Talk:Geisha/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge. Maser ^(Talk!) 01:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is proposed that Geesha girls be merged into this article as a subsection as "geesha" is only a mispronunciation of "geisha", regardless of how it is portrayed in the stub article. This information can very easily be incorporated into this article, and (to me) it makes a lot more sense to have it here than to have a separate article based only on a mispronunciation/misspelling. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate your Support or Oppose opinion, and include detailed reasoning behind your opinion. Please remember this is not a vote, but a discussion to determine consensus on this proposal. Thanks!

Discussion

• Support as nominator. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as they are two different things. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - 'Geesha girls' is a very short article at the moment, while the Geisha article deals with the confusions about geisha and sexuality at some length. The Land (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Basically per the Land. The Geisha article has a section on geisha and prostitute, and it makes sense to discuss the topic there. In the future, if the section got large, we can have a separate article on geisha and prostitute (which is a fascinating encyclopedic topic). -- Taku (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support CES (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support John Smith's (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is certainly a separate topic and should be discussed separately from the rest of the Geisha article, but whether that's done on this page or on its own separate page, I'm really not sure how to vote. LordAmeth (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The assertion that "geesha" is only a mispronunciation of "geisha" is incorrect. As stated in the article, geesha girls were a specific type of prostitute active in occupation Japan, and only related to Geisha in that they emulated the dress and style in order to fool American soldiers. The article is referenced, and should not be merged. MightyAtom (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Geesha" is absolutely a mispronunciation of "geisha". Granted, the American GIs also misunderstood what geisha were as well, but that doesn't change things. This is already dealt with to some extent in the geisha article, and incorporating this little stub into that would not be difficult at all, and would make a lot of sense. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • CommentOf course, the term originates as a mis-pronounciation of geisha, but that is it. Honestly, I think a merger would just clutter up the Geisha article unecessarily. It stands better alone, like Onsen geisha, as a seperate but related issue. If someone wanted to merge Geesha girls and Onsen geisha into a "Geisha-related Prostitutes" article or something, then I could understand the rational. But until then, it is better outside the Geisha article proper, which should be about geisha, not about people who imitate geisha.MightyAtom (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as I wrote four months ago. Or merge somewhere else. And preferably rewrite from better sources. (E.g. if "geesha" dressed in kimono, then contrary to Prasso, they weren't panpan, who dressed in western style. And Prasso looks the most solid of the three references given.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, currently there is not near enough information for the Geesha girls article to stand on its own, and even if it did, it should be summarized in this article. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Onsen geisha per MightyAtom if there is enough information to support an article. Otherwise support. On another note, is there some compelling reason that "Geesha girls" is identified as a "sexual identity" on par with "prostitute" in general? -- Exitmoose (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah go ahead and merge Geesha with it, it makes no sense having a separate article. Jonathan Tomajko (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose" - two rather different things. Also one is part of Japanese Culture, the other of American Culture.
  • Different they may be, but they are very closely connected as explained above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - On a par with calling Maria Callas a "street singer". Link and cross-reference by all means; merge = misinformation. Not to mention disrespect. Shir-El too (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image:Geisha-fullheight.jpg

Please do not change the caption on this picture. The girls in it are not maiko - they're ordinary women who rented costumes. The fact they're posing in broad daylight is a big give-away. John Smith's (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not a very convincing argument. I've seen geisha and yes, even maiko in full getup, running around in broad daylight and occasionally stopping to pose for photos. I would argue that the fact that they're outdoors, and not inside a studio, suggests that they're not just women playing dressup. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read the picture's entry you will see that it says Full height photograph of women dressed as maiko. Women dressed as maiko - that implies they aren't. So unless you can get the uploader to verify they were proper maiko then the current caption should stay.

Real geisha and maiko don't stop to pose for ordinary people as they're not clients. The only time they stop is if they're with a client and he/she suggests they do so for someone else, or the client wants to take a picture. John Smith's (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right: even to the naked eye they are too garish and awkward to be real maiko. Shir-El too 08:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Exploding Boy's argument: most "maiko transformation" studios offer the chance for a stroll in the costume. Some don't, but there are enough of such places that you're more likely to see a fake maiko in Kyoto than a real one. Pitke (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, not true. Real maiko and geisha do stop to have their photos taken by ordinary people, first of all, and second the women in this photo could have been stopping to have their photo taken by someone connected to them at moment opportune for the person who took this photo. Sorry, I'm still not convinced one way or the other. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're convinced or not - go by the description on the image page. The person that took it would understand better than anyone what he saw. John Smith's (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Like you, s/he may have thought that the fact they were posing for photos had special significance. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend more time on this. If you have a problem start an RfC or something. John Smith's (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a foreigner living in Kyoto of some years and have two geisha as close friends and know somewhat about the subject. The Maiko in the image probably are not real, but it isn't possible to be 100% sure. Since they are dressed in the correct style I don't think that it really matters. Many Japanese people can't actually tell either actually, and one has to make an educated guess based on the time of day etc. It is a dying culture. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Shakuma

I have reverted these changes. Lipstick can refer to what geisha use, not just what most people buy in the shops. Furthermore, mizuage no longer exists. Please do not reinstate these changes. John Smith's (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So what does a geisha actually DO?

There's one extremely glaring omission in this article: what a geisha actually does, and what they are trained to do. Apart from the explanation of prostitution, there appears to be no information on this at all other than a vague reference to "geisha arts." My understanding is that they entertain both men and woman primarily though the art of conversation, the writing of poetry, the playing of music and in some cases the practice of slight of hand. Since much of their appeal relies on language, they are usually forced to rely on music and non-verbal skills to entertain foreigners, which has distorted their perception in the West. Indeed, because a full appreciation of their skills requires their audience to be highly educated, well read and intelligent, many Japanese would find their style hard going. I hope that somebody who knows more than me about these things can expand on these issues. --Gilgongo (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I have never heard it alleged that geisha are hookers and never read evidence that they still prostitute themselves. Serious facts would be needed to even put that allegation across, so I have reverted as vandalism. John Smith's (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, "[t]here remains some confusion, even within Japan, about the nature of the geisha profession" (emphasis supplied). This is a tacit admission that, in Japan, there are many people who think that the geisha are prostitutes. Naturally, I have no idea personally, but I have heard that the role of the geisha is to entertain, to indulge, and to satisfy her customer, and that while that does not automatically include sex, it does not exclude it either, if that is what is necessary or desired. So, perhaps the more accurate way of stating the answer is to say that a geisha is not merely a prostitute?

John Paul Parks (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Muddled historical overview

I loaded this page looking for a very simple fact -- when the geisha first appeared in Japanese culture -- and could not find it. The historical references in this article are muddled, scattershot and need correlation with Western dates to be useful. I shouldn't have to look up "the Edo period" to know when something happened. NonsuchDan (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oiran v. prostitutes

Please note that it wasn't only the oiran that wore their obi at the front - other, less high-class prostitutes, did the same. So I have restored the previous version before the edit by 158.158.240.230. John Smith's (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Geesha pronunciation

I think to regard Geesha as a mispronunciation is not correct. In modern Japanese written "ei" is quite frequently pronounced as ee (i.e. long e) by Japanese native speakers. True, the Furagana based pronunciation as "ei" is also heard but the GIs stationed in Japan picked up the Geesha-pronunciation from native speakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not pronounced "geesha." Remember, basing pronunciation off of romanization is never a good idea. --iriseyes^talk 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to listen to how Japanese native speakers pronounce GEISHA. Here are a few examples at www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKMbEcIiId8 (about 1:14 and 1:29). Also there is a clip from a film made as early as 1936 where GEIKO is also pronounced with a long e (about 6:56). And the IPA description should be revised altogether (the vowel at the end is certainly not a centralized one as presented by the rotated 'e').Davidon (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You surprise me. The romanization is Hepburn, and once you remember certain conventions of English spelling (as Hepburn was devised by a US missionary), it's pretty directly phonemic. The "Nihongo" template links to Help:Japanese, and within that a section titled "Japanese pronunciation" is conspicuous, concentrates on the Hepburn-to-sound conversion, and is adequate for most people other than phoneticians. The only point about "geisha" that's not explained there is the pronunciation of the sound Hepburnized as "sh", but the sound written in English as "sh" is a close enough approximation for most purposes. -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

While I know nothing about Japanese pronunciation, I was thinking, as I read the first comment, that "geisha" is, at best, a transliteration into Roman characters, and may tell us very little, if anything, about correction pronunciation. The Roman characters might be an approximation of correct pronunciation, but in the nature of things, cannot be more than that. John Paul Parks (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They're certainly not "phonetic" either in the technical sense (no normal script is) nor in a compositional sense: the "sh" of "geisha" is not an "s" sound followed by an "h" sound.

The article starts "Geisha (芸者)". There's something like a little question mark toward the end. Click on that and make your way to Help:Japanese, where you'll find an explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is a little confusing to me on this pronunciation [and mispronunciation] issue. In the first lines the article gives the IPA pronunciation for geisha, but when it's talking about the mispronunciation ("Geisha girls" section) it's instead written out in plain form. I guess I'm having a hard time seeing the "right" way from the "wrong" way. Could someone add the IPA for the specific mispronunciation in the "Geisha girls" section? It would be easier for the reader to compare them directly.--Will.i.am (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism

This article seems to have had a lot of vandalism. I tried to undo all changes by 72.72.108.151, but was only successful once. Sometimes, the wiki told me the edit can be undone, but did not show me a diff, in which cases, I did not feel knowledgeable enough to make the change. I would like it if someone else can please look over this page and clean it.

Luther93 (talk) 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have gone back and reverted all the vandalism I can see - some other editors had inserted inappropriate links. If you want to revert a series of vandalising edits, use the history tab to click on the last good version. John Smith's (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is attracting lots of IP vandalism at the moment. Can an admin please consider semi-protection? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Few admins will see such a request here - you need to make it formal. John Smith's (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fan dancing

I heard that a geisha does a type of dancing with pretty Japanese folding fans. Should there be an explanation to this? Angie Y. (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusion / Contradictory section

Okay, maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty by the following two statements:

Geisha engagements may include flirting with men and playful innuendos; however, clients know that nothing more can be expected. In a social style that is uniquely Japanese, men are amused by the illusion of that which is never to be. Geisha do not engage in paid sex with clients.

Ok, so Geisha are not prostitutes, whatever they do. That's all fine and well, but there is also this:

In the late eighteenth century, dancing women called "odoriko" and newly popular female "geisha" began entertaining men at banquets in unlicensed districts. Some were apprehended for illegal prostitution and sent to the licensed quarters, where there was a strict distinction between geisha and prostitutes, and the former were forbidden to sell sex. In contrast, "machi geisha," who worked outside the licensed districts, often engaged in illegal prostitution. [...] However, the autobiography of Sayo Masuda, an onsen geisha who worked in Nagano Prefecture in the 1930's, reveals that in the past such women were often under intense pressure to sell sex.

So geisha are prostitutes after all, or at least some of them? Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be some confusion in the article itself about just what exactly it's supposed to say. The statement that "geishas are not prostitutes" simply doesn't seem to match up with the rest of that section; at any rate, the actual distinction between geishas and prostitutes, as well as the point where one historically becomes the other, is not quite clear to me. Hell, the article says that not even the Japanese are quite sure about what geishas do!

Could maybe someone with actual historical expertise clarify this whole thing? If you've read a few good history books it would really suffice, because I have the strong feeling that a lot of this article might have been written by otaku and japanophiles with no real idea of what they're talking about, no offense. -84.186.242.221 (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you are confused. The article states that Geisha were performers in the arts: dance, poetry, music, etc. Prostitutes started dressing like Geisha but their obi is tied to the front of their kimono instead of the back and the style is less complex; easier and faster to take off and put back on. I am going to use a very poor example. When one hires a stripper, one does not expect to have sex. The girl strips, lap dance, or just dances. Do some of them have paid sex? Do some of them become porn stars? Yes. Does that mean a stripper is a prostitute? No.

Geisha is a profession where Westerners (Americans, if you will) corrupted its image. Raul17 (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (And no, I am not comparing Geisha to a stripper!)

Raul17, posting such a subjective comment is only a waste of yours and mine own time. Get a grip and read an actual Japanese book that refers to the Geisha, not one of an opinionated post-modernist. If anything, Americans effected the Geisha in no way but possibly indirectly by learning about their existence.

This article makes a big mistake when it misinforms the readers that "geisha do not engage in paid sex with clients." Geisha sometimes became involved with men sexually, some with hopes of obtaining a sponsor from them which would retrieve them from the life of a geisha. I don't know who is blind enough to claim that Geisha do not engage in paid sex with clients simply because they do not know or could not find evidence of it. I live in Japan and it's a popular known fact, but the point is people don't refer to it because it's part of the tradition and lifestyle. And again, I said geisha "sometimes became involved... sexually...", not that they were prostitutes. Shidosuru (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. Learn to distinguish. Just because an employee may have sex with their boss to get a promotion it does not become part of their job description. --Nanibird (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There's one other set of contradictory statements in the article. Early on, in the Terms section, it is stated that "Prostitutes, however, had to take off their obi several times a day, so theirs were far less complex, and tied at the front for ease of removal and replacement." Later, though, while contrasting geisha and oiran, it says that "oiran tied their obi in the front, not, as is commonly thought, for easy removal but...because that was the practice of married women at the time." I think it's worth checking which is correct and correcting it. 70.23.177.166 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I edited out the statement in the Terms section, along with some more unreferenced material that was getting off topic. The second statement is attributed to Liza Dalby. Her book "Geisha" is listed in the references section, but is not cited with any footnotes. I'm not sure the reasons for tying either way need to be stated in the article, but I left it in for now. It's probably one of those statements for which many conflicting sources exist. Djd sd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

How can I edit?

Hello! I'm a new user to Wikipedia but I've had my account since 15 July 2008 and would like too contribute to this "Geisha" page. I noticed that the page is "semi-protected," how can I edit this page? Thanks! Asoriano (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Asoriano

Your account must be at least four days old to edit semi-protected pages. So it should work by now :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else find that now that it's been a year, we should delete this "How can I edit?" section? I'd delete it myself, but I don't want to anger anybody. Honestly, nothing is being said here that can't be found on the link for protection of pages, which everyone can find by clicking the padlock icon on protected pages. Genius-65 (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Disparaging statements

Let's write a page about what geisha are, rather than what they are not. Stating "Contrary to popular belief, geisha are not prostitutes" is disparaging. Who has proven the belief is popular? What if the lead paragraph in the Barak Obama article said "Contrary to popular belief, Barak Obama is not a muslim? It's true that he is not a muslim, but the statement itself implies that he has something to prove. I think the same could be said here.

I am not opposed to scholarly discussion of this issue, but as geisha are a cultural and national institution of Japan, there are most likely agendas on both sides of the issue. Unsourced webpages, or individuals who have reputations at stake, are not reliable, unbiased sources. Djd sd (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree that it is not necessary to say in the opening that they're not prostitutes. It's discussed later on - a misconception doesn't need to be flagged up. John Smith's (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are Geisha's concubines?

For centuries the Roman Catholic Church has split women into 3 categories - wives, virgins and whores. Western men, even protestants, will carry this belief when coming to Japan. When asked the Geisha say they do not have husbands; "atotori" are living proof that Geisha are not virgins leaving the third category. World wide prostitutes wear heavy make-up to show their profession and to attract men. However when leaving Christian countries a second type of "wife" exists the concubine. Concubines like full wives are only meant to have sex with one man. Geisha appear to behave in a similar way. "It was traditional in the past for established geisha to take a danna, or patron." Where the Geisha is not her patron's illegitimate daughter this looks from the outside that she is the danna's concubine. Wives and mistresses get jealous of each other and if left together frequently fight. Traditional Japanese may have solved this problem by housing the wife and the Geisha in different parts of the town. Andrew Swallow (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not concubines. Next question. John Smith's (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say though, this is pretty much hitting the nail on the head. To many Westerners try to shoehorn Geisha into morality/ideas that have nothing to do with the reality. The Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with geisha....MightyAtom (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture problems

Only one picture here is of a geisha proper; all the rest are of maiko (or perhaps women simply costumed as such). Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with pictures of maiko. This is an article is about them too, not arbitrarily starting when they can be considered geisha. The picture of women in costume is clearly marked and not given priority in position. John Smith's (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That maiko don't have their own article is a fault of this article. They are not geisha per se, nor are they strictly speaking trainees. The illustration at the beginning of the article should be the most general case, and the image I moved there is the only one of a geisha proper. I agree with your implicit assessment that the pictures we have of geisha are not of the same quality as those we have of maiko, but then, that's part of the difference between the two jobs. Mangoe (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a fault of the article, it's because past editors have thought it better that maiko points here. There have been no attempts to change the maiko entry to make it a rival to the content on this page, even to move content over.

If you want to get picky, sure they're not "trainee geisha". But it is part of the process of becoming a geisha, which is why it would be inefficient to separate the content on the two.

The composition and quality of the pictures has nothing to do with the jobs involved. But even if it did it wouldn't change the fact that the picture you moved was not the best of the ones displayed here. You can't have it both ways. Either all the information on maiko should be deleted along with all the pictures, or the maiko pictures are valid and thus can sit at the top of the article. John Smith's (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I never really liked the one picture of a Geisha with a customer anyway. Maybe it's time to look for a better image on Flickr or somewhere similar. Djd sd (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the geisha and maiko picture scope of Commons, by searching Flickr through some weeks ago and mass-uploading stuff. Pitke (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What do geisha do, and who do they do it for?

Recently user 99.230.35.242 added some info to the introduction that was reverted, but it brought up a good point. What is the job of a geisha? The article does not really say. The articles tells us how geisha study, where they live, what they wear, how they fix their hair and makeup, but only briefly mentions their primary purpose and function. It would be interesting to add a section on the job duties of geisha, how often they work and what hours, what can be expected at an ochaya, how they entertain their customers, how much they get paid, etc. And who are the customers of geisha and how often do they patronize them? Are they men, women, businessmen, tourists, celebrities, the insanely rich heads of multi-national corporations? Can one hire them for entertainment at a bar mitzvah or birthday party, or as a companion at a cocktail party? Do they make house calls?

It seems like this new section should go either before or after the "terms" section to pull in the reader before going on about the nuances of hairstyles and international perceptions. All referenced of course. Djd sd (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Mg16

I'm going to re-edit the page later. There's far too much original research, unused sources, etc. Plus the page layout has been messed up big time. John Smith's (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do so. I removed an irrelevant image, but didn't know what to do with the rest. Oda Mari (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure when I can do it now - sometime later this week maybe. In the mean time other editors should feel free to crop OR, etc. John Smith's (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction: real number of modern Geishas?

The intro says 1-2 thousand. Later it says approx 60,000. What gives? The later estimate seems more likely. With only 1,000 geisha in modern Japan they would extremely difficult to find. Such a low number seems impossible.Johnny^California 22:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

>>With only 1,000 geisha in modern Japan they would extremely difficult to find. <<

They are. MightyAtom (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"First white geisha"

I'm not convinced on the notability of the "first white geisha". In both English and Japanese there are only "general interest" type newspaper articles that appear to be written directly from a press release. There are no quotes from historians or scholars. If somebody can produce a quote or article from a 3rd party established authority on the topic (historian, university researcher not directly related, etc.), then I'd be more open to it. For now I think it's a case of "time will tell". Djd sd (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Both sources used in the paragraph are acceptable sources. WHether you think it's notable or not is irrelevant as at least two newspapers in the UK have found it notable enough to run articles on the topic. It's likely there are articles in Japan as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Its potentially undue weight to give details of a single geisha in such a catch-all article, but the "first white" claim has a degree of interest and the sources are sufficient to meet WP:RS. Of course a few more sources wouldn't hurt but I can't see a problem with the paragraph in its most recent form. Euryalus (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few short articles in Japan, but they are mostly the same as the English language examples. There are at least two issues here, Wikipedia:SOURCES and WP:UNDUE. As for as the former, WP:RS says:

"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."

Of all the referenced articles, and everything else I could find, the subject is the primary and only source of information. Claiming to be the first anything should be verified by someone "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Most news stories quote several sources. As for the latter, If this was such a big deal, wouldn't someone notable have something to say about it, or at least be quoted in an article, even in the Japanese press where there are presumably many other local experts who could comment on the story? But there is nothing supporting notability. Additionally, the way this was placed on several pages at once with links to a booking page makes me suspect that this is part of a publicity campaign. Djd sd (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's more likely to be the work of an admirer. At any rate, we know she exists and it is unusual; possibly we could have a small section on foreigners in the geisha world (Liza Dalby et al) that would solve the problem of undue weight. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A section on foreigners in the geisha world would be fine, though I still don't think it's being given undue weight. It's only mentioned very briefly in the article as it is. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced and edited the piece. I don't see how her education or "specialisation" is especially significant. Plus some of it was plain wrong - one of the articles says she was from Australia and only went to Japan at the age of 15, so how could she have grown up there? I think it's better to have a single reference to it. If she publishes/releases something subsequently that gets big coverage then that can have a mention too. John Smith's (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We should probably also mention within this section that so far the only "Western geisha" have been anthropologists doing it for research purposes, not intending to make a career of it. Djd sd (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

University degrees

I'm a bit puzzled by the sentence "Some geisha nowadays even hold formal degrees from university." Is this suggesting they have formal qualifications relevant to being a geisha, or more generally that in addition to their profession they went to university?

If the former, what qualification is it referring to? If the latter, I doubt it has relevance. Some car mechanics have university degrees, so do some pastry chefs, some street sweepers and some check-out workers. That some geisha do as well doesn't seem that notable.

If this is not referring to a specific and relevant university qualification, I'd like to remove the sentence. I'm raising it here first in case I've misinterpreted what its trying to say.

The sentence is also unreferenced, as is the one before it stating Tokyo geisha start later than Kyoto ones (and are therefore slightly older). Can anyone verify this claim (and perhaps explain its relevance)? Euryalus (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That sentence used to say "Many geisha..." but either way you are right. "Some" and "many" are weasel words and the statement should be removed unless we state the exact figure. Although it is getting better, more than half of the article is still unreferenced. Maybe by removing unreferenced material we can cut down on the filler and encourage referenced material to be added. Djd sd (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the unsourced and irrelevant sentence. RomaC (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bogus "sourcing"

An extraordinary number of assertions are sourced to a single page (37) of Lesley Downer, "The City Geisha and Their Role in Modern Japan: A double history of cross-cultural misunderstandings", in Martha Feldman and Bonnie Gordon, eds, The Courtesan's Arts: Cross-Cultural Perspectives -- especially when we see that nothing whatever is sourced to any other page of this article. Has something gone wrong here? -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

PS It looked oddly familiar. Here on the talk page of Eparker3, I write (at 04:27, 22 January 2010):

I see you've recently been adding a lot to Geisha. Several of your footnotes read:

<ref>Feldman, Martha, and Bonnie Gordon, eds. ''The Courtesan's Arts: Cross-Cultural Perspectives''. New York: Oxford UP, USA, 2006. ISBN 0195170288 </ref>

This book sounds like a compilation of papers written more or less independently. A far more informative and thus far preferable way to write the note would be something like (imagined example):

<ref>Jo Bloggs, "''Geisha'' and ''oiran'': A double history of cross-cultural misunderstandings", in Martha Feldman and Bonnie Gordon, eds, ''The Courtesan's Arts: Cross-Cultural Perspectives'' (New York: Oxford UP, USA, 2006; ISBN 0195170288), p.37.</ref>

It seems to me that the article as a whole is too repetitive by far. Also, there are too many references to the possible or actual sexual activities of geisha. (Emphasis -- in bold -- freshly added.)

One hour 58 minutes later, Eparker3 adds a variant of my fictional example.

Well, take your pick: either (a) in correctly coming up with "A double history of cross-cultural misunderstandings" and "p.37" I somehow did a Pierre Menard, or (b) Eparker3 added bogus "sourcing" to this article.

Until I'm reassured that it was indeed (a), I invoke William of Ockham and delete the bogosity. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix7777 (mostly) and I (secondarily) have replaced fiction with fact, though it's still unpaginated and thus unsatisfactory. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I vote to remove all this bogus stuff, it's simply inaccurate and hurts Wikipedia as a whole as well as promotes Western stereotypes of Geisha. The original passage that stood long was fine before it, and we can work from there. 203.73.9.197 (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Music trivia

I've removed the following:

===Music about geisha===

• "Geisha's Dream" by Naoki featuring Smile.dk
• "Neo Geisha" by Zeromancer on the album Eurotrash
• "Geisha Dreams" by Rollergirl
• "Latin Geisha" by Illya Kuriaki and the Valderramas
• "GEI-SHA" by S.K.I.N.
• "Madama Butterfly" by Giacomo Puccini

Madama Butterfly is not "music about geisha", and the others seem mere trivia. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Trivia should not be added btw. Pitke (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Errors

This article starts: "Geisha are traditional, female Japanese entertainers". Geisha are not just female. Quote from several dictionaries: 「芸者: ③舞踊、音曲などで、酒席をとりもち興を添える男性。幇間。たいこもち。男芸者。」 (Nihon Kokugo Daijiten), 「芸者: ④遊里などで、酒宴に興を添える男。男芸者。太鼓持ち。幇間。」(Daijisen)

Next, it says: "In early seventeenth-century Japan (long before the word geisha was ever used)" Again wrong. It is easy enough to show usage of the word in not only the 17th century, but also the 16th and even the 15th centuries. Early citations from 『日本国語大辞典』, 『時代別国語大辞典室町時代編』、 and 『角川古語大辭典』: 広本節用集 (1475), 多聞院日記 (1574), 落葉集 (1598), 八帖花伝書 (late Muromachi), 近衛信尹書状 (c. 1565-1614), 日葡辞書 (1603-1604), 狂言六義 (1624), 虎明本狂言 (1642). 124.214.131.55 (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Please feel free to improve the article accordingly. Just add footnotes that identify your sources.

Of course it is entirely acceptable to use sources that are in Japanese, and to describe these sources in Japanese. Here is an imagined example.

The word was used as early as 1475 (in {{nihongo2|広本節用集}}).<ref>''Kadokawa kogo daijiten'' ({{nihongo2|角川古語大辭典}}) (Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 2001: ISBN 4569243325), s.v. {{nihongo2|芸者}}.</ref>

N.B. It's an imagined example. (And if you're wondering why I stress this, see a section above about bogus "sourcing".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Geisha and Japanese Women merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merge completed per Brad.

---

Geisha and Japanese Women is a new article with multiple issues, but I believe that any beneficial parts should be merged into Geisha. Clifflandis (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't Support merge! Geisha should have a separate reference on Wikipedia from the collective whole of Japanese women. They lead an entirely different lifestyle and came into existence as a form of entertainment away from the traditional Japanese wife. The information on two entirely different populations should not be combined.
• Support merge. armagebedar (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge. Wikipedia isn't for essays, one page is enough - unless there's a serious sub-topic that warrants a page. This one doesn't. John Smith's (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Don't Support merge - Not all Japanese women are Geisha! (User:fadexoxo) 7:37, January 27,2010 — fadexoxo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Don't Support merge - Geisha is a very specific career that exists in Japan and all Japanese women are NOT Geisha. They should not be combined together on the same page as this will only fuel the stereotype of Japanese women. Geisha are their own entity and these pages should remain separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.33.73.239 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC) — 152.33.73.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Don't Support merge - This Should remain separate do to the fact that People come here to find information on specific topics and if they are all merged it will only create confusion as to which is which. People will get there facts wrong and further the misunderstanding of other cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.163.47 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) — 98.197.163.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support as it currently appears to be a badly-written essay looking for a home. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Geisha and Japanese Women is an essay, but it does include some useful and sourced information. The suggestions above that "Geisha is a very specific career" that only a few women pursue is in no way contradicted by anything on that page. The useful bits should be merged to Geisha. Cnilep (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I haven't read it in detail, but it's addressing a subtopic about geisha. Mangoe (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support In spite of the references the article about Jap. women is WP:Original research and should be deleted. In any case, that article is all about geisha, nothing is said there about Japanese women in general. If there is some useful information there it would need some work to sort that out and merge it to here.  Andreas  ^(T) 23:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Topic does not merit an article on its own. 84.194.172.158 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Any decent Japanese dictionary will tell you that geisha may be either male or female. For example, here or here, both #4. In fact, there seems to be topic above about this. So it seems illogical to merge Japanese women into a topic that is both male and female. 180.1.47.181 (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstand. There's no discussion of merging anything called simply "Japanese women" into this article. What is being discussed in merging the article "Geisha and Japanese Women" into this article. This is very logical when viewed in that light. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment:Tricky, but I don't think G&J-Women needs an article. Could be convinced though, but maybe better if the issues raised in that article could be addressed in this one. RomaC (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've been bold and re-directed the other article to this page - useful content can be moved here. This discussion has dragged on for nearly three months, it was time it was moved to a conclusion. I propose that the result is merge, given that the only objections were by people just here to protest. John Smith's (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that there seems to be a consensus to merge, but as we both argued for merger and as there are some arguments on the other side, it's probably best to let an uninvolved editor make that call. I will ask for a third opinion. We can then carry out the merge (if a third editor agrees) and then removed the merger template. Cnilep (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor: It appears that all those who voted against the merge believed that the proposal was to merge "Geisha" with "Japanese women" (which is not an article). Instead, the proposal is to merge the essay Geisha and Japanese Women into the Geisha article. Based on how I read this discussion, there has been no real opposition to the merge. I will redirect the Geisha and Japanese Women article here and ask that all the relevant, properly sourced material be added into this article. Brad 19:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest reading memoires of a geisha, it pretty much gives you the proper feel of a geisha's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.194.88 (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oiran and Tayuu

Would it be possible to mention Oiran/Tayuu in this article, particularly in Origins? Oiran/Tayuu were essentially counterparts to Geisha with their own dances and instrument performances, only they rose to their status through prostitution. Their jobs were more focused on sexual aspects until the prostitution ban.

This may be where the Western misconceptions about Geisha come from. Kat33auS (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

geisha wig?

So geiko use their hair, while geisha use a wig? Is there a special name for this wig? I've been trying to fing more info but to no avail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.219.104 (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

After some searching I've found the wig is called Katsura (wig). Han-Katsura is a half wig won by maiko. There are Zen-Katsura which are whole wigs. Not sure if half wigs are only used by by maiko while whole wigs are used by geiko. Tsumik (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm....katsura is just the Japanese word for wig, and has nothing to do with geisha in particular. An old man using a toupe to cover his bald spot is wearing a "katsura" as well. MightyAtom (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There is actually no difference between geiko and geisha - it's a regional dialect issue. Geiko is more commonly used in Kyoto, and geisha is more commonly used in Tokyo. [1] Additionally, the difference between han-katsura and zen-katsura is one of coverage. The han-katsura only covers the back half of the head, and the wearer's hair is arranged to form a seamless transition between natural hair and wig. The zen-katsura covers the whole head, and typically results in a less natural-looking hairline, but may be more suitable for those with shorter hair. -Etoile (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I'm a bit concerned about the the edits made by 152.33.64.213 on Jan 25, 2010. That was a huge amount of text that suddenly materialized. I've been able to verify that at least some of it was lifted word-for-word from the references. Djd sd (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're able to see what has been lifted, can you change that? John Smith's (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I would change it myself but I do not consider myself qualified enough on this subject to contribute to the article. However the section "Female Dominance in Geisha..." et al section seems very NPOV. An encyclopedia article should be in neutral tone, whereas the mentioned section seems to glorify the geisha profession and lifestyle rather than stick purely to a matter of fact standard. Does anyone agree with me on my observation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.234.171 (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole article seems to have somewhat of a defensive tone, and I suspect the real situation on the Geisha vs. Prostitute debate is a bit more muddled than the article would lead one to believe.204.130.0.8 (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick clarification

The maiko Mamechiho in the Gion district of Kyoto. Notice the green pin on the mid-left called tsunagi-dango: this identifies her as a maiko of Gion kobu.

There's a lot of green stuff in her hair and I'm not exactly sure where I should be looking. "Notice the green pin on the mid-left": is that her mid-left? the mid-left of the picture? I suppose I'm also confused as to what exactly a "pin" is, is it that plant growing on her head or the small circle of beads? I've only ever seen western hairpins which are used solely to lock hair in place.

I went to the image's info and it said "The style of the lipstick shows that she is still a novice. The green hair accessory features willow for June." which seems to suggest to me that it's the lipstick, not the hair accessory that suggests she is a novice. Did the editor make a mistake, or does the editor know more about this and also knows that the green pin indicates she's a maiko as well? I realize I might just be getting easily confused over something that might appear obvious to others, but could someone who knows about this explain it to me? Thanks.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And why does she have a rubber ducky in her hair? She looks like she's got a sense of humour maybe that's it. hypotaxis (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be the round ornament on the left of the photo, i.e: her right, the one that looks like a lot of little balls in a circle. Tsunagi-dango means, roughly, connected dumplings.

Her lipstick marks her as a novice because only the lower lip is painted. The long hair ornaments also mark her as a young novice, because hair ornaments become less flashy with age and rank. As for the rubber ducky... who knows. It must be a joke, but it goes with the springy theme I suppose. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's what you call the "small circle of beads" that's important here. If you google "祇園 提灯" (Gion lantern) you should find images of lanterns that are used in the Gion district. Painted on those lanterns is a pattern that looks a lot like the pin that's called tsunagi-dango. 119.24.243.102 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of article as currently drafted

The article as a whole is rather repetitive. Also, there is too much stuff on geisha's love lives, possible or actual. And using a work of fiction as source material is hardly satisfactory. Smilesofasummernight (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you assist by pointing to the problem areas? Thanks. John Smith's (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian geisha

In the Anjo geisha Komako's okiya a Ukrainian geisha had debuted. Her nationality is discussed here (an Ichikoma worker's blog). Please add it :) I am not an English native as you can see xD so I am afraid to write something wrong. 80.68.9.25 (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a blog like that isn't admissible as a source. You would need a reliable news article to confirm it. John Smith's (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a reference on the site of that geisha house (okiya). Of course, no explorers had included this fact in publications so far. Is there some way to add this to the page? 84.51.213.146 (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC) [2]

I've got it: yppie. Kf8 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Photos

See also: Talk:Geisha/Archive 1 § Photo

A few thoughts on photos for this article, and suggested guidelines.

Firstly, three common issues with photos:

• The popular conception of geisha is generally the colorful maiko, not the more somberly attired mature geisha.
• The vast majority of people dressed as geisha (generally as maiko) are not authentic professional geisha, but rather are tourists dressed as maiko.
• Many photos are of static geisha, not engaged in any activity.

There is nothing per se wrong with any of these points, but they can be misleading. I would suggest that one:

• Clarify the distinction between maiko (apprentice) and full-fledged geisha, and
  • do not over-represent maiko.
• Do not falsely represent tourists as professional geisha, and
  • strive to use professional geisha, rather than tourists; ideally the photographer should give some evidence or indication as to why the pictured geisha is authentic.
• Use action shots, showing activities, and not over-representing static shots.

The photos on the current page are ok overall, and some are very good indeed. However, some additional ones could help:

• More photos of mature geisha (somber clothes, no white face makeup); currently mostly maiko or made-up geisha.
• More action photos of activities.
• Detail pictures, showing details of attire (e.g., makeup).
• Contrasting/comparison shots or composites, showing seniority differences especially.

The kinds of photos I have in mind are ones such as these:

• 
  Geisha dancing, showing artistic activity
• 
  Contrast shot, showing contrast between mature geisha and apprentice maiko (taken by this author)
• 
  Geisha at traditional entertainment work (very rare)

Do these sound like reasonable guidelines?

Hope these help, and please contribute additional photos to make the article even better!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I recently uploaded some nice photos of geisha that could show differences between them and maiko :) Hope it'll help.

• 
  Niigata geisha dance
• 
• 
  Sweet Miehina-san from Miyagawachou
• 
  Differences between maiko and geisha from back
• 
  Geiko, maiko and shikomi from Odamoto
• 
  And an extra! Hangyoku! We hadn't any hangyoku pics so far.

Kf8 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: On the topic of that final picture, Hangyoku.jpg... I'm quite certain it is a henshin. Most obviously, note the stiff posture and the deathgrip on the paddle. Secondly, she is having enough free time to stand and pose in a park. Most incidental viewings of maiko/geiko are when they are on their way to/from work, practice, office, hairdresser, etc. Doesn't look like an arranged photoshoot since there's no info of her chaya or name, there's only one shot of her, and the photographer was visiting on holiday. Furthermore, her hem is down and not the correct height, her hair jewelry is off (uneven ribbon, out-of-season flowers, no bira, and is that trail sewn onto the wig? having said that, I don't claim to know anything about Tokyo geisha fashions). She's also carrying a non-relevant prop. File:Manten hangyoku.jpg features a named hangyoku so please use that if a hangyoku photo is desired. --Pitke (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Geisha and prostitution

• One of the sources in the section (Note 2) is a student paper that lacks an index of its references. Does this really constitute an acceptable citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.171.100 (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Cut from article:

• Around the world, the term geisha has many different connotations; some western countries think that geishas are high-class prostitutes or escorts. Even some Japanese citizens see geisha in that way because of the lower class geisha who do sell their bodies and work as prostitutes. The biggest misconception of geisha is that they have sex with their customers; the most exclusive modern geisha do not.

There are some problems with the article:

1. It has not been sufficiently clarified that some prostitutes looked like geisha to US servicemen after World War II.
2. The idea that there are "classes" of geisha, and that some "lower class geisha" are indeed prostitutes.
3. The clash between the Japanese refusal to concede that some or all geisha do (or did) engage in some amount of prostitution.

If I recall correctly, there was a time when all geisha were required to engage in an initial session of prostitution, "giving up their virginity" to a customer. Would it be a violation of WP:OR to say that selling one's virginity = engaging in prostitution? (It wasn't rape, money changed hands, and sex occurred.) If so, then do I actually have to dredge up a source that says:

• All geisha are (former) prostitutes

Or one that says:

• Japanese sociologists and historians all concede that for a maiko to become a geisha, she must sell her virginity to a man who has sex with her for money, but
• These source all deny (A) that this is an act of prostitution and (B) that this means that a geisha is a prostitute or even a former prostitute

I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is on calling a spade a spade, but it's well known that modern Japanese still downplay (not to say censor) the comfort women episode (forced prostitution of foreign slave women in WW II), and the rape of Nanking genocide incident. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Basically, many years ago geisha did sell sex. Now they don't. I think worrying about what people do and don't think is somewhat irrelevant, unless we get very good sources to explain the perception. John Smith's (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If what people think is irrelevant, then I should go ahead and call mizuage an act of prostitution? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's slightly more complicated than an act of prostitution (I'd need to read up on it). I did say "somewhat irrelevant" as well. John Smith's (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It also makes them sound like all houses did this, which is not true. Remember that the upper echelon of the Japanese Prostitutes were Oiran and Tayuu, not Geisha, and that only houses of shady tendencies would/probably did sell a Maiko's virginity. The law's that ended this came about in the 1950s and many of what we know of Geisha are the "Gee-sha" Girls that GI's spoke of. These were done by brothels because it was easier for the Americans to get, but they were never true Geisha. This definition of mizuage is speculative information at best since there is really no records of if it did or didn't happen. There are several conflicting sources so I really would take this information with a grain of salt and add something about it being speculated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North.star13 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mizuage and Iwasaki

I noticed that the lead line on this cites Iwasaki, but I'm confused as I can't recall her book saying that mizuage was the sale of virginity. I don't have the book to hand, but this article says:

Q: But their virginity isn’t offered in exchange for that help?
A: That is never on the table.

Can someone go to the page references in Iwasaki's book and cut-and-paste the text where she confirms mizuage was the sale of a maiko's virginity? John Smith's (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mizuage

The section should be shortened considarably and the bulk of information should be in the Mizuage article. As it is, the section is as long as the article, which consltitutes a WP:content fork, which is not permissible.  Andreas  ^(T) 21:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• rv, you're suggesting maiko still have to have their virginity taken away

  That was not what I intended. As far as I know, when prostitution was banned in the mid-twentieth century, the forcing of maiko to have sex with a customer ended too. Please help me phrase this properly.

I only intended to say that in the previous several centuries of geisha training, this ritual (?) act of prostitution was indeed a requirement. Please help me to clarify whether it ended at the end of Meiji or Edo periods. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it's very difficult to say that mizuage was mandatory. It wasn't a legal requirement, it was a custom that many followed. How can anyone say that every maiko was forced to do it? John Smith's (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"the first Caucasian to become a full-fledged geisha"

I have just now reverted a very new edit that caused the page to read:

She is the first Caucasian to become a full-fledged geisha<ref name="independent">{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/turning-japanese-the-first-foreign-geisha-773167.html|title=Turning Japanese: the first foreign geisha|date=2008-01-24|accessdate=2009-06-02|publisher=[[The Independent]] | location=London}}</ref><ref name="telegraph">{{cite news |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1574835/Westerner-inducted-into-mysteries-of-geisha.html|title=Westerner inducted into mysteries of geisha|last=Ryall|first=Julian|date=2008-01-09|publisher=[[The Daily Telegraph|Telegraph.co.uk]]|accessdate=2009-06-02 | location=London}}</ref>

The new edit makes no claim to have accessed either "source" since 2009. Neither source says what it's described as saying. Instead, the author of the first says she has just become what she says is the first non-Japanese in 400 years to debut as a geisha and the author of the second quotes her as calling herself the first Western geisha in Japan.

The edit I reverted made one other change, but since this half of it turned out to have spurious sourcing, I didn't bother to examine that other half; I just reverted wholesale. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Hoary for my negligence. This is a new source that says that she is the first caucasian to be a geisha. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20080527zg.html and this other source also mentions that she is the "the only white woman to ever become a full-fledged geisha in Japan" http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Inside-the-World-of-Geisha/2 hopefully you are convinced. please say so if you are convinced so that i can rewrite my edit again with more accuracy this time. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouslyanonymous001 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm sorry that I may have seemed snappy (like the external examiner you wouldn't want to have check your PhD thesis). Well, let's look at your two new sources. Arudou (the author) knows something about Japan, and calls her the "first-ever white geisha" and "first Caucasian geisha". That's good. It could be better, in that it could be an article about geisha, and even better an article that levelheadedly compares similar claims. But I suppose it will do for now. The second source is unsigned (though it seems to be by one Lisa Ling) and it's from a source that neither has anything much to do with Japan nor is academic. I'd drop it. ¶ I wonder if there's any more scholarly commentary. Disappointingly, and rather surprisingly, there's nothing within this magazine coverage that looks likely to be at all probing. But there is this entry within this book; Cybriwsky is certainly a knowledgable writer. -- Hoary (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's my fault, Hoary to edit without sufficient knowledge. Anyway, I have edited it again, citing more sources this time. Hopefully they are satisfactory. Although I still don't really understand the reference name and ref group as well as the web access date... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymouslyanonymous001 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Arudou; his articles in JT are opinion pieces, and as such do not qualify as reliable sources. Similarly, he's not an expert in Japanese history or the subject of geisha, and as such his opinion wouldn't be important enough to include. No comment on the rest of the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you being a bit heavy on Arudou here? His articles are indeed opinion pieces, but this seems to be a simple assertion of fact. Plus I'd hope that JT regards his factual statements on this kind of thing to be generally correct, before employing him. -- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, opinion articles are never reliable sources for statements of fact unless the writer is a known expert in the field, and even then we have to be careful. Furthermore, I've seen no evidence that JT fact checks Arudou at all. I would consider Arudou's articles in JT to be reliable only about Arudou's own life and things he has personally experienced, given that he doesn't really have expertise (in a Wikipedia sense) in anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

[bouncing back to the left] Then how about Cybriwsky? I suppose that one could say that his expertise is in urban design/decay/regeneration (etc), and not in anything particularly geisha-related; also, his book is published by Scarecrow, a serious publisher of good stuff but occasionally also of some rather ho-hum books. (Then again, I've occasionally encountered the sloppiest books from the most prestigious of university presses.) ¶ If I may be permitted a slight digression: I'm puzzled by the percentage of the interest in geisha that goes to the tiny percentage who aren't Japanese. To me, this particular geisha is indeed more than averagely interesting (because she's a lot more than averagely outgoing; and, conveniently, is so in English), but she won't be particularly interesting until she's published her (more or less academic) book about the experience. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just throw something in there? I'm wondering if there's a slight case of double standards in the article. Graham is reported to have been the first fully-fledged Caucasian geisha, but Dalby is the first Caucasian woman known to have worked as a geisha. To be honest, I'm not sure that "worked as a geisha" is sufficiently caveated or explained to avoid uninformed readers thinking she was a geisha. John Smith's (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole mess started because Graham threw a hissy fit over the much clearer "Dalby was the first Caucasian geisha". Since that would take a lot of wind out of her PR sails, we had to twist it and look sideways at it and take its inverse so that it's still true, but makes some kind of allowance for the results of Graham's press-release-spamming activities. You're right, it would be better to go with the much more straightforward "Dalby was the first Caucasian geisha but Graham claims to be the first Caucasian geisha". Your Lord and Master (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't agree that Dalby was the first Caucasian geisha, regardless of what Graham has to say about the matter. I remember discussing the matter many years ago on a different website, before Graham became well known. However the dispute first arose doesn't matter too much - the issue is that it has been highlighted. John Smith's (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For clarity my first comment was referring to what was in the article already (using the bolding to highlight the different standards being applied), not what my own view of the situation was. John Smith's (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we cut the Gordian knot here by eliminating all the "first claims", and simply refer to Dalby and the others as examples? Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

One problem with your edit is that it still says Dalby "worked.... as a geisha". Could it not say something like "entertained at geisha parties"? This is factually true, she did entertain at parties. John Smith's (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, can we just ignore the IP editor(s) and actually agree on some text? John Smith's (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How about something like this? "A small number of non-Japanese have entered the world of geishas to work as such, with varying degrees of claims of authenticity. Liza Dalby started her geisha related research in XXXX, ending up as entertaining guests alongside with geishas proper for [some years]. Fiona Graham entered similarly to do research, but [debuted? Conventionally?] and worked under [the hanamachi office/whatsitsname] until [carefully phrased brief mention of the incident (kicked out/"became independet")] . Graham represents herself in public as the first Caucasian geisha. [Name of Ibu, "the Ukrainan"] began her career as [rank/position] without academic interests and debuted as a geisha in YYYY."

Of course we Should have some paragraphs on the actual thing, as in mentioning some past big names and influetial sister lines and whatnot. Proportionally it's silly to go into such detail on such a minor topic when there are centuries of tradition to cover, but I'm afraid this is a controversial topic which needs attention and needs to be worked out. --Pitke (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Work and pay

I have no problem with avoiding the claim that Dalby was employed as a geisha; perhaps it would be clearer to state that she was never a formal member of the association. Work without pay, however, is still work, and I believe that if you read the passages in her book, the okasans in the house did use the word "work" to describe what she did. She was paid to the extent that she received tips, in any case, and she did perform the same, well, work that true geishas present performed. The statement that she "participated as an observer" is absolutely untrue. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there an issue of using her own publication to cite what she did and did not do? John Smith's (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not as long as we remember to say "in her [publication] Dalby tells that she..." and such. Pitke (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(to John) No, because her book is a reliable source, much like you claim newspaper articles that are just rewords of Graham's press releases are reliable sources. Please be consistent. Your Lord and Master (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I added to the article that she did not become a geisha as was the case(while still keeping the word 'work'), just to make it clearer. Anonymouslyanonymous001 (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As you well know, tha's not what a number of the sources say. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple things

The section on Geisha and prostitution, and the subsection on danna, downplays the extent to which many geisha were essentially prostitutes. I may be somewhat biased after reading and having written the vast majority of our article on Autobiography of a Geisha, but it seems like after several paragraphs separating geisha and prostitutes we could include more than a couple sentences amounting to "despite all that, a few onsen geisha blurred the line". I'm not sure how to expand on that (if I did, I'd just do it myself), but the section on it seems inadequate, as there were a lot of onsen geisha who were essentially glorified prostitutes and not only engaged in selling sex but also had a fairly detailed system for doing so (the details on this are in Autobiography of a Geisha, I can pull them up if people think they're worth considering). Especially, the part under danna about "intimacy never being a reward" may be the case today, but a perusal of Masuda Sayo shows that was not only untrue, but a regular occurrence. Thoughts/suggestions would be welcome. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article as written has an overall tone of "Geisha aren't prostitutes! No, really, they're not!" The sections describing the history as well as the prostitution section, should be enough to address the issue, yet peppered throughout the rest of the article are constant renditions of this theme. It would be a more encyclopedic work if these were removed. As is, it seems like a persuasive essay written to prove the difference. I think any integration of your ideas could keep this in mind during editing. 72.231.12.112 (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if we accept that autobiography as a case study (and not a work of fiction or semi-fiction), it still describes a single case and cannot be used to source claims that prostitution has been wide-spread or established. --Pitke (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we could definitely spend a little more time pointing out that this existed. For one, no one has ever seriously disputed her writing. Two, it was the only work about the real life of geisha for 30+ years, meaning it's all we have to go on for that time period. Finally, she described the system in great detail and talked about how it was applied all throughout her own and other hanamachi, which is more than just a single case. The work was intended, in part, to explain how the entire onsen geisha system worked, and it indeed involved a lot of glorified (if you could call it that) prostitution. The current article is too skewed towards what 72.231.12.112 says, and part of the problem is that it never addresses why, after 1872, people might have thought of them as prostitutes in the first place; the reputation of onsen geisha is a substantial part of that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Wikipedia, not by Wikipedia

In case anyone's wondering, What is a geisha? is plagiarising Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. You can see from an old edit here which shows an older version of the text that has differences compared to the current version, and the version in the "What is a geisha?" page. Andrew Grimm (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Biased section removed

Text of removed section:

Misconceptions

A tayū, high-ranked courtesan

There are many misconceptions over what a geisha truly is because of the tumultuous past of artisans, prostitutes, and pleasure quarters in Japan. "The world of the geisha, the "flower and willow" world, are very separate societies that are shrouded in mystery. The myths that have been created by outsiders about the environment and the lifestyle of the geisha world have, for the most part, been able to grow unchecked. And because it is a very private, elite world, most people would be uncomfortable speaking about it".

Prostitution was legal in Japan until 1958, which is another reason that people may be misinformed about geishas not offering sex to customers. The two became especially confused after many of the professional prostitutes who catered to the occupying soldiers after World War II styled themselves as "geisha"; at a time when few true geisha were able to work, the counterfeit geisha usurped the meaning of the word in the eyes of many foreigners.

I moved this section here for possible repairs. It is biased. It preemptively labels the POV that there is a connection between geisha and prostitution as a misconception.

Our NPOV policy requires us to describe all points of view, not just one which is favorable to one country's self-concept. We also have articles on the Comfort Women used as sex slaves in WWII, as well as the rape of Nanking, two historical incidents from Japanese history which to this day get little or no mention in Japanese history textbooks for schoolchildren (these articles should be neutral too).

We should neither engage in Japan-bashing nor in whitewashing. I want to see a neutral description of this controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Where are you going with this? There's considerable explanation of the history of the relationship in Dalby. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Kamuro

What about kamuro? From what I've seen in web searches, I can't tell whether this term refers to a young assistant, apprentice, or maybe even offspring of a geisha, oiran, or prostitute. (Or maybe it's just a certain hairstyle!) Can someone provide the correct meaning and add an appropriate description to commons:Category:Kamuro (and check that the images in that category are correctly categorized)? If you want even more fun, you can go through the categories commons:Category:Geisha and commons:Category:Oiran, and move any images that are in the wrong category. - dcljr (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Kamuro/kaburo has three definitions. Bald-headed, a children's hairstyle, and a young girl (about age 6 to 14) assistant, apprentice of oiran or high-ranked prostitute like Tayū, not of geisha, in Edo period. See [3], [4], and [5]. Please correct it. My en is not good for the job. Oda Mari (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hair (traditional way)

This is what I've been missing throughout in the whole (nonetheless good) article. I watched this in a documentary many years ago, and, TBH it was pretty hard stuff. There are still parts in Japan (probably chiefly rural regions) where the real original geisha culture is maintained up to this day. And the "hairdresser" who made the geisha's hair gave me an impression on TV how PAINFUL this is for the girls and for the women. To achieve that old traditional "helmet-like" hairstyle, hair is pulled SO HARD that the girls respectively women really have to press their teeth together to sustain the pain. It must feel as if the skin is about to be pulled from their heads. The "sample" geisha in the documentary even confirmed the pain she had to go through in her early geisha years, and that it took quite a time until she did no longer feel it so strong (but she said she can still feel the high tension every time). Well, I think that this information may do good for the article. Because no matter how beautiful it looks in the end, to get there is a very painful process. -andy 77.190.10.187 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits by SPAs to the modern geisha section

One particular no-longer-affiliated geisha is very concerned with her image on Wikipedia and regularly drops in to "correct" the record so that it recognizes only her as the one true Caucasian geisha. I have reverted the edit regarding Ibu for two reasons: one, it deliberately ambiguously reported that Ibu was working in 2012, and did not confirm nor deny her present working status; and two, the source for the edit was Graham's own web site, the relevant page thereof containing a single sentence which (WP:DUCK) appears to have been created for the sole purpose of justifying "IBU NOT WORKING" in this article. The funny thing is, the way that sentence is written, one could infer that Graham herself has quit, and use that as justification for changing her own article to "Sayuki has quit". Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ThingsAsian and the "prostitute" debate

Is this a reliable website? I've never heard of it, and the 2007 article has no author. I don't see how it really does anything for the article. I think in the interests of trying to rely on reliable, well-known resources, it would be best to delete references to it. Any thoughts? John Smith's (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree --DAJF (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted the reference and tried to make the other quotes stand out more by putting them in italics. More than happy for someone to rearrange the layout. John Smith's (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Which way around the obi goes, and referencing roulette

In this edit, User:Asuttles23 adds, inter alia:

The easiest way to tell a geisha from a prostitute is to distinguish where they tie their obi. Prostitutes tie their obi in the front as it is easy for them to take on and off without having someone else to tie it for them. In comparison, geisha tie their obi in the back

This strikes me as an extraordinary assertion, probably based on a simplistic account of the situation well over a century ago.

Asuttles23 attributes it to Eliza Knight, "The History and Culture of Japanese Geisha", on a website titled historyundressed.com. I hadn't heard of either the author or the website, but the web page obligingly links the author's name to this page, where we read:

I write historical romance, historical fiction and historical articles. My favorite time periods are the medeival [sic] and regency eras.

Nothing in that about sociology, social history, history, Japanology, etc.

The material seemed very dodgy, so -- like User:DAJF before me -- I removed it.

Oh, hello -- what DAJF removed was attributed not to Ms Knight but instead to "http://www.sleepingsamurai.com/knowledge/geisha/". This is a very odd web page, uncredited, titled "Geisha", and within the website of a company that describes itself as follows:

Sleeping Samurai is a company dedicated to bringing a Unique, High Quality, Dependable and Respectful Interactive Entertainment Experience to events and attendees throughout the US!

But let's return to the present. The indefatigable Asuttles23 has just readded (inter alia) the following:

The easiest way to tell a geisha from a prostitute is to distinguish where they tie their obi. Prostitutes tie their obi in the front as it is easy for them to take on and off without having someone else to tie it for them. In comparison, geisha tie their obi in the back

This time, Asuttles attributes this to "Dalby, Liza. "Geisha". JSTOR. Pacific Affairs, University of British Columbia. Retrieved 16 April 2015.". So it's "Geisha", a web page written by Liz Dalby. Except that when you click on it, you discover that (i) it's a short review by Takie Sugiyama Lebra of Geisha, a book written by Dalby; and (ii) Sugiyama Lebra does not mention obi.

I get the impression that Asuttles23 is so fond of this obi factoid that they'll attach any "reference" to it in the hope of making it look credible, regardless of what the "reference" actually says. But perhaps I misunderstand; if so, I'd appreciate an explanation from @Asuttles23: or somebody else.

Additionally, does Dalby write this; and if she does, then precisely where does she write it? -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Videos

I’ve found some CC videos to add to geisha-themed articles:

• Tokyo geisha dance
• Kyoto maiko Fukuyuu dancing and answering questions
• Yudanaka onsen geisha dance

I don’t know which one is better for this article, so any comments and suggestions are welcome. — Le Loi 00:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Geisha districts today

Might it be worth including a bit about the districts across Japan where geisha/geiko/maiko are still active today? According to this January 2016 performance in Kyoto, there seem to be at least 10 districts today.

• Gion Kobu (Kyoto)
• Miyagawa-cho (Kyoto)
• Ponto-cho (Kyoto)
• Kamishichiken (Kyoto)
• Gion Higashi (Kyoto)
• Shinbashi (Tokyo)
• three Chayagai (Kanazawa)
• Hakata Kenban (Fukuoka)

This article also lists Asakusa and Kagurazaka in Tokyo, bringing the total to 12, but I'm not sure if this is complete whatsoever. 119.24.243.102 (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Geiko Kimiha.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 3, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-07-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Profile of Kimiha, a geisha from Miyagawa-chō, a hanamachi or geisha district in Kyoto. She is wearing a formal black kimono and a Shimada-styled nihongami wig. Her obi is tied in the "taiko" style. These details distinguish her from an apprentice, or maiko. Geisha are traditional Japanese female entertainers who act as hostesses and perform classical music, dance, games and conversation, mainly to entertain male customers.Photograph: JPNEX