A third option- unknown, living, deceased
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Patricia Rivers said: Can you please put a third choice as far as living or deceased- unknown would be a super helpful choice. When I enter someone and I do not know any death details I choose deceased because I have the potential of finding more information. Also this makes the profile public so that others can find the individual and can possibly enter other information. At a minimum allow the space to be blank. Also, I would love to allow my profile to be public so that I can share my info with others. I appreciate the ease of availability of privacy. but I would like to be able to share info. Thank you
0
Comments
-
Virginia Florence Horvath said: I don’t mark someone as deceased unless their birthdate is at least 110 years ago. I have found too many older aunts and uncles etc who where marked as deceased because someone didn’t know them personally and inaccurately marked them as dead.
I don’t disagree with an unknown status but I think the privacy of all other information in the profile needs to remain in tack. I would feel awful if someone used information that I had gathered and added to a family tree to steal someone’s identity especially our older generation who may not find out about it until it is way too late.0 -
gasmodels said: What would be the status of an unknown record? Would they be like deceased so everyone could see the record - hence exposing personal information if they were really living or would they be hidden like a living person and only the creator could see the record.
If they were to be hidden then there does not seem to be any advantage to marking them as unknown. On the other hand if they are public then there are certainly potential privacy issues. This suggestion does not seem to have any real advantages to me. I believe any record that you do not know whether they are living or not has to be limited in the ability to view so just mark it as living and if you find otherwise then you can change it.0 -
Juli said: Exactly this: if you don't know, and the dates are ambiguous, then the only safe choice is to privatize it (mark it living). In other words, a choice of "unknown" is completely pointless.0
-
Tom Huber said: Never mark a person deceased unless you have absolute proof that the person has died. The laws of privacy are very specific and you could be exposing not only yourself to unwanted attention regarding a living person, but also FamilySearch.0
-
Phil Jeffrey said: Unknown has been discussed as I suggested it when doing dead to living cases since the default at that time was dead. Changing it was complicated especially if LDS or temple work had been done. We finally changed it so you "had to make a decision" rather than a default. Like what has been suggested if you aren't sure to mark them living. After 110 years you can mark them dead if you aren't sure.0
-
Tom Huber said: Even after 110 years passes, we should check the list of those over 110 years old in the Wikipedia article that states: "It is estimated that there are between 150 and 600 living people who have reached the age of 110. The true number is uncertain as not all supercentenarians are known to researchers at a given time and some claims cannot be validated or are fraudulent." at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...0
-
Tom Huber said: Also - http://supercentenarian-research-foun...0
-
Phil Jeffrey said: So true we should do due diligance but I have yet to see a dead to the living case I have done of over 110 years. My oldest so far was 103.0
-
S. said: a question what do you if one person belive they are dead and you don't?0
-
Brett said: S.
Easy ...
The User/Patron who believes that the individual/person is "Dead" (ie. "Deceased") NEEDS (ie. MUST) to be able to prove their belief with "Evidence" (eg. But, NOT limited to - Death Registration; Burial/Grave record; Probate/Administration record; and/or, the like).
That "Evidence" need not be an attachable "Source" (whereas, that would certainly be preferable); but, needs to be a "Verifiable" reference record of some description.
Otherwise, the "Status" of the 'Disputed' individual/person SHOULD (always) be "Living" in the "Private Spaces" of an User/Patron.
Brett0 -
Tom Huber said: A couple of comments on what Brett wrote:
It is not unusual for a gravestone to have both the husband and wife's name inscribed, but no death date for one of them. That is a strong indicator that the one whose name does not have a death date is still living.
I tend to use sites like Zaba to search for a living person. The White Pages is another good source for searching for still-living persons. This, of course, applies to the United States, since that is where I spend most of my time.
GenealogyBank's records in FamilySearch are generally for recently deceased persons, but I don't know how often it gets updated.
The U.S. Social Security death index runs about three years behind (on purpose by the U.S. SSA), so it isn't particularly helpful.
Newspapers (local to where the person lived) can be located via an internet search and usually have current and recent obituaries available on their web sites.
All of these are some methods that I have used to check to make sure a person has died if there is no source attached to a record with which I'm working.0 -
Merlene Juergens said: During some research, I ran across an obituary of an ancestor who had died recently. She had lived to be 104 years old. But when I entered her into FSFT, I found that she was not only already there, but that all of her ordinances had been completed 3 years earlier when she would have been 101--and still very much alive. And, given her age, that meant someone would have gotten "permission" to do those ordinances. How does that happen? I think people just think "Oh, over 100, must be dead!"0
-
Tom Huber said: I've run into that with one of my relatives. Contact support with the person's name, ID, and the information that you have about the person. Let support know that the person was still alive when the vicarious ordinances were performed for that person.
The checks and balances that are now in place should prevent that kind of thing happening in the future. In the past, FamilySearch did not always follow up with the person who gave permission (if one was actually obtained). I believe, because of cases like this, they now follow up on all permissions, just to make sure.
Support will work with the Temple Department and invalidate those ordinances and then they can be reserved and completed for the person, now that she has died and after the appropriate year waiting period.
Note: I also ran into a situation wherein vicarious ordinances were performed before the year's waiting period had expired and those were also invalidated.0 -
David Newton said: An "ancestor" you say. Are you using ancestor in the correct way or the Familysearch way? Ancestors are direct antecedents. They are not any other form of deceased relative. A first cousin once removed is not an ancestor. A great uncle is not an ancestor. A great grandfather IS an ancestor.0
-
Phil Jeffrey said: In both cases, it sounds like they were marked dead in the system because the default at the time was dead. A year a so ago we changed it so you have to pick, meaning no default. Resurrecting them is called dead to the living and can be done by calling in the PID as was mentioned. As to the question of how someone got permission they didn't, they just checked a box and no checking was done. The 110 policy has been around for a long time but not enforced by the system until recently because of these
kind of situations.0 -
Clinton Ralph Dunn said: I have been working on a family and trying to prove they are deceased. Their are two members of this family that appear to be still living and the problem has been created by a person who's feelings are and I quote his response to my questions.
Mike Carson 11:03 PM
I disagree on the side of caution. Privacy rights don't apply on public info which this is. The US government released the 1940 census data which is what these records were sourced from. It's more important for researchers to have access to the data than for a nonexistent privacy right. I will place the status to living on any record that I've made public if a person is known to be living. This is a compromise for info which is by definition public and why Familysearch just doesn't make everything private for records under 110 yrs since they could easily do this."
I would really like to see the default entry to be living until a person can provide a documented source with a death date or birth over 110 years.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: I would agree that "Living" should be the default for people under a certain age without proof of death.
Genealogists need to adopt good practices when dealing with privacy issues, or the inevitable consequence is that governments will expand privacy restrictions on census and vital records.0 -
Amy Archibald said: If the other person has marked them as deceased and you have proof that they are in fact living. Then marked the record of them as "living" this will open a support case where you indicate why you believe they are living. FamilySearch Support will review your case. If they choose to mark the record as living, you will get a notification that they have marked it as living and if you didn't create the record for the person you will no longer be able to see them in the Tree. Only the person who created the record will see the record and will now see it marked Living - with a change made that way from FamilySearch.
I do this all the time and right now my cases are being acted on within 24 hours.0 -
A van Helsdingen said: I'm glad to hear that FS takes this seriously and that cases are dealt with quickly.0
-
Clinton Ralph Dunn said: the problem I cannot prove they are still living, One case I am working on the person (born 1933) was still living in 2018 (obit for spouse)and I cannot find any additional records to prove she is living or has died.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: A LOT of policies "have been around for a long time but not enforced by the system". Like many others, this is a really good one to enforce.0
-
Amy Archibald said: Look them up on www.truepeoplesearch.com0
-
Clinton Ralph Dunn said: Looking for them on truepeoplesearch or other white page search sites is a option, However I believe I should have to prove they are deceased not living.0
-
Amy Archibald said: If you want to email me the PID of the person I can do some checking to see if I can find them living or deceased - amyarchibald@yahoo.com.
Truepeoplesearch will usually show a deceased month and year and age at death. Or they will show a birth month/year if they are still living.0
This discussion has been closed.