creating a person from an record

LegacyUser

Marcia Joy Jeppesen said: when adding a person from the attach record page,i added a death date for someone born in 1936 and it would not let me add this person as deceased. Had to mark as living and then kill them on the person page.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Welcome to the community support forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.

Unfortunately, not all parts of the site are intuitive in nature. I haven't added a person recently, but several recent discussions have produce the result you want without having to go through the create as living, then mark as deceased once created:

On the flyout in which you are attempting to add a deceased person, move the display to the "reason statement" and enter something. That will enable the record to be saved as a deceased person.

Without a doubt, this is a redundant entry when the death date is included in the window. By entering the reason for the death date, you can enter the death date before you have attached a source for that person's death, which can be done once the record has been created.

Hopefully, this helps your need. It has for me.

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: You have to type in a reason why you think they are dead. Do you have another source that proves they are dead?

LegacyUser

Paul said: A dot/period or any actual reason statement inputted in the box will get you around this problem - just don't leave the field completely blank.

LegacyUser

Alan E. Brown said: True, but please don't put a meaningless entry in the field. FamilySearch is concerned about having living people incorrectly marked as deceased, and thus showing up in the public Tree. All users should similarly value the privacy rights of living people. So take a few seconds and explain why you think the person is dead. It can be something as simple as naming the source for your conclusion ("SSDI", or "obituary", etc.).

In any case, it's much easier to add a reason and mark them as deceased from the very beginning, than to mark them as living and then go back and mark them as deceased.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Alan

'Yes', for those UNDER 110 Years of age.

Whereas, NO, 'Thanks', for those well OVER 110 Years of age.

But ...
That said ...

Anyway, if we are attaching a "Source" that, either, indicates; or, implies, that the individual/person we are "Creating" is OVER 110 Years of age; then, WHY do we need to ADD a "Reason Statement".

Just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Christina Sachs Wagner said: Please, please, please don't use a period or other meaningless reason to verify a fact. I have had to resurrect too many living people when someone marked them as deceased for no reason other than they wanted to record them in the tree.

LegacyUser

Robert Wren said: From the FS terms of use, FWIW:
5. Accuracy of Contributed Data. You agree to provide true, accurate, and complete information to us. If any information you provide is, in our sole and absolute discretion, false or misleading, we shall have the right, but not the obligation, to take any remedial or preventative action we deem appropriate in our sole discretion, including restricting access to, deleting, and/or editing any of your Contributed Content

LegacyUser

Brett said: Christina

I understand where you are coming from, been there, done that ...

But ...
That said ...

I am sure that many experienced Users/Patrons ONLY enter that "Full Stop"/"Period" to just GET PAST the "Source Linker"; and, immediately go to the "Death" Record and "Delete" the "Full Stop"/"Period".

And, attach corresponding "Sources" as evidence of Death; as opposed to, just entering the "Details" as a "Reason Statement".

Or, if NO corresponding "Sources" were available, change the "Full Stop"/"Period" to the actual "Death" record (ie. Place, Date/Year, Registration number; or, whatever.)

I am not even certain that inexperienced Users/Patrons would even know about simply entering the "Full Stop"/"Period" to get past the "Source Linker" - they most likely would add some "Text".

But, if the individual/person for whom the "Source" actually relates is well OVER 110 Years of age; then, such would not be a priority.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Christina Sachs Wagner said: Well, someone is using it and I've had to resurrect people who are marked deceased but are living. And that requires opening a case and waiting until it is reviewed.

LegacyUser

Christine said: I wonder why we are in such a hurry that we can't take a few seconds to justify our "facts" with a source or reason? One of my biggest frustrations on Family search are people with no sources, no notes, no reason statements. Please, take those few minutes to be sure your "facts" are facts.

LegacyUser

Christina Sachs Wagner said: And document them, appropriately. Please.

LegacyUser

Juli said: Alan, the problem is that adding a person via Source Linker requires a reason you believe the person to be deceased even if he was born THREE CENTURIES AGO. It also still requires a reason if you've entered the exact date of death. The latter case is especially confusing; the former just plain infuriating. A period in the reason box is the best you're ever going to get out of me.

LegacyUser

ATP said: I have yet to figure out exactly what the reasoning behind continuing to allow the "name collecting" scenario to prevail when it could easily be corrected. Without sources for birth, death, parents, and marriage if married, confirming the identity of the individual, the individual remains a cypher, meaning someone who has no influence or importance in the universal scheme of things. I'm sure familysearch does not want that, but, presently, identity confirmation is lacking for far too many people entered into familysearch, creating enormous workloads on those people who are trying to truly identify their families with "records .... worthy of all acceptation."

LegacyUser

Jordi Kloosterboer said: I recently had to message a person why they thought someone was dead who was born in the 1930s. There is no source or details about a death. Still awaiting a reply. But yeah, I wrote a post about this... I just put a period for people who were born 110 years ago or more because the reason is obvious and I can't be bothered to write that the reason is because there are VERY few people still alive who were born 110 years ago that I can be over 99% sure that the person is dead. If a person is born after that I only sometimes provide a real reason because I usually have a source that proves that they are dead and that is my reason... Both birth/marriage and death sources are provided to the person so imo usually there isn't a reason to provide a written reason. Anyway those are just a few of my thoughts on it. Obviously the feature is good so that less people who are still in fact alive are put in as dead.

LegacyUser

Alan E. Brown said: I understand the concerns about someone born long ago. But my initial response was to the original post about someone born in 1936 (and someone's response to THAT post saying to enter a meaningless reason statement). I stand by my initial statement. If you want to have a different discussion about people born long ago, I'm certainly sympathetic to that -- but that is a different scenario entirely.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Interesting, I just entered a spouse for a person who was born in 1902 and died in 1978. This was not done via the source linker, but using Add spouse from the Family Section of the person whose death certificate I was using.

I am a little concerned because I was not asked for a reason I thought the person was deceased. Nor for that matter, did I have to enter any dates. All I had was the name of the spouse from the death certificate.

For those interested, the person is Harry George Fleming, LXWH-4RN. The death certificate is loaded as a memory.

I have to wonder why the Source Linker has this requirement, but when I add a person (spouse in this case) via the Family Section, especially without any other information, that the system does not have this requirement?

LegacyUser

David Newton said: The other problem is ridiculous situations like the reason requirement triggering for someone getting married in 1921, and indeed their parents in the record. If someone is getting married in 1921 that also means they are automatically old enough to be dead.

LegacyUser

Paul said: Alan

The reason I suggested the entering of a single character, instead of a proper reason statement is explained very well by Brett. Like him, after adding the person I immediately go to the newly created person page to add full details, with reason statement (deleting my dot), and attach sources to justify.

My objection to entering text at the "source linker" stage is, firstly, I (like others) I feel it is best to record the information directly from the person page. In line with this I admit I have not been so conscientious lately about adding a reason statement when adding a source. For example, I prefer to type something like, "Only close match for age & residence - GRO index shows age 78", as a reason statement against the Death and avoid duplication (and the extra time taken) by entering this identical statement whilst adding the source. (Depending on the nature of the source this detail is not always carried across to the person page.)

The other point is explained by Tom: compulsory reason statements are not required elsewhere when adding a person (spouse or otherwise), so why specifically here - especially, when a full date of death has been entered?

As you say, the person who lived 300 years ago is another matter - but one that HAS been raised on many occasions in the past, yet still has not been addressed.

I am sure you are not implying some of us (including me!) are being too casual when dealing with this matter but, as we have explained, in most cases our reasons for "adding the dot" are quite the opposite.

Nevertheless, I'm very grateful for your response and DO accept the points raised concerning entering individuals as deceased when, in fact, they are still alive.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Christine

I am NOT is such a hurry not to justify, I justify Records inputs with "Sources", where available; whereas, as there are "Sources"; then, A "Reason Statement" is NOT always necessary; but, if NO "Source"; then, 'Yes', a "Reason Statement".

Like it or not, due to the former nature of ALL concerned (ie. pre-"New.FamilySearch"; "New.FamilySearch"; and, "Family Tree"), there ARE countless individuals/persons in "Family Tree" with, NO "Sources"; NO "Notes"; NO "Discussions"; NO "Memories"; and, last but not least, NO "Reason Statements".

Just like there are countless, OLD/PAST, and, these days, many NEWLY Created, "Duplicates", in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch".

'Yes', we can ask, in fact, beg, for EVIDENCE (ie. "Sources"; and, "Memories") and supporting details ("Notes"; "Discussions"; and, last but not least, "Reason Statements"), 'till the cows come home'; but, it will NOT happen unless we Teach, Train, Educate, the less experienced Users/Patrons.

Oh; and, of course, you will always get those that do not care or cannot be bothered; or, those that just want to "Take A Name to the Temple" without going through the process of giving their Ancestor some 'flesh and bones', so to speak; and, getting to KNOW their Ancestor.

We can only work with what we have ...

You are preaching to the converted here ...

=========

ATP

Unfortunately, as I mentioned to 'Christine', due to the former nature of ALL concerned (ie. pre-"New.FamilySearch"; "New.FamilySearch"; and, "Family Tree"), there ARE countless individuals/persons in "Family Tree" with, NO "Sources"; NO "Notes"; NO "Discussions"; NO "Memories"; and, last but not least, NO "Reason Statements".

So, just because an individual/person in "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" DOES NOT have a "Source" attached, DOES NOT negate their IMPORTANCE or EXISTENCE (ie. the fact that they may have existed).

And, there are places where "Sources" to attach to "Family Tree" of "FamilySearch" are NOT available; or, in the least, very, very limited, indeed.

For example, I have Ancestors from "Down Under" who Died as "Infants" and the ONLY record of their EXISTENCE is the "Birth" and "Death" Registrations records. For some of the aforementioned, there are NO external "Sources" that I can attach; so, ALL I can do to OFFER they existed is to add the "Birth" and "Death" Registration details (Year; Registration number; and, Registration District).

Should the aforementioned "Infants" have NO "Influence" or "Importance" ... I think NOT.

You have to be very careful with 'lumping' everyone in the 'same boat' ...

NOT everyone fits the 'mould' ...

There are EXCEPTION to EVERY Rule ...

Just a different perspective ...

==========

We do not live in a perfect World ...

And, we are certainly NOT perfect ...

We just have to do the best we can ...

And, for Members of the Church, HE just wants to see "You" DOING the Work, HE does NOT expect perfection ...

But, many of us certainly prefer perfection ...

Just my thoughts.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: I've never seen the system ask for a reason when the person's birth date is already supplied, and the person was more than 110 years old. I have seen instances where I was asked to provide a reason when adding a parent and there are no dates relative to the parent in the document, even though the child's birth date is already known, and the child was at least 100 years old. From what I can tell, the system either needs to have a birth date for that particular person that is at least 110 years ago, or the document date needs to be at least 110 years in the past.

My comments are usually for a parent, and it's usually along the lines of "Child was born in 1869".

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: Having had some experience with this, I think what *may* have happened, is that the person tried to create the profile, and the living / deceased switch was already marked as "deceased". The interface would not allow the user to continue until *something* was done with that switch.

To the casual user, it may seem that the person is already marked as "deceased", and that isn't working. It appears that the system leaves no other choice but to mark the person as "living". However, what I think is happening is that the flag isn't really set in the background. Yet the interface needs to mark *something*, so it marks it as "deceased", even though that doesn't truly reflect what's set.

There have been numerous occasions where I have seen the profile come up, initially marked as "deceased", but I needed to switch the flag to "Living" then back to "Deceased" before it actually brought up the dialogue indicating I needed to provide a source. I would guess that the OP did not realize that this was necessary, so they marked the profile as living just to be able to move forward with the process.

So, I would say this is a bug. And the OP shows the confusion that this particular bug causes. This would likely be limited to instances where a patron is creating a new profile from a document, and the new person was born less than 100 years ago. The living / deceased flag is not truly set, but the interface shows the flag as set to "deceased".

Ways that FamilySearch could fix this bug:
1) When the create person interface comes up, leave the living / deceased buttons both not set, and let the user choose one or the other as appropriate to the situation.

2) If the system wants to mark the flag initially as "deceased", then follow through -- prepare the rest of the interface, with the whole "please provide a reason why you believe the person is deceased" text boxes and all.

Forcing the patron to flip the switch to living and then back to deceased is not intuitive, and causes confusion.

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: Spot on. *Anywhere* a new profile is created, if the birth date is less than 110 years in the past, and the user does not provide a death date, we should be forced to provide a reason for why they are thought to be dead. And, the system should mandate that the reason statement (after trimming any beginning or trailing white space characters) be a minimum of 5 - 10 characters long. It'd be hard to provide any shorter meaningful reason. ("Dad's obit" is 10 characters long. Just saying.) Even just a date and a period (which would *not* be meaningful) is 5 characters.

LegacyUser

Juli said: You don't need to flip the state: you can click on the (already-selected-looking-but-not) "deceased" option to actually select it.

However, there's another factor at play: if you're working with an index that doesn't fill the birthdate field (such as baptisms, which the system treats as an event from a different universe than the exactly-equivalent christening, but I digress), then filling in a birthdate three centuries ago -- and a corresponding death date on the following day, also three centuries ago -- is insufficient for the dialog to believe you that the person cannot possibly be living.

Confusion and serious irritation arise.

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: Spot on. There should be different considerations for different documents, and different roles in the document. Examples: Parents listed on a birth record, where the birth record is at least 100 years old. Bride / Groom on a marriage record that's at least 100 years old. Parents of Bride / Groom on a marriage record where the record is at least 85 years old, etc. Additional restrictions could be in place if the Bride / Groom's age is listed. (Say the couple is married in 1950, but the birthdates of the couple indicate they were both born in 1900 -- its safe for the system to assume that the couple, as well as their parents, are all deceased.)

Still, in those cases, it's quick, albeit tedious, to enter something along the lines of "Daughter born in 1900".

LegacyUser

Christine said: Juli, not arguing your point, but I have had relatives where four children were baptized (christened) same day. All different birth years. . But yes, that is the exception rather than the rule.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Ueeyfuyee3j

There's the sort of reason statement you will get. In other words what you are siggesting will simply not work.

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: But in that case, even though the baptism / christening date does not necessarily relate directly to the birth date, its a reasonable conclusion that the baptism / christening happens at some point after the birth. So, although someone may be baptized 5 days or 50 years after their birth date, if the baptism / christening date is more then 110 years in the past, it seems reasonable to conclude that the birth is also at least 110 years in the past, even when the specific birth date is not known.

LegacyUser

David Wynn said: BTW -- just because a source does not exist in FamilySearch does not mean that it does not exist. If your research has uncovered sources, even if physical and not available online, please cite. It still counts as a source, it just takes more time to enter. In such cases, though, please provide details of what information you're gleaning from the entered sources. It helps tremendously for others who come after to replicate your findings, and to understand why the document is attached to that particular individual.

LegacyUser

Juli said: Yup, what David Newton said. I would be a top offender, because I believe reason statements are generally pointless. (I attach and tag the source(s). If it's convoluted, I write a note.) The specific situation under discussion -- the requirement of pointing out that no, vampires do not exist -- highlights just how pointless those boxes are.