Jump to content

Talk:Maria Ozawa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rent and Salary Figures

[edit]

1600 usd per month is nothing in the japanese housing market, how can this be correct? also 8k/mo for a model/porn actress is not that great, its not even 100k/yr. Are these figures accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.96.56 (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nggak Usah Ngak Apa apa Sekeperluannya Secukupnya Saja Terima Kasih Banyak Selamat Malam Gut Nit Besok Lagi Tu Morow A Gen Di Teruskan Lanjutkan Obrolan Tersebut Dengan Bahagia Semoga Berhasil 180.242.57.151 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School

[edit]

Could a reference please be provided for this bit of trivia- what high school she went to? RNavigator 16:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks bad on the school. Taylorite

I don't see how it looks bad on the school. Besides, that isn't important. If it is referenced, it should go in the article. If it isn't referenced, it shouldn't go in the article. MightyAtom 04:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She went to a Christian school for several years (I know, I was there) and started a career in porn as soon as she was old enough. On the school's wiki page, a link to her porn wiki page. How does that not look bad on the school? The link is off of the school page now, so whatever. I guess I'm just taking personal frustrations out on this because I'm disapointed in her. She had so much potential in high school, but she never took advantage of it since she was always sleeping around. It's sad, really. Taylorite

Some people, like me, might say they'd rather be in the pornographic business, than going to a christian school. So why do you downplay her, huh ? There's no need to talk bad about her, just because YOU and YOUR views might be disturbed. Besides, wikipedia is not about what YOU think is good and bad, it a collecton of known facts. Ap2000 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you are making a value judgement that being a pornographic actress is a bad thing, compared to being a Christian which is a good thing. However, those are just your own personal opinions, ones which I don't personally share. I don't think it is sad at all. In fact, by being one of the top AV actresses in Japan, I would she is realizing her potential, and doing exceptionally well for herself. And either way, personal opinions shouldn't be represented on wikipedia. If it is a fact that she went to the school, and can be referenced, then it should appear on both pages. MightyAtom 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia policy verifiability, I'm removing the reference to the Christian Academy in Japan. RNavigator 13:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm, again, removing the reference to CAJ, as there is still no verifiable reference provided in the article. 72.58.104.253, you say it is discussed on her blog. All you have to do is provide the reference in the article (exact URL). Or bibliographic information from a yearbook or some other published source. Until that reference is provided, the sentence does not meet up to verifiability standards. I might add that the Japanese Wikipedia article simply says that she attended an international school. Also that the history of this article indicates a disagreement as to whether it was CAJ or ASIJ. Either way, a source needs to be provided in the article. RNavigator 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RNavigator, you are a regular contributor to the page on "Christian Academy in Japan", I do hope that this is not an attempt by you to remove any 'unsavoury' references to the school. As for a reference, here it is: http://blog.dmm.co.jp/actress/ozawa_maria/archives/021284.html#comments, http://blog.dmm.co.jp/actress/ozawa_maria/archives/021171.html#comments. Conveniently, the relevant sections are in English. I trust the link can stay up now.
Regarding CAJ: These seem like comments from other users, to which Maria replies to in the second link. It's not explicitly stated from her that she attended CAJ, though("i looked up your CAJ friends to see if they remembered you...). She may have just had friends at CAJ. I don't mean to be anal, but we must adhere to Wikipedian standards. If we can count this as a reference (dubious), then I suppose it can stay. I don't think it should, though - perhaps if someone can find some sort of CAJ class roster or list that has Ozawa's name? Otherwise, I believe it shouldn't be listed. Shiryu22 07:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh* to poppycock. I have a yearbook here with her in the class of 2005 of CAJ. Problem is she attended CAJ with her English name ***** which is different than the Japanese name she goes by in her AV career "Maria Ozawa". Any constructive suggestions? --Davidkazuhiro (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a graduate of Hokkaido International School (year of 2007), I have checked the past 13 years of the yearbook published. Her name, nor her picture, was not present in the yearbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.229.169 (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh...

[edit]

that filmography section seems a bit innapropriate. --AnYoNe! 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A filmography is fairly standard for actors, including porn stars. Wikipedia does not censor.MightyAtom 06:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia does not censor, it's not customary to have direct links to box shots of videos in the filmography. There's an external link to the official website already in the appropriate section. 24.200.41.142 11:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Language

[edit]

Is there any tools or links to convert or display an ENGLISH versoin of the page?

English version of which page? Everything written on this page is translated into English, so there should be no problems.MightyAtom 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THERE'S NO PICTURE FOR THIS LADY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.87.170 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is she bi?

[edit]

I reverted one change in the infobox so it reads 'heterosexual' not 'bisexual'. I thought she was straight; of course, that hasn't stopped her doing lesbian films. If someone knows better, change it back. Makitomoda (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing from a primary or secondary source to indicate she is bisexual. She has only done one hardcore lesbian scene. It was with Naomi Serizawa in her Kira Kira release. From how uncomfortable she acted, I would say that was her first time she ever had sex with another woman. Many pornstars are gay-for-pay and she seems to be in this category. Sid122 talk 06:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source specifically indicating she's exclusively heterosexual? If not, we should not put anything in the field. On the other hand, Blood type, which is easily verified through profiles, is being removed at articles like these. (See THIS) Go figure. Dekkappai (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the interviews linked in this article, she clearly stated having had several male boyfriends prior to her career. She also states her preference for Japanese men over western men. Furthermore she says that she would like her next boyfriend to be the one she marries. Did she state in specific terms that she's hetero ? Not that I can see, but how much more proof is needed ?
I guess I just object to the field. So she's hetero... how does the field explain lesbian scenes in her films? Would labeling her "bi" on the basis of lesbian acts in film be appropriate? I don't think so... I just don't think the field is accurate, but I'm not enough a "my way or the highway" kind of a guy that I'd go around removing information... as some do on other, more objective fields like blood type. Dekkappai (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it would be inappropriate to list her as bi based on her girl on girl scenes. She's a porn actress. Don't forget the acting part of porn. Just like playing in Brokeback Mountain doesn't make Jake Gyllenhaal gay or bi, acting gigs don't relate to Maria's real life preferences. That would be like saying that she enjoys rape just because she was in a rape scene. It's her job to sell you the scene she's in, it should only reflect on her quality as a porn actress not her real life preferences.
Well, true-- but then what is the point of the field? We don't have a "sexual orientation" field for... German opera composers.... at least, I don't think we do. Shouldn't it be describing her occupation/what she's known for? And even then, it's basically useless, because how many female porn actresses perform exclusively with males or females? And even if it applies just to real-life-- the fact that one gets married, or dates the opposite sex does not exclude the possibility of other sexual orientation... I just think the field is a mess, and I suppose this isn't the place to discuss it. By the way, I don't think I've altered the field at this article either-- I take a hands-off approach to things like this. I was just responding to the other editor's comments & questions. Dekkappai (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I too never make content edits even if I disagree with said content. I usually let the original editor make the change. Also, I do agree with you. I don't find the orientation field very useful. Actually, I find it's a double standard as nobody else's biography is subject to this information in their bio box. But it's probably a conversation that needs to be taken higher up. Maybe in the Porn Actor/Female Porn Actor category as a general discussion on guidelines on writing biographies that fit these categories.

Filming

[edit]

See here for one of Maria Ozawa's blog posts which is partly in English. It might be worth referring to if someone can work out what the rest of it says. :-) Makitomoda (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs generally aren't considered reliable sources. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's written by the subject of the article? Makitomoda (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not really sure about that. On WP:Verifiability, I found both "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons", which I think this falls under. If you read it differently, please say why. In addition, the fact that it is in Japanese complicates the matter; talking about non-English sources it says "readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly." I would say that readers cannot verify the sources themselves (by and large), and being a self-published blog I would question that it is published by a credible source. So, I would avoid using it as a source. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Videos censored on DVD as well?

[edit]

When I download "New Face – Number One Style" from any of those "free" websites, all I ever get is censored versions. If I buy the DVD, will it be censored as well? Or are these censored versions on the web just commercials to buy the DVD? --217.232.219.139 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never found an un-mosaiced DVD for Maria Ozawa...and oh yes, I have looked! Every DVD I have bought, either in the US or Japan, is exactly the same.MightyAtom (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the information! Maybe that's part of the reason why she's so popular: never showing it all, she remains innocent, in a way. --217.232.251.189 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well...considering some of the things I have seen her do, I don't know if I would call her innocent! And it isn't just her...all Japanese adult titles are the same way. MightyAtom (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not all of them are censored, or mosaiced. But as you wrote, you have not really seen her do these things. You have just seen (and probably heard) enough to know what she did. But I think that, psychologically, that makes a difference. It's a bit like, as a kid, knowing what your parents do when they're alone, but never having seen them, you can pretend they don't. (If you've been brought up the old-fashioned way.) But I may be wrong, just speculating. --217.232.232.124 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, there is of course no real difference between 'really' having seen something happen and having seen enough to know what happened. Though I could imagine a judge in court asking the witness repeatedly and insistingly 'Did you actually see it happen or did you just see enough to think you know what happened?'. But that's not what I mean when I speak of innocence. It's more like, e.g. in wartime, the difference between killing someone you actually see dying, and bombing houses you know people live in. I think that, if you have a conscience, the former is a lot harder to do (and painful to remember). (Not implying that it should be like that.)--217.232.214.199 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm....well, I have seen her drink urine straight from the source, and that wasn't censored! And even though the images might be fogged, when she is getting roughly DP'd by some big porn guys...I personally think all innocence is gone at that point! And all of my favorite Japanese porn stars, like Asami, Mihiro and a very cute pair of twins tht do naughty things to each other...they are all mosaiced like Maria. It is something that happens to all Japanese porn flicks.MightyAtom (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent's point of view...

[edit]

When she brought several of her videos home to show her parents, they refused to watch them and told her to get out.

Errr, I know Wikipedia discussion pages are not for our personal opinion, but I have to admit that she acted a bit silly showing her videos to her parents. OK we may live in a world where you can say "That's OK, no problem by me", but did she really think her parents would be proud watching those AV's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.69.239 (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me, 88.218.69.239. All I did is report the paraphrase of the interview in a NPOV manner. It said, "She brought home 20 of her videos she’s starred in to show her parents and they told her to get the hell out." Dekkappai (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, anything printed by the porn industry is inevitably going to paint their performers as happy in their work and proud of what they do, the JAV industry is quite shockingly mysoginistic: I very much doubt that Ms. Ozawa (if that is indeed her real name) is happy in her profession but I do hope for her sake that it is as lucrative as is indicated on this page, although that may once again be Japanese porn industry propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.136.235 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some groups are going to be always against it, and some always for it. I've read both pro- and con-, from within and without the industry, and report it as it's presented. That's what we're supposed to do here. And of course that's not her real name, it's a stage name. It says so in the article, I believe. Dekkappai (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it does; I apologise; and I thought what you boys get up to damaged the eyesight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.136.235 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wear strong-lensed glasses. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a military recon?

[edit]

Her blood group? Seriously? Guys, there is *way* too much trivial information in this article. It doesn't read like an encyclopedic entry. It reads like a military recon of her employment history. Never mind that there are adult film performers who have been working in the industry for decades and don't have articles this long. Try this: "She has worked with many studios in her brief time in the industry, such as X, Y, and Z. She has performed a wide variety of sexual acts, including, X, Y, and Z." You just cut out four paragraphs and prevented the readers' eyes from glazing over.

In short: Make the article about her, not about who she's worked for when.

Talk about the impact she's had on the industry. Talk about what makes her so popular. Talk about things that people will want to know five years from now. Talk about what she sees as the dark side of pornography. Talk about why she got into pornography. That's right -- you'll have to be something of a journalist. Because that's what encylopedia entries are about: chronicles of *persons*, not clearinghouses of information that is largely a Google search away. You want to give people a reason to come specifically to Wikipedia, and a CV (that's curriculum vitae) is not one of them. Take a look at her AskMen profile, for example. It has names and dates, but it also condenses a lot of minutiae.

Lastly, a rule of thumb: When you find yourself citing the month of each year in question, and even specific days, your level of detail is too high. Scale it down a bit. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who knows nothing about Ozawa and is curious about *who* she is and what makes her distinctive enough to be in Wikipedia.

The next day, that person won't recall all the names of these studios, or what she did in a specific month of a particular year. If they don't remember it, it's really not worth mapping out here. Let Google do the legwork, because otherwise the article is a struggle to read. Stonedonkey (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood types in Japanese culture Nar Matteru (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all porn actors treated as notable on Wikipedia? It's always confused me. Syntacticus (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

umm they aren't "all" treated as notable. Nar Matteru (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There are an awful lot of them listed. Syntacticus (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... a lot is far from being all.....

Mansion?

[edit]

living in a mansion (a high-class apartment)

That doesn't sound right to me, surely masionette? Wiki says a mansion is: "Mansion, a very large detached house" well a flat isn't... Maisonette sounds more suited "Maisonette: an apartment / flat on two levels with internal stairs, or which has its own entrance at street level."

Sources: List of house types —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.150.196 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mansion" in Japan, corresponds roughly to "condominium," or "luxury apartment" in the US, depending on whether it is owned or leased. I believe the Japanese took the word from the French usage rather than the English. Or so I have been told. Perhaps this is why the previous editor italicized the word. Doesn't help with uniformity on Wikipedia, however. RNavigator (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how valuable and scarce land is there its no wonder they use a different definition Nar Matteru (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ummmm....no it doesn't. Mansion is just the word in Japanese for any apartment building over a few stories high, and in no way implies "luxury" or "high-class". It was originally used as a marketing term by realty companies to seperate their private buildings from the government-built danchi apartments, but it has become a universal term in modern Japanese. MightyAtom (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is really relevant; it's simply a mistake to use the word "mansion" in English to mean マンション. Hell, why not say she lives in a "my home?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.181.53.183 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr account

[edit]

Is this a personal Flickr account or one that someone else set up?

http://flickr.com/people/miss_satomisan/

76.91.29.243 (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your support —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.151.250 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.93.186 (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Maria Ozawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for links to her promotional websites etc. But surely people coming here are interested in finding out correct information about her rather than following the numerous fake accounts dedicated to her elsewhere on line?

Is it not worth retaining the official links and allowing new ones? I posted these some time ago and they were all removed.

She has now become a major mainstream entertainment star in Asia (post AV), yet you would not know it reading this wikipedia page. For example, here she is giving a TEDX talk in the Philippines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkJotoAwR5A — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectSpam (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maria Ozawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maria Ozawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maria Ozawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Ozawa&oldid=1240083245"