Talk:Fiona Graham

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

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)

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.