Jump to content

Talk:Monique Ryan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateMonique Ryan is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleMonique Ryan has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 8, 2024Good article nomineeListed
February 12, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 16, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Monique Ryan ran for election to the Parliament of Australia after seeing an advertisement in the newspaper calling for an independent candidate?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by GraziePrego (talk). Self-nominated at 07:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Monique Ryan; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, sorry, whilst Oz is considered by some to be the westernmost island of New Zealand, I actually know zilch about their politics. You'll want an Australian for this I think! DrThneed (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with me. JennyOz, do you know how to review a DYK nomination? Schwede66 17:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well Schwede no, I don't know how but happy to have a go (especially if you will answer any questions I will undoubtedly have). GraziePrego has been doing a great job on our politicians' articles.
But firstly, GMH, what is your concern with Alt0... that Ryan is considered as one of the Teal independents or that the name teal was derived from the blend of blue and green? JennyOz (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s really nice of you to say, JennyOz :) thank you GraziePrego (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz: My concern is with the "blue/green blend" phrase. I believe that is what commentators have said rather than the actual meaning behind the colour choice. I have no secondary sources that verify this but I did find this tweet. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GMH, Zali Steggall (the first (2019) to use teal as her campaign colour) said "I was always looking at what colour resonates with the electorate, and it was that mix of a policy platform that is blue and green, and it was apt for me being a moderate centrist politician very focused on climate and environmental outcomes..." The colour name and meaning then became "so-called" and now "a thing" since the 2022 election. More at SMH re "teal' being word of the year.
  • Article is new enough, passed GA 8 January and nominated same day. Is long enough and is comprehensively well-sourced throughout with formatted reliable sources. Is neutral. Earwig gives one URL (apumone.com which I can't find mentioned at WP:RSN) at 62.5% 'possible' (but from iffy site per this factcheck) and content appears copied from Wikipedia. Other Earwig results are job titles, publications etc. I didn't detect any close paraphrasing. QPQ N/A, appears to be nominator's 3rd nomination.
  • Hooks - All hook lengths are under 200 characters.
ALT0 - Hook is interesting though I think needs tweaking...
I can't access the link GMH offered but have read about a dozen RSs (kept a list if needed) that mention the teal meaning derivation. Whilst some mention the candidates have eg "economically conservative Liberal sensibilities" others talk of where they were contesting ie Liberal Party–held seats. And we know Ryan was formerly an ALP member so I don't think we can say "her politics" were partly Liberal Party.
Per the quote at ref 14 in article from Q+A when Ryan said "And that's why people such as myself, who are sensible centrists, have stepped into the middle, representing the values of traditional small-L liberals..." I'm pretty sure she's saying small-L liberal as in liberalism (people who are ideologically liberal but are not necessarily members of a political party named "Liberal") not as in Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia) as is linked. (I can't check though because the Qanda site no longer plays that episode's video nor loads its transcript.)
(Also in "as her politics blends the", should be singular 'blend' and "with Green politics" should have a lower case g.)
GraziePrego, I'm sure there is a teal-related hook to be had but not quite as currently worded. I'd be happy to help suggest tweaks to ALT0 teal hook if my concerns aren't clear:)
ALT1 is fine. Approve, is sourced and interesting. (Maybe even quirky.) JennyOz (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 is fine except "paediatric neurologist" is not directly mentioned in the given The Age reference and in article it only appears in ibox and lede. (I'm not suggesting it's wrong, obviously she was a neurologist at a children's hospital.) The specific term is definitely mentioned though in other RS refs eg current refs 12, 16, 29, so suggest one of those is copied to the two-word term in article if ALT2 is selected.


A potential source

[edit]

@GraziePrego: If you want to expand this page further, a good source to use would be The Teal Revolution: Inside the Movement Changing Australian Politics, by Margot Saville. Steelkamp (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion! I have a friend with a copy and have organised to borrow it :) GraziePrego (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corflute removal

[edit]

@GraziePrego TarnishedPath GivingUpTheGhost: In relation to 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 [1], 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.[2] Jordan claimed that the sign was on placed illegally on public property and that "anyone can take it down because it’s illegal".[3] Following the incident, the Australian Electoral Commission issued a warning about the "the importance of civility while campaigning."[4] GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS: 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. TarnishedPathtalk 00:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. 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)[reply]
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. TarnishedPathtalk 01:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. TarnishedPathtalk 01:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of this article being about Monique, the only part I see of any relevance is that she appologised for it. TarnishedPathtalk 01:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. TarnishedPathtalk 07:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning more towards 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 GMH Melbourne is sufficient to cover this incident: 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)[reply]
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:

Ryan is standing for re-election at the 2025 Australian federal election.[1] Between 28 October 2024 and 25 January 2025, her campaign spent A$71,000 on advertising on Meta Platforms.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4]

TarnishedPathtalk 08:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Peter Dutton wants to win back Kooyong". Dr Monique Ryan MP. 14 August 2024. Retrieved 2025-03-03.
  2. ^ Ireland, Olivia (2025-02-01). "Monique Ryan and Allegra Spender spend more than $150,000 on Google and Meta ads". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2025-03-03.
  3. ^ Mizen, Ronald (16 February 2025). "I offered to work with Dutton, he wasn't interested: Monique Ryan". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 2025-03-24.
  4. ^ "'A mistake': Monique Ryan's husband apologises after removing Liberal sign". ABC News. 2025-03-24. Retrieved 2025-03-26.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monique_Ryan&oldid=1282419981"