Jump to content

Talk:Yasuke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RfC on Infobox Image

[edit]

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

Options

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

Polling

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

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

  • Slight preference for Option B (status quo) followed by Option A. If either A or B is chosen, the infobox should state "possibly depicting Yasuke" as per sources. I have already given my reasons here and here (B over A: B is less stereotypical) and here (against C). Option D (no image) seems pejorative: even if A and B do not depict Yasuke (though they might), they still offer valuable encyclopedic contextual information. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I update my !vote: Option B2 is better than Option B and is my first choice. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Option B2 per @Gitz reasoning. Dw31415 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summoned from notification in WP:JAPAN I prefer Option D. I oppose other options, especially C because the "African Samurai would look like this" thing has no place here, especially in a infobox. For the other two, we aren't even sure if they are actually Yasuke. Literally just that. If an image is selected I'd prefer option B, but I feel like having them in the body of the article, similar to what jawiki does is the best option here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (In light of B2 appearing, if there is consensus to add an image I prefer B2.) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or B, with a preference toward B. Since that's the most well confirmed of being Yasuke himself. SilverserenC 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B Option B (status quo) as it has the stronger sourcing per Silverseren. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option D, Tarnished Path has it.Halbared (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or B, or Both - A is sourced to a historian's expert opinion, and is a clearer image of a person. B is has more evidence and weight to it, but is not a very clear representation. I think both are valid, for the infobox, and in fact, a number of articles (cities, in particular) will use multiple images in an array in the infobox, and I don't see a good reason not to do that here. If we need to limit it to one, I lean slightly more in favor of A than B, but my preference is slight here. Both A and B are strongly preferred to D. C is inappropriate for the infobox, but I don't object to it in the Popular Culture section as being illustrative there. Fieari (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the cropped version existing, I strongly prefer option B2 over B, and I think I even prefer it to A, but not as strenuously. I would still support both A and B2 appearing simultaneously. If B2 is used, the uncropped B version could be placed in the body of the article. In order of preference, I now think I prefer A + B2 > B2 >> A >>> B, with a strong objection to both C and D. (where additional >'s indicate stronger preference) My reasoning is that B2 focuses on the subject where Yasuke is presumed to be depicted... this article is not about the ink box, but the person... yes, the person is depicted on the ink box, but the ink box does not need to be displayed. In the uncropped version, Yasuke is much harder to make out and distinguish... even zoomed in, the face is very indistinct, but you can make it out if you look closely-- something much harder to do with the full ink box version. I still support A in the lead/infobox because it does have some academic support, meaning we don't need to discount it entirely, and it is a pretty illustrative image-- it also depicts the sort of activity Yasuke would engage in. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, Highest quality evidence plus sources, and it's the most clear who the subject is. I don't see anything supporting a change from B. Bladeandroid (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Option B2 added. Fieari (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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

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

Edit warring

[edit]

When the current protection expires further edit warring will result in topic bans and the consensus required sanction on the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

A historian directly disputes that Yasuke was a slave: Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor[7]. This source calls them "members of the crew".[8] This source by an expert calls them "crew".[9] This source says that accounts differ on whether they were slaves or not.[10] Even one of the sources you cited also mentioned "attendants". It can also be pointed out that many sources describe the Portuguese as barbarians in the context of the paintings. I've yet to see anyone caption all Portuguese subjects as "barbarians", which I would oppose for similar reasons. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor

[edit]

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

We are not an academic institution or a secondary source. We are a tertiary source, meaning we compile and summarize what others have already said. Our systems and collaborative method is not equipped to do research or be peer reviewed, so primary sources can only be used as direct quotes with no interpretation whatsoever, and only in the context of reporting findings made by secondary sources, who have been reviewed and researched by experts that are reliable. This is a core foundation of wikipedia, and what allows us to be trusted. If wikipedia allowed original research by interpreting primary sources, then any jack or jill could fill our articles with nonsense-- we'd have no mechanism to weed out good research from bad. So we don't allow it at all. If you want your original research to be added to wikipedia, please find a reliable publisher outside of wikipedia first. Fieari (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary source interpretation is the job of experts on those subjects. Encyclopedia's do not reproduce explicitly what primary sources say, rather they work with or from how experts have come to understand these texts in their original context. The comment you are responding to from me points to the policies which govern this for Wikipedia, but this is the practice of every major encyclopedia. Britannica for example often directly enlists subject matter experts to write articles in their field (though not all of their articles are of this quality). As Fieari put above me, this is a safeguard against bad research which is incapable of scrutinizing primary sources. Terrible historiography is taking primary sources at face value and rejecting academic consensus. Relm (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

In source editing change the text highlited in red into the text highlited in green. I request this change to merge two templates into one and to make the hatnote adhere to WP:ITHAT.

{{Short description|16th-century African samurai}}{{For|the anime based on him|Yasuke (TV series){{!}}''Yasuke'' (TV series)}}
{{For|the character|Yasuke (Assassin's Creed)}}

{{pp-dispute|small=yes}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2024}}

{{Short description|16th-century African samurai}}

{{For-multi|the anime based on him|Yasuke (TV series){{!}}''Yasuke'' (TV series)|the character|Yasuke (Assassin's Creed){{!}}Yasuke (''Assassin's Creed'')}}

{{pp-dispute|small=yes}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2024}}

Xoontor (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 21:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical lies change

[edit]

author of the book Tomas Bailey was proved to be liar as there are no historical evidence that retainer and bodyguard Yasuke was samurai, he couldn't became one just on one year. Can you please change it? Change the word samurai and then lock it. So no afrocentrist liar can change it again. 194.212.254.19 (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yasuke&oldid=1278061073"