Talk:Association for Mormon Letters/Archive 1

Archive 1

List of presidents

Is this section due? user:Counterfeit Purses has readded it without any secondary sources after it was removed. This seems like something nobody outside of this group has ever discussed, so I'm not sure why we'd track this. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Big Money Threepwood I don't think it is unusual for groups like this to have a list of past presidents in their article. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This website isn't a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. What do independent reliable sources find important about the AML? None of them give lists of presidents. wp:otherstuffexists isn't a valid argument to include this primary sourced only section. If it's notable, people will discuss it. Then, we can include it Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Big Money Threepwood I have to agree. The only thing notable about the vast majority of the list is that they were presidents of the AML.

Independent coverage for them is non existent, and the list has been updated as a Who's Who over the years by several members with a stated conflict of interest (namely the BYU writers who have stated in their user pages the existing conflict). Knowing a past president of a non profit provides little encyclopedic understanding of the organization for the everyday reader, if any, and if users want to see more info they have the AML website to go see every random tidbit of trivia.

Awshort (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a list of presidents of a group is common in Wikipedia articles. For example, see John Birch Society or Football Association of Slovenia or many other articles. Where is the requirement that they are separately notable or that independent coverage exists? This has been in the article for years with no problems - I think the onus is on you to show why it should be removed. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Counterfeit Purses Per WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I included the necessary WP links in my edit summary, but WP:CSC and WP:GNG. The information has been updated over the years by employees of BYU with a stated conflict of interest, as new presidents have changed.

I am unsure of how having the names of past presidents provided on Wikipedia rather than the AML website helps a reader with understanding more about the subject.

I noticed as I was writing and went to check on if the presidents were included in other sections of the article that you had reverted this again - please note that WP:BRD is an essay, providing an overview of a optional consensus process, where as onus is a policy.

You need consensus before you can re add this, so please stop reverting unless/until consensus is reached.

Awshort (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort This isn't a standalone list, so how would WP:CSC apply? And WP:GNG applies to the existence or non-existence of articles, so how would that apply? I understand that there has been conflict of interest editing here, but how does that justify wholesale removal of a something that is very common in articles about organizations? Is there a list of presidents on the AML website? Where?

Feel free to nominate the article for deletion if you don't think including information about this group belongs here. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

wp:otherstuffexists isn't a valid reason not to fix this article. Can you provide any independent sources to establish the notability of this list? It's wp:undue otherwise. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about deletion discussions. WP:UNDUE is about fairly representing views. A list of past presidents is not a view, it's just factual. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Counterfeit Purses This discussion seems to be going in circles - every article is unique, and consensus varies based on each article and it's content. I believe that is what the other editor is trying to point out to you (I could be wrong and if so I apologize).

Does having a list of past non notable presidents help a readers understanding of the history of the AML? And being absolutely honest, the majority of the people on the list wouldn't pass a Notability requirement for having an article published about them because their notable due to being a president of the non profit for a short period of time. Does removing it cause difficulty for the average reader about the history of the AML?

I would point out that I am trying to provide reasoning based on policies and guidelines for the removal of the content while trying to still continue with the consensus process, so going to another place mid conversation seems counter productive to the process.

Awshort (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort You and Big Money Threepwood keep posting links to guidelines and policies that don't apply to this situation. I asked about applicable policies and guidelines at the Help Desk, which seems completely appropriate to me and would benefit everyone in the discussion. To be honest, I feel like you have shown up here because you disagreed with a statement I made elsewhere and are using this as an opportunity to bully me so I am done with this. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I came from the Help Desk. I think it was appropriate for Counterfeit Purses to ask at the Help Desk if there is a relevant guideline regarding lists. It would not have been all that appropriate if the objective was to cross-post the discussion and have a content discussion there at the same time.

I think the Association for Mormon Letters article is specialized knowledge. As such, considering that many of its presidents are notable enough that they have their own articles, it is helpful for further understanding the topic and its historical context to have the list. Abridging the list to only include presidents with their own articles don't seem as helpful as to include a proper chronological order including non-notable presidents as well. In addition, editors who see the complete list might be motivated to create further articles about some of the presidents in there, further contributing to the understanding of the topic. (See also WP:PAGEDECIDE).

Per WP:NOTEWORTHY, Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. Content is provided for knowledge, understanding of the topic and its context.

A list of presidents of an organization is in no way trivia, because it is actually important historical information. (See also MOS:TRIVIA).

Per Wikipedia:Editing policy

Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge. As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it contains, the better.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)