Talk:Geisha

Formatting references with multiple page numbers used throughout, word use and formatting Japanese terms
After posting on the Teahouse, I've figured out how to call one reference and call a different page number each time it's cited - even in the first instance. See here:

...blah blah blah   

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

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

...blah blah blah[1]:98

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

...blah blah blah blah blah

And it will render as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thing

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


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

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


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

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


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


 * Ah, I'm being stupid - the candles thing. I'll add that in. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Liza Dalby website
There are four separate citations to this now dead link on Liza Dalby's website: An immediate solution to this is to search for a web archive copy, but more broadly, this article ideally shouldn't be relying on self-published, blog-style material, even if the author in question is more generally a reputably published author on the subject. Alternative sources for statements presently supported by this material, if available, would be preferable. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - damn, I hadn't realised that url had died. I ought to have saved it; a quick look on the WayBack Machine shows it was saved once in 2008, but doesn't appear to be loading for me. archive.is appears to be struggling with it as well.
 * From what I can remember, these were supplementary notes in numbered list form, taken from the 21st-century edition of Geisha, reproduced for the internet. They had a number of statistics on them, including a graph of geisha numbers, and were, from what I can recall, sourced.
 * I'll try and see if I can find the information used elsewhere, but I might struggle. It may have appeared blog-like, but it was the most appendix-y-style source I had to hand for a number of years; sometimes all the information I can get on the karyūkai is from social media posts, which is worse. Dalby is possibly the biggest name in this area of study in the English-speaking world, and for good reason, too. If I can't get an archived version to load, then I'll keep looking.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, while I'm here - is there a reason you're changing the citation style? Save for repeated citations, it appeared to be working just fine.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well in an ideal world there shouldn't really be too many repeat citations, because they should all have page numbers, but generally, it's both a bit cleaner to extract the book and journal references into a formal sources section, and useful for when the page numbers are located, as multiple citations of the same work can be created with different page numbers but without duplicating the other information. The process is also a bit of a soft nudge in the direction of filling out all of the citations with author names and identifying slightly weaker sources that might be better cited from a journal or book - which is ultimately the holy grail. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But beyond my word, it's simply the referencing setup of all the more advanced and higher class articles on Wikipedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - Fair enough. It'll take me a while to get my head around it, but that's merely because I've never actually used it as a citation style.
 * As for the newgeishanotes page - having had a look at this page through the WayBack Machine, you can see that it's titled "Addenda to Geisha in the Twenty first century". Looking on Google Books, I was right - it's possibly annotations from the 25th anniversary edition, which I annoyingly don't have a copy, nor can I find. However, it may be  annotations to this introduction, only found online.
 * Seeing as I had been using it as a source for more than just a Wikipedia page, it's possible that the sources for the information Dalby writes were mentioned both within their referencing here and elsewhere in my notes, so I don't think all is lost. If nothing else, I can send her an email.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Take this example: In the previous formatting of the citations, the citations without page numbers did not link correctly to the source, which was only listed in full for the reference where page numbers were available. In all instances, it said just "Iwasaki", omitting "Brown". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a question back at you about citations: what do all the ""-type reference marks mean for sources such as McCurry? I'm not familiar with this and the other hidden notes this page has using the "rp" template. For the McCurry source, this is a single news webpage, so they can't be page numbers. On a secondary note, the Japanese language sources should ideally have English language "|trans-title=" elements - one for anyone who knows Japanese. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - apologies for the (very late!) reply, but these denote page numbers. It's used for calling the same reference with different page numbers, without having to write out a different reference in full for each page number selection.
 * And as a side note - rejoice all! I have found an archived link of the page in question! It can be found here. Praise be, etc and so on.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 17:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ineffablebookkeeper Great! Well done. Regarding lateness, I'd forgotten all about this! Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations
While inspecting the sourcing for this article, I noticed some areas with patchy inline citations. A copyvios report revealed some potential copyright violation concerns with respect to certain paragraphs copied without rephrasing from their source. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm running WikiBlame atm to figure out if these were added all in one go; I know I've edited the offending paragraphs before, but it was mostly rewording certain things. If I knew it'd been a copyvio, I would've ripped it up. Gimme a sec.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 12:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ineffablebookkeeper: I've got to admit, there were a few more problems than I'd been expecting, but nothing that some quote shortening /liberal paraphrasing shouldn't be able to sort out. However, I'm not really an expert on the subject or familiar with the sources, so I thought I'd flag down a professional to potentially look at it before taking a stab at it myself. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - Okay, so. I'll detail what it's coming up with, but I think this is an issue of circular reporting - these results seem older than an article dated as originating from 2016. Here's what it's coming up with for some parts, by way of example:
 * "be it by dancing" was first added in 2009 here; the rest of that text seems older than this.
 * "Prasso wrote that Americans had" was added here in 2013.
 * "Compulsory education laws" I can't seem to track down in WikiBlame, but I'm pretty certain I added that sentence myself at some point.
 * There are a few other sentences, but these are the biggest offenders; all were added before 2016.
 * I don't think this is a copyright issue - I think this is a "other websites often lift wholesale from Wikipedia" issue. In cases like these, it's preferrable to do a quick WikiBlame search first, before adding a copyvio notice to the article. The source you mentioned, if it's cited anywhere, should probably be taken out of the article as a mirror of Wikipedia with a few extra details thrown in.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 12:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ineffablebookkeeper Some of these copyvios show up even if your run a report using just links in the page, excluding other search results. So either the article has copied extracts from these sources, or the article is citing sources which in turn are guilty of circular reporting and so are not great sources. These two:  in particular. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the vintage news article sources to Wikipedia - that should go. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Honolulu museum source is throwing up copyvios issues because the embedded note is so long - perhaps it could just be abridged? It IS rather long. That link also has security certificate issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The issues are resolved now. See the updated copyvios report. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

narrative on sex work
It seems to me that the article is quick to declassify all geisha's as non prostituional, however, there are specific geisha's who do infact have sex with clients, (specifically in japan) I feel this should be reworded accordingly to stress that most geisha's dont do sex work, instead of immediately denouncing the idea of it. 2600:1005:B10C:9B3D:3168:ECC2:834C:FC83 (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless you've got very reliable sources on this, this isn't happening.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 13:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)