lines which should fix the clunkiness. EEpic (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You split the wrong sentence. Also, it seems that you are the only one here who think that indicating samurai status is against RfC. indicating samurai status matches Britannica, written by Lockley and Atkins. Additionally, the meaning is clearer. The fact that being given a stipend, house and sword are indications of samurai status is not likely known to the layman. These things aren't always mentioned in books about samurai, either. As a samurai isn't really supported by any source. CNN writes Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend. This line indicates that the house and stipend were in addition to becoming a samurai, although related to it. Not every samurai had a stipend or house. Some had fiefs instead of stipends, and others lived in barracks. "As a samurai" isn't as clear. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The RFC says There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification. Removing As a samurai and writing things like implying samurai status or indicating samurai status is adding a qualifier against what the RFC says. EEpic (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither indicating nor implying are qualifiers. No one is suggesting the article says implying. Who are you quoting? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. Misunderstandings happen, and I am glad we could clear this up.

I think the lead sentence had three different way to describe the time. First with dates, then with the period, and finally with an event that ends the service. I am not sure all these things are need in the first sentence. I am also not sure why the first paragraph needs to be one sentence. Thinking about it, Yasuke's service to the Oda clan probably ended with his capture, which I think was after Nobutada died (the Oda clan lost power, but did survive). His service to Nobunaga is more important than his service to Nobutada. Perhaps something like this would make sense:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a samurai of African origin. He served Oda Nobunaga from sometime in 1581 until the Honnō-ji incident in 1582, when Nobunaga died and Yasuke was captured.

The Honno-ji and Nobunaga are well known, so their mention indicates the time period. Those wanting to know more can click the links or read further. I would then change the line in the second paragraph about him accompanying Nobunaga, to something like this:

After Nobunaga died and Yasuke went to his heir and fought until captured. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Being captured didn't end his service. Yasuke's service as a samurai to Nobunaga ended because the Oda clan was killed. EEpic (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The Oda clan survives to this day. Nobutada's son was brought away from the Honno-ji incident, and one of his brothers also escaped. Other members of the family nearby and survived. I don't understand your comment in this diff[1] Which editor were you referring to? If the only thing you object to is about Yasuke being captured, then why revert everything? Also, what is your objection to mentioning that Yasuke was captured? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Being captured has nothing to do with his samurai service. His service to Nobunaga as a samurai ended with the death of Nobunaga. EEpic (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Him being captured prevented him from serving one of Nobunaga's sons or brothers. Also, it provides important context for Yasuke being returned to the Jesuits. I also don't think any of those reasons are grounds for exclusion. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is speculation to justify undue focus on a topic that has almost nothing to do with it. EEpic (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tinynanorobots I just saw the recent change and was wondering if you proposed that wording elsewhere and I am just not seeing it here.

The current first sentence of the lede being "Yasuke was a man of african origin." in my view fails the Wikipedia:Lead section TT first sentence content test.

Yasuke is not notable for being an african man. He is notable for being a samurai of African origin and serving Oda Nobunaga. I am thus reconnecting the sentences with a ", who..." Relm (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. "Yasuke was a samurai of African origin who served..." would be simpler and better, more compliant with MOS:FIRST Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit is fine. The change that moves the article away from consensus is the repeat removal of "As a samurai" to change it out for "signifying samurai status" which is against There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification. EEpic (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There's just never any middle ground with you people. It's always your way or the highway. 59.11.212.79 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It is actually just one person who is objecting. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement on most of the topics here. EEpic (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The language proposed by Tinynanorobots is well suited for the article. It's more consistent with the text used in the secondary sources as mentioned above. Green Caffeine (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a clear RfC violation. 221.158.127.77 (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In which way? It doesn't contain a qualifier, ("indicating" is a verb) and it is written in WikiVoice and doesn't cast doubt on Yasuke's status. Which one of these sentences is logical?

A ...indicating samurai status, therefore Yasuke is a samurai.

B ...indicating samurai status, therefore Yasuke is a not samurai.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

According to Samurai article, the term "samurai" was vague during Sengoku Period. So, whether Yasuke was a samurai or not is biased opinion.

We need to obey WP:SUBSTANTIATE rule here;

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution.

NakajKak (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why those like Tinynanorobots and NakajKak (possible sock of Tinynanorobots) are still attempting to downplay that Yasuke was a samurai when it's already widely known, but it's not productive. 79.199.139.135 (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's strange for me to say this, but I'll reply.

No clear evidence exists that Yasuke is a samurai. This article states that he is a samurai, but this was decided in a situation where there were only Westerners. Currently, the agreement at that time is valid, so it is not allowed to be changed. If the Japanese had known that such a discussion was taking place, they might have submitted negative opinions one after another and the proposal would have been rejected. That is how fragile the evidence that he is a samurai is. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the word samurai itself does not fully express various Japanese words, and that there are limits to the expressiveness of English.

Japanese people can read primary and secondary sources written in Japanese. They can use various words other than samurai. In the article on Yasuke on the Japanese Wikipedia, the words samurai and bushi do not appear even once. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I am actually annoyed at NakajKak. I think he read the topic heading and thinks this is a discussion about samurai status and not about wording. His post is counterproductive and off-topic. Yasuke being a samurai is current scholarship, although there are experts that are uncertain. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Very strange that you would accuse Tinynanorobots of being a sock after EEpic was accused of being a sock of Symphony Regalia.

I strongly believe that YOU are the sock of Symphony Regalia/EEpic once again engaging in disruptive behavior. 183.98.166.195 (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not true and the IP User:183.98.166.195 is blocked as a proxy. EEpic (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tofflenheim,

1. This edit removes As a samurai and replaces it with indicating samurai status which is against the RFC consensus: "There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification"

2. This edit adds Captured which was discussed above and doesn't have talk page consensus on account of it not being related to the duration of his samurai service. Similar comments in respect to edits inserting "slave".

By WP:ONUS can you seek consensus first before making these changes? EEpic (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

indicating samurai status is not a qualification. He is plainly stated as a samurai in the first sentence.

2. "Yasuke was captured by Mitsuhide’s vassals" this is from Thomas Lockley's brittanica article, the same source used as the rest. There is no clear reason why the sentence can only be about the duration of his service. Tofflenheim (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The status quo of As a samurai is a direct statement. Removing that and replacing it with indicating samurai status is introducing uncertainty which is against the RFC consensus, which says that it should not be qualified or presented as an object of debate.

For this and the captured change, as well as editing that labels him as a slave, you should follow the consensus building process outlined in WP:ONUS and seek consensus prior to reinserting them given that they've been contested by editors. Hope that helps. EEpic (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear about the sequence of events.

After the RFC, well before you started editing, the article read as follows: "He was granted a sword, a house and a stipend." No mention of the word samurai at all in this sentence, for months after the RFC.

It wasn't until this diff by Symphony Regalia (now topic banned for adversarial behavior from this article) in Nov, well after RFC, that this "as a samurai" line was added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=1255054230&oldid=1255051519

Since then, it was edited, removed, in various ways and SR kept reintroducing it using the same line of argument you are using until he was topic banned at which point you promptly picked up the cause.

This line is not part of the RFC. The RFC line in the first sentence is clearly indicated in a comment when you edit the source.

On top of this, the phrase you are trying to edit, "indicating samurai status" clearly states that he is recognized as a samurai, it does not go against RFC whatsoever and is not a qualifying statement at all.

The other edit about him being captured is not a comment about him being a slaved. It is a direct quote from the Brittanica Article by Lockley, I quote: "Yasuke was captured by Mitsuhide’s vassals, but Mitsuhide saw him and released him, describing him in bestial terms. Mitsuhide suggested that because Yasuke wasn’t Japanese, his life should be spared; he was not expected to perform seppuku as had Nobutada and the other defeated samurai. 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." This is merely a sequence of events that occurred. Also, I have not mentioned anything about slaving or being a slave in this series of edits. Please be clear / don't muddy the water with other topics which don't have to do with these reverts.

Please wait for consensus for making changes before editing the article with your own POV. If you want to revert, then revert to the status quo before disruptive editor Symphony Regalia added POV.

Hope that helps. Tofflenheim (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Just checked and "As a samurai" was present as far back as June in response to the RFC consensus, so it has long been the status quo. EEpic (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"As a samurai" replaced "as a retainer". You didn't just discover that. It was already mentioned as part of the SPI. "As a samurai" was challenged and arguably had no consensus. That isn't important though. Being status quo isn't an argument against change. Several users support "signifying samurai status". A compromise could be to remove both until consensus is found. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that removing "As a samurai" looks to be the intention, that's not a compromise. RFCs are not supposed to be overturned by one or two editors. EEpic (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any form of consensus for removing As a samurai or such wording from the article. Silverseren^C 22:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It was discussed by Tinynanrobots and Gitz during the arbcom case. Gitz assented to it but I did not think it was clear. It was clarified and assented to by myself (here).

Tinynanrobots and EEpic were topic banned at Arb Enforcement yesterday and can no longer comment - but I will give my attempt at the argument.

"As a samurai, Yasuke recieved x y and z" the first portion 'As a Samurai' implies he recieved these things as part of his service after obtaining that status. Cutting that first clause and adding ", indicating samurai status" to the end is closer to the sources (the phrasing is borrowed largely from Atkins Vera if I recall) who use this to assert that Yasuke was a Samurai.

The only way this could be interpreted as violating the RFC is if 'status' is taken as a qualifier. I fail to understand any other way to phrase the sentence, so to me it looks like:

1. The more rigid interpretation of the RFC which was only ever held to by Symphony Regalia and EEpic who are both topic banned stands and the version SR added is kept. I would still contest that the clause 'as a samurai' does nothing in the sentence but make it more confusing what it is attempting to say. I would be open to rewordings.

2. The sentence is altered to Tinynanorobots suggestion, maybe with a rephrasing of 'samurai status' though I am unsure what that would be.

3. The entire sentence, as its purpose is to describe why Historians assert that Yasuke was a samurai, is a qualifier in and of itself and is moved to the body of the article rather than the lede. Relm (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

"qualification" is still confusing word for me, and I'm not sure the word stands for qualifier in English grammar as Tinynanorobots interpreted. Though, I disagree with Symphony Regalia/EEpic version which adds a new nuance that is not mentionted in the original source. I think Tinynanorobots/Tofflenheim version is better one. Although someone may feel inserting "indicating/signifying..." will generate uncertainty of samurai status, this just suggests that the source has such uncetainty originally.

Moving the sentence or "indicating..." phrase whould be the best one personally. From "According to historical accounts," to the end of the lede focuses on the historic records. Inserting historians' assertation there will generate misleadingness. Though, I concern that some people here think "indicating samurai status" is historical fact rather than historians' assertation. NakajKak (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

If it at all suggested uncertainty I would be against the wording. I am arguing that it doesn't, because it is at its core the explanation for the historical interpretation. English Wikipedia prioritizes secondary scholarship interpretation of primary sources over primary sources - for good reason. The 'without qualifier' was part of the RFC because of many attempts to subvert the RFC by placing primary sources higher than their secondary scholarship.

'indicating' and 'signifying' are not words that denote lack of certainty, they attribute reasons for an interpretation. Relm (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The rfc consensus phrase "There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification" is somewhat vague and misleading. It is not fully explained there. EEpic interprets this phrase that the description of samurai status of Yasuke have to be definitive form. Tofflenheim probably interprets this as citation manner; "without qualification" means without authors' attribution, such as "according to (author)" or "(authour) aruges".NakajKak (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

As someone who was apart of that RFC, 'without qualifier' requires some context. Prior to the RFC many people desired a full change from samurai to retainer and/or servant. At the time (and still to now) there were not reliable sources to make such a change. After that conversation stalled, many attempted to situate 'samurai' within a larger qualification of that term to indicate that it was illegitimate. 'Without qualifier' as I always understood the RFC was to avoid people attempting to place asterisks in the lede to the term to otherwise bypass the consensus. Relm (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I also see no consensus for removing as a samurai or the other edits. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Luis Frois' report to Jesuit Society, November 5, 1582:

And the cafre the Visitador [Alessandro Valignano] gave to Nobunaga on his request, after his death went to the mansion of his heir and fought there for a long time, but when one of Akechi's vassals got close and asked him give up his sword, he handed it over. The vassals went and asked Akechi what to do with the cafre [sic: term referencing yasuke meaning slave/savage], he said the cafre is like an animal and knows nothing, and he's not Japanese so don't kill him and give him to the church of the Indian padre. With this we were a bit relieved.

sources:

https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/bg5/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18_item1/P744.html

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/164

Is this account valid to be added to the article in some way, or due to the type of source it is does it need some other type of reference? This clearly shines a different light on Yasuke's status/view among his contemporaries. Tofflenheim (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The account is covered in the article. If you are asking if you can put the quote back in, it was removed mainly because of concerns about the translation. The original language is Portuguese, but it was translated from Japanese, and was inconsistent with how it translated words. There are some scholarly sources that discuss it, though. I think we should get a better translation before entering it. Cafre doesn't mean savage. It meant black African, it could refer to free Africans, but it had a connotation of slave. The Portuguese had slaves and servants from other parts of Asia in Japan as well as Africa, so this one way it is known that Yasuke is black and not Indian or Malaysian. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That quote is relatively rare that it touches on Yasuke (only mentioned as Cafre) in some length, and should be put back in the page.

I do not think there is translation problem in the Japanese sources for there are at least

2 major translations by professionals I think (I mean PortugueseToJapanese here).

and going from Japanese to English, we can easily verify with various machine translations nowadays.

Plus, problems with translation are not really a excuse not to have in the article, or you can leave the word Cafre as it is if that is the word-in-question with some comments why doing so.

While it may not be difficult to find the english web article that touches on this material, why try finding less professional? One cannot claim that Japanese professional works are wrong in translation(Portuguese to Japanese), it does not mean anything saying so, or it will not be disqualified as the secondary source even some errors are contained (and I do not think there are crucial errors).

Some sources used in this article are Japanese and of Japanese web articles and editors put their own translations which may contain error of course, and how is this different? 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good content to return to in the article. If you are concerned about the translation content, write in both Portuguese and Japanese. Readers can choose whichever is easier for them to read. If the translation is incorrect, someone who knows Portuguese will probably notice and tell you.

For example, like this article.[2] 140.227.46.9 (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the relevant manual of style: MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. It also should be applied to the other quotes here. There is no objection to putting the quote in. Although I wonder if it is needed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

it should always be pointed out, that the term cafre was not simply used to describe black africans, it was more specific used to describe non-muslim in eastern-africa and was adopted for these eastern african natives/slaves and with a similar view on it, like the N-word in the Atlantic slave trade, it was used in the Asian slave-trade for slaves from this location.

i will just add, that the article should and is stating, that Cafre is a term regularly used to describe slaves in Portuguese in these times, explicit in their colonies...-- ErikWar19 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Several other editors contested this as inaccurate and/or OR - including when it was brought up by you in the past. (1) (2) (3) Relm (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this will improve the article, especially with the poor translation, and because it's already covered. EEpic (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

well, it appears that there is not much argument besides the wording of "Cafre" if I am understanding everyone correctly. The translating the word "Cafre" is treated as "the black man" in other places in the article so that should not cause any problem if it is kept that way.

Please be specific on what you think was poorly translated before, or else I will put the quote and the translation back to the article soon. As written above somewhere, insisting that the secondary source being inaccurate or having poor translation (?) could easily be considered the Original Research I think, so please be at your best to explain your opnion if you have one. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@NutmegCoffeeTea This section is about discussing whether it should be included that Yasuke was a slave, before serving Nobunaga. Please don't bring up the possibility of him being a slave afterwards, because that could disrail the discussion. There are plenty of sources that say he was a slave. Besides the sources cited in the article, most times that Lockley mentions that Yasuke was free at the time he came to Japan, the existence of other theories is acknowledged, also he usually phrases it as "I believe" In his 2017 paper, he lists the idea of Yasuke being a freedman as just one possibility. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If we could have some verbatim quotations from the sources (with references) dealing with the slave issue, that would be helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, although you have probably read some of them before.

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. There, Lockley said the man could have been a military slave or an indentured soldier, but he “probably got his freedom before meeting Valignano.”[3]

So, even as he disagrees, Lockley mentions that Yasuke being a military slave was a possibility.

It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyo's service[4]

Lopez writes this after referring to Yasuke as a slave 3 times.

a mob in Kyoto broke down the door of a Jesuit residence in their eagerness to see an African slave.[5]

an African slave in the retinue of a visiting superior...[6]

There are some other sources that mention that Yasuke was a slave, but aren't clear if that was just when he was a child, or also when he arrived in Japan. What is actually wrong with the disputed sentence? It isn't weasel words, and the last challenge was just, this was removed before. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, then I see no problem with the proposed text, Some historians believe that he was a slave when he arrived in Japan, only gaining his freedom when serving Nobunaga. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is due at all especially with a major source disputing it. EEpic (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What major source is disputing that some historians say Yasuke was a slave upon arrival?

Himaldrmann (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Who is "some"? Lockley disputes it Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor. EEpic (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I am sure that you know it does not really matter, "personally I think" here.

and Why editors here still regard Lockley's statements to be arguable opinions when many of his statements are mere speculations that are based on "if"s and "might have been"s.

One must check on how other Black men served the Portuguese missionaries around the time of 1580, and on what circumstances they become non-slaves (I know the missionaries did not use the term slave which seems like just a "guise") and what changes would that mean when they gain freedom (if such really was a rule) outside their homeland, what could they do really? buy a ticket to their homeland? or they may choose to continue serving the same master?

and of course the Argument is still not be applicable to Yasuke himself, who does not have much record other than being called like "(our) Cafre" in the missionary's letters. 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As I see it in context, Lockley lists several options and says which one he leans towards. Compare this to who he talks about Yasuke's place of origin. Lockley wrote in 2017 that there were 4 possibilities. In 2019 he had settled on one, and even said in an interview that it was pretty much certain. However, he has also admitted that the majority opinion is that Yasuke was from Mozambique. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Pardon, I may have misunderstood what you meant---I was trying to say that I think that "some historians believe Yasuke was a slave at his coming to Japan" is true, but that "Yasuke was definitely a slave when he arrived at Japan" is disputed. I.e., it is true to say the former ("some dispute whether he was a slave..."), but not the latter ("he was a slave..."); or, at least, not without qualification.

IMO, it seems almost certain that Yasuke was not a slave upon arrival---it wouldn't have been too uncommon, esp. given the company he was traveling with (though not a universal qualm, many Jesuit missionaries were opposed to slavery, as was---IIRC---Valignano); and Yasuke appears to have been a relatively independent agent soon after arrival (with no intervening record of "Padre Valignano freed his slave yesterday" or the like, AFAIK)...

(...but, as the unnamed commenter above notes, I suppose an "IMO" carries little weight, heh.)

Himaldrmann (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I do not oppose if the article writes Yasuke is believed to be from Mozambique.

I am just not sure what exactly what this section is aiming at, whether Lockley insists that Yasuke was from region A or B, such definitive primary source has not been found to pin down the truth. Valigniano once received 3 Cafres in Mozanbique and kept 1 Cafre with him during his travel, and even that is impossible to say that the it really was Yasuke, this is the fact that the discoverer of this source admits and is how little the primary source is left about Yasuke.

That make it nonsense to further-speculate that he was a "free actor" or a "slave", because there is no primary source for Yasuke to prove it, not to mention there may be badly speculated products out there with full of "if so, it might have been" s, I wonder whether they really are qualified as secondary source when sources/citations are not to be verified.

On contrary, there is missionary's letter (Cartas de Evora, definitive prime source) which touches on Cafre (Yasuke ) that missionarys think because Japanese people wanted to see black man eagerly, they can easily make a lot of money if they showcase him. Is this what you think of a treatment of "non-slave but free actor"? 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point!

(...on the other hand, I'd showcase myself to Japanese people all day, no problem, if some missionaries came up & told me we'd make a lot of money doing it--) [*cough*]

Himaldrmann (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can answer the question, "was Yasuke a slave?". The question is do historians think he is a slave? The answer is yes, some do. It actually appears to be the majority opinion, and I don't understand giving Lockley's personal belief more weight than the opinions of experts more qualified than him. Brockey specializes in Portuguese and Jesuit history. Lockley also said in his 2017 paper that Yasuke probably didn't have much of a choice if he served Nobunaga or not. Lockley himself says that some historians believe that he was a slave, so that he could be cited as a source.

So is it okay to restore Some historians believe that he was a slave when he arrived in Japan, only gaining his freedom when serving Nobunaga. I think that it would go against NPOV not to. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a footnote that is contested by historians. You seem to have a fixtation with denying that Yasuke was a samurai and calling him a slave. 79.199.139.135 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

even Lockley called him in a youtube video 2021 a slave. You have a different fixation to erase slave history to be able to justify, that he was only a samurai. I can pull out a source from 2009, that calls him a slave too, if you need a RS, btw. the author is already mentioned in this article as a source in a different content.-- ErikWar19 (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Please give the source then. Lockley's interview on youtube is not as high quality or recent as his other works where he suggests otherwise. I have not reviewed a lot of the sources in a while though so I am unsure what his most recent view is. Relm (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are looking for the source which Lockley states Yasuke was a slave, I will write one for you.

信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍 2017/1/25

from this book:

[7]https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E3%81%A8%E5%BC%A5%E5%8A%A9-%E6%9C%AC%E8%83%BD%E5%AF%BA%E3%82%92%E7%94%9F%E3%81%8D%E5%BB%B6%E3%81%B3%E3%81%9F%E9%BB%92%E4%BA%BA%E4%BE%8D-%E3%83%AD%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC-%E3%83%88%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B9/dp/4778315561

Probably the most comprehensive Yasuke book among the Lockley's and the one the author claims to be academic, which I do not think so.

In the book, there are many moments that the author refers to Yasuke's status as servant, slave, or a contracted worker, well, he says many things.

Basically his view is that the Portuguese missionaries refrained to call their fellows "slaves" but they were essentially slaves (or servants) and Yasuke was the one.

and know that there is a difference in the nuance what one might imagine from the modern word "slave".

I do not want to dig into his book much for I do not believe it is academic, but this line is relatively strong so I will write one.

Firstly in Japanese as the original and then machine translated version.

p78. After refering to Ietada Diary.

「...ありがたいことに ”宣教師が信長に贈った” 黒人であると特定されているため、これが弥助についての記述であること、また弥助が献上品として ”進上された” ことの確証にもなっている。もし特定されていなければ、実はほかにも黒人侍がいたのではないかと考慮しなければならなかっただろう。さらに、ヴァリニャーノの従者だったころの弥助は、自由な身分ではなく、奴隷だったことも裏付けられた。」

the machine translation (After refering to Ietada Diary):

`...thankfully, since the missionary is identified as the black man who was "presented to Nobunaga, this confirms that this is a description of Yasuke, and that Yasuke was "advanced as an offering. If they had been identified, they would have had to wonder if there were actually other black samurai. Furthermore, it was confirmed that Yasuke, when he was Valignano's servant, was not a free thinker, but was a slave.'

end of the translation

I kept it as it is though it may seem a bit awkward to avoid forgery, so test it yourselves with different translations.

and really, where does this lead to? Lockley says here Yasuke was a slave during his service to Valigniano, and perhaps (without any citations here) was gained freedom upon dedication to Nobunaga, to me is nothing more than his speculation. and he might say differently at different page, that is how he is. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 [8], 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)

In reviewing the references for a discussion above, I noticed that two sources had been incorrectly merged into one reference:

• Lockley, Thomas (February 2017). 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍 [The story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African retainer] (PDF). Translated by Yoshiko Fuji. Ohta Publishing. ISBN 978-4-7783-1556-6.

The Japanese title and IBSN refer to one source; the linked .pdf and translated title to another. Wikiblame suggests that this merge originally occurred in this edit by Wham2001.

The two sources are:

• 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍 (Nobunaga & Yasuke : Black Samurai who survived Honnoji) - Thomas Lockley's 2017 book, published by Ohta.
• The story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African retainer - Thomas Lockley's 2016 section in 桜文論叢 91, 89-127; special edition.

While there is significant proportion of common content, these are distinct works, and the merging of them is likely to have caused some of the confusion in discussions above; where editors may have been discussing different sources as though they were one & same.

Examining the previous versions of the article, the 2016 source appears to have been used only once. We no longer use the merged source for the content in that instance; having replaced it with another, likely better, source.

I intend to resolve this issue by removing the link to the 2016 source and replacing the translated title in the combined reference; leaving the details of 2017 source. No change to article content.

I will check, but would appreciate if editors could independently confirm that the merged source is not used in other places where the article text is supported only by the 2016 article - The story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African retainer - and not the 2017 book. Also appreciate if editors could confirm that the content referencing the 2017 book is directly supported by that source. I do not have a copy, so cannot confirm either.

We also have several repeated sources listed multiple times, which could be merged. Rotary Engine ^talk 13:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Changes to the reference done, as described. Rotary Engine ^talk 14:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

I read the discussion below, but to my understanding if a historian only briefly speculates a possibility, shouldn't that be reflected as such in reference to the image included in the article? I don't think one should claim as fact that "the sumo wrestler is Yasuke" if the linked source doesn't make that statement. SmallMender (talk) 10:43, 20 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 [9]
• 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. [10]
• It stayed on the page static until it was first removed by Meeepmep on 25th of December. [11]
• It was then re-added by EEpic on 28th December as one of their last edits before their topic ban. [12]
• It was then re-removed by Meeepmep the following day. [13]
• Blueandroid then re-added the image on the 12th of January a few days ago. [14]

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)

Thank you to @RelmC for opening this section. There are some interesting questions raised in the discussion above. Including: the extent of support in reliable sources for the view that either image depicts the article subject; the extent to which use in the Infobox implies that the image factually does depict the subject. Suggest that a brief survey of the sources might be enlightening.

The Sumō Yūrakuzu Byōbu is explicitly mentioned as a possible depiction in African Samurai (Lockley & Girard) & Britannica's article on Yasuke (Lockley).

The Rinpa Suzuri-bako is not explicitly mentioned in either of those works; but perhaps alluded to in Britannica some pictorial evidence thought to depict Yasuke on a range of lacquerware accessories such as ... writing boxes ... authenticating these ... as genuine portraiture has not yet proved possible. There is a disagreement in the discussion above as to whether it is mentioned in Lockley's "信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍"; a source to which I do not have ready access.

Both the Byobu & Suzuri-bako works are explicitly mentioned as possible depictions of Yasuke in the notes of E. Taylor Atkins "A History of Popular Culture in Japan".

Neither work is mentioned in: Lockley's "The story of Yasuke: Nobunaga’s African retainer"; his original, speculative, paper written on the retirement of Prof. John B. Power.

Neither work is mentioned in Lopez-Vera's sidebar in "History of the Samurai".

As listed at Commons, the original source for the Byobu image is an exhibition in Katsuragi City, Nara Pref; the original source for the Suzuri-bako a Portuguese museum. I am unable to ascertain whether either of those sources made any claims as to potential depictions in the respective works. Without evidence, it would be safest to assume not.

On this initial, and very incomplete, survey, the sourcing for the Byobu image claim appears stronger. I welcome additional sources.

Based on review of the article history, and of the discussion above, concur that there has never been a consensus for the inclusion of the suzuri bako image in the Infobox. It would be helpful if editors would make substantive arguments for or against the use of either image, rather than procedural arguments. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Another option would be the use of a modern depiction, such as the excellent image by Anthony Azekwoh, discussed in the section below; attributed in the caption, of course. This image has the advantage that it is known to be intended to portray Yasuke, albeit a fictionalised, pop culture, version of the historical person. Personally, for the Infobox, I would favour this over either the Byobu or Suzuri-bako images. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think an RfC on this would be entirely appropriate. My two cents: I would strongly oppose any modern depiction such as Anthony Azekwoh's, which I find unhistorical and questionable per WP:OR and WP:PROMO. As for the choice between the writing box and the sumo wrestler, I'm almost neutral, but have a slight preference for the writing box. I gave my reason above quoting Lockley: the writing box shows that not all Africans were slaves and some of them were very respected in Japan. From a contemporary perspective, the sumo wrestler is a bit stereotypical - the black man is primarily a tough fighter - while the writing box challenges current stereotypes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

For historical figures, if there exists even a possible or speculated-on depiction of them from a contemporary or near-contemporary work, I believe that to be preferable to a modern depiction. Thus I would strongly prefer either the byobo or suzuri-bako. I view Anthony Azekwoh's work as being due for inclusion in the 'In Popular Culture' section as a notable artist's depiction.

Between the two, I would prefer the byobo. This is because it is more relevant to Yasuke specifically through depicting his sumo wrestling infront of Nobunaga. The suzuri bako is a depiction which - though it could possibly be Yasuke - is less firm in the connection as there is nothing identifying Yasuke more than any other African man in service to the portuguese of the time (of which there were many, including others who fought in Japan at the Battle of Okitanawate)

I had not considered the argument regarding challenging stereotypes. I think that is one of the valuable additions of the suzuri bako, but I do not believe that qualifies it to be the lede image. I would be in favor of adding more context to the article about Africans in the service of the Portuguese in Japan - which I do not believe is an article by itself at the moment.

As another note on Anthony Azekwoh's depiction, I also think it highlights a deficiency of the article being that we definitely have enough sources to discuss Yasuke in the context of African and/or African American culture (several of the articles that were scrubbed from the page for being news outlets rather than historical texts focused moreso on this for example). If the sources are as I remember them, I believe this would be an addition that is further away from the contentious aspects of the topic since it is easier to point to news coverage as reliable secondary sources there. Relm (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy to take onboard opinions on the use of modern depictions in the Infobox and fall in line with any consensus that emerges.

I didn't read Gitz' earlier comment as supporting the use of the suzuri-bako image over the byobu image in the Infobox, but as opposing removal of the suzuri-bako image from the article. Comfortable to accept it in either or both of those senses. Concur with you both that challenging stereotypes is a noble & laudable goal. But it is perhaps an orthogonal goal - neither contrary nor aligned to creating an encyclopaedia.

Agree with Relm's suggestion that there is a deficiency in coverage of Yasuke in the context African & African Diasporal cultures. Happy to work on expanding that aspect, but suggest it would be best to split discussion to a new section. Rotary Engine ^talk 02:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The writing box has better sourcing in my opinion and is more overall relevant. I don't see a reason to remove it. The sumo image is a bit bizarre and has two people centered in the frame. I also think the contemporary art isn't appropriate for the infobox. Bladeandroid (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The writing box has better sourcing in my opinion. Great. But which sources?

Per the initial survey above, I could verify only one source - a footnote in E. Taylor Atkins' "A History of Popular Culture in Japan" - with the potential for a second - Lockley's 2017 book "信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍", to which I do not have access.

For the Byobu, I was able to verify three sources - including the same Atkins footnote - with the potential addition of the same Lockley book. Without additional sources, the sourcing for the suzuri-bako claim is a strict subset of the sourcing for the byobu claim - and consequently must have weaker sourcing.

(That said, with between one to four sources, neither claim's sourcing is particularly strong).

If additional sources for either claim are provided, they may well prove dispositive; allowing us all to move on.

... and is more overall relevant. In what sense? Rotary Engine ^talk 02:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This is because you're counting the same material as valid for the change you want but not the other, and using shifting definitions like "potential for a second", - etc. It strikes me as unusual. The writing box has better sourcing in my opinion. A History of Popular Culture in Japan, two mentions in 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍, and a mention in Britannica for four published mentions. The sumo image is confusing with two central subjects and motivation doesn't seem to be anything that would improve the article. Bladeandroid (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It strikes me as unusual that you are not considering what other editors have pointed out;

the Brittanica says "although authenticating these pieces as genuine portraiture has not yet proved possible.", that is not countable.

the 信長と弥助 book really is questionable that p150 is not refering to the Yasuke if it is explained correctly above. p147 - well, image and the caption that is it? maybe you should explain your interpretation if you are pushing on these pages of the book, section below says the citation was messed-up and you have been pushing on it with wrong page number though the other editor has reverted of the reason, plus, the citation was wrong itself.

A History of Popular Culture in Japan obviously seems recent and I am not sure how much weight that it has for editors here, I wish to know what actually is written in the book if anyone can share.

Afterall, does anyone really cares if it is historically correct rather than counting it is mentioned here and there 1,2,3 ? Maybe Sumo painting gets more "counting" IMO.

"Without evidence, it would be safest to assume not" very well said, to me is better to use the recent art works. 2001:F74:8C00:2200:487E:90E:EF31:B93C (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The Talk Page sections look bad now, but this section still needs some reach point.

the current lead image of Yasuke, 'the Ink-Stone-Box', is temporarily set without consensus so far, Gitz has drawn that temporarily line somewhat forcibly, sorry if it is only me feel so, but this should not be the conclusion of the discussion here.

RelmC (and the opinions similar) prefers 'the Sumo Wrestlers' to 'the Ink-Stone-Box' because it aligns more to the historical descriptions of Yasuke; the physical strength, Nobunaga's favor toward sumo wrestling, or the other related episodes which I might not know.

Gitz and BladeAndroid (and the opinions similar) are in favor of 'the Ink-Stone-Box', the reasons being; it has focus on the different perspective of the black people (Gitz). or have the clearer focus to the subject imagewise (BladeAndroid) , etc.

and Rotary Engine and the other editors, I am sorry not to cover your opinions for I only took the ones that are clear. Further elaboration is really-really welcomed(rather needed), but no one has done much for some time. No one provided the historical evidence that states those images depicted is Yasuke, only those speculated by Thomas Lockley, or sources that uses him directory or are seemingly under the influence of him.

If these are the all to be considered, my opinion would be to have 'No Image' for the info box or profile-like section of the article.

If the number of "mentioned" matters for this article, 'the sumo wrestling painting' will have more "mentioned".

one can easily google it like below:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke

https://dot.asahi.com/articles/-/83724?page=1

https://www.cnn.co.jp/world/35138192.html

https://bunshun.jp/bungeishunju/articles/h2624

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/who-was-yasuke-japans-first-black-samurai-180981416/

while, 'the ink stone box' is hard to find.

- the Brittanica does not even show the image, plus, it says this: "although authenticating these pieces as genuine portraiture has not yet proved possible" at the line that seems to imply the inclusion of the ink stone box. This is updated on Dec 20, 2024, so is fairly recent of Lockley's opinion.

- the much older Lockley book "信長と弥助": p147 uses the image and the caption which I explained before, again p150 is NOT connected directly to Yasuke, so do not push it, I will explain why if I have to. (thus the current article quotes it wrong).

- "A History of Popular Culture in Japan" : as far as we know, the Sumo painting is also mentioned anyway, so does not make any difference to count the mentions.

While I understand the desire for a readily identifiable image, the article should not use an image that could mislead readers. Although the current version includes a little caption I noticed, I do not consider this as some compromise, as this image lacks documented evidence, and I am concerned about the editors attitude here. To avoid further disputes, it would be preferable to use a fictional representation or, ideally, no image at all. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that Lockley and others (in the case of the Sumo it was more than just Lockley who mentioned it) are not sufficient for the image to be due for use as the lede image. You are right that nothing formal was ever done though, so I will see if I can format a proper RFC, and then go and inform the relevant groups. Relm (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

[15]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: [16]

Please refer to the posts there for details, and at this link: [17]

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)

Hello, permission given and all sorted. 102.89.47.40 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there is any policy aligned objection to including this image with an appropriate description? If not, I suggest that it does add context to & understanding of popular culture conceptions of the article subject. Rotary Engine ^talk 14:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be a fine addition, so long as it's noted as a modern artist's rendition (I mean, it's pretty obvious that it would be, but I think it's important to note the time period since we also have some more contemporary artwork). While we're on the subject, where in the article should it be placed? The suzuri-bako image in the infobox is repeated in the "in popular culture" section, so presumably the portrait could replace one of those? My slight preference is for the infobox - we don't really have a depiction of Yasuke in the article other than the duplicated suzuri-bako, which doesn't provide much in the way of context. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ivanvector Perhaps something like "A modern rendition of Yasuke as Samurai Warrior by Nigerian artist Anthony Azekwoh, typifying popular culture conceptions". Too long? If we prefer not to mention the artist by name then "A modern artist's rendition of Yasuke as Samurai Warrior, typifying popular culture conceptions"? Rotary Engine ^talk 02:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a modern fan art is encyclopedic and I think it would be out of place in a historical article about someone who lived in the 1500s. The exception would be if the creator has relation to the topic but it doesn't appear that this is the case. Bladeandroid (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

If we have enough reliable sources to add a line of text about Anthony Azekwoh's work on Yasuke in the "In popular culture" section, then I would agree to include this image. Otherwise, the image would be irrelevant and unencyclopaedic (MOS:IMAGEREL), its inclusion would be WP:PROMO and the caption typifying popular culture conceptions would be WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay yeah, those are all good points. I was going off the appearance of artistic depictions in similar articles (and of other historical figures in this article) but I see now that all of those are notable artworks on their own. I don't think we can use this image. If it's compatibly licensed it should be fine to upload to Commons though, and we could add the commons category link to external links here (see c:Category:Yasuke, it's pretty bare). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an RFC on this at Talk:Yasuke#RfC on Infobox Image. Please make your arguments for the image there. TarnishedPath^talk 11:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)