Talk:Yasuke

message: I don't want to get into the argument of whether or not he was a "samurai" by some technical definition, but it's beyond dispute he was retained as a "koshō", a term which most Western readers have never heard of. Shouldn't the lead at least clarify what that means beyond a link to the article on "Page". Meeepmep (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I just was thinking on it, maybe we should make a page about Kosho or similar Japanese ranks that he probally could had and start from that Meganinja202 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: It is mentioned briefly that Yasuke was a "page" according to 2 Japanese articles which do not list or source any primary source, so these are unreliable. In the actual primary sources listed (which is all of them that mention Yasuke), there is no mention of a title, so it is not appropriate to call him a Kosho or page. Hexenakte (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem that the JP wiki doesn't use the term 小姓 either. Meeepmep (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I think it's bit sketchy to be throwing around Japanese titles when no scholarly translations or articles refer to him as such. The only source cited that calls him Kosho is in a very short clickbaity article by the "Japaaan" magazine. Meeepmep (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately a lot of these claims are done in bad faith and disregard any form of primary source in favor for their stipulations on what a "samurai actually is", despite showing no understanding of Japanese history themselves. They will continue to use modern sources that don't define or cite anything, like the Britannica or Smithsonian articles. I mean one of them cites the HuffPost. A modern perspective or claim doesn't prove anything, if anything it makes the case look extremely weak. Hexenakte (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: jpwiki does have a :jp:小姓 article, and :wikt:小姓 also defines it as "page". Is there a better article we could link the term to, or is it just not accurate? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: He's referring to the fact that the jp:弥助 article on Yasuke does not mention the term (小姓), in fact it doesn't mention any title he had at all. Hexenakte (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Is just overal unfortunate yea but at least I think we're starting to get somewhere and coming together in some aspects. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on what "koshō" means in the lead? 

message: The currently saved version has a orphaned reference (rfi). Please replace  with . Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: there a typo in your replacement link WakandaScholar (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: the reference was orphaned by  when they removed a large chunk of text in this edit. I restored the source as it was prior to that edit, it may not line up with your request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 15 May 2024 

message: Please italicize "Assassins Creed Shadows" (the title of a game) so it is Assassins Creed Shadows. Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It should be made bold to reflect the strength of our people WakandaScholar (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: .  please stop adding your personal commentary here, it is disruptive. Wikipedia is not an open discussion forum. If you are not here to contribute constructively you will be asked to leave. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 16 May 2024 (2) 

message: The current page is inconsitent, currently saying "likely of african origin" in the first line, but then in the 3rd paragraph in birth and early life it says "However, there seems to be no doubt that he had African roots" and then in the same paragraph refers to an source where he was described as from india. I reccomend the second quote mentioned be changed to reflect conflicting accounts, using less definitive language LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: he from the past man language was different back then WakandaScholar (talk) 08:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yasuke's origin inconsistent language 

message: I’ve been seeing a lot of personal attacks on this page. Remember to be civil, and watch the personal attacks, and always assume good faith. If I see any more personal attacks on this page, I will go straight to an admin for blocking. Remember, we are all here to contribute. This is a warning. Thank you. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Very Busy) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attack warning 

message: It is highly suspected that Oda Nobunaga was LGBTQ+ (having a relationship with his vassal Mori Ranmaru). 
Is it too far fetched to think that Oda's attraction to Yasuke was more than platonic? Contemporary descriptions are certainly homoerotic ay a minimum: "The blackness of his body is like that of a bull, and he is healthy and of fine physique. Moreover, he has the strength of more than ten men." RepeatedNodger (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Yasuke LGBTQ+ 

message: Under the "In popular culture" heading, change "On May 15th 2024" to "In May 2024" since the specific date isn't terribly relevant. If we do opt to keep the specific date, it should be changed to "On May 15, 2024". Sock (tock talk) 21:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: other than Drmies' tweak; consensus should be confirmed prior to making an edit request. I don't think this is particularly controversial but let's do a quick straw poll. By the way, , when you're adding the  template you should omit the "Template:" from your code - the curly brackets assume that the page to be transcluded is a template unless you specify a different namespace. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the heads up! Missed it since mobile Wikipedia can be a little rude with talk pages sometimes. I realized a little too late that I was hasty including the "In May" change, but I mostly just wanted the "15th" gone. Didn't realize that some of the other bullets don't have specific dates associated, so I'm totally good with leaving the full dates where applicable. Sock (tock talk) 13:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Option 2, just for the sake of having the information we can have. Uniformity doesn't really bring anything here. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Option 2, if we can get specific days it's easier to narrow down. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fully-protected edit request 

message: Should the dates given for entries in the "in popular culture" bullet list be:
#all given in "month, year" format (e.g. "In May 2024 ..."); or
#given with specific days when the dates can be verified (e.g. "On 17 May 2024 ..."), and "month, year" otherwise?
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Option 2, just for the sake of having the information we can have. Uniformity doesn't really bring anything here. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Option 2, if we can get specific days it's easier to narrow down. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll: date format in popular culture 

message: In the "Birth and early life" section, can I suggest that: 
"Among those whose names have been ascertained, he is the earliest African to appear in Japanese historical records, but his confirmed period of stay in Japan was very short – about three years, from 17 August 1579 to 21 June 1582."
Be reworded to simply:
"Among those whose names have been ascertained, he is the earliest African to appear in Japanese historical records. His confirmed period of stay in Japan was about three years, from 17 August 1579 to 21 June 1582."
This is as I think describing a three year stint in another country as "very short" is a bit misleading. McPhail (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  - from the below discussion, I think there is now a broad consensus in favour of this change? McPhail (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented in favour of the change so I'm not a neutral observer, but I'd say yes, the majority of comments are in favour of not editorializing about the length of his time in Japan. But also the page protection has been lowered and anyone who has commented here is able to make the change themselves. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ivanvector - ah thank you, sorry I hadn't spotted that. McPhail (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Agree per MOS:EDITORIAL, just state the facts. Also “with only fragmentary accounts” should be changed to “with fragmentary accounts”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "only" is a fact too, as we only have fragments of accounts to go by, the word "only" is not changing in any way the amount of accounts of an individual specially when there is a few of them, and removing it doesn't make the statement any less or more credible or clearer. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

text: In what sense is it a fact? Do the sources say "only"? If not this is just an editor's opinion. McPhail (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a fact since literally the only times we hear about Yasuke is on the Jesuits writings, the primary source (Shinchō kōki), are the only few places Yasuke is even mentioned nothing else, again the use of the word only is not in any way reshaping or inserting any bias of any kind, if in a book the only place a character is mentioned is on volume 4 & 8, and a few mentions thought the story sayin "Oh he only appears on volume 4 & 8" is in no way misleading. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ”Only” adds unneeded and perhaps biased emphasis that is not included in the original source.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I would say is accurate to say 3 years is short, some believe 5 year is short, the mention of "very short" does not change nor distort the fact that Yasuke stayed just for three years. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In these cases we should go to the citation(s). Does the source state or imply any opinion about the length of the stay, or are we just giving our own opinions? The citation for this is in Japanese so I'm of no help interpreting it, but otherwise I agree with the request - we cannot state conclusions that don't appear in the source. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record his stay specifically under Nobunaga was only recorded between a period of about 15 months, from Luis Frois audience with Nobunaga in March 27, 1581 to the Honno-ji Incident on June 21, 1582. I know this is more in general to his total length stay in Japan but it really drives the point that he was not around for very long when he was most notable. For context it often takes months or even years to conquer or siege castles, most notably Nobunaga's sieges on Nagashima which took place in about a period of 3 years, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that Yasuke was not around for very long based off of how long these campaigns often take during this time, especially since he is only recorded in a single fight in Honno-ji. Hexenakte (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But when does a stint in Japan go from being "very short" to "short" to "medium" to "long"? These are all totally subjective descriptors. Why not just stick to the facts and state the duration? McPhail (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is basically my point. We can go round and round all day and night justifying whether this was "very short" or "a normal amount of time" or whatever, but it doesn't matter unless there's a source that agrees. Even if it was in a source it would be someone's opinion, unless there are many sources that make a point of calling out this duration as "short". Without sources, any description of the stay is unsourced opinion and original research. The article should simply give the duration, and readers can form their own conclusions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Agree too, if the citations don't call it "very short", we shouldn't either. "But" as a conjunction between the two statements is also WP:EDITORIAL and shouldn't be there either. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that if we don't have sources, but editors say we don't need them because it's obviously "short" then the obvious (:-P) response to this is we don't need to say it since it's obvious so anyone reading it will realise wow that's short. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fully-protected edit request  

message: "The name Yasuke was given to him by Nobunaga. His real name is unknown, and it is also unclear what he was called before that."
So it's unclear what he was called before he had his real name?
"Few details are known about him, including his date of birth, family structure, place of birth, ethnicity and native language."
Is this supposed to mean "His date of birth, family structure, place of birth, ethnicity and native language are unknown."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: +1 to all of these. Especially the "few details are known" sentence. I asked about that one a few days ago already on this talk page, but the section got completely derailed and then removed. Irrwichtel (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Fixed first and third. As for the second, yes it is supposed to mean that, but leaving the "Few details...including..." part in lets the reader know that there are more unknowns about Yasuke. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  00:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @ARandomName123 Doesn't it logically read as that the details that are mentioned are the details that are known? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Oh right, I see what you mean. Changed it to match your suggestion. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  18:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange article-text 

message: Just not idiomatic English. Can we change this to "Possible depictions of Yasuke"?
(I really think this is a non-controversial edit, so I've gone ahead and templated this request.)
-- Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Pppery * it has begun... 13:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Speculated depictions of Yasuke" 

message: Hopefully this is uncontroversial but I think we should remove the "kosho" lead, unfamiliar Japanese titles shouldn't be thrown around when there's no scholarly sources backing it up. JP wiki doesn't use this term and the sources supporting it are a short clickbait "Japaaan" article plus an entertainment article talking about a possible Yasuke movie starring Chadwick Boseman. "He was retained by the daimyō as a koshō" could be changed to "He was retained in the daimyō's service", and "Yasuke followed Nobunaga to Azuchi in Omi Province, where he was appointed a koshō" could be changed into "Yasuke followed Nobunaga to Azuchi in Omi Province, where he was retained in his service." or something of the like. Meeepmep (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the sources given thus far that he was kosho do look unreliable. Are there any more reliable ones that he was granted the rank? That would be preferable to removing the reference entirely. John Smith's (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty dubious that he was ever granted that rank, when none of the few primary sources that mention him describe him as such. Wiki editors that defend this title admit that it is inference, but can't seem to find scholarly sources backing this up. Thomas Lockley, the preeminent "Yasuke expert" doesn't mention the title his book African Samurai either. Meeepmep (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

text: That's reasonable. I made edits cleaning that section up previously to clear out similarly unreliable language and failed to adequately check the reliability of the claim he was a koshō so this is a good catch. FifteenthClause (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

text: From u/ParallelPain's  own words: "FYI no source say Yasuke was actually a ". Thibaut (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm just going to go ahead and change it now that the article is semi-protected. Meeepmep (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the "kosho" title. 

message: There are four excerpts from primary sources in the "Documented life in Japan" section, in one of them he was described as a  by Luís Fróis.
Another quote (which is not in the article) is from François Solier's , where he was described […] [a]s black as the Ethiopians of Guinea, but a native of Mozambique, and of those who are properly called Cafres.
I read the discussions, and like Ivanvector ,  but maybe I missed something.
This is false, the term "likely" was introduced on 15 May at 19:08 (UTC), therefore after the release of the trailer (16:15 UTC). It was then removed by ARandomName123 on 19 May with the comment . The lead before the release of the trailer was "Yasuke was a man of African origin".
About Special:Diff/1225764468, "traveller" implies that he travelled willingly to Japan which was not the case as he was a slave. As for "lusophone", the only primary sources we have state that he understood a few words in Japanese. We don't know his native language. He probably understood a few words of Portuguese, but we don't know if he was fluent. According to Mozambique#Languages, there are quite a few languages. Thibaut (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind, "of African origin" is a plain euphemism for Black, as in "we don't know where they were born, but they're Black so they must have African heritage", especially when the subject is a person who lived in the 16th century. But we need to go by what the sources actually say, not how we interpret them; that's been a bit of a problem here. If sources say "likely of African origin" then so do we. If they say "Black" then so do we. If they say "probably a Martian" then so do we. Having proof of where Yasuke was actually born is not at all relevant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources seem to interchangeably call him "African" or "Mozambican". Ex. , which calls him by both, along with . I've reverted the edit and added some inline citations for now. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  19:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

text: There do seem to be several academic sources that say (or at least state that the best historical estimate) of his country of origin was indeed Mozambique. SilverserenC 19:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Odoacer Rex|Odoacer Rex]]’s changes 

message: The edit where I added the Yasuke documentary was reverted saying a documentary in planning doesn't go in "Popular culture". Where should it go? Nowhere man (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should a documentary in production go? 

message: that would explain conflictual depictions / sources Freavene (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not just add a section about the samourai status