Talk:Sarah Monahan
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Edit request from Sarahjintexas, 27 April 2010
edit{{editsemiprotected}}
Please remove the reference to how much Sarah was paid by Woman's Day and A Current Affair. She was paid nowhere near this amount. This amount was speculation by SMH and has no factual basis. Today Tonight also released an amount, saying it must have been more than they offered, when in fact, no-one would go to Channel 7, since this is where the alleged abuses occurred. Sarah was NOT paid a fee for her second ACA interview with Simone Buchanan.
Sarahjintexas (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- The reference provided, ie "The age", does seem to assert the facts; Wikipedia can only base its information on what are considered "reliable sources". Do you have any reference that refutes it, or evidence that The Age had to retract? Chzz ► 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The age did not see actual contacts or statements. They just repeated what other media sources speculated. I have seen the original contracts. They are nowhere near this amount. No, I will not make the contract public. They are confidential. They are part of police evidence and will be released in the court proceedings. Sarahjintexas (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We don't expect you to release this informtion, but until the court procedings or another reliable source says what you are saying, we cannot change it. See sourcing policy. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a letter from Woman's Day to Media Watch. Never mind, I got permission to do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahjintexas (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 April 2010
If you watch the ACA interview, Sarah actually said she was looking into legal action against "Parties involved". The interviewer doing the voice over says she's going to sue channel 7, Gary Reilly and Robert Hughes. Through the power of editing and V/O, she is now suing everyone. Sarahjintexas (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC) sarahjintexas
- I agree. I've trimmed it back to remove the more sensationalist quotes, and just referred to television executives who she believes were aware of the allegations, rather than suggesting that everyone at Channel 7 is to be sued. Hopefully this is better. - Bilby (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- On a related note, I've tried to expand the article a bit - Sarah Monahan is more than someone who raised sexual abuse allegations, and should be presented as such, I think: she was a successful actress, and seems to have built a successful career since leaving Hey Dad. I'd like to expand it some more, to provide better balance, but don't have any sources to build on at the moment, but if anyone has some it would be nice to see this provide more even coverage. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)