Talk:Monique Ryan

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MONIQUE RYAN L1200490 CREDIT KRISTOFFER PAULSEN.jpg

Papers
I would be tempted to remove most of the included academic citations. If Dr Ryan is included in a supplementary appendix as an author amongst a cast of many dozen that's hardly notable enough for wiki. None of the papers on which Dr Ryan is listed as an author in the paper itself are notable, all minor papers in very low tier journals. Seems like a politician padding their research chops frankly. 203.220.30.12 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which papers are minor and not notable? If you want to argue your case you'll have to actually list them and explain why they aren't notable. In regards to authorship, looks like she is listed as the lead author for many of the listed publications. --Simba1409 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to add onto this, with over 150 peer-reviewed publications, listing only 6 is surely not a politician padding their research 'chops'. --Simba1409 (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sally Rugg Affidavit
Content was removed in relation to the Sally Rugg affidavit. The content seems to be sourced well and WP:NPOV seems to be adhered to (minor changes may be needed to give weight to other sides). I reverted the removal of content (see here) and it was subsequently re-reverted. Is this content acceptable for inclusion? Are amendments required prior to its inclusion? Should it be removed altogether? ––– GMH MELBOURNE   TALK  13:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this discussion to a talk page. The accusation and court case by Sally Rugg against Monique Ryan absolutely belongs in the controversies section, no dispute there. However, I do not believe that minor allegations or claims made in the affidavits/application should be on the Wikipedia page while the court case is ongoing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an Age CBD column. I've taken a look at the affidavits online and both sides make damaging claims, yet the only claims (outside of the general claim of the application) mentioned are those made by Sally Rugg. The claims are disputed of course by Monique Ryan and that is not mentioned either.


 * In terms of balance, to only include the accusations found in the affidavits from one side that reflect poorly only on Monique Ryan does clearly not meet WP:NPOV is it clearly isn't balanced. Naturally, one solution is to include the claims against Rugg, such as not performing all the duties of the role or performing them poorly, or catching a flight whilst she had COVID.


 * However, if you start doing that then editors have the read the affidavits and determine which of the 100s of claims should be mentioned in this article and which one's shouldn't, noting that almost all of them are disputed by the other party.


 * The court case is ongoing, I propose that only factual, undisputed court facts are part of the article until the case concludes. Currently, the article mentions the overall claim made in the application and the outcome of the interlocutory meeting. For now, that is appropriate. To take any other approach will lead to various debates as to which affidavit claims should make the article (certainly it would be 6 paragraphs long if you included them all) and then of course, you'll have to drastically change the page once a judge makes rulings on the claims made. Keep it simple, keep it factual, and don't make it a CBD gossip/speculation column by blurting out the various she said, she said of these affidavits. Simba1409 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Taking what you have said into account, I think that it is possible to keep the removed content provided that both side of the court case are given the same weight that is available throughout the mainstream reliable sources. (See WP:BALANCE).
 * Also FYI, here are some sources that establish notability of the removed content: ABC, Herald Sun, The Australian, Daily Telegraph, Sky News, 9 News, APP. ––– GMH MELBOURNE   TALK  12:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied with the 3rd opinion. Simba1409 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

MoS/legal
I came here from WP:3O but I am not sure I would be able spare time for providing 3rd opinion. Any ways as of now I wish to bring attention to the fact that we have Manual of Style/Legal and also a relevant discussion to update guidelines is open @ the talk page there.&#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A potential source
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)


 * 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)