Talk:Fiona Graham/Archive 4

Age

 * There is a 400 year old tradition that a geisha does not reveal her age, but there is a 2,000 year old tradition that encyclopedias provide the most reliable information available.

FRS
Hello Zppix from Feedback Request Service here. As policy says if the person mentioned in article doesn't want their birthdate shown then only list the year. According to policy Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List only the year

 * The birth date was not listed since 2011 when Sayuki herself asked for it to be removed. DAJF knew this and kept the birth date on Wikipedia which is adequate grounds for showing that he does not edit impartially and shoudl be banned from editing this page. Anonymous personal attack stricken
 * I think Nomoskedasticity made a good point about WP:BLPPRIVACY on BLP/N - Graham quite clearly does not want her age out there, and in the interests of privacy, we should omit her birthday. However, the policy does not say to entirely censor the information but to just list the year. While there is some conflict about the birth year between the Library of Congress and the Telegraph, I don't think that's reason enough to omit a fairly important piece of data that helps put her becoming a geisha in 2007 in context. With modern notable individuals, it's rare to see uncertainties in birth date, but I think this is similar to someone like Stephen, King of England where there is some dispute and doubt, but both dates are used with a footnote explaining why, which is how Grahan's article appeared here. I think we could use both dates or just use one and explain that in the footnote, and I would favor using the Library of Congress one, but either way, the year should be listed. Cannolis (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

List the full birth date

 * ✅: The full date is reliably sourced by the Library of Congress, and can be viewed . As the vanity piece published in The Telegraph did not actually quote a birth date (or even year), I don't see any conflict in using the sourced date we have. --DAJF (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Her full birthday was listed by the Library of Congress until October 20, 2015 when Chriss1991 impersonated Fiona Graham in an email to the LOC asking that they remove it. She published the year of her birth in her first book, when she was an anthropologist, before her geisha period. One or more editors from Brazil have been ardently removing the date based on the geisha rule. There is no ban against using the Library of Congress authority control file, it is a secondary source, the primary source would be her birth certificate, or an Australian birth index. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A Library of Congress catalogue record offers nothing that accords with WP:SECONDARY. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor is it mentioned in WP:PRIMARY. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth...". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Public records are government birth, marriage, death, tax, voting registrations, and criminal records, that are made available for public view. These are public records sites according to Google: CheckPeople.com and TruthFinder.com‎ and Intelius.com. The sites use wording like: "View Public Records Instantly", "Comprehensive Criminal Records", "Find Social Security Numbers", "Find Anyone's Birthday", and "Find Cell Phone Numbers". There is nothing in WP:PRIMARY calling authority control files "public records". In fact we link to all the authority control files at the bottom of each biography. If they were banned, why would every biography link to them? We aren't suppose to use public records because it is easy to confuse two people with the same name, the websites just give a name and a birthday and a street address, and a phone number, based on public voting registrations and tax records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅:Wikipedia is not censored, and thus shouldn't withhold infomation that has been published by a reliable, secondary source, even if it may be offensive to some. In this case its even been in the archived Library of Congress page.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a reliable source for her birthdate so we should use it. AIR corn (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ this is an encyclopedia, and this is a bio. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

List nothing

 * There is no secondary source for the 1961 date, so including it is not in accord with WP:BLPPRIMARY. An article in the Telegraph gives her age as 47 in 2011, implying that she was born in 1964 (or perhaps 1965), creating doubt about the 1961 date.  (By the same token, the LOC information provokes doubt about the 1964/65 date.)   Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A primary source would be her birth certificate, or a drivers license. Why is the year she used that is published in her book not considered a secondary source? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, why would her own book be considered a primary source about her...? Should be self-evident. Huon (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! You are confusing a "primary source" with a "third party source". A book she wrote would be a first party source, first party sources such as autobiographies are the first choice for information about a person, they are not to be used to prove notability, since anyone can write an autobiography and have it self published. Her birth certificate or drivers license would be a primary source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. I'd say she was directly involved in her own birth, and her own book is rather close to her. It certainly is not a secondary or tertiary source. Huon (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are grabbing at straws with that twisted rationale. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So what's your opinion? That a book written by Graham is a secondary or tertiary source on Graham's own birthdate? Based on what reasoning? Huon (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * List nothing. Sources are scarce and contradictory. Chances are roughly 50/50 that we'd get it wrong if we listed a date. Huon (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly the question is worded in a very POVish way and isn't how encyclopedia questions are meant to be phrased. Due to WP:BLPPRIVACY, combined with sources clashing over the year and whatnot, i would not even contain the year. The fact that some of these are archived sources, which in their current state no longer contain this information is all the more reason for us not to include. Brustopher (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say leave it off per WP:BLPPRIVACY. We have to ask ourselves whether or not adding the birth year/date would improve the article. Offhand I'm inclined to say that no, it wouldn't. There's also the issue that we have conflicting sources over the exact date. The fact that Graham herself has repeatedly asked for this to be removed adds some weight to this as well, although I'm unhappy that the process has been so disruptive, to put it mildly. We need to approach this very carefully and I want to make sure that we're not going to keep it in the article just to prove a WP:POINT and that if we do keep it, it's because it's been backed up by several good sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with using WP:BLPPRIVACY to remove her birth year when the exact wording of the policy is "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". I don't see using conflicting reliable sources on a birth year as a problem - this is the case with many historical figures and when two reliable sources disagree, it makes much more sense to report what both say and cite both instead of removing information that provides good context. Cannolis (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If someone doesn't want their birth date publicized on Wikipedia, then we should respect that per BLP policy.  I guess listing the year would technically satisfy that requirement, but it seems as though that is undesired, too.  I don't see why it's so important to list every minor fact that we can dig up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Graham can file an OTRS with proof of identification like anyone else. All we have here are people reading her mind. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Fiona Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/nb2011014699.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129235620/http://www.sayuki.net/media/story-2010/ to http://www.sayuki.net/media/story-2010/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Fiona Graham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121005173122/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/342992/melbourne-woman-becomes-a-geisha to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/342992/melbourne-woman-becomes-a-geisha
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110810035905/http://www.sponichi.co.jp:80/society/news/2011/06/06/kiji/K20110606000971140.html to http://www.sponichi.co.jp/society/news/2011/06/06/kiji/K20110606000971140.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141128064752/http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_ruling.php?case_number=2316 to http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_ruling.php?case_number=2316

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

==What are the intentions of making the biggest part of article about an Anthropologist and Giesha the one which does not really talk about any of those two topics and actually do not hold the complete truth== So since I have to admit I did not keep my head cool at first I want to make it the right way this time. So I am bringing up this discussion and I would like you, the active "protectors" of whoever made this article originally, to say your opinion and claim your own reasoning for why you do so after considering what I am going to say here. I will briefly start with explanation of why I actually think the edits I have done were not a vandalism.

So Let me explain why I am deleting rather then altering some of the text. The text I am removing and someone banned me for possibility of whitewashing is not based on legit sources in terms of actual date. The reason for removing is not really any kind of whitewashing. I simply do not believe the major part of article about anthropologist and geisha should hold some outdated incomplete data about a building fine. Especially when the case is not finished and the sources are as reliable as local news. So besides that incorrectness of it it's also inappropriate and I would like to hear your opinion on this. There is more of such preoccupation in the whole article and I think after what I'v just experienced it is going to be long distance run to make the protectors read and understand what are the sources really saying and what is the article skillfully trying to manipulate. But pleas let's start discussion on and I hope this is going to evolve to something reasonably cultivated. K.Seek (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)K.Seek Two, since when has "I simply do not believe " ever been a reason for deleting stuff from Wikipedia? Every statement in this article is reliably sourced. If you (or Graham) want to contradict something, go find something that backs up what you're saying, because the vast majority of the media that is not simply repeating Graham's press releases have actually looked into the relevant matters and published the details. Three, since when has "local news" been ineligible for sourcing in Wikipedia? Four, what's this about the case being unfinished? Are you talking about how you still have outstanding fines that will get you in some hot water if you return to NZ? In any case, the developments that have already occurred in the case are reliably sourced and can be included. Five, you yourself have called for editors to be banned from this article before. Why are you concerned about being banned now? Six, shall we include coverage of the AMA on Reddit that took place earlier this year, the reception you got, and how you rage-deleted 90% of your posts after it went south? 180.47.63.187 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One, it's evolved into its current state after literal years of cultivation and despite dozens of attempts by Graham (or her socks) to remove those niggling details about her failed careers.

Moved here
"Graham was the first female white graduate of Keio University"

The reference is a list of courses and does not contain any information to support that claim. --RAN (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

plagiarism
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/the-wanaka-gym-limited-v-queenstown-lakes-district-council-3/@@images/fileDecision For example:
 * The applicant’s position is that the property (which, as we understand it, can accommodate up to 20 people) should have been treated as a single household unit for the purposes of fire safety requirements. 

And this article:


 * The applicant’s position is that the property (which, as we understand it, can accommodate up to 20 people) should have been treated as a single household unit or a normal house for the purposes of fire safety requirements.

Boldface indicates exact copying.

The court decision was copied verbatim - and without clear marking as such. Besides Wikipedia avoids primary sources as a rule. Collect (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, I didn't originally add the section about the court case. I re-added it because the section was apparently blanked for a WP:IDONTLIKEIT type of reason when it seemed to be supported by citations to reliable sources. The WP:COPVIO was a possibility I didn't consider, so thanks for catching that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Wanaka Gym court case
Does this case warrant mentioning the article or would doing so be a BLP violation. Negative content doesn't automatically need to be removed from BLPs just because it's negative so long as it's properly supported by sources and not WP:UNDUE. At the same time, it also appears based upon what posted at WP:BLPN that the OTRS talk template added to the top of this talk page was added in response to a request received from someone requesting that this content be removed. The original section did seem excessively detailed in my opinion with a rover reliance on WP:BLPPRIMARY sources, but maybe a smaller summary of the proceedings just reflecting what the newspaper reports said about the incident could be re-added in its place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires a secondary reliable source for any such claims. The case, on its face, is more a matter of "illegal renting of a single family building which historically was used for more than one family" than of felonious misconduct on the part of a living person. I found no claim that income taxes were evaded or the like, but the case rested on "the house was not licensed for multi-family occupancy" or the like.   This is pretty far down the list of "major crimes" much less most of a BLP. Collect (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine. After digging through the article talk page archives a bit, I found Talk:Fiona Graham/Archive 3 and Talk:Fiona Graham/Archive 3, so this has been discussed before. Those discussions appear to have been a little contentious and not many of the particpants still even appear to be editing. Some even appear to have been SPAs with one even stating he worked for Graham. The article also has been discussed at BLPN prior to the most recent discussion I started as can be seen, which also appear to have been quite contentious though not all of them were about this particular court case.
 * Anyway, I can't seem to find a consensus established for outright removal of the content, so I'll work with your suggestion and see if some more secondary sources can be find which might be able to be used in support of a more streamlined summary of the case. I did find this, this and this which might indicate that there is more to this case that it appears especially if it eventually ended up at Supreme Court of New Zealand. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Media coverage" and "Radio"
I don't see the point in the article of the lists "Media coverage" and "Radio". As suggestions to editors (actual or potential) for resources for further editing, the lists (amalgamated into one, as radio is a medium) might benefit this talk page. How about moving them here? -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of material, 22 September
In this edit, Myloko recently removed a pile of material with the summary Taking out generalized statements that are only backed up by said inidivudal [sic]. The final paragraph removed was indeed sourced only to Graham. As for the rest, it was ostensibly sourced to a range of publications, including The Independent and The Australian. I haven't looked at any of this stuff, and imaginably the sourcing was fictional. Perhaps Myloko would comment on this.

Another oddity of this edit is that the straightforward statement "Sayuki did a long apprenticeship of 11 months", seemingly backed by a single printed source (to which I don't have access), was changed to "Sayuki did a short apprenticeship of 11 months", seemingly backed by a the exact same single printed source. Precisely what is the wording in this source, Myloko? -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Response To September 22nd Deletions
The last time I checked one cannot cite themselves as their own source. If that were the case then anyone could write whatever they wanted about themselves without repercussions.

As for the length of her apprenticeship, 11 months is considered a bare minimum in most places. For sources on said information you can check the following websites including the Ookini Zaidan that is the organization that promotes the culture of maiko and geiko to the outside world.  ...added on 21 October 2018 by Myloko 


 * The material that you deleted was sourced to a variety of places. I confess that I haven't clicked on any of them. (The reason is simple. I'm not interested in geisha. I am interested in zapping assertions not backed up by reliable sources, and bias.) Are you saying that the specified authorship is merely fictional and that FG was the actual writer of all of them? If not, then just what are you saying? &para; My question was not about whether an apprenticeship of 11 months was short or long. My question was instead about the precise wording of a source. Precisely what does the source say, Myloko? -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

All the materials deleted by Myloco have been returned to the article. Mylocp is kindly asked tօ substantiate her edits with references to the specific rules of Wikipedia (see Biographies of living persons). Давид Эвоян (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Response To Hoary
I don't expect everyone to be able to read Japanese, but when speaking about a Japanese profession it's pertinent to use sources that are often primary ones, such as those sourced from the geisha houses themselves like this one from the Yoshifumi okiya of Miyagawa Cho in Kyoto. It states:

"1年弱経つと舞の試験が行われ" which roughly translates to "After one year of training (specifically cites dance) the person (referring to the trainee) will undergo a test." This test determines whether they will be able to debut as a maiko or geiko, depending on their age at the time that they join.

Beyond that, yes, I am asserting that Ms. Graham was the actual writer of many of the points that I removed. Looking at the top of this page alone notes that said person has tried to write parts of her own page many times, and has even been reprimanded for doing so.

I would also ask that Давид Эвоян please learn to spell my username properly as it's only 6 letters long and does not contain any special characters. 07:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myloko (talk • contribs)


 * Oh, sorry, ; it's only now that I notice your response. -- Hoary (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

What to include and what not to include
Perhaps (contributions) and   (contributions) would like to discuss matters here. Of course the discussion should be based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE are relevant;, , , , , (each of whom has recently either okayed an edit or edited themself) is welcome to cite more nuggets of policy/guideline, or of course to contribute to the discussion. -- Hoary (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems that user has created an account for the purpose of inputting this information with disregard to the history of the page. This has been discussed before and according to strict rules on the BLP it was eventually removed. I would suggest that as has happened in the past, it is a user who wishes to damage the reputation of Graham, and not contribute to a fair and neutral article. As a low-importance biography I think it is irrelevant to include information which does not directly relate to the reason that she is on Wikipedia, which is for her career as an academic and as a geisha.Annnaspandannna (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (1) I think it's better not to speculate about motives. (2) "This has been discussed before and according to strict rules on the BLP it was eventually removed." Please point to the particular discussion that you have in mind. (3) "As a low-importance biography I think it is irrelevant to include information which does not directly relate to the reason that she is on Wikipedia": I think you have WP:BLPCRIME in mind. There are various complications in that. One is that it's about "relatively unknown people". Is FG "relatively unknown"? I really don't know. (An extraordinary number of Wikipedia user IDs seem to have been rather obsessed with her, one way or another, over the years. But I don't suppose that this proves much.) The list within the article that's introduced with "Further coverage of Graham has appeared in the following publications and other media" is anomalous and actually looks rather desperate. &para; FG has had three books put out by academic publishers. I'd imagine that they'd have got reviewed. If you're interested in her career as an academic, how about adding material about her books? -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I am willing to follow previous consensus on this. I don't have enough experience to weigh-in on the specifics, but thanks for including me. Elfabet (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be very honest, I looked at the edit, and it didn't look like vandalism, so I accepted it. That's all, and although I can only speak for myself, I'm sure everyone else that was mentioned here had a similar experience. Obviously, the situation involves certain subtleties that I was not aware of, and I will be sure to stay away from this article in the future. -- Puzzledvegetable |💬|📧|📜 16:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Elfabet,, thank you for your responses. I have no reason to think that you are particularly interested in geisha (viewed anthropologically or otherwise), dodgy use of buildings, or press complaints. The attention of editors who can consider these matters dispassionately is very welcome both here and for the article geisha. I hope that at least one of you sticks around here. You needn't feel obliged to agree or disagree with each comment or suggestion; you could remain silent until you see something with which you heartily agree or disagree. -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This article has a pretty long history of WP:COI (and undeclared paid editing, but prior to the fully defined policy) and POV edits from multiple sides, predominately from Graham's side though, including Graham herself. I haven't watched the article all that closely, but the revert had several comments in the edit summary that stuck me as POV pushing.  First, "old news" is not a reason to remove something from an article.  Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the whole of the subject, not just current.  From that view, it's a bad revert.  The sourcing on this is not ideal, and I won't question that.  Graham has tried to make this disappear in previously (and in fact, as the article notes, filed a complaint with the NZ Press Council which was dismissed), so the POV concerns return.  There have been several discussion on this talk page about this section and have ranged from leave it to somewhat neutral. There isn't anything here about a BLPN discussion and it's curious that a new editor would quote something like that - I feel there are some things not disclosed here.
 * The section probably could be trimmed a fair amount to a couple of lines as a possible compromise. I think the current length is WP:UNDUE and the sourcing can be improved, as a google search shows some decent options from a super quick search.  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See this fairly recent BLPN] discussion with the last several remarks fairly close to my suggestion - leave it but significantly reduce. There's a pretty long history of this article at BLPN  and more than a few are from Graham supporters.  Like I said, the amount of POV editing on this article has been insane.  Ravensfire  (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that, . -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Further agreement with Ravensfire that a reduction in length and improvement in sources is a good way to proceed. Elfabet (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've made a very feeble start, replacing the templates (which I thought slightly misleading) with template-free text. Please don't infer that I like the result: I do not.


 * So, where now? I suggest the following.


 * First, abridge in the following way. ( is what's in the article now.)


 * Retain as is.
 * Retain as is.


 * Replace all of that with ''Graham unsuccessfully made various appeals; a final appeal by both Graham and her company was rejected by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in December 2014.
 * Replace all of that with ''Graham unsuccessfully made various appeals; a final appeal by both Graham and her company was rejected by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in December 2014.


 * Delete. (This would be subsumed under "various appeals", above. And it's unremarkable that somebody would be arrested if she didn't pay a fine.)
 * Delete. (This would be subsumed under "various appeals", above. And it's unremarkable that somebody would be arrested if she didn't pay a fine.)


 * Delete. (Filing a complaint to a press council and having this complaint dismissed is pretty humdrum.)
 * Delete. (Filing a complaint to a press council and having this complaint dismissed is pretty humdrum.)


 * Secondly, check that everything is sourced. It's not good enough to suggest that miscellaneous assertions will be backed up in one or other of half a dozen PDFs. (•̀ᴗ•́)و ̑̑ Moreover, this material has been reinserted and defended by SPAs; distortions of what's actually in the cited sources wouldn't surprise me.


 * Thirdly, as the section "Media coverage" is a mixture of a too-long "External links" section and [gulp] "In popular culture", move a small part of it to "External links" but most of it to this talk page, where it might serve as a resource for editors.


 * Fourthly, as Graham has put out three solid-sounding books from non-vanity publishers, try to find and add critical commentary on these books. (Cf the treatment of books within the article on Morris Bishop.)


 * How about it, and y'all? -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * , That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking, looks nice! Adding an extra source or two and the condensed version is a nice summary.  The appeal to the Press Council appears to only be sourced to the filings themselves and WP:BLPPRIMARY says explicitly not to use those, plus it's just UNDUE.  Concur with the changes to Media Coverage and the books (based on finding secondary coverage), with some caution that we'll see some SPA activity around those without any question (on both sides), sadly.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks; unless there's disagreement in the meantime, I'll carry out the first stage (as described above) about 24 hours from now. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've carried out the first stage. I've also checked that what's attributed to the Otago Daily Times article does actually appear within that article, and have made one minor change to that end. As described above, there's more work to be done. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've carried out the second stage. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've carried out a slightly altered version of the third stage. Some of the "media appearances" were resources used as references; I cut them from the list. A couple were negligible as "external links"; I cut them too. The rest, I reformatted and added as "external links". (There may well be too many of these.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed this link:
 * September 2018
 * because it's not primarily about FG. It might be usable as a source all the same; this is why I mention it here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Fourth stage: memo to self (or anyone):
 * Inside the Japanese Company. Reviewed: Leo McCann, Organization: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory and Society 12 (2005): 142–144 ; Tony Elger, British Journal of Industrial Relations 44 (2006):801–805.
 * A Japanese Company in Crisis. Reviewed: Tony Elger, British Journal of Industrial Relations 44 (2006):801–805 ; Kuniko Ishiguro, Social Science Japan Journal 9 (2006):141–143 ; Leo McCann, Organization: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory and Society 13 (2006):158–160.
 * Playing at Politics. Reviewed: Margaret Taylor Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12 (2006): 983–984.
 * And there could well be more. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Fourth stage done. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm done with the article. Our biographee is best known for being a geisha, but I haven't touched that aspect of the article and don't intend to. I hope that no radical changes are made by any special-purpose account, and that and others who aren't passionately interested continue to keep an eye on this article. -- Hoary (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 2 June 2020
This is Sayuki. The most recent articles on this page are nearly five years old. Many students of geisha culture write to me saying that whenever they try to edit my page they are immediately blocked and their Wikipedia accounts are deleted. Why can no one add ANY recent information to my page? Most additions are exact sentences from valid newspapers yet they are immediately removed. Why? Now NO ONE can edit the page at all freely. Why? Please allow people to add recent information from valid sources to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:F40F:6EF0:8629:B5BC (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello - there's a bunch of things I need to address here in order to explain the how's and why's and wherefore's to editing this page, why it's been protected, and what can be done at present.


 * Firstly - sources. Some sources can be deemed obsolete when (quoting here) "the source has been surpassed by a newer edition, a followup article, a widely accepted rebuttal, a retraction, or some other advance in knowledge". A source that is nearly five years old is not, by default, 'too old to be used' unless there are other reliable sources proving it's outdated.


 * A good example of this would be the "Ainu culture" section of the Ainu people wikipedia article. Most of the sourcing in this section is resting on one anthropology source from 1911; but it uses the information in the source to talk about the Ainu people as if it's the present day. Seeing as the source is now copyright-free and widely available on the web, we can read it and determine that it's...definitely, extremely, outdated.

"'To-day they are drunken, dirty, spiritless folk, whom it is difficult to suppose capable of the warlike role they once played.'"


 * However, we can also look at one of the most-used sources in the Geisha article - Liza Dalby's Geisha - and determine that, even though most of the research was conducted between 1974-1975, the information that isn't time-specific mostly still stands up today. The point, therefore is is this source reliable? Is it still accurate? Has it been usurped by anything else we can source?. If none of these are met - unfortunately, it doesn't necessarily count for anything that more things have happened in that almost-five year period. If it's not referenceable - to Wikipedia, it unfortunately doesn't exist.


 * Wikipedia is built on the backbone of referencing, and if it can't be referenced accurately, then it can't go in. It's true that many articles - Geisha included - have a massive problem with referencing issues, in particular there not being enough of them. However, the BLP (Biography of Living Persons) Manual of Style is a lot more stringent than the average article would require, including references. And, it's important to note, just because there's objectionable referencing elsewhere, doesn't mean it creates a consensus of standards that could be used here.


 * If there are reputable sources that could be used in this article from the past five years - please add a new section on the talk page to recommend them. (More on this later.) Note that they have to be verifiable, and anything vague or contentiously-reported or -sourced does get removed. This applies to all content, whatever the tone. (The court case section, I have to say, does not meet the criteria of being contentiously-reported, and it does, however unfortunate, meet the verifiability criteria.)


 * Secondly - the people editing this page you're referring to generally have their edits removed, and/or their accounts blocked, for a few reasons, most of them being that the edits aren't referenced, take out information that is notable enough to be included in the article or otherwise don't meet Manual of Style requirements.


 * A few of them are warned against editing, or blocked, if suspected of sockpuppetry, which - no matter how valid an edit - is not allowed, as ducking and diving behind Wikipedia community standards erodes the trust we all have in each other to bring this project forward, improve articles, and generally spread knowledge in an accurate and reliable manner. Edits should be done with honesty, and if someone feels they're unable to edit without the use of a sockpuppet, then likely they already know the edits they wish to make wouldn't be allowed otherwise. This has occurred on this page in the past, and it has prevented it from moving forwards.


 * Thirdly - you may have noticed that this article now has a little blue padlock in its corner. This is an Extended confirmed protection symbol, and it means that only Wikipedia accounts meeting some criteria - registered, have been active for at least thirty days and have at least 500 edits - can edit these articles. This is to protect certain articles known for, essentially, shenanigans, wherein editors less likely to be drive-by vandals, 10-day sockpuppets and others are the only ones who can edit. (I myself don't meet extended confirmed standards yet, so I'm unable to action any edits you might request personally.)


 * This is actually a good thing, as it filters users out to a still-significant quantity of editors whilst getting rid of the ones more prone to nonsense - and though some articles may not get as much traffic as others, there are always places such as the Teahouse, where editors can ask questions and receive some on-the-spot traffic if they should so need it. I'd recommend it; the hosts at the Teahouse are usually very knowledgeable, and relatively quick to respond, though they don't always have the time for a long-form responses like this(!).


 * Fourth - as I've outlined above, even though the edits and sources being added may be verifiable and completely valid, it's the status of potential sockpuppetry, or just plain, bad-quality editing, that leads these edits to be reverted. I mean, one edit just gave the summary of "removed information that could not be validated due to a link to an article that is not correct" - that's about the vaguest edit summary I've ever heard. If it wasn't the right source to use, then a better one should've been found, or, even better, a decent edit summary about why the source isn't correct should've been given. Obscure edit summaries don't help anyone, and accounts making these edits are more likely than anything just to get their edits removed and reverted for these reasons.


 * So - yes, people can still edit, but they do need to go through the proper process for editing. I'd recommend - I'd ask of it, actually - that you create an account on Wikipedia. This means that you'll be able to make an edit request, though you'll have to declare a conflict of interest on your userpage, and it can't be shared by anyone else. This will mean that the process of updating and working on this article should be a lot smoother in the future.


 * (I should note that some Wikipedians are pretty defensive of the fact that they are articles, not pages, and I have to say I do get the reasoning behind it - "page" can connote some kind of personal ownership, especially for BLPs, whereas "article" is a lot more community-driven. Maybe I'm being pedantic.)


 * Anything you suggest will have to meet BLP verifiability standards, which includes self-published sources - they're straight-up banned for a BLP, no matter who happens to be the subject. This is the template that's used for requesting an edit, and it would go straight onto this talk page. There are other templates available for requesting edits, but they're all used for and by users who don't have a registered or assumed conflict of interest; is the one you'd want for a COI account.


 * Lastly - even if there are valid sources for things that have happened in the past five years, it doesn't mean it's going to make it onto the page. You might have noticed that in this edit, I removed two self-published sources, both of which were from the past five years. I also consolidated the paragraph talking about activities from roughly the past decade or so - this is because Wikipedia, contrary to the (quite frankly just a little bit confusing) nature of its name, is not an encyclopedia.


 * It doesn't include (quoting here) "a complete exposition of all possible details" - it's not anyone's CV or listicle, despite the, uh, list-class articles we do actually have. But, to make a point - not every detail is notable enough to be included, though there are ways to draw them into the article in passing.


 * I hope all of this makes sense. I hope it's actually useful - I've tried my best to outline everything. Please let me know if it's utter nonsense, but I think I hit everything here. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , There's quite a bit of history that wasn't mentioned by the IP - extensive sock puppetry and meat puppetry by Graham, editing without WP:COI or WP:PAID disclosures, highly POV edits - the talk page history is quite interesting. *shrug*  just more context to put things.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh - I know about that. I filed a a sockpuppet investigation a few months back into said aforementioned shenanigans - my point here is that I'm trying to get across something that hopefully prevents this from happening again, hopefully for good this time.


 * I was advised to file an investigation the next time a suspected sockpuppet appeared, and it really was the end of the tether for me - you couldn't get anything done without having to deal with the poor-quality edits to this page. This BLP has been around for longer than a decade, and it's still C-class. No amount of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry was, or is, going to improve that.


 * It's not in anyone's best interest to repeatedly edit their BLP without the proper steps, because 9 times out of 10, none of their edits are going to stay - and, once an admin or other user with protection rights notices the tomfoolery and nonsense surrounding the page and takes even the barest look into the edit history, the page gets protected. It's a repeated shot in the foot for everyone involved.


 * I understand that going through the function and all its adjoining steps would be a pain in the arse, but these things are there for a reason - and, they actually allow us to work constructively with the subject involved whilst avoiding vandalism and improving Wikipedia. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, it's crazy how long this has been going on with Graham. If you didn't see it back on BLPN for the 16th time, most of them by Graham or meat-puppets.  I think 2009 was the earliest I saw?!?!  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand section
Approx. 2 weeks ago, I did a little change in this section. I did it little bit shorter, deleted unsourced information and changed "2 YEARS" for "2 MONTHS" as the only valid source for this section is saying 2 MONTHS, not 2 years! It has been reverted by Ravensfire and this user changed months for years couple of times until his last change were months, not years. Thank you for reading that source FINALLY.

Another user Whisperjanes reverted my change again. Gave back information linked to "Page not found" and delete my little change in "Geisha activities" section which was SOURCED!

So I am asking myself WTF is going on here? Should I start to randomly change years for months? Should I start to delete sourced information and instead of them write something else and source it with "Page not found"??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthisthebestpolicy (talk • contribs) 05:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi - I'm unclear of what exactly you're asking for here. I understand that you might be frustrated, but you have been strongly advised (see the top of this talk page) not to edit this article due to your stated COI.


 * As you state in this thread on the Teahouse, Graham a), wants the court case section removed entirely and b), wants information about other non-Japanese geisha removed (ostensibly because they debuted without any "permission", whatever this means). Both parts are an obvious issue - Wikipedia isn't here to promote any one person's "best interests" or professional image. We don't edit, trim and shape BLPs by order; neither should you.


 * I understand that you stated in the Teahouse thread that "She would like to delete whole section "wanaka gym" but I made it just little bit shorter and I left all sourced information in there" - this isn't a satisfactory "compromise", because Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons, wherein the subject in question has an opinion on the BLP, is not to appease and reach a compromise.


 * BLPs are not, I cannot stress this strongly enough, a negotiation between subject and editors. It doesn't, therefore, matter that Graham wants the court case section removed, but that you compromised, "[tried] to stay independent" and came up with a solution somewhere in between. True independence would either be sticking to the reputable sources available alone, or, as has been suggested very strongly at the top of this Talk page, not editing at all.


 * Seeing as you know her personally and as you said, are "trying to make my own opinion on all of this", it seems as though it would be difficult for you to do the former. I would strongly suggest that you refrain from editing, and suggest to Graham that she leave this article alone - or, go through the proper means to suggest edits.


 * Despite Wikipedia's comprehensive policy on COI editing, there is still a way for edits directly suggested by the BLP's subject to be at least suggested, and then made following decision from unrelated editors.


 * If Graham has something she would like to see put into this article or removed, or in fact any edit made that goes through your account, the correct action would be to use the template on this Talk page.


 * There is, I should stress, no guarantee that these edits will be made. However, it would make co-operation on this article immensely easier if proper COI guidelines were followed by all parties - including both unrelated editors and Graham herself. I have seen countless sockpuppets and COI edits made on and pass through this article over a period of about 10 years. It is exhausting, and as seems obvious, neither party is seeing results from this cat-and-mouse game.


 * Following COI guidelines - using the function on this Talk page - is the only way that COI edits will ever be accepted fully into this article, and not only that, defended by unrelated editors. This will allow the article to progress forwards, instead of meandering around the C-class status it has been for a number of years due to multiple editing issues such as these. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I slightly tweaked that section, consolidating into a single paragraph (which slightly reduces the size of the section), added a secondary source for the appeals happening and fixed the url for the appellate court's final ruling on this. Would you mind reviewing and see what you think?  Ravensfire  (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 16 July 2020
Could I please request that the ban on my page is lifted? No one at all can add ANY new content to this page, now for years and years! Any one adding anything new is immediately labelled a sock puppet and banned....why? I have many fans and students who only try to add new relevant content directly from newspaper....why is it constantly removed and the page locked? It is now five years since the Fukagawa Geisha District was revived and this year we formally created the Tokyo Fukagawa Geisha Association and this has been in countless media and television but we cannot add anything new after 2011 or so to his page? Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:b1a0:2d00:14c3:43d8:a2f0:ea49 (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC) ‎

Hi there - you've been informed countless times of the reasoning behind the article having a higher level of protection (*not* locking - as I have explained before), and the ways in which you can request edits. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello,I am a student in University of Tokyo. I want to add a latest content that I get from some newspaper. but I can't make any change due to my new account. can anyone give me access to edit in this page for me? Harisidikk (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , the request edit template is not for asking for a change in the protection level of the page. While you are unable to edit this article directly, if there is content you (or anyone else) want to suggest be added or altered, you can do that here on the talk page using the edit request. Just state as simply as possible what the content you want to add is, and provide a link to the source that verifies the content. Then another editor who has the level of experience required to edit the page can assess and make the changes to the article if they agree. Thank you Melcous (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If I can't edit this page, can anyone put a new content here? Why there is no new content until now? I saw the latest content is from 2015. Why nobody can add the new content to this page? Is the new content disruptive? I have a suggestion for anybody who have acces to edit this page. you can get a recent article through fukagawageisha.com there are a lot of recent news and activities. Thank you Harisidikk (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not a valid edit request. See below. Continuing to ask the same questions without listening to what you have been asked to do is not helpful to anyone. Melcous (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * fukagawageisha.com doesn't seem to be a WP:Reliable source: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My guess is that this is Graham's current studio? It's definitely a self-published source, nearly certainly from the article subject. Good secondary sources, not connected to Graham, would be most helpful here.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If that is so, it could possibly have some WP:BLPSELFPUB use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , possibly. There should be some secondary sources with more recent coverage though.  If there isn't, about all that's viable from a self-pub is to say that they're open.  There are some blog posts with Sayuki as the author, and given everything, I'd be comfortable saying it's her operation.   Ravensfire  (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)