Talk:Fred Bass/Archive 1

Revert to October version?

Disclosure: Fred Bass is a friend of mine, so I am suggesting changes on the Talk page rather than editing the article directly.

In the past week or so, Fredbass has edited the article, and My very best wishes tagged it for notability and connected contributor. An easy way to address these issues would be to revert to the October 22 version, which was stable and had a little more independent sourcing. Anyone with a close connection to the subject (myself included) can then use this talk page to propose building out the article from there. Thoughts? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I've struck this proposal and added a revised proposal below. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion copied from WP:RSN

Hi. I'm wondering if the content on this blog meets our requirements for non-controversial statements about Fred Bass in the Fred Bass article? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

As long as the content meets the standards described at WP:SELFPUB, it should be acceptable. Bass clearly controls that blog. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oh no. That one looks like nothing useful. Worse, the page Fred Bass was probably created and recently edited by the subject himself, reads like an obvious self-promotion, and probably should be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments above are copied from the [[WP:RSN|Reliable Sourcing Noticeboard

I have no idea who created the page. My very best wishes, the October 22 version does not appear to me to be self-promotional, and it had been stable for over a decade. Would you be OK with reverting to that version?

With respect to notability, there are more than enough in-depth articles in the local papers to meet WP:GNG, but most are too old to show up in Google searches. If you do a search in the Canadian Newsstream database you will see them. I can list a few here if it helps. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Fred Bass and revised proposal

I regret that I was not familiar with the Autobiography guidelines until the last few days. I have not run for political office since 2005 and have no interest in doing so now. When I recently reviewed my bio in Wikipedia, it was out of date but also historically inaccurate.

Out of date in that since 2010, my work has been to become more ecologically literate (including short courses at Schumacher College UK) and to engage in activism. The activism led to arrests noted in last paragraph ("Community Work") of current entry and to facilitating free workshops on ecological resilience in 2019 described in parags "Current work..." and "Deep connection...resilience" and through website link in the "Current work" parag.

Historically inaccurate in that the motion that was passed by Vancouver Council 10-1 was not to widen the sidewalks but a motion to amend the initial $13 million sidewalk-widening motion. That amendment proposed a trial prior to the actual widening, which, if the trial were to be successful, would have avoided the sidewalk widening & its expense. This is documented in City of Vancouver archives. I summarized this (in current version) in the first three sentences of the parag that begins "In order to encourage cycling..." and deleted the sentences previously there. I did not alter the remainder of that parag.

I would not recommend returning to the October version: The current version may be of use to those currently pursuing issues related to resilience. And the previous, long-standing version inaccurately described the amending motion on the Burrard Bridge.

I look forward to reading others' comments and perspectives. I am a neophyte in entering information in Wikipedia but an appreciative and frequent user of its content. I now appreciate even more the vast amount of work done by those keeping Wikipedia alive. Fred Bass — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.200.206 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for posting here and for reading the Autobiography guidelines. Let me address some issues one at a time:

1. Regarding the Burrard Bridge trial, I dug up Doug Ward's article and your new version is a much better summary than the old one. The ref for Ward's article was incomplete; here is a complete ref:
2. I have not looked for a source to support the claim that the trial would cost $2 million. Do you have a source for this?
3. Reverting to the October version: I proposed this because it would give us a reason to remove the Connected Contributor tag at the top of the page. The fact that Bass doesn't like this version and made corections to many of its paragraphs is a good indication that much of it was not written by him. So reverting to this version would take care of the process problem. It would still leave us with certain content problems. So instead of just reverting and leaving it that way, I propose we:

1. Revert to the Oct 27 version.
2. Re-instate Bass's edits to the Background section. These are non-controversial. I'll try to find sources.
3. Re-instate Bass's edits to the paragraph on the Burrard Bridge since the previous version was incorrect
4. Delete "However, the increased share of the vote won by the Greens and of a new populist party called VOICE resulted in a total rout for the city's leftist forces in which every single candidate who was not a member of the Non-Partisan Association was defeated. Despite being the Greens' second-best vote-getter in the 1996 election (second only to the party's provincial leader Stuart Parker), Bass was defeated when he sought renomination by the Greens in 1999." as this is entirely unsourced and undue weight.

1. Current work on ecoresilience: Wikipedia policy requires that biographical articles reflect the main reasons for the subject's notability as determined by independent reliable sources. Currently, the vast majority of independent reliable sources focus on his medical work and his work as a city councillor. Bass's ecoresilience work hasn't yet attracted much attention from independent reliable sources as far as I can tell. I will draft a short Personal life section summarizing his post-retirement activities, family, and spiritual practices and post it here. I'll also draft a section on his preventive medical work. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional sources

Canadian Medical Association Honorary Membership 2001: (Description of award) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

I've drafted a rewrite of this article, roughly using the process I described above. I believe notability is well-demonstrated by the in-depth articles by Zacharias and Bacchus, and by the Canadian Medical Association honorary membership. Could you all please review it here: User:Clayoquot/FB2, and use it to replace the current version of the article if you see fit? I will notify user:Fredbass via his talk page and email, as I do not know if he watches this page. Thanks, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done The above edit was completed by user:Ian Furst. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)