Talk:Fiona Graham/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fiona Graham - "no longer affiliated"

Moved from User talk:DAJF

The article published in the Australian found here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/no-place-for-you-aussie-geisha-told/story-e6frg6nf-1226069744853 seems to suggest that Fiona Graham was not expelled, nor that she left voluntarily. Rather, she had no other option after her geisha mother became ill. As this issue is contentious and there is evidence both ways, might I suggest that the wording be left intentionally slightly ambiguous. This way readers would not be mislead one way or another and neutrality would surely be maintained. --Spikey8D (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've created a compromise, which is actually necessary per WP:NPOV. Since different sources report two different causes for the event, we must present both neutrally, not taking sides. Should we get more definitive statements later (like if the Geisha Association released something official, or of Graham herself changed her story), then we should certainly favor one side. But we can't make the decision that one report is more accurate than the other based on what we have now. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I personally would place more faith in reliable news reports over what comes directly out of Fiona Graham's publicity machine, but I think the current wording by Qwyrxian reads fairly. --DAJF (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge question

As I'm pretty sure this article wasn't merged into itself, I'm assuming it was merged from Sayuki. If so, why does the header at the top say it was merged with content from Fiona Graham? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Professional status / Editor with a vengeance

First of all, Sayuki’s ability to work as a geisha is not solely determined by her affiliation with the Asakusa geisha association. These are separate issues, seeing as how many geisha work independently from the long-established geisha districts they were trained by. Regardless of this point or of my opinion on the matter, there are a number of news sources that were published long after her disaffiliation with the Asakusa geisha association that indicate that she is still working actively as a geisha.

It is very clear that she is continuing to do so, as can be seen from her website as well as the sources that were cited on January 22nd, but for some reason the editor Your Lord and Master has decided to repeatedly revert any edits indicating that she is still working as a geisha throughout the past year and a half (including edits backed up by valid news sources), without providing written reasoning for his/her re-edits. This edit-warring is unappreciated, unwarranted, and clearly indicates a strong bias as to what the public opinion should be about the subject matter on hand, violating WP:NPOV.

Looking through the history over the past three years, it is obvious that Your Lord and Master has some sort of personal vendetta against Sayuki and any of her fans or followers. He/she consistently reverts any edits that question his/her former edits, usually without providing any sort of helpful reasoning. He/she also repeatedly attacks other editors while doing so, referring to them as “Sayuki’s sock-puppets” and expressing undue frustration and anger toward any edits that he/she disagrees with. This is not a constructive or acceptable way to achieve a greater consensus in a group editing environment. As a new editor, I find this thoroughly discouraging.

Making such a strong claim about whether or not a living person is currently working in a profession can have a tremendous impact on their reputation and livelihood. One would imagine that such an experienced editor as YLAM would understand the potential consequences of consistently encouraging the public to believe that Sayuki is no longer working as a geisha, especially considering how clear the WK:BOLP policy is about treating sensitive matters that are related to living people.

I have personally seen Sayuki perform as a geisha three months ago, and have since become a huge fan and am shocked by the backlash that she is receiving by YLAM. I would like to help add new information and sources to her Wiki article to help make it more comprehensive, as was specifically requested by the peer editing review team that looked over the article. This is a great way for me to get started as a Wiki editor because currently her article is substantially lacking in some areas. I feel as though such efforts will go to waste when there are editors lurking who obviously have inexplicable personal motivations behind their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.markussss (talk • contribs) 02:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, first, I'm not sure that TokyoWeekender is a reliable source; it describes itself as a tabloid (see their about page) specifically targeted at expats in Japan. Her website would be better if the idea of being a professional geisha were unambiguous, but there is a question as to whether or not she can call herself an actual "geisha" sans approval of the geisha association. For example, imagine I called myself a geisha, and started hosting geisha-style parties. Would I be recognized as a geisha in a professional sense? Would scholars who studies geishas call me a geisha? To draw an analogy: if I got a badge, and starting "patrolling" the streets, and called myself a police officer, that wouldn't actually make me one. Do you have any reliable sources that actually state that she is still working as a geisha in a sense that is publicly recognized? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you wouldn't know how to be a geisha unless you had trained as one. Other geisha would not recognise you as a geisha. A person becomes a geisha by training under a geisha. Sayuki trained for one year before her debut, and then was an Asakusa geisha for nearly four years. She is currently working as a geisha as is obvious from her web-site and there are many articles on there in Japanese and English that appear after March 2011 when she ceased to be an Asakusa geisha. All of those article show photos of Sayuki with other geisha who obviously recognise her as a geisha. The Japanese media recognise Eitaro as a geisha although he is a man and is not affiliated to a geisha association as there is none in his district. The media recognise Chikano as a geisha although her town no longer has a geisha district. Being a geisha is about debuting as a geisha and training under a geisha. More problematic in this thread is that My Lord and Master has an obvious wish to portray Sayuki as no longer working. This is against the policy on Living Persons. He is not an objective editor and should be banned from posting further on Sayuki's site. Could people who know how to edit this page please edit it to say that Sayuki is currently working as the articles on her web-site state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.190.32.114 (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Other geisha don't recognise Graham as a geisha either so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, WP:DUCK, pushing your own agenda ("FIRST WESTERN GEISHA", etc.) Your Lord and Master (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Do either of you have evidence for your claims? That is IP, do you have evidence in RS that the definition of a geisha is one who trained as a geisha (not professional affiliation)? Note, for example, that "training" as a doctor does not, in most countries, allow one to call oneself as a doctor--one must be certified by a professional medical association. Your Lord and Master, do you have evidence in RS that other geisha do not recognize her as currently being a geisha, or evidence that one must have professional affiliation to be commonly considered a geisha? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have put evidence above. Firstly there is no overriding geisha association in Japan. There are only individual districts. Furisode are not geisha because they did not debut as geisha. Geisha who are not affiliated currently are still regarded as geisha if they debuted as geisha. I cited two geisha above who are recognised as geisha because they debuted as geisha although they are not currently affiliated. All the major media and NHK all interviewed Chikano oneesan after the tsunami. No-one suddenly decided she was no longer a geisha because she wasn't affiliated! And you may have noticed that Chikano oneesan seems to know and recognise Sayuki as a geisha from internet reports and from Sayuki's own web-site. There are many geisha in Japan who still work as geisha though their districts may have disappeared or they have become independent for some reason. It is obvious from Sayuki's web-site that she works with other geisha as every article carries pictures of her with other geisha and there are articles where she is interviewed by Japanese media i.e. Asahi newspaper about being a geisha that were published long after she was no longer affiliated to Asakusa.

Could someone please address the issue that My Lord and Master has some kind of agenda to prevent Sayuki from working? He should be banned from editing either the Sayuki page or the geisha page. This is in direct conflict with policy on Living Persons. For your interest, My Lord and Master, Sayuki has a lot of students who know about geisha culture because they study it at university and I know for a fact that Sayuki does not edit on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.190.32.114 (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is going to "address the issue" until you first address the more core one: provide evidence. Now, if you really are new to Wikipedia, I'll accept that you don't know how "evidence" works here, but it does not come from you simply stating your opinions/theories. It comes only from citing reliable sources. This is simply necessary.

As for your alleged BLP violations, here you're also inaccurate. It cannot be a violation of WP:BLP to not state something, even if that thing is true. WP:BLP does not guarantee that a page include any specific pieces of information, merely that it won't state things that aren't well-sourced. Stating that Graham "has worked" as a geisha is a statement of fact; furthermore, it's actually accurate even if she is still working as a geisha. It is accurate to say, for example, that I "have lived" in Japan, even though I am still living there now. Of course, if we can verify that she is still considered to be a geisha, then we should include that, but there's no egregious violation if we don't. So. Again. Please provide reliable sources (follow that link to learn what those are) to support your claim that she's still working as a geisha. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Do please note that My Lord and Master claims on the talk section of the geisha page that Liza Dalby was the first caucasian geisha. How does he figure that considering that she was never affiliated to any association at all, and did not ever debut as a geisha? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.190.32.114 (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributors. It is because it's what reliable sources say. Just like I've been asking you. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, if you really care about Wikipedia content, then why can you not simply take a look at the very many recent articles about Sayuki on her web-site by established media that all say she is currently working, and then correct My Lord and Master constantly reverting anyone saying this? It is unfair to Sayuki to write on Wikipedia that she used to work as a geisha. It is misleading and is against Wikipedia policy on living persons. Sayuki has a lot of fans who keep on pointing this out but My Lord and Master simply reverts any comments that are recent and show that Sayuki is working, and then tries to lock the page. At the moment he is getting his way on this because there are no editors on Wikipedia who are doing anything about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.190.32.114 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Court case inconsistency

The case that SpikeyD added simply verifies that the judge decided she wasn't operating a "backpacker". That didn't, obviously, effect the courts later decision to find her guilty on 14 counts of letting people use a place for lodging in spite of the place being officially declared dangerous. Either SpikeyD misunderstood, or was misrepresenting the court doc. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I perhaps falsely assumed that with the classification being 'not a backpacker', the other charges would be dropped. It was my understanding that these charges were based on the stricter safety regulations of backpacker accommodation. This is why I saw the ruling to be "in Graham's favour". Apart from that I used the wording from the source --Spikey8D (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard to believe, given that you must have known that the other newspaper articles were dated significantly after the one you added. It's obviously not the case that the charges were dropped, since we know from later articles that she was found guilty. The earlier article was just a ruling on a small legal point. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is indeed dated 9 months after the judgement, however the both the court judgement and the Otago Daily Times show the charges were made in August 2008, and in March 2010 they were amended as written in the court judgement. Anyway, my original intention was only to summarise a bit of the content that I previously removed. I will go ahead and restore what was there before I removed it. I would be happy to hear any objections you may have. --Spikey8D (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I re-removed it. It's simply a minor technical ruling. Your claim that the case "revolved around" whether or not she was operating a backpacker is obviously false--if that were true, she obviously wouldn't have been found guilty of the charges. That ruling simply isn't important enough to put in the article--we don't include the day by day coverage of a trial, focusing only on major points and, most importantly, the final outcome. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The court case section has to be deleted. First, sources are only local news (from 2008). Second, this section is about Fiona Graham and does not concern Sayuki. As a geisha her personal life and home address in New Zealand is not supposed to be revealed. With this section it can easily be found on Internet. Moreover, according to the policy on living person this section can damage her activity as a geisha and personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummyan (talk • contribs) 02:56, 25 November 2014‎ (UTC)

First, if the sources are reliable then they're valid; time has nothing to do with it. Second, Sayuki is Fiona Graham. They are not legally separate people. As a geisha she should have considered how her past actions influence the present. The details of Graham == Sayuki are already published on the Internet and you yourself even list your own book (published under your own name) on your Sayuki website! Moreover, you have been informed more than once that Wikipedia is not subject to Asakusa district rules. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disaffiliation from the Asakusa Geisha Association

Could this section be merged with Geisha Activities?
Right now, this negative single event has its own section, giving it more prominence over, for example, her debut. Merging wouldn't compromise on structure either, since it's out of place chronologically, and is directly related to her activities as a geisha. Merging would make the article look less negative on a quick glance, while preserving all the information. Karheimer (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem unreasonable, although wouldn't that make the "Geisha activities" section rather long and unwieldy? That's my only concern. --DAJF (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagine someone other that Karheimer or Graham would need to make the edit though, since I fear a certain baby would be thrown out with a certain quantity of bathwater. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for considering this. I think having paragraphs in there to separate the events and years would keep it readable. I shouldn't edit it myself - if you don't see any other concerns, please go ahead and make the changes. Thanks! Karheimer (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done: I have gone ahead and merged the section about her disaffiliation into the "Geisha activities" section[1], as discussed above. If the section starts getting much longer, it might be an idea to improve readability by adding sub-headings for the different stages in Graham's geisha career, such as "Training", "Disaffiliation from Asakusa Geisha Association", and "As an independent geisha". --DAJF (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Year of birth

Summary: The authority control sources for bibliographic data use "1961", based on information supplied when she published her books. An article in the Telegraph, summarizing an interview, gave her age as 47 in 2011. The disagreement is over whether to display "1961" as the most reliable, or display nothing, because of the geisha tradition of not revealing ages, or because there is an outlying data point from the Telegraph. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First off, the category that someone had added regarding the missing birthdate information was not the correct category, by the way that that category is defined. It should have been Category:Year of birth missing (living people), as this article is missing that information, and the other category is only for cases where the birth year is present.

An editor took this category addition to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard, and his claims there rest on this having all been supposedly settled in 2011. However, looking at what appears to be the relevant discussion, it doesn't look like there was consensus not to include information that would indicate her age. It looks like at least half the editors in that discussion felt that the birth year should be included if it could be appropriately sourced, and they had good policy-based arguments for saying that. As such, the lack of a year would seem to fall on the lack of a reliable source, and adding that category is, at most, the call for someone to find a reliable source in order to add the year here. As such, I don't see any way in which adding the appropriate category would come in conflict with the results of that discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

These National Library of Australia Catalogue records ([2] and [3]) are presumably reliable sources for her birth year. --DAJF (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No, they aren't; they cite Wikipedia as the source of their info on her. See WP:CIRCULAR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that all the authority control data cite Wikipedia for the birth year. All the authority control data use 1961 except Wikipedia at VIAF here. Piping in Wikipedia at the New Zealand library page is not the same as getting other field information from Wikipedia. Occam's Razor tells us to use the simplest explanation, not one involving Ouroboros. If you think she was never born, or born another year, please cite the contrary evidence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Clicking on where it says "Graham, Fiona, 1961-" on this page takes you to the the author page of their catalogue, which has their info on her and says "Provided by Wikipedia". --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they pipe over the Wikipedia biography in one field, but the birth year appears in a separate field and in 4 other libraries. If they used Wikipedia data for all fields they would use the name as we have it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to have the information, we need to have a verifiable source noted. The form of opening sentence you reinsert sources to a flawed calculation on an underspecified source (unless the article ran on Dec 31, the article telling us her age does not tell us the year that she was born; an audio interview that does not appear to include that information, and a dead link. If you want to readd the information, include an actual source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• All the authority control sources use 1961, if you have an alternative year, please provide it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps reinserting a claim that she was 47 in 2011. How do you square that with her being born in 1961? If you actually have a source, you have to put it in the article along where we make the claim. This is a WP:BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• You are using the strawman fallacy by concentrating on the Telegraph article and ignoring all the other data. The authority control sources use 1961, if you have an alternative year, please provide it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Straw man? You're the guy who has been repeatedly reinserting the Telegraph claim, and have used that claim in your edit summary. As for all the other evidence, last I saw you had not added any source supporting that year to the article. None, zero, zip, nada. When I noted the lack of citation, you deleted that as well. This is a WP:BLP. We like having sources for things... and if the Telegraph is giving data that is at odds with other sources that have not been placed into the article, then that gives us all the more reason for caution. If there some specific reason you are avoiding including a source that would verify your claimed date? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• You can just cut and paste in my previous arguments, they are still valid. "All the authority control sources use 1961, if you have an alternative year, please provide it." Instead of a kneejerk reaction, why don't you address the issue? What year was she born other than the one used by the authority control reliable sources that are confirmed by the Telegraph. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my math was off, I apologize. Why didn't you just reword it, instead of deleting it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Reword it how? It didn't have a reference to a specific article, just some vague reference to the Telegraph - we have articles on 16 different periodicals by that name - so I had no quick way of knowing which of your numbers were off, and in any case unless that article ran on December 31, knowing how old she was in years would still leave us with multiple options for her birth year. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Having taken a look at how it is now, we have a claim that the date is 1961, but a reference note that says that there is conflicting information - we shouldn't have a given date in there when there is significant doubt. I would expect the Author Control information to be the same from different places because it is likely one original record being reflected in different ways; that doesn't really give it more weight than whatever the Telegraph says. Frankly, at this point my suggestion is to remove the year from the article until we get some further sourcing. Additionally, we shouldn't refer to what the Telegraph says unless we specify what article in the Telegraph is claiming that - that's verifiability issue. And the claim that being 47 in 2011 yields 1964 as the year of birth; she could have been born in 1963. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that the print inside one of her published books ([4]) also lists her year of birth as 1961. --DAJF (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there some other issue behind all this that is the real key to your objections? Two reasonable editors have agreed that the year "1961" should be displayed. I explained the issue in a note. Information provided to her publisher is the most reliable and has been accepted as canonical by the authority control people. Why do you still insist "1961" be removed? Do you really want people to base her age on a guess based on the photo? My guess was she was born in 1950 based on the photo, which was 10 years off. I guess she just looks 10 years older. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No, no other basis for the objections. You want to put in a specific date, but you've been indicating sources that show conflicts regarding that date. I don't care whether the reader is guessing at her age, I do care whether Wikipedia is guessing at her age. You were the one running a hard campaign on the Telegraph source... and now that you discover that it doesn't say what you want, we should ignore it? --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• When reliable sources conflict, you don't flip a coin and choose one, or throw both out, or average them. You display the most reliable choice and explain the weaker choice. You are obsessing over a very minor issue. Read the other articles in the age controversy category. This problem is not unique. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If we don't actually know information, it's a very good reason for not putting it into a WP:BLP article. The source that you're now claiming as weaker is the reference that you repeatedly inserted into the article. Why do we need to assert a date, and then hide casting doubt on it in a reference? That seems quite irresponsible. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The birth year is given in the hardcover edition of "Inside the Japanese Company" as part of the copyright information (Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Graham, Fiona, 1961 - [...]). --Six words (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I would assume that's the base source that feeds all the authority control information... which is why I'm not saying "well there's so many authority control sources, they obviously outweigh the Telegraph source", as this sort of information gets spread electronically across databases. It's much like saying "there's articles in five major papers that say X", when it turns out that it's really one AP story that ran in several papers. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Guessing where people get their information is original research. Think of each reliable source using "1961" as a vote that that date is the correct one, and that she may have a reason, vanity, for saying she is younger in an interview in 2011. Generally the document closer to a person's birth is more reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"Original research" would be a problem if I were putting the claim "authority control sources all flow from a single point" into an article. As I'm not, that's moot. As to your guessing which of the dates we've found is correct and using that as a basis for putting a claim in the article, that seems a lot more like hitting the concerns of WP:OR. And yes, older people sometimes understate their age for reasons of vanity, but young people also sometimes overstate their age, for the purpose of gaining respect and/or beer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's also information that either Ms Graham or her publisher provided, back when she wasn't a geisha but a scientist. Are you saying it's not reliable? Some paragraphs above you claim the information isn't reliable because the National Library of Australia Catalogue gets their information from Wikipedia (what a ridiculous claim to make! They link to Wikipedia for some additional information, that's all.), now you're saying a newspaper article from when Ms Graham had changed carreers casts doubt on the information she (or someone working for her) provided for her book. --Six words (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that one source is reliable and the other not; I'm saying that they appear to both be what we'd normally consider "reliable sources" for such information, and the are in conflict. And being in the book business myself, I've seen publishers make too many misstatements regarding those they publish to simply say that whatever they say absolutely must be the truth. So yes, one "reliable source" casts doubt on the other. (There's an old saying to the effect that "a man with one watch always knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure.") --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here we have 5 watches giving the same time, and then we ask a child if it is time to give them a piece of candy. The Telegraph is a reliable source, they reported the age the interviewee gave them 100% accurately. However, a 50 year old interviewee may not want to admit their age. Choosing to display no birth year is just silly. We are an encyclopedia, not their press agent or personal ego massager. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So are you now guessing at what the Telegraph's source for the age is? Isn't that basically the sort of thing you accused of being inappropriate original research just a couple hours ago? And isn't this source that you're now comparing to a child the same one that you were trying to edit war into the article, until you discovered that it didn't actually indicate the year that you wanted it to? I'm not sure what's so wrong with not displaying the birth year when we have reason to doubt its accuracy. Really, it would seem the responsible thing to do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I got it from the article: "In an interview with this newspaper shortly after her debut, Ms Graham ..." Unless the gods speak to reporters directly, where else would they get it from? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what NatGertler is trying to say is that if there is an inconstancy in different sources, why would want to add only the age that you think is the correct one. This was argued back in 2011, it's being argued now and you seem to have a personal issue with this and are willing to continue this discussion for as long as it takes, ad long you get what you want. That's not how Wikipedia works. Boris514 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am no mathematical genius, but 5 - 1 is not equal to zero. It is the fallacy of false equivalency. It is like saying we should not list the cause of AIDS as HIV because Peter Duesberg and other HIV/AIDS denialists cancel out whatever other evidence there is. See any other article in the age controversy category. When we do not show her age, we become her fans, or her press agent, and stop being an encyclopedia. I am sorry that it breaks some sacred tradition, but all the others in the geisha category have their information intact. If you think it is wrong, lobby to have all living people not have their birth year displayed. If she is personally upset, she can write Wikipedia at OTRS and ask for her biography to be removed and argue that she is a non-notable person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, you're saying whenever there's a conflict in sources we should just list whatever you say or else we're just fans of the person in question? I don't see the logic or how that can be backed by posting a link to false equivalency. You can try to compare this to whatever you want but the same can be flipped on you. If not posting her age makes us fans, posting the age you want displayed makes you a detractor or a critic. Of course you can take the easy way out by saying "If someone is not happy, they can ask to be removed" but what you're really saying is "If she's not happy with my decision, she doesn't belong here" sounds like a scare tactic and that makes me question your real intentions even more. If you have a personal issue with someone, maybe you should refrain from pushing your negativity onto others. Just the fact that you made a change on Wikipedia and stated the reason as "I am pretty sure that X or Y" implies that you're changing things based on your personal opinion. Boris514 (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's rich, coming from you, Fiona. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Brilliant. Yes, exactly! That was incredibly perspicacious, it is exactly my argument. I use a random number generator and then push for that number. You are spot on. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Impartial observer; came here because curious after the BLPN thread. Is it at all possible that the Telegraph had a misprint or was using outdated information? Having not read it -- is the link somewhere in this page's archive?? -- it seems to still be possible that the Telegraph piece was completely accurate in 2008, and stayed on the shelf for a few years and then was accidentally run with out-of-date information. Or else it could have been a misprint. Speculating on someone's date of birth based on a source that listed her age in years on a certain date is dodgy at best; essentially the Telegraph is an unreliable source for her date of birth if it only gives an age in years. The other sources (unless they actually do all take the relevant info from Wikipedia) are each of them better, especially if one is one of her own published books. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny, you seem to think you have a source for her age besides an interview with her, but the Telegraph cannot? Do you assume she gave them every piece of information in the article, particularly one that can be seen as negative about her, or is it possible that newspapers have other sources for their articles beyond their subjects? And as it happens, we have a reference to the earlier article that the Telegraph ran on her, and it notes that she did not state her age. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Geishas do not reveal their age, but anthropologists do. She wrote her books before she became a geisha, and had no compelling reason to lie about, or hide her age. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't say if she had a compelling reason to lie about it or not, as the book was written by her. She could have written any age she wanted at the time of writing her book therefore still not a good source. Boris514 (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you WP:SPA that was insightful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• I personally see no reason to omit information when two presumably reliable sources are in conflict if a footnote explains this conflict, and honestly, would prefer to err on the side of inclusion given the recent attempts by IP editors to remove the information based on "geisha tradition". I've accessed the links from the National Library you provided, Nat Gertler, but what I see isn't a biography or any citation to Wikipedia, just a search result page with no information besides the two book hits, and I still haven't found it after 10 minutes of my own fiddling with the website. I'm not sure if this is an issue with my browser or perhaps operator error, but I cannot find this. It also does not make sense, especially given the image DAJF found of the inside cover of her 2003 book(6 years before our article was created) that shows her birth year as 1961. Cannolis (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay scratch that, I think my browser was playing tricks on me. I opened the link again today and a big box with text that is clearly ported from Wikipedia is now above the book listings. However, I think giving a birthdate with both sources is a better choice than hiding information Cannolis (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No living geisha reveals her age, including on Wikipedia. Revealing mine, just because I happen to be western and on an English Wikipedia page gets me in trouble with the geisha community and puts me at a disadvantage with other geisha. My age was not mentioned for the first seven years of my career after discussion about it. Please take it off now and maintain the same policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.232.40.77 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC)

• Brazilian geishas are exempt from this rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The articles cited in the main article suggest that you are not a member of a geisha community and that your previous actions got you in enough trouble with other geisha. How does citing your age compare to that? Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not an issue requiring admin attention. Secondly, the "age" entry is based on published sources that would generally be considered reliable. Thus I see no reason to omit this publicly available information from the article. Huon (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The published source you're referring to was written by the person in question therefore how would that be considered reliable by your standards? Anyone can publish a book about themselves and add whatever information they want, then we can use that information to add to Wikipedia? According to the detractors people who edit this page, it's only reliable if it's negative and causes damage to her career, seems pretty biased to me. Boris514 (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

She wrote that article by The Telegraph? I rather doubt that. Also, are you suggesting she lied about her age? And yet you accuse others of being "detractors"? Huon (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe not "detractors", lets use the term "culturally insensitive", if it's part of the cultural mystique of geisha's why would we decide to include the age at all after all these years? It's the same when it comes to posting pictures of the prophet Mohammed, I don't see how a handful of people can make a decision that goes against an entire culture that's existed for hundreds of years.Boris514 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It goes against the centuries-old culture of encyclopedia writing to give the birthdates of subjects if available? News to me. We're here to provide factual information, not to maintain "cultural mytique". See WP:NOTCENSORED. Huon (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well said, I wish I had said that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is this such a complicated issue, it is clear that Fiona does not want her age published. Under "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" it is quoted "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. " Her age should be able to removed in part to at least the year, however under the circumstances of it affecting her career it should not be listed at all. What is so hard about people accepting different cultures and values?

References

Category

A category of one serves no purpose, the point of a category is to lead the reader to other people from the same country with the same profession. There is just one Australian geisha. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Non impartial contributor

Looking at the various edits on this page, it seems that user DAJF has an agenda against Fiona Graham/Sayuki. He has been, for years, monitoring this page especially extremely closely, removing any positive information, and constantly reinforcing negative information. Of course Wikipedia should state all the truth, but this goes both ways, and I believe that the user DAJF has is biased and should not be allowed to edit this page anymore.

Chriss1991 (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991

Hi, Chriss1991. You are certainly right that I have been keeping a close eye on this article over the years to make sure all of the information it contains is verifiable, and I'm sure the subject of the article is glad that it is regularly monitored to make sure no unverified or misleading information sneaks in. If you can provide evidence of any information that has been removed from this article and is reliably sourced, I would be happy to reinstate it. Otherwise, please be careful of making unwarranted personal attacks. --DAJF (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Court case section

The court case section has to be deleted. First, sources are only local news (from 2008). Second, this section is about Fiona Graham and does not concern Sayuki. As a geisha her personal life and home address in New Zealand is not supposed to be revealed. With this section it can easily be found on Internet. Moreover, according to the policy on living person this section can damage her activity as a geisha and personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummyan (talk • contribs) 02:56, 25 November 2014‎ (UTC)

First, if the sources are reliable then they're valid; time has nothing to do with it. Second, Sayuki is Fiona Graham. They are not legally separate people. As a geisha she should have considered how her past actions influence the present. The details of Graham == Sayuki are already published on the Internet and you yourself even list your own book (published under your own name) on your Sayuki website! Moreover, you have been informed more than once that Wikipedia is not subject to Asakusa district rules. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy on living persons, "biographies must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy"

"The possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons)

The court section on her page damages her privacy and her geisha life. That's why it must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummyan (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not require us to delete this section, quite the contrary. A true, verifiable statement regarding a public figure shouldn't be excluded just because it is negative - see WP:WELLKNOWN. --Six words (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

While true and properly sourced, I feel that the section on the court case is given too much weight. See Paris Hilton, who has been arrested three times - yet you'll find no negative headings. I'd rather not do any edits myself in the interest of WP:COI. Karheimer (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Paris Hilton article has sections titled "2006–07: Paris, films and arrests" and "2010–11: Legal issues and return to reality TV", which both include paragraphs that extensively report her arrests and jail time etc. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any obvious difference in tone or neutrality. Thanks for your restraint in not jumping in and editing the article directly as an editor with a conflict of interest, but how do you suggest we address the issues you are seeing with the article? --DAJF (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not really too much weight when you think about it -- it is directly related to Graham working as a geisha, and Graham herself is the one who created that relationship by bringing it up at her trial and then attempting to sue/censor/whatever the ODP over it as well. If she had just gone through the trial like a normal person without going IM A GEISHA IM A GEISHA STOP ITTTTTT all over the place, then yes, having a passing mention of the incident might be enough. But since Graham saw fit to bring it up in the way that she did, it now is quite plainly (and relevantly) linked to her life as a quote-unquote geisha.
Perhaps there is a lesson for her to learn from her former superiors at the Asakusa assosication with regards to self-promotion (not doing it) and keeping your head down (doing it). But if the past five years are any indication, it would seem that's not going to happen. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

How about cutting out the last paragraph from that section? Karheimer (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Any particular reason for wanting it removed? --DAJF (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I too feel this does not belong here. While Sayuki and Fiona Graham are the same person, they are clearly two different entities. People use pseudonyms to protect themselves and their private life, and this is clearly about Fiona Graham, who is not notable. Sayuki, the Geisha, is a public person, however the anthropologist is not, like the 99% anthropologist that don't have a wikipedia page. I believe this section should be removed. Chriss1991 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991

You and your geisha alter-ego are not different entities. Furthermore, it is by the most tenuous of straws that the combination of your anthropology work and your "geisha" "work" are considered notable enough at all to be included. You are correct in that as an anthropologist you are not notable, and pretty much the only reason you are included in here as "a geisha" is that you and your PR machine spent a lot of time and money convincing media outlets that you are the first, only, and bestest non-Japanese geisha in existence.
I feel like there's a good case to be made for taking this article to AfD and having it removed entirely -- beyond the FIRST WESTERN GEISHA spam, you have done nothing of note as a "geisha", and with your aforementioned lack of other notability, there's little reason for this article to exist.
Good thing for you though, I guess, is that your court case and birthdate will be banished to the bowels of the Intertubes! Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting

According to [guideline] I agree that the court case section should be removed from her Wikipedia page, since her notability stems entirely from being a geisha, which is the sole reason why she has a Wikipedia page in the first place as you can clearly see from the photographs which only depict her as a geisha. The court case section has no connection to her geisha-existence and thus is irrelevant on the page. More than that the court case section obviously has a damaging effect on her reputation and is damaging to her career and to her personal life. Since she is a relatively unknown person, there should be more respect to private and personal information which is not primarily related to her geisha career and which one would NOT want to have listed on their Wikipedia page, especially when it is obvious that the respective information is harmful to their career. Unless you can come up with strong arguments about why the court case section is necessary to be listed on her page, I ask for this section to be deleted. Thank you!--Stubeellie (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP states "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.". In addition it states notability is not temporary. From what I could tell the article was written only because of that one event in 2007. The court case in and of itself is not notable see WP:CASES. I believe the article should be deleted as the court case is not notable, and the event that created the article was in 2007, and Graham has not remained notable since that point. If you want to move foward with the deletion take this to WP:AFD LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 06:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

We need neutral, objective and experienced judgement about this matter and according actions like changing or removing this section consequently. Thank you! Stubeellie (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The {{Help me}} template is not for requests to evaluate a content dispute. Prior to your most recent post, this discussion has been untouched for half a year. Give other editors a chance to reply to your comments, and, if you cannot come to an agreement, use other forms of content dispute resolution. LethalFlower has suggested AfD which is an alternate option if you believe this article falls under a valid deletion reason. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I swear the tears that this page generates are sweeter than the finest of wines. "We need neutral, objective and experienced judgement about this matter and according actions like doing what I want done." Can you imagine if Graham spent as much time practising the flute as she does trying to whitewash this page? She wouldn't need to use that tape recorder any more, that's for sure. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about Wanaka Gym court case and fine section

I read this section and had a question for the editors of the article. The sources say that a case was filed against her and dismissed. If the case was dismissed, then why is it in her article? I read it and it doesn't seem particularly notable, and its written in such a way that it implies she was fined then the whole mess was dismissed. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? 97.126.235.119 (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out, she appealed and her appeal was dismissed. So she was convicted. Not sure a single incident for a minor criminal of civil offense belongs in that article. It's unbalanced and poorly written. Needs to be rewritten by one of the editors. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It does seem like a non sequitor in her biography to me, I am not opposed to removing it. However, we always seem to post celebrity DUIs in biographies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I read through this article it evokes and portrays a rich cultural exchange in her Geisha profession, those sections are very well written, then you come to the Gym controversy and the bubble pops. The dispute is confusing, irrelevant, something about her friends staying in an old building -- there's no flow or context for the section, it makes the article brassy. I vote for removing that section or paring it down to a one sentence mention of the dispute, or just dropping the section entirely. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, this article is clearly about Sayuki the geisha, not Fiona Graham the anthropologist. Being an anthropologist alone doesn't deserve a wikipedia page I believe, and this brings no relevant information about Sayuki, the geisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriss1991 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Weren't you the one that merged the Sayuki and Fiona Graham article though? And still, I agree with the previous contributor, it is poorly written and feels out of place in the article. Chriss1991 (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991

The last time I looked (a few seconds ago), the article was called Fiona Graham, and the opening paragraph describes her as "an Australian anthropologist who works as a geisha in Japan". Regardless of whether they are connected with her current activities as a geisha, events and personal details that garner national press coverage also belong here. It is the same with other celebrities or notable persons who have biographical articles on Wikipedia, and they cannot pick and choose which parts to leave out just because they may consider them unflattering. As mentioned above, other celebrity articles include court case details or DUIs if they were reported in the media. --DAJF (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I still think it should be removed: this is very old, local news only, and has nothing to do with a Sayuki page. Chriss1991 (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991

Being "old" is not a reason for removing material from a biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 02:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wattention is not a reliable source

The articles are written by Graham herself and are not edited beyond the most cursory of spellchecks. The article cited in this article is mostly promotional in tone and includes content which was obviously put there specifically so that Graham could add "NO OTHER FOREGINERS ARE GEISHA NOW" to this article and cite herself for that statement. In the spirit of the Sayuki socks, I'd like to call for an immediate and permanent ban to Wattention blogposts as citations for this article. ;-) Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why cant an article quote autobiographical material? Autobiographical sources are not to be used to prove notability, but with a notable person they are the best source for biographical details. I would say that they are the most reliable source, unless contradicted by another source ... for instance, Ben Carson currently having details of his autobiography challenged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) on this. Primary sources are often the best, and, other than that articles should not be solely based on primary sources, there is nothing in WP:5P which prevents, or should be used to discourage, their use. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that (1) Wattention is not performing any kind of editorial oversight of its content, and (2) that allows Graham to push her agendas ("I WAS FIRST" and lately "I'M THE ONLY ONE") into her blog posts, I mean articles. She can then quote herself in this article to get her POV included in more "authoritative" a way than by using sockpuppets. § Using autobiographical material is one thing; allowing autobiographicalish content that is clearly, though carefully not explicitly, intended to insert material into Wikipedia is quite another. See also Debito Arudo and Christopher Johnson. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)