Talk:Monique Ryan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Transcluding GA review
Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers
6,736 edits
placed Monique Ryan GAN nomination on hold (GANReviewTool)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|04:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Politics and government|status=onreview|note=|shortdesc=Australian paediatric neurologist and MP for Kooyong}}
{{GA nominee|04:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:GraziePrego|GraziePrego]] ([[User talk:GraziePrego|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Politics and government|status=onhold|note=|shortdesc=Australian paediatric neurologist and MP for Kooyong}}
{{Talk page}}
{{Talk page}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1=

Revision as of 03:47, 5 January 2024

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
  • Brief: The requested content (see here) as is does not seem to be in line with below mentioned Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Same time there may be some scope for seeking further inputs and consensus process to decide on possibilities of some update to avoid incompleteness of the information and due coverage of
    WP:SIGCOV
    .
Detail analysis notes as 3rd opinion giver
  • Present text in controversy section:

On 25 January 2023, Monique Ryan's chief of staff, Sally Rugg, launched a Federal Court action against Ryan in relation to a "breach of general protections under the Fair Work Act".[1] On 7 March 2023, a Federal Court judge dismissed an interlocutory application by Rugg to continue working for Ryan.[2][3]

  • Reverted content edit: (see here)
  • Usually I would have considered smh reporter Angus Thompson 's credentials seem better for being a reporter specialized in industrial relation reporting but The Guardian report seem to mention that

    "..Although the commonwealth, which employs staffers through the Department of Finance, is listed as the first respondent in the case,..

    and Monique Ryan second respondent. I am not sure present coverage should miss on this fact.
  • WP:BLPPRIMARY
    guideline suggests ".. Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. .." Affidavits seem to be part of trial transcripts. So extra caution is suggested.
  • Affidavits are also kind of
    WP:BLPSELFPUB
    (also see point 1 and 2) claims about what happened in supposedly adverse interaction happened in private space where in only courts can rule who was right and who was wrong.
  • Next question is since both personalities are high profile and
    WP:SIGCOV
    is there any scope for any additional details to be covered in this controversy? I think sentence part

    "..action against Ryan in relation to a "breach of general protections under the Fair Work Act".

    sounds incomplete. Sentence can be updated for '.. action against the commonwealth and Ryan..'.
I do not see any harm in discussing possibility for updating article informing on the line some thing like '.. from Rugg's side allegedly issue seems to be about excess working hours and denial of sick leave and from Ryan's side traveling while sick during pandemic times..' with appropriate RS. Though affidavits are not WP:RS still RS seem to have covered the allegations from both side and
WP:SIGCOV. On this point inputs from more editors may help. (I make this point taking opinions expressed @ ongoing relevant discussion to update guidelines @ MoS/legal
</ small>
Same time one of the lady said she wants to be prime minister and rolled her eyes etc. seems too trivial for encyclopedic writing at least at this stage and need not be included.
  • If not satisfied with my 3rd opinion next stages in
    WP:Rfc
Bookku (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the 3rd opinion. Simba1409 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Thompson, Angus (30 January 2023). "Activist, adviser Sally Rugg takes boss Monique Ryan to court". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 30 January 2023.
  2. ABC News Australia
    . Retrieved 2023-03-07.
  3. ^ Rugg v Commonwealth of Australia as Represented by the Department of Finance AND Ryan, VID 44 of 2023 (Federal Court of Australia 2023-03-07).




MoS/legal

@

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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal and also a relevant discussion to update guidelines is open @ the talk page there. Bookku (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

GA Review

Passed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Monique Ryan/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JML1148 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for improving the article! Review will come soon. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Overall, fantastic work, particularly with the writing style. However, the article is lacking detail in some areas, which will need to be fixed before this is made a GA.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    See comments below.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    See comments below.

Feedback

  • Some references without authors, including refs 10, 12, and 45.
    • Fixed, Reference 10 is wired via the AP so it doesn't have an author.
  • Her medical career needs to be expanded upon. Ryan seems to have been a fairly prominent doctor but there's almost no information about her medical career.
  • Ryan, like all teals, ran a very grassroots-focused campaign, yet this isn't well-explained.
  • Climate 200 is mentioned once, in the lede. There should be at least two sentences about them and the amount of money they gave Ryan.
  • Does 'teal independent' need quotation marks in every appearance it makes in the article? It's a rather common word to use now.
  • Quotation marks on 'moderate' could be read as scarequoting; on my first readthrough of the article, I thought so.
  • 'principal investigator' feels like jargon. Any more accessible word to use here?
  • Almost mention about anti-corruption policies, which was a big part of Ryan's campaign.
  • I really don't like how the 'See Also' template is sitting in the middle of a section. Can we split that into a subsection so that it looks better?
    • Agree, split it into its own section.
  • First two sentences in "Member of Parliament" section should be in the above section.
  • Stage three tax cuts need to be explained. Also does it need to be capitalized?
  • The last paragraph of the "Member of Parliament" section is a mess of completely different policies that ideally should be separated to make more sense.
  • When the Israel-Palestine conflict is removed, the "Political Views" section is rather short. Can we expand this with more policy positions?

Overall, the article just needs some extensions and minor changes to reach GA status. Usually a source check would be needed at this stage of the process, but I will wait until the extensions are complete. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments! I shall get to work on them. GraziePrego (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GraziePrego: A gentle reminder - if after 7 days, there haven't been substantial improvements to the article, the GAN will be failed. It's already been nearly 3 days with no improvements to the article. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder- I have just set up this morning to start work on this :) When I complete a comment, I'll italicise it. GraziePrego (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping of @JML1148 - I have finished going through your comments, thank you very much. Please let me know if you have any questions and what further changes you think need to be made. GraziePrego (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GraziePrego: Thanks for the improvements. Some more stuff below:

Source spot-check

  • Source 4 - her mother was a charity worker who served as CEO of the Christian Brothers Foundation, and founded Women for Women in Africa, a charity supporting the Kibera slum in Kenya. This claim appears to apply to Marguerite Ryan, but neither of the sources linked to the statement confirm that Marguerite is Monique Ryan's mother.
  • Source 7 - Where does 'in 2014' come from?
  • Source 13 - Verifies.
  • Source 16 - Verifies.
  • Source 21 - Verifies.
  • Source 27 - Verifies.
  • Source 31 - Verifies.
  • Source 34 - Verifies.
  • Source 37 - Verifies.
  • Source 43 - Verifies.
  • Source 49 - Verifies.
  • Source 52 - Verifies.
  • Source 55 - Verifies.
  • Source 59 - Verifies.
  • Source 62 - Verifies.
  • Source 66 - Verifies.

JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JML1148 Thank you very much for your additional comments. I've removed the statements about Ryan's parents because sadly I couldn't find anything supporting them. 2014 was a great pickup from you- I found a copy of Ryan's CV as part of the Folbigg inquiry, which clarifies that she became director in 2015. I also agree with the placement of Selected Publications that you suggested, and popped it at the bottom. All comments are finished, if you have any more changes then please let me know :) GraziePrego (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GraziePrego: Happy to pass this, then. Thank you for your work. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monique_Ryan&oldid=1193691874"