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 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.

Genealogy and History Thoughts Column 15 - Dealing With the Ugly Side of History: Slavery in the United States

Earlier today, I posted a link to an article on one family's discovery of their involvement in the slave trade, and afterwards, Thomas asked me what my thoughts were about this article and its affects on genealogy research. To be honest, this is a difficult topic to write about, and I'm not sure I can write a post that does justice to this topic. I will try my best, though.

Do I believe a discovery like the one the family made above would deter or stop people from doing genealogy? Maybe. I think it depends upon whether or not the genealogists in question were prepared to expect to find ugly family secrets. Even though I have no clue how many people might be scared away from doing their genealogy, my guess is that the number would be fairly small. (Of course, I could always be wrong.)

To be honest, I think if I found a dark family secret, it would still come as a shock to me even though I know I might uncover something ugly in my family's past. I have not uncovered any slave-owning ancestors yet, but I am not going to be presumptuous and claim that I do not have any ancestors who were. I might still uncover an ancestor who was a slave-owner.

If I find a slave-owning ancestor, what will I do? To be honest, I do not know what I would do, and I guess I will not know unless I come upon this situation. But, I think the best solution would be to be honest about my family's past. It probably would be difficult to admit, but I do not believe hiding or white-washing my family's past would be a good decision. History is full of incidences where humans have behaved ugly or done horrible things to other humans, and it does not do anyone any good to try to hide the past.

This Makes Me Sick!

Here's an article on an issue that genealogists need to be concerned with: vandalism of cemeteries. It makes me sick and angry to think that there are people out there who would vandalise cemeteries. Why can't people leave the dead people to rest in peace in their graves?

Some Disturbing News ...

I just ran across this story a few minutes ago on yahoo, and I thought that maybe some of you would want to read this article. It is the actions of people like that who make me sick.

Another Legal Column Posted!

Another legal column has been posted on Craig Manson's blog. You can read it here. This time, the column has the answer to the quiz column that was posted a few days ago.

Another legal column posted

Another legal column has been posted on Craig Manson's blog. You can read it here.

Two More Legal Posts Posted

Craig Manson has posted two more legal lesson posts on his blog. You can read the one posted yesterday here and the one posted today here.

Another Law Column Posted

Craig Manson posted another law column last night. You can read it here.

Ethical Issues in Genealogy that I have come across

I really haven't come across too many ethical issues in my genealogical research, but there two that I believe are important. I won't talk about copyright laws as Steve Danko and Footnote Maven have already posted on this issue. Personally, when it comes to copyright issues, I think it is just better not to post what ever it is on the internet. But I digress; there are additional issues that bother me.

Online family trees, like Ancestry's World Connect, without sources bother me. I personally don't believe that citing a gedcom is sufficient enough as a source of where one personally obtained the information on their tree. I realize that I could always e-mail the tree's owner; however, I have run into situations where a person will have listed one of my ancestor's on his or her tree, and upon e-mailing that person, I learn that the tree's owner does not have any further information or where he or she has obtained that information. Or, I am unable to contact a person because there isn't an e-mail address listed. I'm sorry, but if someone is going to spend the time and effort to post his or her family tree on the web, he or she might as well spend the time to add citations on where he or she has found the information. The time spent on researching one's genealogy is fairly equivalent to doing research for a history paper or a history book. I realize that not everyone is a history major, but in every field that requires research all of the final papers have to have citations and information on where one has obtained his or her information. Any information that is not part of the public domain has to have a citation. It has to be verifiable. The citing format that I use is the Chicago Manual. I use this format for my citations in my history papers and since I'm familiar with this format, it is more convenient to use.

Another issue, with is really a sub-category of the above, is the plagiarism of other people's research. Yes, it is plagiarism if you copy someone else's research and then post on your tree as your research without acknowledging that other person's information. I realize that you can't take information on the web as gospel truth. My problem is that some people have copied other people's work, and having stated that the information they have posted is not their own. Why? It is downright dishonest. I realize that the best way to prevent people from stealing one's research is to not post it on the internet at all. I don't have my family tree online, and if someone has given me information, I cite who's work it is.

Another reason why I do not have my family tree online is that I want to minimize the risk of identity theft. I do not want to make it easy for anyone to steal my or a relative's identity, for that matter. And as I stated briefly before, it is better to not post something to the web if there is a risk that a person could end up in legal trouble or end up with a family feud. Or have one's identity stolen. Sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry.