Talk:Patti D'Arbanville

Untitled

BTW-Steve Curry and any other mans except don johnson has always been alot younger than her, she loves her men and her woman alot youngerActually, I cannot name them all but she has been married about five times and never to Don Johnson, Terri Quinn is a consultant on the TV show Rescue Me and the story goes that this show is about Terri and pattis life together, So, if Terri and patti live together it must be about as volitile as a union gets. She met Terri when he was living in a apt in NYC with a drug addict from new Zealand, this union produced a daughter, Alexandra whom Patti has raised her entire life. Patti was once arrested for leaving her two mastiff dogs in Terris care while she went off and filmed a movie, only to come back to find out that Terri had not fed or watered them the entire time she was gone.

The article says that D'Arbanville has been married and divorrced 3 times, but also that she currently lives with her 3rd husband. Should it say "married 3 times and divorced twice", or are she and Quinn in fact divorced but still living together? Rodparkes 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the two were divorced in 1997 but have apparently been living and raising their children together as their schedules permit. I changed the tease-y wording so the question won't occur to others. Not that my opinion is relevant, but as it would seem it works for them to be together a decade on, I find it kind of sweet and sensible, bless 'em! Abrazame (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to Steve Curry

Are you sure it is the right Steve Curry d'Arbanville was married to ? I have seen somewhere (IMDb) that she was married to Steve Curry between 1980 and 1981. Steve Curry seems to young for this, isn't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.205.116 (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lovely photo, but!!!

There was a book published by Pamela Des Barres, "Let's Spend the Night Together", and in NYC in 2007, there was a reading to introduce the party, with the groupies from yesteryear reading parts of the book, including Patti D'Arbanville. There are several segments of it on You Tube, and I'm fairly certain that unless this very small group of women gave permission to have Patti's photo on You Tube, that the photo was taken right off the web and is a copyright violation. Can someone please check this out? --leahtwosaints (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stevens or Steven?

The article says "Stevens wrote that song "Lady D'Arbanville" when I left for New York. I left for a month, it wasn't the end of the world was it? But he wrote this whole song about 'Lady D'Arbanville, why do you sleep so still.' It's about me dead. So while I was in New York, for him it was like I was lying in a coffin... he wrote that because he missed me, because he was down... It's a sad song." Stevens had adopted a stage name which D'Arbanville never used; instead preferring his true name, Steven Demetre Georgiou." OK so does that mean she started that quote by saying "Steven wrote that song"? Otherwise, the last sentence makes no sense. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lady D'Arbanville

I am confused. Why has all reference to Cat Stevens' relationship with her and song about her been taken out of the atricle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.188.242 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Erotic Salad?

There is a reference (to a movie that I cannot find in a cursory search) and link (to a parked domain that looks like it is advertising porn sites) about a movie I cannot find. Is this information really a ploy for traffic on the parked site and porn sites? Should these references be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theavey (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinarily Ugly Photo

It's grotesque, and the caption of her name makes it look amateurish and low-class. She was a beautiful young woman and is currently in an episode of the TV show "Billions". Either show a photo showcasing her beauty, or one that reflects her current professional state. The one that's there now is horrific and the article would be better off without any photo at all.2605:6000:6947:AB00:3458:D63E:9687:D511 (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Damaged, needs repair

Since the various removals in the last year, this article makes little sense in some places. It opens with Patricia D'Arbanville (born May 25, 1951)[1] is an American actress known for her appearance in Andy Warhol projects. After Flesh, D'Arbanville performed in Warhol's L'Amour (1973), and as the title character in the David Hamilton film Bilitis (1977). After her unabashedly risqué performances in her youth... Flesh? What does that mean. Risque performances? Where? When? Apparently, she did nothing at all worth mentioning? I'm suggesting both that far too much has been removed (is there something special that makes her a mystery?) and that the removals were not sensitive to the remaining content of the article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Teblick, might you address this please? The article makes no sense right now. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jpgordon, Before I read your message, another editor added content to indicate that Flesh referred to a film.

I have removed some content from the paragraph that you mentioned. I can't see anything in the cited source about "unabashedly risque performances" or the award that was mentioned.

I don't know what has been removed (beyond my own edit today) or why. Perhaps another editor (or editors) will have insights into those changes. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is your edit that removed anything that would make that sentence make sense: [1]. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the edit in question. I agree that the article would be better with that content included -- but only if it had a reliable source.

Unsourced content undermines the credibility of both the article and Wikipedia as a whole. I hope that someone will provide a reliable, published source with which to restore some or all of the content of that paragraph. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but simply excising something unsourced without paying attention to the context and repairing the holes left by excision just makes more work for others. Having an unsourced paragraph marked as such is preferable to an incomprehensible section. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jpgordon, If you think the section is incomprehensible, you are free to add any reliably sourced content to it to make it more comprehensible.

With regard to "repairing the holes left by excision just makes more work for others", where were those "others" in the five years that the unsourced content sat in the article? If others cared about the quality of the article, they should have supplied some reliable sourcing for that content over the last five years. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)