Talk:Monique Ryan

The second paragraph of the 2025 election campaign currently reads:

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.^[1] 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.^[2] 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.^[3] Following the incident, she repeatedly declined interviews with Sky News^[4] and later contacted the Australian Federal Police to avoid an interview from Rebel News.^[5]

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)

@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: 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)