Talk:Michael Bryant (politician)

message: 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)
replies: text: Why? His name was made public and has been reported by numerous major news outlets. Singularity42 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I suppose the names of these two men will be inextricably linked now. Risker (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Naming the victim

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: BLP concern

message: Bryant resigns as CEO of Invest Toronto. 66.135.104.98 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated. Singularity42 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryant resigns from Invest Toronto 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Section on Sheppard 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lost Reference

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quote from Ed Sapiano 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of opinions by Toronto Bike Messenger Association and Toronto Cyclists Union 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Source material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edited to reflect current status 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links

message: 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)
thread_title: File:MichaelJBryant.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: It gets removed because you have not sourced it. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BANNING DOGS BASED ON APPEARANCE, IN ONTARIO 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Michael Bryant (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page move from  Michael Bryant (politician) to Michael Bryant (lawyer) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion of page move 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Change "He has been the CEO of Legal Aid BC since January 2022" to "He was CEO of Legal Aid BC from 2022 to 2024.
Change 
"Incumbent
Assumed office
2022"
to
"In office
2022-24"
Change the last sentence from "His term began January 17, 2022.[54]" 
to
"His term began January 17, 2022.[54] It ended in April 2024."
Source for all the foregoing:  https://legalaid.bc.ca/communications/news/message-legal-aid-bcs-board-directors Mjbryant66 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024