This is an archive of past discussions about Sazerac Company. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Removal of information about the chairman of the board
A user (Ccharters) who seems to be employed by the company has repeatedly been removing the name of (and all other information about) the person who is reportedly the chairman of the board and controlling stockholder of this company. They have said that they are removing this information "to preserve his privacy". The information that is being removed includes references to sources that I consider reliable sources, and the editor who is removing the information does not seem to dispute the factual accuracy of the information being removed. My understanding is that there is a public interest in identifying who controls such a large privately-owned company. However, since there seems to be a content dispute involved, I think it is appropropriate to discuss the matter here on the Talk page to seek a consensus about the issue. Your comments are hereby invited. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
All mention of the chairman of the board, along with the associated four cited source references, has continued to be removed by Ccharters – most recently a little more than a day ago, for about the 7th time. This time, instead of providing no edit summary at all or saying "We do NOT want reference to [him]" or "We prefer [that he] not be mentioned ... to preserve his privacy", Ccharters said "Information on [him] is incorrect, and that is why it has been removed. (We will be happy to review 'reliably sourced information' for accuracy)." Ccharters did not say exactly what might be incorrect about the information, and seems to clearly be an employee of the company (as stated on their user page). Another user (Bourbondog) seems to also have been making edits to remove this information, and to remove negative information about the company from at least one other article (1792 Ridgemont Reserve). It is not clear to me what might be incorrect about the information that was removed, and the sources seem reasonably reliable to me. Since the suggestion that something is incorrect in these four sources has only surfaced after other tactics did not prove persuasive, and since no specific correction has been suggested, I suspect that this is simply a tactic to remove the information for other reasons. Attempts to engage Ccharters in discussion on their user talk page and here have not resulted in progress on the issue. Bourbondog has not responded to any of the comments left by four different other users on their user talk page. Several other editors have been restoring content repeatedly removed by Ccharters and Bourbondog, so I don't think I am alone in thinking that those edits have not been appropriate. Does anyone have a new suggestion? —BarrelProof (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
