Talk:Michael Bryant (politician)

}}

Naming the victim

In a few hours, when Google's web crawlers pass by, there is a very good chance that this article will be the #1 google-hit for the person who died in the incident of August 31, 2009. I am not entirely comfortable with that; however, I would like to hear the opinions of others on this subject. Risker (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? His name was made public and has been reported by numerous major news outlets. Singularity42 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose the names of these two men will be inextricably linked now. Risker (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Most likely. There's also a number of articles out there now with interviews of the victim's friends and co-workers, some not so favourable. Probably not how the victim's significant others wanted him remembered, but I think the cat is long outside the bag. Singularity42 (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP concern

The account of the incident is unbalanced. Allegedly, according to media accounts in today's papers, the cyclist was intoxicated and slammed his bag down onto Bryant's car before confronting him. An argument ensued, Bryant pulled away and the cyclist chased the car on foot. He grabbed hold of the vehicle on the driver's side. It's not clear if he was trying to get into the car, get at the driver or merely prevent him from leaving.

This information makes the situation much more complicated than the one-sided account that currently exists in this article. 65.95.118.13 (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added some more info into the section to balance it out a bit. Keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't the place to speculate. Nor is Wikipedia a news outlet. Right now there a lot of different witness statements and opinions out there, and the police aren't saying a word. I think it's best to keep the allegations to a minimum until there has been a more formal finding or statement. Singularity42 (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bryant resigns from Invest Toronto

Bryant resigns as CEO of Invest Toronto. 66.135.104.98 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated. Singularity42 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Just a reminder to everyone that due to the highly sensitive and highly public nature of the current matter, I've semi-protected this article for a period of one week starting September 1. Only anonymous IPs and newly-registered editors are blocked — established editors and administrators will still be able to edit. This semi-protection will expire on September 8; however, I will renew it at that time if the anonymous vandalism starts up again. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Section on Sheppard

I suggest that a section on Sheppard be added to Wikipedia. Perhaps this means a new article should be created e.g. Michael Bryant accident. News reports indicate that there were 61 warrants for Sheppard's arrest at the time he hitchhiked out of Alberta in 2003. There are also reports that he was detained by police shortly before the accident and ordered to stay out of his girlfriend's apartment and that they let him bicycle while intoxicated. There is more infor here: http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/09/03/10729291-sun.html M3c2p7 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Once the section on the incident gets longer, I think a separate article for it would be warranted, which could include biographical info about Sheppard. --Padraic 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree (I am assuming you mean a new article on Sheppard, not a section on this page, which wouldn't make any sense). Sheppard's only claim to notability is the fact that he was killed in this incident. The fact that he had warrants for his arrest, detained by police earlier, etc., does not make him notable on his own. As for the incident itself... really, the only reason the incident is notable is because Bryant was involved and charged with offences. As per WP:NOT#NEWS, it makes more sense to keep it on Bryant's page, then have a seperate article. Singularity42 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Padraic in the sense that there may come a time when the incident itself should get its own page if there's a great increase in the content we need to add regarding the incident. But I don't think that will come just because we have more background info about Sheppard. Singularity42 (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Singularity42 is correct. The incident itself may warrant increased focus, but not Sheppard. Many pedestrians are killed each year. It is the person who is charged which has made the incident notable. BashBrannigan (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're seeing the relevance of Sheppard's background. Sheppard is not merely a pedestrian who got killed. He tried to attack Bryant inside the car. Bryant then took off with Sheppard holding onto the car and/or Bryant in an effort to shake Sheppard from him. This unusual situation makes Sheppard's background (e.g., when he disappeared, Alberta police warned that he had a propensity for violence) much more relevant than an ordinary vehicle-pedestrian accident.M3c2p7 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the incident merited an article on its own, then maybe - and even then, I would have problems with posting a ton of background material about Sheppard in an article about the incident. And Sheppard's background is definitly not relevant to a bio article about Bryant. Seriously, what you are asking here is to create a new bio article about Sheppard, who is not notable. Singularity42 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is meant to be about. It's not our job to have an article about everything and everyone; it's our job to have articles about notable people. Bryant doesn't have an article because of the accident — he has an article because he was an elected MPP who served as the attorney general of the province. And Sheppard simply is not notable at all. An article about the incident might be justifiable in the future, if this story ends up having serious legs, but a separate article about Sheppard himself simply wouldn't meet our inclusion rules. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and procedures, M3C. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Singularity: No, I do not want an article about Sheppard. I want content about Sheppard in the appropriate article, which is not the Bryant article. I think there needs to be a separate article about the incident for this very reason. This is Canada's Chappaquiddick. This incident is heading for a series of court proceedings. Bryant is apt to try to make a political comeback and the incident will be much discussed. Just this weekend there was an op-ed piece by a former federal cabinet minister. There is a lot to this story that is too much for the Bryant article. The encounter between Bryant and Sheppard is now being written about in the USA and UK too. Sheppard's criminal background is part of the story and will have to have a section in Wikipedia.M3c2p7 (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We cannot foresee the future here. Canada's Chappaquiddick? Hardly, and if you can't see the difference then you're probably not impartial enough to be writing the article. We cannot say what the longterm significance of this event will be, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculating on a political comeback for Bryant is far beyond the scope of this article. There may well be a point where there is sufficient information, including reliable sources, to write an article about the incident, but it is far too soon for that; there has been no evidence submitted to any courts, and what information exists about the event itself is contradictory and cobbled together. Op-ed pieces aren't generally considered reliable sources (they're opinion pieces). In this case, we are dealing with a living person who is before the courts, and a recently deceased person. In both cases, Wikipedia is generally conservative in what information it includes. Risker (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about reports of Sheppard's intoxication and behaviour before and during the altercation. I agree with the sentiments expressed above that a section or an article on Sheppard would be inappropriate at this point. However, we need a certain amount of coverage of Sheppard in the Bryant article for neutrality reasons. We should include relevant information indicating that Bryant might not be 100% at fault if that information exists, and it does exist. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has always made it clear it's unknown whether Bryant is at fault; thus the use of the term "allegedly". --Padraic 11:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the media focus on this case due to Bryant's role, I think most of the editors here will be aware if this incident picks up steam regarding notability. If it does, we can easily re-visit the issue for a seperate article regarding the incident. But right now, I don't think there's much there to justify it at this time vs. keeping it where it is. Singularity42 (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Now magazine says Sheppard "pushed"

User: Louiechefei28848888 has been trying to add a link to the YouTube video which apparently shows Sheppard was first pushed by Bryant's car into the intersection. I've removed it twice and another has also removed it as not being a reliable source. The user has uploaded it again with the reasoning: "But can we at least mention that there IS a youtube clip that can be seen?" I'm not in the mood for an editing war, so I'm not removing it again. While I think removing the youtube is a no-brainer, HOWEVER, the user also said: "Other than Now Magazine, no official media outlet made any mention of the "ramming" of the cyclist." Assuming that this is correct, I was wondering what others thought if the Now magazine reference should be included? BashBrannigan (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not including the reference. Point one - the Now magazine article just says the video exists. It says nothing about what the video actually shows (for good reason - the video is incredibly blurry and open for all kinds of interpretations). Point two - there's no reliable source that can actually confirm the video is what it appears to be and hasn't been modified - which is probably why there is a lack of mainstream media coverage. Singularity42 (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Singularity — note that I've reverted the inclusion and upped the level of page protection to admin-only. A YouTube video is almost never a valid Wikipedia source in and of itself — but especially not in an extremely sensitive legal matter such as this. The description in question is indeed laden with interpretation — it's for the police to decide what happened or didn't in this incident, not for Louiechef. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. Yes, even though the full video which includes the ramming of the cyclist has not been mentioned in main stream media, it does present another possible side to the story. So far, main stream media has only mentioned a "minor collision", which implies only an accident. Many people believe that. However, many cyclists in Toronto (especially the downtown ones) believe in the video, not the main stream media. I think that it is one sided to only include what main-stream media has said.

CBC has included half of the video footage on its website, but not the part where the ramming of the cyclist occurred.

Even though the clip is from Youtube, since it has been creating big talks amongst us cyclists, I think it is worthwhile to include a mention of the existence of the video. I'm not saying that we should label this video as "credible" or legitimate (or official), I'm just saying that it should be mentioned to show everyone what the cyclist population have been talking about and speculating on, just like the existing news links shows what the rest of the population has been talking about.

That said, I don't think the police themselves explicitly stated that only a minor accidental collision occurred. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they elaborated on the exact nature of the collision.

Since Now Magazine is in fact an official media outlet, why not include the link to their page? We don't have to mention the ramming of the cyclist, we can just say that a questionable video exists.

I hope you understand. Please reconsider this. --Louiechefei28848888 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to consider. Wikipedia has to be extremely careful in a legal matter such as this — the Wikimedia Foundation can, for example, be sued for libel if we get it wrong. We can be held legally responsible for causing a mistrial if we unwittingly bias the legal proceeding by reporting more than we can properly source.

For exactly the same reason that politicians always say "I'm not going to comment on an ongoing legal matter", Wikipedia simply cannot do what you want. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@Louie: We can use only mainstream news sources, not non-mainstream ones. However, we do include a balanced spectrum of opinions if they are quoted in mainstream news sources. So if you can find a quote from, say, a cycling community representative that appeared in a mainstream news source, we should be able to include it. @Bearcat: Could you please add a protection template to the article? Also, full-protection for over a week seems excessive. If there are only one or two accounts making problematic edits then I suggest using blocks instead. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article was under two weeks of partial protection (which is generally considered reasonable) and then upgraded to full protection because of the edit war over this; the expiry date on the upswitch was left as the original expiry date on the two-week-partial. I'd note, however, that it's not just one or two accounts making problematic edits — if you review the edit history, you can see that there's been a near-constant barrage of problematic and inappropriate edits from a remarkable variety of sources pretty much since Day One. I'm fully prepared to drop it back down to semi-protection as soon as this discussion is resolved (which it almost is) — but unfortunately, I have pretty strong suspicions that we're not going to be able to drop semi-protection at least until the trial's over. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bearcat. I think the discussion is resolved in that there is consensus (not unanimity) that neither Youtube nor Now Magazine is a reliable source. I also see that you added a protection template, but for some reason or other it's just not visible to me when I look at the article page. Something about how the templates conflict with each other? Can you try a different template? Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Added source and link to CBC broadcast of surveillance video, which was the original source for the Youtube video, and also provided more precision and clarity in terms of what police have actually said. While a Toronto Star reporter did say Sheppard chased Bryant, the police only said he "grabbed ahold of his car" after the collision and did not say anything about any chasing. Surveillance video clips broadcast by CTV do not show any chasing, so I think it's fair to leave that out unless someone can source a witness or police source. Memahb (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence Bryant wasn't drinking?

From the article: "Bryant had not been drinking." The linked reference has this to say on the matter: "Toronto police Sgt. Tim Burrows said Bryant had not been drinking and was being released under unspecified conditions on his own recognizance pending a court appearance Oct. 19." I'm not sure Burrows' statement can just be taken at face value though, since apparently Bryant was not given a breathalyzer following the incident. Sgt. Burrows is quoted in another article (http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/691400): "There was no reason to ask Bryant for a breathalyzer, says Burrows, and according to a Toronto Star story, there was no alcohol at their dinner." It may be the case that Bryant did not have alcohol (or other intoxicants for that matter) in his system when the incident happened, but without a timely breathalyzer or similar tests, it seems to me that there is no way to prove this now. The current reference supports a statement to the effect that "Toronto police Sargeant Tim Burrows was quoted as saying Bryant had not been drinking", but we can't just repeat Burrows' assertion as fact without more information.--Eloil (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How about something like "There is no evidence that Bryant had been drinking"? Singularity42 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We aren't trying the case here. If Burrows statement is incorrect, then there needs to be a source in the media that says so. To say "There is no evidence that Bryant had been drinking" what would be the source of that statement? BashBrannigan (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think "Bryant had not been drinking" is problematic since it basically treats Burrows as an unassailable source on the matter. What about replacing it with "Bryant reportedly had no alcohol at dinner", with the source I gave above? "Bryant reportedly had not been drinking that evening" is another option.--Eloil (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Would this be more precise: "According to Burrows, Bryant was not given a breathalyzer as there were no indications he had been drinking." The reference above could be used: http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/691400

This would simply state the facts and avoid making the flat statement that Bryant had not been drinking. Regardless, the sentence "Bryant had not been drinking" should probably not be left as is, as a stand-alone. There is no reference for the sentence for it. Is it the police saying Brant hadn't been drinking or was it the newspaper? BashBrannigan (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Giving this some more thought. The sentence regarding Sheppard's drinking says, "Police stated that there was no indication Sheppard was intoxicated, but that they knew he had been drinking." But the sentence regarding Bryant's drinking simply flatly says, "Bryant had not been drinking." Should not the Bryant sentence have added "Police stated" also? BashBrannigan (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"According to Burrows, Bryant was not given a breathalyzer as there were no indications he had been drinking" sounds pretty good to me, although Sgt Burrows hasn't been introduced by name in the article so far so we might have to either give more information on him or not refer to him by name at all. Paraphrasing "indication(s)" in either this sentence or the one on Sheppard might be a good idea as well to avoid too much repetition.--Eloil (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I just made the following changes: "According to Toronto police Sgt. Tim Burrows, Bryant had not been drinking that evening.[25] Burrows is quoted elsewhere as stating that there was no reason to give Bryant a breathalyzer test following the incident. [27]"

I wasn't clear about the original source of the reference to alcohol at dinner in the sentence "There was no reason to ask Bryant for a breathalyzer, says Burrows, and according to a Toronto Star story, there was no alcohol at their dinner." Where is this other article? From the phrasing it almost sounds as if Burrows could be referring to it in his quote. I have not added the "no alcohol at dinner" point at this time but someone else can do so if they wish.--Eloil (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But what about the afternoon before the accident Bryant spent at the RCYC with Premier McGuinty? Was alcohol consumed then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.7.84 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? What importance is the afternoon before? BashBrannigan (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also a police procedural issue in that Bryant after hitting Shepard parked his car on private property, a hotel parking lot. In doing this [OPP] police procedure does not require a blood alcohol test. It would have been an option of the 'arresting officers' but they chose not to. 50.12.11.152 (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

While this page is on full protection, anyone want to weigh in on this sentence that is currently in the article: "Bryant has denied that his departure was as a result of a falling-out with McGuinty, though reports suggested that Bryant's outspoken nature and ambition for the Premier's job may have been controversial within McGuinty's inner circle."

There are three references. The first has an interview with John Tory, who gives his opinion on what might have led to Bryant's departure from politics. For those not familiar with Ontario politics, John Tory is Bryant's former political rival. His opinion is just that, an opinion, and is not reliable source for the disputed sentence.

The second reference is a Globe article I cannot access without a paid subscription.

The third reference is an interview with a former colleage of Bryant who refuses to be identified. How can that be a reliable source for the disputed sentence, especially in a WP:BLP situation?

I believe the sentence should be removed unless there is a better reliable source out there. Singularity42 (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it should only say, "Bryant has denied that his departure was as a result of a falling-out with McGuinty." BashBrannigan (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Earlier, I was asking myself if it was necessary to include a denial to something that's not even an issue, but then I realized given the above "reports", it may be something that is a notable issue. So really, it's include the part about the denial, but remove the part about these "reports". Singularity42 (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely worth mentioning in the article, and I may expand in the future. It wasn't just John Tory, other columnists have also touched upon this, hence I use the term "suggested".

Indeed, the Toronto Star's article (which is not a column) has noted that "Of all the potential successors to McGuinty – ... – the Harvard-educated lawyer most rankles the premier's office. His populist style, however, infuriated some in McGuinty's inner circle. "If we're not careful we're going to turn into another Mike Harris government," one senior adviser grumbled in 2004 after Bryant pushed the pit bull ban. Tensions between McGuinty and Bryant have been exacerbated by the latter's political ambitions. The minister's recent speech on the need for government intervention in the economy – "reverse Reaganism," he called it – galled McGuinty, who resented the media attention it received. The premier responded by distancing himself from the remarks even though he has long been an ardent proponent of government helping business.[1] GoldDragon (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good source for the sentence. Was that in the article before and I missed it? Yes it was, earlier. I've changed the paragraph so that the source is the reference for the whole thing. That way, we avoid relying on things like John Tory's views, or opinions from people who refuse to identify themselves. Singularity42 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lost Reference

Citation #2: Fenlon, Brodie. "Bryant resigns as head of Invest Toronto". Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2009-09-02. is now no longer available, or at least only by subscription. It is the only reference for the last paragraph of 2009 criminal charges. What should be done? Remove the paragraph, or can other references be found? BashBrannigan (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because a reference is not available online doesn't mean it is worthless. References to printed sources are just as valuable and relevant. You can certainly go to the library and look up a back issue. Having said that, you can still see the article online. Go to the Toronto Public Library website, click on "Magazines and Newspaper List", enter name of publication. For the Star or the Globe, I find the "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" database easiest to use. You will need a library card (which is free) in order to use the database. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Toronto Public Library online resource for the Globe only goes to 2006 or before, nothing after that. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The resource I cited above has up-to-date editions of both papers. I read the Globe article less than an hour ago. Take another look. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Ed Sapiano

Removed a quote from Ed Sapiano about how "anyone else" would have been held for a bail hearing, etc. Ed Sapiano is a Toronto criminal defence lawyer who has a history of being an outspoken critic of the Attorney General's office, etc. No other lawyer has said the same thing (and IMO won't - as someone who has worked on both sides in criminal cases, it is, in fact, not unusual for someone in this type of situation to be released by the police without a bail hearing). Given Ed Sapiano's role and history, given that the view has not been expressed by other people experienced in the criminal justice system, and given that it is, in fact, not unusual, I believe this falls under WP:WEIGHT. Singularity42 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The quote got added back to the article (without specifically naming Sapiano). I added a couple of sentences for balance (noting, for example, that Bryant spent more time in custody than most other people would have in the same situation). Mathew5000 (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

POV material added

Just now, user Memahb has added a lot material which seems very POV. For example:

- saying Bryant "tried to speed away"

-also saying that "Surveillance video broadcast by CBC News shows Bryant's convertible colliding into a cyclist who was stopped ahead of him at a traffic light" Two references are provided but neither explicitly give this interpretation. That is, neither says that the video showed Bryant's car colliding with the cyclist. This is the interpretation of the editor only.

-he changed: "Witness reports and surveillance cameras indicate that following the collision" to "According to police" in reference to "Sheppard grabbed hold of the side of Bryant's vehicle". The citations however DO refer to witnesses.

These are only 3, but much of it seems POV. I don't have time to look at it all and I suspect this user will simply revert it anyways.

But I believe it need to be closely looked at, if not all reverted.BashBrannigan (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, particularly if you don't have time to look at it what seems POV and simply think it would be simpler to revert all edits from one particular editor. With respect to your concerns, if I may address them, in order:

"Tried to speed away" -- The cited news broadcast which is linked inline, specifically uses that phrase. The inline link goes to a website showing video of CTV News broadcast and that quote is from the broadcast at 0:36 seconds in. The accompanying text on the website doesn't say it but the television news broadcast does.

"According to police" -- Similary, the cited news report in this instance, has police referring to Sheppard grabbing hold of the car. The ref links to many CTV news clips that are on the same URL, that are in Javascript, so it's difficult to put in a direct link to the actual segment. But the video segment I am quoting (there are many on the website link) is called "Sgt. Burrows explains the charges" and Sgt. Burrows makes that statement specifically, at 1:07 in the segment. If anyone can suggest a better way to link to that segment specifically I would welcome it.

However, I am unable to find any specific witness reports cited in the media that specify that they saw that Sheppard grabbed hold of the car after the collision, while there are many instances of the police using that phrase, and many newspaper articles that paraphrase it without citing a police or witness support.

While there is no specific witness report in the media that I can find, that says that Sheppard grabbed the car, surveillance videos show that once there was a collision, Bryant reversed back, continued on around Sheppard and Sheppard's bike, and that Sheppard was no longer on the street at the point that the Saab accelerated. Therefore it would appear from the videos,that Sheppard grabbed the side of the car. Because of the controversial nature of the surveillance videos, and the lack of clear witnesses, my position is that the most reliable source for this part of the incident should be the police.

Which brings me to my last point -- if the phrase "surveillance videos indicate" seems to be a better and more reliable source than "according to police", according to the objections put forth here, then there shouldn't be an objection to any edits mentioning events that are clearly visible in the surveillance videos, videos that have been broadcast on three major media, as a source for describing what happened at the collision at the light. This is why I added it, for precision. What the surveillance videos DO show is that there was a collision from behind at the light that resulted in Sheppard being knocked off his bicycle. Had I been particularly POV on this it could be argued that I would have specified that Bryant "rammed the cyclist", as has been put forth by Sheppard's defenders, but I have stayed away from any such inflammatory analysis. It is clear though, from the videos that there was a collision from behind, and the police have been corroborating that, and the media have been broadcasting these clips on television.

Finally, it might be worth noting that the original wording in the article citing "surveillance cameras and witness reports" for the initial incident, was actually mine. In the current edit I am simply re-editing my own words, to attempt to bring more neutrality and better sources.

The requirement for neutrality for this article is of first priority to this editor, and I welcome and embrace all discussion and constructive re-edits to better source and describe any aspects that I have left out or presented suboptimally. Memahb (talk) 10:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, which is why I didn’t revert the whole thing. However, I saw enough problems I wanted to alert others, who might have the time to look at each individually.

I don’t have the time to get into this. This is what I can say briefly:

1:You’re correct that the reporter in the video does use the phrase “speed away” and the reporter says that this was according to police. However, I’m still uncomfortable using the term “speed” without confirmation in a newspaper report.

2: In justifying removing “witnesses” and replacing with only “police” you say: “However, I am unable to find any specific witness reports cited in the media”

According to: Link#18: Michael Bryant's deadly duel at Toronto Star 2009-09-02:” According to witnesses, Bryant cut the argument short by pulling away. As he headed westbound on Bloor St., Sheppard chased the car on foot. He grabbed hold of the vehicle on the driver's side.”

3: finally, nothing you said can justify the presence of the phrase “Surveillance video broadcast by CBC News shows Bryant's convertible colliding into a cyclist who was stopped ahead of him at a traffic light” Without someone reliable (other than a wikipedia editor) stating this, it needs to be removed.

Again, the concerns I mentioned were only the ones I had the time to bring up. There may be others. BashBrannigan (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for the time you did take.

2: After discussing WP:Primary Sources with other editors, I've agreed that you are right to object to the specific sentence describing the surveillance videos that were broadcast, so I will go ahead and take out the description of the events in the video and simply state that surveillance videos exist, and link to the broadcasts themselves. In any case, as media citations do exist showing and discussing the video clips, and there is further discussion and analysis of the clips on Youtube, interested analysts may then go out and reach their own conclusions.

3: Since the broadcast surveillance videos are published, however, my position is that the phrase "chasing" to describe Sheppard's actions after the collision at the light is not verifiable, as 1) only the Toronto Star article mentions it, and most other media outlets simply say Sheppard "approached" and/or "grabbed" Bryant's car and 2) the surveillance videos, while they cannot be used as source citations, do not show any chasing, and therefore stand as an obstacle to verifiability of this fact. Therefore my position that the word "chasing" should not be included puruant to a higher standard of verifiability than the Toronto Star article provides. However, i will add back "witness reports" to the citation of the collision, as per your suggestion, and keep out "surveillance videos report". However, I will keep "speeding away" in there, as police and witness reports, as well as the surveillance videos, all corroborate that. Memahb (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We should not omit this part According to witnesses, Bryant cut the argument short by pulling away. [2]

There are several sources that say Bryant was speeding away from a collision that was subsequent to an argument. The surveillance videos and alternate citations indicate that Bryant pulled back from a collision and sped away. Therefore we should be conservative about what we says is an "argument" and what was a "collision". Do not make edits deleting arguments and news citations which show alternate points of view to yours. Make your arguments clearly on the talk page. And sign your posts. Sisterwoman (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, don't label it as such to justify your view. In that case, we'll just call it an altercation. GoldDragon (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of opinions by Toronto Bike Messenger Association and Toronto Cyclists Union

I am proposing to remove the following section from the article:

Marli Epp, a spokesman for the Toronto Bike Messenger Association, was critical, saying "It's legal to kill somebody with their car in this country. That's unacceptable. We are questioning the fact that justice cannot be served here." Yvonne Bambrick, executive director of the Toronto Cyclists Union, argued that Sheppard's blood alcohol level and previous incidents with motorists did not matter, saying "[Bryant] is in a car, he's got lots of options. There is always a choice to make and he made the wrong choice in this case and it resulted in a death.

The reason is because these are just the opinions of two individuals who are unconnected with the case. As per Wikipedia's guide on reliable sources, they don't meet the criteria of providing reliability or even appropriate content. In the case of Marli Epp, it's clear that she believes that Michael Bryant should have been prosecuted but provides no explaination for her opinion. In addition, WP:SOAP states the following: Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. It is a fact that many people disagree with the decision of the prosecutors and it would be better to say that the decision by the prosecutors were contraversial and that there was outrage by the decision not to prosecute Bryant. Thoughts?DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Then what opinions critical of the decision would be acceptable to you? It would be POV for the Wikipedia article to present no contrary opinions of the decision when they do exist. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct decision to remove that. The article is about Michael Bryant, the person, not about this one tragic event. The article as a whole is grossly unbalanced by this one particular section, which is written to an absurd level of detail (every remand date? not even articles about trials include that), and needs to be scaled back significantly rather than being turned into a coatrack for the opinions of bicycle advocates. Risker (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We can mention that some individuals and groups criticized the decision; there's very little need to quote their comments verbatim. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bearcat. Also, while the section does need rewriting, it is not "grossly unbalanced". It involved a death and was not a simple traffic accident. It is a significant event in this person's career and life. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If it was a simple traffic accident, it wouldn't even warrant mention in the article. At present, the information relating to this incident comprises about 60% of the article, which grossly unbalances it. Simply put, if this had been someone other than someone noteworthy enough to have an article in the Encyclopedia, we wouldn't even have written the article.

The article is currently being used as a coatrack to describe this particular incident. Yes, it is noteworthy enough to be included in the article, probably warranting 3-4 tightly worded paragraphs. It doesn't need *any* of the remand dates (which rarely appear in other articles, even those specifically about trials), the competing twitter accounts are of no significant interest, the discussion of Youtube videos is a glorification of original research, and so on. There is sufficient factual information to write a NPOV, straightforward section on this, rather than the current quite POV, excessively detailed coatrack we have now. Risker (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't comment on the notability of the quotes but I agree with Risker's side point that the list of dates is excessive. It should be enough to say that the date was moved six times without listing off each date. I'm not sure that the date being moved at all is that notable anyway, isn't it pretty common practice?--Eloil (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some things that can probably be removed as you say (twitter, youtube, irrelevant court dates) but I disagree that 3-4 paragraphs would be sufficient to adequately describe the events and subsequent court case. If the section gets very long, a separate article is also a possibility, but this event is quite significant to Bryant's public life and I think limiting discussion of it to that degree would be a disservice. Besides, a big part of the reason this takes up so much of the article is that the rest of it is not very long to begin with.--Eloil (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Source material

I'm not going to add to the article directly right now but I came across a pdf of the Crown's "Executive summary" dropping the recent charges: http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/b4/68/4efecd484031924da24123d5fb1b.pdf I made a few notes on details I found interesting, mostly on the initial confrontation:

• Bryant was heading west on Bloor before the incident
• Sheppard first pulled in front of Bryant's vehicle at a red light (pedestrian crossing between Bay and Avenue Road), as seen in security camera records from 102 Bloor
• According to Bryant, his vehicle stalled when it first came to a stop behind Sheppard
• Bryant's explanation for his vehicle's subsequent lurching motions toward Sheppard is that he was attempting to restart his vehicle. The security footage shows changes in the brightness of the car's headlights on "a number of occasions", and expert testimony confirmed that the car stalling and being restarted was a possible explanation for this dimming. It was also determined that the vehicle had a "sensitive and tight clutch".
• One movement forwards brought the car "close to or in contact with" Sheppard's rear tire. According to expert testimony it's not clear from the video whether contact was made at that time.
• According to multiple eyewitness accounts Sheppard "loudly and aggressively" confronted Bryant around this time while Bryant and his wife "remained passive".
• A subsequent forward motion lasted 2.5 seconds and spanned 30 feet, resulting in Sheppard ending up on the hood of the car. The car's brakes were applied after one second of motion, at which point the car was traveling at around 9 to 13.4 kph. Bryant contends that he was looking down while attempting to start the vehicle and applied the brakes when he looked up and saw Sheppard on the car's hood.
• After Bryant was able to reverse the vehicle and drive around the bicycle, Sheppard hung onto the car for about 100 m before he fell to his death from the car. The average speed for that period was estimated at 34 kph, in contrast to estimates of 60-100 kph from some witnesses.
• From the time Sheppard pulled in front of Bryant's car to the time he died fell, less than 30 seconds had elapsed.
• Regarding the events leading up to the car first striking Sheppard, the Crown "considered whether the available evidence could justify a separate charge based on this aspect of Mr. Bryant's driving alone but concluded that it could not, having regard to the totality of circumstances, including his explanation for that momentary driving, and his panic and disorientation surrounding the stalling and re-starting of his vehicle".

--Eloil (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I realized that a different copy of this pdf was cited elsewhere but I don't know how to have both appear as one footnote. I put most of the notes into paragraph form and added them to the article.--Eloil (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edited to reflect current status

I edited the 2009 Charges section to reflect that the case is now over. Although it is over, it is still a current issue and the most significant incident in Bryant's career. It deserves to be included with minimum but sufficient content to properly reflect on Bryant. For example, the paragraph on the use of sociall media by both sides should remain since Bryant hired a PR firm. If he didn't, then the social media part wouldn't belong. Whatever, reflects Bryant should remain. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

There seems be a lot of dead links in the articled, I will start to remove them and add good links or add citation needed tags going forward. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a reference that no longer has an on-line location. Print is still OK. Just removing the dead URL is sufficient. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File:MichaelJBryant.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MichaelJBryant.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MichaelJBryant.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

BANNING DOGS BASED ON APPEARANCE, IN ONTARIO

The Michael Bryant page has R-E-P-E-A-T-E-D-L-Y been vandalized to EXCLUDE factual, objective, no-libellous information about the dog banning bill HE PERSONALLY INTRODUCED AND PROMOTED.

I guess, if he or his supporters are too ashamed to be associated with it, that would explain a lot.

This s the text that has been repeatedly removed:

"On Monday, August 30, 2004, Bryant held a press conference, indicating his intent to ban 'pit bulls' in the province of Ontario. ('Pit Bull' is not a recognized dog breed, but rather a loose description of a phenotype of dog, which could be one of a few pure breeds, or mixed-breed dogs. Currently, there is no way to definitively, scientifically determine a dog's breed through DNA. As such, dog breed determinations are either made via purebred dog registries, or are completely the subjective opinion of the viewer.) Bryant boasted of his ability to recognize a 'pit bull', yet was unable to identify one in a composite picture of several dog breeds, presented to him, on camera, by then CityTV reporter, Alex Pierson. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVaJpFHed9A), proving accurate the misidentification concerns of Ontario dog owners, should Bryant’s proposed bill be passed. Over the course of three days of public hearings, all 43 relevant experts who testified, testified against the proposed 'pit bull' ban, citing evidence which proved no canine breed is inherently dangerous, or that breed bans in other cities, in and of themselves, either make no difference in the number of dog bites reported, or lead to an increase in reported bites. Since the Ontario Liberals had a majority government, a whipped vote (where members are required to vote along party lines) would mean ANY legislation supported by the Liberals could, potentially, be passed. And, true to form, despite overwhelming expert opposition, Ontario Liberals voted in favour of Bryant's proposed 'pit bull' ban legislation, with just one non-Liberal voting in favour of it, thus allowing the bill to pass. There had not been a single, known, Canadian death attributed to an unprovoked attack by a dog confirmed to be a 'pit bull' at any time in Canadian history. Shortly after the passage of Bryant's 'pit bull' ban, a young, Ontario girl was killed by her grandparents' Shepherd-mix dog, for all the predictable reasons experts say lead to these sorts of tragedies involving dogs of many breeds, mixes, and descriptions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by IReallyHateLiars (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is offensive and DISHONEST to continually remove factual information about Mr. Bryant's involvement in this legislation, given his integral role as former Attorney General.

For many Ontarians, Michael Bryant first came to their attention because of this one piece of legislation. ...Myself included. To act as though this legislation is irrelevant or unimportant is misguided, at best (completely dishonest, at worst). On a personal note, Michael Bryant's position on this issue, combined with it going to a whipped vote rather than a vote on factual merit (i.e. where the Liberals, at the time, had a majority, which meant ANY legislation they all voted for, would pass), is SINGLEHANDEDLY the reason I will never again vote for a member of the Liberal party, and why I have petitioned others to never vote Liberal again, either. The fact that the Michael Bryant page not only excludes any reference to the legislation whatsoever, but removes anyone's attempt to include that information, only further reinforces my personal views on the integrity of Liberal Party members.

THIS LEGISLATION... ...The so-called 'pit bull' ban... It affects all Ontarians on a very personal level, every day (whether or not they realize it, yet). It affects all Canadians who choose to travel through Ontario, or are considering relocating to Ontario.

Furthermore, it is the subject I most closely associate with Michael Bryant. Imagine my surprise and disdain to find ZERO mention of this legislation on the Michal Bryant Wikipedia page. Naively, at first, I assumed it was merely an inadvetent omission. Once the "campaign of removal" began, I suspected it was an intentional attempt to obfuscate the truth.

As an expert in the field of canine behaviour, Canadian dog bite statistics, canine behaviour modification, and responsible dog ownership, his position during the press conference he called to announce his proposed ban on 'pit bulls' in Ontario, on Monday, August 30, 2004, was, at first, laughable. It grew to become disturbing, as he ignored subject matter experts, and was unable to distinguish a 'pit bull' amongst a group of photographs of various dog breeds, all the while dismissing misidentification concerns of experts and dog owners.

Directly and solely due to the legislation Michael Bruant brought, thousands of innocent dogs have been ordered killed in Ontario, while actually-dangerous dogs not covered by his appearance-only legislation, are free to continue menacing Ontarians.

This legislation is not just some silly annoyance. Aside from needlessly taking innocent lives, it has led to Canadian citizens being restricted in their movements, having to relocate, being denied entry to facilities or organizations, etc. I have personally been unable to provide my behaviour modification expertise to organizations I've worked with, in the past, solely because of this legisation. These are not minor issues. They are, in fact, Charter issues, freedom issues, and highlight serious problems with Ontario's legislative process.

To continually remove any references to Michael Bryant's INTEGRAL involvement in such unique and consequential legislation only serves to make the whole page invalid.

Proudly Signed (and re-signed and re-signed and re-signed, if necessary)

IReallyHateLiars (<~I REALLY do!). Dishonest people are just the worst, aren't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IReallyHateLiars (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It gets removed because you have not sourced it. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Bryant (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110427030437/http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/Criminal-case-against-former-Ont_-AG-Michael-Bryant-put-off-until-Dec_-7.html to http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/Criminal-case-against-former-Ont_-AG-Michael-Bryant-put-off-until-Dec_-7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Bryant (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607000411/http://results.elections.on.ca/results/1999_results/valid_votes.jsp?e_code=37&rec=0&district=St.+Paul&flag=E&layout=G to http://results.elections.on.ca/results/1999_results/valid_votes.jsp?e_code=37&rec=0&district=St.+Paul&flag=E&layout=G

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Page move from Michael Bryant (politician) to Michael Bryant (lawyer)

Nixon Now appears to have unilaterally moved this page; I have asked him to reconsider. Bryant is notable because he was a provincial politician and cabinet minister. He is not notable for his work as a lawyer, and no claims of such notability are put forward in the article. Do any of the other page watchers have thoughts on the page move? Risker (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Bryant's only notability is as a politician, not a lawyer. Move it back. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Risker and EncyclopediaUpdaticus. People are disambiguated with their main notability claim, not necessarily their current occupation. If a person got a Wikipedia article because politician, then politician is their correct disambiguator — we don't suddenly move it to lawyer just because he's left politics and resumed practicing law, because his law practice isn't the reason why he has a Wikipedia article. The only potentially valid grounds for moving this from "politician" would be if (a) a different Michael Bryant came along in US or UK or Australian (etc.) politics so we had to move it to "Canadian politician" for increased clarity, or (b) for some future reason he somehow accrued a strong enough WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claim (e.g. becoming Prime Minister of Canada, which obviously ain't happening) to take over the undabbed Michael Bryant. But the correct dab is still politician, because politics (not law and not the dead bike courier) is what makes him notable enough to be on here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Bearcat's reasoning is sound, and there is nothing in WP:NCPDAB that would counter it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to Michael Bryant (lawyer) actually, Bryant is best known for the death of Matthew Sheppard rather than his political career but, in any case, he is now executive director and general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association which is a fairly public position that entails being regularly quoted in the press on civil liberties issues. As such, the preponderance of searches for him will be in relation to his legal work rather than his political career that ended a decade ago. Perhaps another disambiguator such as "(public official)" could be chosen instead but "(politician)" is clearly inadequate at this point. Nixon Now (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This article would not exist if Bryant had not been a politician. He is not notable as a lawyer, or for being involved in a traffic incident. His work as a lawyer is nowhere near sufficiently notable for an article. The Sheppard incident would not pass BLP1E if he was not notable for his political career; that is, Wikipedia would not have an article about the Sheppard incident if the same event had played out with a non-notable person in the driver's seat. The disambiguation point is relative to the reason for notability, not current employment or activity. Bryant is notable enough for a Wikipedia article because of being a politician, even though other things have happened and he has done other things. (Most politicians do have prior or subsequent careers.) It is why we have an article on John Smith (New South Wales politician, born 1821) even though this gentleman was a professor for many more years than he was a politician. He wasn't notable as a professor, but he was as a politician. Risker (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Risker is correct — while it's certainly true that Darcy Sheppard is the most famous aspect of Bryant's public life, it's not a notability claim in and of itself. If he hadn't already been an MPP and cabinet minister (and therefore a Wikipedia article topic) while Darcy Sheppard was still alive, then Darcy Sheppard's death would just have made Bryant a WP:BLP1E. (In fact, Darcy Sheppard's death wouldn't even have gotten nearly as much coverage as it did if the driver had been a non-notable nobody rather than the province's attorney general.) So Sheppard is entirely irrelevant to the question of how this article should be titled, because he's entirely irrelevant to the matter of how Bryant qualified to have an encyclopedia article in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of page move

I'm moving this discussion to this page from my talk page:

I see you moved this page. Bryant is not particularly notable as a lawyer; he is primarily notable as a politician. I doubt we would have an article about him otherwise. I hope you will reconsider. If you need assistance, let me know. Risker (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

He's now head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Continuing to call him a politician is inaccurate. Nixon Now (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

My first thought when reading this is "Nixon Now clearly doesn't know very much about the Canadian Civil Liberties Association". The role that Bryant holds there does not meet the threshold for individual notability. The organization is notable, and individuals who have worked with the organization have personal notability, but not exclusively for their role at CCLA. Bluntly put, Bryant hasn't done anything at CCLA that would make him notable; signing an employment agreement doesn't meet that threshold. He's no Alan Borovoy, who essentially set up the federal and provincial human rights commissions and ensured they had teeth. Risker (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

We are talking about a disambiguator. Lawyer does the trick and is more accurate at this point and more useful since, moving forward, it is this aspect of his life that will prompt more searches on Wikipedia, particularly since the general counsel of the CCLA is regularly quoted in the press. As for your thoughts about what I know of the CCLA, the comment is both patronizing and irrelevant. Nixon Now (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

And while Bryant is no Borovoy, Borovoy did not "create" the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I may "not know much" about the CCLA bit I do know that OHRC was created 7 years before the CCLA and a mere three years after Borovoy got his law degree. The advocacy work of Kalmen Kaplansky and J.B. Salsberg, among others (as well as AG Kelso Roberts) is what led to the creation of the Ontario Human Rights Code and Commission. Borovoy certainly helped the OHRC evolve and develop but he didn't "create" it. Nixon Now (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The choice of disambiguator in a Wikipedia article title is not determined by what the subject is now — it's determined by what the subject's primary notability claim is. Bryant's is as a politician, not as a lawyer per se — if he'd had a completely different career path that didn't involve electoral politics at all but still resulted in his becoming the new head of the CCLA a couple of weeks ago, he most likely wouldn't have had a Wikipedia article at all prior to the CCLA announcement, and still might not actually be reliably sourceable as the subject of enough coverage to qualify even now. It's because he was in politics that he has an article, not because he was a lawyer. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Michael Bryant OLP Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JC7V-talk 18:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Michael Bryant (lawyer) → Michael Bryant (politician) – An arbitrary and undiscussed page move took place earlier this year, moving his disambiguator from politician to lawyer on the grounds that his current role (head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association) is a legal rather than political one. However, the editor who performed the page move has since been blocked as a bad faith user. And while some informal discussion following the move seemed to identify a slight preference for moving it back to "politician" on the grounds that his time in politics, not his new role with the CCLA, is the notability claim that actually got him into Wikipedia, the discussion did not really garner enough participation to justify moving the page on that basis alone — there were only a couple of participants besides the page mover himself, so the numbers weren't strong enough to call that preference a consensus, and we need a more formal RM discussion to finalize the decision one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I can't expand my rationale without saying something pretty flagrantly derogatory about the subject, but I support this proposal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Repeating what I said previously: Bearcat's reasoning is sound, and there is nothing in WP:NCPDAB that would counter it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.