Talk:Kate Ritchie/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kate Ritchie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071028173856/http://www.news.com.au:80/entertainment/story/0,23663,22484465-10229,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,22484465-10229,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kate Ritchie. 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/20090807112356/http://holysoap.five.tv/homeandaway/news/kate-goes-from-soap-to-vaseline-1481 to http://holysoap.five.tv/homeandaway/news/kate-goes-from-soap-to-vaseline-1481
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/latest-news/a/24743940/kate-ritchie-welcomes-a-baby-girl/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity porn, perhaps, but irrelevant...?

Unverifiable gossip, maybe. But it has become intrinsically linked to Ms. Ritchie through the power of the Internet; I mean, this page has been updated three times with the "supposed video", and each time been knocked down in edit. To deny even /recognition/ of the video as actually existing through the censorship of the article, we open up a whole ethical can of worms: essentially, through unconfirmation, does the story of the tape render itself null? Or, because of regurgitation, does the video warrant a mention because it has been relegated to her by the millions of millions of Usenet peons and Internet users ("interpretation poisons the landscape", indeed)? I vote the second, and have no objection to a /carefully worded, carefully constructed, but most of all detatched/ mention of the videos existance. To simply quash it's very existance because of opaqueness is irresponsible, at best.

What the hell is irresponsible in not repeating unverifiable gossip? See Wikipedia:verifiability. In any case, even if the video does actually feature Ritchie, all it tells us is that she has had sex at least once. If there'd been a court case around the video's existence, or if she'd gone down the road of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee and, once it was (hypothetically) stolen, released an authorised copy so that if there's money to be made they'll make it, then it would be appropriate to mention here. --Robert Merkel 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me -- my apologies. I'm not saying that we repeat the "unverifiable gossip" as canon, because that would indeed be irresponsible; but the story of the video has become instrinsically linked with Ms. Ritchie, and can't be scrubbed away simply because of lack of "authentification through commercialization" (to quote your arguement). Do we pass the video off as fact in the article? No, but we mention it as IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS -- simple because: a) it claims to be her (supposedly), b) thousands believe it to be her (maybe incorrectly), and c) if it isn't her (which we don't know), we will remove it when we can confirm the negative. That simple.

This argument hinges on Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. Wikipedia does not assert that something is a "fact" or "true" unless it can cite a reputable source that asserts it to be "fact" or "true". Similarly, Wikipedia does not assert that something is "rumoured", "believed to be", "widely thought to be", etc; unless it can cite a reputable source that asserts it to be "rumoured", believed to be", "widely thought to be", etc. Find me a reputable source that says anything at all about the alleged Ritchie sex video, and I will support its inclusion in the article. Snottygobble | Talk 06:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Daily Sport, a UK paper that I'm unfamiliar with (but I'm assuming to be a tabloid) has a piece on the video, including a claim that they own the master tape, archived here: http://members.fortunecity.com/noops077/kate_richie001.jpg -- I'm assuming this to be a reputable enough source to at least confirm the rumour that it is a /rumour/ that it is Ritchie. Yeesh.

Reputable? It doesn't sound too reputable to me...--Robert Merkel 21:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If we accepted The Daily Sport as a reputable source, we would have to accept articles on the "World War II Bomber Found on Moon". Snottygobble | Talk 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It also depends on how you define "reputable". Plenty of newspapers we would quite happily use as sources have been successfully sued (has the Sport?). Plenty have also deliberately ran hoaxes (including the Guardian, Daily Mail and The Times). 82.13.187.127 11:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, I didn't think so -- print media, though. Anyway, leave this one with me. I'll try and find something a little less, uh, Weekly World News oriented... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.209.136.68 (talk • contribs) .

I think the difference is that neither the bomber (I remembered it as being a bus?) nor the Moon were likely to sue if the story was untrue. 82.13.187.127 11:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I too am very uncomfortable with this article including any mention of the sex tape. The only citation provided is to a publication that is hardly known for serious news coverage. My guess is Ms Ritchie hasn't commented because she doesn't want to dignify this trash with a response - and nor should Wikipedia dignify it by repeating it here. The reference should be deleted. -Matthew Humphreys 12:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know why having sex is 'trash'. But in the scenario that it is her (I'm not saying that it is), it's probably this attitude which might make her wary of confirming it. Furthermore, she also may not comfortable in outright lying by denying it in public. --202.161.7.2 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that having sex is trash. Making and distributing a videotape of someone having sex, without the express permission of the participants, is in my opinion trashy; as is making a false or unverified claim that any given person has been a (willing or not) participant in such. This is of course my personal stance, and the consensus here seems to be just about in favour of keeping it in the article, so I haven't removed it. As to the suggestion that she hasn't denied it because she doesn't want to lie, it seems just as plausible to suggest that she hasn't commented so as not to give it free publicity.--Matthew Humphreys 20:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

England's The Sun refers to the rumour in this recent article[1]. If news.com.au (and it's associated stable of newspapers like The Herald-Sun) is a credible enough source, then it would seem this would also be a credible enough source that the tape is at least a rumour connected to Kate.Benguins 03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That Sun article is dated December 08, 2006, and appears to have plagarized Wikipedia. The sentence In 2000, an explicit sex tape, widely reported to feature Ritchie and her ex-boyfriend, began circulating on the Internet, but to this day Ritchie has never publicly commented on it. bears striking resemblance to the one in Wikipedia at least as early as September 11, 2006. I'm removing it. - MrArt 08:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity pornography fans, please note

We've deleted mention of the alleged Kate Ritchie video several times now. Seeing there has never been any confirmation that the video is actually of her (from my understanding the tape is of such poor quality there's no way to tell) the whole thing is therefore unverfiable gossip circulating the nether regions of the internet. Take it to Usenet. --Robert Merkel 04:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The only way I can see a credible or reputable source ever suggesting that Kate Ritchie was in a sex video is if Kate confirms that it was her. I doubt that is ever going to happen. If it is Kate Ritchie she has got nothing to worry about - she appears to be very good in bed. I feel for her though as I am sure that if it is her in the video she would not want it plastered all over the Internet. (unsigned comment by 202.6.138.34.)

Kate Ritchie is known to millions (myself inc.) *only* for the sex tape which is linked to her. Sadly this *is* what she is most famous for. Seems strange then to omit all mention in her bio, particular when it is stated as a fact elsewhere on Wikipedia. 82.13.187.127 10:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Kate Ritchie is certainly a household name in Australia for her very long and ongoing stint in Home & Away, and not just for the alleged video. I have moved her entry to the disputed section of the celeb sex tape entry on Wikipedia. The names of the participants in the video in question are certainly in dispute. RevJohn 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Its true, 95% of people (around the whole world) would not have known who the hell Kate Ritchie is if it wasn't for her sex tape. Hell thats the only reason im here on her article ! To not mention the sex tape in this article is madness, because for the majority of people around the world, that is her claim to fame!

I am inclined to concur with the above, the sex tape is possibly her best known role per the worlds audience, with in excess of 19,100 sites dedicated to it, it's not exactly something that should remain unaddressed in the article. Amusingly I too came here just to see if this alleged sex tape was mentioned or clarified. Jachin 20:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, here in London neither I nor any of my friends had any idea who Kate Richie was until we came across her sex tape recently. Lets say it really "opened our eyes" to Kate, she's hot and great in bed! and we actually started to watch her on home & away every now & then, so we kind of became "fans". So I guess the moral of the story is, if you're hot and in showbiz and want to increase your fame & popularity, a sex tape would help! lol

Speculation

Is it necessary to speculte what would and wouldn't happen if Ritchie's charcater was or was not killed off in Home & Away, this is not at all encyclopedic. Maybe this information would be better in the Sally Fletcher Wikipedia entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fay06 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Clearly the sex tape rumour should be mentioned. The girl is only known for two things: being on a soap opera for far too many years, and (allegedly) being in 'that video'. Just because some people believe the speculation is unsavoury, it does not follow that it therefore isn't note-worthy. If that isn't too many negatives in a single sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.173.175 (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The article image

I changed the URL to a site that doesn't stymie hotlinking. Fortunecity does, and I heartily recommend people not link to their sites. Yes, I'm aware it's easy enough to get around but not everyone knows how. Peter1968 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kate needs a photo

There should be a photo of Kate on her page, as she is quite popular.

Honestly tell me one australian who hasn't heard of Kate Richie. 3bay sam 12:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The world is bigger than australia you know ;) But yes I agree, kate should have at least 1 photo, she's hot and her sex tape is very hot too.

Katherine Ritchie

"Born Katherine Ritchie". Is there a reference for this, or is it conjecture? Pingku (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)