When is it okay to list a new person as "deceased"? Few people live past 100 years.
When is it okay to list a new person as "deceased"? Few people live past 100 years. Is it okay to list anyone over 100+? 105+? 108+? I have wondered this every time I come across a new person over 100 yet not to 110.
Answers
-
I always assume if a person has passed their 110 year birthday, then they are dead. There are a very few people who have passed this age. FamilySearch agrees with this too because that is the age when they stop asking to provide a reason (not exactly by the day though) why you think someone is dead. Also, that is the age when someone does not need permission from a close relative to do temple ordinances (baptism for the dead etc.) for a person with a few exceptions.
0 -
There are plenty of people who live past 100 - if you happen to be one of those and find yourself written off by FS, you might feel a bit upset. The point is that FS needs to show some sort of due diligence that the inputters have made attempts to confirm a death and, given the number of centenarians these days, automatic assumption at 100y, just because they are that old, simply isn't good enough any more - particularly if it triggers display of personal data. I think that it's reasonable to require a solid reason why someone is believed to be dead at 100.
Given what Jordi says about 110, I think that's a better bet - you can at least say that's what FS works on, though I remember that the last surviving soldiers from WW1 were older than 110, so I personally tend to work on 120.
0 -
I'm always cautious about potentially disclosing people's personal data on the internet, so I'd use 110 years over 100 years. And if it aligns with the policies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on ordinances, it makes sense.
0 -
Thank you all for your advise and guidance. I am still learning and I appreciate all that you have told me.
0
