DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2025

[edit]
This edit request has been answered, and it is not sitting here waiting for drive-by internet forum comments on race. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I request for where it says "African origin" to be changed to "sub-Saharan African origin" since only sub-Saharan Africans are black. North Africans are Arabs, Berbers, and Egyptian Copts, not black people. North Africans are a different race to sub-Saharan Africans, similar to how East Asians are a different race to South Asians. 2A0A:EF40:1281:8E01:A4FE:F20A:395C:86D7 (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The article's reference to Yasuke being of African origin simply means that he came from the continent of Africa; nothing more, nothing less. The contemporary racial categories you mention aren't particularly relevant in the context of Sengoku period Japan. Day Creature (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article said that Yasuke was black and black people only come from sub-Saharan Africa. 2A0A:EF40:1281:8E01:1E8:CE4F:F0CA:E40A (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statement we're discussing is about his geographic origin, not his race. Day Creature (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Yasuke was black, then he would obviously be specifically from sub-Saharan Africa since sub-Saharan Africa are the only regions in Africa where black people come from. Also the article said that Yasuke most likely came from Mozambique, which is a country in sub-Saharan Africa. 2A0A:EF40:1281:8E01:F829:8FE1:A59F:EE50 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to get that specific in the opening sentence. It's adequate to just say that he was of African origin and then expand more on what part of Africa he may have been from later in the article. At this point, your edit request has been answered and is not going to be implemented, so there is no reason to continue discussing it here. Day Creature (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But we have to say that he was sub-Saharan African in the first sentence in order for people to immediately know that he was black. 2A0A:EF40:1281:8E01:E806:9A98:D527:CF1B (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we do not. That's frankly a bizarre statement. Yasuke lived his life well before the advent of modern racial classifications. Even for figures like Martin Luther King Jr. or W.E.B. Du Bois, it would be strange to insist that the reader must be immediately alerted to their race in the opening sentence.
This will be my final reply in this discussion, as I do not think it will be productive to continue discussing the matter with you. Day Creature (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it's based on the incorrect view of "Black= always sub-Saharan" when there are plenty of peoples who would be considered "Black" native to the Sahel and we have no evidence that he was or wasn't from any specific region or ethnic group. Hell, he could have been Haratin from North Africa for all the evidence we have. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2025 (2)

[edit]

An older Yakesuke is the central character in Born I Music’s 2025 Buddhist hip-hop album, Komorebi[1] 2402:4000:B1B2:63E9:D46E:DDA1:EC1F:2A7B (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Also, a track listing probably isn't a sufficient source to make that claim in general. Nubzor [T][C] 15:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they're suggesting that it should be added to the Popular Culture heading under the music subheading. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thomas Lockley is not a source

[edit]

(Redacted) 86.10.237.23 (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what made up nonsense internet posts you've been reading, 86.10.237.23, but Lockley wasn't fired in any fashion, not was his work deleted or destroyed. He still works as Nihon University, same as before, as shown here. All he did was delete his personal social media accounts, nothing else. We've also had multiple discussions both on this talk page and at the reliable source noticeboard and he is still considered 100% reliable as a professor. SilverserenC 21:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) あかあおき (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redacted comments above are derogatory information about a living person, and I have removed them as a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. If you would like to discuss the reliability of a source for this topic, fine, but if you start that discussion with a diatribe attacking a living person's academic credentials, it will be removed. If you're going to start a discussion about Lockley, read these discussions in full first:
As you can see there has already been extensive discussion about Lockley's work and its use in this article. It is very likely that your concern has already been discussed, and repeatedly starting new discussions about the same issue is disruptive. Please do not start a new discussion if you have nothing new to add, and even if you think you do have something new to discuss, you must provide reliable sources supporting your position. Your own analysis, personal beliefs, or things you read on an internet forum, are original research and will be removed from this page without further discussion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article a contentious topic?

[edit]

I was scrolling through WP:CT recently and came across this article listed as a contentious topic. It seems pretty odd to me, considering that every other topic (aside from the Troubles, also very odd) includes hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. I wanted to know what led to this article becoming a contentious topic, and if anyone could tell me, I'd appreciate it, as reading through WP:CT/YA was not very helpful haha — EarthDude (Talk) 20:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a great deal of fighting here over whether or not Yasuke should or should not be described as a samurai, stemming from the characterization in the Assassin's Creed game that came out last year. The discussions I linked in the section above this one are just a small part of what was going on. The debate still rages from time to time but it definitely has been more stable under the contentious topics regime. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I see. Yeah, looking through all those discussions makes everything much clearer. Thanks a lot for that!

The fact that it all flared up because of an Assassin's Creed game is hilarious though. — EarthDude (Talk) 21:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a sense of how contentious this topic was after responding to an RfC on a related page.
I'd definitely echo User:EarthDude's thoughts re "seems pretty odd to me" and "flared up because of an Assassin's Creed game is hilarious".
Video game stuff seems to attract a particularly odd set of soap boxers (see Gamergate). NickCT (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Video games and politics dont end up well together. The discussions regarding this article specifically are so messy. — EarthDude (Talk) 15:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:YASUKE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Also, sorry for the late reply. I was busy with a lot of stuff irl. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence shows that Yasuke was a bodyguard not a samurai, yet you are making this claim, how come?

[edit]

He was bought to be a bodyguard who received weapons to protect him, weather he received a short sword or not is disputed and even if he was Ashigaru and bodyguards/ Household guards like him were allowed to have short swords. He never received a formal Japanese family name which if he became a samurai he would have had received. There is clear evidence he wasn't a samurai but no clear evidence that he was. Many of Oda's guards received the same things as Yasuke yet weren't samurai. ~2025-41494-96 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have an FAQ at the top of this talk page that answers your question. SilverserenC 04:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]