Talk:ALOA Security Professionals Association

List of former presidents

The list of presidents being added to the article is WP:UNDUE. When the readable prose itself is less than 4,200 bytes, the article shouldn't dedicate over 1,200 bytes to a list that has no weight to it in any reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory, and that's literally all this list is, a directory of former presidents sourced to a questionable primary source (right below the list of former presidents on page 4 of the PDF, it says "...nor does the Association accept responsibility for the inaccuracy of any data, claim, or opinion appearing in this publication...") If we have to rely on a PDF with no established editorial oversight that expressly disclaims responsibility for accuracy, it's clearly not information that warrants inclusion in the article. The editor who added the list cited the existance of simlar lists on other articles as a reason for inclusion here. Per Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments, comparisons to content in the NRA article or other vaguely similar topics to this one are irrelevant, especially as the NRA list is of notable individuals each with their own article, and is sourced to reliable third-party sources, not the subject's own website or publication (plus the plethora of sources in each individual's article). This article has none of that, so it's not a valid comparison. - Aoidh (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

First, this user is quoting a standard editorial boiler plate re: "accepting responsibility for the inaccuracy of any data claim, etc." - this is obviously intended for sponsors and authors, not easily vetted information such as who has and has not served as ALOA President and their terms as ALOA President.

Second, there are a number of Association trade group pages which are smaller yet still contain lists that the aforementioned user considers "directory" items. These pages include:

1) IEEE listing it's Regions and Subsections

2) The Promotion Marketing Association listing it's Councils

3) Compete America listing it's Principles

4) The American Equestrian Trade Association listing it's Membership Categories

5) The American Horse Council listing it's Membership Groups

6) The American Apparel & Footwear Association listing it's Board of Directors

7) The Consumer Brands Association listing it's Program Focuses

8) The American Public Gas Association listing it's Organization Committees

9) The American Public Power Association listing it's Activities

10) The American Society of Travel Advisors listing their Executive Committee/Board of Directors

11) The International Inbound Travel Association listing their Membership Categories

12) The Archery Trade Association listing it's Partnerships and Objectives

I can go on and on and on with examples of trade association/organization pages with similar, relevant and pertinent information.

This user engaged in a deliberate and persistent edit war simply because he identified arbitrary guidelines, that he cannot fully articulate, and assumed they were as he interpreted them. TylerJThomas1987 (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m going to move past your edit warring claims because one look at the article history will make clear that the editor is ignoring WP:BRD and is edit-warring to include content in the article. WP:BRD is not an arbitrary guideline. Your entire response boils down to “well what about these other articles?” and the answer is that those other articles have nothing to do with this article. Those are different topics discussing different things with their own sources and discussions. We are talking about this article. The content is WP:UNDUE. Focus on this article and its merits, not whataboutisms. - Aoidh (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

More specifically WP:BALANCING which is part of WP:NPOV, a policy not a guideline: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Devoting that much of the article to a list of past presidents is disproportional to the amount of attention that such content receives in reliable sources: none at all. Per WP:ONUS, just because it is verifiable (which itself is questionable) does not mean it needs to be mentioned. The "standard editorial boilerplate" the editor is referring to is common, yes, but it is only common in sources that do not have editorial oversight specifically because they do not have editorial oversight; such a source is literally warning you that it should not be considered a reliable source. Reliable sources do not include such a disclaimer. When the only source that mentions this list of former presidents is a primary source that is literally telling you that they take no responsibility for the accuracy of its content, we should act accordingly. When the only editor pushing for its inclusion is a single purpose account with an established conflict of interest, that's an even clearer sign that the content is overly promotional and WP:UNDUE. - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)