Talk:Geisha

I reverted some (to my knowledge) nonsense about the first geisha being male: however, the contributor seems to have made good edits elsewhere, so I thought I'd mention the deletion here. Can anyone provide any evidence for this remarkable assertion? -- Karada 10:50, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh, look, Google is your friend.

• http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/taikomochi.html
• http://www.japanese-incense.com/geisha-bedini.htm
• http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747264260/ref%3Dpd%5Fsim%5Fb%5Fdp%5F3/202-7709597-3191017

OK, back it goes. -- Karada 10:54, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

question about the picture: are these women "dressed as" geisha (actually, more correctly, as maiko) or are they actual maiko? An important distinction. Exploding Boy 12:13, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

The term "mizuage" in the article redirects back to this article. I am removing the reference to eliminate a link cycle. Matthew Plough 04:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

1 Not prostitutes 2 add a section on western misconceptions? 3 First Giesha was not male... 4 Photo 5 Meaning of "geisha"

Not prostitutes

Not wanting to be too salacious here. I'm sure I have the traditional, Western idea of what a geisha is. I wouldn't be surprised that it is wrong. :-)

The article says "Geisha are not prostitutes." So, was there no sexual activity between a geisha and a customer? Or, was sex not an expected part of the transaction, but it often happened? Or, .... (I'm too embarrassed to list out all the variations, gradations, and permutations that come to mind.)

Also, I don't quite understand this sentence:

Although in the past the right to take their virginity (an event called a mizuage) was sold, they were not obliged to have sex with any customers, even the men who paid dearly for their virginity.

Somebody paid for the right, but then there was no obligation? Perhaps these might not the usual Western meanings of those words?

DanielVonEhren 00:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Real" geisha (that is, not "hotsprings geisha," who were/are prostitutes) were/are not prostitutes, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. They did often have danna, that is lovers/benefactors with whom they had sexual relationships--often longterm--and who paid many of their expenses, however. Exploding Boy 19:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

That's kind of what I expected. Perhaps you should try to incorporate your knowledge into the article. (I'd do it, but I have have any knowledge.) Something like that although many geisha did have liasons with their customers, they were not prostitutes in the common Western sex-for-money sense of the word. I would think that words along that line would better fit the Wikipedia's spirit of a NPOV. It might even help explain the right and obligation thing that is still seems contradictory.

DanielVonEhren 22:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

add a section on western misconceptions?

I think we should add a section on western misconceptions. Item #1, Geisha aren't prostitutes; yûjo are prostitutes. Item #2, Ge - i - sha not gissha. Any other ideas for the section? --Carl 13:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First Giesha was not male...

The first Giesha was Izumo No Okuni, a woman.

Photo

First of all, the photo for this article should show geisha, not maiko. And they don't look like real maiko either. They are likely tourists who underwent a maiko makeover. Can the photographer confirm that they are real? Real maiko would know how to pose well while dressed in kimono. They do not pose like that, with the sleeves ruffled, umbrella held unaesthetically, etc.

I don't see why. A maiko is a type of geisha, after all. These maiko look authentic enough to me; if they don't look practiced enough to you maybe they're just new. Exploding Boy 22:17, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, they are not authentic. Confirmed by this page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/russellc/13168902/ Photojpn.org 15:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Not sufficient confirmation for me. The person isn't an expert, obviously has no inside information, and doesn't speak Japanese by the looks of it. Either way, it's still basically irrelevant. Exploding Boy 20:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

OK, if you like this picture so much, I won't replace it. Photojpn.org 10:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it's not that I'm in love with the photo... Please, feel free to add more pics and/or replace it with a better one. Exploding Boy

Why replace it if they look "authentic enough" to you, you still think they are real (I don't care to spend more time to try and convince you that they are not real), and "it's basically irrelevant?" I was all but ready to replace it and add more images (selected from among my hundreds of geisha images), but your reaction has really irked me. "Geisha" has been crossed off my list of "Wiki images to be replaced." Someone else can do it. Photojpn.org 03:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, I thought we were having a discussion. Perhaps, if you were considering adding images from your collection, you should have said so rather than pussyfooting around and then throwing a hissy fit when you didn't get the response you wanted. If you have an interest in Wikipedia and this topic, I don't know why you'd want them to suffer because you have an issue with me. Exploding Boy 19:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Read my notes again please. What you call "pussyfooting" was consensus-building. You yourself said this thing is run by consensus (which was not reached). All your responses were negative. Very ironic since you were the first to ask the same question right on this page. Throwing a hissy fit? Not me. Photojpn.org 02:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of "geisha"

I think we need some consensus about this before it gets out of hand. I think we can agree that "artisan" is plain wrong, and that "artist" isn't the best translation. If we are going to say "literally," then "art person" is the most correct. If we're giving a literal translation, it doesn't have to be pretty in English. Exploding Boy 22:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why "artist" isn't a good translation. A person who performs art = artist. But if I get no support for this claim, I suggest "person of the arts". A little long, but more elegant English. -Himasaram 09:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Butting in. There's a Indian English usage, seen in credits for Bollywood films. Artiste. Actors and singers and dancers are artistes. Wouldn't that describe a geisha? Zora 10:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Artiste" sound affected and pretentious. Once again, if we're giving a direct translation of the kanji it doesn't have to sound "elegant," and "art person" is the most correct. Exploding Boy 20:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I must disagree. Giving a direct translation of the collection of kanji that make up Japanese words is not how you translate them. A word is a word, even in Japanese. Finally, I don't see why we shouldn't at least try to get an English translation that sound "elegant"?? That doesn't make sense. -Himasaram 21:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you use the term "literally," then you should be giving a literal translation. The actual translation for 芸者 is geisha. It is not "artist" (which would be アーティスト, 画家, or something similar), and it's certainly not "artiste." Exploding Boy 23:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The blind leading the blind again. Exploding Boy is someone who answers questions even if he does not really know the answer. (See my exchange with him above where he tries to answer my question which he himself asked before.) In English, when people hear the word "art," most think of the visual arts like paintings, drawings, sculpture, photography, etc. In Japanese, when people hear the word "gei," they think of the performing arts like singing, dancing, acting, etc. Most of the kanji compounds using "gei" refer to these performing arts, such as geinojin (entertainers), daidogei (street performance), etc. Therefore, "art person" is not good, and "person of the arts" (should be "performing arts," but that might be going too far) is better. Photojpn.org 08:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)\\

To begin with, someone needs to take a look at Wikipedia: No personal attacks. I really have no clue what you're trying to say, Photojpn. Did you even read my post before you responded? You seem to be agreeing with me while simultaneously insulting me. What, pray tell, is the big difference between "art person" (the most literal translation) and "person of the arts" (which, by the way, is not strictly accurate)? Exploding Boy 17:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Right, no personal attacks. That's what I thought too until you accused me of pussyfooting and throwing a hissy fit (see above). (From a Wikipedia Admin no less. An anonymous one at that.) But that didn't bother me as much as the questionable quality of your replies. What exactly are your qualifications and expertise to answer questions about geisha? And no, I don't agree with your "art person" proposal. "Art person" is almost the same as "artist" which you (and I) don't like. "The arts" implies multiple talents (which geisha have) and has a broader connotation (read: performing arts) than just "art." That's why I say that "person of the arts" is better than "art person," but it's not necessarily perfect. But if you change it to "person of the performing arts," I would not object. Photojpn.org 18:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I might ask you the same question, but I won't bother. I will, however, point out that we are all anonymous here. Revealing personal details is not a prerequisite for participating in Wikipedia, even as an admin. At any rate, you, like Himasaram, are repeatedly missing the point. Exploding Boy 20:02, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Another false answer. No, we are not all anonymous. Some of us identify ourselves on our personal pages. You can easily find out who I am if you click on my username at the end of this message. In the same way, you can easily tell us your real name, location, credentials (if any), and qualifications (if any) on your personal page. If you don't do this, how can we take you seriously? I am demonstrating to you and whoever else is reading this, the inherent shortcomings of Wikipedia which seriously affects its long-term credibility. You are the one missing the point. Photojpn.org 20:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're moving way off topic here. The fact that you provide information about yourself on your user page means absolutely nothing. It could all very easily be untrue. We are all anonymous on Wikipedia, and despite your opinions on the subject, and no matter how much you wish it were different, that's the way it is. You may consider it a flaw, but there you are. And by the way, I've looked at your user page and frankly, nothing I saw there convinces me you in any way have special "credentials" or "qalifications" to discuss this or any other topic. Exploding Boy 20:29, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) --> added: Let me make it clear that I'm not saying you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, just pointing out that the information you provide says nothing about your supposed qualifications (and even if it did that wouldn't give you exclusive right to edit articles). Exploding Boy 20:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

You at least know my name, where I'm located, what I specialize in. Many people identify themselves truthfully. So they are not anonymous. If you ask me what my qualifications are, I would gladly tell you. (I'm not a geisha expert so I haven't touched this article, but I do read Japanese.) In your case, we know nothing about you. Why are you so shy? Imagine if Wikipedia were a printed edition. You think people would buy this encyclopedia when the writers/editors are all nameless and anonymous? How can we take you seriously if you decide to remain anonymous? Photojpn.org 05:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, what about using "performing artist"? Zora 07:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Performing artist" isn't correct either. Photojpn, if you want to continue the discussion about anonymity, you can do so on my talk page, but please remember that I don't have to answer to you or anyone else. No one on Wikipedia is required to divulge personal information about him- or her-self. If you don't like it, feel free to start your own project. Exploding Boy 17:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Zora, the word geisha consists of two kanji characters: gei + sha. "Sha" literally means "person." That's why we want to use the word "person" in the literal translation. The problem is "gei" which does not correspond to any one word in English. "Artist" might sound better in English, but it's not a literal translation. To Exploding Boy, this will be my second-to-the-last message on a Japan-related Wikipedia page. I'm withdrawing my participation in Wikipedia to spend more time on my own project (which I had started even before you suggested it). (My last message will be on the Tokyo discussion page.) Photojpn.org 11:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)