Talk:Sid Ryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Organized Labour Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

[edit] Comments from article space

These comments were placed in the body of the article by User:Ross Crea and subsequently removed [1]:

( Once again you need to understand the context of the battle over the OMERS pension plan. Prior to Bill 206, the stakeholders had no real say over how their pension plan was administered and governed. This responsibility rested with the Ontario governmnet. Ryan waged a 10 year campaign to force the governmnet to relinquish control over the pension plan and give it back to the stakeholders(unions and employers). Bill 206 accomplished this, however there were parts of Bill 206 that Ryan objected to, such as giving special privelages to the police and fire unions but not to Ryans membership.

Ryans campaign was opposed by AMO (Association of Municipalities of Ontario) they preferred having the government run the plan because in years when the plan had a surplus, the government invariably gave a contribution holiday to the employers. Ryan was adamently opposed to spending surpluses on contribution holidays and preferred instead to spend the surplus improving pensions for existing retirees. Ryan was enormously successful in wresting control of the pension plan away from government and putting it in the hands of the plans stakeholders. However, he had to compromise with the Liberal governmnet on the implementation of Bill 206)

--Bookandcoffee 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An additional comment from User:Ross Crea that was posted in the mainspace and reverted by me: "You have to be balanced when commenting on CUPE's Resolution 50. Please check www.cupe.on.ca and go to "campaigns" to receive CUPE's side of the boycott campaign. Otherwise your profile of Mr ryan is simply being used as a propoganda tool against Mr Ryan and CUPE." Sarcasticidealist 00:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As somebody who frankly doesn't know anything about Bill 208 or the boycott campaign, I don't think the article's existing text reflects badly on Sid Ryan. That said, I'm very happy to entertain alternative versions, as long as they're appropriately-sourced and not CUPE propaganda. Please feel free to suggest some. Sarcasticidealist 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

More from User:Ross Crea: "Ryan has never had to re-align himself with the NDP as he has never left the party. His is a card carrying member since the early 1980's. Your sources of information on Mr Ryan is dreadfully inaccurate." Sarcasticidealist 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that much of the information on Sid Ryan is quite inaccurate and not "sourced" as you suggest in your tutorial. As an example: the information regarding Ryan re-aligning himself with the NDP is completely false. Ryan is a card carrying member of the NDP and a contributor since the early 1980's. He was in attendance at the convention that elected Howard Hampton following Bob Rae's decision to step down as party leader.

It is also grossly unfair to Mr Ryan to be posting comments from 3rd parties regarding the smear campaign waged against Mr Ryan him by a Conservative Party member in the dying days of the 2006 federal election. It is particulary unfair and biased when the person you quoted was the Conservative campaign manager for Mr Colin Carrie. However, the bigger question is why is this article even posted on Mr Ryans profile when the issue is before the courts? Elections Canada has charged the individual responsibe with publishing and distributing false and misleading information in order to influence the outcome of an election.

Mr Ryan is once again running for election and this garbage now appears on your website with no attempt at balance other than to quote from the Conservative Campaign manager( a quote you had to alter because it was factually incorrect.)

Likewise, there is no attempt made to provide balance regarding the campaign to boycott Isreali goods. It is a worldwide campaign supported by hundreds of organizations including churches, various levels of governments in several countries, major trade unions worldwide and some high profile politicians worldwide. You have accepted at face value some version of the campaign that makes no attempt to delve into the issue from a balanced perspective. If you are unable to research both sides of the issue why then would you just post one side.?

I know I am being quite critical here but a persons reputation is at stake. If you are interested in contacting Mr Ryan directly I can help set it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ross Crea (talk • contribs).

Hello Ross - good to see you here on the talk page! I'm confident we'll have everything sorted out pretty quickly now. Before I address any of your points, I want to clarify that I didn't write this article I only became involved in monitoring it last week, after I reorganized Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons, which involved some slight alterations to this page. I agree that there is material in the existing article that's unsourced; I haven't gone through the article to pick it out because I'm only monitoring new changes and this page is a ways down on my priority list. In any event, all material - both old and new - *should* be sourced, and you can feel free to put {{fact}} next to any statement that you think needs sourcing. Or, in cases where you think that unsourced statements are damaging to the subject's reputation, you can remove them entirely (just don't replace them with equally unsourced material!).

Your first point, that Ryan never removed himself from the NDP, is a fair one (assuming it's true); I suspect that the person who used the word "realigned" probably meant that, when Bob Rae was leader, Ryan was an NDP member who was critical of party leadership and the actions of the NDP government, and that under Howard Hampton he's become more supportive. If you'd like to take a crack at rewriting it, be my guest. Just make sure (to beat a dead horse) to source your information.

Your next point is with regards to the smear campaign from the election campaign. As you may have noticed, I made a small modification to this section in response to your concern, so as to include the NDP's claims that Clarke was working for the Conservative campaign. I think this is perfectly balanced: we include the Conservative's claim that he didn't work for the campaign, and then the NDP's claim that he did. What would you suggest would be more balanced than that?

As for why that's included in the article, it's because it was a significant part of his public profile. I don't think the way it's handled here reflects badly on Ryan: it says that Clarke circulated a leaflet alleging links between Ryan and IRA bombings (which he did), that Elections Canada prosecuted Clarke for doing so (it did) and that Ryan sued Clarke for the same reason (he did). All of this is verifiable and cited fact, and in no way defamatory towards Ryan. With respect to your suggestion that we should remove it from the article because it's before the courts, I must disagree: for example, the article on Conrad Black certainly included the criminal charges against him while they were ongoing.

On the international stuff, I actually don't think the current reading reflects badly on Ryan either. That said, if you want to expand these sections to provide additional (cited!) context, go right ahead, as long as it doesn't cause the article to (for example) support the suggestion that Israel engages in Apartheid-like policies. It can and should include that allegation, of course, it just shouldn't take a side on it.

And be as critical about articles as you like, as long as you respect the policies on civility and assuming good faith (which you have so far). Anybody who can't take criticism of what they write doesn't belong on Wikipedia (although, again, I didn't write this article). Moreover, Wikipedia actually shares you concern about making sure the article is fair to Ryan - it as an entire policy on making sure living people aren't defamed (WP:BLP). Sarcasticidealist 01:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one last thing - your offer to put me in touch with Sid Ryan is generous, but basing an article off of an interview I conducted with him directly would violate Wikipedia's policy on original research. Also, if you know Sid Ryan you should read Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest before you edit the page on him. You're certainly welcome to edit the article, you just have to make absolutely sure that any bias you may have in his favour is suppressed. Sarcasticidealist 02:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to offer my apologies for posting comments on the mainspace..I am new to this and was not aware how to go about trying to make changes..likewise..I need to check how to sign my posts to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ross Crea (talk • contribs) 01:48, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Don't worry about it - if people had to know everything about how Wikipedia worked before they started contributing to it, we wouldn't get any new editors at all. I'm just glad we're on the same page now. As for signing your posts, just put four tildes (like this: ~~~~) after your comments. Also, if you want to indent your paragraphs (as you've probably noticed is the custom around here) you need to put the colons before each paragraph, not just the first one; otherwise subsequent ones will be unindented. Sarcasticidealist 02:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the section dealing with the Israeli boycott and "apartheid like policies" should reference the International boycott that is gaining a head of steam and also the fact that former US President Jimmy Carter just published a book titled

Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. CUPE's resolution would be placed in context for the readers if it were posted and reference made to the UN resolutions that Israel ignores.~ ~ ~ ~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ross Crea (talk • contribs).

Hi Ross - I'm generally supportive of the changes you made, but I had a couple of issues with them. The phrase "placed the spotlight on the plight of pensioners living in poverty" is, in my opinion, worded in a fashion that violated WP:NPOV. I think it could be reworded more acceptably while retaining its meaning, and I would have done that but the citation you placed next to it was to a broken link, so I just deleted it. I'm certainly fine in principle with something similar, but more neutrally-worded and properly-cited, going back in there.

Also, calling Willie Madisha "powerful" was little POV, so I deleted it. Also, your second sentence in that section was a little confusing, since you hadn't hitherto explained what COSATU was or even mentioned it, so saying out of the blue that it was instrumental in bringing down apartheid was a little confusing. I also don't think that there's a need to say much about COSATU in an article about Sid Ryan, although if you wanted to say "...union leader Willie Madisha, President of the Congress of South African Trade Unions" (thereby giving readers the chance to read more about the organization for themselves, I'd be supportive of that.

Overall, good improvements, and well-cited. I just had those couple of issues. Sarcasticidealist 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and constructive comments. I dont know what happened to the citation regarding the pension plan. I will take another shot at it keeping in mind your comments.

With respect to the comment regarding wide opposition to resolution 50 from Jewish members of CUPE that is simply not true. CUPE has 225,000 members in the province covering about 1000 local unions. There was one small local in Toronto that protested about the resolution. The local in question has about 100 members that deliver Jewish services. However, CUPE received many many letters from Jewish members and indeed Jewish organizations that supported CUPE's resolution. One final point, the mover of resolution 50 at the convention in 2006, was a Jewish member and there were several Jewish members on the floor who voted in favour of the resolution.~ ~ ~ ~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ross Crea (talk • contribs) 16:35, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I actually wasn't the editor who added in the bit about Jewish opposition; it was an unregistered user who did so. I support your decision to remove it, although I think it could be reinserted in a more NPOV way if somebody wanted to (reflecting the facts you mentioned above). Also, when signing, don't put spaces between the tildes (~~~~ as opposed to ~ ~ ~ ~). Sarcasticidealist 20:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wont bother adding to the piece on Israel unless somebody makes changes to it.

I am unable to get into the main body to make the changes dealing with OMERS pension. It appears the "edit" link is missing from main portion of profile?. Any idea how to access ?Ross Crea 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ross - you can always edit the entire article by clicking "edit this page" on the tab at the very top of the article. The reason there is no edit link on that section of the article is that that section has no heading - if you'd like, you can put one in, for example by writing "==OMERS and Bill 208==" (or something similar) where you think the heading should go. Sarcasticidealist 22:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've repaired the headings you put in - they need to be surrounded in equals signs, as in the example I gave in the last paragraphy. If you wanted to put in subheadings within a heading, you'd put three equals signs on each end of the headings - you can see this in the "Foreign policy" heading, under which there are the subheadings "Ireland" and "Israel". Sarcasticidealist 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK..I will soon be an expert at modifying Wikipedia. I have made some changes to add a little context. Hopefully they do not violate any of the rules but Im sure we can work something out if you think it necessary.Ross Crea 00:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your most recent changes are excellent. Thanks for not getting frustrated and quitting the project back when I was reverting all of your mainspace edits. Sarcasticidealist 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have help me enormously by your patient guidance..thnak you. Now I have another glitch..I sourced Ryans social Justice award..but no little blue number was assigned..does that mean the addy is incorrect..?..I double checked it and it worked when I typed it into google.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ross Crea (talk • contribs) 00:36, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Jewish community's reaction

someone seems to consistently remove the references to the rather obvious point that the majority of Jews find CUPE and Sid Ryan's views on Israel offensive. Whether or not the person in question agrees or disagrees with that position,the point of view expressed by the editing decision is highly problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.13.17 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Several points:

• Even if that is true, it does not justify the sort of vandalism in which you engaged here. Don't do that again.
• The material has been removed only once [2] - not "consistently", as you allege.
• The user to remove the material is User:CJCurrie, who is a longstanding contributor to articles on Canadian politics. While his longevity here and his experience don't entitle him to be presumed correct about everything - and, indeed, his voice counts for no more than any other editor's in the consensus process - it's pretty clear that he's not editing here on behalf of Sid Ryan.
• The reference provided deals with a decision for an academic boycott by a British organization, and doesn't so much as mention the campaign referenced in the article. Sarcasticidealist 17:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)