Talk:Yasuke

not a samurai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

It would be insightful to mention in the section on popculture and Assassin's Creed, that following controversies, Ubisoft in a notice for the Japanese community acknowledged that Yasuke being a samurai is a matter of debate and discussion, and AC games are works of fiction inspired by real historical events and figures. 2A02:A310:C0AA:4280:7D84:7E8E:3D81:E638 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yasuke WAS a samurai. 80.161.179.99 (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Yasuke was NOT a samurai. 2601:804:8400:5B20:E08F:4789:5BF5:8A13 (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

He was a samurai. 89.226.218.142 (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

There continues to be no evidence of him being a samurai, he was a retainer and a novelty. Him being given an allowance and being allowed to hold Oda's property does not make him a samurai. This is improper attribution and the Japanese state has already repeatedly mentioned that he was not a samurai. It's a racist western fetish to attribute him as such. Irnotpirate (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources say he was a samurai. Using derogatory terms like novelty you are obviously wrong. The only racism I see is coming from the gamergators. 89.226.218.142 (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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 [1]
• 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. [2]
• It stayed on the page static until it was first removed by Meeepmep on 25th of December. [3]
• It was then re-added by EEpic on 28th December as one of their last edits before their topic ban. [4]
• It was then re-removed by Meeepmep the following day. [5]
• Blueandroid then re-added the image on the 12th of January a few days ago. [6]

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)

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

http://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)

[7]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: [8]

Please refer to the posts there for details, and at this link: [9]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2025

Change all use of samurai to Tono or Lord. There is no indication or evidence that Yasuke was a Sanurai. The only historical records show that he was made into a Tono, a word for Lord, and given a salary. 2604:2800:3:B2D0:94D3:32B4:8975:D34C (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please see the "frequently asked questions" at the top of this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

References - incorrectly combined

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)

Controversy or samurai heading?

There are several more recent articles going into the controversy around him being a samurai. This seems to stem (at least partially) from the fact that the term changed meaning over time. From (warrior) servant to a type of nobility one was born into similar to a lord in western culture.

"samurai, member of the Japanese warrior caste. The term samurai was originally used to denote the aristocratic warriors (bushi), but it came to apply to all the members of the warrior class that rose to power in the 12th century and dominated the Japanese government until the Meiji Restoration in 1868."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/samurai

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-real-history-of-yasuke-japans-first-black-samurai https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/09/17/assassins-creed-shadows-yasuke/

I suggest that this is discussed in a section and that it is pointed out that in general Yasuke is believed to be a samurai despite the time period and more loose use of the term. And that other contemporaries of his are also considered samurai under the same reasoning. Synethos (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There are several more recent articles going into the controversy around him being a samurai. Could you please provide sources for this?

If you are referring to the controversy regarding Assassin's Creed Shadows, we've had a couple of discussions about it (here and here) and so far there's been no consensus to include it due to WP:RECENT concerns (which I personally don't support).

Also the suggestion to include content on the definition of "samurai" has been made multiple times (e.g., here) and has always been rejected because it seems off-topic (we already have a wikilink to the dedicated article) and because the risk of WP:SYNTH is very high - we cannot know for sure which definition of "samurai" our sources on Yasuke are using. I find this argument compelling: any speculation about "samurai, in what sense?" is bound to end up in some kind of WP:original research. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

There's no controversy among experts. And samurai were always considered aristocrats/nobles. Bladeandroid (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Uh no, that's not it. It has been used to refer to basically soldiers here and there. Languages are fluid Suredeath (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2025

Yasuke was not a samurai; this lie has been debunked. 2603:8001:1C02:6E82:5ED8:FE98:CC74:FCFD (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Differences between the English Wikipedia and Japanese Wikipedia pages on the history of person

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would just like to point out, here on the English Wikipedia version the intro states that Yasuke was a Samurai while on the Japanese Version of Yasuke he is described as a servant. I know there is controversy ever since the Assassin's Creed Shadows video game made its debut in 2024 where he is a main character, and I am not into the culture war bullsh*t and I think it's divisive and depressing, but as an editor, trying to speak from a visitors perspective, two pages of the same person in different languages with different descriptions is confusing and unnecessary. The Japanese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia both use scholarly sources in his respective description. So which one is correct? What is the correct title/label? Completely Random Guy (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.