Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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?

Who cares? She's smokin' hot.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The image Image:18682256.jpg doesn't seem to be being used according to the wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Well Keeley obviously is part of the film, so she is part of the content. --Certified.Gangsta 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]