Cremation and Burial location issue

LegacyUser

Ray Batig said: More and more people are being cremated and their ashes given to the family. There is no way to show this in the current burial entry. It would be very simple to create a place of burial titled: Cremated and ashes given to Family.

At least that would close the loop and get the record straight.

Thank you.

LegacyUser

Sydney Jean McLeod Young said: I so totally agree. Cremated or Cremation should be an option in the Burial field.

That it is not currently a possibility really leaves a hole in the persons record.

Thanks
Syd

LegacyUser

joe martel said: You might want to refer to this thread:
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/topics/recording-burials-and-cremations

In short here's one approach:
In Other Info there is a cremation conclusion type to capture the cremation info, then
The ashes may be interred, often in a burial plot and you can enter that in the Burial field

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Cremation is NOT burial. I say again, cremation is NOT burial.

They are separate things and very often happen on separate occasions in separate locations. Stop trying to muddy the water with silly combinations and shortcuts.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Ray

I understand your post; and, agree.

Possibly, in the future, we may get the choice of "Burial" or "Cremation" under "Facts".

But, I would not hold my breath.

As a work around, if it were a 'Cremation', in the "Burial" record, I just write the word 'Cremation'; then, a 'coma' and the 'Date', you can still "Standardise" the 'Date', even with the word 'Cremation' there. Plus the 'Place' of "Cremation".

And, just put all the details in the "Reason Statement" (eg. "Ashes", which may be "Buried" [eg. Grave; Memorial - Wall; or, Garden; or wherever], "Scattered" [eg. Cemetery; or, just about anywhere], or, "Taken").

Of course, I also enter the same in "Other Information" section; under "Events"; and, "Cremation".

But, perhaps that is just me.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: "As a work around, if it were a 'Cremation', in the "Burial" record, I just write the word 'Cremation'; then, a 'coma' and the 'Date', you can still "Standardise" the 'Date', even with the word 'Cremation' there. Plus the 'Place' of "Cremation"."

No, no, no, no!!!

For a third time I say CREMATION IS NOT BURIAL. Do NOT use the burial event to record a cremation. Do NOT muddy the water with silly combinations and shortcuts. This is exactly the same ridiculous attitude which led and indeed still leads to people automatically assuming that birth date and christening date are the same.

Record the cremation as a cremation. Record any subsequent burial of the ashes as a burial. Record them as separate events. Do it properly. Ignore everything Brett has said in that quoted paragraph.

LegacyUser

Brett said: David

'THANK YOU', 'Thank You', 'thank you' ...

'Thank You' so much for bringing up the fact that "Birth" and "Christening" are two (x2) separate and distinct "Life" Events, just like "Burial" and "Cremation" are two separate and distinct "Life" Events - that is very much appreciated.

Currently, at least, "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" (like many programmes) in the "Vitals" Section, "Birth" and "Christening" are two (x2) separate and distinct "Life" Event fields.

Unfortunately, in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" in the "Vitals" Section, like many programmes, the ONLY option available to us is "Burial", when in fact there should also be "Cremation".

Whereas, "Burial" and "Cremation" should be two (x2) separate and distinct "Life" Events fields in "Vitals" Section of "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".

Therefore, personally, I think that having "Cremation" simply as an "Event" in "Other Information" in in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", like many programmes, is NOT correct; and, in fact, a 'workaround'.

We all have different opinions, otherwise the World would be a boring place.

So ...

Exactly, 'YES', 'Yes', 'yes' ...

You are correct "Cremation" is NOT "Burial".

And, as such, because, there are NOT two (x2) separate and distinct "Life" Events in "Vitals" in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch", one for "Burial" and one for "Cremation", the 'workaround' that I have suggested is one way to 'highlight' in "Vitals" the fact that an individual/person was "Cremated"; and, possibly, their "Ashes" were "Scattered" (at "Sea" for example), rather than just as a "Burial".

Perhaps, rather than two (x2) separate and distinct "Life" Events in the "Vitals" there should be just one, "Disposal" with options, "Burial"; or, "Cremation"; or, for that matter, whatever - Uh!, 'No', I would prefer two (x2) separate and distinct "Life" Events.

I am NO 'muddying the water' with the 'workaround' I suggest, far from it, personally, I think that I am clearing the 'muddied water' by that 'workaround'.

Here is another example; and, why I even consider that there is a "Third" option on top of "Burial" and "Cremation", what about those; especially, those "Soldiers" who "Died" in War and their "Bodies" never found or buried!? In such cases, I preface the 'Date' with the word, "Memorial", as there is/was NO "Burial", nor "Grave".

So, in fact the 'workaround' is certainly not ridiculous.

The "Scattering" of "Ashes" (at 'Sea' for example) is NOT the same as "burying" a "Body" ... 'not by any stretch of the imagination'.

Each to their own ...

So, 'Yes', certainly, please do it properly, for "Cremations"; especially, in regard to the "Scattering" of "Ashes", as per the 'workaround' I suggest in "Vitals".

Brett

ps: By the way, great discussion.

.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Brett - I'm kinda puzzled when you say:
"Unfortunately, in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" in the "Vitals" Section, like many programmes, the ONLY option available to us is "Burial", when in fact there should also be "Cremation". "

Given that there is a Cremation Event in the Other Information, why can't you use that instead of (mis-)using the Burial Event in the Vitals? Is there some particular reason that you prefer to, or need to, do it that way?

Personally, I'd use the Cremation Event in the Other Information for the cremation - and only the cremation.

The disposition of the ashes is a bit of a moot point for me. I've not had to do it yet in FamilySearch but on my home PC, I have an Ashes Interred event that I use instead of Burial when a body has been cremated. I think I had 2 separate event types (burial of a body and interring of ashes) in order to make the narrative sentences work in my software's reports but there is a sort of feeling on my part that it's better like that anyway. In fact, you might even argue that scattering of ashes is another type of event again.

Using an Ashes Interred event rather than a Burial would actually be beneficial in that it would stop a Burial that was actually interment of ashes acting as a proxy for death, which can only be good given that it can be years before the ashes are interred. But I would have thought that in the vast majority of cases, if you had detail right down at a level of when the ashes were interred, I'd have thought that you'd be able to approximate the death quite reasonably.

Going back to the OP's request for something to record "Cremation and ashes given to the family".... Me personally, I'd record this as a Cremation Event in the Other Information for the cremation itself.

I'm uncertain about the "ashes given to the family" bit because that's only a part of the story, isn't it? If we don't know the ultimate fate of the ashes, I'd just record that as a Note somewhere. (Which takes us back to the inability of FS FamilyTree to record notes against events! Sigh...) When we do find where the ashes were interred or scattered, then that can be recorded as an event in its own right. Otherwise, leave it as a note I think...

LegacyUser

Cary Holmquist said: Working to understand all the opinions and options in this lively, intelligent discussion brings me to consider some of the basics of what we are trying to model into an ideal, versatile product for family historians and genealogists to use.

One of the basic purposes is to research and then record life events which identify persons uniquely (both to avoid duplication and then define a cohesive record of existence to each PERSON). We strive mightily to be as honest and exhaustive in accumulating and verifying the facts.

And part of that has to be honest about what those facts are: and by definitions, traditions, outcomes and any other observable event. Examples such as birth, christening, engagements, marriages, burial, cremation, Missing in Action, loss at sea and so forth are all separately definable, distinct from one another. And so each should be recorded as such to be accurate and presentable for anyone to see. Even causes of death reveal much about how a person lived.

The FamilySearch product, being web-based, should allow us to be that exhaustively accurate. We learn as we go, and so it would seem that FamilySearch can provide that continuing development in how it presents the information. It can (and should) provide the most accurate retelling of the events that mark a person’s life and which we can reliably record.

This FamilySearch record then presents the beginning of an identity/personality that both reflects the person “as she/he was” and how future generations can become familiar with the person—as far as the source records and other memories (photos and stories, for example) permit.

We should be patient and considerate in our deliberation and decisions to move forward in such matters. At the same time in unison, we should always keep the standards of honesty high, understanding the differences between events that bring into sharper focus the many elements that transpired to make each Person unique in his/her existence—as indeed we each are.

In the case of “disposal,” this becomes significant more to later researchers. It would be disappointing and frustrating for such a later researcher to try to locate or verify, for example, a burial site (and the customary facts associated with headstones or sextant records) if cremation was hidden in the term Burial in the FamilySearch record. Only to find out later that no gravesite (and customary memorial information), that is, no long-term site is available to find after all.

Further, Crematory remains may be “stored” in a publicly available memorial site (i.e., more readily locatable and available for public view than a fireplace mantelpiece in a private home). And furthermore, other undiscoverable “disposal” may have occurred, such as burial at sea or missing in action, etc. All of these should be plainly recorded and source-noted in a public way, such as FamilySearch, and thus verifiable in future searches or reviews of the Details.

Perhaps a list of choices (presented in a drop-down menu) can be made available if a default title (i.e., Burial) is not sufficient. Meaning that if Burial does not apply, then whatever replacement term is chosen, that term entirely replaces the word Burial, though it occupies the same place in the Details display—which offers reliable familiarity to user/researchers.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Adrian

Sorry for the dealy in my response, back from Church.

I am using that 'work around' for "Cremation"; because, I consider that having ONLY the filed of "Burial" in "Vitals" to be too narrow and restrictive - always have.

I feel that the "Cremation" Event in the "Other Information" section is a very poor 'work around' for the narrow and restrictive nature of ONLY having the field of "Burial" in "Vitals" as being a 'catchall' for, Burial; How Ashes are Dispersed (eg. An Urn on a Mantle piece or wherever; Buried or Scattered in Cemetery; or, a Property or Farm; or, wherever the case may be; Scattered at Sea or Ocean or River or Lake or wherever); a Memorial (when there is no Body to, either, Bury or Cremate); and/or, ANY other case.

Cremation and various means of Disposal of Ashes has been practiced for eons, I do not know why we use the narrow and restrictive nature of ONLY having the field of "Burial" in "Vitals" as being a 'catchall' for, Burial; How Ashes are Dispersed; a Memorial; and/or, ANY other case.

I work with what we have now, cannot do much else; but, feel there is much scope for improvement on the narrow and restrictive nature of ONLY having the field of "Burial" in "Vitals" as being a 'catchall' for, Burial; How Ashes are Dispersed; a Memorial; and/or, ANY other case.

And, I see from at least one 'good point', to my response, I am not the only one who thinks that way.

As, 'Cary' suggests/implies "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" SHOULD be more accurate in reflecting the nature of "Disposal" (I hate that term) of an individual/person - I would be happy with a 'Drop Down' option; but, ONLY if there was a better word (ie. term) than "Disposal".

Just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Disbursement as a term in place of Disposal?

For instance the remains of my brother and his wife were disbursed by his children (at a lake).

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Scattered would be the more usual terminology so far as I am concerned. Were I to see disburse my thoughts would turn to the ashes being used to pay for something (the other meaning of disburse)!

At least scatter is unambiguous in that respect.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Yes, scattered is a better term.

jendespain

Thank you for pointing out that OTHER has the option to include Cremation. I found this helpful.

dontiknowyou

I think disburse may be a typo; disperse is a synonym of scatter.

On the other hand, some families do in fact disburse cremains to their members. Nowadays cremains can even be made into an artificial diamond and set in a ring.

dontiknowyou

Anyway, perhaps this suggestion can be closed, given that an appropriate Other event, Cremation, is available.

Paul W

This issue has been raised in other posts. I don't think "Cremation" can be hidden away from the Vitals section for much longer, given there are now far more cremation than burial events taking place.

Brett .

@Paul W

Paul

It's 'Brett'.

[ I digress ... Ah, it's good to 'see', some of the OLD 'Names', I miss them ... ]

I totally agree.

This is an "Ongoing' matter, that keeps being raised/broached; as, a suggested enhancement ...

[ ie. Time; and, Time, AGAIN ... ]

It is high time, that the "Event(s)" of, Burial; &, Cremation, be considered; as, 'synonymous', in 'FamilySearch'.

They should BOTH appear, in the "Vitals" Section ...

Rather, than "Cremation"; being, relegated, to the "Other Information" Section.

eg.

They could appear as ...

Burial ⬜️ / Cremation ⬜️

[ Where, ⬜️, is a 'Check Box' (for either, ✅; or, ❎, or, like), that one indicates, the situation/circumstance ... ]

OR ...

On separate 'Lines" ...

Whatever ...

And ...

Where, Cremation, could include, a WHEN/HOW/WHERE, the "Ashes" were disposed (if KNOWN)...

( eg, Buried; or, Scattered; or, Urn; or whatever ... ).

I have helped/assisted, a friend, with their work ...

Where, the individual/person, was an Officer, on the "RMS Titanic", who Survived ...

And, who some Years later, was "Cremated"; and, whose "Ashes", some time after the actual Cremation, were actually "Scattered", near the LAST "Recorded" Location, of the RMS Titanic, at the time of "Sinking".

( ie. Prior to, its actual location, some years later ... )

TIME, for a "Change" ...

Just my thoughts.

Brett