# Talk:Monique Ryan

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. TarnishedPathtalk 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? TarnishedPathtalk 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—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. TarnishedPathtalk 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—and are generally understood to mean—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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. [1] [2] 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 TarnishedPathtalk 03:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Wrong. An election is not "over" until a result has been officially declared and, 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 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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:

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. 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. 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. Following the incident, she repeatedly declined interviews with Sky News and later contacted the Australian Federal Police to avoid an interview from Rebel News.
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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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)