Talk:Fiona Graham/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2020

For the last five years every piece of new information on the Sayuki page has been removed and the page is now protected. Why can no one add any recent information to this page even when it is sourced correctly from newspapers? 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:65ED:7FE0:2DE3:BCBF (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok I will try to patiently explain one more time, as multiple other editors have already done. Do not keep complaining here that you cannot edit the article. This will not change anything. Instead, provide a simple explanation of what you think needs to be changed or added to the article here, and provide a link to a source that verifies any information you want changed or added, so that it can be reviewed. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There are media sections on www.sayuki.net and www.fukagawageisha.com with many many articles from newspapers from the past five years all of which is valid content to add. Could someone add some new content instead of constantly removing anything added without any kind of valid reason? Look at the page history and you will see that anything new is removed even when it is from valid sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:F484:9092:3070:A008 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No, all articles at [1] are not valid content to add. Some may be, but for example Daily Mail is not a WP:RS (see WP:RSPDM), especially not in a WP:BLP. Tokyo Shinbun in unknown to en-WP, though there is a paper with a similar name. The Frontier Post may be useful for something, but: [2].

So, if you think anything at [3] is a WP:RS and good for adding something to the WP-article, it's up to you (or whoever want to include something) to separate the wheat from the chaff. "I suggest this ref (link to WP:RS) for this text in the article: "Texttexttext."" Try that approach, starting with the best WP:RS you have from those press clipping pages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Vaguely related point. I know that Fiona was terribly unhappy with the article in the Tokyo Shimbun describing how she was, to strip away the diplomatic phrasing, expelled from the Asakusa association, and claimed up and down that the Tokyo Shimbun was not a reliable source, blah blah blah, so very tired. Funny then that one of her own website's pages ([4]) includes a scan of the very same newspaper -- perhaps now that they are writing a puff piece about her, they're a reliable source again? 122.58.42.21 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tokyo Shinbun or Shimbun

Gråbergs Gråa Sång and anyone else who's interested: The newspaper 東京新聞 is mentioned in the section above. If we transliterate this title according to the modified Hepburn system, which is what en:WP generally uses, it's Tōkyō shinbun. If we instead do so according to the earlier version of Hepburn, it's Tōkyō shimbun. (Either way, this is moraic N, which when it's immediately in front of a labial consonant, as it is here, is pronounced [m].) And for one or more among several reasons, Tōkyō is routinely rendered as "Tokyo". Anyway, "Tokyo Shinbun" and "Tokyo Shimbun" refer to the same newspaper, 東京新聞. I suppose that (i) it gets things wrong from time to time and (ii) the other newspapers now and again print valuable stories that elude 東京新聞; but on balance, I'd say that 東京新聞 is the best of the newspapers. -- Hoary (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

...so, in summary, the Tokyo Shinbun from [5] is what WP calls Tokyo Shimbun and potentially a WP:RS for this WP-article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they're the same. Here's the JPEG. Unfortunately it's not dated. I'm not going to read and summarize it, simply because -- as I've made clear (here, here, here, here) -- I'm not sufficiently interested. So many IP numbers and throwaway UIDs have been keen to have the article say this or that about FG that I'd hope there'd be one or two balanced editors who were healthily interested, without axes to grind. -- Hoary (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And I won't read it because I can't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Since Graham is so eager to remove "unsourced" content, I found the updated link for her appeal being denied: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2014/sc84_2014_sc85_2014wanakagymltdgrahamvqueenstownldc.pdf.

It may also be worth mentioning that she is subject to arrest if she returns to New Zealand: https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2014/sc-84-85-2014-wanaka-gym-graham-v-queenstown-lakes-district-council-application-for-extension.pdf (bottom of first page). 122.58.223.229 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the updated link for the final appeal. WP:PRIMARY sources are generally avoided, especially when biographies of living persons (BLP) are involved, which it obviously is here. The primary source is really there only for the appeal though. I found a secondary source that did mention the first appeal and it's dismissal, so I've added that. The primary source is there for the final appeal mention and isn't the soul source of the appeals.

As for the fine, that was in the article at one point and removed as it's covered by the generic "various appeals" and it's very standard for a bench warrant to be issued for unpaid fines. Give the source for that was some time ago, we have no idea if the fines are still outstanding and frankly it's not a concern of Wikipedia at this moment. Ravensfire (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Ombudsman of NZ judged in favor of Fiona Graham in 2003 after the local council came into her house in 2000 and threw the tenants out without any prior notification and despite them being legally signed up on long term tenancy agreements in a residential house. They made the mistake of assuming that a large house was the same as a backpacker when by NZ law a backpacker is defined by the length of occupancy of the tenants and not by the size of the house. After they were asked for compensation following the Ombudsman's ruling they then spent some 15 years trying to get out of paying it by fabricating new charges. The current entry is wrong as the house was only dangerous IF it had been short-term visitor accommodation. You cannot deal with this fairly on Wikipedia without covering the entire 2 decades of conflict, and it is particularly unfair to add odd pieces of information with no context, so it would be fairer not to cover it at all, particularly as it has nothing at all do with the reason that Graham is on Wikipedia in the first place, is local news only, and old news at that. Wikipedia also has a duty not to harm the lives of living people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:F484:9092:3070:A008 (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is now five years since the Fukagawa Geisha District was revived and this year we formally created the Tokyo Fukagawa Geisha Association and this has been in countless media and television but we cannot add anything new after 2011 or so to his page? Please help.

I do not want to edit this article! I want the ban lifted so that other people CAN edit it!. At the moment, the same person (ineffable bookkeeper) removes every single piece of new information that is added, even when it is validly sourced by newspapers. The person removing the valid new content is the one with the conflict of interest! RE the New Zealand content, you cannot report on a single piece of a 20 year legal conflict fairly so it is more fair to remove the whole thing. It is old news, it is local news only, and it has nothing to do with the reason that Sayuki is on Wikipedia in the first place. In the interests of fairness please remove it. Fines are not serious criminal issues. If it is not Wikipedia's concern and you do not know the recent facts, then please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:8CAA:A47C:4800:A65A (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wanaka Gym

I thought I would try to argue what I believe should happen with this information (independent from both the Graham and Myloko arguments).

The controversy comes due to the peculiar arrangement of the accommodation. It was classified single household (SH), but had a dormitory hall, which meant it did not fall under any of the categories available. The Queenstown Lakes District Council therefore attempted to classify it as sleeping accommodation (SA), which was intended for tourist accommodation, but SA was intended to cater for short term tourists rather than the long term accommodation Graham was catering for.

• The accommodation is basically safe to live in because it was catering for long term accommodation, and regardless, Wanaka Gym was in the midst of refurbishing the accommodation and in turn meeting the standards set for SA.
• The Ombudsman of New Zealand had ruled in favor of Wanaka Gym in 2002 since its accommodation did not clearly fit into either category.
• The reason why the case had been rejected in the appellate courts is because Wanaka Gym filed it appeal too late - the texts from the two Courts make it clear that they had to accept the objection by the Council based on this technicality. It would be wrong for Wikipedia to assume guilt considering the appeals were thrown out on a technicality and that there had been support from the Ombudsman.

Appeal: http://www.building.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/resolving-problems/determinations/Appeals/2011-069-appeal-judgement.pdf Supreme Court: http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2014/sc84_2014_sc85_2014wanakagymltdgrahamvqueenstownldc.pdf

I would personally rename the section "Other activities" and list the rewrite the Wanaka Gym issue into a single paragraph:

"A business owned by Graham, Wanaka Gym Ltd, was fined by the Queensland Lakes District Council in a dispute about whether the long term dormitory accommodation provided by the property should be classified as "single household" or "sleeping accommodation" (the latter intended for short stay tourists) under its buildings safety code. Despite support for Wanaka Gym from the Ombudsman of New Zealand, the case was thrown out in appellate courts due to the appeal being filed too late."

Considering the other stuff that Graham has done in her life and the lack of any details about her other businesses (she isn't even a New Zealander), the article gives undue prominence to the case. I hope we can come to a consensus here. Geicraftor (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Geicraftor, or, we just go with what the secondary sources say, and we don't use primary sources for something like this (which explicitly includes court filings/judgements). But first, how about some disclosures here, hmm? WP:COI and all of that. Ravensfire (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"We don't use primary sources for something like this" = WP:BLPPRIMARY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources don't give much prominence to the case. Most articles on her don't disclose the case when discussing her life. Why does Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geicraftor (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Geicraftor - We have been through this before, so if you want to hash this issue out, again, then I suggest you do so after reading every single one of these, where we went over this exact same issue, time and time again.

The court case is a well-sourced addition; just because every source mentioning Graham doesn't bring it up, doesn't mean its removal is supported, as the sources that do mention it are a), more than one, b), verifiable, and c), the issue is notable enough for inclusion. By your logic - that "most articles on her don't disclose the case when discussing her life" - we could argue that if articles don't repeat the exact same laundry list of facts about their subject matter for every BLP, then they have to be removed. This is, of course, not how referencing for BLPs works on Wikipedia, and is the answer to your question.

Why does Wikipedia include information that isn't brought up in some sources? Because we don't demand that every reference bring up every single thing mentioned in a person's BLP. That's why.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Her name is arguably more more well sourced than the Wanaka Gym case, yet I don't see an entire section explaining the meaning of her name, even of her Japanese name! I am not arguing that the Wanaka Gym be completely removed from the page, but that:

* The "Wanaka Gym" section is renamed "Other Activities".

* That substantial amount of information concerning her other activities and recent activities be posted onto the website.

Geicraftor (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You are very fluent in English for someone who purports to be a 25-year-old Japanese guy with broken English on his talk page in Wikipedia-ja. Also, just how did you come across such intimate details of your, I mean Fiona's, legal situation with the Wanaka Gym? 124.197.54.156 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@IP 124.197.54.156: You need to stop with the WP:ASPERSIONs. If you want to discuss article content here you can; if you want to discuss editor behavior, then you can but you need to do so at the proper venue. For reference, there's nothing on Geicraftor's English Wikipedia user page that states he's anything other that a 25-year-old male living in Osaka and then he belongs to two WikiProjects. Trying to imply anything more than that or connect him to anyone out in the real world simply based on that is going to run into problems via WP:OUTING. If you suspect him of being someone else, then raise you concerns at the proper noticeboard and provide WP:DIFFs in support. The fact that you're editing as an IP doesn't mean you're not oblige to comply with WP:BEHAVE. An administrator can still block an IP address if the they feel it's necessary to do so. So, once again focus on the content being discussed here and avoid commenting on other contributors. You also need to be careful with WP:HARASS not only here, but also over on Japanese Wikipedia as well. They may do things a bit differently over there, but a WP:GB can be put in place which will effectively block this IP address globally from editing on any project if things get too bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Sayuki" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sayuki. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 8#Sayuki until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

"lit. transparent happiness"

I'm concerned about the wording of this. Compound names do not have literal meanings as this suggests, and saying that the character combination 紗幸 literally means "transparent happiness" is misleading. It's similar to learners who learn one meaning of 池 and one of　袋 and run around telling everyone that "hey did you know Ikebukuro literally means pond bag"?

I'd suggest that parenthetical get removed from the intro and a sentence added later saying that Graham herself declares the meaning of her name to be "transparent happiness". 2404:440C:1732:D300:7997:7AC8:9B73:7301 (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know offhand where (or whether) she says this; and I really can't be bothered to look, as we say what people's names mean only exceptionally. Perhaps ⟨the logo Prince used⟩ merits it but the unremarkable ⟨紗幸⟩ does not obviously do so; and so I've just removed the explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 20 April 2021

• What I think should be changed:

Please add the following text to the introduction: "Sayuki now has permanent residency in Japan, a requirement to being a geisha."

"and as of 2016 was working in the Fukagawa district of Tokyo.[3][4]" Needs to be chenged to "is working".

• Why it should be changed:

It is important to understand that one has to obtain a permanent residency to become a geisha. It needs to be established in the introduction of the article.

In the next sentence, it says that Sayuki was working in the Fukagawa district, but she is still working there. Therefore it needs to be cheng in to "is working in the Fukagawa district".

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

JapanHistoryLady (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Looks good. JapanHistoryLady, you should check MOS:DATED. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Fiona Graham post at Teahouse

An IP editor claiming to be Fiona Graham has posted some comments at the Teahouse about the article.--- Possibly (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)