Talk:Keeley Hazell/Archive 1

Needs references
Some things in the article needs some support or evidence; for example, how could her art teacher have told her that her breast size was too smal; when they aren't (at all); and I doubt they could have grown so fast, considering she's still very young. Also, why would her art teacher make that kind of comment to begin with?

Response: Maybe the art teacher needed a suitable life model.

Keeley's Marriage?
This is supprising news for me, when and where did this happen?. Any link's would be helpful.

MySpace?
Not that I really have any idea... but should a link to a myspace page really be on here? I mean... it's definitely not the only one that is supposedly "her" myspace page. Can anyone be sure which (if any) of them are real? If not, it doesn't seem the article should link to any of them.


 * The one that is linked IS real, AFAIK. She posted the link at a friend and fellow model's message forums. Crv1 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...
Oh, she TOTALLED her Mini Cooper did she geezer? oh right, corr blimey! Totalled it, corr! Spunko2010 00:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarity to other net articles
The following is from zipperfish.com. I don't know whether zipperfish ripped off wikipedia or wikipedians ripped off zipperfish, or they both ripped off someone else.

"Keeley Hazell was born in Lewisham, London, United Kingdom and raised in nearby Bromley. She attended the Ravensbourne School in Bromley. At 16, Hazell left school to work at a hairdresser. Her colleagues persuaded her to try her luck at modeling. At 17, she competed in The Daily Star's "Search for a Beach Babe" contest and won. She later quit hairdressing and enrolled at Lewisham College to start a City & Guilds in fashion, but was not there for very long. Later in the year, she submitted photos to The Sun's Page 3 Idol competition. She became a favourite of many readers and was later chosen the winner. She won £10,000 worth of clothes. Also, three cast sculptures were made of her bust by sculptor Leigh Heppell. Two are in the Sun offices and one is in her house.

Also part of Hazell's Page 3 Idol win was a 1-year exclusivity contract with The Sun. She is now being handled by Jon Fowler, who also manages Kelly Brook. Hazell went on to become one of the most popular Page 3 girls in the The Sun and appeared in lads' mags such as Loaded and Zoo. She also had her own 2006 wall calendar and was on the cover of The Sun's 2006 Page 3 calendar.

Keeley Hazell on the cover of a photo book included with the 16-29 December 2005 issue of Zoo (UK) In September 2005, Playboy offered Hazell a chance to be a Playmate, but she declined. "I was very flattered, but it's not something I feel comfortable doing, so don't hold your breath," she told The Sun's online Page 3 magazine, 3zine, in October 2005. In the 31 March-6 April 2006 issue of Zoo, it was announced that Hazell would be posing exclusively for the magazine (though she will continue to appear in The Sun and has since appeared in FHM, which, like Zoo, is owned by EMAP).

Hazell had a small role in the full-length version of Cashback, playing "Naked Girl" (the film is set to have a 2006 release). Since then, she has wanted to do more acting. She has been attending drama school (in addition to studying psychology). She is currently putting together a showreel. Although not truly acting, Keeley will become the face of the Formula One '06 video game for PlayStation 2 and PlayStation Portable, and also presumably for PlayStation 3. She told interviewers that "The British Grand Prix is my first opportunity to see Formula One cars in action and I can't wait. Fast cars and boys - what more could a girl want...?""


 * They obviously ripped it from Wikipedia. A lot of sites do that, unfortunately. Crv1 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use images

 * Read WP:FU the images are ok under "Fair use" on article pages but not for decoration on user pages.--Bonafide.hustla 06:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't have a copyright tag on it, so it'll be deleted on the 9th. Crv1 07:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's possible that we can find an image that we can legitimately claim fair use on, but the current one just isn't it. We need to have pinpoint source information and a strong fair use justification. -- Cyde Weys 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There has to be a publicity photograph of her somewhere. -- Cyde Weys 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Playboy, December 2006
Earlier I removed a bit about her being in the December 2006 edition of Playboy. I was wrong, she's in there. It's one picture of her in a bikini and a bit of text. It's not really worth mentioning in the article. They could have just grabbed a publicity photo and had the text from a 5 minute phone interview. Dismas|(talk) 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

UK v. England
Okay, there's this big edit war going on over the first sentence, where both sides are claiming vandalism. 1. What's the major reason behind these reverts? 2. What's the point? Since England is part of the UK, there shouldn't be any problems with the UK. Of course it could just be annoying anon users being vandals, but I think something else is going on. --Wizardman 16:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the history, some anon user has been mass reverting all British people into English. (promoting Scotland independence? I don't know) Someone came up with the idea of UK as a way of compromise but different anon users continues to revert for whatever reason.--Certified.Gangsta 21:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an acceptable use of a fair use image
The image Image:18682256.jpg doesn't seem to be being used according to the fair use criteria with its inclusion on this article. According to the tag (film-screenshot) on the image page, it may only be used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents," the film being Cashback. Unless anyone can point me to something that I'm missing, I'll remove it soon (and if I forget, someone please do it for me.) Picaroon9288 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are insinuating that an image on Wikipedia constitutes obscenity or child pornography, then say so.  Point to the image and I will see for myself.  Blanket statements serve no purpose here.  This is an adult encyclopedia which is not censored.  If Orphanbot didn't remove it, then it is okay. Overzealous in removing pics degrade articles. Thanks, and whoever who upload it. Thanks again. The pic is great.--Certified.Gangsta 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm completely aware that wikipedia is not censored; I've pointed people to that link several times myself. I am not objecting to the content of the image. I think the image, Image:18682256.jpg, isn't being used per Wikipedia's Fair use guidelines. If you look at the image tag, (film-screenshot), it states that the image may only be used for "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents." In other words, the image may not be used on any page except for the article about the movie (or, concievably, subsections of the article that have been split into separate articles.) Because of this, I have removed the image. Picaroon9288 03:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Keeley obviously is part of the film, so she is part of the content. --Certified.Gangsta 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, based on the statement "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television," I thought that it only referred to pages directly related to the movie, not related to biographies of the cast. I'll go seek verification of this. Picaroon9288 20:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Britain Vs. England
First the compromise Wizardman proposed is factually wrong. Keeley isn't from London. If you check the history of this page, my version was already a compromise [], so I will definitely defend this version against other POV pushers with bad faith. Guardian's edits are all part of his anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign. I highly doubt if he really cares about the subject, all he does is reverting all of my edits everywhere and a look at his contributions prove my point. We shouldn't give in to sockpuppets and edits based on personal vendetta.--Certified.Gangsta 01:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely if she was born in Lewisham (postcode SE13) and lives in Grove Park (SE12) or Docklands (E1 or E11, or possibly other E postcodes) then she's undisputably from London, as her birthplace and both known residental addresses fall into London postal districts, and London Borough. 213.131.119.163 11:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * has provided no argument for his edits but shown bad faith specious claims of "POV pushing" for a content dispute. Certified.Gangsta's claim to "defend this version" shows bad faith and an unwillingness to compromise. See Certified.Gangsta's contributions for details. Guardian Tiger
 * Well Cert, if Keeley's not from London, then why does it say she's from Lewisham, London, England? I figured it'd be best to not even have it in the lead because it's already mentioned in the box and the first main paragraph. Besides, with the sex tape leak there's more iportant things to worry about with the article now.-- Wizardman 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a sex tape leak involving Keeley? That's crazy.--Certified.Gangsta 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Was?
"The video was shot while the couple was on holiday in Tenerife the previous summer, on or about 30 May."

Was shot whilst the couple was on holiday?

Which Mockney Geezer wrote that then? :P


 * Sorry. In America, we would say "the couple was." It's one couple. Obviously, the grammar rules are different elsewhere. Crv1 11:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a singular compound noun, dumbass. Learn English before you make a fool of yourself.

Modeling vs. modelling
People — this is a US vs. UK spelling distinction. See the relevant entry from the Compact OED, which says (in the UK version): (modelled, modelling; US modeled, modeling). Since the article is about a British person, UK spelling should be used, and the edit war stops now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that was easy enough. I concede then.-- Wizardman 06:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add a hidden note about it so people know that it isn't a typo. Picaroon 15:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

New images
Thanks for uploading pictures of Miss Hazell. Unfortunately, she is clothed. I'm not exactly an expert on fair-use images. Is there any chance that a topless image of hers can be found (adhere the copyright rule on wiki)? It will definitely provide a better visual representation of this model.--Certified.Gangsta 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pervert :P. Seriously though, there is one already, and although Wikipedia is not censored for minors, at the same time nude pics I would think would be very hard to claim fair use on seeing as how one exists. -- Wizardman 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no pictures of Keeley Hazell in this article. I suggest uploading some very nice pics from here, or at least put this link in the article so people know what she looks like.
 * We had some up, alas they got deleted. I like the irony that everyone calls fair use images "replaceable" yet we can't find one so far. I'll try and find a promo shot, but don't expect any images up here, sorry. I wish we coul dhave som eup, but oh well.-- Wizardman 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image gallery link is necessary
An external link to an image gallery, such as http://dailyniner.com/keeleyhazell4.shtml, is crucial for this article. Those images are the very reason why Keeley Hazell is notable and famous, so if links to image galleries are not allowed (WP:EL does not even mention images), then this article has no reason to exist.--Schwartsky 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We are here to write an encyclopedia article about Hazell, not provide pictures to her fans and anyone else interested (images.google.com is thataways.) With regards to you "no reason to exist" statement, the article exists because she's a notable person. Plus, there are plenty of images on her official website (which is an appropriate link) and in the references. I have yet to see you,, or any of the other users who have supported more image links explain how they actually add to the encyclopedia article, as opposed to just being a sort of wiki-fan service. Thank you for wording your comment civilly, however. Picaroon 20:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Breast size measurements
Any know the breast size and measurements in centimeter and inchs. this are correct? Keeley Hazell Measurements —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.3.223.208 (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * That site is likely a mirror, seeing as the content duplicates what this article says, and this article isn't a copyvio. Picaroon 20:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeley Hazell
I have added a "" template to the article Keeley Hazell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bluestripe 14:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the prod tag. Just look through the modelling section as well as the polls and honours section and maybe you'll understand why I removed the tag.  Someone who appears this regularly in various notable publications is notable.   Go ahead and take it to WP:AFD but I bet it will be kept.  Dismas |(talk) 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone removed the picture. Anyone who visits this page and sees her picture will immediately understand why she is so undeniably ultra-famous. Aesthetics trump size any day. 75.24.212.48 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The images have been removed because they were copyright violations. The refs and external links have plents of photos. Picaroon 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should add this picture: Image:Keeley FHM Cover.jpg. It's not a copyright violation because it's already on the wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.210.78 (talk • contribs).

Description of contents of private sex tape
The Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons states (under Presumption in favor of privacy):

"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

Why does the fact that someone made a sex tape that was subsequently leaked onto the internet legitimize giving a clinical description of their sexual activities in Wikipedia? Is anyone's sex life fair game for such treatment? After all, anyone could potentially have an ex-partner who might decide for whatever reason to blog about what would normally be considered private activities. While I can well imagine that some readers of the article on Ms. Hazell might be curious about the contents of her sex tape, I don't believe that it is Wikipedia's job to edify them in this regard. Is there any reason why going into the details of the sex tape should not be regarded as a violation of the Presumption in favor of privacy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.20.69 (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We are all here to write a “comprehensive” encyclopedia. I have the sense that your only objection is not because of the notability of the incident, but the sexual nature of the description. Well, for your information, wikipedia is not censored for minors. In fact, the sex tape scandal is a big part of Miss Hazell’s notoriety and fame. Privacy also is not an issue as the sex tape was released for public viewing and can be found all over the internet. Please stop unilaterally delete article contents simply because you don't like them or find them to be offensive to you.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And how does the description of the contents of the tape improve the article? I can see said description being present in an article on the tape itself, but not in Keeley's article. Besides, look at the article for Pamela Anderson who has perhaps the most famous celebrity sex tape of them all... all it says is "A pornographic home video of Anderson and Tommy Lee on their honeymoon was stolen from their home, and made a huge stir on the Internet." That's it. So I would say the tape details come out. Tabercil (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have called an end to unilateral reverts. You, Tabercil, choose to ignore my gesture of goodwill. I’m sick of repeating this. We are all here to write a “comprehensive” encyclopedia. Tabercil, I’m not sure if you’re the same person as the IP above, but it is obvious that you have a problem with the sexual nature of the description. In fact, there are many loads of trivial details in this and every single article on wikipedia that does NOT, in your brilliant opinion, “improve” the articles. For example, how is “as a teenager, Hazell was a frequent truant and stayed out late on school nights drinking. She confesses to having only taken five GCSE examinations due to being ejected from several of them; however, she did well in mathematics” relevant to Hazell’s notoriety? How is smashing her mini coooper into a lamp post improving the article? How is Joe Cole getting beat up improving the article? If we deleted all these contents; however, this article would be destroyed. I fail to see how this has to do with the Pamela article. Wikipedia does not self-reference, so there is no point of drawing a parallel. If you have a problem with the current version, feel free to pursue dispute resolutions, although I doubt content dispute is part of their scope.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am not Tabercil. Also, I don't agree that privacy is not an issue. The tape was released without the consent of at least one of the participants, and not everyone on planet Earth has downloaded and viewed it so far. I have nothing against sex, my concern is the invasion of privacy that has occurred, and how Wikipedia might be contributing to that. Furthermore, I don't see your point about unilateral edits. Most Wikipedia edits are unilateral. This content was added unilaterally, deleted unilaterally, and then added back unilaterally. The real question is which edits are consistent with Wikipedia policy. I haven't seen any arguments yet that convince me that the description of the sex tape contents is appropriate. 128.218.20.69 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Believe me, if I edit, it is a logged in account, not as an anonymous IP. All editing as an IP would do is leave me open to sockpuppet charges as well as deny me access to the admin tools. And believe me, I have no objection about the sexual nature of the description... I am a member of WikiProject Pornography after all. 
 * But on a more serious note, I honestly don't see how the details of the sex tape improve this article. An article about the sex tape by itself, yes I can see how the information could and perhaps should be useful. But in Keeley's article? Tabercil (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference not working
at the start of the bio page their is a part that talks about her gcse's and stuff. but the reference does not work at the moment and when i did try it their is nothing about keeley their at all get some new references about that please or it will get deleted  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.205 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see why you were removing them. I'll find the old link on archive.org and try and fix the dead link. Wizardman  21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Link fixed. Wizardman  21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New sex tape
is there any truth to this at all, google is bringing up nothing and it isnt cited.... then again trying to find anything about keeley on the Internet is impossible without getting a barrage of her old tape

xoxxo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.129.5 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sex tape

 * Can anyone confirm this with a reliable source? It seems a little bit... fake to me, especially considering how recent it is. JuJube 00:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the vids everyone's posting probably doesn't count, huh :P I would think by tomorrow there'd be a news source on it, I'll kep an eye out for one.-- Wizardman 00:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't watch porno and don't know Keeley Hazell from Adam. (I came to this page because someone on a message board I post to linked to the WP page).  I'm just saying it's a little odd. JuJube 00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel this should probably not be on the page until a news source comes out with the story. JuJube 09:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just google it in future... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.48.138 (talk • contribs)
 * I did and found nothing. Still don't.  Thanks for the link. Now I won't be kidnapped. JuJube 11:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The video exists, I've seen it, it's really graphic and incredibly hot. Finally all of Keeley is revealed to her fans.
 * I read she has sex with her bra on. Who does that?!  I thought it only happened on Law & Order. JuJube 06:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that it's something she never wanted released, and which has violated her wishes and privacy, not to mention knowing that someone has betrayed her in the most awful way. My symapthy goes out to her.  Toby Douglass 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that for some, they very much want to watch the video, and so are naturally inclined to believe stories which would justify watching, which would mean they were not in fact violating Ms. Hazel's privacy and wishes by doing so. As such, stories which would justify doing so are rapidly and unquestioningly believed ("it's a publicity stunt, she did it on purpose, so she WANTS me to watch it") and the possibility that it is in fact something which has devestated her is considered only with the small effort required to scoff and dismiss that which does not want to be believed. In this matter, where something so utterly private and personal is involved, the utmost care is required of us in our behaviour. As such, it is necessary to err as far as possible on the side of caution. I think only officially published pornography can truly be known to be willing published by the perfomer; anything else, unless the individual in question actually states it was deliberate, must be set aside. Any other behaviour will lead to exploitation on the part of those who would willing publish such material, probably for money and without the permission of the individual in question, since it will be known that there will be a market. Toby Douglass 10:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Women are usually much more honest than men give them credit for. Keeley's initial emotional response was genuine. 75.24.212.48 20:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, please read WP:FORUM twice. Salaskan 11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * you can view this vidshit here http://www.greenshines.com/downloads/flv.php?file=keeley.flv

I download this vid time ago...whithin caps of paper "sunday sport" january,14 2007 ..About this paper, the vid was filmed at Mallorca. I am spanish. Mallorca IS NOT Tenerife. It seems that they sold video to sundaysport.tv. Pls,excuse my ugly english —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * In October 2007 FHM Spain edition, Keeley Hazell stated: "I have promised that I will be a virgin until the day of my marriage" ("He prometido mantenerme virgen hasta el dia de mi boda"). I want to note that the sex tape was released at the beginning of year 2007 before that Keeley stated this, and also I want to note that no intercourse was shown in the video. We should probably add this Keeley's statement to her wikipedia article in order to clean her honor. For your reference: Last photo of this page --213.4.45.139 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nudity?
Do we really need visible nipples in the images? There's lots of perfectly good non-nude images to use.

-Yes, that was a great pic! She has beautiful breasts, thats why you know she exists. Without those tits she would be a nobody. Now some lameo feminist lawyer type has removed the pic. Shame on you!


 * If everyone's unhappy about the image that's there, whether it's the magazine cover or the calendar pic, we need to agree on something that CAN be put there. Crv1 22:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are insinuating that an image on Wikipedia constitutes obscenity or child pornography, then say so.  Point to the image and I will see for myself.  Blanket statements serve no purpose here.  This is an adult encyclopedia which is not censored.  Thanks, and whoever who upload it. Thanks again. The pic is great.--Bonafide.hustla 04:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly didn't insinuate anything, if you're talking to me. We've been back and forth between the calendar pic that's up now, the FHM magazine cover, or nothing. "Dismas" doesn't think the FHM magazine cover falls under Fair Use (I don't know why it doesn't). I don't think the calendar pic falls under "Fair Use" rules. The nudity aspect is not my objection. You can't just put whatever image you want up. And another thing about the current image. It has no copyright tag. So it will likely be deleted in several days, anyway.Crv1 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is my name in quotes? Am I ficticious?  Anyway, I didn't remove the pic because I don't think it falls under fair use, I removed it because many other instances of magazine cover shots being used as main images in info boxes have been removed before in other articles.  I don't agree with it but that's the way the fair use rules are.  It's the same as if we were using a screenshot of her in a particular film.  The screenshot is depicting the film first of all, so it can only be used when commenting about the film, not necessarily the actor/actress in that film.  As I've been told before, magazine covers can only be used if that issue of the magazine is being discussed in a critical commentary sort of way.  Dismas|(talk) 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the recent addition of a topless pic of Hazell, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars/Archive 1. The editors over at WikiProject Porn stars have basically agreed not to use nude photos.  As well as that, in discussions with other editors I have come to the conclusion that many feel that while it's true that Wikipedia isn't censored, it doesn't need to have nudity for the sake of nudity.  Articles like breast, penis, and clitoris are expected to have pictures of those things, articles on people don't require them in the same way.  There is an expectation to see nudity at those articles while just clicking on someone's name doesn't necessarily carry that same expectation.  Dismas|(talk) 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keeley is definitely not a "porn star". Degrading in such a way is extremely insulting. The topless pic of Miss Hazell is called a photographic art. Of course, you would not question a topless statue of the Greek Goddess Aphrodite.


 * Yeah, right. And "Christina Model" is innocent as an angel. Keeley openly admits that she is famous because of her large breasts and the titillation it causes. (http://www.break.com/movies/keeleyhazellnude.html) Sex sells, and she's selling it, not art. That her fame is directly related, not to talent, but to sexually stimulating topless photographs qualifies her as a porn star. Google her name. You'll see her in a line up with any number of porn stars, but you will not see topless statues of Greek gods in that line-up. --legolasegb 18:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Large breast is what Keeley represents so people shouldn't be too surprised to be a topless pic in her bio. And you can hardly call her a porn star. Page 3 girls are not porn stars. Keeley is the role model of a lot of girls across the world and the person they strive to become. Blanket statements serve no purpose here. This is an adult encyclopedia which is not censored. --Bonafide.hustla 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Being a role model does not ipso facto set anyone above the possibility of being a porn star or worse. Furthermore, Keeley's fame hinges on large breasts, which is totally different than representing "large breast." Speaking of censoring, my last post was deleted by you, Bonafide, so don't talk to me of not censoring.--legolasegb 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored is an official policy. YOur last post was deleted on the ground because it seems to be disruptive and did not contribute to the purpose of the talkpage (especially because it came from a IP address rather than a registered user) good thing you decided to register. Modelling is in fact a form of art, I suggest you go search for the definition of art. A clothed pic of her could not represent her fully. In addition, topless pictures does not qualify her as a porn-star. Page 3 girls are every girl's dream, how can you degrade them as porn stars?? Having large breasts is not a crime, it is not something you should be ashame of, it is something to be proud of. The saddest thing is people who doesn't have breasts or don't like breasts then disregard any wikipedia policy to attack individuals who has beautiful breasts.--Bonafide.hustla 07:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon my saying this, but your argumentation and grammar leave something to be desired. Your reply is very argumentative. You are create objections to things that were never stated. This is true of this small dialogue and true of your response to Crv1 above.
 * That modeling is an art was not something I objected to, nor have I stated that Ms. Hazell is not a model. However, Ms. Hazell’s notoriety is due to making herself a source of sexual stimulation, as she herself admits. It is not due to prowess in any art.
 * I am well aware there is no statute against having large breasts, nor did I imply it was a crime. That many girls idolize Page 3 girls or Playmates, etc., is neither here nor there, as stated in a previous response. I don’t have breasts (being a man) but I like them (being a man). My statement was not a personal attack. If Ms. Hazell does not want to keep company with porn stars, then she ought not to have brokered herself into the erotic entertainment/publishing industry. Granted, she is at the shallow end of the wading pool, so to speak, but nevertheless she’s in it.--legolasegb 19:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. I searched this page and found that noone said Ms. Hazell was a porn star prior the post defending Ms. Hazell against imagined attacks. I would wager that it was you, Bonafide, who made that post since the bulk of your responses is in rebuttal to imagined accusations.--legolasegb 20:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't Ms. Hazell decide what she wants to do? Your choice of words such as "notoriety", "shallow end of wading pool" are direct personal attack and POV pushing. Your personal vendetta caused you to categorize page 3 girls (who are in fact making photoshoots for us) as "notorious". Your statements are highly contradicting. Since you said you like breasts (being a man) then accuse Keeley for being notorious and shallow for flaunting her amazing breasts to us. Your idea are totally pov and have no place on wikipedia. Btw, the accusations were by no mean imaginary, Dismas is the one who first suggested to categorize Keeley as a porn star. Please be careful before making unjustified accusations.--Bonafide.hustla 07:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please point out the exact text where I called K.H. a porn star. You won't find it because I didn't.  I used the talk page for the porn WikiProject as a reference or guide because they were running across similar issues with images on pages for porn stars.  Never did I say that she is a porn star.  Dismas|(talk) 08:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you are making arguments against something I never said, Bonafide. Where did I say that Ms. Hazell may not do what she wants to do? Where did I say Ms. Hazell was shallow (or that I was not shallow, for that matter)? Please respond Dismas' statment first, as he posted before I did. Thx. --legolasegb 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Another blatant attempt of wikilawyering. Scroll up and read what you wrote. Frankly, I'm not interested in pursuing this discussion. My only objective is re-stating the fact that wikipedia is NOT censored.--Bonafide.hustla 07:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a "Yes, Dismas, you are right" since you don't seem to be able to admit when you're wrong. Dismas|(talk) 08:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

When did I say you are right? you are making arguments against something I never said.--Bonafide.hustla 04:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If the image wasn't topless, I would have trouble recognizing her. A topless image is helpful to me, personally, for purposes of recognition. 75.25.180.175 13:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just show us her tits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.150.44 (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

She's a topless modell. A pic of her with her breasts on show is not going to hurt anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.135.8 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing about breast size
The link noting that she has natural 32Es doesn't indicate that they are indeed natural. However, the other sources of the entry do as such. Btw, 'E' is huge, given the 32" measurements. It's rare that a low number accompanies a large cup size. Dr. Don Key 08:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is huge. We're lucky.--Certified.Gangsta 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 32 E anturally? That's very rare. Normally an E cup would accompany a measurement around 40, 42. Nukleoptra 20:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

nukleoptra: correct. I've only encountered one confirmed "E," and a 32 she wasn't. Dr. Don Key 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

yes the secource that are used for this are not reliable (the sun website is gossip are you can't rely on them many celebs have sued those type papers for false news) and it really doesn't need to be in the top section of the article this is a wikipedia page the this should done proably and she also about a U.K size 8-10 not natural to be very thin and have that cup size very very rare that someone would have a 32 size with an E cup and also be size8-10 dress size more than lucky thats not normal and the secource need to be better and not only that it's already written down we don't need it twice on one page no need to repeat things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.205 (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

British women are just better endowed naturally, she is by no means rare in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.171.61 (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

2nd place in IGN's Babe Election
http://microsites.ign.com/babe_election/ Is this notable enough to include? Axem Titanium (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No need for bra size at top
thanx you and their really is no need to put her bra size at the top of the page were her name is thats not professional other models on wikipedia have all their messurements on the side near their brith date and place and below the picture so if anything it should be their not at the start j.lo is know for having and big asre and anglelina jolie is know forahve big lips but their not put at the very begin find her other messurements and put them all in one secion look at other models pages and you'll see how it's done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.206.205 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but J-Lo and Angelina Jolie have other aptitudes apart from their freakish physical endowments. Ms Hazell has large breasts, and that would appear to be the sum of it. AuntFlo (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy
The following was posted on the main article and I have copied it here as more appropriate:

According to a direct quote from Ms Hazell, several parts of this Wikipedia article are untrue. She has attempted to correct the errors, but Wikipedia decided to ban her from Wikipedia rather than to allow her  to correct the inaccuracies.

"Have you ever been tempted to edit your Wikipedia page? Yes, I’ve tried so many times that they’ve banned me! But I’m like, It’s me trying  to edit it! There’s  stuff on there that’s not true."

source:


 * Firstly, that is not what the reference says - the actual quote is from here.


 * Secondly, the quote is less than useful as it does not indicate what is/was wrong and when it was attempted to be changed - if ever. noq (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sex tape - BLP vio?
How is the removal of the sex tape info a BLP violation? We have an article that lists them. Numerous celebs on the list have mentions of the tapes in their articles, e.g. Pamela Anderson, Chu Mei-feng, Dustin Diamond, Fred Durst, and Kelsey Grammar just to name a few of the more than two dozen people. Why must we whitewash articles? Dismas |(talk) 12:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. First thanks for the invitation to this discussion. Second I would prefer that we don't use loaded comments like "whitewash" I am not in the laundry business, so don't worry about whitewashing. I hope we are here to have a calm discussion. While I appreciate your other examples I think in this case that the mention of the private video is covered under WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP because the inline citation is from an obscure source (Kent news, who ever heard of them?} and WP:BLP clearly states that we are not here to spread all manner of titillating news about a subject but rather to build an encyclopedia. Also Keeley sued for the tape, that means she is not happy with it. WP:BLP clearly states that we err on the side of caution. For all these reasons it has become clear to me that we need to remove this. Dr.K. logos 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "(Kent news, who ever heard of them?)"--Presumably, people who live in Kent. DigiFluid (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Many, many, many people, myself included, have seen this "myth" many, many, many times. Why is it being treated like something that can't be easily googled and viewed, or like something that doesn't clearly show Hazell's face? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.202.180 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to Jodie Foster
Should there be a section comparing Ms Hazell with Jodie Foster? When John Hinkley, Jr tried to kill American president Ronald Regan, it was a bid to get Jodie Foster's attention. Similarly James Holmes seems obsessed with Ms Hazell, thus I wonder if this merits some mention. 99.102.86.77 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Pornography portal links
The second paragraphy of the article on Page 3 clearly states that there is a dispute about whether Page 3 girls are softcore pornography.

The link to the pornography portal is not an attempt to resolve this dispute, but merely a reflection that the dispute exists and therefore Page 3 girls are a topic of interest to the pornography project. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLP until this dispute is resolved this portal must be removed. I will open a WP:BLPN discussion shortly. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  14:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Keeley editing her own article
Keeley said that she edited this article to remove false information so many times she was banned (Maxim Feb 2010). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.36.5.19 (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
What about the sextapes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.16.17 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Got any reliable sources for that assertion? Guy1890 (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Keeley Hazell. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070122083759/http://keeleyhazell.com:80/bio.php to http://www.keeleyhazell.com/bio.php
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081216095256/http://www.bytemetv.com:80/ to http://www.bytemetv.com/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)