Talk:Bianca Beauchamp

All Access
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)

Regarding expansion request
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)


 * How's that? Also, I'm thinking, the pic on the page isn't really representative - she's mostly known for modelling in latex, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a pic of her in that? Magazine covers are fair use, she's been on plenty of those. BobThePirate 20:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Great job! As for the pic, if you can find a magazine cover, I would much rather use that than the image already on the page. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I found this one - http://latexlover.net/bianca/img/bianca_beauchamp_cover2.jpg - which is more "in character" and of a suitable type, but it's maybe just a little bit small at 200 wide. Might do though, what do you think? BobThePirate 16:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I found a larger one to the Marquis cover: http://www.biancabeauchamp.com/img/magazines/marquis32_med.jpg. If that doesn't cut it, here's an alternative: http://www.biancabeauchamp.com/img/magazines/sk2_med.jpg. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. I have to say, I only discovered Ms Beauchamp the other day whilst googling - but oh my god, she must surely be the hottest woman on the face of the Earth! I'm wondering if there is anything else that can go in the article... a list of magazine appearences, maybe? I don't know where you'd find that info though. BobThePirate 22:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a list on her website, actually. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 11:50, 17 November 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)


 * Much of the information in earlier versions of this article were appropriate for her Website bio (i.e. her fan club) but not an encyclopedia article. Information like the fact that she wanted to be a veterinarian as a child and the age she began dating just don't belong in an encyclopedia.  The information on her choice of major/meeting her husband/school/internship was very choppy and confusing so I made it flow like a latex catsuit.


 * I disagree. The point is to describe her life, and that's what it did. I have restored some - not all - of the missing information, but by manually inserting it rather than reverting. Hopefully this will be a reasonable compromise? BobThePirate 18:49, 1 December 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)


 * she is. trust me. i've seen.. err stuff. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  17:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I'll consider that a second and edit the main page. BTW, I was refering to the stuff about "she claims to be bisexual" and "soi disant bisexual." I think in an effort to compress my thoughts I left that out. Thanks Emoticon 21:09, 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)
 * Nice to hear that somebody else is as offended by that as much as I am. I don't think it's really a 'controversy' per se, but some rogue wikipedian who hasn't seen the videos on her site :) Emoticon 20:03, 24 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)

Fair use
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)

Sexual Photograph
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 would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored for minors. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:22, 8 May 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)

More images?
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)
 * ?!? The link to her official photographer is still there. TheMindsEye 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right it is there, I remeber the older version on the page and it had more links, I looked into the history and it was gone. I am not sure why people keep taking links out.--Margrave1206 16:51, 17 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)

Piercings?
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)

Primary sources box
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)