Would you publish this article in a book

[stevem49]

Tom

I can only give examples from my own book -

Firstly a SAD man. In that case I contacted relatives of the man without mentioning his cause of death. The lady was very helpful and eventually I broached the subject of his death. She knew that something had happened and felt he should be mentioned. I did not though go into great detail when adding him.

Second one -

One of my men won a DCM and four months later went on leave to find his wife with a young baby. In a fit of temper he killed the child. The local people petitioned for him to be jailed and not hanged. He was eventually jailed. Whilst the horrors of war may have unhinged him and getting home to his wife was the final straw, who knows. I could see no reason for including the information though.

Best of luck, whichever way you go.

SteveM

[auchonvillerssomme]

It is history and fact, lets not be delicate about these things, you can't just portray the bits that suit. It helps paint a picture of the times. Where we need to be careful is when it is only placed in the context of widowhood due to the war.

Mick

[Ice Tiger]

It is history and fact, lets not be delicate about these things, you can't just portray the bits that suit. It helps paint a picture of the times. Where we need to be careful is when it is only placed in the context of widowhood due to the war.

Mick

Mick

My thoughts exactly!

When publishing any article claiming to be historical fact, the author has a duty to report all known facts without personal interpretation or omission. Either include it or limit all of the soldiers storys strictly to their military service.

Andy

[kildaremark]

I think the issue of already being in the public domain by being in the newspaper and now on the internet is not that relevant. There is a big difference between specifically looking for something and finding it than being presented with potentially'private' or upsetting information in a very accessible format like a book.

I think it would be harder for one of the mentioned children, if they are still alive, than a grandchild to find the details in a book. In saying that, if it is there and relevant to the book, it should be published.

I think after 90 odd years, the neighbours wont know who it is so it is far more probable that only a direct relative will know who it is. If they buy a book with such information, then it is likely they would rather know everything.

Please reserve me a copy and let me know when you have it ready.

Mark

[Desmond7]

One must examine 21st century impact - Ireland, in my submission, remains a place where the history of family - albeit removed by generations - retains a huge degree of importance.

On a personal basis, I would be mortified by a revelation like this in what will be a 'local circulation' book (although one which wil contribute handsomely to the overall historical picture).

That is purely a personal opinion. This is not a case of Great granda getting blocked, felling a peeler and ending up doing six months. This is a very traumatic episode.

Des

It is all very well to argue that 'history is history' .... until the great great grandson arives at your door. With a big stick.

[agedpink]

Go for it as Wellington said 'publish and be damned'

[azureus]

A sad story , but if I was you I'd check for any relatives before adding it to your book

reagards Dave

[dfaulder]

Let me clarify things a bit. When I come across brothers (of casualties that also served but survived0 in the papers I include that information against the mans name, if his father or wife was mentioned during the war period in an article, that is included. Any story or information that is connected with a casualty in the papers are included in order for genealogists to use in the future. The court case above, relevant in the sense that it names his brother in law, sister in law and where they were living after he died. The question is would you cut out the references to child cruelty?.

Would that make my approach to history a selection of the facts and not ALL the facts. I live in a land where history was a series of selective facts, I make an extreme effort to include all facts and not lead the reader up a particular path. Put all the facts down and let the reader decide what to take from them. That, to me, is real history.

But this one has me in a quandary.

Regards.

Tom.l

Tom,

This is difficult and as has been said is very dependent on what you are actually trying to do - and whether the inclusion (redacted or not) furthers that purpose.

It seems (at least to me) from the above that you are almost collecting a bibliography of records associated with casualties and not trying to offer a comment or set it in context (which in many respects is I think the correct approach to a pure bibliography intended for future researchers). Once you start offering comment or attempting to set it in context, you are becoming active in the story and acquire a distinct set of responsibilities. The story in question arguably fits in a bibliography as scoped by you.

However, I do not think you can let yourself off the hook by your proper desire to "to include all facts"; you probably do not have all the facts despite your refusal to be selective. Your bibliography will be selective to the extent that you have selected all the material that you have found - there may well be further information about this family that you will exclude because you happen not to have found it.

There may be further information and its omission may cause offence that is not justified by the full facts. Some may argue that it is wrong to cause offence (irrespective of whether the facts justify that offence) unless there is a significant public good that outweighs the private distress.

Where the information is peripheral (as in this case?) do you need to include it or can you put a bland reference to the fact that there was a court case and indicate where teh full story might be found. This would meet your desire to let the facts be available (and not censored by you), but would reduce the chances of causing very real distress to any of the people involved or their close descendants.

HTH

David

[museumtom]

Hello all.

I did say it was not an easy position. I never give opinions or comment on anything I find I just include it. For me the easiest way out of this is to say that there exists an article regarding his wife, brother in law, sister etc in the November issue of the Kings County rag 1915 and let those interested enough, look it up for themselves. If it is family they will take the trouble to look it up but the idle curious would not bother.

I appreciate all the comments given so far and look forward to some more opinions. Many thanks to everyone for the views and advice, it is much appreciated.

Kindest regards.

Tom.

[tharkin56]

I have just read two articles locally which come under this criteria one was about a soldiers father who committed suicide when his son enlisted the other was about a soldier at the front who will still remain anonymous and you can draw your own conclusions

from the chaplain

Dear Mr X I have sad news for you and your wife today. I hope and pray you will hear it as bravely as possible, I know it will be a shock to you when I tell you your son is dead. We found him in the morning with his rifle lying close by, how the accident occurred we do not know, it will be some consolation for you to know he would have suffered no pain and did not spent days and nights suffering like some of his colleagues...

[Howarth1918]

Hi Tom,

You put all the information and research together and as such I believe you alone as the author have the difficult decision to make. Only by looking over the entire book can you see if it is relevant or not to what you are publishing. Not much of an answer but I wish you best wishes with your book. Craig...

[Guest]

That is a difficult one. Is there a middle way? Something along the lines of;

192? finds Mrs X in dire circumstances, suffice to say her children are taken into care. The reason for this is a delicate matter, and whether or not it is related to her losing her husband, is unclear. Should you wish to read more on this, details are available at........

Mike

[auchonvillerssomme]

I think it makes interesting reading, I'm sure your book will be rivetting and hold the reader, but this is the sort of stuff people want to read. Put in it in. If relatives several generations down the line are going to be affected, then they need to really look to their roots and be proud and thankful for the generations in between.

Mick

[armourersergeant]

The things I would consider would be:

1.. Is it relevant to the book?

2.. Will/Could it add some hardship to a relative who could read it?

3.. Could it perhaps be mentioned but not quoted verbatim?

If you are questioning it, perhaps you have your answer. However I think on balance, if it was relevant I would publish and be dammed!

Regards

Arm

[auchonvillerssomme]

With the greatest respect Arm, what possible hardship could it cause someone this far down the line? Upset maybe. But lets face it one of the interesting aspects of looking up the Aussie records is to see how many of them were treated for syphilis and gonorrhea.

Mick

[loganshort]

publish it. What happened to soldiers' widows and families is relevant and important to us trying to understand the horrors of the war and it's aftermath. But look up the court records for that period to find out what happened to the poor woman and try and explain why she beleived she was better off without the widows pension. A little follow up to close the sorry tale will still leave room for researchers to continue but leave readers curiosity satisfied. The information is not private and if I were a relative I would be interested to find out about her. My own Grandmother and her sisters were taken into the poor house at times before the war. It is a fact of life then and now.

[Martin Bennitt]

I would say don't publish as is because the story is not complete. The report is of an intermediate court hearing and said she was being remanded to the petty sessions for trial. You need to know what happened to her afterwards: she could have been acquitted, in which case it's hardly worth mentioning at all. If she was fined or jailed it should be recorded, especially if evidence relating to the pension was given, but even then it could be dealt with in a single paragraph without going into the enormous details that newspapers of the time revelled in.

cheers Martin B

[Sue Light]

I think it would be completely wrong to publish this. Although the year is not given in the original post, I assume that it is after mid-1916. One or more of those children could still be alive, and in their nineties - why should they be subject to their family dirty washing being aired in public. My own mother is now ninety-six, and also has some incidents in her family which she hid all her life, dreading that neighbours might find out. That information is in the public domain, but only available if you search it out - very different from having a book published locally that will rake up unpleasant facts within the community for all to read. And there's not really much point in saying 'check if there are any relatives alive' as that is next to impossible to, especially when women are likely to have married. It might seem a long time ago, but I think there is an enormous duty to protect the elderly, first-generation relatives of soldiers, who are still alive and kicking. If this story has to be included, then give a brief resumé of the families problems, but it smacks to me of gratuitous gossip and not a lot else.

Sue

[Tyrim]

I agree with Sue's point about gossip. It will lead to that. If your book is intended to be a study of the devastating effects of war on families and documents a whole series of cases such as this it wouldn't be quite so harmful. But to specifically cite by name a single family, no matter how culpable their ancester may have been, and in effect hold them up as a terrible example seems needlessly cruel.

They don't call old newspaper files morgues without good reason. They contain lots of dead bodies many of which shouldn't be resurrected. And what point in doing the digging for those folks out there who thrive on making other people's life miserable.

As an author you're in the God position, whatever you say happens. A little mercy would seem to be in order here.

[Paul Nixon]

Tom

When I was researching Chailey 1914-1918 I chose not to publish some facts which could be sensitive for surviving family members. My feeling was that they'd been buried for so many years, so why mention them now. And really, as far as those particular facts were concerned, they didn't materially add to or diminish the stories I was re-telling. They're there, in the public domain through the National Archives but it was my editorial decision to relate some of the story and leave the rest unsaid.

Paul

[Murrough]

Tom, I would not publish the article as I think it would embarass and offend any living relatives,and in my experience of rural and small town Ireland ;there will certainly be some relatives about.I would lean towards your compromise suggestion to include a note about the article.

Best Regards,

Murough.

Galway.

[museumtom]

Many thanks for the debate guys and gals. I think I will just insert a note under his name saying there is an article mentioning the family after his death in such and such an edition, and leave it at that.

Err on the side of caution and respect.

Thanks again pals, I just needed it discussed to get my head around it.

Kind regards all.

Tom.

[clive_hughes]

I'm in a sort of similar position, but am maybe spared your decision here.

I have a few casualties -some married & with wives expecting- whose records show them to have previously contracted venereal diseases (in one case, died of the same), or maybe acquired some Crime Sheet entries. The latter aren't so crucial anyway.

I'm not publishing full and complete personal details on each casualty - the number of them doesn't permit that depth of coverage - so mercifully I don't need to present the sort of picture that you do. Anyone who's interested can follow it up themselves in the public domain.

I have been fairly definite about "cause of death" where known - but in the case of the soldier who was discharged because of & died of VD I had simply decided to state "died of disease", which is true, and leave it to others to ferret details out if they really must.

My own inclination if I came across a similar case to yours would be to make a reference to the source for further information, and leave it at that. It depends really on whether the context of your final book demands that the story be published, or just footnoted.

LST_164

[ShirlD]

I think I will just insert a note under his name saying there is an article mentioning the family after his death in such and such an edition, and leave it at that.

Err on the side of caution and respect.

Tom.

make a reference to the source for further information, and leave it at that (LST_164)

Sounds good to me

Cheers

Shirley

[museumtom]

All done and sorted.

Many thanks for the interesting debate, it makes all the difference when there are different opinions.

Kind regards.

Toim.