3

I'm using an online service to create a family tree. I have already included my own information.

Is it a common / best practice to include the son and the wife of one's half-brother (I think that is the term) since we share only a father?

CRSouser
  • 5,581
  • 5
  • 30
  • 62
Tolga Ozses
  • 153
  • 6
  • You might want to review http://genealogy.stackexchange.com/q/86/104 to understand some of the approaches being taken to protecting the privacy of living people, and then make sure you're not publishing details of living people without their permission. –  Apr 19 '15 at 13:29

2 Answers2

4

I agree with the previous answers that protecting the privacy of your half-brother and his family is very important and should be your primary consideration, along with their own wishes about whether they want to be included.

In my own online trees, which are private, I only have the information about the members of my family who are already deceased. All the information I have gathered on my living relatives is only in the files on my own computer. In cases where I want a representative for the generations who are living, I have a single person to represent that family with no gender so I can use that person as a starting point for the relationship calculator.

There are two other points that you might want to think about.

  1. What will happen to your research after you are gone? If you are planning to pass your research on to other members of your family, including your half-brother and his family, then it makes sense for them to be included. It gives them a head start on doing the work on their own records, though they'll want to verify what you've done.
  2. Is your family (or your half-brother's family) interested in DNA research? If so, having them on your tree will be useful for triangulation for autosomal testing.
Jan Murphy
  • 25,610
  • 5
  • 50
  • 124
2

It is your family tree - you can include anyone you like. It is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to include your half-brother's son and his family.

It appears from your tag that you are using Ancestry.com. If this is the case, then living people should be automatically hidden from public view. Only you and the people you let access the tree would be able to see living persons. If using another online service, you may want to review privacy settings to make sure no personal information about living people is shown.

Harry V.
  • 18,850
  • 5
  • 46
  • 98
  • 3
    Caveat - re Ancestry public trees and privatizing living persons: the site uses certain clues to determine who may still be living. If the person's birthdate is badly formatted, or missing the year, the whole profile may still be visible to other Ancestry subscribers. – bgwiehle Apr 19 '15 at 12:34
  • Agreed - hence my use of the word "should". There is an onus on the user to enter dates in a recognizable format. – Harry V. Apr 19 '15 at 12:48
  • 3
    @vervet A new user might think that leaving the birthdate blank or incomplete would keep that information private. However, they risk exposing all the events in the profile with that tactic - and they would never realize this as they need to be signed in to access the tree and are automatically recognized as the owner with full access. – bgwiehle Apr 19 '15 at 13:40
  • 1
    "you can include anyone you like" is not a satisfying rationale. Sure you can, but if it is legal or might be challenged with a take down notice or even in court certainly varies from country to country. Especially in Europe people are more sensitive to matters of privacy, especially when it comes to underage persons. Independently from regulations it is certainly not wrong to ask those whose information you want to put online. – lejonet Apr 20 '15 at 09:35
  • @lejonet I think you need to provide some evidence for this criticism - e.g. the legislation or website terms that restricts one's legal or moral prerogative to include their family members on their Ancestry.com family tree. As my answer indicates, there are reasonable privacy measures in place on Ancestry.com to ensure that such private information is not made public - therefore I stand by my claim that "you can include anyone you like". – Harry V. Apr 20 '15 at 11:12
  • @vervet You need to provide evidence that it is perfectly fine – without any limitation – to add information on living individuals to an online tree. It was already outlined that the privacy protection measures have its limits. E.g. in Germany the right on Informationelle Selbstbestimmung ("Informational self-determination") results in a variety of federal and state laws concerning the right to privacy. See e.g. http://www.genealogy.net/vereine/ArGeWe/datenschutz.htm. The publication of non-public information of a non-notable living individual needs this individual’s consent. – lejonet Apr 20 '15 at 14:20
  • @lejonet The thing is I am not advocating "it is perfectly fine - without any limitation - to add information on living individuals to an online tree". My answer clearly states that certain limitations (i.e. privacy measures) need to be in place. Such limitations are in place on Ancestry.com - only individuals you permit access are able to view information on living persons. If you are allowing unlimitted access to your tree containing data on living persons, then of course the privacy laws you cite may apply. – Harry V. Apr 20 '15 at 14:42
  • By "without imitation" I meant that you did not address possible local differences. The privacy measures by Ancestry don't solve every possible conflict, especially in terms of the audience that still has access and the fact that you contributed information about other living individuals to a corporate database without their consent. – lejonet Apr 20 '15 at 15:55
  • Ok, clearly you don't believe the answer to this question is as straightforward as I do. I voiced general concerns about privacy but thought (think) that the intricate details of privacy laws are beyond the scope of this question. Since you disagree, it would be helpful if you could provide a separate answer detailing all these concerns and why Kartagis should NOT include their nephew on their Ancestry.com family tree. – Harry V. Apr 20 '15 at 16:24
  • For those interested you may find it constructive to read this discussion of how Ancestry handles living persons http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2012/04/12/living-people-in-your-family-tree/ – Harry V. Apr 20 '15 at 16:25