Re: relative does not want information listed in reports

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:06:54 -0800, Robert Heiling
<robheil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Charlie Hoffpauir wrote:

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:19:24 -0800, Robert Heiling
<robheil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snipped a lot>

Here, I said...
This will on occasion, lead me to do a few things that I personally
find offensive. As an example, a relative (distant cousin) asked me to
remove the fact that he had married a certain person, since that
marriage was later annulled. He argued that the annulment effectively
made it a non-marriage, ie, in the State's eyes, the marriage had
never taken place. The catch was that I had found the record of the
marriage in the State's on-line records.... but not the annulment. So
as an accomodation, I removed the marriage event, thus falsifying my
database.

Falsifying? Correcting what you point out was an error in your data with the
missing annulment was a falsification? I don't think so.

I think you missed the point that I was trying to make.

I'm certainly capable of doing that :) so let's see if I did.

There is a valid source for the (disputed) marriage, ie it is recorded
in the Texas State Archives.

Ok

However, there is no source for the (alledged) annulment,

You mean you haven't found one. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Isn't
that situation quite commonplace in our research?

other than what the individual has told me.

Who would know better?

Even so, I find it best to accede to the wishes of the concerned
individual. However, I don't consider it "correcting an error".

It's not my intention to be quarrelsome about that point or about any of this as
I'm only offering my opinions and point of view. What does concern me is that
these "genealogies" of living people amount to the compilation of dossiers on
private individuals. The potential for mischief is endless. You and others may
argue that the information is harmless, but the annulled marriage situation
muddies the line even further and your insistence increases the concern. What
other information might you compile and feel obligated to include it because you
would otherwise be falsifying your database? Information, for example, that
might damage someone's career? Information that could be used for blackmail?
Don't laugh - the camel's nose is in the tent.

That may all appear to be somewhat melodramatic, but once you have crossed the
line of including living breathing fellow human beings, you assume a terrible
responsibilty for their personal rights.

Maybe it would be helpful to explain what I'm doing... because the
genealogy books that I publish (as PDF files on CD to family members)
are vastly different from yours. Mine are more of a "reverse" tree.
They start with our (family) earliest common ancestor, and go toward
the present, including everyone we can identify as a descendant.
Cousins reading the book want to know the names of their 6th or 7th
cousins, who they may never meet. To stop one or 2 generations
"before" present time just isn't an option.

The context from the OP's post was the usual website, but I see what your doing
from your explanation.

Here again, I have no wish to appear unfriendly, but feel obliged to give you my
opinion. That is that your stated desired use pales in comparison to the person
privacy rights of those in the database. It's a matter of priorities in that
case. Sorry about that and this is intended with friendship, but I'd feel pretty
guilty if I said otherwise.

Bob

Bob,

OK. Your clarification of your views helps me to understand some of
the things you've said, and I really thank you for that. Our only
point of opposition seems to be that you view privacy as a right, and
I don't. I consider it a privilege. I can't say much more without
offending you (and probably many others) so I'll just stop here.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: relative does not want information listed in reports
    ... marriage was later annulled. ... as an accomodation, I removed the marriage event, thus falsifying my ... would otherwise be falsifying your database? ... Cousins reading the book want to know the names of their 6th or 7th ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)
  • Re: relative does not want information listed in reports
    ... marriage was later annulled. ... He argued that the annulment effectively ... as an accomodation, I removed the marriage event, thus falsifying my ... Cousins reading the book want to know the names of their 6th or 7th ...
    (soc.genealogy.computing)
  • Re: Katherine and Nerissa Bowes Lyon
    ... bully mentality which has infiltrated some of you. ... These are her cousins. ... not cousins by marriage. ... "Perhaps the Queen Mother agreed to become patron of MENCAP just ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: Of Royal Descent?
    ... > "Ban Asian marriage of Cousins, ... > Pakistanis are married to first cousins, ... The American Myth of Cousin Marriage ... the likelihood of genetic defects ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)