Talk:Alishan Bairamian

RfC: Should publicly-available, but obscure, information be included if it compromises the subject's family's privacy?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It appears that there is consensus that the material is ok to be used, unless someone explicitly indicates it is leading to them being harmed. (non-admin closure)--Mdann52talk to me! 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

When this page was created, one sentence in it read "Bairamian met Sylvia Vertanessian, the daughter of survivors of the 1922 Burning of Smyrna, Haroutioun and Arsenouhie Vertanessian." It was later changed to "Bairamian met his future wife, Sylvia, the daughter of survivors of the 1922 Burning of Smyrna." The reason given for this change was that making Sylvia's maiden name so easy to find could compromise the family's privacy and security. However, the information exists in a public, though obscure (and not in English), source. Should this be included or excluded? Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand the privacy and security issue here. If Sylvia is still alive she will likely be 100 years old or so, and not have been using the maiden name for 70 years. Anyone wanting to find the family would be more likely to look them up in the Hollywood, California phone book than to research their genealogy. How would knowing the wife's maiden was help anyone find them and disturb them today? Are members of the Vertanessian family being persecuted in some way and need to remain obscure? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. I usually prefer to err on the side of privacy on these matters. WP:BLP is fairly explicit that we are to avoid including information that could lead to further victimization. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• I think I'm with Anne on this one. Is there any indication that this information could lead to any harm? The subject isn't alive, his spouse probably isn't—are we sure there are even Vertanessians around anymore? There may not be, especially if Sylvia didn't have brothers. Maiden names tend not to be the sort of information we redact for privacy. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• That said, it's hardly vital information about the actual article subject. If there were some reasonable expectation of harm from our including it, we shouldn't. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Information in this article contradicts WP:BLP; Users not allowing change

I am the author of this article. I mistakenly included the maiden name of the subject's (Alishan Bairamian) late wife. I tried removing the maiden name but it was re-inserted by a user whose sole explanation was that the information was available publicly which the user could not verify because that information contained no citation and the other sources listed were not in English.

I have made a good faith edit in removing a piece of information that is absolutely not integral to the article in question and there has been an inexplicable insistence on keeping that information there. Additionally, this information contradicts the WP:BLP and besides it not being integral, can also be removed on these grounds.

I am asking that the community assume good faith in my effort to remove this piece of information and respect the potential privacy concerns of living descendants of the person whose name is in question.

Ironladle (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy close due to asking the exact same question as the RfC immediately above this one, which closed with a result of keeping the information. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)