This is in reference to What-does-it-mean-to-be-a-part-of-xyz-battalion-in-world-war-1?. The original question included an image of a newspaper clipping listing the names of the deceased and his children. (I intended to ask a further question later about the copyright, Ts & Cs and Fair Use issues raised by this).
The response from one of our moderators included: "Are all the named survivors listed in this clipping deceased? If not, the image should be removed from the question and replaced by a transcription of the relevant portions. The deceased's sons and daughters aren't relevant to the question and shouldn't be exposed here"
I have several concerns here. The apparent implication of the question is that it is forbidden to give names of living people. This cannot be true - many of us have referred to living genealogical experts here and elsewhere. In fairness to Jan, she justifies her stance in the 3rd sentence by saying "The deceased's sons and daughters aren't relevant to the question and shouldn't be exposed here." Their non-relevance is correct. However, relevance is a question of degree and in this case a transcription would immediately have invoked questions from me about what was the regiment (there isn't one - either in the article or in real life) and had Battery and Battalion been confused (no)? So I can make a good case for an image being better (setting aside copyright, etc, etc).
Issue 2 - where exactly do we say that names of living people are forbidden (or any variant thereon)? So far as I can see, we don't. There is a section in the Help Centre on "What Topics..." that refers to "How to ask questions about people born less than 100 years ago". That section is not relevant to the posted question as it referred to a chap born in the 1890s who died in 1960.
Issue 3 - immediately above the section referred to above, it states "You must not include here in any circumstances information (including name, date and place of birth or any other details) that would allow identification of any living (or possibly) living individual by somebody reading this site". Sorry but I'm going to be really pedantic and point out that listing a name, even in connection with a parent, does not constitute identification. It doesn't say anything about that person other than their name (in this case). Identification means that I can use the information there and associate it with one particular (living) human being with a reasonable degree of certainty.
If we want to forbid the naming of living people, then we need to make it clearer by saying, in its own section, something like, "Do not name living people or provide any other information ... " Make it simple please.
Issue 4 - if our policy is to forbid the naming of living people - how do we justify it? I worry that simply forbidding it runs into the response (my response on numerous occasions) "So telephone directories are illegal then?"
Issue 5 (sorry, but I think these are all linked) - if we have a breach, how do we handle it? If the justification (see issue 4) is not clear, we drive people away from the site. In this case I would like to thank ColeValleyGirl who redacted the image. It's hard work, perhaps, but is that the way forward?