Jump to content

Talk:Anna Tsuchiya

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

Name

[edit]

From where came that her real name was Anna Marie Heider Tsuchiya? 201.223.13.236 01:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing German/Swiss/Austrian mother, Japanese father. Chris 21:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't someone put up the idea of her father being Russian and mother being Japanese long time ago? K61824 (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's Japanese from mother's side and Russian-American from father's side. I've put up a reference to clear this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.66.167 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the source posted on her article she said her dad was an American from Buffalo, New York but his ancestry is Polish-Irish. She also said she gets mistaken for being half Russian, even by Russians (She visited the country before and that happened). She also said many people in Russia have the name Anna or "Anya" but in her blood is Polish and Irish. The guys who interviewed her are Polish too and they even said, "Hey, were Polish too!" So that info about her dad being Russian-American is incorrect.--Brilliantstring (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Says her mother is Japanese and her father is of Irish and Polish descent? Good grief, in other words she's half Japanese and half white.

ANNA's father is not Russian!!! or russo-american

[edit]

Anna's father is American with polish and Irish roots! It is a common mistake to assume he is Russian he is not. Anna's mopther is japanese

"ロシアに行った時もよく間違われたんだ。 アンナって名前もロシア人に多いみたいで“アーニャ、アーニャ”って呼ばれたの。でもアンナは、アイリッシュとポーリッシュの血が入ってるの"

from an interview with anna, this information is corect on the japanese wiki version! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovidian (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanglish :)

[edit]

Yes, that's what the article feels like IMO. Like a Japanese text machine-translated from English, then humanly corrected. The results are always supposed to be so-so. -andy 217.50.51.220 (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"a massive woman weighing 134 pounds at 5 ft 7 in" - somehow based on that sentence alone I have to agree with you. Repeter (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weight references in Controversy section

[edit]

{{3O}}

These references seem totally irrelevant to this article. Without any explanation as to why her not disliking 'over weight' people is controversial (I'm having a hard time imagining what that argument could be), the whole discussion seems tacked on and does not add anything pertinent to the article. I noticed there has been an edit war over this going back several months, but there is no discussion here, so I'm adding this note to explain why I'm removing the discussion of weight.Coffee joe (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Straight Gonzalez said in edit summary, "Rv, Seemingly no valid reason for removing cited material has been given on Talk:Anna Tsuchiya#Weight references in Controversy section."

The fact that it's cited is irrelevant. The fact the what is cited is irrelevant is relevant. What does Anna's favorite musician have to do with the question of whether she is mean or nice? Furthermore, what does that musician's height and weight have to do with that question? Beyond that, why is it relevant to the article that the person quoted as saying that she is kind thought it relevant to specify that she's also nice to 'bigger' women? That is more illuminating about the speaker's thoughts about women's weight than it is about Anna's. I submit that just because some person randomly vocalizes their own projections in passing is not sufficient grounds to deem it encyclopedic material. That is why i removed the piece of the paraphrase of the quote that seemed more Freudian than not. The material I removed adds nothing to the article - in fact has nothing to do with the article. That is a valid reason.

Straight Gonzalez, on reviewing your edit history on this article, I see two trends. First, you seem to feel that you have the right to unilaterally decide what belongs in this article even when your edits are consistently reverted by different people. Please consider that the consensus may be right. Second, your edits seem to be, more often than not, weight centric. If this is a topic that interests you, then perhaps you should shift your focus to an article about weight issues, or start your own blog. But Wikipedia in general is not a forum for the topic of your choosing. Also, Wikipedia is not your soapbox from which to proclaim that a 134 lbs woman is extremely heavy or, as you wrote in a previous revision [1], massive. Don't like 'fat' people? No one said you had to. Just keep it on your personal blog.Coffee joe (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no consensus has been established, and we are not reliable sources. You cannot interpret primary sources without secondary sources supporting your interpretation. It's not our business. In this case, if Sayaka Aoki, a notable person, referred to Anna's favorite singer as a "big woman", mentioning the singer's body specs, on a notable media - so then we should explain it without any original interpretation. Plain and simple. Straight Gonzalez (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point entirely and distorting facts. In the first place, I did not publish any original research. In fact, I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics are required to make that conclusion based on the fact that I simply removed an irrelevant excerpt. But moving past that red herring, the main point here is that it doesn't matter what the source of the reference is because what is being referenced is not pertinent to the subject of the article in any way shape or form, and you have yet to make an argument to the contrary. Here as in your edit summaries you simply fall back on the fact that you have a source to support what you're saying. If that were the standard, anyone could insert any non sequitur into any article at any time as long as they sited a source of some kind. By your logic, if I found a quote from a 'notable person' published in 'notable media' that said Anna like to eat SpaghettiOs for breakfast it would be acceptable to tack that into the controversy section as well regardless of context, or for that matter into an article about cats. Why not, right? After all, it's sourced. Coffee joe (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're missing the point entirely and distorting facts. The point is not that if the "excerpt" is sufficient enough to be used in the article or not. The point is, you have removed a sourced material with your arbitrary interpretation considering the material as an "irrelevant excerpt". We, Wikipedians, are not authorities, not reliable sources. So when we refer to a source, we use it without any original interpretation. If the source indicates that "she has been referred to as a very good-hearted and open-minded person even in treating bigger women", then we write "she has been referred to as a very good-hearted and open-minded person even in treating bigger women", not "she has been referred to as a very good-hearted and open-minded person". And when the other source associates it with her favorite person and the person's size, we directly write it - or like "Sayaka Aoki has also considered Tsuchiya to be "very open-minded" because one of Tsuchiya's favorite musicians is a "massive woman", Lecca, a reggae singer weighing 134 pounds at 5 ft 7 in.". We should consider that this is a BLP article which requires a high degree of sensitivity. Straight Gonzalez (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a 3rd opinion to help sort this out. I believe my argument about relevancy is sound and you have not yet responded to it further than writing it off as arbitrary. First, if a sound argument for an opinion is offered I don't believe it can be considered arbitrary. Second, the burden of proof of relavency is that of the party arguing in favor. So while I did offer my reasoning, I didn't need to and you still have yet to. I'm leaving the article as is ATM while we wait for the dispute resolution ball to get rolling. BTW, the ref for the Aoki quote is a dead link. Coffee joe (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

Third opinion here: I'm new to the third opinion process so I'm not going to weigh in directly, but I hope I can help by explaining my views on the policies that seem to be at the crux of the issue. Famous people say a lot of things, these are no doubt verifiable but are they notable? The proper standard is rather elegantly laid out in the rarely-cited WP:LSC, specifically WP:LSC#Common_selection_criteria. I am not the expert that the page editors are about the subject matter, but to me it would seem that if a matter is not part of the notability of the subject, either in a contributory way or in a core way, then it's not notable. I would almost compare it to an issue of undue weight- attaching tangential views of an article subject needlessly makes it appear as if they are known FOR those views or BECAUSE of those views, not that they merely HOLD these views. So I would encourage the above editors to restart the debate, with a focus on whether these views, which the subject undoubtedly has, are significant to her biography in a notable way 65.29.47.55 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent third opinion, IMO. – Athaenara ✉ 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've already explained why I don't belive the material in question is notable. Straight Gonzalez, can you please explain why you believe it is? Coffee joe (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth opinion here: I removed the controversial part (that was also irrelevant), because Gonzalez's only point was that it was "properly cited", but the cited source does not exist. This is a BLP, and without a source that works, it was improper to keep it if it was controversial. I still worry about other "weight" issues in this article - like where it states that she made fun of the overweight models - the two given have nothing on their pages about being overweight, and both look very skinny. Plus, I don't think there was a source for either of those girls being "heavy", so I think maybe we should remove that as well, but I'm going to wait until I get another opinion about that. Barbiegurl676 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth opinion. I agree with Coffee Joe and further agree with Barbiegurl676. Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, so the editor's role is to present relevant information about a topic, rather than presenting irrelevant information just because it can be sourced. The whole bio contains far too much about weight issues. As such and following the opinions of both Barbiegurl676 and Coffee Joe, I will now make two edits to the modeling section on the following grounds, and I'll mark the changes clearly in the history such that if anyone feels the need to undo them or tweak them later, they can.

Change 1. The second and third paragraphs contain a long list of unnecessary quotes. The sentence "According to Tsuchiya, many models would mock her [for being overweight]" provides the necessary information for a biography and should someone wish to see examples from what seems to be a dubious tabloid media source (Hot Express), they can click to the reference. Putting a list of quotes in the bio itself serves no purpose. As things stand, the source reference no longer exists anyway, so those quotes can't be proven. The following paragraph, a sentence by Tsuchiya also has no verifiable source, so I suggest that unless someone can find a new source, these are cut.

Change 2. The passage on Jessica Michibata has two issues, firstly, it is unverified opinion that Tsuchiya is "The only mixed-race model history to achieve professional success". Second, the line about Michibata's work belongs in a Michibata bio, not a Tsuchiya bio. Readyforlara (talk 06:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

[edit]

There's no information regarding Resident Evil: Damnation's "Carry On". 200.106.101.213 (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy?

[edit]

She told a newspaper she sometimes gets drunk. How is that a controversy? Does someone say she doesn't get drunk (which would technically make the statement controversial, but boring)? 133.6.153.29 (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anna Tsuchiya. 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 18:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anna Tsuchiya. 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) 17:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Tsuchiya. 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) 21:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anna_Tsuchiya&oldid=1258757441"