Talk:Mineko Iwasaki

NPOV

I was just over at the Memoirs of a Geisha to register my concern over NPOV, and now I find the same issue here.

The assertion that Iwasaki is upset over the similarity of the people in her career to the characters in Geisha needs to be given a reference or removed, especially since the whole point being made when it's discussed in the article seems to be how different the characters are from the historical individuals. Iwasaki's lawsuit was about her name appearing the acknowledgements, not over the novel being too close to her life. Without a reference, this assertion reads like a Wikipedia editor read Iwasaki's biography and Golden's novel, formed their own opinion and wrote it up here (use of the phrase "no doubt" makes this inclusion pretty much impossible to avoid), in which case I'd recommend a thorough rereading of WP:NOR--it comes across as simply character assassination of Arthur Golden. Binabik80 00:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"The assertion that Iwasaki is upset over the similarity of the people in her career to the characters in Geisha needs to be given a reference or removed, especially since the whole point being made when it's discussed in the article seems to be how different the characters are from the historical individuals."

Sorry I'm not exactly what you're saying there. I think the point is that the characters are plainly similar in both, but Golden made them far more negative than they actually were. Also I dispute that this is original research - it's stating the plainly obvious. Just because some moron-commentator hasn't spelt it out yet doesn't mean that it's clear to anyone with a functioning brain-stem.

A tweaking to highlight the fact that no one can be sure what Iwasaki feels/felt would be a fair proposal, especially as Japanese women of her age are not given to wear their heart out on their sleeves. But to simply delete the point about the relationship between the characters in both books because it hasn't been stated in the media is also silly. If you go to the Mao: the unknown story page, someone posted a heap of criticism that had not been said by anyone outside of wiki (and it stood). They just looked at the themselves and posted information that they believed contradicted it. If you want to delete the statements here, you must also go over there and do the same. John Smith's 11:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course there are many similar characters in Golden's novel and Iwasaki's memoir. Both of course contain geisha apprentices, geisha who act as mentors, wealthy patrons ... all the characters one would expect to find in books about the training and career of a geisha in mid-twentieth-century Gion. It would, in fact, be rather odd if there weren't major characters who played the same roles in the main character's life—that would be worth commenting on. The fact that Golden openly acknowledges that Iwasaki was a major source (possibly the major source) for the novel only makes this even more true.

Making "the point that the characters are plainly similar in both" Memoirs of a Geisha and Geisha: A Life, if that's what was really happening here, would be appropriate in a work of criticism comparing the two. This isn't such a work; this is an encyclopaedia article about Mineko Iwasaki. But that's plainly not the point that's being made at all—the comparison is brought up only to discuss how Iwasaki "no doubt" feels about the characters in Golden's novel, which (unless someone can find a reference about it) is quite clearly inappropriate here.

Furthermore, even if all this unsubstantiated (and IMHO, insulting to Ms Iwasaki, since I see no evidence that the people who are making these representations on her behalf have made any attempt to ask her if they're even true) speculation about Iwasaki's feelings wasn't a problem, it's still certainly not "silly" to exclude original criticism from Wikipedia. That's the whole point of WP:NOR. Let's take a look at the criticism that appears in this article, and that appeared in the Memoirs of a Geisha article until I moved it to that article's talk page. Firstly, here:

These people and experiences are often portrayed negatively in Memoirs, even when their real-life counterparts were positive for Iwasaki.

And in Memoirs:

Indeed, many of the main characters all corresponded to people she knew or was close to. But such characters, nasty and bitter as they were in Memoirs of a Geisha, were actually very kind to her in real life. When Sayuri enters the okiya, she is treated like a slave. But in real life, Iwasaki was shown much love and attention, given a very privileged position. "Hatsumomo" was actually a sister that she developed a close relationship with, and "Nobu" was a lover that she cared deeply for.

Please note that I did not quote the sentences that simply state that characters in both works have similarities, since that could indeed be classified as "stating the plainly obvious"—but as I said in my first paragraph, it's just not really worth mentioning here unless followed by all this original research.

The sentence in this article seems to me to be, pretty clearly, a blanket statement provided without anything to back it up. The statement does get substantiation in the passage from the Memoirs article—and it's here that we see the problem with original research (for me, it's the main problem, though there are others).

Because this is just plain bad criticism. It assumes without any justification (indeed, in direct contradiction with the Acknowledgements in Memoirs) that Golden's only source of inspiration for his novel could have been his interview with Iwasaki. "When Sayuri enters the okiya, she is treated like a slave. But in real life, Iwasaki was shown much love and attention, and given a very privileged position." Why must Golden have been thinking only of Iwasaki when describing Sayuri's childhood? Is it really so unrealistic to believe that, because Iwasaki had a relatively happy childhood, that means all geisha trainees had happy childhoods, and none of them were as miserable as Sayuri? Would Iwasaki make such an assertion?

Similarly, the assumption is made that Hatsumomo and Nobu must be direct one-for-one analogues with people who played similar roles in Iwasaki's professional maturation—that it's simply impossible, because of Iwasaki's happy experience, for a geisha novice to have had the experience of a horrid more senior geisha living in her okiya with her. In a legitimate work of criticism, it would have been appropriate to say, "Hatsumomo resembles X for Iwasaki by playing roles x, y and z in Sayuri's life, but differs from X in having characteristics a, b and c. Similarly, Nobu resembles Iwasaki's Y in aspects d, e and f, but differs in g, h and i." But of course, a balanced assessment like this would have destroyed the author's position that Iwasaki must "no doubt" take Memoirs of a Geisha as only an attempt to twist every aspect of her life into something dark and sordid.

Once we start allowing such "criticism", we very rapidly end up with people posting any axe they have to grind whatsoever with the book as if it's a valid and widely accepted criticism of the author's work. Don't believe me? Go check out the articles on all things Dan Brown.

And lastly, it is certainly not true that I "must" replicate whatever attempts I make here to prevent Wikipedia from being used for original research over at Mao: The Untold Story. Wikipedia is a very, very big place, and is predicated on the notion that each individual contributor works on the articles that they, for whatever reason, are inclined to work on. To imply that by taking issue with original research here and in the Memoirs article I am taking responsibility for all original research on Wikipedia risks looking like an attempt to discourage me from bringing my issues with this article here by making the task look intimidating. From what you say (I can't be bothered to go look at the article myself), the Mao article very well could have original research in it; if you're concerned about it, I suggest bringing it up on that article's talk page, or (probably even better) putting the article up for peer review. Binabik80 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

John Smith's, why did you revert my recent changes? I don't believe there were any significant changes to the informational content, my revisions were primarily an attempt to clarify the article and improve the writing style. I think my version is also slightly more NPOV. If you found my changes objectionable, I'd like to know why. CKarnstein 21:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I felt that you removed a few things that were important. But the style is better, so I'll have a look at it later to see if there are a few things I can change a little bit. John Smith's 10:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Geiko or geisha?

Given that she refered to herself as a geiko (and was from Kyoto), I think we should use that. If she had come from a part of Japan that didn't use that term, then fine. John Smith's 10:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It would've helped if I had known that. Ah well. Thanks. ViceroyInterus 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal Criticisms (correct me if I'm wrong)

First, she sues the author for breach of contract (didn't want others to know she had spoken about Geisha life). Now, she writes an autobiography?? Alright, maybe the Japanese already know she had already spilled the beans, but why would she do it AGAIN and write a more "truthful" account of Geisha life? She's just breaking the code of silence even more. Why did she sue the other author to begin with than?

I've read a interview with her, and she claims that they are not prostitutes (geishas); yet, I have heard (I'm not sure if it's true) that she had sold her virginity for a very high price. I don't know about her, but that sounds like prostitution to me -- money for sex.

I guess from a cultural anthropologist's point of view, being a geisha isn't equivalent to being a prostitute. But I don't think I buy that. It still sounds like prostitution. 24.23.51.27 08:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong, so here is your correction. One of the reasons for the lawsuit was that, thanks to Memoris of a Geisha, many people now falsely believe that Iwasaki sold her virginity to the highest bidder. As is stated in the Wikipedia article, she is quite emphatic that this never happened to her and that there was no tradition in Gion of auctioning off the virginity of young geisha. This and other misconceptions about the geisha world are why Iwasaki decided to break her silence and wrote her own memoir. It's unfortunate that even after that some people still give more weight to fiction. CKarnstein 04:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, back in ancient times, Geisha DID perform a ritual where her virginity was given to the highest bidder, but that was the only time she was ever allowed to have sex for money and not get in trouble. Howver, within the past 100-200 years, they have ceased to do that ceritan ritual and it no longer takes place. So in Memoirs of a Geisha, they protray a long extinct ritual once preformed by Geisha. IT IS NOT PROSTITITION. Orian are Japanese prostitutes, not Geishas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.151.168.68 (talk • contribs)

Pardon my gravedigging, but prostitution was banned in Japan in 1958 and mizuage went with it. Since she was eight at that time (and only about three or four years at the okiya), she probably would've missed it. Mother Sakaguchi, Auntie Oima, and yes, probably even Mama Masako would've gone through with it. 23.121.160.252 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Geisha of Gion

Did anyone actually read this book? There's no article here on wikipedia on the book yet...

'Geisha of Gion' is the UK title of the US book, 'Geisha, A Life'. The content isn't different.134.69.230.129 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Geisha of Gion.jpg

Image:Geisha of Gion.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

I was looking for some information on the author/book and came across this article. I updated and sourced some information (the Phoenix link is still there, I just moved it from external and used it as a source). However I cannot find any citation of her case with Golden being settled, in or out of court. Anyone have some better luck? Travellingcari (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the last paragraph of this article. John Smith's (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that! I'll source it in the article now Travellingcari (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations go after punctuation - not before. Please change them around. John Smith's (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are making my head spin! ;) I just got told off in another discussion that they're meant to go before and that Wikipedia has no policy per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources -- FWIW, MLA, which I'm most accustomed to uses pre-punctuation http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/02/ . I don't really see that this article has evolved using one form, save for the one you changed, as it wasn't cited at all before. Any reason to change? If there's a good one, I'll do it but I see this getting re-changed again and turning into a mess. Make sense? I'm off on the train for a bit, will touch base back later, I'm not disappearing Travellingcari (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was told they go after - that was by someone who oversees the Featured Article nominations, etc. If you look at a FA article like Japan you will see the result. Seriously, the people who told you they go the other way around either don't know what they're talking about or were having a joke. John Smith's (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry wasn't watching this when I thought I was. Those who advised otherwise cited the same link I did above, where it's pretty much left in the air that it can go either way. I will move the citations here because a) it seems to be important to you and b) there are far more interesting things to debate ;). Happy Friday. Travellingcari (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking by IP 98.216.153.130

The removal of this long-standing section on Iwasaki should not have been made without discussion and consensus-achieving. Important text and sources were removed by the editor and we need it here. Please start a conversation here first rather than just cut material without even an edit summary - that is essentially vandalism. In the meantime I have reverted. John Smith's (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was trying to work that out as well. I was going to rv all three changes but in the middle one the IP appeared to add something. Was trying to do a linexline and didn't get anywhere. I'm inclined to listen to the quacking and call it vandalism. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Auctioning virginity

AGameOf You, was that a joke edit or serious? Because I cannot understand for the life of you why you made it. It was fine as it was, but you made a grammatical mess for... I do not know what reason. I have reverted it accordingly. If you want to change the meaning can you please explain what you want to say here first? That way I might be able to help you write something simpler. John Smith's (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected link for 1st ref in reflist

This is the correct url from the web archive: <ecode>http://web.archive.org/web/20061116074453/http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2006/03/the_queen_and_t_1.html</ecode>. My phones browser couldn't handle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dates not adding up

Guys I'm no specialist on her biography or anything but if she quit at age 29 and her mentor's death that precipitated her retirement was in 1980, then she was either not born in 49 or older when she retired (ノ＞▽＜。)ノ Source: Basic Arithmetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugar128 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mineko Iwasaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061116074453/http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2006/03/the_queen_and_t_1.html to http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2006/03/the_queen_and_t_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mineko Iwasaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106181143/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/02473409.htm to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/qa/documents/02473409.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of book cover

So why was the book cover removed? I don't understand what "nonfree book cover in author BLP lede" means. It's fair use, shows the cover of the book written by her - is there anything wrong with that? John Smith's (talk)

Yes. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/May#Nonfree book cover on author page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Err, that's a link to a discussion between two editors. Do you have a link and reference to actual Wikipedia policy/guidelines? John Smith's (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

They're provided in Seraphimblade's sound comments in that discussion, which you should review carefully rather than dismissing out of hand. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I did read the links. But it wasn't clear. It was only reading the NFcontent page a second time and reading one of the references that I saw the comment "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician". John Smith's (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mineko Iwasaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302001501/http://asianweek.com/2001_05_04/news7_lawsuitofageisha.html to http://asianweek.com/2001_05_04/news7_lawsuitofageisha.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hi all

I noticed that not only were there two separate external links sections, but that the first contained only download links for Mineko Iwasaki's books. Clearly this is copyright infringement. I have removed the links.

14.2.165.208 (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)