Talk:Jeff Hewitt (politician)

Importance of city council tenure

@PerpetuityGrat: If you'd actually bothered to read the article before swooping in to gut content from the lead, you'd know that half of the article is dedicated to his tenure on the city council. It makes sense to exclude Joe Biden's city council tenure from his infobox, but Hewitt is still a mere county officeholder. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

See your talk page. If the office is notable, it should be in the infobox. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

But how did I gut the content from the lead? I removed two non-notable offices from the infobox... and half of this article is not devoted to the city of Calimesa. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I will not respond to content points on my user talk page. The proper place for that is here, on article talk. I've explained that notability refers to whether we have an article. It has nothing to do with an article's content. Applying your flawed reasoning, no article would have an "Early life" section. If you believe that Hewitt is not notable, than the proper course of action is to nominate the article for deletion. And please see the section titled "Calimesa City Council (2010–2018)", it takes up a significant portion of the article, with national media coverage from Reason magazine cited. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is annoying... I took the conversation to your talk page because it involved another article too, but it appears you are being tedious. I have never argued that Hewitt is not notable so stop saying that. I'm not talking about or discrediting individual aspects of a notable person. I am talking about the infobox only, and what is relevant to include there. You need to calm yourself, like, where did I even insinuate that I was going to delete the article? Like, huh? And of course there should be a section on a previously held office, if there is information on it. And obviously a formerly held office (whether notable or not) will exist about someone who became more notable later in life. Look at Joe Biden, for example. Wasn't notable while serving at the county level, but obviously is notable now. Anyway, again, I took the conversation to your talk page because we had a disagreement on another article, so I'm just going to c/p it here since you are being so brash:

Hello user, looks like we have a general disagreement on the topic of infoboxes for officeholders. I will concede, I was mistaken on removing the Member of the Libertarian National Committee from the infobox for Whitney Bilyeu. Now, for Jeff Hewitt (politician), his mayorship, and certainly his position on the city council, is unquestionably not notable (yes, I am invoking WP:NOTE here). If he did not hold a significant position within the Libertarian party, and did not hold an elected county position within the fourth most populous county in the state of California, then he would not have a Wikipedia page. Calimesa, California, barely has 10,000 residents. Many many, many, users would argue that just being the mayor and a city councilmember of a town that small would fail notability under WP:POLITICIAN. That's why his predecessor and successor do not have their own Wikipedia pages. If the position is not notable on it's own, then why include it in the infobox? I am being consistent with several infoboxes across several officeholder BLP pages.

A simple test. Looking at the populations of all California cities, let's take the immediate three more populous cities after Calimesa: Valley Center, California, Corte Madera, California, and Citrus, California. Lo and behold, their respective mayors, Lou Cicirello[1], Eli Beckman[2], and Steve Miller[3], all do not have Wikipedia pages, and I'm sure that they're fellow councilmembers don't either. Why? I'm sure it's because they are not notable or users haven't created their articles yet (99% likely the former). I'm just following consistency here on notability.

I know you created the article, but you don't own the article. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If your concern is not related to notability, then what is the policy you believe supports removing this verifiable information? You state I have never argued that Hewitt is not notable so stop saying that, but then go on to contradict yourself in the same comment by saying yes, I am invoking WP:NOTE here. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you show me other infoboxes where non-notable offices are included? Which policy can you point to that supports the inclusion of that office in the infobox? Should we include every office into every infobox? If so, then Joe Biden's infobox would be very lengthy and include the county position we were talking about. And I'm not contradicting myself, rather it looks like you're not understanding what I am asserting. The offices, the mayorship and the city councilmembership, are not notable by themselves. Hewitt would not have an article on this site if he were a sitting mayor or city councilmember of a town with only 10,000 people, come on now. You completely ignored what I said above. But he isn't just a mayor or a city councilmember, like I said above, he is a member of the county board of supervisors of Riverside County, the fourth most populous county in the state of California (not to mention his libertarian leadership role). The offices are not notable, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't write about them. Like... his children or wife aren't notable but obviously we would mention that they exist? I feel like you're making this extraordinarily difficult. I edit many BLP articles and I'm just going off of consistency and general design per MOS:INFOBOX. If one holds the mayorship of a state capital or a reputably larger city, then of course, include it. But not some small town. Again, only talking about the infobox here... also stop trying to make me look bad lol. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The tedious thing here is you repeatedly misrepresenting the meaning of WP:NOTE. At this point, it appears I have to quote the policy: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty clear that you're not actually trying to engage with me here, because you haven't mentioned any of the points I've mentioned: the other mayors, other articles, consistency, etc. So I'll be taking the conversation to another location to discuss for more input. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

And for the last time, I am not talking about the content of the article, or whether anything should be excluded. As I stressed several times above, I am only talking about the infobox, not the content of the article, and I've said that probably three times now. Wish you would be able to understand that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed the only policy you have cited (WP:NOTE). Other mayors and other articles are not valid policy-backed arguments, they are just WP:OTHERCONTENT. If you have another policy you would like to cite, feel free. The infobox is part of the article, and per MOS:INFOBOX, serves to summarize the article body, which the current infobox does. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)