This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article states that the movie "is slated for a wide release in North America on January 29, 2008". Shouldn't that be updated? Unfortunately I don't know anything about it. 84.182.82.66 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone would be so kind as to refer to Bianca's biographies and summarize them, that would be nice. Just do a google search. Here's a link to get anyone who is interested started on the right track: http://www.biancabeauchamp.com/bio.html. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 04:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Somebody has chopped a load of stuff out of the article - why? Unless there's a reason, I think it should be reverted to the previous edit. BobThePirate 20:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
And now the same thing has been done by Ghosts&empties again, with the tag that s/he is "improving the flow". Improving the flow means rewording what's there to read better, not deleting several paragraphs worth of information. And the user seems reluctant to discuss his/her motives on this page for some reason. To revert or not to revert... BobThePirate 21:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Looks good! However, you'll forgive me if I rant a little bit about sexual orientation. Though her site is not hardcore, she does things many men would certainly like to do with women, which, while not penetrative, have a sexual dimension. It's implying that hers is a case of unconsummated bisexual chic, or (not accusing anybody here) that being in a committed relationship with a man magically purges you of your previous sexual character. According to a friend of mine who's a married bi woman, women like her get that a lot! I'm sort of inclined to believe that if she says she's bi, then she is. What do you think? Emoticon 16:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand how her sexuality can be a matter of controversy. She states that she is bisexual in her own biography on her website. Surely she's the only person on Earth who knows what gender(s) she is actually attracted to! How can anybody else possibly argue with it, it would be like saying they know what goes on in her head better than she does. I'm genuinely puzzled by that attitude! BobThePirate 15:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to make this article seem a bit more professional by re-wording the hair colour Jackpot Den 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Reverted an IMHO senseless paragraph deletion and added some requested references. The last one I will hopefully be able to contribute soon too. Rikapt 10:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems we yet again have people trying to make out she's not bisexual - removing the tags from the article on the basis that it's not mentioned there. She IS bisexual and says so openly. If you want to edit, add it to the article! In fact on further investigation the source code lists her as bisexual AND gives a reference for this (http://www.latexlair.com/diary/entry_march0999.html), but for some reason it won't show up in the article. I guess I don't know enough about templates to work out why not... anybody help? BobThePirate (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the image as not fair use. The magazine appearance isn't covered in the article in a non-trivial way.
brenneman {L} 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed some links per the guideline. - brenneman {L} 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the current picture is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is far too sexual and obviously intended to arouse. As a concerned mother of three, I feel that this far too sexual picture should be removed. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.240.77.169 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored.--64.121.58.43 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The web is a dangerous place, dont let your kids to surf the net if you have fear of a pair of breasts, they could kill'em.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.14.44 (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
plz sign your post--The real rj (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what picture you want us to use, give her name a quick google, almost all are sexual. She's an "erotic model," It'd be like posting an image of mister rogers without his sweater and sneaks on. Spacew00t (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The article needs more images and more info. However it is very good, though why did the picture change? Why do people make changes without a good reason. Wiki is now being censored?--Margrave1206 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Wiki is not censored. The photo change was made by the photographer himself. TheMindsEye 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This article has been through several different images of Ms Beauchamp. They keep getting removed as being non fair use. I've long ago stopped bothering to try and work out what counts as fair use in the minds of wikipedians myself, so I just have fun watching them come and go lately. This one's lasted quite a while now! BobThePirate 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Also they took the link down to her official photographer. We people change things it would be nice to say why.--Margrave1206 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
And the image goes once again. Wikipedia's image policy is truly laughable. Does anybody out there know how to have an image that *won't* get deleted? BobThePirate 17:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ms. Beauchamp has a number of piercings that I believe are of note.
I believe there should be a list of her piercings cause they seem to have an effect on what type of posing she does.
She may exploit her nipple piercings in one photo set and her vaginal piercong in the next.
Anyway I think we should include the list. AD Double J 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Who can remove the info box from requesting more primary sources? Is there an official process for it?
Per SELFPUB for an established article, under further conditions, selfpublished sources are acceptable.Rikapt (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)