Talk:Sarah Thompson (Home and Away)

Content

In response to this message left on my talk page [1]

These accusations are floored in my opinion. How can you say this article has speculation, gossip and assumptions? How can you accuse me of stretching quotes? To form such an opinion you would need copies of the print sources attributed to the information. I added this information because I own a number of magazines featuring interviews with Laura Vasquez, Tristan Bancks, David Dixon - who all talk about the filming of Sarah's storylines and the effect their own actions had on these scenes. They link directly into Sarah's storyline.

TV Week ran a story that a number of cast member read about their character's departure in their magazine. I have a number of interviews citing this event as occurring. Lisa Lackey referenced the article in a 1995 interview with Inside Soap. TV Week profiled it once again in 2009 - some fifteen years after first publishing the story. I own this magazine too.

You keep removing information about Vasquez joining the programme - this obviously happened. You keep removing information about Vasquez's screen test - In the issue of Look-in, published by IPC Media complete with a photo-shoot of both Vasquez and Bancks - they talk about their life, their career, their future ambitions. Vasquez' biggest breakthrough at the time of print was her final screen test for the part of Sarah - this character. How is that unrelated to the character? You removed real world information about filming Sarah and Tug's romance storyline. I can keep going with this.

I think there is an explanation behind all of this. User:Slingkey has given the impression that they are a fan of Laura Vasquez and is trying to promote by hiding anything considered as low brow in the field of acting. I have all the evidence needed to make such a claim. Yesterday User:Slingkey submitted Laura Vasquez for creation - but their submission was declined. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Laura Vazquez Disgruntled, this editor decided to cause a drama. Upon landing on this page they removed anything they did not like that Vasquez said. They also made a clear legal threat to scare monger. However they did this while logged out and revealed their IP. [2] That could have been a mistake, but it could also be seen as trying to give more weight - a minute later the logged in and removed more information. So it appeared as though two people thought the information did not belong in this article.

In your submission for Laura Vasquez I did notice you failed to mention an infamous incident from the 1990's in which Vasquez had a public relationship with singer Peter Andre and they had a public break up. I do notice the only mention of personal life is stating that she is now married with children. Just like the removal of anything in this article referencing Vasquez, the woman who played the character.

The promotion agenda is fairly obvious upon a quick read through of the article they submitted for Vasquez.

A bad case of WP:PUFFERY -

• "starring role",
• "guest lead roles in major Australian Television dramas" - How can you have a lead guest role?
• Laura is also an accomlished Television presenter
• Laura Vazquez is a makeup professional
• she is also a recognized style and beauty blogger

And the sources for which are BlogSpot, imdb etc

You also attempt to give the impression that she is in the Hollywood A list - (alongside Melissa George and Isla Fischer - arguably two of the shows Hollywood success stories, but she only worked closely with George - and spent most of her screen time with Judy Nunn, Dieter Brummer and Tristan Bancks... Name dropping on other shows she had guest presenting roles and appearance - Danni Minogue, Jessica Alba etc - who she didn't really work with. I can see why you would want to hide Vasquez attributing her biggest career breakthrough as receiving a screen test for Sarah Thompson. But she said it, if it is not Hollywood enough for you, I suggest you contact Vasquez and ask her why she said it in the first place. Rain the 1 17:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi rainthorne. I should elaborate. Not a fan at all, just trying to write a neutral current article on the actress and was disappointed at the tone and sensationalism in relation to her, in your article on the character. Likewise I may be wrong, but your response to my message implies you have an issue / a dislike for the actress . Particularly your comments re the "hollywood a-list-thing"(which was never said / intentionally implied - its also debate able whether George and fisher are even a-list). For your information Melissa George and Vasquez did work together extensively and Melissa cites Vasquez as 1 of her best friends, also danni minogue and Vasquez presented together in the uk; and alba and Vazquez worked together. Your negative response concerning this indicates a certain attitude, below the line thinking and lack of research. Further in the Vasquez article, the melissa george-vasquez relationship is omitted for the same reason the peter andre link is; likewise Vasquez rubbishing their relationship claims were also omitted. This type of sensationalism is irrelevant to the article and is it more in line with something i would read in The Sun or a Paris Hilton column. The shows/films and names mentioned in the vasquez article are factual. Vasquez did not fall over and die the moment we stopped reading about sarah thompson in big magazine - like many professional australian actresses she continues to work today. Being an article, on the character (who is separate from the actress) any of your "low brow" insights were omitted because they come across like a tabloid beat up, in the absence of any real scandal (teenagers kissing scenes, off set gossip - arent really information worthy of inclusion in a credible character breakdown). There is a lot of negative spin. Even inclusions like, Vasquez saying h&a way was her biggest role. This was at the time, she was at 18, however the way you quoted it implies it is present tense. My disappointment is the article reduces a great character and working actress to base levels - it seems to say more of the author than the subject - I hope I am wrong. I have not read anything like this before. it's ironic that you also refer to imdb as not having credibility then cite excerpts from 90's tabloid fodder and teenage magazines as solid references. Wikipedia is a credible neutral information source, sure my own article on the actress is in its infancy and any alleged puffery may need editing to ensure that neutrality. In all the implication of "low brow" info (you said it) only serve to tarnish the actresses reputation, and says nothing of the character Sarah Thompson - whom the article is about. In all the Sarah Thompson article implies that the actress who i assume has done nothing to cross you, is a washedup, unprofessional, hussy - rather than simply breaking down the character and referencing the actor who executed the role. By the way i did alert the actress and she was apalled at what you have written - she also cited your tabloid references as fabricated. This why I have written to you. I am open to working my article on the actress with you - perhaps my tone is abrasive as I am a novice - but like wise your article definitely needs an edit. Let's rework it. (Slingkey (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC))

I'm afraid that you your tone is abrasive and you have come across quite rude. I can deal with that and do not mind trying to find a solution. However, these outlandish remarks, such as legal threats, alongside the latest are not a too appealing. I'm confused that you are claiming you have contacted the actress and talked to her. It suggests you are more involved with the subject than it was first thought. If it is any constellation, I have found Vasquez to be a believable and capable actress. But that does not really have anything do with it. I have edited subjects in the past that I may not have been particularly fond of. But that did not get in the way of neutrality. I strive to get it right, provide all the information - positive or negative - because we do not censor information on Wikipedia. We can write it in a manner that does not infringe or be seen as intentionally harmful to a living person.

The reason some parts of the article read in present tense is because it is a work of fiction. When discussing the fictional element present tense is used because it is a work that currently exists. It can be watched again and it has not ceased to exist. I'd also like to point out that I acknowledged that Vasquez and George had worked closely together on the series. I pointed out that Vasquez and Fisher did not.

I think you are taking this personally. Nowhere in this article does it imply that Vasquez is a "washedup, unprofessional, hussy". Vasquez and Bancks both discussed their own dynamic having an effect on their characters. The producers became concerned with the media attention to the characters and actors. When Vasquez had finished filming she said that her screen test was an accomplishment. She said it. We cannot rewrite history because she has changed her mind. If you have a source to prove that she has, then perhaps reword. There is no mention of anything untoward, anything sexual, defamatory, anything to suggest she is unprofessional, If anything, Bancks stating that they did not pursue a relationship because of the show - surely that is maintaining professionalism for the role.

My conclusion is that I think you should focus more on this article. Not Vasquez. I'm not willing to endorse removal of content that in theory has a place in this article. I'm willing to see how the prose can be tightened and brought more into context with the character. I'm the first person to admit I'm not word perfect and I appreciate help if it means the article gains improvements. To finish, this certainly is not my article, I just added information to it. Any editor is free to edit it.Rain the 1 02:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Slingkey, I've been watching this article over the last few days ever since a legal threat was made. I have reviewed the article myself and in no way do I find the article libellous, I also do not find that the article is in any way negative towards the actress. I also don't think that Rain is being negative, just getting a little annoyed that their edits are being reverted on this article.

IMDB does not count as a credible source because absolutely anyone can edit it. The same goes for fansites, however tabloids would be reliable because not everyone can edit them. I suggest that you read WP:RS to find out what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't.

The article does not imply anything about the actress' profressionalism - it doesn't even mention it. Nor is its only purpose to tarnish her reputation. When I read the article I did not read Vasquez saying that Home and Away was her biggest role to date, I read it that it was her biggest role when she said that.

What is worrying me though is that you are editing this article yet you claim to have contact with the actress. You have also attempted to create an article about the actress. You might like to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy--5 albert square (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

what concerns is this is the second time an assumption has been made re legal actions. Have you considered you that the person you are speaking with has logged on to resolve the dispute. Computers are shared in this environment and as a user. Slingkey has never levelled threats and likewise I am annoyed that this assumption being made particularly as I have initiated steps to resolve the dispute. No longer interested in discussing this with either of you. Albert square and rainthorne you see nothing wrong because you do no know the truth and write based on the limited info you have been exposed to. I have realised that this poor level of writing and research is all it takes to write an article and I am no longer interested in contributting. As a journalist who has worked for these publiications you have cited (that is correct) and knows the facts better than any of you, it is a shame the real story will never see the light of day. I wish you both well. (Slingkey (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you refering to Slingkey as a separate editor - you are Slingkey. That IP certainly was you, I'm sure a check user would confirm. You are welcome to think that our contribuations are not good enough. This discussion really isn't going anywhere productive. Now you are claiming to have worked for the publications cited in this article. All 6 magazines? Two which are Australian based, 4 which are UK based? Legal threats, contact with the actress and now you are a journalist. Conflict of interest indeed.Rain the 1 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)