Genealogy and History Thoughts Column 19 - My Thoughts on the New FTC Blogging Guidelines

I just learned about the new Federal Trade Commission regulations for blogs from Craig's post via Chris' post. To be honest, I don't believe it is the government's job to tell bloggers how they should write their posts. Yeah, bloggers should mention in their posts that they were asked to review a product for a company, but does the government really have to tell or require bloggers to do so?

I don't think so, and that's why I'm posting on this topic. I'm bothered by these new regulations because I feel like the government is treating bloggers as if they are children. As an adult, I resent being treated like a child by the government, and I think the regulations should have been givens for other bloggers way before the FTC created these regulations. Additionally, I wonder if these new regulations will create precedents for the FTC to publish new and possibly, more restrictive regulations in the future.

Why do I worry? Well, from time to time, I write brief book reviews of history and genealogy books that I have read, and I think I've mentioned whether or not I bought the book or had a connection to the author. Is the government going to tell me that I can't write book reviews or that I must put another disclaimer at the end of my book review? I think I make it clear that I've either bought these books or checked them out of the library. I'm not telling people to go out and buy the books. My whole purpose in posting the book reviews was to suggest books that might help other genealogists with their research. People don't have to buy the books; they can check them out from a library.

I was thinking of posting another three book reviews of books I read over the summer, but now I'm wondering if I should bother. Would it be better for me to stop posting my informal book reviews to protect myself? Or should I just continue to post book reviews? What do you think?

As always, you can leave comments on what you think.

Genealogy and History Thoughts Column 18 - An Important Lesson: Never Assume ...

After looking at the title of this article, you're probably thinking, "Shouldn't that be given?" Probably, but my intention for this article is not to lecture others but write about how assumptions can cause problems in genealogy research. Why? Well, I made an assumption about a record, and I've just recently learned and realized that my assumption was wrong. So, by learning how I made a mistake, I'm hoping other genealogists will learn from my mistake.

As you probably remember, I recently received a copy of the pension file for Benjamin Oswalt, and since the file came, I've taken a look at the records. I once believed that I could not find this Benjamin Oswalt in the censuses after the 1850 census, so, when I asked my grandfather to take a look at a probate record for our ancestor, Benjamin Oswalt, did not expect my grandfather to find a Benjamin Oswalt in the 1870 census (see below the paragraph). (The Benjamin Oswalt in the probate record died in 1861 in Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, and is the father of Adam Oswalt, according to Adam's death certificate.) This Benjamin was living in Kansas, and had been born in Michigan, and my grandfather, mentioned that he had found this census record will doing research for our ancestor. Of course, I took a look at the census record, and told my grandfather, that that Benjamin could not be connected to us because he was living in Kansas and was born in Michigan, despite the fact that he was the exact age as the Benjamin Oswalt I believe to be Adam's brother. Well, that is what I thought until Benjamin's pension file came ...

(Image taken from FamilySearch's Record Search)

When I looked at the pension file Benjamin's widow, Elizabeth, applied for, I noticed the names of the people who gave testimony on her behalf. I recognized some of the names, but there were a few names that I did not recognize. I already knew from previous research, that Elizabeth remarried, but when I looked at the Michigan death records and marriages that are online, I discovered that the one of the witnesses was probably the sister of Elizabeth's new husband. To try to confirm, my theory, I decided to look for Elizabeth's new husband and the witness in the census records. The search for Elizabeth's husband brought me back to the census image above. Lo and behold, Elizabeth's future husband was living next door to the Benjamin Oswalt I had earlier dismissed. Knowing that the future husband was from Saint Joseph County, Michigan, I realized that the fact that there was a Benjamin Oswalt living next door to him was probably not a coincidence since the Benjamin Oswalt I was looking for was from Saint Joseph County, Michigan. So, even though Benjamin's birthplace is listed as Michigan, I believe I have found the correct Benjamin Oswalt, and I believe it is possible that the census taker put the wrong information down.

So, what is the moral of the story? Well, almost ignored a census record and other possible leads into researching my Oswalt family. The census record indicates that Benjamin had some wealth, and it might be possible that he bought some land in Kansas. Of course, I won't know until I pursue this avenue, but I almost missed this opportunity because I believed it wasn't the right person. Just because a record doesn't necessarily fit all of your known facts about a person does not mean that it isn't your person. If you do write off a source, you might miss another possible lead. So, I guess it is better to have an open mind about possible sources when doing your own research. Now, I've just got to trace this new lead, and figure out why Benjamin was in Kansas about six months after his marriage. Please stay tuned for further posts on Benjamin.

And as always, please feel free to leave comments on you what you think about this article.

Genealogy and History Thoughts Column 17 - My Thoughts on the IGI and LDS Rite, Baptism of the Dead, Controversy

Last year, when the controversy between the Catholic church and LDS occurred over Catholic parish records, I thought about writing a column on, but I eventually chose to not do so because I waited too long to write my column. So, when I happened to notice Schelly's post on the news about the baptism of the President's mother, I thought I would write about my thoughts on this issue. (But, before I continue with my column, I just want to mention that I understand that the LDS rite, baptism of the dead, does not mean the deceased person becomes a Mormon after the rite or being listed on the IGI.)

So, what I think about this controversy? Well, to be honest, I am torn between two different views on the rite and IGI listings. On the one hand, I am bothered by the rite but my issue with the rite is due to the fact that I am an Evangelical Christian. On the other hand, I do not have a problem with deceased people's names being listed in the IGI as the IGI has been useful in my research. For instance, I would not have uncovered the birth date for my great-grandfather as quickly as I did if someone had not entered the put the information on the FamilySearch website. I have also found other information on many other ancestors, such as marriage and birth dates, on the site and was able to confirm that information by using it as a guide in my search for sources and further research. The IGI has been a wonderful tool in researching my family's history.

With that said, I also understand that other people might object to their ancestors being listed in the IGI. Do I believe that it is insensitive for a person to have non-related people baptized in this rite? Yes. Those who object to having their deceased relatives listed probably do so out of privacy, religious or other concerns, and I think it is rude for someone who is not connected to a person to have the rite done. (Of course, I have not had a problem with finding any of my ancestors in the IGI only because the ancestors listed are at least separated by a generation from my living relatives, and thus, I haven't had to worry about any privacy concerns.) I realize that the person doing so may be doing it out of the goodness of their heart, but if that person is not connected to the person baptized, I think it would be best for that person to not submit the person's name unless the family has given him or her permission to do so. (I do not have as much of a problem if that person is descended from an ancestor, although I think he or she should consider the feelings of other family members before submitting a name.)

So, what does one do if one wants to memorialize the deceased? Well, in the case of uncovering the names of Holocaust victims, I think the proper procedure would be to donate the research uncovered on victims to a Holocaust survivor group or museum, and allow the members of those groups to decide if and how they would like to memorialize the victims. In other cases, I would avoid baptizing anyone who isn't connected to the person doing the research, and for those are having dead relatives baptized, I would check with relatives before having the names posted on the internet. I think depends on the situation of each case.

Should one donate the names of their ancestors to the IGI, if the IGI has been useful to their research? I think it depends upon the feelings of the researcher and his or her family. As to whether or not I will ever submit ancestors whose names are not listed in the IGI, I am not completely sure what I'll do. Right now, I believe my answer is no due to the fact that I do not want to offend any family members and that I want to respect the privacy of my relatives. Of course, I might change my feelings in the future, but I don't know for sure. Of course, I do not believe there are easy answers or guidelines for all of the issues connected to this controversy.

So, what do you think? Am I right or Wrong? As always, you can leave your thoughts in the comments section.

34th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 34th Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Donna McClure, and you can read it here. Enjoy!

Forgot To Mention: 33rd Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

I forgot to mention on Friday that the 33rd Shades of the Departed guest column had been posted, and I am really sorry for forgetting to mention the post. The author of that column was M. Diane Rogers, and you can read it here. Enjoy!

32nd Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 32nd Shades of the Departed Guest Column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Sheri Fenley, and you can read it here. Enjoy!

31st Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The Shades of the Departed guest columns are back, and the 31st Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Terri Kallio, and you can read it here. Enjoy!

30th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 30th Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted. The author of this week's column is Apple, and you can read the article here. Enjoy!

29th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 29th Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Denise Levenick, and you can read the article here. Enjoy!

28th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 28th Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Rebecca Fenning, and you can read the article here. Enjoy!

27th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 27th Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Midge Frazel, and you can read the article here. Enjoy!

26th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 26th Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Melissa Strobel, and you can read it here. Enjoy!

25th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 25th Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted. The author of this week's column is Sheri Bush, and you can read the article here. Enjoy!

24th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 24th Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Kim O'Neil Screen, and you can read the column here. Enjoy!

23rd Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 23rd Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Brett Payne, and you can read the article here. Enjoy!

22nd Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 22nd Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Joe Bott, and you can read the article here. Enjoy!

Best Of Shades Of The Departed Guest Columns Posted!

The best of the Shades of the Departed guest columns has been posted! You can read it here. Enjoy!

21st Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 21st Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted! The author of this week's column is Linda Palmer, and you can read the article here. Enjoy!

20th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The twentieth Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted. The author of this week's article is Bob Franks, and you can read the article here. Enjoy!

19th Shades Of The Departed Guest Column Posted!

The 19th Shades of the Departed guest column has been posted. The author of this week's blog is Maureen Taylor, and the column can read on this page.

(Just as a quick note, this post was pre-published, so I do not have it directly linked to the column. I have just linked to the Shades Of The Departed blog.)