Talk:Monique Ryan#Sally Rugg Affidavit

@GraziePrego TarnishedPath GivingUpTheGhost: In relation to {{qq|husband was filmed attempting to remove a political opponent's corflute}}, I think we either need to remove the sentence altogether or add more context to the incident. Considering WP:DUE I think the article needs to mention the event and the current sentence does not do the incident justice and acts as a disservice to the reader. When looking at the incident within the scope of Ryan's 2025 federal election campaign, considering the media coverage [https://www.google.com/search?q=Monique+Ryan&sca_esv=dae00c36fa947bf4&rlz=1C5CHFA_enAU1040AU1041&biw=1512&bih=857&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AHTn8zq9WE9R8juIDo2dllqnEO0cFWK3dQ%3A1742941582566&ei=ji3jZ6mmIvySseMP3YyQkQU&ved=0ahUKEwippZKvo6aMAxV8SWwGHV0GJFIQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=Monique+Ryan&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MiDE1vbmlxdWUgUnlhbjIQEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiDARiKBTILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBMgsQABiABBixAxiDATIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEjxFFDRAljbEnAAeACQAQCYAZ4BoAH3BaoBAzAuNbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCBKAC9ATCAg0QABiABBixAxiDARgNwgIHEAAYgAQYDZgDAIgGAZIHAzAuNKAHix6yBwMwLjS4B_QE&sclient=gws-wiz-news], has been a significant event and should get a short paragraph with more context. Here is what I propose...

In March 2025, Ryan and her husband, Peter Jordan, issued an apology after Jordan was filmed by the son of a property owner attempting to remove a corflute belonging to Liberal candidate, Amelia Hamer.[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-24/federal-mp-monique-ryan-and-husband-apologise-after-sign-removal/105088472] Jordan claimed that the sign was on placed illegally on public property and that "anyone can take it down because it’s illegal".[https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/monique-ryan-s-husband-filmed-removing-liberal-sign-20250324-p5llyn] Following the incident, the Australian Electoral Commission issued a warning about the "the importance of civility while campaigning."[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/24/monique-ryan-husband-peter-jordan-video-liberal-party-sign-amelia-hamer-ntwnfb] GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Per WP:NOTNEWS: {{tq|In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia}}.

:This incident isn't even about Ryan herself, it's primarily about her husband's actions (a non-notable person). Including too much material about the actions of her husband to me is quite gossipy. Anymore than a sentence on this incident, that is most likely laking in lasting signficance, is unwarranted. If there does turn out to be long term reporting on the incident then I would be more confortable with inclussion of more than a sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 00:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::It may not been Ryan's actions, but it still is quite significant within the context of the section (2025 federal election). I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here. There is no original research and the significance can be seen in the scale of reporting and media attention the incident has received. Having only one sentence does not provide enough context about the event which I think does have a lasting significance in the context of her 2025 campaign (and may go against WP:DUE). From my understanding of wikipedia gossip policy and guidelines, it relates more to tabloid trivia. [https://www.google.com/search?q=Monique+Ryan&sca_esv=dae00c36fa947bf4&rlz=1C5CHFA_enAU1040AU1041&biw=1512&bih=857&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AHTn8zq9WE9R8juIDo2dllqnEO0cFWK3dQ%3A1742941582566&ei=ji3jZ6mmIvySseMP3YyQkQU&ved=0ahUKEwippZKvo6aMAxV8SWwGHV0GJFIQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=Monique+Ryan&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MiDE1vbmlxdWUgUnlhbjIQEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiDARiKBTILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwEyCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBMgsQABiABBixAxiDATIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABEjxFFDRAljbEnAAeACQAQCYAZ4BoAH3BaoBAzAuNbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCBKAC9ATCAg0QABiABBixAxiDARgNwgIHEAAYgAQYDZgDAIgGAZIHAzAuNKAHix6yBwMwLjS4B_QE&sclient=gws-wiz-news Media coverage] we have seen about the event is from the ABC, the AFR, the Australian, the Age, and the Guardian who are sources who don't usually engage in tabloid gossip. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I disagree and think providing too much detail about something which is most likely lacking in long term signficance would be UNDUE. If and when there is long-term coverage then we can reevuluate. TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I do wonder a bit how much of the coverage is because it's a funny incident rather than it having any real significance. If there was any suggestion this was part of some big political strategy to destroy corflutes or something then sure it deserves much more description, but a one-off event done by a non-notable individual not the subject of the article? GraziePrego (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think though I would be in favour of adding a little bit more- I think it's good to have the context that Ryan's husband said he was removing it because he thought it was illegally placed. As the sentence stands now, it could be interpreted that he was taking down a corflute just from someone's house in broad daylight and thus openly doing something he would know is wrong. However, whether we believe him or not, he does have a stated reason that he thought the sign was illegal and so thought he was doing something right. GraziePrego (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I really don't see what his thoughts about why he was attempting to remove it are relevant. This is an article about Monique, not him. TarnishedPath^talk 01:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::In the context of this article being about Monique, the only part I see of any relevance is that she appologised for it. TarnishedPath^talk 01:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think I am asking for too much detail, rather just enough detail, having a brief sentence like the one present leave the reader asking why did he try to remove the sign? Where did he remove it from? What was the aftermath? Also Wikipedia doesn't require sustained coverage for events but rather significant coverage which we have seen + a statement from the Australian election Commission about the incident. Also as mentioned before, it may not been Ryan's actions, but it is quite a significant event in the context of her 2025 campaign + also considering WP:DUE given the media coverage. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::The reporting isn't even about Monique, it's about her husband. Any inclusion beyond her apology would be coatracking. The only relevance to Monique is her apology for what her husband did. If readers what to find out more they can read the source, like they always do. We never cover every last detail from a source for obvious reasons. We only summarise what is important and given the current reporting is likely a blip it would be undue to go into any more detail than a sentence. TarnishedPath^talk 07:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm leaning more towards {{u|TarnishedPath}}'s perpective here. In the lead up to a federal election, this sort of thing with nearly always result in news spikes. But I cannot see the coverage being of lasting significance (and only with the passage of time and hindsight will we know for sure). Election news cycles move on very quickly and we should avoid the trap of recentism. I think the just the first sentence as proposed above by {{u|GMH Melbourne}} is sufficient to cover this incident: {{tq|In March 2025, Ryan and her husband, Peter Jordan, issued an apology after Jordan was filmed by the son of a property owner attempting to remove a corflute belonging to Liberal candidate, Amelia Hamer.[2]}} Dfadden (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I have no issue with usage of that sentence instead of what I last edited in. The only other change that I would suggest is that the whole section be consolidated into one paragraph instead of three paragraphs of one/two sentence each which is bad writing. I would suggest:

:::::::{{tq2|Ryan is standing for re-election at the 2025 Australian federal election.{{Cite web |date=14 August 2024 |title=Peter Dutton wants to win back Kooyong |url=https://www.moniqueryan.com.au/peter_dutton_wants_to_win_back_kooyong |access-date=2025-03-03 |website=Dr Monique Ryan MP |language=en-AU}} Between 28 October 2024 and 25 January 2025, her campaign spent A$71,000 on advertising on Meta Platforms.{{Cite web |last=Ireland |first=Olivia |date=2025-02-01 |title=Monique Ryan and Allegra Spender spend more than $150,000 on Google and Meta ads |url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/monique-ryan-and-allegra-spender-spend-more-than-150-000-on-google-and-meta-ads-20250128-p5l7n5.html |access-date=2025-03-03 |website=The Sydney Morning Herald |language=en}} In February 2025, Ryan stated that in the event of a hung parliament at the federal election, her first priority would be reforming the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax to increase taxation revenue from oil and gas companies.{{Cite web |last=Mizen |first=Ronald |date=16 February 2025 |title=I offered to work with Dutton, he wasn’t interested: Monique Ryan |url=https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/i-offered-to-work-with-dutton-he-wasn-t-interested-monique-ryan-20250216-p5lch5 |access-date=2025-03-24 |website=Australian Financial Review |language=en}} In March 2025, Ryan and her husband, Peter Jordan, issued an apology after Jordan was filmed by the son of a property owner attempting to remove a corflute belonging to Liberal candidate, Amelia Hamer.{{Cite news |date=2025-03-24 |title='A mistake': Monique Ryan’s husband apologises after removing Liberal sign |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-24/federal-mp-monique-ryan-and-husband-apologise-after-sign-removal/105088472 |access-date=2025-03-26 |work=ABC News |language=en-AU}}}} TarnishedPath^talk 08:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

OK, so at present we have 6 sentences dedicated to corflute removals, which is spread accross two paragraphs. This is an excessive amount of prose dedicated to what is an extremely common occurrence in elections. Can we think about removing the total down to three sentences or less please people?

Pinging @GMH Melbourne, @GraziePrego and @Errantios as editors who have edited the section recently. Please excuse me if I've missed anyone. Also pinging @Dfadden from the discussion above. TarnishedPath^talk 05:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've condensed it a bit more. Errantios (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's much better, but seriously is there no other coverage of her announcements etc. that we have to dedicate half of the section about her 2025 campaign to fucking corflutes? TarnishedPath^talk 12:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Still two weeks to go ... Errantios (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Do people in Australia NOT know what election signs are? corflute is from a brand name, not familiar outside of Australia, and you shouldn't have to click another link to determine the meaning of word in an article. I imagine most English speakers know what an election sign is, while only Australians know what a corflute is. Jag1762010 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:While corflute may be a brandname, in Australian common usage we call them corflutes. Given this article is about an Australia politician we should use Australian common usage when referring to things. Refer to WP:ENGVAR. TarnishedPath^talk 05:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:This article uses Australian English. As the name of an election sign in english is a corflute, I feel it makes sense to refer to it as such in this article. The Sydney Morning Herald article gives it as "corflute" in the headline too. GraziePrego (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Exactly, I've yet to see any of the local sourcing not use the term. Although, can we stop adding more content to the article about the things please? TarnishedPath^talk 05:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@GraziePrego TarnishedPath: Two editors have inserted that Ryan has won the 2025 election and I have removed these additions. They have come only from media projections of the result, even before the Australian Electoral Commission has published a result for any division: https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-31496.htm. That Ryan is to win in her division seems to be reliably predicted, but it is not yet a fact. Even the non-postal count might not be complete{{mdash}}maybe tomorrow. Errantios (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:SECONDARY reliable sources state that she's won. We follow secondary reliable sources around here. We don't engage in original research by interpretating WP:PRIMARY sources. TarnishedPath^talk 22:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is about sources of fact, as WP:RS clearly assumes. When Australian media, in the course of an election, state that someone has "won" a seat, they can only mean{{mdash}}and are generally understood to mean{{mdash}}that the vote count has reached a point where that candidate can be confidently predicted to win. They are not saying that the candidate has been elected, which would obviously be false. It will become true if (as predicted in this case) the candidate is officially declared to have won. Media commentary has to be understood to include that assumption; that is a direct understanding of what the media say, not some supplementary interpretation of it. That they make a prediction is, of course, itself a fact, but to include that fact in the article would be premature: WP:NOTNP. Errantios (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC) (Amendment: for essay WP:NOTNP substitute policy WP:NOTNEWS. Errantios (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC))

:::If a bunch of secondary reliable sources are reporting it then it is not premature. Again, we don't do interpretation, that's original research. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Many secondary sources have now revised their declaration of the seat of Kooyong. Many are now saying the seat is too close to call. 203.219.48.6 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I have no dog in this fight, I only came across this from a weird comment on a different page. But 1.) This should probably be returned to the WP:NOCON/WP:QUO version instead of being edit warred; and 2.) With my cursory search at the time of writing, reliable sources are saying she has not won, and she herself has walked back her victory, so it'd be WP:AGEMATTERS anyways. [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2025/may/05/politics-election-vote-counting-to-resume-labor-win-liberals-coalition-loss-albanese-dutton-ntwnfb?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-681819ce8f08171b1691d676#block-681819ce8f08171b1691d676] [https://x.com/Mon4Kooyong/status/1919176155321778488?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet] Just10A (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It's over, she won. Someone please update the article.

:::::::https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2025/may/12/australia-news-live-nationals-leadership-labor-cabinet-ministers-anthony-albanese-ed-husic-liberal-sussan-ley-angus-taylor-ntwnfb TarnishedPath^talk 03:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Wrong. An election is not "over" until a result has been officially declared and, [https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseSeatSummary-31496.htm as I write], that has yet to happen. Editors who do not understand this have "updated" the article on the basis of media reports, which, as I explained above, are not sufficient. Nevertheless, I will leave those changes alone because, as one can see from the AEC's [https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseSeatSummary-31496.htm figures for the completed count], they will become true when the AEC makes a declaration. Errantios (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I've already pointed out to you WP policy above. I'm not going to repeat myself. TarnishedPath^talk 11:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I have raised the general issue in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#When has an election candidate "won"?. Errantios (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the 2025 election campaign currently reads:

{{tq2|In March 2025, Ryan and her husband, Peter Jordan, issued an apology after Jordan was filmed by the son of a property owner attempting to remove a corflute belonging to Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer.{{Cite news |date=24 March 2025 |title='A mistake': Monique Ryan’s husband apologises after removing Liberal sign |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-24/federal-mp-monique-ryan-and-husband-apologise-after-sign-removal/105088472 |access-date=26 March 2025 |work=ABC News}} After a separate incident when video circulated on social media showed one of Ryan's own corflutes being torn down and buried, Ryan issued a statement condemning "violence and aggression" in political campaigning.{{Cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/surgeon-under-investigation-over-chilling-video-of-him-tearing-down-teal-s-corflute-20250419-p5lswn.htm |last=McArthur |first=Grant |title=Surgeon under investigation over ‘chilling’ video of him tearing down teal’s corflute |work=Sydney Morning Herald |date=19 April 2025 |access-date=21 April 2025}} As a result of the attempted sign removal, the Liberal Party erected signs reading "Monique, please DO NOT take this sign" as part of campaigning for the Kooyong electorate.{{cite news |last1=Crowley |first1=Tom |title=Kooyong corflute kerfuffle headed for court as Liberals cry foul at council over Amelia Hamer sign removal |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-30/kooyong-monique-ryan-amelia-hamer-sign-injunction/105233842 |access-date=5 May 2025 |work=ABC News (Australia) |date=30 April 2025 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250505022633/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-30/kooyong-monique-ryan-amelia-hamer-sign-injunction/105233842 |archive-date=5 May 2025 |quote=The "Monique, please DO NOT take this sign" A-frames are a taunt related to this incident, for which both Dr Ryan and her husband have apologised. |url-status=live}} Following the incident, she repeatedly declined interviews with Sky News{{cite news |last1=Maiden |first1=Samantha |title=Monique Ryan dodges another interview in an awkward exchange |url=https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/not-a-beauty-contest-peter-dutton-declares-labors-lies-are-hurting-him/news-story/ea4f13af29d1ebfa07934f468ff76634 |access-date=5 May 2025 |publisher=News.com.au |date=22 April 2025}} and later contacted the Australian Federal Police to avoid an interview from Rebel News.{{cite news |last1=Yemini |first1=Avi |title=Monique Ryan CALLS COPS on Avi Yemini for asking questions |url=https://www.rebelnews.com/monique_ryan_calls_cops_on_avi_yemini_for_asking_questions |access-date=5 May 2025 |publisher=Rebel News |date=29 April 2025}}}}

We've discussed this section multiple times above. Two much space is being spent dedicated to trivia. At the very least Rebel News and the content it supports needs to be removed, as it is an unreliable source. Given that nothing substantive is being discussed in the whole paragraph I'd suggest it should be reduced down to 2 or 3 sentences.

Pinging @Jag1762010, @GraziePrego, @Errantios, @GMH Melbourne, @Dfadden, @LivelyRatification and @Nford24 as involved editors. TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Rebel News absolutely has no place in the article. "declined interviews with sky news" just appears to be "she didn't talk to a reporter at prepoll", which is hardly remarkable enough for inclusion in this article. I would support chopping the last sentence entirely. GraziePrego (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|TarnishedPath}} Cheers. I added the "please DO NOT take this sign" thing because I thought it was mildly interesting trivia. Reckon the Rebel News thing ought to be removed given they are far-right whackjobs. I didn't mean to wade into editing drama or dedicate too much to irrelevant things, was just intrigued by the amount of references I saw across Kooyong via Liberal Party placards to a fairly minor incident and thought it warranted a mention. Would have added a photo of said placard if it was free use, which I don't think it is as corflutes aren't freedom of panorama question mark. My take is it's not worth more than a couple sentences, maybe, "Monique's husband did this thing, the two of them apologised, the Liberal Party put out some signs referencing it." LivelyRatification (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::This election campaign was definitely a weird one. Corflutes and other trivial inanity get more coverage than they would otherwise. I agree that two or three sentences is more than enough. TarnishedPath^talk 07:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I included the Rebel News item primarily because it’s an unusual and potentially newsworthy development—having the AFP involved is not typical. That said, I want to be clear that I have no strong attachment to this content and am more than willing to go with consensus on whether it stays or goes. My concern is less about defending Rebel News itself and more about ensuring that removal decisions are based on policy, not personal views about the outlet. Comments like “Rebel News absolutely has no place in the article” or referring to them as “far-right whackjobs” raise red flags in terms of Wikipedia’s commitment to a neutral point of view. As far as I can tell, Rebel News is a registered media organisation in Canada with formal accreditation to cover the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. It’s not blacklisted on Wikipedia, and the specific information included was factual and narrowly focused on an unusual incident—not editorializing. If the consensus is to remove it, I’m fine with that. I just want to ensure we’re not setting a precedent of excluding sources based purely on ideological disagreement, especially when the content is relevant and verifiable. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 10:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Rebel News is an unreliable source. Whether you find there reporting unusual or newsworthy is beside the point. If you want to make decisions based on policy, you only need to refer to WP:REPUTABLE which states: {{tq|Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}. Rebel News has nether a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy and can therefore be considered to be generally unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I also think 2-3 sentences is more than enough to cover this. It's fairly trivial in the overall scheme of things. And as far as the Rebel News ref - one look at that so called "news" article should be enough to see that it is far from factual or accurate. Even if one didn't know that Avi Yemini is a well known agitator and provocateur, it reads like a personal blog post. Any person with a modicum of critical thinking skill could see it is merely a sensationalised account of an activist claiming "press" credentials to harass and discredit a political candidate. I struggle to accept the claim itself that she called the AFP to avoid an interview as WP:NPOV. As an encyclopedia, we should aim much higher than trying to pass off this rubbish as WP:RS. Dfadden (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}