Talk:Catherine Ringer

False Rumours

If she had any health issues related to her lifestyle it should remain private. Plaqueswan (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Short career in adult films

Ringer evidently had a short stint in adult movies while young, something never denied nor denounced by her. Is this something we intentionally avoid having in her biography? -The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Her statement on this is:

“I was the victim, from the age of 13 and a half to 20, of a narcissistic pervert who dragged me into pornographic areas, into rape. I was a young girl abandoned by parents who knew nothing about it. It must be said that we lived in a time in the 1970s – I am not the only one to have experienced this – when we said: “we are going to free ourselves”, “long live free love”. So, go ahead, you're 15, so read Emmanuelle. We're going to do as in Emmanuelle, you're going to become the slave of a guy who's 45, I'll give you to him, etc. Me, I let myself be done too, and I suffered a lot. I cried a lot. I had a lot of after effects. Well, now we also do with all that. He too had been more or less raped when he was little in Catholic schools. It is also thanks to him that I started to be a professional singer. Well, I'm not going to denounce it, however. In addition, there is prescription."

Above comment added by Acousmana. -The Gnome (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine. But the question remains: Is there any reason, even taking into account the above, not to include this information in the biography? -The Gnome (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

it really depends on editorial predilection, is it notable? It was something she did in her teens, under duress, should we dwell on it? Any mention would be subject to WP:WEIGHT. If framed sympathetically, with consideration for context, as stated by subject, mention may be due. Acousmana 16:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Instead of framing the prose "sympathetically", I'd rather say that, per WP:BLP, such life episodes are to be treated carefully and without judgment, if presented, since editing must be neutral and unbiased. And it goes without saying that they're to be assigned their objectively rightful degree of prominence in the text. I'll try and work on it. Thanks for the input. -The Gnome (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, "sympathetically," as in giving due consideration to the subject's perspective on their "life episodes," if they state they were exploited and sexually abused, it's important that we acknowledge this. It wasn't a "career" choice. Worth mentioning too that pornographers later exploited her fame as a musician, during the 80s, in reissuing material that had been out of circulation for years. Ultimately she's notable for her contributions to music, not pornography. Acousmana 12:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, what you describe as being "sympathetic" I actually find to be every editor's duty in such cases, i.e. to acknowledge the nature of her involvement, to point out the subsequent exploitation by pornographers, and so on. Again, worth noting is that Ringer herself never "denounced" her involvement, deeming it essentially a "mistake" of her youth to which she was led by an oppressive and abusive acquaintance. Ringer is far more notable for her contributions to music than to anything else. Yet, in biographies, we do not include information only about the most notable endeavor of the subject. -The Gnome (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

sure, it's something that should be mentioned, but weighting, relative to the coverage of her music career, should be accurate, and it's a small article right now so could very quickly end up overemphasizing her involvement in pornography. Acousmana 19:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be unbiased and accurate. Censorship has no place in it. Moreover: her career in porno industry lasted more than five years, it was not just one or two movies, IT WAS NOT SHORT CAREER! Added this into bio, as it was removed before. Please follow rules of Wikipedia! 82.131.84.236 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Vandalizing of article to hide someone unflattering past!

Stop it! I would report it! 82.131.84.236 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

look, i removed it cause you didn't source it in your edit. Gaismagorm (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Source is here already, it is IMDB, and her movie career! 82.131.84.236 (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

please, just provide a reliable source. besides, that's not what she's known for. pope francis produced an album, but he isn't listed as a musical artist Gaismagorm (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

you WILL BE reported! 82.131.84.236 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

for what? I haven't done anything wrong here, just reverting unsourced edits. Gaismagorm (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Source is imdb, source is herself statements, there is list of pornographic movies she was in already in article! And you know this! Stop trolling and vandalizing! 82.131.84.236 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

she's not known for this, and I'm not trolling nor am I vandalizing. Gaismagorm (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

She is not known for this, but she was part of this and it is her past and bio, therefore it belong in Wikipedia and should be here according rules of Wikipedia. You are just vandalizing it by constantly censoring out her past! 82.131.84.236 (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

look, report me if you feel I'm vandalizing, but at worst I made a mistake, and at best I was right Gaismagorm (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Look, i understand your motives, but acting according those motives goes against rules of Wikipedia. Try to understand: if we we start to censoring out unflattering or controversial materials, then Wikipedia will be biased source of information very soon. 82.131.84.236 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to censor, I'm merely trying to be consistent. Please stop accusing me of having some form of malicious intent. Gaismagorm (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Not merely, but consistent in matter that somehow has special importance to you. 82.131.84.236 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This has very little special importance to me. It's just another edit I made. Besides, I only reverted it cause it was unsourced. The new edit you made that was sourced, I have not reverted. Please stop accusing me of having some sort of major stake in this matter. Gaismagorm (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The edit i made i made because of you, IMO it was totally unnecessary because article had enough of reference to sources. 82.131.84.236 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

look, could we just forget about this. No more discussion needs to be done on my end. Gaismagorm (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)