Publishing genealogies #general


TE <tome1111@...>
 

Genealogies should not be published. They should be given to family
members, only. You must honor your cousin's request. In fact, you should
get every family member's approval before you publish it.

Genealogies should not be published without consent >from every living
relative.

Tom Erribe
CA


Simon Tardell
 

Most of the information in our family histories is in the public domain
anyway. It's already "published." So you're not infringing on an
individual's privacy by passing out information to relatives that's
already in the public domain.
There's a world of difference between information being scattered in
paper archives all over the world and being readily available on the
internet (which is what is usually meant by "publishing" these days). It
is difficult to predict the kind of damage you can do to someone by
publishing on the internet ever so innocuous personal information.
That's why you should reserve the judgement call to the people
concerned. It's not just a good idea, in many countries it is the law
(EU directive 95/46/EG of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data). In other countries, it remains a good idea.

Simon Tardell.


Scheimer, Deborah <Deborah.Scheimer@...>
 

Simon wrote, "There's a world of difference between information being
scattered in paper archives all over the world and being readily
available on the internet (which is what is usually meant by
"publishing" these days)."

Simon makes a great point. If by "publishing" one means making some hard
copies and mailing them to relatives, that's one thing. But "publishing"
on the internet is something else entirely. Webmasters beware: you
should be hiding your online family histories behind passwords that you
only reveal to relatives and others you can trust. Alternatively, you
can put "Living XXX" (where XXX is the appropriate surname) with no
other revealing information for anyone living. The benefit of using the
"Living XXX" option is that your family history is available to
Google-type searches so that potential relatives can find you.

- Deb Scheimer, Pittsburgh, PA
Searching: GUNDERSHEIMER, RUDICK, PERVIN, BINSTOCK / BEAN


Yehudh bn Shlmo
 

Dear JewishGen members,

I have been reading all the postings and trying to
hold back. But I can't any longer. I do want to say
that I am not affiliated with JewishGen or never held
a position. I am just a regular person still trying to
find all his family.

The original documents for my family were stolen from
a retirement home when my Aunt died. >from the little I
was able to start with, I spent a year finding
nothing. I don't mean afterwork searches, I mean every
day all day long. Then I found matching names on a
Shetl site and finally matching pictures and then a
family tree on JewishGen. lt ended up joining 3 sets
of families in 3 countries to ours, all of which were
not aware of the connection. Everyone assumed we
perished or they perished in the Holocaust.

Many or most of you know the excitement and joy when
you find a relative, and you remember their joy as
well. Time stops and you become family as if all the
years disappeared.

What is that joy worth? What is that family bond
worth? Is it worth losing all this over one person who
is angry with his mother, or sister, or uncle and
wants to punish his entire family. I don't feel that
way. And it is not what I feel family is all about.

This week of all weeks, we have to realize that all
this fear is not worth it. If someone wants to steal
your identity, they don't need a family tree, they can
pay $9.95 to get your mother's name and your unlisted
phone number. Or pay for a high dollar genealogy
service and find out more than you want to know. This
is not a reason to keep your children and your
children's children >from finding out about their
ancestors. To quote a simple adage, one bad apple may
ruin the barrel, but only if you decide to leave it
in. Just leave a blank for those who don't want to be
part of their family, and let your good grandchildren
unite with those who want to be family.

I remember when I sent a picture to a lost relative
of his father in 1920s. He was on the way to work. His
wife got the email and called him and he returned home
and called me immediately >from Israel. The sound of
his excitement, a lost family found, this is what
makes life worth living. And this is where a whole new
story begins.

Sincerely,
Yehudah BenShlomo
U.S.A.


Scheimer, Deborah <Deborah.Scheimer@...>
 

Tom wrote, "Genealogies should not be published. They should be given
to family members, only. You must honor your cousin's request. In
fact, you should get every family member's approval before you publish
it. Genealogies should not be published without consent >from every
living relative."

I understand Tom's point, but I disagree - in part. It depends on what
you mean by "published." If it means you go to a copy store and make 50
copies of your family history and mail it to your 50 living relatives,
then that's not really "publishing." It's like mailing Holiday Cards. If
a relative says, "don't include me" then just don't mail him one.

On the other hand, if by "published" you mean you contact a book agent
and put your family history in book stores around the country, then I
agree with Tom's point. It's just that I don't think that's what most of
us mean by "published." Nobody outside of family would be interested in
most of our family histories!

Most of the information in our family histories is in the public domain
anyway. It's already "published." So you're not infringing on an
individual's privacy by passing out information to relatives that's
already in the public domain.

And of course, an easy way to get around the issue is to simply list
those cousins who don't want to be included as "Living SMITH" (or
whatever his surname is). Just be sure to include his real name in your
notes so it's not lost to whomever you give your genealogical records to
when the time comes.

- Deb Scheimer, Pittsburgh, PA
Searching: GUNDERSHEIMER, RUDICK, PERVIN, BINSTOCK / BEAN


Simon Tardell
 

Gnarlodious wrote:

I will soon be publishing my family's genealogy so it will be searchable by
Google. I do plan to remove personal information for living people, such as
birthdates. As a webmaster concerned with privacy this seems appropriate.

Am I on the right track here? As Yehuda said, I want to facilitate finding
ancestors to others searching online, as I am the first to ever catalogue
the family tree.
Names and family relations are also sensitive personal information.
Also, keep in mind that there are other people making list of jews, and
you don't want to give them a hand. You should definitely avoid
publishing any information (even names) of living people who haven't
explicitly given their permission.

As for the recently dead, a good rule of thumb is to consider the
privacy rules that different countries have for personal information.
Privacy laws are usually passed for a good reason... E.g. Lithuania has
a new law under which archive records are only released after 100 years.
Under Swedish laws, privacy considerations for paper archives lapse
after 70 years. Etc. In sensitive issues like these it is better to err
on the conservative side. If you exclude data on dead people >from the
last, lets say, seventy years you will still have a good chance that
Google will turn up something useful when your relative search for their
ancestors while providing a decent "cordon sanitaire" of privacy for the
living.

The same considerations should apply to uploading family trees to FTJP.

Of course, if you restrict access only to family members, you can make
information available more readily.

Simon


Gnarlodious <gnarlodious@...>
 

Entity Scheimer, Deborah uttered this profundity:

Webmasters beware: you
should be hiding your online family histories behind passwords that you
only reveal to relatives and others you can trust. Alternatively, you
can put "Living XXX" (where XXX is the appropriate surname) with no
other revealing information for anyone living. The benefit of using the
"Living XXX" option is that your family history is available to
Google-type searches so that potential relatives can find you.
I will soon be publishing my family's genealogy so it will be searchable by
Google. I do plan to remove personal information for living people, such as
birthdates. As a webmaster concerned with privacy this seems appropriate.

Am I on the right track here? As Yehuda said, I want to facilitate finding
ancestors to others searching online, as I am the first to ever catalogue
the family tree.

Any advice welcome.

Rachel Cogent


Judith Lipmanson <lipmanson@...>
 

Rachel:

I have my personal strong opinion against Jews publishing their family
trees on the web -- in the public domain. I'd give you my reasons except
that I would, metaphorically, have my wrists slapped by the the
moderator of this forum.

I know others don't share my opinion; but, it would be polite for you to
canvass your living relatives to get their permissions even though their
names may not be published. Your ancestors are theirs also.

Judith Lipmanson

I will soon be publishing my family's genealogy so it will be searchable by
Google. I do plan to remove personal information for living people, such as
birthdates. As a webmaster concerned with privacy this seems appropriate.

Am I on the right track here? As Yehuda said, I want to facilitate finding
ancestors to others searching online, as I am the first to ever catalogue
the family tree.

Any advice welcome.

Rachel Cogent


Mindie Kaplan <rayvenna@...>
 

I put up a webpage with a list of names, place of birth, and date and place of
death. It's sorted alphabetically by last name.

This has allowed me to connect with several previously-unknown relatives. They
see the name of their grandfather and his siblings, for example, and contact
me. Since there's no relationship between the names, it's meaningless to
anyone who isn't a relative.

Mindie Kaplan, Washingtion D.C. Area
Researching: ALLEN/ELLEN, ENTIS/ENTES (Smorgon-Oshmiany-Vilnius), COHEN
(Palestine), DEVORE/DEVOR, GLASSMAN (Nowe Aleksandrowo/Nowo Aleksandrowo),
GLAZER, GLAZIER, GURMERMAN, JAFFE (Svenciany), JAFFEE, LANDE/LANDER/LANDY
(Anyksciai>England>US), LEVITT, MONTAGUE, KAPLAN (Sinack-Russia), RABB, RECHT,
ROTHMAN, SCHNEIDER/SCHNAIDER (Anyksciai-Vilkomir-Kovno), SPLAVER/SPLAVA/SPLAWER
(Anyksciai), WOLINSKI/WOLINSKY, YELSKY (Kobrin-Slonim-Grodno), RUBENSTEIN


robert fraser <robertandginafraser@...>
 

A lot depends on what you mean by "publishing" and "genealogy". My
approach, and there are no doubt very many, has been to follow the style set
by my parents, who spent years, off and on, writing their story, or
testimony, if you like. Since I got seriously on to it, I've edited their
writing, corrected language and grammatical errors, added new information
that they never knew, added personal comments and some background history.

It isn't a genealogy, as in a long boring list on names, places and dates.
It's a story told in first person format of the history of my parents and
ancestors. It's also a work in progress; as new information comes to light,
it's "plugged into" the story. If some information is missing, I say so.
*One day* it will be finished and it will be "published". That is, copies
will go to a few close relatives and perhaps to the library of our local
JGS.

Robert W Fraser
Dianella, Western Australia
robertandginafraser@iinet.net.au


***
Gnarlodious wrote:

I will soon be publishing my family's genealogy so it will be searchable by
Google. I do plan to remove personal information for living people, such as
birthdates. As a webmaster concerned with privacy this seems appropriate.
snip>>>


Nick <tulse04-news@...>
 

"Judith Lipmanson" < lipmanson@verizon.net > wrote:

Rachel:

I have my personal strong opinion against Jews publishing their family
trees on the web -- in the public domain. I'd give you my reasons except
that I would, metaphorically, have my wrists slapped by the the moderator
of this forum.

I know others don't share my opinion; but, it would be polite for you to
canvass your living relatives to get their permissions even though their
names may not be published. Your ancestors are theirs also.

Judith Lipmanson
I have experienced a very distant connection (the precise relationship I
don't know) sending me a copy of my familytree with details of my immediate
family with their birth dates and their relationships to each other.

I know that if I were to mention this to my close relations that they would
be very concerned that someone who has very little connection to them has
obtained this information which includes children of school age.

In fact, they would be very angry and would want to know how she got hold of
the information.

There is therefore a question of when does a connection stop being family -
they might be family in terms of a familytree but someone whose relationship
goes back to 1800 hardly counts as family in most people's understanding.

At that degree of separation I would be related to half the Jews in London.


--
Nick Landau
London, UK

COHNREICH (Anklam, Germany Krajenka, Poland) ATLAS (Wielkie Oczy (near
Lvov/Lemberg), Poland)
WECHSLER(Schwabach, Germany) KOHN (Wallerstein and Kleinerdlingen,Germany)
LANDAU/FREDKIN(Gomel, Mogilev, Belarus)


Nick <tulse04-news@...>
 

With the UK Census, the restriction is 100 years.


--
Nick Landau
London, UK

COHNREICH (Anklam, Germany Krajenka, Poland) ATLAS (Wielkie Oczy (near
Lvov/Lemberg), Poland)
WECHSLER(Schwabach, Germany) KOHN (Wallerstein and Kleinerdlingen,Germany)
LANDAU/FREDKIN(Gomel, Mogilev, Belarus)


Stan Goodman <SPAM_FOILER@...>
 

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:41:46 UTC, tulse04-news@yahoo.co.uk (Nick) opined:

I have experienced a very distant connection (the precise relationship I don't
know) sending me a copy of my familytree with details of my immediate family
with their birth dates and their relationships to each other.

I know that if I were to mention this to my close relations that they would be
very concerned that someone who has very little connection to them has obtained
this information which includes children of school age.

In fact, they would be very angry and would want to know how she got hold of the
information.
But the fact that she did ought to be a clue that the information is out there,
and that it is obtainable by anyone interested, whether you publish or not. One
can adopt any number of philosophies about what degree of privacy is required or
necessary; some of them are more attached to reality than others. An extreme one
such as you suggest is in fact an invitation to abandon meaningful genealogy in
favor of a less intrusive hobby, such as building ships in bottles or collecting
stamps, which would kill time as effectively as genealogy.

There is therefore a question of when does a connection stop being family - they
might be family in terms of a familytree but someone whose relationship goes
back to 1800 hardly counts as family in most people's understanding.
The paragraph above defines an approach to genealogy which may be termed
"dabbling"; it is certainly not a serious one. Personally, I have lines going back
to the middle of the 18th century, and do regard those earliest progenitors as
family, and the same is true for their descendants, cousins of degree four, five,
and more. That is why I do this often tedious work. If I could push my tree
further back, I would do so. My joke with friends is that I would really like to
get it back to at least one Homo Erectus.

I have a family in Jerusalem that was unknown to me until about three years ago,
although I have been in this country for forty years. They have been in Jerusalem
since the mid-nineteenth century. I got to them only by having worked down to
present-day persons (including two that had died in the preceding few years). Had
I not done all that work (and had I not had the cooperation of the Hevra Qadisha
and the Interior Ministry), I would not have found them at all, which would have
been a great personal loss to me, and an equal one to my genealogy project. Only
my ability to trace their ancestry back until it linked with my own enabled me to
prove to them that we are related, as they were initially dubious. None of this
would have happened, had I played by your rules.

At that degree of separation I would be related to half the Jews in London.
Are you saying that this would not be a good thing?

--
Stan Goodman, Qiryat Tiv'on, Israel

Searching:
NEACHOWICZ/NOACHOWICZ, NEJMAN/NAJMAN, SURALSKI: >from Lomza Gubernia
ISMACH: >from Lomza Gubernia, Galicia, and Ukraina
HERTANU, ABRAMOVICI, LAUER: >from Dorohoi District, Romania
GRISARU, VATARU: >from Iasi, Dorohoi, and Mileanca, Romania

See my interactive family tree (requires Java 1.1.6 or better). the URL is:
http://www.hashkedim.com

For reasons connected with anti-spam/junk security, the return address is not
valid. To communicate with me, please visit my website (see the URL above -- no
Java required for this purpose) and fill in the email form there.


Yisrael Asper
 

Historically short of family ties being forced to be recognized further by inlaws
through some intramarriage of children or grandchildren only when Jewish families
split into different Jewish ethnic groupings did they stop thinking in terms of
someone being a member of their family. Let's say a Lithuanian Jew settled amongst
Polish Jews and married into their community and all his children and
grandchildren and greatgrandchildren did likewise, the greatgrandchildren if all
these generations were raised only in Poland, were known as Polish. Who usually
goes beyond the generation level of parents and grandparents? They could even
think that they could not possibly have "Litvaks" as ancestors! The Holocaust and
the establishment of the State of Israel with the fleeing of Arabic Jews caused
the Jews to scatter about so that many Jews still can't point to their countries
if present residence as "the Old Country" consequently many family ties are
recognized further. Just as it took a bit of a while for Germanic Jews fleeing the
Crusades to view their new Eastern European countries as "their country" with
their identity being Eastern European Jewish so after the tumult of the twentieth
century is it the same. Their will come a time though when English speaking Jews
for instance will stop thinking of their ethnicity as >from the "Old Country" but
it will happen. When things are settled you can have even the farthest distant
relatives thinking of themselves as relatives. Think of a family for instance
living for generations in the same town with no outsiders either ethnically or
from even another town mixing in the family. What is there for them to make a
cutoff point? There is none then. Further no one would be afraid of some strange
outsider getting information on them. Their is no outsider.
Yisrael Asper
yisraelasper@comcast.net
Pittsburgh PA


...There is therefore a question of when does a connection stop being family...
--
Nick Landau
London, UK


Nick <tulse04-news@...>
 

< yisraelasper@comcast.net > wrote:

snip

What is there for them to make a cutoff point? There is none then. Further
no one would be afraid of some strange outsider getting information on them.
Their is no outsider.
Yisrael Asper
yisraelasper@comcast.net
Pittsburgh PA


...There is therefore a question of when does a connection stop being
family...

Living people have a right to their own privacy.

A colleague of ours >from Sweden in another posting said that the Jewish
community in Sweden declined to use a method of collecting payments >from
their members which would be more financially advantageous to the community
as this would lead to the community having to open their records up to
everyone.

With the power of the Internet and emails we are in a whole new world of
access to information and exchange of information.

I have recorded elsewhere how I have recently been put in touch with a
cousin of my mother through JGFF.

In most Western countries there are laws concerning working with children,
the elderly and also vulnerable people. If I want to work in a hospital in
the UK, I have to fill out a long form and a check is done against me.

If a father wants to go away for a weekend with a Scout troop then they have
to go through a similar procedure. Likewise if I want to go and do voluntary
work in a Jewish old people's home.

These are rules that affect the Jewish community as much as everyone else.
What I am saying is that whilst the information is of historical interest
then I have no problems.

I recognise the problem that Yisroel speaks about, but it is regrettable the
modern society that we live in, and that protection like this is needed.

But we Jews and genealogists are part of the society we live in, and these
protections have been set up for a reason.

And I repeat that my close family would be very concerned that the personal
details of their young ones has been obtained by someone whose relationship
to them is very distant.

Protection of young people and the vulnerable is far more important than the
purpose of any genealogical exercise.

--
Nick Landau
London, UK

COHNREICH (Anklam, Germany Krajenka, Poland) ATLAS (Wielkie Oczy (near
Lvov/Lemberg), Poland)
WECHSLER(Schwabach, Germany) KOHN (Wallerstein and Kleinerdlingen,Germany)
LANDAU/FREDKIN(Gomel, Mogilev, Belarus)


Yisrael Asper
 

I have relatives who are by now very distant in relationship and don't need a
genealogist to tell them they are related. All they have to do is look at a
wedding invitation. They would be insulted to be kicked out of a tree or a
wedding invitation. How I would get information on them is like anyone in the
family. When there are as I said settled conditions you can have two people
being the farthest distant cousins and it wouldn't make a difference. Jews have
unfortunately experienced too many unsettled conditions. I doubt Franklin Delano
Roosevelt wondered if he could call Eleanor Roosevelt his fifth cousin on a family
tree only, or a full fledged cousin to be invited to a family wedding
even before their own. I must say Nick that until you brought it up I thought I
was perhaps the only one on the planet to make a distinction between a family
tree relative and a "Relative." The problem is more trying to convince relatives
you really are a relative on a tree even. If not for the Holocaust a lot of
relatives would have known of each other's existence. I had so many relatives
living in Vienna, Austria before the war. It would have looked funny for them to
put a division between them. After the Holocaust you
had searches made for relatives. A failed attempt by a parent or grandparent
should mean the end of a search? Not for me. If information is out there you can
get it. How you use it online should be as discreet as you would want for your
nondiscovery needed family. One problem which had been in the Holocaust
generation that we may not have experienced directly but has caused also
genealogical ignorance was\is the phenomenon of children (by now parents and
grandparents themselves) being afraid to ask their parents about their family
too much for fear of causing them pain. This phenomenon probably was repeated
throughout Jewish history.

Yisrael Asper [Descendent of the Noda Byehuda, the Magen Avraham, the Pnei
Yehoshua, the daughter of the Yismach Moshe and a sister of Rav Meir Arak and
thus a descendent of the Taz and his fatherinlaw the Bach. My father's father
was a Gerer Chassid born and partially raised in London and later in Lodz who
was a Shochet and Bodek in Bnei Brak called Rav Yitzchak Yerachmiel Aspes. His
father was called Rav Shraga Feivel Aspes >from Lodz. Rav Shraga Feivel Aspes
was >from the family Ashpez. Either his wife or him had a sister married to a
Grunblatt who was the grandmother of Rabbi Joseph Grunblatt.]
yisraelasper@comcast.net
Pittsburgh PA

...we Jews and genealogists are part of the society we live in, and...
protections have been set up for a reason.

Nick Landau
London, UK


Nick <tulse04-news@...>
 

<yisraelasper@comcast.net> wrote

I have relatives who are by now very distant in relationship and don't
need a genealogist to tell them they are related. All they have to do
is look at a wedding invitation. They would be insulted to be kicked
out of a tree or a wedding invitation.
I have a family-tree going back to 1650 and I was shown the cemeteries in
Furth by Gisela Blume (for which much thanks).

I had not heard of her previously and she handed me family-trees which were
all connected to this family.

The name Rapaport appears in the family-tree and I have established quite a
few years ago a connection with a number of people who post on this
newsgroup.

The mathematics of this is not very difficult and either you are related to
yourself a number of times, or you must be related to half the Jews in New
York.

I have read that the number of Ashkenazi Jews at the time of Rashi was only
about 50,000.

We know that at succeeding generations with the family cycle of weddings
individuals form their own families and once fairly close relations become
more distant - their is only so many people you can invite to weddings and
there is the factor of geography.

In statistics I use degrees of connectedness and likewise we do so in our
family relations - third, fourth cousins etc.

We naturally recognise that someone who shares a greatgreatgreatfather is
not as closely related as a first cousin.

Having said that we probably know of families where they have regular
meetings of all descendants of such and such a family that came >from X. This
is more like the Scottish clan.

--
Nick Landau
London, UK

COHNREICH (Anklam, Germany Krajenka, Poland)
ATLAS (Wielkie Oczy (near Lvov/Lemberg), Poland)
WECHSLER(Schwabach, Germany)
KOHN (Wallerstein and Kleinerdlingen,Germany)
LANDAU/FREDKIN(Gomel, Mogilev, Belarus)


Yisrael Asper
 

I was referring to how many people in a family would be insulted at
not being invited to a wedding. With the PostHolocaust generation
Jewish families are getting bigger again. If your a member of "the
family" it doesn't matter how close or far you are physically to feel
a connectedness. If I would visit those relatives I talked of they
might as well be first cousins. For now I don't know all their names
or even all the people but it wouldn't matter a bit. This is really
how families were meant to be. 50,000 Ashkenazic Jews at the time of
Rashi? Was this before or after the Crusades that he lived to see?
Yisrael Asper
yisraelasper@comcast.net
Pittsburgh PA

I have a family-tree going back to 1650 and I was shown the cemeteries in
Furth by Gisela Blume (for which much thanks).

I had not heard of her previously and she handed me family-trees which were
all connected to this family.

The name Rapaport appears in the family-tree and I have established quite a
few years ago a connection with a number of people who post on this
newsgroup.

The mathematics of this is not very difficult and either you are related to
yourself a number of times, or you must be related to half the Jews in New
York.

I have read that the number of Ashkenazi Jews at the time of Rashi was only
about 50,000.

We know that at succeeding generations with the family cycle of weddings
individuals form their own families and once fairly close relations become
more distant - their is only so many people you can invite to weddings and
there is the factor of geography.

In statistics I use degrees of connectedness and likewise we do so in our
family relations - third, fourth cousins etc.

We naturally recognise that someone who shares a greatgreatgreatfather is
not as closely related as a first cousin.

Having said that we probably know of families where they have regular
meetings of all descendants of such and such a family that came >from X. This
is more like the Scottish clan.

--
Nick Landau
London, UK