Talk:Fiona Graham/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Current Work section

If we go with the story that Graham's IP socks were so insistent on, Liza Dalby wasn't registered with a geisha association, therefore she didn't "work" as a geisha, therefore she wasn't a geisha. But that then implies that since Graham is not registered with a geisha association now, she is not "working" as a geisha now, so she isn't a geisha now. So it's logical to say that she offers particular services, but it's incorrect to say that she IS a geisha, right? Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here, I'm not Fiona Graham and it gets quite difficult for me to contribute to discussion when it's assumed I am. The edit had nothing to do with what it does or does not mean to be a geisha, it was simply an update based on an article I'd read / listened to and thought would bring the article more up to date. Mrceep (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out on this board that geisha must train for a year or so before they can become geisha. They only become geisha with the support of the whole community who have been watching them as they go through that initial year. They spend the whole year doing classes at the geisha office and usually training at a tea-house for several months. They go through an expensive and full day ceremony that takes weeks of preparation. They are then officially affiliated to a district and can use the name of that district. All of this is written in Wilipedia's pages on geisha and anywhere else you read about geisha. Liza Dalby was sent out to a banquet a couple of days after it was first suggested according to her own book. This is a debut in the loose sense of going somewhere for the first time. It is not a real geisha debut by any means.

There are many geisha who are not currently affiliated but who are still geisha because they trained and debuted and currently work as geisha i.e. whole districts which no longer have a geisha office, or where geisha are the only geisha in their town, or where the district has split in two. Sayuki still does banquets together with other geisha because she is recognised as a geisha by them and this is because she trained and debuted and currently works as a geisha. Sayuki has said all of this in various interviews, mostly in Japan where the press seem to be more responsible about reporting things correctly.

Sayuki asked the permission of the Asakusa office to own her own geisha house i.e. become independent or "dokuritisu suru". She was allowed to be a geisha. She was not allowed to go the next step and own her own geisha house because she was a foreigner. The geisha office had allowed her to be a geisha but had not foreseen she would want to own her own geisha house. WIkipedia has misinterpreted this issue and this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.149.249 (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All original research, no sources cited for any of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Bbb23, this is compatible with what it says about geisha on the Wikipedia geisha page, and with what it used to say on Liza Dalby's page and according the the discussion consensus on that page. Please make this page compatible with what is said about geisha training on other pages on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.149.249 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Anon, Bbb23 is right - we cannot use Wikipedia as a source, and even if we could this still would be synthesis, which is a form of original research, too. You removed sourced content and replaced it with your own interpretation. If the sources say Liza Dalby worked as a geisha, that's good enough for us to say she did, even if you think she wasn't a real geisha. --Six words (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Do a google search for "first foreign geisha" and you will find pages and pages and pages of reliable verified sources ALL demonstrating the Sayuki is the first foreign geisha. Why are the disruptive editors on Wikipedia so keen to cite the one article that got it wrong? This is unfair to Sayuki and plain wrong. If you look on Liza Dalby's own discussion page on Wikipedia there is a consensus there from years ago that says she was not a geisha. If you look at the Wikipedia page on geisha AND the sources by which it is backed up you can see clearly that to become a geisha requires around a year of training, and a ceremony, and the permission of that district to debut. Sayuki's web-site states very clearly that she currently works as a geisha and does all kinds of banquets. What is the agenda of the editors who are using her own web-site to try and make it look as if she ONLY offers "non-traditional geisha services" as they put it. Writing things like that can seriously affect Sayuki's work and are unfair and unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.149.249 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Do a google search for "aspartame" and you'll find that it's responsible for pretty much every disease known to mankind, so of course we'll dismiss the few articles that say otherwise ... not. Or ask people where - in relative position to earth and sun - the moon stands at full moon: most people will tell you it's between earth and sun, while the opposite is true, so of course we'll go with the popular answer instead of the correct one ... not. It's not important if the majority of articles repeat what Ms Graham told them, it's enough to have one noting that while she says she's the first one, there was someone before her. Please tell us how not being the first westerner to become a geisha seriously affects Ms Graham's work? I'd think that her customers choose her because she's good at her job and not merely because she's ‘the first foreigner’. I'm tired of this discussion, and I won't discuss the ‘google it argument’ again. Please note that Wikipedia isn't an advertising space, whatever is verifiable can be part of the article, not only what the subject approves of. --Six words (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you google "first foreign geisha", you will find hundreds of newspaper articles from valid, reliable sources of the kind that are accepted on Wikipedia that all say that Sayuki is the first foreign geisha. Are the editors here interested in accuracy and reliable sources or not? Because if you are this article should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.120.3 (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If the googling is that easy, please provide links here to the articles that you find. I'll try to look if I can, but no promises on when that will be. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Until recently, for many years Liza Dalby's Wikipedia entry read as follows: Liza Dalby has been referred to as the only non-Japanese woman to ever be a geisha. She accompanied geiko on many engagements from 1975-76, becoming popular with both customers and geisha. Of course, she never went through the formal processes of becoming a geiko herself, nor was she formally associated with any of the okiya or ochaya in Kyoto. She was often requested by customers, but note that clients were not billed for her attendance, since she had no formal association. The disruptive editors on this site have deleted all of this content, though it is backed up by Liza Dalby's own book. The Discussion board on that site also makes it clear that Liza was not a geisha. The Wikipedia site for geisha makes it clear that geisha training is around a year long before a geisha can debut and she must have the permission of the geisha association and undergo a debut ceremony. If you are interested in accuracy please make these three Wikipedia entries compatible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.120.3 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're telling us that because until recently Liza Dalby's article didn't care for policy, we shouldn't care for policy in Fiona Graham's article?
I'm really fed up now with being called disruptive for not letting original research into the article, so perhaps this is snarkier than it has to be - if an uninvolved editor thinks it's too much, they're free to collapse the next bit.

Liza Dalby has been referred to as the only non-Japanese woman to ever be a geisha.

= There are sources saying Liza Dalby is the only non-Japanese woman to ever be a geisha.

She accompanied geiko [...] she had no formal association.

= Those sources are wrong however, and I'll explain why.

Seriously, I don't see that happen. --Six words (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not planning to get fully involved in this discussion (just yet), but for now I would just observe for the moment that it's very hard to say who was the first non-Japanese "geisha" because I'm not sure how many of the news articles that have reported on this have done thorough research. There was a lot of excitement over Liza Dalby many years ago. Then Fiona Graham came along, and the reports changed. I haven't spent very long looking into this, but I found the following articles referring to Graham as the "first" western geisha.

The Telegraph, 7 January 2008 Sydney Morning Herald, 8 January 2008 The Independent, 28 January 2008 The Telegraph, 4 June 2011 The Australian, 6 June 2011 Sydney Morning Herald, 6 June 2011

There is also an article in The Japan Times that does not exactly take sides, but suggests that Graham is "more" of a geisha than Dalby was.

It was Sayuki's membership of the geisha house and her formal debuting as a geisha that set her apart from other non-Japanese "geisha" in the past — most notably American anthropologist Liza Dalby, who in the 1970s spent a year in residence with geisha in Kyoto, training with them and accompanying them as they worked.

What is certainly possible is that previously Dalby was referred to as the first western geisha because she ticked a lot of the boxes and was the first woman to got far along the path to becoming a geisha. But then Graham came along and, possibly having more right to be called a "geisha", was subsequently referred to as the first western/foreign geisha.

Has anyone looked into which sources refer to Dalby as the "first" western geisha and when they were published? That could be important. John Smith's (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said above (more than once), it doesn't really matter if the newer sources claim that Ms Graham is the first as long as there are sources giving that ‘title’ to Ms Dalby. Finding older reports online is hard (there are some sources, but they mostly deal with Dalby's book or with “American Geisha”: NY Times 1985, Boca Raton News 1985, Times Daily 1986, The Register-Guard 1988, Los Angeles Times 1989). This TIME Asia interview calls her the ‘first and only Westerner to become a geisha’ (while it's not dated, the archived versions are from '01 to '06, so Ms Graham wasn't a geisha back then). It's only an excerpt, so the print version might have more information. There probably also are Japanese reports - I don't speak Japanese, so it's not possible for me to search for them either on- or offline, that would be a job for Japanese speaking Wikipedians. As long as we're in agreement that we need to follow the sources and not our personal opinion of what makes someone a ‘real’ geisha, I'm sure we can come to a consensus here. --Six words (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to be robots over this. If reliable sources say that geisha do x,y,z and we can see that Dalby didn't do some of those things, we can use that. And we have to deal with the sources, especially given that two articles from the Telegraph actually contradict each other! I am not objecting to any reference to Dalby here, but we shouldn't pretend that we have to be paralysed because there's no consensus over the sources. After all, Obama's citizenship is disputed, but his main article page takes sides and says he was born in Hawaii. Indeed I can't see any reference to the disputed citizenship on his article at all. John Smith's (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a weak comparison. Being born in a certain place is not a choice, it's a fact, and as soon as there was a birth certificate all that was left were Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Belonging to a profession isn't so clear cut, and the sources reflect this. (A better comparison might be this: here in Germany, in order to become a cook you usually have to complete a 3 year apprenticeship and pass a final exam. Still, if you've been working in an inn, preparing meals for the customers - not only warming up pre-cooked stuff as you would do in a fast food store - it's perfectly fine to list "cook at XY inn" as previous work experience in your CV even though you haven't had any traditional training.) If there are sources saying she's the first non-Japanese geisha we can't just dismiss them by inferring from other sources that she still wasn't a ‘real’ geisha. --Six words (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really, documents can be faked and are faked all the time in many countries. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact. And I don't see being a geisha like being a cook, because you can prepare a fried breakfast in a cafe kitchen. That's being a cook. Being a geisha is more like being a barrister or solicitor. You can't randomly rock up to a teahouse in a kimono and start prancing about. It is also not SYN to report on comments that others have made about Dalby. Perhaps a discussion of how far Dalby could be considered a geisha is best saved for her own article. I've made some changes to the relevant section, which I've opened a new thread on below. John Smith's (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just given you some sources that state Liza Dalby was the first foreign geisha. I'm not aware of any sources claiming she "randomly rocked up to a teahouse and started prancing about", and it is SYN to dismiss sources because other sources not dealing with Liza Dalby say that you usually train for a year (or longer). I'm also not aware of any faked documents she used to claim she was a geisha, so please accept that I don't buy the likeness between the Birther thing and this discussion. --Six words (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The issues are: New geisha spend a year or so before they debut. During this time they are watched closely by all the community and they finally debut with the permission of the geisha office. During this time they attend official lessons at the geisha office with other new geisha. During this time they usually apprentice at a tea-house to learn manners. New geisha have a full day official ceremony to debut after the geisha association has decided they can debut. From that time, they become geisha and are paid to work as geisha. Being a geisha is a profession, not a hobby and geisha are paid.

All of this is included in the Wikipedia description of what a geisha is. The consensus on Dalby's page was that she was not a geisha because she did not follow any of the above steps. The simple facts are that Sayuki is the first westerner to have followed the above steps and to have been officially affiliated and debut as an official geisha, and to work as a geisha. This page is a Sayuki page. There is not even a need to mention Dalby on this page at all. If the editors here are interested in accuracy, then please correct this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.120.3 (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fwiw - I cleaned up Dalby's page because it was tagged. I haven't a clue who Fiona Graham is, nor do I have any interest in this dispute. I'm just posting to say that clean up happens around here, some us tidy pages, and wasn't done for any reason but to remove the tag. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Some editors have posted several times now that according to an ABC radio interview Sayuki currently takes lessons in flute, shamisen and singing. Bbb23 keeps on reverting this without reason, and puts the sentence in the past tense though there is no sources that say Sayuki no longer takes lessons. Bbb23 says using the current tense causes problems. For who? What problems? Could someone please look at this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.62.235 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3240043/Transsexual-geisha-is-former-Ministry-of-Defence-worker.html This person went to Kyoto and dressed up as a geisha for a couple of hours in a makeup studio which is something that tourists do and which has no connection at all with the geisha world. The Telegraph - with its ever reliable reporting - has reported them to be "the first transexual geisha" and say in the article that they "became a geisha". Is Wikipedia going to maintain that this person is a geisha just because The Telegraph has written so? If not, then please also keep your stance compatible and treat other articles similarly. Just because a newspaper creates a sensational headline does not mean that the content is factually correct. You need to look at the overall balance of the media. There are hundreds of articles saying that Sayuki is the first western geisha, and especially so in the Japanese media. Wikipedia should make an effort to be a reliable encyclopedia, not a servant of the tabloids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.62.235 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's an incredible distortion of the article, which makes it clear that Japanese tourist officials allowed Murdoch to dress in traditional geisha clothing - that's it. That you should even bring this up is absurd.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers reported that Murdoch was "the first transsexual geisha" and said that she "became a geisha". Newspapers reported that Dalby trained as a geisha, and became a geisha. The newspapers were wrong in both cases. Wikipedia should not blindly put up information just because it is quoted in papers because papers are often wrong. You need to look at what a geisha is and what is required to become one. Could some sensible editors please look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.62.235 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Above I've linked to some other sources that also call Ms Dalby a Geisha - like it or not, it's verifiable that she's been called the first non-Japanese geisha. You've brought this article to the BLP noticeboard multiple times, and haven't gained support once - does this mean that nobody on this board was sensible, or might it mean that it's time to move on? --Six words (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Liza was not a professional geisha and she did not work as a geisha. If you want to remove this find evidence first anywhere that says that she was affiliated or that she worked as a geisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.22.77.134 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Age information removed (for now)

Hello,

Per OTRS ticket 2011082510000711, I have temporarily removed the information relating to Ms. Graham's age from the article. I would now like to start a discussion regarding the appropriateness of disclosing her age in this article, for these reasons:

• The figure in the article has not been published by the media as far as I can tell (some news sources are offering a different age, however). I am not sure how it was deduced, so some elaboration on that may be necessary. I do not know which figure is correct.
• As the article focuses primarily on Ms. Graham as a geisha, which she is most well known for, it would be prudent not to publish her age. This is because in traditional Japanese culture, I am told that geishas do not reveal their ages (or names, really, but see below about that), and having such information out in the public could harm Ms. Graham's career. Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY states: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". In this case, as the year of birth has not been "widely published by reliable sources", because of the effect that it has on Ms. Graham's professional reputation, and because the article mainly concerns her career as a geisha, it would be sensible to exclude such information because of potential damage and cultural tradition. (Any insight that a Japanese editor could offer may be helpful in determining what sort of damage this could cause Ms. Graham.)
• Now, it would also be better if the article used the name "Sayuki" exclusively; however, I find this much more difficult to justify as countless sources have been reporting and using her real name for at least three years. I am not asking, at this time, for her real name to be removed, only the age/year of birth.
• If Ms. Graham becomes well known outside of being a geisha, and her age becomes more relevant in the article, it may be restored if consensus supports it.

This is an unusual move; I hope it makes sense and that any objections will be discussed below before reverting my actions. We traditionally do not remove such basic information from an article, but I think the special circumstances should spell a exception per WP:BLP.

I also understand this article has a history of disruption, but I don't think that is relevant to this discussion.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess my position on this would be "has her date of birth been published in a reliable source?" If the answer is 'yes', then I think it's fair game to include it. Likewise with her birth name. Removing supportable and largely uncontroversial information because the subject requests it opens a massive can of worms, as I imagine quite a few BLP subjects would like their names or DOBs changed or removed for professional reasons. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC).

(ec) Thanks, Fetchcomms; if the subject or other OTRS acceptable party has requested that the dates be removed, I believe that doing so is absolutely correct per our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(after ec): Lankiveil, WP:BLP explicitly explains why we have this rule; the thing is not just for this issue but for any other issue, just because something is verified does not mean it must be included. WP:V isn't about telling us what we must include; it's simply setting a bar telling us the minimum standard something must meet in order to be included. There is a good, clear reason for excluding the information, and there's no harm in leaving out DOB. This is analogous to the fact that we don't necessarily report the names or details of the children/siblings of BLP subjects simply because it has been published somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe the date of birth has been clearly stated in a reliable source, and I have seen conflicting sources giving her age. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The DOB is still not removed...could someone else please remove it. Otherwise the disruptive editors will revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.149.249 (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Before becoming a geisha, the subject worked as an anthropologist and during that time she wrote several books. Knowing the year of birth of a scientist/author puts things into perspective; for the anthropologist Ms Graham, there wouldn't even be a discussion about having her DOB in the article. From what the sources say, the subject initially planned to become a geisha as part of her studies and only later decided to continue working as a geisha, so those two parts of Ms Graham's life are inseperable. None of the IPs disputes this (nor is the veracity of her birth year disputed - I've asked this specifically). We wouldn't exclude an actor's age because he/she might get less roles as he/she ages, so why would we accept this as a reason for removal here? We include facts subjects would prefer not to see in their biographies every day, often in excessive detail (like DUI charges, drug posession, tax convictions, ...); we do this because those things are part of their life, too.

Not reporting on children and siblings is quite different from reporting the subject's own year of birth: the former concerns people that are not notable (as BLP subjects), the latter is basic information about the subject.

I agree that there are some facts that needn't be in a biography, but this isn't one of them. --Six words (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is twofold: one, the date/year of birth has not been published in reliable secondary sources as far as I can tell; two, geishas traditionally do not reveal their ages, and as such this qualifies as a "private" detail and would be covered under WP:BLPPRIVACY, but I'd like a Japanese user or geisha expert to comment on this as I am unclear how much of an issue this would cause. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the journal not a reliable source? WP:BLPPRIVACY is focused on identity theft, not on cultural issues. In addition, it states that if someone objects, the year should be listed (again, connected to identity theft because the thief would need the full DOB). I think we stretch BLP privacy too far. But I confess, as a policy issue, I'm not sure I'm in a majority on that issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I realize BLPPRIVACY is aimed mainly at identity theft, but as the journal seems to be the only secondary source, the birth date hasn't been "widely" published; and as Ms. Graham is objecting, I think we could make an exception and just leave out the year altogether. (I don't have access to the journal article, and it's one year too recent for JSTOR, but if it is the one written by Ms. Graham herself, it wouldn't really be a secondary source, either.) I'm still confused as to how secondary sources such as the Telegraph are reporting a different number—but that's a different issue. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, I usually "lose" on these issues, so I'm getting used to it. And that's not aimed at you - your comments are reasonable and well-balanced. I just have this thing about subjects controlling the encyclopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations not quite matching text

although American scholar Liza Dalby also trained and debuted as a geisha in the 1970s

Citation number 7, the 2008 Independent article, does not say this. It just says that Dalby attempted to train/attempted to become a geisha. There is no reference to debuting, nor does it confirm to what degree (if any) the training was successful. Only citation number 8 matches the text referred to above. Perhaps the Independent article's reference to this could be removed. Also, the Telegraph article says that Dalby did not have a "conventional" debut. Perhaps the text could say something like "although..... and had an informal/non-official debut as a geisha in the 1970s. John Smith's (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the source's wording (It was watching Memoirs, [Graham] says, that convinced her to try training as a geisha, the first Western woman to attempt it since the American scholar Liza Dalby in the mid-1970s.) is close enough. --Six words (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a small point, but I don't think that it is close enough. It suggests that Dalby attempted to become a geisha, but it does explicitly indicate how much training she got. If that was the only issue I might not have raised it, but as I also said the article makes no reference to a debut. I think it would be better just to remove the citation, unless the offending line can be amended. John Smith's (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dalby did not attempt to become a geisha and this is clearly stated in her own book. The word debut is only used in a sense to mean that she went to a banquet for the first time. There is no such thing as an informal debut. A geisha debut is a formal ceremony taking a full day and weeks of preparation as described on Wikipedia and backed up by references. Dalby's book clearly states she was sent to a banquet less than a week after it was first suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.120.3 (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Semantics aside, and sticking to the sources, Dalby did study the geisha world, did train, did go to a banquet - in the 1970s. Personally I think Dalby should be a see also on this page, as this page is on hers, unless we have sources to show that Graham was inspired by Dalby, followed in her footsteps, and so on. I'm not opposed to removing mention to her if it will cut down through some of the issues. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree to dropping the ‘first’ issue altogether - if we don't claim Graham is the first, we don't have to mention that Dalby is said to be the first, too. --Six words (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can report that the information is unclear in sources: "Source X says that Dalby was the first Western geisha, but Source Y indicate that Dalby may not have fulfilled all the requirements to be fully considered a geisha, making Graham the first western geisha." I'm not sure which is better, just offering this as an alternative. If Dalby is not mentioned in the text, then she should definitely appear in the See Also section (of course, per WP:OVERLINK, she would not appear there if she is mentioned in the text). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few sources are calling Dalby first, such as this, so I wouldn't want to drop that, but prob can be attributed. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood what you suggested above. I'm fine with either - discussing that both have been called the "first white/foreign/non-Japanese geisha", or not discussing who is said to be the first, I'm only opposed to dismissing one side as "factually wrong" based on personal opinion and original research. --Six words (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant drop the reference to Dalby altogether and simply add her in the "See also" section. I expanded the Dalby page last night and source after source names her to have been the first. I think the text here is fine, saying that Graham "claims to be the first". I'd just leave it at that. I don't think it's that big of a deal except to a very very small number of people. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If we could agree on only saying that Graham claims to be the first, I'd be OK with that even though I don't think it's ideal, but it doesn't look like that's possible. Only saying "she has claimed and reported to be the first" sounds strange and - left without an explanation that there was someone else before her that was said to be the "first", it will sooner or later be changed to "she is the first". I agree that nobody except a small group cares who really came first, but a biography is not a CV - if there's controversy about a BLP subject's claims, we can (and should) report on that. --Six words (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I actually agree. My position above was a compromise position presented in hopes of placating the disagreement, but according to sources Dalby clearly was first. I haven't read a source yet that doesn't refer to her as first or as becoming a geisha in the 1970s, obviously much before Graham. So, I guess we leave it as it is, but I may be adding additional cites to the Dalby claim - not something I like to do because it's a symptom of edit warring, but I think necessary here. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

T-keeper, as I said yesterday or the day before, it seems pretty obvious to me that because Dalby did "geisha activities" so as no one was aware of someone else doing that before she was reported as the "first". But other sources say that Graham was the first, so someone is wrong on this. John Smith's (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is important to say that Graham has been reported to be the first western geisha. Otherwise the impression is that it's something she has simply said as good PR. Also I have not read anything that suggests she might not have been a geisha. Having thought about it further, I think that the Dalby reference needs to be changed if not removed. Currently it reads like "Graham claims/has been referred to as the first, but Dalby trained and debuted in the 70s", suggesting that the first part is 100% definitely wrong. If the Dalby reference is to be kept, I think it needs to made less definite - e.g. having something like "reported that.......". John Smith's (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is unfair to Sayuki to say "she claims" because it makes her look like a liar. This issue is about the truth. Please go through the criterion that I have written elsewhere on this board and think about the issues one by one. And please look at Dalby's own book. It makes it very clear that sending her out to banquets was a spontaneous idea that was enacted on by just one tea-house owner and was not a proper debut supported by the whole community at all. And the bottom line is that being a geisha is a profession, not a hobby or volunteer activity. It is a professional body of women who are trained in a certain way, make an official debut, are officially affiliated when they debut, and work as geisha. Information about Liza Dalby belongs on Liza Dalby's page, not on Sayuki's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.62.235 (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Disaffiliation dispute and other matters

I note that there is more than one report on the fact Graham left the Association. I'm sure that we can agree on that. But the spokesperson did not say she had been kicked out, only that she had been asked to leave. Again, I assume that's fine with people?

Can we reach consensus on the remainder of the extract? For example, the WSJ said that Right now it’s a she-said, she-said type of scenario, which suggests that at least as they are concerned the causes of the problems aren't necessarily set in stone. I think before my edits the text was a bit too definite as to what happened. After all, later on the article said that nationality was also an issue.

I've tried to move the sources around slightly so that they support the text rather than are all punched together in one place. John Smith's (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made further changes. First, I could not find other newspapers that referred to the geisha complaints, just the Telegraph. They also do appear to be anonymous, which is important. Second, I've pointed out that Graham has been reported as the first western geisha - it's not just her claim. Perhaps it would be best to discuss all of my edits here, rather than try to wedge them into previous discussions. John Smith's (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal also reports about the complaints here: ‘Local Japanese reports (in Japanese) highlight that Ms. Graham did not practice enough, alleging that she didn’t listen to her elders, a formality at the foundation of Geisha society, and allegedly took matters into her own hands by hosting and performing at her own events in front of guests who booked her through her website. She allegedly complained loudly about not being allowed to perform in front of customers even though she was already very proficient with a musical instrument.’ As I said, I don't read Japanese so I cannot read the reports they're referring to, but it's untrue to say the Telegraph was the only one who referred to complaints. --Six words (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese Sponichi article also used as a reference source for the statement that she was disaffiliated in February says "除籍された", which can be translated as "be expelled" or "delisted". In this radio interview, Graham herself states that she is no longer affiliated with the Asakusa district. "Disaffiliated" sounds the most accurate way to describe the situation to me, and I think that changing it to simply say "she left" adds unnecessary vagueness. --DAJF (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sayuki has had only positive media for the whole time she was a geisha. The only negative report was from an anonymous geisha cited in The Telegraph. This article was copied by media around the world, including the Wall Street Jounal above, and also copied by Japanese media. There is not a single original source apart from The Telegraph that backs up any of the claims of the anonymous geisha. Wikipedia should not use multiple articles as evidence that all came from the same source as this gives undue weight and is unfair to the subject of this article. On the contrary, several articles directly refute what The Telegraph article says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.120.3 (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of points - if the story had been picked up from a newswire then the articles would mention that and not offer bylines. I checked the WSJ piece and it doesn't reference a newswire, so it is an original piece. From the sources, we don't know that another geisha spoke with the Telegraph - and we don't really care. All we care about is what the sources say. If the anon IP 114 can link to positive press articles, then great. If reading them is an issue, we can bring in someone from WP:WikiProject Japan to help with translations. In fact, I might consider linking these discussions there anyway. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The WSJ piece was not taken from a wire service. It was copied directly from Japanese papers that had copied directly from The Telegraph. No original research was done and the only negative report that has ever come out remains a single article in The Telegraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.62.235 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguity - Just a quick enquiry here. It as stated that "In February 2011, Graham was disaffiliated from the Asakusa Geisha Association" and then "The Asakusa Geisha Association did not comment on whether she had been disaffiliated." This might lead to some confusion to people reading the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikazuki3 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a clarification on this matter citing references [15][16] that have been quoted, "disaffiliated" is misleading to use, the first article states that she was denied independence to open a geisha house, while the second article states her is no longer affiliated to the geisha house, as circumstances of her geisha mother being ill which did not permit her to continue. This is different from a disaffiliation, which connotes she was "fired". kilingan 03:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilingan (talk • contribs)

Also, the following line states "The Asakusa Geisha Association did not comment on whether she had been disaffiliated.[17]" has clearly showed that there isn't an official (or any) word that states that she was "disaffiliated", thus might be misleading to use the word as a general claim. kilingan 07:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilingan (talk • contribs)

As DAJF wrote above: "The Japanese Sponichi article also used as a reference source for the statement that she was disaffiliated in February says "除籍された", which can be translated as "be expelled" or "delisted". In this radio interview, Graham herself states that she is no longer affiliated with the Asakusa district. "Disaffiliated" sounds the most accurate way to describe the situation to me, and I think that changing it to simply say "she left" adds unnecessary vagueness." Your Lord and Master (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence from which you derive that phrase states that she was disaffiliated from the geisha house, but not the association (The other reference stated that the association has no comments on this matter). The reason was already made clear that her geisha mother could no longer carry on her duties. We cannot assume out of context that she was expelled as a geisha. kilingan 07:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilingan (talk • contribs)

That's true. But the other quoted source (The Wall Street Journal, a reliable source) said "Fiona Graham, more commonly known as Sayuki, is no longer affiliated with the Asakusa Geisha Association, according to reports, noting that Ms. Graham has been asked to leave because her actions disgrace the reputation of the association." So I guess we should say that she was expelled from her okiya as well as disaffiliated from the AGA. Your Lord and Master (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal states that Sayuki is "no longer affiliated" and not disaffiliated, which supports my earlier claims. The quote in the article which claims "that Ms. Graham has been asked to leave because her actions disgrace the reputation of the association." is of a private opinion, is not fair to be used as a fact in the article, since the Asakusa Geisha Association did not comment on this matter. It seems that the Wall Street Journal and some other sources are referencing The Telegraph article, which gave those reasons of disaffiliation it as an insiders claim (or opinion from another geisha), and cannot be taken as a fact. kilingan 01:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilingan (talk • contribs)

General point on "sourced"

A few people have been reverting removals, or arguing that such and such information must be included because it is sourced. Well, that's not actually how Wikipedia works. WP:V says that being verifiable is the minimum criteria necessary for inclusion, but it doesn't work the other way around; that is, just because something is verified does not automatically mean that it must/should be included. If that were the case, then our articles would include every single fact included in every source we can find on subjects; obviously, that's not what an encyclopedia does. Now, that doesn't mean people should just go through removing sourced claims, but it means that it is possible for us to come to the consensus that, even though a certain piece of info is verified, it doesn't necessarily belong in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that, but there hasn't been consensus for removing those things, has there? --Six words (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The WP:BOLD cycle allows people to remove things without asking for permission on talk pages. However, if you revert something you should engage in discussion rather than simply exercise a "veto". Given that this page has been disputed a bit, maybe we should try to draw up a list of what the different editors think exactly needs to be done to the article and why. John Smith's (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You're allowed to remove stuff once and if you're not reverted, you can assume consensus for your edit, you aren't, however, allowed to remove things you don't like again and again until nobody can bother to revert you any more. New users and IP editors won't necessarily know WP:BRD though, so it's a good point. As this page shows there has been some discussion going on, not just "vetos". --Six words (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Socks

Collapsed, unsubstantiated accusations

Looks like we have a couple of new sockpuppets taking an interest in this article. Please give a warm round of applause to User:Mikazuki3 and User:Shiscon171, both of whom made their Wikipedia debut on this article! (Mikazuki3 made a brief cameo in a couple of manga-related ones, much like User:K1nchTKB did. Your Lord and Master (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Who do you believe they are socks of? Do you have any evidence? If so, please open an WP:SPI. If not, I recommend you strike out your statement, because calling people sockpuppets without evidence is a personal attack. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I just saw this today. Please remove this soon as I am in no way a sockpuppet. Mikazuki3 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Based on Mikazuki3's editing tendencies and being yet another new editor that suddenly appears out of nowhere to focus on this article, I would also say that there is an extremely high probability that it is Fiona Graham's latest incarnation, taking over the baton from Mrceep. As us regular editors are not able to examine other editors' IP addresses, evidence is always going to be circumstantial (WP:DUCK), and since her incarnations do not edit simultaneously, I am not sure that there are grounds for opening a sock puppet investigation, although if further hints of "several other editors in the past have agreed with me" occur during future discussions here, I will certainly consider taking it to WP:SPI. --DAJF (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC) It is true that I am a new editor, but I believe that declaring me as a sock puppet immediately in such a short time is against Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Keeping this section in the discussion board really evicts me from this article since I will no longer be taken seriously. I hope you would remove this section soon or bring it up to WP:SPI if you think is it appropriate.Mikazuki3 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, Mikazuki3, I've never seen a genuinely new editor who was aware of AGF, BITE, and, especially, SPIs, meaning your comment itself somewhat contradicts your claim. However, Mikazuik3 is right that this is very much the wrong place to put this concern, as I said above, unsubstantiated accusations of socking are borderline personal attacks. At an absolute minimum, take this to the editor's personal talk page, not a general forum like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC) I did some reading on the above articles since it was linked in this talk page and I do try to make an effort to understand Wikipedia policies as best as I can before making a post. Anyway I have created a user page for myself Mikazuki3 and you may post your comments there instead. I hope to be able to remove this section as soon as possible.Mikazuki3 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Comments are posted to a user's Talk page, not his/her user page. And I think you mean you hope that this section will be removed, rather than you removing it. In any event, I agree with everything Qwyrxian said. Regardless of what other editors may think, they should either bring it to WP:SPI or not say it, and I'm disappointed that neither Your Lord and Master or DAJF have responded to that criticism.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Western flute

This Article in the Mainichi Shinbun has indicated that Graham had been playing the Western flute for many years. I would suggest an edit to include this, such as "Sayuki took lessons tea ceremony previously, but currently takes lessons in shamisen and singing, and in her main art of yokobue (Japanese bamboo flute), which she chose after playing western flute for many years."Mikazuki3 (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is sourced - albeit directly from Fiona Graham's own mouth - then I don't see any problem with adding it to the article. --DAJF (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Graham is not a geisha

Now that I've got your attention, Sayuki Fan Club, can you please provide a straightforward response to this: 1. You say that Dalby wasn't a geisha because she wasn't formally affiliated/registered with a geisha organisation, and so should not be described as (ever) being one. 2. Graham is no longer affiliated/registered with a geisha organisation after being expelled. 3. Therefore Graham is no longer a geisha and so should not be described as being one. Please feel free to point out why 1 & 2 does not imply 3. Thanks for your time! Your Lord and Master (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This has already been explained by someone else in this discussion board. 1. You must formally debut and be formally associated with a geisha association to become a geisha. How else would you learn how to become a geisha? It is an apprenticeship to a geisha mother that takes place over usually a whole year of preparation. 2. Graham was not "expelled". She was not able to continue in her geisha house after her geisha mother became ill which is all documented in The Australian. And when she asked to have her own geisha house which is normally allowed by Asakusa rules, they decided that they would not allow foreigners to own their own geisha houses. 3. Graham is still working as a geisha - this has been cited in various recent media - together individually with geisha from other districts in Tokyo and also from Asakusa. Other geisha are also independent because their districts don't have geisha associations any more i.e. Shibuya is one, or Omori. But they debuted properly and trained properly and worked properly as geisha. I am not a Wikipedian and cannot put up the sources but this has been in recent media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.76.107.180 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

According to this Japan Times article it is the formal debut which makes Graham different from Dalby. As to what makes one a geisha, I am still researching on the exact criteria. However, it might be worthwhile to include the distinction between Dalby and Graham in the article since there is a source which indicates that Graham has been set apart from Dalby. Mikazuki3 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

While Dalby is widely recognized and can be accepted in public opinion as a geisha, she cannot be formally be recognized as one to give respect to the official process in which all geishas have to go through. That distinction has to be made clear to not confuse on the actual criteria and work of the entire process to become a full fledged officially recognized geisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilingan (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes, and other articles (which you have so kindly pointed out ad nauseam) say that geisha training takes four to five years on average. Therefore there is a strong case to be made that Graham isn't a "real geisha", either. Your Lord and Master (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, there are a number of articles out there that refer to Graham as the first "western" geisha, but I'm not aware of any that say she isn't. John Smith's (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment necromancy here but I just came across it and this logic is so terrible that I have to respond. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You seem to have this belief that journalists these days actually research the topics that are sent to them as press releases rather than just tweaking the words a bit and slapping them up on the wire. Just because Graham faxspammed her promo copy to a hundred newspapers which then printed her claims basically verbatim (because Japan is so wacky, westerners will believe anything, no need to factcheck guys!), that doesn't mean that yes, Graham is objectively and literally the first westerner ever to become a geisha. It means that we're lucky some other journo wrote about Dalby before and that article still exists (though I'm sure Graham would love to throw it down the memory hole, too.) Your Lord and Master (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So what are you saying - that we can't use newspapers as sources because journalists are sometimes lazy? John Smith's (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

To the IP editor(s)

It irritates me to see edit warring on substantially the same sections of the article every few days. While I strongly support your right to edit as an IP rather than register an account, if this disruption continues, I'll be inclined to ask for extended semi-protection of this article. As far as I can tell most of the changes made by IPs have been discussed here substantially and rejected, or are simply unsourced. The way to solve what you perceive as a problem is not by just trying to force the article to read the way you want--it's to discuss the issue, and, if you have no success (and still think you're right), pursue dispute resolution. I would be happy to help you start that process; I have no particular opinion about Graham, Dalby, or even geisha in general; my only opinions lie with the desire to have the article follow WP policy/guidelines (including preventing harm to the subjects per WP:BLP). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

I am one of Sayuki's fans and I am sure other people posting here are also her fans or students. I hardly ever post here and if you look at my IP address you will see that. Sayuki has thousands of fans and many former students who took her class at Keio. This page doesn't make sense if you look at the geisha page on Wikipedia or with Liza Dalby's page. The editors who keep insisting that Liza Dalby was a geisha are not following Wikipedia guidelines! Liza Dalby's page used to say that she did not formally debut and didn't charge for her time. That means she wasn't a working geisha. If you go through her discussion page you can see this. All the arguments about why Sayuki is the first Western geisha are written above in this page already. The editors just keep on ignoring it. Liza Dalby's page goes through this on her discussion page too. Anyway the sentence as it stands now doesn't mean anything. It should read "Sayuki's formal debut and membership of a geisha house distinguish her from Liza Dalby who has been reported as being a geisha but was not a working geisha. The criteria for being a geisha are also written about above. A geisha debut takes months of preparation and is a formal ceremony taking the whole day and involving all of the community and takes place with the permission of the geisha association. Liza was sent out to a banquet on a whim a couple of days after it was decided. That was fine because she was not regarded as a geisha - she was not formally affiliated and did not have formal geisha status. If you ban editing of this page for six months you just stop people being able to make it correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.76.107.180 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Bility (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this page protected because there is a dispute on it? That just means that the last version - which is wrong - is now unchangeable. Can someone please unprotect this page so we can add to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.129.222.194 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The page is protected from unregistered or new users (this is called semi-protection. This is because a number of users have repeatedly been making changes over and over again that go against consensus. The way to fix the problems is to create a consensus here, on this talk page, that the edits are wrong, not to just keep trying to edit war to get the version that you want. You can, of course, register an account, and, after 4 days and 10 edits to other unprotected articles you'll be able to edit this article directly. Mind you, that still wouldn't mean it's okay to edit war to get your way (and edit warring can result in being blocked), but it would make it possible for you to edit the article directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, as I explained in the section above, we do have processes here on Wikipedia to help resolve disputes. Probably the best first step for this article would be a request for comment, which basically invites other, uninvolved users to add their input. Please tell me on (my talk page) if you would like help setting up such a discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)