Talk:Geisha

Fiona Graham sockpuppets are back...

...with the regular modus operandi: create a new account, get a few edits under the belt, then start editing editing editing the Fiona Graham and Geisha articles with the following aims:

• Remove any mention of her being expelled, or adding a bunch of blogspam/unfiltered quotes from Graham herself and presenting them as disinterested/objecting journalism
• Remove any mention of other foreign-born geisha (they exist, much as she wishes they didn't; Graham is not the only foreign-born geisha)
• Stress how he's apparently still a real geisha even though she isn't recognised as one (and it's debatable whether she ever was, given the Asakusa Association's description of her getting "special dispensation" as part of her studies

We can soon expect to see the user in question report me, this article, the Fiona Graham article, or even user DAJF (even though he's not involved right now) to the Administrator's Noticeboard, crying about how we're all just meanies attacking the FIRST FOREIGN GEISHA. Please refer to Talk:Fiona Graham archives for more info when the fecal matter inevitably contacts the air distribution system. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC) edit: Also she's wrong about the 10-year rule. Many people get permanent residency after five years (myself, for example). Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

She's still at work under the alias lilly1985. Her current goal seems to be adding personal information of other foreign geisha to "expose" them. Fiona's name is sullied and now she wants everyone else's to be as well. The foreign geisha section should be strictly watched to make sure that only independent legitimate sources are cited. Splishysplash (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the part :convicted as a con artist in New Zealand . The case was not about con artist at all. Please read news article again. I also deleted sockpuppets from the title. Its offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazuhirot (talk • contribs) 03:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geisha. 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/20110607225314/http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/s/article/2011060790070110.html to http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/s/article/2011060790070110.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) 21:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy Dispute

The article serving as the source makes no mention of the fact that she was kicked out. She claimed that she wasn't expelled, but left willingly as the hanamachi elders weren't going to allow her to open her own okiya due to being a foreigner. I'm not going to argue with that because I don't know both sides of the situation--I just placed the dispute tag because if you're going to claim she was kicked out, you need an article actually saying that she was kicked out, not claiming that she was and then not backing up the claim.

P.S.: I'm not a sock puppet...I had no idea there was a problem with Fiona's fans until I got here to explain my reasoning for the tag. The only change I made besides the tag was to add that Kimicho is from St. Louis, which I discovered while poking around after seeing her in a "Rachel and Jun" video. 2602:301:779A:FC0:64B6:621A:46A:4DE6 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Geisha. 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/20110613115352/http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/shopcore/978-0-8248-1488-5/ to http://www.uhpress.hawaii.edu/shopcore/978-0-8248-1488-5/
• 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
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130102225341/http://www.geishaofjapan.com/tourism/dances.html to http://www.geishaofjapan.com/tourism/dances.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120121500/http://www.kyoto.travel/baika-sai_plum_festival.html to http://www.kyoto.travel/baika-sai_plum_festival.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) 06:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"corrected false information"

User:Snufkin23, please either (A) specify the reliable sources that say a paragraph you deleted contains "false information", or (B) explain why the sources the paragraph cites are not reliable. -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think an article that uses a phrase like 'insiders claim' can be reliable. Besides, she states in an interview with Metropolis Japan that her leaving the Asakusa geisha house was misrepresented in the media by one single journalist from The Daily Telegraph, and this was then copied by an intern at The Wall Street Journal, and then copied again into the Japanese media, while none of these papers at the time ever interviewed her or the Geisha Association. https://metropolisjapan.com/sayuki/ Snufkin23 (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Non-Japanese geisha

The entries for the section "Non-Japanese geisha" should in accordance with WP:LSC and WP:CSC. In other words, names should not just be added with out supporting citations to independent reliable sources. Any individual mentioned should either (1) already have a stand-alone Wikipedia article written about them, or (2) be believed to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG so that such an article could someday be written about them. These types of embedded lists are not typically intended to be exhaustive per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, but rather should contain only encyclopedically relevant persons deemed appropriate to mentioned per Wikipedia policy. I understand that the number of women who either currently are or might have at one time been geisha is probably fairly small, but some specific criteria for inclusion should be established to avoid the adding of unsourced names. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Section headings

The subsection headings "18th-century emergence of the geisha" and "Rise of the geisha" seem a little bit redundant to me per MOS:HEAD. "18th-century emergence" seems just as easily understood without the "of the geisha" part, but not sure if the same can be said for "Rise". In fact, it's not clear what "Rise of the geisha" is supposed to mean. The section content seems to be discussing the geisha in the 1800 and early 1900s and then post-WWII. Perhaps the latter part should be split off into its own subsection and the first part somehow incorporated into the previous section or into another stand-alone subsection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've re-written that particular section, re-named it and given it subheadings within the content in order to create better structure. I still need to add in sources and re-write a lot of it, but seeing as I'm on holiday with just one book with me right now, I think I did a decent job of it. Please let me know if there are any glaring issues with its structure now. --Ineffablebookkeeper (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.97 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Issues with sources within this article and a word on vetting before use

As noted in my last edit, this page more than others has issues with its sources. Namely a lot of the stuff out there on geisha is half-remembered, half-hashed nonsense from someone who probably read Memoirs of a Geisha when drunk and had to fill the word count for 3pm the following day.

As a result, some of the sections here are a bit conflicted on what's actually what - including the previous 'Rise of the geisha' section (now 'Geisha in the 19th century to present day'). I'm going to go through one of the sources I removed briefly as an explanation on just how this topic needs extra vetting in its sources.

This source was Japan Encyclopedia by Louis Frédéric, 2005, page 234. I should note that this source is used as a sort of 'springboard' for a later source, using the latter to discredit the former. However, I'm going to argue that this source should not be included in this article at all. It's perfectly fine to talk about misconceptions of geisha, and indeed I think it would make a good and important section to this article.

But I don't think we should be using inaccurate sources to do this. The issue I had with this one is that, out of the three sources used in the section I cleaned up, this was the only one accessible online. Another had a Google Books preview that didn't include the page listed in the citation, and another didn't even have an ebook available freely.

The text surrounding this source didn't elucidate clearly which parts of it weren't accurate. Here's the quote:

There were many rumors that stated before the war, a maiko's virginity would be auctioned (the original "[[mizuage]]").<ref name="Melissa Hope Ditmore 2006">{{cite book...}}</ref> But this was confused with the girls who were apprentices to prostitutes and courtesans.<ref>{{cite book...}}</ref>

You can see how vague and inaccurate this is. What rumours? How was it confused, why, when? Is this helpful? No, it's not.

If you took the time to go through the information, and compared it to another source - let's use Liza Dalby's Geisha, for example - you'd realise just how wonky this sourcing and section is. In short, he a little confused, but he got the spirit. Unfortunately it's just not helpful to the reader.

The original author's clumsily pointed out that the first source is inaccurate in its description of mizuage - it doesn't happen anymore. But it's not true that it never happened, and that's not elucidated at all, leaving the reader wondering, just which of these sources are right?. There are sections in Geisha wherein Dalby speaks to elders of the community who came of age before the war, and an entire chapter on mizu-age and the changing face of sexual freedom in the geisha community.

"'If you see [maiko] again, Kikuko, will you tell her you didn't think it sounded so bad?'"..."'Yes, mother,'", I answered."

^ This is heavily paraphrased, but it's taken from the end of that chapter. Dalby sits and talks to her adopted geisha mother after a tea party late at night, and they have a discussion about mizuage. Many of the older geisha at that party had been through it, and recounted their experiences. So, it's not true to say that only prostitutes and their charges went through it.

In short, it's fine to point out inaccuracies, but don't use unreliable sources to do so. Use better ones that thoroughly smack down those inaccuracies! It strengthens the article and leaves the reader in a better place.

A short afterthought is just a few further inaccuracies mentioned in the first source removed, for future reference if someone's confused and rewriting a section:

• Danna are patrons, not 'protectors'. I don't think I've ever heard of a female danna, and it's really, really uncommon for a patron to be able to assume the cost of both the education and living expenses of a geisha in the present day.

• "Apprentice geisha (shikomi)" isn't quite right. Shikomi are apprentice maiko, and maiko are apprentice geisha. They're also not obliged to perform "domestic services" until they are "fully accepted" - in pre-war Japan, yes, but these would be shikomi taken on aged 9-13 years. Modern labour laws mean that shikomi are likely spending their hours learning the arts, as even an apprentice who comes to the vocation with some training will need a lot more. They just don't have the time to scrub floors, and they wouldn't be expected to.

• There's not "examination" at the end of a maiko's apprenticeship. And mizu-age does not happen anymore. To imply that an 18 year-old entering the geisha profession would need to give up her virginity just to get started really is not just inaccurate, it's harmful. It doesn't happen anymore.

• "Oshaku" is a term for pouring sake - no apprentice is called 'oshaku'. Apprentices perform oshaku, and they can be described as such, but it's a basic mistranslation. (There's apparently a slightly funny mental image of a man performing oshaku for himself in Japan that symbolises the sad, lonely drinker.)

• "Ippon" - I've never heard of anyone using this term for geisha as an alternative.

One thing I should point out is that these were inaccuracies not dispelled by the text surrounding this source - only the bit about mizuage was. So anyone reading might click through to that source, and go, okay, well, the virginity bit isn't true, but I guess this stuff is! You see? Not the best.

It's important to dispel myths, but it's even more important to do it well. Let's vet our sources first and ask for help if we're not sure. --Ineffablebookkeeper (not logged in)

"Female dominance in geisha society" section?

I'm working on copyediting the article, mainly removing redundant or overly verbose text. I came across the section called "Female dominance in geisha society" which has the "confusing/unclear" tag. I'm thinking that a large part of this section can either be deleted or moved to a different part of the article. I wanted to see if there were any comments before I do this. The subsection "Geisha as a women-centered society" looks more cohesive to me and perhaps most of it should stand as is. Alan Islas (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ineffablebookkeeper, the section looks much better after your edits. Alan Islas (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem - I should add that this is one of those really annoying articles where unfortunately some verbose text is necessary, purely because some of the distinctions that need to be made ("why did only some maiko undergo mizuage", "why is every geisha technically an older sister but only one geisha will be an apprentice's Older Sister older sister", etc) are pernickity, specific, and in some cases a tad controversial - mizuage being an example of this. Thank you for your edits regardless; always a pleasure to have some help in updating this article. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help a little bit. I think the article looks good enough that at least the copyediting and redundant issues could be removed, or maybe even the whole tag. What do you think Ineffablebookkeeper? It has been good collaborating with you on this. --Alan Islas (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say it still needs to be there. The article as a whole is pretty far from perfect, and I'd be more comfortable with it staying there until further issues are resolved - there are a lot of issues with referencing and the organisation of the information. I think the History section in particular needs a look-over with some relevant sources to hand, and I know I've added things in with the intention of adding references when I have the time that I now actually need to do, having actually got the time.

(Also, as an aside - I've noticed that you've been formatting wikilinks needing italicisation like [this|this]. Just wanted to let you know, in future you can format it like [this] - I've always felt it just makes things more efficient. Same goes for capitalisation, in that wikilinks don't have to look like [This|this], they can simply appear as [this] instead. Forgive me if it's not you making those edits - it's been a long week - but I thought I'd mention it just in case.) --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh sorry I removed those two issues from the tag. I thought the article had improved in terms of copyediting needs and having too much redundant content. But of course I won't oppose having those, or other required tags back. This is an important topic in Japanese culture, so the article probably should at least reach B class, but ideally GA status. I think with your expert contributions it will eventually get there.

About the italicisation, thanks for the heads up, I think that was me. I'm doing edits in visual mode (not sure if that betrays my rookie status in WP, hehehe) and that seems to be the automatic result. Going forward I'll do that and other formatting changes in the source rather. Alan Islas (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I always edit in source, but it was a nightmare to try and figure out at first! I wouldn't have the foggiest clue how to edit in visual, lmao. Thank you for the praise - but please do not feel like you can't flag something up if it seems like an issue. It's easy to get tunnel vision with a specialist topic, especially one so close to my own heart, to the point where I don't always see issues I've put in or simply ignored. All contributions are welcome, and thank you again for working with me on this article :) --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Job that needs doing should anyone have the time

As you'll notice in the 'Multiple Issues' tag on this article, one of the prime issues that's present throughout is the citations.

I've used both {{citation style}} and {{duplicated citations}}, but {{page numbers needed}} would also be a valid tag - all three are correct.

The citation styles used are all over the shop, as this article is a decades-long clutter at points. There are definitely replicated citations - I know I will have actually put some of these in myself at points by accident or purely because I was unsure as to whether or not it had already been cited.

Page numbers would also be really, really useful for a lot of the sources. If you're unsure how to call the same reference with a different page number, use a format like this:

• {{refn|[insert 'ref name' here without quotation marks]|p=[insert page number here]|q=[insert quote here (entirely optional but helpful at times)]}}

This isn't a common citation method across wikipedia, but it is really useful for this article, when much of the information is resting on a few very good and wide-ranging books.

What I would ask - before cleaning up the duplicated citations, please post which ones you're using here! This isn't necessarily because they need vetting, but it would be nice to have a section on this Talk page that editors can refer back to in regards to which version of which source to use. I know I'd find it useful - this article is huge!

For instance, I know there's multiple editions of Liza Dalby's Geisha referenced throughout; posting here which one to use would be great! This will likely help new editors fix up issues quickly and spot problems with referencing two different sources. To the unfamiliar editor, it would be difficult to know which reference is the better choice.

Also - some citation styles are really cagey and vague. Y'know the ones?

• <ref>''Obscure name'', [date], pp.[XX-XX]</ref>

I'm sure you'll have seen them at least once.

If you're really unable to figure out exactly what the source is, and unable to verify the accompanying text it's supporting in-line - I think it would likely be better for it to be left out. There's almost certainly a more accessible source out there that could be used to support whatever sentence it's sat at the end of. As stated before on this Talk page, some citations aren't the greatest, so prioritising the ones you can get access to is probably the better practice.

If you don't have access to a source that's been referenced better - maybe drop me a line on my Talk page! I might have it with me, seeing as I own a lot of the books I've used to reference within this article. I can easily answer whether or not it supports the sentence it's next to, and I'd be happy to. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)