Jump to content

Talk:Geisha: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→White Face: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 237: Line 237:


A careful look at their make-up shows that although their faces are white, the corners of their eyes are red, and their hands have no make-up. That red has no special meaning, just makes women charming. The reason why geisha's face is painted very white is that in the past there were no electric lights, they were all candles. The reason why geisha's hands are not painted white is to show the cleanliness of geisha. When providing catering services, customers can rest assured. [[User:Shiluoyuan|Shiluoyuan]] ([[User talk:Shiluoyuan|talk]]) 16:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
A careful look at their make-up shows that although their faces are white, the corners of their eyes are red, and their hands have no make-up. That red has no special meaning, just makes women charming. The reason why geisha's face is painted very white is that in the past there were no electric lights, they were all candles. The reason why geisha's hands are not painted white is to show the cleanliness of geisha. When providing catering services, customers can rest assured. [[User:Shiluoyuan|Shiluoyuan]] ([[User talk:Shiluoyuan|talk]]) 16:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

: ? I don't mean to be rude - is there a point to this? The makeup is noted as changing as a geisha ages in the article, but it makes no mention of any sort of meaning behind its existence in the first place. -- [[User:Ineffablebookkeeper|Ineffablebookkeeper]] ([[User talk:Ineffablebookkeeper|talk]]) 18:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:27, 12 May 2021

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Formatting references with multiple page numbers used throughout, word use and formatting Japanese terms

After posting on the Teahouse, I've figured out how to call one reference and call a different page number each time it's cited - even in the first instance. See here:

...blah blah blah<ref name="Dalby Geisha"/>{{rp|98|q=[optional]}}{{cite book...}}

Instead of a page number, you can also put "needed=y" to indicate that this reference needs a page number adding using the template.

Writing the reference out like this renders in the text as:

...blah blah blah[1]:98

Even if it's the first time you're using that reference! Later on, when calling it again, you can write it like this:

...blah blah blah blah blah<ref name="Dalby Geisha"/>{{rp|32}}

And it will render as:

...blah blah blah blah blah[1]:32

And the entire time, the reference will read like this in the References section:

1. ^ ab Dalby, Liza. Geisha. 3rd edition (2000)...

Without a page number being present. The page numbers are only tied to the ref names within the article; the reference itself is separate, somehow. Very clever, not very commonly used way of referencing things on Wikipedia, but for this article, when some of the references span a lot of different topics and are validly used for all of them, it's necessary.

You can also, of course, keep using the standard <ref name="XXX"/> and {{r|XXX|p=|q=}} templates elsewhere throughout the article when necessary. I think the {{r}} template might be better if all you're citing is a specific quote from the reference, and page numbers don't apply - as of the time of writing, this is used for the reference "Dalby Geisha Notes", as it's a webpage with information formatted on it in a numbered list. This means that page numbers aren't applicable, but quotes are.

For word use - the hidden comment at the top of this article got too big to put more things in, and the Talk page is really a more appropriate setting for tips and tricks for new editors to follow, so I'm putting the information previously used in it here.

For editors unfamiliar with the topic of this article and the specific terminology used here, both maiko and obi are italicised, whereas kimono and geisha are not - the former have no common use in English, but the latter do.

None need to be pluralised, unless for specific turns of phrase, as most of the Japanese words used here are both plural and singular. Some sources may write about "kimonos" and "obis", but I (hesitantly, I'm unfamiliar with editor consensus on Wikipedia) would suggest that the general consensus lies in mostly all the terms here being singular and pluralistic in use.

The word geiko crops up at times in this article. This term is used for geisha from Western Japan, and Kyoto in particular, as it originates from the Kyoto dialect. Unless specifically talking about geisha from these areas, it shouldn't be used interchangeably in the place of geisha, as it makes no sense to refer to a geisha from Akasaka as a geiko. Some more specialist sources and blogs use this term interchangeably; but it really is a Kyoto dialect term. It does need italicising.

Also - it seems that editors working in Wikipedia's visual editor may, at times, accidentally format some references like this:

[[Thing|thing]]

When it isn't necessary to have two sections - you can just write it out as [[thing]], fully lowercase. This is a good-faith edit, I don't really know if it's a mistake, even, and it's easy to see how the 'insert page here' and 'what d'you want it to read as' boxes would maybe lead someone to write it out like this. (I've never actually used the visual editor, so I could be talking out of my arse like a technophobe using Google. 'How do I get on the Google?') --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've combined a few refs, but in some cases it's not possible because page numbers refer to different editions. Someone would have to check all the editions, choose one that supports all the refs, and look up the page numbers. For example we've got four refs to Prasso, The Asian Mystique, and they appear to be three different editions. One is to page 52 of the 2009 edition, another is to page 218 of the 2006 edition, and one to page 206 of the 2005 edition. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the "Citation style" and "Duplicated citations" tags from May 2020, I have combined, expanded, formatted, etc. where I could in order to improve this article's references. I know very little about the subject, but that isn't needed for a professional editor; cleaning up citations is one of the things I do in my spare time. So no real changes to content, just how the citations display. — Molly-in-md (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not pluralizing the borrowed nouns in plural contexts (e.g. *Geisha are...) is completely ungrammatical for me (and I imagine a large part of the native English-speaking world). Usually, new nouns in English follow the regular English countable noun pattern (which has an -(e)s suffix for the plural). So, I can only have, for instance, Samurais are.... The effect is so jarring for me that this article comes across as being written by a nonnative speaker. I'm curious how many readers judge phrases like Two geishas are in the house. to be ungrammatical (meaning they have a feeling that it sounds bad or wrong like they would with Two rices are in my hand and possibly also Two sheeps are in the yard.). – ishwar  (speak) 22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "qualifications" needed by foreigners

I removed the content that said sth like "in addition to the usual, foreigners need fluency and to live in Japan permanently", even though it was referenced, because that idea was stated by Graham herself and is incorrect. When Graham did her disastrous Reddit AMA, users called the Immigration department itself and confirmed that even a cultural activities visa was enough to work as a geisha. I don't argue that you'd need to be able to speak Japanese, but there is no other source, save for Graham's mouth and keyboard, that says one needs any kind of permanent residency, permanent residency rights, unmarried status, or whatever, to work as a geisha. The inclusion of that sentence is misleading and the only reason it is there is that Graham has a long history of trying to slam the door to foreign geisha to maintain her illusion as "the first, only, and bestest foreign geisha".

You can ignore the emotive language I've just used; the tl;dr is that the source was unreliably referenced and is clearly not NPOV. 122.58.111.220 (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but for it to really stand we truly ought to have another source in its place explaining *why* it isn't the case. Reddit isn't a source we can reliably cite, so I'd ask if you could find another source in its place. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I hear that. It's hard to find a published source though proving the negative -- would it be acceptable to put the burden of proof back on Graham to show sources that back up *her* assertion, since she's the one making the claim? 122.58.111.220 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know. This is the kind of thing I'd probably ask about on the Teahouse, to be honest - I do know that a while back the claim was removed with a good explanation as to why, so if you dig through this page's history for that edit, you may find a decent source that got removed. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only acceptable, it's required. See WP:V. Anything can be challenged, and if it can't be verified by a reliable source, removed. Self-published sources are usually not considered reliable. See WP:RSSELF. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Terms' section

I'm considering moving much of the 'terms' section to its own independent list class article - 'List of terms relating to geisha' seems like the right sort of title.

I'm going through The institution of geisha in modern Japanese society (Dalby, 1975), particularly the glossary section (which helpfully has kanji attached to it) and I'm realising that if a full list of relevant terms were included within this article, it'd very quickly become very very long. I'd appreciate any feedback anyone has on this - this article needs reorganising and I'm realising that it might be helpful to branch some of the content off into different or new articles. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White Face

A careful look at their make-up shows that although their faces are white, the corners of their eyes are red, and their hands have no make-up. That red has no special meaning, just makes women charming. The reason why geisha's face is painted very white is that in the past there were no electric lights, they were all candles. The reason why geisha's hands are not painted white is to show the cleanliness of geisha. When providing catering services, customers can rest assured. Shiluoyuan (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? I don't mean to be rude - is there a point to this? The makeup is noted as changing as a geisha ages in the article, but it makes no mention of any sort of meaning behind its existence in the first place. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geisha&oldid=1022827060"