Talk:Black Japanese

❧

Wikipedia

Shirt

Why does he have a Steelers jersey though? 2600:387:F:E30:0:0:0:5 (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on Yasuke

Comments needed concerning the historical figure Yasuke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#Request_for_comment_on_samurai_terminology natemup (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Links to historians who read from the Bible that are legitimized historical events.
Japan In Bible Prophecy
https://www.youtube.com/live/_Q-fuveMVvs?si=Rkw4V0AdOPCJuAY0 Warsun99 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Misconceptions of Yasuke are to be at hear. Yasuke was not from Africa this is a racist concept to mislead people into believing Moors which Yasuke was come from Africa. However, Africans can all remember their tribes an their tribal names.An are most often marked with specific designs on their body to identify them.
They are, as a matter of fact described in the book (Russian Icons) Moors come from Europe or as described Europa which is its original name. After the Capirote. Yasuke was moved from Russian in which was Jesuits course was to sell supply's and weapons to Japan.
Many Israelites which are Moors where then sold to the Japanese as captives. In this position of captivity they where unchained an given work to rebuilt the country of Japan. Which is why most Palaces and buildings use Israelite wood slot works, Slot systems,Brick works, Blacksmithing, Steel craft, Multi-color dresses, Flower designs on dresses,as well as other patterns, Chime,and Bells, Clocks, watches,Radio, Mechanical wagons, an other inventions came from. Yasuke was not unedjucated an understood many things. Business, Agriculture and combat.
Yasuke was then given the position of Samurai as the first Samurai. Note: Committing Suicide by chopping off ones head did not come from the first Samurai it came after 200 years later. Note. Only the Israelites where Samurai and Ninja until the 1800s. Not before. Legends of the Samurai an their families of Moor where later described as the ONI. Fairy tales of them coming down from the mountains to scare children to work hard to behave themselves was passed on. Warsun99 (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke has an RfC

Yasuke has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong information of Yasuke to be corrected; He didn't achieve a status as a Samurai.

There are only a few lines of historical records about Yasuke in total as a primary source. Those are from following three documents: Shin-Chō-Kouki(信長公記), written in 1610 which is a chronicle of Nobunaga's life; Ietada diary(家忠日記) written by Ietada Matsudaira（松平家忠）, a vassal of the Tokugawa clan during 1575-94; and "Jesuit Annual Report of Japan" written by a jesuit missionary, Luís Fróis in 1582. The first record only states that Nobunaga employed him as a porter and gave him a few stipends after Alessandro Valignano gave Yasuke to Nobunaga. In addition to this, the second one (diary) simply records physical characteristics of Yasuke. The third one depicts how Mitsuhide Akechi （[]）decided to treat Yasuke immediately after Nobunaga died. From these materials, it is clear that there is no fact that Yasuke achieved the status of a samurai.

First of all, the crucial point is that when a lord Nobunaga died, if Yasuke was a samurai and one of liegemen close to Nobunaga, he should be killed at the same time or he should commit seppuku. But it's written in the Jesuit Annual Report of Japan that, Akechi said "This black guy is a beast (an animal, not a human), he doesn't know anything, and he's not Japanese, so I won't kill him" and let Yasuke go, saying, "Leave him with an Indian priest"

Second important point is that Yasuke was not given a surname, which a "real" samurai would have had.

Moreover, if he had achieved some military exploits as a samurai, there would have been some kind of records left (like other Sengoku warlords), but none of such remains.

For these reasons, it is a commonly held opinion among Japanese that Yasuke was not a samurai. In other words, Yasuke did not do anything worthy of records, and that's why most Japanese people have not cared about his existence much. Japanese historican Dr. Yuichi Goza concluded that Yasuke was "in fact Nobunaga’s porter and a kind of entertainer". ([弥助問題「本人は芸人のような立場」「日本人の不満は当然」　歴史学者・呉座氏に聞く])

Whilst the theory "Yasuke was a samurai" quickly spread overseas due to the book written by Thomas Lockley and due to the falsification of English Wikipedia's "Yasuke" entry.

The latter was also actually done by Lockley himself spending more than 10 years- citing his unpublished book (then after publishing the book, he changed that citation to the published book). In the Japanese version of his book, Lockley made a small disclaimer, saying that most parts of his book are mere conjecture without any historical fact-checking, in other words, it's a fiction. But in the English version, he treated those parts of his own fiction as if they were facts,writing them in assertive tone.

Regarding Wikipedia's "Yasuke" entry, there's no description that Yasuke was a samurai in Japanese page, but in English page, it's written like "served as a samurai to the Japanese daimyō Oda Nobunaga for a period of 15 months between 1581 and 1582", which had been obviously edited by Lockely using the pseudonym Tottoritom, and it's still there (now that English page got locked (non-editable)...probably because of the flood of criticism against his fabrication?).

This has led to huge misunderstandings about Yasuke among many foreigners.

Not only video games, movies, and musicals have been made based on his fiction, but also new Yasuke stories based on Lockley's books have been made- for example, other novels written by other "foreign" authors who don't speak or read Japanese, either not study Japanese history in an accademic/objective manner. And most of these claim to be　"historically accurate" or "true to the real history" even though they are just a fiction. Also some TV shows including BBC, saying "non-fiction" which is not true.

Even worse is that this falsification has been used by some activists to degrade other groups of people. In Japan, this is viewed as a very problematic issue. Even Japanese Diet members have begun investigating this matter. Lockley works at Nihon University, but now he has been hiding himslf from the public since the issue was discovered in the spring of this year. Penpengusa10 (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  • OK, Penpengusa10, thank you for participating in discussion. Now stop removing sourced content please. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    What "sourced content" do you mean? Penpengusa10 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
If you have complaints about the Yasuke page, the appropriate place to address them is Talk:Yasuke. Please do not try to circumvent the RFC over there by edit-warring on this article. As an aside, please stop editing your own comments when they have been replied to already (WP:TALK#REVISE). CambrianCrab (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1) Japapese ”弥助 (Yasuke)”page has got concensus: There is no description as "Yasuke was a Samurai" or such. Its concensus was determined after the discussion with others including those foreign editors who refered to "seemingly reliable" sources in English page.
2) Whilst English Yasuke page DOESN'T HAVE CONCENSUS Yet but it's LOCKED without evaluating the objection from Japanese historians. English page is LOCKED and we cannot OVERTUNE the content even though we already argued them on Talk Yasuke. They don't change it no matter how much we argued. It appears to us that they try to eliminate the objections and insist on keeping false remark like "Yasuke achieved a status as a Samurai". I mean Talk Yasuke doesn't work at all.
To understand the situation more, please take a look at the interaction with Toweli
For this "Black people in Japan" page, I strongly suggest you not to have false information about Yasuke.
So, I'll give you back exactly what you told me here. Please do not revert it again. Penpengusa10 (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Why Yasuke even appears in this page. He does not have any (recorded) offsprings, nor he is 黒人系日本人. I doubt that he is even qualified as the first recorded Black man, because Jorge Álvares, some Captain of Portuguese, has written Japanese reaction to seeing Black man prior to the recordings of Yasuke.
What is written now in the Hisotry section firstly : In the mid-16th century, enslaved Africans arrived in Japan alongside Europeans.
is just enough or could be better written of course.but Yasuke sentences do not serve any.
One more thing, the picture titles(?) should be better written I think:
"17th century painting of a European trader and an enslaved African in Japan"
This seems lousy, one who wants to put photos to the article should at least dig into the appropriate titles, the first pic i see does not seem like a trader but some missionary. and again, the Yasuke picture is impossible to conclude that it is actually Yasuke or some Japanese man. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
He appears because Yasuke was a Japanese citizen of African ancestry while he was there. He had a residence in Japan, a Japanese name, and an important role in Japanese society. Bladeandroid (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Clearly, Yasuke was not the first man of African decent in Edo (Tokyo) and Japan st large. He must have come to limelight due to his association with some European or Japanese of repute.
Again, it may have been out of segregation against skin colour that have led to distortion or disappearance of early authentic writings about the "black" (African) peoples of Japan.
Whatever was truth has possibly been lost in time. However, early Japanese art depictions vividly attests to the undeniable fact that the "black" people of Japan walked and lived in Japan, contributing daily to the balance and growth of the Japanese empire. This can never be taken away, Yasuke as Samurai or not. 105.112.220.9 (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2025

I request for where it says "African ancestry" to be changed to "Sub-Saharan African ancestry", since the Arabs, Berbers, and Copts of North Africa are not Black. ~2025-34261-18 (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Also, are you one person that is requesting edits to a ton of pages? Do you know how to build consensus? NotJamestack (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
He's right. North Africans aren't black. The page in my personal opinion should say Black Japanese are people "who have ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa" Kpop777 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi Kpop777, why don't you implement my edit request. "Sub-Saharan Africa" is a term that explicitly excludes North Africa. ~2025-34148-16 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
because there's this user who removed it on multiple pages about Black people, accused me of "White supremacist editing" for re-adding "Sub-Saharan Africa", and Everytime he got blocked by administrators he would come back and remove"Sub-Saharan Africa" on pages and said that's a White supremacist term even though it's not. That's why this page doesn't say "Sub-Saharan African" right now, the sock puppet was the one who originally removed it. I reported him to administrators again last night and they banned multiple IPs he was using after he was edit warring with me on multiple pages. I would like to implement your edit request but he might come back again, and the page is locked even for me because of his edit warring. Also saying "Black Japanese are Japanese citizens or residents with ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa" probably won't cause a giant edit war. Kpop777 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Does he know that Arabs, Berbers, and Copts are not Black. ~2025-34434-85 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Kpop777, you could change the sentence to "non-Berber or non-Coptic Indigenous African ancestry", instead. ~2025-34434-85 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Just try to reach a consensus. If a consensus has not been reached, don't make the changes. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 20:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
We both agree to say "Sub-Saharan African" instead of just "African". Of course I think the edit I suggested looks a little better but we both have an agreement. I can't make the changes because a sock puppet was edit warring and the page got locked. Can you make the change? Kpop777 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
We both agree to say "Sub-Saharan African" instead of just "African". Of course I think the edit I suggested looks a little better but we both have an agreement. I can't make the changes because a sock puppet was edit warring and the page got locked. Can you make the change? Kpop777 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Two people is not enough. We should probably make an RfC for the matter. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
@NotJamestackcould you restore this version please, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Japanese&diff=prev&oldid=1321999399 it was the last clean one before a vandal removed info related to slavery. The article was locked in the wrong state. The current one even uses duplicate photos ~2025-34162-00 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Duplicate photos removed. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
and the other part? ~2025-34162-00 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
That seems to have been reverted before the article was protected. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
that was a sock. They deleted this cited part for no reason at all
"During the 16th century at the beginning of the Edo period with the arrival of European traders, the Dutch and Portuguese, brought Africans with them to Japan in the form of slaves. These African slaves, often poorly dressed and barefoot, acted as servants to the Europeans, accompanied by exotic animals such as elephants, giraffes, zebras, and camels.[1] "~2025-34162-00 (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
That does look disruptive. I readded the text. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 22:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that version also contains a better/clearer intro text, so we don't have the problem with "African" or "sub saharan African", it's better all around ~2025-34162-00 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
The slavery text was not there originally. It was added but got reverted by others, and lacks consensus. EkkoJinxZaun (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
it has been there since the article was created in 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_Japanese&oldid=1186436497 why would anyone want to remove it in the first place ~2025-34162-00 (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
No it hasn't, the paragraph added by Kpop777 is not there. EkkoJinxZaun (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
it was there since the beginning and then was expanded. I don't expect an article to stay the exact same after 2 years. Why do you want it gone? ~2025-34162-00 (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
That paragraph hasn't or any of the other disputed changes. Kpop777, you need consensus for your edits first. EkkoJinxZaun (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
the slavery info has been there since 2023. It will not be deleted without good reason. You're a pretty odd editor I have to say. You still haven't even said what is wrong with the paragraph ~2025-34162-00 (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
It hasn't, you added a lot of things that have been contested. The sources don't agree on this. There is a historian who studied one of the people from that time period and he said he doesn't think he was a slave at all. A lot of those people were basically given room and board, and sometimes a stipend, in exchange for being ship crew as well as being attendants. EkkoJinxZaun (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
then just add that in instead of erasing the whole thing. Something like "however, this has been disputed by...". Also if it's just this one guy that wasn't a slave I don't think we can draw conclusions about everyone else ~2025-34162-00 (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think you have bad intentions here but it seems you're trying to erase this (terrible) part of history or sweep it under the rug ~2025-34162-00 (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
It's disputed by a historian in several sources, so it shouldn't be stated the way it is. Many sources call them crew. But regardless the point is you need consensus for contested edits before they go in. So it should not be added as there's clearly no consensus here. EkkoJinxZaun (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
@Bagel7: Why the hell did you delete it again? Did you read any of this discussion? The slavery related info was been there since literally the first version of this article. There is no reason to remove it ~2025-35386-71 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
There is no consensus on this. Stop reverting my edit. - Bagel7 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
The only person who wants to keep it out are you and your army of sock puppets ~2025-35681-50 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Prove that I have all of these supposed sock puppets and then we'll talk. - Bagel7 (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Apologies I didn't see the page history nor this discussion. I've found a source that says

People of African descent traveled to Japan centuries before the founding of the United States as a country. In the mid-16th century, Portuguese traders journeyed to Japan, bringing with them African sailors, servants, and enslaved people. Unlike the color prejudice existing in many parts of Europe at the time, in Japan, these early Black travelers were a curiosity for their non-Japanese-ness and were often admired for their skills. Some European travelers of the time commented that Japanese people seemed to be impressed by African drumming and art.1 Perhaps the Black person best known for visiting Japan in the 16th century was a Mozambiquan man who served warlord Oda Nobunaga (1534–1582) on the battlefield and received the Japanese name “Yasuke” (dates unknown).

They use "Black" and "African descent" synonymously. There are very few sources on this. Regardless, "Black racial groups of Africa" is complete nonsense Kowal2701 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
bringing with them African sailors, servants, and enslaved people. Only slaves appear to have been mentioned in this article at present. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ Makoto Tsujiuchi - Hitotsubashi University (1998). "Historical context of black studies in Japan" (PDF). Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies. pp. 95–100. Retrieved 21 May 2021.

Some minor things.

In the 19th century, during the Bakumatsu period, African-Americans arrived to Japan under the Perry Expedition on a mission to open a commercial trade.

Shouldn't that read:

In the 19th century, during the Bakumatsu period, African-Americans arrived to Japan under the Perry Expedition on a mission to open commercial trade.


Also, is the [citation needed] tag really needed regarding African Americans serving in the USFJ when one of the linked persons is Aja Kong, daughter of the late Henry Manigault, an African American who was a member of the US Army at Tachikawa Airfield? If that's insufficient, there's also Brigadier General Kelvin W. Gallman, Deputy Commander, United States Forces Japan on the USFJ's official page. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

RFC on edit war

In the interest of stopping the edit war, which version should be in the article?

  • A
  • B

As an Arbitration enforcement action under WP:YASUKE participants are limited to 500 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: @Kpop777, @EkkoJinxZaun, @Bagel7, @Ryuudou, @Ethiopian Epic, @DragonBrickLayer NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 16:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option B. The content in Option B is well cited, and has been in the article for a while. Option A is the version in which that same content was removed without a proper discussion at the talk page. If Option A is chosen, I fear that it will set the precedent that any amount of well cited content can get removed by one single RfC. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 16:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B per above. This info has been there since the site was created in 2023 and no reason was provided why it should be removed other than "I don't like it" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC) — ~2025-37405-16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }} Block evasion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B but with current lead, "Japanese residents or citizens who have any ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa" is unsourced nonsense Kowal2701 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B. It’s a well sourced statement, and while the brevity oversimplifies the secondary sources (I don’t understand why his article is all-wikivoice without mentioning the discussion) it’s pretty well established that by the standards of the late Sengoku he was absolutely a samurai, and oversimplied brevity is fine in a passing reference in another article. No opinion on other lines in the diff besides Yasuke, which seems to be the nexus of the dispute at hand.
That said, I must disagree vehemently with NotJamestack’s comments regarding precedent. While I don’t see why this RfC should be particularly precedent-setting or relevant to such a discussion, I think in fact that affirmatively setting the exact opposite precedent would be the dangerous one. WP is not an agglomeration of individuals’ edits, but a community product. Just because a given statement is well-sourced does not mean its placement or weight is editorially appropriate. If the community via RfCs and other processes were constrained not to manage the overall topography of an article that way, that would be problematic both for project reasons and for reasons of content (how many times have CT etc. disputants used the “but it’s sourced!” line as a way to sidestep P&G?)
Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
@RadioactiveBoulevardier Option A and Option B are the same in respect to the passage on Yasuke. The dispute concerns the infobox picture and the proposed additon of a passage that compares black people to animals. BMWF (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A (with Kowal2701's lead). Option A is better formatted, doesn't include the (also re-added with without proper discussion) "slave" comments in the photo descriptions (which seem to be part of the core reason for the edit warring going on here), and The first reference link in Option B leads to a redirect rather than the quoted journal article, so I don't know how the rest of you are claiming it's well cited (other than that dead link, they cite the exact same references). While the historical paintings are nice to include, I find an article on a currently existing group of people should probably open with famous and/or people of that group rather than non-"Japanese residents or citizens" such as, if the depicted are Dutch slaves, people who would be considered neither. Certainly their presence should be mentioned historically in relation to black visitors to Japan, but images of them shouldn't outnumber current Black Japanese. Either way, the article should include the sidebar from Option A. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A The infobox picture in version B was added by vandal with the intention of being disparaging. To be "so and so" Japanese you must either have a Japanese parent, or be naturalized. There isn't any source that supports that anyone in that picture was even born in Japan, or has a Japanese parent, or was naturalized so it isn't a valid picture for this article to begin with.
The other major addition, also by the same vandal, was the addition of a sentence that compares black people to animals. It isn't WP:DUE, and it was clearly added with the intent of being disparaging. The people it references were not Black Japanese in the same way the Dutch were not White Japanese (unless they stayed, naturalized, etc). The slave characterization is also disputed by more reliable sources. So triple out of place. BMWF (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A See DragonBrickLayer's and BMWF's reasoning.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm trying to get a grip on the issues that underlie this dispute. It seems like the primary debates are 1) whether to include images with references to slavery, and 2) whether to describe black folks in Japan as being of "African ancestry" or, using a more nuanced, "Black racial groups of Africa". Is that the meat of this debate? User:NotJamestack mentioned that sourced content was getting removed. Which sourced content exactly? My initial impression is that we might want to break this RfC into a series of questions, cause it seems clear to me that Option A is obviously better with respect to the images, but I don't really know what the right thing to do on the African ancestry thing. There may be some "US centrism" issues here, cause in the US, we tend to use the term "African American" as general descriptor for black folks, in a way that other countries do not. NickCT (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    I believe you have found the heart of the matter. I'd also argue that including an image of people who wouldn't be considered Black Japanese (over contemporary actual Black Japanese) as the first one you see when you open the article is problematic, regardless of how long it was allowed to remain there.
    I'm pretty sure the removed content @NotJamestack was referencing is the opening paragraph in Option B (the reference link to which no longer leads to the quoted journal article and would have to be fixed, as the site hosting it has been moved, should that end up the selected option). As far as I can tell from reading that section in both versions, that paragraph is the only difference in that section beyond paragraphs being shuffled around. Other differences are the African ancestry/Black racial groups of Africa difference in the lede and the image captions and placement.
    In my opinion the opening paragraph is a bit much and could be rendered down to to a single sentence, like the one mentioning the Perry Expedition, and nothing would be lost. The article's focus isn't visitors of either "African ancestry" nor "Black racial groups of Africa" but on Japanese residents or citizens from that group. Could even just open with the paragraph on Yasuke (as he was reportedly given a residence, a weapon, and a stipend by Nobunaga it's hard not to argue that he was, even if briefly, a true resident of Japan) if you wanted to keep the timeline straight in the history section.
    The main reason this RFC exists is because there was an ongoing edit war with multiple editors reverting to one of these two versions of the article. I think after one version or the other is selected, the edit warring ends, and hopefully civility is restored among the editors, things like fine-tuning the lede, fixing minor things, expanding the article, etc. can continue without the need for more RFCs. The poor Admins need a break after this mess! DragonBrickLayer (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
    Ok. So glancing at after glancing at the "opening paragraph", which I assume is the paragraph starting with "During the 16th century at the beginning", and after looking briefly at the edit history; it looks like paragraph was added by IP's and I have a strong suspision the person adding it is the same "banned user" that User:BMWF mentioned. Are we just debating content that was added by a vandal? This is silly. End this discussion. Option A now. NickCT (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) I'm also having difficulty assessing what is the core of this dispute HOWEVER, regarding the Black/sub--Saharan/Black African issue, it is a bit problematic establishing which groups NOW are considered black (except excluding European colonial groups in Africa of course),, various racial groups are considered black/not black, which has varied with both place and time. To extrapolate back from that who might have been thought of as black in the 16th century and/or by Japanese or Portugese of earlier times, apart from being WP:OR, is also incredibly problematic. I am not familiar with Japanese or Portugese perceptions either current nor in 16thC, but in UK, in Shakespeare for example, N Africans, Arabs and others are referred to as 'black', indeed very graphically described as such - though he may well have never seen any black or N African people and have relied on the descriptions of others and/or dramatic invention. If Japanese sources of the time call someone 'black', we can only record that, not extrapolate what they meant by the term, or where the black person was from. In a sense, black people are people who are seen as being black and/or describe themselves thus, which again varies with time and place.Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Both have problems (Summoned by bot) In a number of ways, I find very problematic the text "who have any ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa". Defining objectively who is/isn't black and which African peoples or African regions are black is near impossible in a modern context, in a historical context even more so. The word 'any' is also problematic, on one hand the phrasing accidentally echoes the "one drop of blood logic", on the other hand, isn't the entire human race descended from black Africa? I think that the only workable response is to treat "of African descent" and 'black' as synonyms and to accept that a person is black if they/the society they live in says they are/were, ie if WP:RS say so. The ordinary understanding of both terms excludes European/Asian settlers in Africa, but includes those whose African ancestry traces via the Caribbean or US. To the extent this RfC is about whether the focus of the article should be historical/contemporary, it makes sense to mirror most other ethnic group articles by focusing first on the contemporary (ie notable black Japanese people of recent times). But the historical is also interesting encyc info (I personally had no idea how/when black people first arrived in Japan). I note that a source further up this talk page says that accompanying the first Portugese traders were African sailors, servants and slaves, but only the slaves (and exotic animals) are mentioned in the article. So both the contemporary and the historical are not being fully addressed at present.Pincrete (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A. Option B is obviously racist and has many issues. - Bagel7 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B - as the long standing norm and because content makes a bit more sense. Both versions have some issues and some benefits, but overall go to the more correct text and staying the same unless there is notable improvement. In this case, I would prefer some discussion and come to accept some of A, like the photo at top be a modern one -(to be current and to be closer to the ja.wikipedia.org entry) but B is fine. The bit more sense is at 'African', because not all Africans are black and not all black japanese come directly from Africa. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
    Option B isn't the long standing norm. Option A is. Ryuudou (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A - per DragonBrickLayer and BMWF. Ryuudou (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

Limited to 500 words? Isn't it users with 500 edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37405-16 (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Urgal)

Some contentious topics restrict editing to editors with at least 500 edits (see WP:ECR), but word limits can also be imposed (see the fifth point of WP:STANDARDSET) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel it should be noted that, when the article was created back in 2019, the first lead image was of Jero as seen here and was still the lead image when the first historical image was added in 2023 here. I feel the depreciation of a current living Black Japanese person (in the form Jero's image) in favor of historical images of peoples who, if they are foreign slaves owned by foreigners, wouldn't qualify as subjects of this article (at least in my opinion, as slaves wouldn't have any say in their residency, wouldn't consider themselves Black Japanese, and wouldn't be considered citizens), troubling. It appears that the current lead image was put into place in February 18, 2025 after another user removed some of the historical images and suggested more contemporary ones be added instead. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2025

I request for where it says "African ancestry" to be changed to "non-Berber or non-Coptic Indigenous African ancestry", since the Berbers and Copts of North Africa (Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) are not Black. ~2025-38756-23 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. This has already been discussed. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 21:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2026

I request for where it says "African ancestry" to be changed to "non-Berber or non-Coptic Indigenous African ancestry" since Berbers and Copts are not Black. ~2026-20727-0 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Your proposed wording is unnecessarily specific and you have not provided any reliable sources to support it. Day Creature (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)