Talk:Ron Nirenberg

List of San Antonio Mayors
Is Nirenberg going to be the 58th or 61st Mayor of San Antonio ?

Tenure section
There's currently an edit-war going on regarding the "Tenure" section. This is a content dispute and does not require admin help (unless you want an admin to block all involved or to protect the wrong version). That said, I don't see why we shouldn't mention that Nirenberg signed the city into the Paris Climate Agreement. There are sources after the deed that say it was done. The transportation initiative still seems to be in the planning stages and probably doesn't need to be mentioned. The Amazon letter seems minor to me. Through all this, we should make sure that we do not embellish on what the sources say. Lengthy quotes or phrases such as "a move surprising many national observers", "received wide-ranging national and international media coverage for its boldness" or "has focused on major challenges facing San Antonio", with the first two not supported by the cited source, give the impression that we're promoting Nirenberg instead of reporting on him. Huon (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * While I wrote the above, Heveeobjex added some additional references. and made some additional changes. I don't think they address my concerns. In particular, some of the sources don't mention Nirenberg at all and thus are unsuitable for this article. Others don't say what they're cited for. The tone of the section still seems quite promotional to me. Huon (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The articles in question in the Tenure section are really not that newsworthy. They are minor instances, passing news stories, and nothing that is extremely noteworthy. Thus, they failed to pass the WP:NOTNEWS qualification. By continuing to add these articles, editors are giving Nirenberg  promotional status that we, as a Wikipedia, do not want to set.  It is not a question of whether or not they are news articles, that is a definite fact. But what is also a fact is that these articles are just passing stories, nothing long-term, and nothing noteworthy. SanAnMan (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Need clarification on why WP:NOTNEWS is being evoked in these cases. The Paris Climate Accord signing is notable because it is a permanent commitment made by American city mayors despite the federal government's withdrawal. That information was included in the original Wikipedia page by a different author for months. Likewise, the Amazon issue was broadly reported and seems to endure. Thank you for the clarification on promotion, including reference to the length of the quotation. I will make those adjustments henceforth. However, all citations directly reference Nirenberg. Thank you for your help and sorry for the difficulty. Heveeobjex (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC) — Heveeobjex (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm not sure if Heveeobjex is even online anymore as his editing has stopped, but for the purpose of discussion, I will attempt to address his questions. One of the main things we look at when deciding to include news articles about events is whether or not the event is notable. And notability contains very specific requirements. As for the events discussed here, they fail to meet two qualifications of this scale: lasting effects and duration of coverage. I do not question the fact that Nirenberg's objection to the Paris Climate Agreement made the news when it happened, but since then, no laws have been actually enacted and nothing has actually happened locally as a result of it. Nirenberg objected to the Agreement, it made the news, and then it was dropped. There has been no news or even mention of it since then. Thus these two factors fail this story. The same is true about the Amazon situation, it made the news when it happened, but there has been no long-term coverage or even mentions of it in the news since it occurred. As for the transportation initiative, since this is a long-term objective for the City of San Antonio and continues to be occasionally mentioned in news articles, it does seem to meet these qualifications at this time. Of course, this is subject to change once the lens of history looks back, but for now it appears to meet notability requirements. Of concern to me is the fact that Heveeobjex is showing more and more of the traits of a single-purpose editor as he has only made edits in regards to Nirenberg, and seems to be focused on emphasizing the praises of him, which is not what an encyclopedia is designed to be about. As a matter of full disclosure, I do live in the area surrounding San Antonio but outside of the jurisdictions of the City so whatever Nirenberg dictates doesn't really mean much to me, and I firmly believe in maintaining a neutral perspective on his tenure, or for that matter, any other elected official. I highly recommend that if Heveeobjex continues to edit that he take the time to review WP:EVENT which covers these notability requirements and many others. Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Merging "Background" and "Personal life" sections
There is just two sentences in the "Personal life" section. I think we should just move it to the "Background" section starting a new paragraph, and just completely remove the "Personal life" section from the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead section
I understand you feel my last revision was "near-identical to the content below". Summarizing can sometimes feel like your just reiterating and to a certain extent that is what your doing. I do feel a comprehensive lead is needed in accordance with MOS:LEAD, I'm sure you feel the same. The revision below is a modified version of the last one you reverted; I tried to change the wording up to make it feel less copied and pasted. I would appreciate your input on this or recommendations. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You’re still just using almost identical language to the information already stated in the other sections. I suggest you look back at just about every previous San Antonio mayor including Ivy Taylor, Julian Castro and others and you will see that what you are proposing just isn’t in alignment with other articles. - SanAnMan (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would tell you that those articles are not in line with MOS:LEAD. Their leads do not adequately summarize the main points in their articles. If you go look at politicians who are high profile they have extensive leads that do cover the main points (see articles like Joe Biden and Donald Trump). The lead is supposed to be the article in a "nutshell" for a reader to read in a glance. Can you explain how my proposition is not "a summary of its most important content"? (Note: I've modified my revision to include 3 paragraphs and COVID) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nirenberg or just about any other mayor of a city is FAR from a "high profile" politician. As for MOS:LEAD, I believe that the leads as written are perfectly in alignment with the qualifications of MOS:LEAD for a mayor. Your lead suggestions are still just near-exact wording of the sections already stated and making for duplicate information. If you disagree further, I suggest taking it up with a third party, as we seem to be at an impasse. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will seek a third party suggestion, but just for you to know these types of leads are not unseen in mayors (see Bill de Blasio, Michelle Wu, Jim Kenney, etc.) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ,, I would be fine with removal of the early life and education paragraph from the lead, and leave the other two. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, I would compromise with modifying the first sentence, which summarizes his election basics, and the third section which goes into slightly more detail about the election results. I do not think the section on his birth nor the section on his political views and accomplishments/issues are suitable for the lede, especially since that last section is covered and cited very thoroughly in the "Tenure" section of the main article, and your suggestion for that portion of the lede is still near-identical to the content of the "Tenure" section. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * So it seems would be okay with this:


 * While wants this:


 * On this I do agree with SanAnMan that the last paragraph doesn't qualify as a summarization because it's too close to exactly what the body says. So unless Iamreallygoodatcheckers can come up with a better alternative that more accurately follows SUMSTYLE, I think we should go with SanAnMan's version. –– FormalDude  talk  20:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * & Based on this discussion, I have edited the lede based on the suggestion given by FormalDude. If "Checkers" has any further discussions, I am welcome to them. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)