Talk:Fiona Graham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Fact?

I wonder whether the claim that Ms Graham was the first white woman admitted to Keio University is accurate. I was admitted as a postgrad to Keio's Graduate School of Law in 1985 and graduated in 1989. There were many white female senpai (of all nationalities) ahead of me in various courses (both grad and undergrad) and very many Asian female senpai. They would be well into their 50s and 60s now whereas I'm assuming that Ms Graham, who has just become a maiko (or has she graduated to geisha?), is somewhat younger. If I remember correctly, the late Prof Joyce Ackroyd (who would now have been well into her 80s) told me that she studied at Keio after the war (in the late 1950s or early 1960s I think). Perhaps Ms Graham was the first white female to be assigned to her academic supervisor, or the first white female undergrad in her particular course? Anyway, why is it noteworthy to be the first white person to do anything? In 2008 it seems a bit jarring to read this kind of achievement. I suggest that reference to being 'the first white woman admitted' to Keio University be clarified or deleted. With respect, Mavis Bramston Australia 8 Jan 08 MavisBramston (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability and Verifiability

The cited sources are solely based on interviews with the subject and contain no third party sources. This article needs third party sources to verify the claims of notability. I have searched extensively and have not been able to find any articles or quotes from authoritative sources, third party or otherwise.

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

That has not been the case so far. Djd sd (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fiona Graham

There's an ongoing dspute about whether the article should refer tot he fact that Sayuki's actual name is Fiona Graham. The fact that Sayuki is Graham is not in dispute, only whether the article should mention this. To resolve this slow-moving edit war, I'd ask anyone with a view on this to have their say here so a consensus can be reached.

My view - I personally support including Graham's name in this article, as it and associated details are relevant background to Sayuki. A key feature of this article is Sayuki's claim to be "the first white geisha." While this is mildly doubtful it's supported by the sources. Her transition from a Western background to geisha is therefore important to a reader's understanding of the article, and that means her name and some detail of her pre-geisha background should be included.

The principal arguments against inclusion seem to be: a) that geishas in their professional lives go only by their geisha name, and b) that as Graham is also notable for other things a reference to her here is off-topic to Sayuki. Neither of these arguments is particularly valid:

• Firstly, this is a biography and should include all relevant biographical details. What the subject of a biography calls themselves is relevant and should be the central name in the article, but other appropriately sourced names should also be included. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) provides some guidance, as do the extended debates on pages like Brandon Teena and Cat Stevens where the subject had one name but was also correctly known as another. The summary of these various debates has always been to record the best-known name or the one the subject prefers first, but not to delete all mention of any others.

• Second, this article should not be a coatrack for an article on Fiona Graham, but it should certainly include sufficient detail of Graham to allow a reader to understand Sayuki. That means some basic details of Sayuki's pre-geisha background, and some material on Graham's anthropological studies as this is the stated reason for her Sayuki role. That's what the article currently includes, which seems fine. A thousand-word dissertation on Graham the academic would give it undue weight in a Sayuki article, but a few sentences giving essential context seems fine.

Obviously this is just my opinion, and apologies for it being a little longwinded. Other views welcome in th interests of resolving this issue. Euryalus (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAMES says:

"For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym"

I don't see any reason to make an exemption. So according to this, her birth name should be displayed first, followed by "also known as the geisha Sayuki" or similar. Djd sd (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Euryalus (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename/move

Can I suggest that the article be moved back to Fiona Graham and this be the redirect? Since Fiona Graham is known for more than her current role and most of her notability comes from her academic work, it would seem like we have it backwards currently. Shell ^babelfish 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be what most editors are suggesting, and it sounds reasonable to me. Djd sd (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It was me that merged the content of the original Fiona Graham into the newly created Sayuki article, but I would also have no problem with the article being moved back to Fiona Graham. In fact, having read through the media interviews used as reference sources, I'm no longer convinced that this is comparable to, say, foreign-born sumo wrestlers whose name changes are more permanent, and so mentioning "Sayuki" in the Fiona Graham article would probably be a better solution than vice versa. --DAJF (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

People who are interested in geisha are interested in Sayuki, not in Fiona Graham! And it is not a good thing at all for a geisha to have a page that covers her entire history and biography and things that she did in an entirely different sphere. To include too much non-geisha related information on a Sayuki page is damaging to Sayuki's career. This is exactly the same as the Rowan Atkinson and Mr. Bean example, and should be treated the same. A Fiona Graham page should cover Fiona Graham, and a Sayuki page (even if it briefly mentioned Fiona Graham) should cover Sayuki and topics relevant to geisha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FiG8 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I also support moving the article back to Fiona Graham, with Sayuki listed as an "also known as" and with a redirect from "Sayuki" to the Graham article. The only argument raised against this - that referring to Graham dispels the myth of Sayuki - is both original research (the sources clearly show the opposite, as the article subject freely identifies herself) and also a roundabout form of censorship. Reliably sourced and relevant material may routinely be included in articles relative to its importance, whether or not any particular individual takes offence at it. Euryalus (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with having it as it was? A Fiona Graham page with her full bio and publications and academic history, with a brief mention of Sayuki. AND a Sayuki page describing the geisha Sayuki and information relevant to that. There are precedents for handling it this way all over Wikipedia with any kind of actor or person who has any kind of additional role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.162.216.226 (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying to look at the articles and figure out how best to sort out the mechanics of the change. It looks to me like this article was actually a copy/paste of the article still at Fiona Graham. I think fixing this means not moving either article, so no history is lost - that also leaves the option of changing this article in the future (with history intact) if Sayuki should become notable outside of Fiona's notability. Thoughts? Shell ^babelfish 12:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with having 1. a Fiona Graham page with her full bio and publications and academic history, with a brief mention of Sayuki AND 2. a Sayuki page describing the geisha Sayuki and information relevant to that. There are precedents for handling it this way all over Wikipedia with any kind of actor or person who has any kind of additional role.

Also, Sayuki's own web-page now explains the misunderstandings here about the maiko stage. Could this not be cited? It is now locked and can't be altered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.60.184 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest moving content back to Fiona Graham

Due to the events discussed in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8556540/First-ever-Western-geisha-leaves-the-sisterhood.html. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. Pitke (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if Graham still uses her "Sayuki" name as part of her kimono business, serious news coverage seems to use her real name more, so I also think that should be used for the article's title. --DAJF (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, news coverage has always used her real name. Of course, references have been made to her as "Sayuki" but the tone has already been "that's the name she uses as a geisha". It's mostly the Sayuki Fan Club who's been making edits removing references to her real name. In addition, all of the works she's been cited for were completed under her real name, not "Sayuki". Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about Dalby and Graham

{{admin help}}

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. Liza did none of those. Sayuki's web-site states very clearly that she currently works as a geisha and does all kinds of banquets, including banquets for new types of customers. What is the agenda of the editors who are using her own web-site to try and make it look as if she is only claiming to be the first foreign geisha, or that she is no longer working - by making a current work section with non-geisha related work - and by writing that Sayuki 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. People could look at the current Wikipedia article and come to the conclusion that Sayuki is not the first foreign geisha, or that she no longer works as a geisha, or that she doesn't do normal geisha work. This is very harmful and damaging and is very definitely against the policy on living persons.

There are two articles, this one and the Liza Dalby article. The issue over who is the first western-born geisha is addressed in both, and neither article is well-written or well-sourced on this point. At the same time, there is a dispute over material that an IP wants in the article and that DAJF does not. Part of the problem with that material is it includes more issues than just the Dalby/Graham issue, including whether Graham's birth year should be in the article, as well as whether she is still working.

All of these issues need to be worked out, but the two articles also need to be consistent. From reviewing the sources already in the two articles, it looks to me like the Graham/Dalby issue involves mainly self-claims. I haven't seen any reliable source that says that one or the other is the first western-born geisha. Assuming that to be true, or assuming that the reliable sources conflict, we have to report that properly. We can't report a self-claim as a fact, and we can't report one side over the other if it's disputed by reliable sources.

I invite anyone to comment, but particularly the IP and DAJF.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the editors that has been involved in building up this article and trying to maintain a neutral tone without leaning too much toward self-promotion on the part of Fiona Graham. There is no material that I don't want to be in this article, provided it is reliably sourced. As I mentioned in my edit summaries, I am still not clear why the roving IP editor repeatedly removes the birth year, when it has apparently been sourced, or the wikilink to the Liza Dalby article. My reversions did not remove any reference sources, but the confusion on the IP's part probably stems from the fact that I used a single consolidated citation to the original The Australian article which sources many of Graham's claims, replacing three poorly-formatted duplicates of the same article mirrored on the Adelaide Now site. The article in its current state does not actually say that she is not working, but states that she is not permitted to work as an independent geisha - as indicated in the interview with Graham in The Australian article, so I am not entirely sure why the IP editor has problems with this. I would however like to tweak the intro to make it clearer that she does still appear to be working as a geisha. --DAJF (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

DAJF, your version is very far from objective. Sayuki has had 3 1/2 years of overwhelmingly positive media and you insist on including the only negative media she has ever had. That one article quotes ONE anonymous person and is NOT the opinion of multiple geisha as you keep wrongly editing into it. Do not claim that that is objective. Sayuki is a living person and whatever Wikipedia says affects her career. My version has SOURCED recent references to the fact that Sayuki is working still. You are confusing "becoming independent" as written in The Australian which means - opening one's own geisha house within a district - with working independently of a geisha district. Sayuki was not permittted to have her own geisha house in Asakusa as a foreigner. She is currently working independently but with the support of geisha from other districts and Asakusa. Geisha do not reveal their real names OR their ages. The age issue is serious as it causes Sayuki problems with other geisha and disadvantages her in her career and this is not acceptable by Wikipedia rules on living people. Wikipedia does not publish photos of Moslems without head gear presumably and should have some cultural sensitivity. Liza Dalby has said in her OWN book "Geisha" that she did not formally debut or work as a geisha; yet another referenced point that you keep editing out. If you are not paid you do not "work". Liza Dalby was never paid and never a formal part of the community. Why don't you put your energies towards finding some of these sources and making the article correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.186.192 (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the information contained in the Liza Dalby entry on Wikipedia is correct. It states quite clearly that Liza Dalby did not work as a geisha, was not affiliated, and did not bill clients for their time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.186.192 (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that 114.78.186.192 is Sayuki herself, given their passion for white-knighting Sayuki from Internet trolls at all costs. You may be interested in looking at the Mohammed discussion page and seeing how depictions of Mohammed are permitted on Wikipedia since we take a neutral point of view, not a "let's tiptoe around the geisha's feelings" point of view. Also, Ms Graham, why don't you spend some energy finding sources and making the article correct? Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The rules for biographies of living people remark: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses", and a citation for Graham's age comes from one of her publications. Yet in this book she does not provide her age in the short biography; it is only present in the copyright details, under the section "Library of Congress Cataloguing of Publication Data". Is this not public data rather than related to the content of the book? The guidelines also state that: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate". This piece of information is being challenged, but no page numbers are provided in the citation. Secondly, does not the fact that the Japanese press has respected the geisha tradition of not revealing age seem similar to Wikipedia's own policy that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". If Graham's earning potential can bve affected by revelations of her age, this constitutes "the possibility of harm". It would make sense for Wikipedia to follow the press' moral example in this case. K1nchTKB (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally, the subject of an article doesn't get to chose which things about them can be in the article (as long as they are factual), all we require neutral wording and verifiability. It seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that the year of birth is accurate, so you're not challenging the veracity of it (which is what WP:V is for). I don't share your view that there's a "possibility of harm" - perhaps it's harder for her to get customers as she gets older, but she's not different in that from an actress or singer, and we're not censoring their biographies to help them maintain their carreers. It is sourced, so unless the information is wrong I see no reason for removing it. See WP:PROUD. --Six words (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) K1nchTKB, you have made three edits since registering at Wikipedia about a week ago. All involve Graham. Seems odd, doesn't it?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that the harm is caused because geisha are not allowed to reveal age and for Sayuki alone to have that on Wikipedia means that it can spread through other media and cause her problems with her work colleagues. Perhaps also the harm is caused because of all the geisha in Japan Sayuki is the only one who has to suffer personal information being revealed through Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be neutral but I would say that in Sayuki's case you are harming her career by putting out information about her that other geisha do not reveal. K1nchTKB is correct. You have made use of information you should not have. If the possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.237.204 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are speculating, speculating, speculating about some possible harm that may occur to Graham in one potential universe, but you're not providing much in the way of facts. Also, please indicate why it's harmful for her birth year to be mentioned here yet if someone searches for "fiona graham born" on Google then they can find the same information. There is no "harm" to be done. Are you also actively censoring content from the Japanese version of the page, too? Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you search "fiona graham born" on Google, then in the first two pages of results, every single page (and that is over ten) that shows Fiona Graham's date of birth does so via a link to this Wikipedia article. Not a single one of them have stated her date of birth independently. That is why it is harmful, because of the overwhelming authority that this Wikipedia article has in relation to other interested, independent parties acting on the web. It is also obvious, should you perform the search, that aside from these 10+ articles there are also a whole host relating to Ms. Graham and Sayuki, none of which reveal the date of birth. K1nchTKB (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Simon, please stop simply reverting this article to a version which several people have found to be problematic without any discussion of why it is problematic. As the above comment states, every mention of Sayuki's age has come from Wikipedia and every one is recent. Geisha do not tell their age and it is unfair to Sayuki to treat her with different rules to every other geisha just because she is Western. There are hundreds of articles out there citing Sayuki as the first white geisha as any google search will show you. There is also no negative media about Sayuki to date apart from The Telegraph article which has been contradicted by other articles. What is your agenda in insisting on putting up the only negative article out there? You are hardly putting anything in fair perspective by doing so, or being objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.237.204 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that all of these "several people" happen to be single-purpose accounts. I don't think there is any problem with an editor posting from different IP addresses when she happens to be not logged into her main account, but if they start claiming to be different people, then that raises concerns of sock-puppetry, which, in case the editors involved are not aware, is a real no-no on Wikipedia. --DAJF (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I also strongly feel that "several people" is actually "one person" and further that that one person is either Fiona Graham herself, or someone close enough to her to fail WP:COI. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's have that protection back, please

Graham's white knight removed all the content which has been discussed here and judged to conform to WP standards. I've reverted the change to take the article back to the well-referenced NPOV version. Please also note that the white knight is changing the description of Graham's exit from the geisha association from the newspaper-verifiable version to "she was turned down because she was a foreigner", which is Graham's own speculation, nothing more. No reference was provided for that quote, either. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop reverting without discussing Simon - what is your agenda here? It seems to be precisely to cause harm to a living person which should be no part of Wikipedia. Can we have an editor investigate this please?　 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.230.133 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well for one thing, you're no longer a (certified) geisha, so the only harm to you is in your own ego being bruised! Relax. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Anon, there's no consensus to remove the birth year from the article. It doesn't violate any policies or guidelines. Did you check WP:PROUD as I suggested? A person who has an article about themself on Wikipedia can't expect there'll only be positive or “helpful” things about them in it. As long as they're reliably sourced and important enough to include (somebody's age is important enough), they can be mentioned. Is the birth year inaccurate? --Six words (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding Sayuki's birthdate when no other geisha ever do so is putting her in a very difficult position i.e. causing harm to a living person. Geisha are not allowed to reveal their background and you are causing her harm. What is your agenda that you would want to do that? Simon, your versions are plain wrong. The article you keep citing about Liza Dalby doesn't say she "worked" as a geisha. So why do you keep reviving it? Look at each point one by one and edit properly.

Well, why don't you make small edits that can be evaluated individually instead of reverting to your preferred version in one huge revert? Save us all some time and stop removing her birth year, and I'll feel a lot more motivation to check whether the other edits are valid. Her background as we present it has been revealed in quite a few news articles, so I fail to see how we're doing harm - it's out there anyway. You still haven't answered my question. --Six words (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Six words. Incremental edits that don't attempt to remove the birth year would be far more likely to be evaluated on their merits than this kind of disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I just asked for this article to be semi-protected again, perhaps it will allow us to have a productive discussion about how to improve the article when we remove the temptation to revert-war. --Six words (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I requested semi-proection earlier this month and unfortunately received short-term full protection (sometimes happens with protection requests that are grounded in content disputes as opposed to pure vandalism). That wasn't helpful because the IP, of course, returned after the protection expired. A longer term of semi-protection would be much more useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

By protecting Simon of Sagamihara and DAJF's version of this article, all you are doing is causing further harm to Sayuki. Geisha do not reveal age, and have not done so for four hundred years. Other geisha don't have this problem because the Japanese media respects that tradition. Why does Sayuki have to suffer just because she is not Japanese and therefore in English Wikipedia? In the case of living persons Wikipedia should have some cultural sensitivity and awareness of how Wikipedia affects the careers of people being written about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.67.168 (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have valid sourced information to add; I'd like to request a removal of the semi-protection. K1nchTKB (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to post your text and reference source here, and then someone else can add it to the article text if it is appropriate. --DAJF (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on contribution history I believe K1nchTKB is the IP editor is the subject of the article. Your Lord and Master (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing a supporting link

I've added another reference which proves quite categorically that Dalby trained and debuted as a geisha long before Graham did. That's in the article now. There's one more citation that I'd like to add, but I'm not sure how it should be presented. The link is here: http://libcat.mcmaster.ca/index.jsp?Ntx1=mode+matchallpartial&sid=1306CDB9CF88&Ntt1=%22business+failures%22+%22case+studies%22&submit.y=6&submit.x=24&Ne=20564&Sw=0&N=4293815973&Ntk1=Subject Could someone help me with the formatting? Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems impossible to have two isbn links, so I used the one for the print edition; you just have do add the page number(s):
<ref>{{Cite book|last= Graham|first= Fiona|title= A Japanese company in crisis: ideology, strategy and narrative|publisher= Routledge Curzon|location = London, New York|year= 2005|pages= |isbn= 9780415346856}}</ref>.
--Six words (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Six Words, but there's no page reference -- the catalogue record itself indicated her date of birth as 1961. That's what I wanted to cite. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We already have two sources for that so I don't see the need for yet another one. So far, nobody has argued the year is incorrect (even though I specifically asked), and I doubt anyone will. --Six words (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Dalby did not work as a geisha. She did not ever earn money or work as a geisha. That is the definition of a job. There is no such thing as a geisha who does not work. There are no Japanese geisha or any kind of geisha who do not work. The idea of a geisha who does not work is not even conceivable. Being a geisha is a profession of women who work as geisha. You do not have any references that state that Liza Dalby worked as a geisha. Working in Japan requires a work visa. Liza Dalby could not have worked as a geisha because she did not have a visa allowing her to do so.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.67.168 (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Fiona. Many people work in Japan without work visas. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On 19 December 2007, Graham formally debuted as a geisha in the Asakusa District of Tokyo, after a year of preparation and training.[6][7] She claims to be the first western geisha in Japanese history, although American scholar Liza Dalby also trained and worked as a geisha in the 1970s.[8][9]

Liza did not work as a geisha and this article does not say she did. Please stop ignoring edits and reverting things without properly discussing and looking at the evidence.

Graham took lessons in several arts, but her main art is the yokobue (Japanese bamboo flute). Sayuki TAKES lessons in the present tense. Please stop reverting this obvious mistake.

In June 2011, it was reported that she had been disaffiliated from the Asakusa Geisha Association after repeated disputes with other geishas, who claimed she failed to follow customs and show proper deference to more experienced practitioners, spending too much time on self promotion.[10][11] Only ONE geisha was interviewed so how can MULTIPLE geisha have claimed anything about Sayuki? Please stop reverting this grammatical error which implies that more than one single geisha had anything to say about Sayuki. It is incorrect and unfair to suggest otherwise.

In March 2011, Graham opened a second-hand kimono store, "Sayuki no Kimonoya", in Asakusa, Tokyo.[3][13] The kimono store sells NEW AND RECYCLED kimono. Please stop reverting errors that have been clearly pointed out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.67.168 (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2011

Fiona, you don't "own" this page and Wikipedia policies do not allow you to write your own content and have it go unchallenged. You may be unhappy that Dalby trained and debuted as a geisha before you did, but come on -- all the interviews you did were pretty much all headlined "Japan's first Western geisha", even if some did have the temerity to mention Dalby beating you to it. Is it that important to you, personally, that Wikipedia reports the facts? Are you going to niggle over the definition of "work" and "job" and all that?

In any case, I and the other editors are following well-established Wikipedia policies. You're going balls to the wall about how you don't like this, and this should be worded like that, but you're providing no proof of your claims, just damn it people, listen to me and obey me! You go on about "unfair" and "damage" and "incorrect" but you're not backing it up.

Responding to your hysteria is a time sink and until you start following established Wikipedia protocol and stop ignoring valid comments from other editors I'm going to continue to revert your invalid edits. Cheers Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important that Wikipedia be truthful, puts things in perspective, and has some respect for living people. I see you now admit that many many articles about Sayuki call her the first Western geisha. Wikipedia should niggle over facts, and so should editors. You have admitted above that Liza did not work as a geisha by any normal definition of the word work. So please allow this to be corrected and stay corrected on Wikipedia.

Good heavens, I admitted no such thing. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ms Darby: the article we cite states she made her debut as geisha in 1976. You may not agree with this, but you're not a reliable source.
Your second point is that only one geisha was interviewed on the reasons why Ms Graham was asked to leave - given the wording used by the Telegraph, that's highly unlikely. They're saying they got their information by “insiders”, and then go on to cite one geisha (“another geisha, who asked not to be named, told The Sunday Telegraph.”, emphasis added). Only the author of that article knows the exact number of geishas he spoke with, but the wording implies it's more than one.
The kimono store is described as a store for recycled kimonos by the source we cite, so we cannot call it a store for “new and recycled kimono” based on that source. Do you have a source for the “new” part? --Six words (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do a search for "first Western geisha" on google and you will see an overwhelming number of articles for which the heading states that Sayuki is the first Western geisha INCLUDING the one that is referenced in this article. Wikipedia should also have things in the correct perspective. Pulling up one article to provided a slanted point of view is not responsible and against Wikipedia policy on living persons.

That's because you told them all so! Liza Dalby's book goes into detail about how she studied and debuted as a geisha. Are you challenging that fact? And when are you going to admit that you are Fiona Graham? Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

If you search google for "first white geisha" you'll be told that Ms Graham isn't the first. I'm not saying this to "prove" she isn't, but to illustrate why google results that support your opinion don't necessarily prove you're right. If there are a hundred reports of a foreign geisha debuting in 2004 (calling her the first) and only a handful reporting on a foreign geisha that debuted in the 1970s, that still means the one who debuted in the 70s was first. --Six words (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"worked" -> "debuted"

Since Dalby's memoirs do use the word "debut" more than work, I changed the wording in the article. It is indisputable and still proves the fact that Graham is not the first western geisha in history. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as a geisha who does not work. Being a geisha is a profession, not a hobby. There has never been a geisha who does not work. A geisha who does not work is not a geisha. Can we please have someone edit this article properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.22.196.216 (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your obsession with Liza Dalby, anyway, Fiona? Your Lord and Master (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anon, the article is edited properly. You may not like it, but Ms Dalby did work as a geisha, not as a hobby but as part of her studies. According to this article, Ms Graham initially wanted to do the same thing (or at least the geisha association thought that was her intention). Whether she did or didn't plan to stay geisha permanently doesn't really matter anyway, the sources clearly state Ms Dalby was a geisha in the 70s, making her the first "western geisha" (we know of - in case we find sources saying someone else did it even before her, we'll change both Ms Dalby's and Ms Graham's articles accordingly). --Six words (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, please provide sources to back up your claims that "There has never been a geisha who does not work. A geisha who does not work is not a geisha." Cheers Your Lord and Master (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Lord and Master, please provide a source to show that there have ever been geisha who are accepted as real geisha who do not work or earn money from being geisha. And do not bring up Liza Dalby. She was not a geisha and was not accepted as a geisha. Geisha work. It is a profession of women who work as geisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.177.62.235 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Liza Dalby did not formally debut as a geisha after the traditional one year training (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Geisha#Terms) as did Fiona Graham. What Dalby refers to as 'debut' in her book (Geisha, University of California Press, 1983 ISBN 0-520-04742-7) is her first banquet acting in the role of a geisha. Dalby "performed at ozashiki as a geisha, without charging money" (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Liza_Dalby#Background). In the context of this article the use of the word 'debut' leads to ambiguity. A reader may assume that Liza Dalby underwent a formal debut of the same nature as Fiona Graham's. The omission of the word 'debut' should not be inaccurate or misleading. For more information on Liza Dalby, readers may refer to her Wikipedia page. I will go ahead and ommit the word 'debut'. --Spikey8D (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

An update to the current working status

I attempted to update the line "She has worked in Tokyo's Asakusa district as a geisha under the name Sayuki (紗幸?) since 2007.[3]" to include updated (and sourced) information on the fact that, despite still working as a Geisha, it seems slightly inaccurate and misleading to say "she worked in Tokyo's Asakusa district... since 2007", as this seems to suggest that she still works specifically in Asakusa. My update clearly stated that this was no longer the case, but still contained the fact that she still works as a Geisha. This was changed back, however, and so the article as it stands is slightly misleading, as I pointed out earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrceep (talk • contribs) 05:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Fair enough, I restored part of the wording you had used. Your Lord and Master (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm considering updating this again to include information that explains that Fiona is still working, based on the article http://blogs.radioaustralia.net.au/english/2011/asia/a-glimpse-into-the-secret-world-of-a-geisha . Thought I'd include this on the talk page first to check that this achieves a consensus on her currently working. Mrceep (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Before you consider doing anything of the sort, please return to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard where you filed a claim against the editors working on this article and address the issues raised. Thank you. Your Lord and Master (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

edit: The article does not say that you aren't working, and it implies more than once that you are working, just not in Asakusa, so I don't see why an explicit "Graham is still working as a 'geisha'" is necessary. Also, please answer this: Since you claim (and I do not accept this as fact, I'm just reporting your words) Dalby was not a geisha since she wasn't formally registered, does that not mean that you are no longer a proper geisha since you are not affiliated with any accredited geisha organisation? Your Lord and Master (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on the board, sorry it took so long, I haven't been on wikipedia in a few days. Now that we have a discussion on there, I'll wait for that to be sorted before making any edits to the article, as that seems the right thing to do. Mrceep (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC) And looking through, I think the 'current work' section suggests strongly enough that she's still working, so I don't feel the need to add anything else. If there hadn't been anything on whether she was still working as a geisha though, it would have felt like a rather big hole in the article. Mrceep (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sayuki was registered as a geisha for nearly 3 1/2 years. She spent the required year in training before her debut, and debuted offically as part of a recognised geisha house in a recognised district under the training of a recognised geisha mother. She underwent the official debut ceremony that takes a whole day. Liza Dalby lived with a retired geisha who suggested to a tea-house owner that she unoffically appear at a banquet. They sent her out a few days later as an unpaid unofficial nonworking observer at a banquet. That is not a real geisha debut. It doesn't meant that she was a Kyoto geisha. She didn't do any debut ceremony. She did not have the permission of the Pontocho geisha association. And it doesn't mean that she trained as a geisha or that she worked as a geisha. All of this is very clear in Liza's own book. Why do you want so badly to misrepresent this situation on Wikipedia? Liza was a good academic but she was not a geisha. She was never one.

There are many geisha in Japan who trained as geisha but don't have current affiliation. Some geisha no longer have a geisha office because of the earthquake. But they are still geisha if they are working as geisha. Liza Dalby did not ever work as a geisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.182.172 (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a few single purpose accounts trying to find reasons why Liza Dalby was not a geisha and we have both Liza Dalby's book and a newspaper article saying she debuted as geisha. As I argued earlier, no matter how many articles say Ms Graham is the first to ever do so, as soon as there's evidence that someone before her did, that woman is "the first". I know it sounds better to say someone's "the only westerner ever to become a geisha" than "one of only two" (I suspect that's the true reason for trying to remove sourced content over and over again), but that's life. Ms Graham is the only western woman (perhaps even the only non-japanese?) that currently works as a geisha - I wouldn't mind explicitly stating that in the article. --Six words (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support that as well, as that is significant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not true either though, as this article shows. You could clarify it further to be "the only Australian woman who works as a geisha" but that would be going a little too far, don't you think? Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, that would be like saying “the first non-japanese woman to debut as a geisha after training for a whole year” (April to December isn't a year, actually, but who cares). So she's one of two foreigner geishas - is that why it's important to at least be the first? --Six words (talk) 08:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand gym court case and fine

Hello. Where would be the appropriate place to place a link referring to Ms Graham's NZ$64,000 fine for violations of the Building Act, based on her refusal to do repairs to a building she owned that was used as a backpackers hostel, even after dangerous building notices were affixed to it? I realise it is at a tangent to the other discussions but feel it speaks to the character of the subject, not less because she attempted to have the courts ban mention of her activities in Japan. This was subsequently overturned. http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/wanaka/141340/gym-owner-fined-64000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparklemotion66 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much coverage should be included in this article, but given the fact that the dispute appears to have continued since 2008 with a lot of (admittedly mostly local) newspaper coverage, I don't think it would be unreasonable to include a mention here. The numerous newspaper reports give her full name as Fiona Caroline Graham, and mention that she is the sole director of Wanaka Gym Ltd, details which could be added to this article. --DAJF (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This would seem to be entirely irrelevant to this article. Sayuki is noted as a geisha. The above issues are all locally reported, are three years old, and may well have been resolved though not reported in the news. It is unfair to Sayuki to have these issues colour her geisha career when they are irrelevant to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.178.120.3 (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This case has been resolved as you can see in the latest reference. As this page about Fiona's geisha career, this section is irrelevant. I've also noted that the person who posted this issue first has not made any other post after and would seem to be a purely personal attack on Sayuki's character. kilingan 04:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilingan (talk • contribs)

Just to clarify, this page is not about Graham's career as a geisha. It is about her as a human being. That being said, we can still include the information if it is not that important to her overall story. Looking at the Otago Daily article, this appears to be very directly about her, is a substantial penalty, and discusses her behavior in detail. As such, a single sentence in the article seems to meet WP:DUE to me. We do not exclude information just because it is negative; as long it is sourced and due, it is relevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(was edit conflicted) Hello, Fiona. As you've been told numerous times, you do not WP:OWN this article, and it is about you, not merely your "Sayuki" identity. Encyclopaedias cover the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you didn't want information about your legal troubles being included, perhaps you shouldn't have created your article in the first place, or better yet, not had said legal troubles? In any case, it's on the record, it's on the public record, it's verifiable and objective, therefore it is suitable for inclusion. Sorry for your loss! Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am NOT Fiona Graham. In order to keep the article as objective as we can, I wrote to Fiona about this matter as I was curious to the outcome of this dispute. I recommended her to place the court's decision on her site. Verification is NOT needed as the document cited is a public document. {{admin help}} kilingan 07:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wanaka Gym court case previously detailed is a local legal dispute that has been formally settled. Though it contains little relevance, it occupies almost a quarter of the article alone. Wikipedia has strict policies on BLPs. In the interests of maintaining a neutral tone in this article this section will be removed. --Spikey8D (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a significant part of Graham's activities outside of Japan, and it is bizarre to suggest that just because a court case has ended it should no longer be mentioned here. Please refer to WP:PROUD. --DAJF (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that it is wrong to suggest complete removal, I do believe that it is receiving undue importance in the article. That she had a legal battle, which she lost, is not some sort of integral part of her life, and particularly not notable to what makes her famous. I think we can cut the info by about 50% (everything from "Graham had been involved..." onward). That is, the details of the suit are not relevant, merely that she had the suit, tried to expunge her name, and lost. It would be ideal if this would stop being its own section, like if she had a "Personal life" section that this could be merged with, but since there isn't any other appropriate place to put it, it will have to stay separated for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Blow-by-blow analysis of edits and additions by Mrceep

• Sayuki takes lessons in several arts - there is no evidence that she still studies or works officially as a geisha any more, so I have returned this to the past tense. (Third-party sources shed considerable doubt on whether she even attended any/many lessons.)
• The Association's intentions are questionable however, as Asakusa Association rules geisha may apply to open their own geisha house after four years, but the Asakusa Association decided not to allow Sayuki to do this as she is a foreigner. - The citation quoted does not "question" the association's intentions and does not mention anything about a four-year rule, so I have trimmed this editorial opinion. Maybe "Mrceep" would care to reveal where this inside information came from.
• diff as well as promoting the geisha tradition worldwide. This includes an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show and in several leading fashion magazines. - This is not "current work", so I moved it to her "geisha training" section and corrected the exaggerated "several leading fashion magazines", since Marie Claire is just one magazine.
• diff as well as providing assistance after the Japan Earthquake incident in 2011. - If you read the actual article, her "involvement" is only mentioned in passing and is too trivial to deserve to be included in this article. Her other charity work will also need reliable third-party sourcing if it is not to be considered as self-promotion.

--DAJF (talk) 08:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of these changes seem fair enough, and the restructuring seems like quite an improvement. 08:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrceep (talk • contribs)

Dispute Resolution

After seeing this on the dispute resolution noticeboard, and reading the talk page, I thought I'd add my analysis to try and help. It seems to me that the whole problem concerns the difference between Fiona's life as a Geisha (as Sayuki), and Fiona's life prior to this. As a Geisha, I think the cultural traditions should be respected concerning her age not being revealed, and her real identity remaining anonymous. However, as an anthropologist, she still needs a page like the current wikipedia page including all sourced information available. I would suggest 'splitting' the article. The Fiona Graham article would remain largely similar to the current article, but another article under 'Sayuki' could be created which would adhere to the culture traditions of the Geisha world. I believe this would allow free information for all those interested in Fiona Graham, allowing them to also find out everything they can about Sayuki, whilst showing respect to the Geisha community. Helepon (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd approve of something like this. Mrceep (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think forking will solve the problems - her real name is known and linked to her geisha name through several news articles and interviews she gave, so I worry that there'll still be edit-warring over her birth year. The geisha part of her life and the anthropologist part aren't really seperate since she originally became a geisha as part of her studies - how would we decide what to keep here and what to move to the fork? While forking may calm down the discussions at this article (I'm not convinced it will), I think it's likely the fork would still see the same fights and discussions (minus the birth year issue). Anyway, it's a constructive proposal and the input of other editors could help, so I'll post a link at the BLP noticeboard. --Six words (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't folk BLP articles, we don't adjust articles to take account of 'cultural traditions' (That's pretty much a hard line on wikipedia that people don't cross) - it's irrelevant what you discuss here. If you attempt to folk this page, then the community would simply move in and re-merge them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Content forking - this would be totally against the guideline. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Cameron and Andy, putting aside guidelines and practice, it would be absurd.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Add me to the "agree" camp, we just don't do it for situations like this. We don't censor material for cultural reasons either. – ukexpat (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. You can't really stuff that genie back in the lamp; it's relevant biographical information, ergo it stays in one article and it stays here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Birth date & age

In accordance with WP:BLPPRIVACY, taking into account that Graham hasn't revealed her age openly (and assuming that at least some of the single-purpose IPs are Graham), would it be appropriate to remove her age, but leave the date of birth? Mrceep (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove her age but leave her date of birth? I'm not sure what that would achieve, since age can be easily inferred from the birth year. The bit in WP:BLPPRIVACY that suggests including simply the birth year when in doubt is referring to leaving out precise personal details such as birth date. Since Fiona Graham's precise birth date does not appear to have been published and is not included in this article either, I don't think it is of direct relevance here. I also note that several of the newspaper articles cited here also mention her age (or at least the saba-yomi version fed to the media in Graham's press kit), so I don't see any reason to censor the Wikipedia article for what appear to be vanity reasons. --DAJF (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{admin help}}

Please read the content on this discussion page. Two editors - DAJF and MyLordandMaster - seem to have clear agendas here to alter the content of this page in a way that does not reflect the truth. Sayuki is a geisha, which is a freelance job, and is currently working as a geisha. The two editors above keep on trying to make it look as if Sayuki is no longer working which must have negative implications for her career to have that on Wikipedia. One has to ask why these two editors are so keen on putting negative content on Sayuki's page, and trying to make it look as if she is not working.

The geisha world is a very traditional and strict world where Sayuki is the first white geisha to have worked. There are strict traditions in that world that junior geisha are not allowed to break, such as not revealing age. To do so causes serious problems for Sayuki with her community. The Japanese media have always respected this as do most of the English media.

The above editors also have an agenda to make it look as if Sayukis is making up being the first white geisha. Any google search for first white geisha will bring up an overwhelming number of articles all confirming that Sayuki is the first white geisha. At the moment this page is contradicted by Liza Dalby's page where the talk page has a longstanding consensus that she was not a geisha and did not debut in the normal way. All of this is explained above. A geisha debut takes six months to a year which Sayuki did and Liza Dalby did not. A geisha works by attending banquets and being paid. Liza Dalby did not work as a geisha. Geisha training involves being affiliated to a geisha office and training towards and official debut. Sayuki did this. Liza Dalby did not. --114.178.149.249 (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm here as a response to the request for admin help. 114, I'm sorry to say that Wikipedia does not follow the conventions of any given culture; rather, we basically have our own culture. And our culture says that we don't censor information just because one particular culture doesn't like it. Instead, we report what reliable sources say about subjects, provide encyclopedic information, etc. For example, some cultures consider all pictures of nudity to be offensive and unacceptable, but our culture says that they're necessary to cover subjects in a complete way. We also don't add in our own original research--for example, the points you make about Dalby don't match the fact that numerous reliable sources attest to her having been a geisha. Now, if you have sources that say the opposite, we should of course include those sources and the alternate opinion. If there are sources that state that she is not currently working as a geisha, than that information must also be included; and if there are sources that contradict those, add them, too. Basically, it all comes down to what reliable sources say. Note that the sources don't need to be in English, so long as we can get a basic translation from Japanese.

However, having said all that, to address the rest of the editors here, do you really need to include the birthday/age? Is it really such a harm to the integrity of the article to not include the information? WP:BLP does give us leeway for borderline cases where the subject themselves (or someone arguing on behalf of the subject) points out that there is real harm to the information. I would never suggest that we should take out negative information from an article because the subject doesn't like it (like the stuff I detail in the first paragraph), but a birthday/age simply isn't a critical part of the definition of what makes Graham/Sayuki notable, so my opinion is that this is a case where editorial discretion combined with a "subject-sensitive" reading of WP:BLP (see specifically [[WP:BLPEDIT) could indicate that leaving out the info causes no harm to the article and avoids causing harm to the subject.

Finally, back to 114...someone above suggested that you, in fact, are Sayuki. Now, I have no idea if you are. But if you are, or if you know her, I recommend that you contact Volunteer Response Team and explain your concerns. While they certainly aren't going to override consensus and remove reliable sources, they can help you work through borderline issues. Their email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org; be sure to include the full URL of this article, as well as a description of the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to your comments about "the rest of the editors" and the birthdate, I would be more inclined to remove the birthdate if Graham herself requests it pursuant to WP:BLPPRIVACY (even though that has more to do with identity theft than cultural sensitivity).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)