Talk:Dany Verissimo

Move ?
Shouldn't this article be moved to Dany Verissimo ? Hektor 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Natural breasts?
In the movie Gradiva (C'est Gradiva qui vous appelle) her breasts are huge. I saw a few pictures of her online from porn movies, and there her breasts were quite small. So they're not natural any more. 193.71.152.5 (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't matter. The "natural breasts" part is in the porn star template, and is only relevant to her appearances in porn. She had natural breast the entire time she was in porn, so the description there is accurate. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have got to be kidding me. You have academic rules about tracking breast implants?  Seriously?  --Lockley (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It also seems like a bad idea for an encyclopedia to have a policy which systematically misleads people using it, even on trivial matters. Most people are going to assume that information provided is as up-to-date as possible. 71.154.215.50 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously is this even an issue? who cares, she is a good actress and a beautiful woman, and yes she has breasts. it comes with the nature of being a woman. The "plasticity" of her breasts is of little importance and quite frankly who cares? besides breasts do grow naturally and you are far from a finished work of art at the age of 18-19. her breasts may very well have grown on their own accord. *face palm* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.28.150 (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dany Verissimo. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20161018213325/http://reprn.com/re/mainstream-actress-dany-verissimo-in-luc-bessons-banlieue-was-po-454699/ to http://reprn.com/re/mainstream-actress-dany-verissimo-in-luc-bessons-banlieue-was-po-454699/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest edits
Hi. Apparently JesseRafe and I do not agree on some details about this page. What I did was adding what the subject herself says about her background and career choice, and a filmography. I don't see what is not "encyclopedic" about that. Also, I don't see why we should add that she has been "performing in gangbang and anal sex scenes" since, apart from the WP:BLP policy, we seldom ever specify that about porn actresses. This information is also pretty dubious, since her career has been short and relatively tame - if she performed in such acts, it was much less than other actresses - and the source used to support that claim apparently does not say that (a detail which makes me wonder why this was ever added to the article). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Jean-Jacques Georges: Please review WP:BRD. You've done the right thing in starting this thread, but the wrong thing in re-inserting the information that JesseRafe reverted.  You made Bold edits and were Reverted.  The next step is Discussing it here. I've reverted the most recent edits.  Please don't re-inset again without achievinbg a consensus for the changes here
 * On the merits, I think the current version is the proper one. As JR mentioned in his edit summary, this version sticks to facts, stated in a neutral voice, reflecting what the reliable sources tell us. The other version is not in a neutral voice and includes assertions about emotions that are not present in the reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * David in DC, the question is, why was I reverted in the first place ? Sorry, but I just don't understand : what I did was adding more info about the subject's background, based on the few sources available about her. IMHO this version also sticks to fact, since it explains how she got into adult pictures (she met this director, etc). Could you please tell me precisely what was not "neutral" about the edits I made ? That would be more helpful than just going back to the previous, barebones version. If you tell me precisely which are the non-neutral passages then I may try to improve the text.
 * However, I took the liberty to remove this since it is not in the source (no mention whatsoever here) and is rather problematic regarding WP:BLP. Maybe she did, but that's hardly exceptional among porn actresses, and there is no evidence than she was ever specialized in such performances. I also put a more recent picture in the infobox. As for the rest, I'm open to discussion. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As has clearly been stated, the additional information you added was not encyclopedic in tone because the voice of the article was speaking to the internal thoughts and motivations and other aspects of the subject's emotional/mental state, which is not an appropriate tone to take. JesseRafe (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * JesseRafe No that was not clear at all to me, sorry. So how should I put it ? If I don't mention at all how she says she felt, would that be ok ? And what about her account of her meeting with John B. Root ? What I did what just adding a few details about how she started in adult pictures : is a "neutrality" problem in that ? She also gave some details about her childhood/background : can this be put back in the page ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What we can do is add a shortened version :
 * "She tried to start an acting career but could initially find no roles. She decided to try a career in softcore erotica but later met adult film director John B. Root, who told her that due to her unusual looks she would find more success in pornography. She started appearing in adult pictures at the age of 18. During this time, she used the stage name "Ally Mac Tyana", which was a play on Ally McBeal and her second name, Malalatiana. Her career in porn lasted only 16 months, from 2001 to 2002, during which she performed sex scenes in five feature films, all directed or produced by John B. Root."
 * No mention of how she says she felt ("casting couch", "surrogate family" et al.). IMHO that version is rather factual and neutral. It relies on her own account but that information is hardly libelous. Would that be ok for you ?
 * Also, I had added a "mainstream" filmography : can I put it back ? (I could also put an "adult" section in the filmography but apparently we don't do it in this version of wikipedia)
 * As for the name change, I personally don't care much but that's how she is credited on her agent's website and on IMDB.
 * I don't really see the point in mentioning her ex-husband's name since he is not a public figure, but maybe that's the policy here ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Apart from the name issue, could you also tell me what was wrong with the intro I wrote ? "Dany Verissimo-Petit (born June 27, 1982), is a French actress and model. She briefly worked as a pornographic performer under the stage name Ally Mac Tyana, before starting a mainstream career, using first the name Dany Verissimo." I thought this was rather factual... What I could do is change it to "She worked from 2001 to 2002 as a pornographic performer..." (instead of "briefly")
 * Also, the version I wrote made it clear that "Ally Mac Tyana" was the name she used in porn since to my knowledge she never did adult pictures as "Dany Verissimo" (or "Verissimo-Petit", for that matter) so the transition from one name to another has its importance.
 * Moreover, I don't understand what was the problem in mentioning her family background (separated parents, et al.) since that's what she says in the same interview which is being used as a source for the current version. If what she says about her own life is not reliable, why are we even using it as a source for such a secondary element as the "boarding school" she went to ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * JesseRafe and David in DC : in order to try to reach a consensus, I just created this draft without the parts about her "emotional state". I just kept the part about the "surrogate family" in porn, since it's her viewpoint and I find it rather interesting. I've kept both infoboxes for now, although I'm not quite sure this is necessary : Clara Morgane, for example, has only one even though she has two careers (one adult, one mainstream).
 * Could you please tell me what you think about the draft ? Should there be any doubt, I'd like to stress the fact that my only goal is to add sourced content to the page in order to make it more informative. We also had some problems with the French page, with some versions made to look like a PR job : what I did was neutralize and rewrite the French content, which I have then traduced here. If you think some parts are still problematic or not neutral, please let me know and I'll do my best to correct them. Also, if I made some grammatical mistakes, just let me know.
 * Also, tell me what you think about the "name" issue. I left "Verissimo-Petit" since both her agency and IMDB show that this is now the name she goes by, but if you think the page should stick to "Verissimo", that's just fine for me. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your draft looks good to me. Let's see if others weigh in. You posted this on October 3rd. If there's no objection by October 10th (one week), I think it's ok to bring into mainspace. Thank you for your civility. It's always welcome, if not always commonplace. David in DC (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's a substantial amount of copyediting needed, not to mention the core issues in the prior EW that the tone in the Adult section is too detailed like prose not like an encyclopedia, and could use a lot more sourcing for those claims. There's also factual material that needs attention, she was not a lead in B13, for instance. I also take issue with your repeated use of "mainstream", and the wordiness of a lot of the article. Again, mostly a copyediting thing, but the Adult section still has a lot of the problems of your previous bigger overhaul. Also, as a sidenote, the infobox for pornographic performers no longer exists and "infobox adult" is literally just "infobox person" so I'm gonna go ahead and remove that second box on the current page now. It no longer has parameters for number of films and AVN links or awards that I recollect previously being listed. JesseRafe (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please let me know what the precise problems are, and I'll try to correct them. Sorry, I don't know what "copyediting" means : what should I exactly change in the adult section ? It may need more sourcing, but the fact is that we don't have that many sources apart from the subject's interviews.
 * If you like, you may post here a proposal for the "adult" section by rewriting what I did for the draft, and if we find a consensus we can post it in the article.
 * As for District 13, she had the lead female role if I'm not mistaken but we may correct that as one of the leads or "a starring role" (let me know if you have anything to suggest). I'll try to remove some uses of "mainstram", maybe by finding synonymes. Also, should we include the list of adult films in the filmography section, or not ? Some articles do that, like Brigitte Lahaie (to take another French porn actress), others do not. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

JesseRafe sorry, but if you say "there's a substantial amount of copyediting needed" and mention "the core issues" without specifying what this amount of copyediting is nor what these issues are, or which claims need "a lot more sourcing" I don't see how we can make progress. The current article is lacking in sources : I had added several sources and more details, which you removed. Therefore, the fact that you object to my version because it could use more sources leaves me a bit puzzled. Could you please let me know precisely what you would change in my draft ? If you could clearly explain what you want it would be really helpful. Thanks. I would also welcome any suggestion from David in DC suggestions to improve the text. Also, if I could have any examples of "wordiness" to avoid, that would really help. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I find the situation a bit frustrating. JesseRafe has mentioned "core issues" without specifying what they are, and so far I have had no answers to my questions. As this is a fairly minor subject with no major issues that I know of, IMHO we should not let the process drag on for too long. Honestly, since the draft I wrote contains more factual - and, I hope, neutral - information about the subject, I don't see how it could not improve the article. Maybe there still are problems - since English is not my first language, I'm sure the writing could be improved - but if no one gives any specifics about what they are, I guess we should try to advance things a little. I suggest that I put the text of my draft into the article. If JesseRafe finds my draft too verbose, he might as well rephrase it : since any help is welcome, I will take no offense. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I already took the time to review your draft and give you pointed feedback. I can't believe someone who can write as many words in English as you regularly do can't read a few. The draft has some of the exact same issues detailed above by both I and David, those issues we also had to repeat time and again when you were edit-warring. Dealing with WP:ICANTHEARYOU editors is tedious and I prefer not to do it. I'm going to continue to watch the page, but only concern myself with the actual live edits and not the attention-seeking or general non-stop discussion you'd prefer. JesseRafe (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeking attention, I'm just trying to understand what you want. You said that you "detailed" the issues : sorry, but you didn't. Your feedback was not "pointed", it was just vague.
 * As for David, he said above that my draft was ok. So, what should I exactly change in the text, please ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While trying to figure out what the draft's issues were, I did my best to trim it down. Is it better now ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In reply to a question on my talk page, I've indicated that I'm withdrawing from further participation in editing this page, I've said all I plan to say, and I'm taking this page off of my watch list. I'm repeating it here. Good luck. David in DC (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I give up. I trimmed down the draft again, but I won't insist on using it in its entirety. I still don't understand what the "core issues" are supposed to be - except maybe the length - but since this is not a major subject I see no interest in debating forever about it.
 * What I'd like to do, however, is to use some bits of my draft, mainly the lead paragraph which I rewrote so it would show her career chronologically (first adult pictures, then mainstream with a name change) and the paragraph about her career in adult film (since the link with John B. Root, which was crucial to that part of her career, has to be better explained). If there are no objections, I might do the change later this week, maybe this weekend. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I made the changes to the article, doing my best to avoid any unnecessary "wordiness". Hopes that's all right. I guess I'm done with that page for now. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)