User talk:Tanukisann

Yasuke

Regarding this comment, please mind WP:BLPTALK. he spreads a false history to the world that is based on his own delusions is not acceptable and may result in sanctions. Same goes for such a story is a ridiculous one told by people who are ignorant of history ... It is because of people like this that the influence of the false history that has spread is so great. I suggest you self-revert and re-write your comment in a BLP-compliant way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to thank you for pointing it out. However, I will not correct it even if I am punished.

Thomas Lockley himself admits that he wrote the book by prioritizing his own imagination, rather than the sources. 1

Changing the harshness of David Atkinson's comments would mean changing what he meant to say. 2

Why not encourage Thomas Lockley to apologize for the falsified history he has published in his books and in the media? Or how about we warn people like David Adkins not to say any more? I think it would be easier for you to talk to them than me, whose native language is Japanese and my English is bad. Tanukisann (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the following:

RSN: Reliability of Thomas Lockley. Most of the editors argued that "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" is not a reliable source. It is a work of historical fiction. While there's nothing wrong with historical fiction - it is a legitimate and often entertaining literary genre - it cannot be cited as a source on Wikipieda. In fact, the article Yasuke does not cite that book. You are tilting at windmills: you are discussing about things that were discussed months ago. That discussion is now over, and "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke" is not a reliable source.
However, there is a broad consensus that this article by Lockley is reliable. Along with other scholarly sources, it describes Yasuke as a samurai. WP editors have had no less than two RFCs on this issue (1 and 2) and the current consensus is that Yasuke should be described as a samurai. If you are interested in this topic, please read the two RfCs. And mind WP:IDHT: Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. This is disruptive.
Regardless of all this, it is not acceptable for you to use derogatory language about a living person. You can criticise their work, but not the person. If you do, you will definitely be blocked per WP:BLPTALK.
Please read also WP:TALK. Talk page discussion should be focused WP:TALK#TOPIC. Please address a specific point in the article and refrain from making general/irrelevant comments about the author of a source.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted while I was working on fixing the template, so I'll just reply with one comment.

No matter what Westerners say, Japanese people do not trust Thomas Lockley at all. Tanukisann (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are completely disliked. Give up now. That's right, let me point something out for him. The number of deaths at Honnoji Temple, including Nobunaga, is not 30. It is nearly twice as many, 60. Why did Lockley halve the number, and why did he say in a media interview that he witnessed Nobunaga's seppuku? It was all a production to make Yasuke a special person who could be by Nobunaga's side. Thomas Lockley continues to lie, even in the Encyclopedia Britannica. 114.168.141.180 (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are being harsh in their words because they are ignorant, but they don't understand anything.

Read this and study it.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DJ2KJJ9Y 140.227.46.9 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be coming anymore.

As per the topic.
用事があるなら日本語版の方で、日本語で話しなさい。いつか気づいたら反応するかもしれない。
Tanukisann (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Yasuke, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Relm (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting as you stepped away just before the topic was designated a contentious topic - and you are making/editing pages related to Yasuke.

While here I'd like to ask if Special:Contributions/140.227.46.9 this is your alternate since they just linked a niche page you translated recently as an example on talk:Yasuke, and you both seem to edit the same 4 pages. Relm (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]