2

The term "acceptable evidence of death" has been used in a number of Q&As here, and that is because it appears in the On-topic page of our Help Center:

Acceptable evidence of death needs to come from some official or semi-official source such as an entry on a death-registration / grave / cemetery / obituary site. A website link (URL) should be provided wherever possible. Regrettably personal recollection is not sufficient to show that we have done our best to protect people's privacy.

If you are in any doubt as to whether your evidence of death would stand up, then hold back the identifying details, and describe the type of evidence so that other users can help you assess it via comments.

What is an example of "acceptable evidence of death" for someone born less than 100 years ago that you think could be presented in a question at G&FH SE?

If you wish to present more than one please do so in separate answers.

I am asking this question because several other recent Meta Q&As have been debating whether links to public documents, redacted images, etc should be permitted, or not. In particular Allowing links to public documents that contain living people is about whether links to images that mention potentially living people can be used to help frame the question for potential answerers. This question is not about bringing new information into a question it is about how to provide evidence that someone identified in the question body is deceased.

  • Related: genealogy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/65/…, genealogy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1645/… especially genealogy.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1650/6485, and genealogy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3153/… – ColeValleyGirl♦ Feb 11 '19 at 9:17
  • Isn't the answer to this the same as the answer to genealogy.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3408/… ? – ColeValleyGirl♦ Feb 12 '19 at 12:39
  • @ColeValleyGirl I think the two questions should inform each other but are best not conflated at this point. – PolyGeo♦ Feb 12 '19 at 19:37
  • OK -- but you may have trouble convincing me that if we decide links to documents that name living people are not allowable in the other question, how they could be allowable in this context? – ColeValleyGirl♦ Feb 12 '19 at 19:39
  • @ColeValleyGirl If consensus emerges from examining the issue from different perspectives that appears contradictory then I think that is the time to ask "Do we really want to permit X for purpose Y when we prohibit X for purpose Z?". I have no plans to ever ask a question here that requires evidence of decease to be provided. I am trying to assist the community to come to a clear decision about what it wants to do because some of it wants to ask such questions. If that decision is that our privacy policy needs to change then I'll try to assist the community in that process too. – PolyGeo♦ Feb 13 '19 at 2:12
  • "If consensus emerges from examining the issue from different perspectives that appears contradictory then I think that is the time to ask "Do we really want to permit X for purpose Y when we prohibit X for purpose Z?"" Ok -- different process mindsets -- I wouldn't ask a question about purpose Y until we'd settled purpose X -- it's a waste of everyone's effort, IMO. – ColeValleyGirl♦ Feb 13 '19 at 6:30
  • @ColeValleyGirl You have just introduced a new purpose X that is not part of my comment that you quoted. In any event, if there are two drivers/purposes for developing or re-developing a policy I think we need to have examined both before settling on a solution to either. – PolyGeo♦ Feb 13 '19 at 6:40
  • Sorry - I typed purpose X when I meant purpose Z. I any case I think you and I have already realised we think orthogonally -- I don't see this as any different to the original question and shall ignore it. – ColeValleyGirl♦ Feb 13 '19 at 7:42
2

I think the redacted image below for the death of a gentleman which was reported in the Victor Harbour Times (SA : 1932 - 1986) on Wed 5 Nov 1980, along with details of where and when it was reported (but not a link to the website hosting that image), would provide one form of acceptable evidence of the decease of that gentleman who appears to have been born in about 1927.

Even though he was born less than 100 years ago I think it would be acceptable to use his name, date of birth and place of birth to ask a question about identifying his parents.

Such a question need not involve any potentially (and some almost certainly) living persons like his redacted wife, children (and their spouses), and grandchildren. Nor does it reveal their names.

enter image description here

If my posting of this image has caused any offence to anyone living, then I apologize, and will promptly remove it. The image was chosen by doing a random search of Death Notices looking for one where the deceased was born towards a 100 years ago.

-2

I think the link below, which can be used to quickly locate the death notice of a gentleman who died on 20 Jun 1980, would provide one form of acceptable evidence of the decease of that gentleman who appears to have been born in about 1921.

Even though he was born less than 100 years ago, I think it would be acceptable to use his name, date of birth and place of birth to ask a question about identifying his parents.

Such a question must not involve any potentially living persons like his wife, two children and brother who are mentioned by name at the link.

If the question here were to mention any of them, then acceptable evidence of their decease would also need to be provided within the question.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110963379

If my posting of this link has caused any offence to anyone living, then I apologize, and will promptly remove it. The link was chosen by doing a random search of Death Notices looking for one where the deceased was born towards 100 years ago.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .