Talk:Find a Grave/Archive 1

COSTANTINO 1904-1972 John 1938-1987 Antoinette 1909-1995 James 1944-1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.99.236 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While discussions were on going Find a Grave was added as a reference (Notes). I am sure this is an over-sight and needs correcting. Also there is a link to a forum (FAQ) and a bold URL to Find a Grave in the same section. Otr500 (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Diffs, please? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a fan of this site at all - but that does not mean we should not try to fix the problems with the article. I see that there is nothing realy out there about there reliability and i would guess its because they are very open about this fact at Accuracy and Copyright Disclaimer. So going to be hard to talk about this if there is no references for it -plus is it normal to do so in the first place?. I did find some stuff that might help with the current tag.Moxy (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Online Genealogy Handbook By Brad Schepp, Debra Schepp page 116, Sterling 2008
  ISBN 1402752555
• Net.people: the personalities and passions behind the Web sites By Thomas E. Bleier, Eric C. Steinert pages 167-171 CyberAge Books, 1999
  ISBN 0910965374
• Find info like a pro: mining the Internet's publicly available resources for ... By Carole A. Levitt, Mark E. Rosch. page 17 American Bar Association, 2010
  ISBN 9781604428902

I would like to ask that editors simply ask for clarification before assuming bad faith and instead assume good faith. I think I read somewhere that this is policy. I did edit with a reference but that was reverted (and rightly) as being improper. I also edited with a POV that was reverted. This is not the issue. How far back would you like to go in the article history to see that tags on a poorly written and sourced article have disappeared, much like ones now. Personal attacks (especially when things were misinterpreted) aside, please replace the multiple tags template with the appropriate tags that certainly includes consensus. Otr500 (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you show us were you believe the article is not neutral? As for the Lead tag - do you rely think its necessary on an article that is so small?. As for the "include all significant viewpoints" tag whos point of view is missing as i dont even see any pov in the article to begin with. Moxy (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Second the call for being specific about what statements are not NPOV. The article's been shortened a few times to remove unsourced material. But time might be better spent inserting or referencing material from the four references cited above - in the US, they seem to be all viewable from the Google Books links. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure who "us" ("Could you show us") is but one instance concerning neutrality, "Why I love ... findagrave.com" is listed as a reference and please note the word love. I then found a link, **(redacted blacklisted URLs)**], that shows some don't love Find a Grave. This is just one instance (I haven't look at if it can be used) that shows there are some that do not "love" the site. Inclusion of a reference slanting in that direction should fairly point out (neutrality) the opposite (of which there appear to be some) but NPOV is missing. There is a review posted here that might be relevant.

Concerning the lead it was asked, "do you rely think its necessary on an article that is so small?", and my answer is yes. It is not my fault that the article is so short (or the lead), possibly because notability issues for available references, or because the article needs more work, but the opinion still stands including that the article reads like an advertisement. I posted tags that are meant to bring these concerns to editor's attention and all were removed (one replaced) with no explanation save the edit summary that I was disrupting Wikipedia. The reasoning for removal was rebutted with an explanation and there are other editors that chimed in concerning some of the other tags that were noted. I have asked that the tags be replaced with the reasoning and have supplied more. I also seconded the mention of prose. It was commented, "but that does not mean we should not try to fix the problems with the article", and I agree, which is why the article deserved the tags. Tags are meant to call editors attention to the fact that there are issues (multiple in this case) to resolve.

Since "time might be better spent inserting or referencing material" is a good idea there were possible references listed but no action, so what about these? I have listed reasons why I placed the tags, and there is verification other than Wikipedia disruption, which is why I asked for the proper tags to be reinstated on the article until the issues mentioned be resolved. Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for a long drawn out conversation about this article. The "Why I love ... findagrave.com" is used becuase it is the title of the article the information is sourced from. If you find other sources to use then use them as you would any other article. There is no need to bring the discussions of whether Find a grave should be used on articles here. Aside from that argument the site is notable and should have an article on Wikipedia regardless of whether its used on the articles or not. I also want to note that the genealogy-websites.no1reviews.com link provided takes me to a site that my computer says is an untrusted site and shouldn't be used due to its history of using exploitive software. --

talk

) 16:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Why I love ... " is an article from guardian.co.uk, an UK newspaper site generally regarded as a

WP:RS. The article is signed by Nick Johnstone, has a publication date, and was presumably published under the Guardian's editorial policy. It's cited, as far as I can tell, because it satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source. I don't have a problem with that, no matter what the article actually says. --Alvestrand (talk

) 08:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Note to Kumioko: My AVG anti-virus and the IE SmartScreen Filter looked at genealogy-websites.no1reviews.com and did NOT find any threats.--S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

FAG is gathering and hosting an immense historic community database about dead people. Like WP itself, the content is contributed by hordes of unpaid volunteers. There may be issues about what the Web site owners do with this information, how much money they make in what ways. But a more fundamental key issue, that should be covered in WP articles such as this, is what the long-term copyright status is of the contributed information -- what is the public allowed to do with the information? Are the contributing volunteers really working together to build a community resource, or just something private-proprietary-restricted?-96.237.8.174 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a host of concerns with Find a Grave. It has continually been used as an only source to create new articles against Wikipedia policy. When used as an external source yet an only source disguised as an external link, with copyrights not being attributed, anyone can rest assure that there are copyright concerns as well as flagrant WP violations.

There is a project at

Could you explain how the fact that FIND A GRAVE is linked on many Wikipedia pages has anything to do with the sites article? The fact its spammed all over has nothing to do with the article page nor its it relevant for the encyclopedia. Moxy (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia. Apparently the site Find a Grave warrants an article. This means that the information must adhere to certain guidelines. One of these guidelines is neutrality. It is of issue that there is a problem with the find a Grave site on Wikipedia. Either this information is a lie or not. Now, either article bias can be swayed because this truth just happens to involve Wikipedia or not. I suppose that Neutrality is not important if it involves Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia has thousands of articles with links to Find A Grave is notable and inclusion gives opposing view to the now slanted article. In fact by taking out the only other view (and rightly) by renaming the BBB section, Moxy has now slanted the article all the way to the floor. I will tag the article and bring this to arbitration unless someone, and there should be a couple out of 200, will edit this article for neutrality. Otr500 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tags ...I think you do not understand that the BBB has nothing to do with reliability. Its about there Business practices dealing with public complaints etc...not about the sites reliability and/or accuracy. So realy its you that is trying to add A POV that the site sucks (with no references i might add) and then saying if you cant get your way you will tag the article. Not how things are done here as we dont take kindly to threats or bulling. Moxy (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking from experience here: Find-a-grave is kind of like wikipedia except that whoever creates an article "owns" it unless they transfer it to another registered user, who then becomes its "owner". It's a useful reference, but it's not foolproof, in fact its text seems to be taken from wikipedia from time to time. The one part of it that I would consider reliable is its core fact base, namely the burial places and photos of the memorials of the individuals. The photos posted there could be from anywhere, so beware of copyrights. In fact, I think the gravesite photos are specifically copyrighted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course the gravesite photos are copyrighted to the photographers who took them and, in most cases, uploaded them to the site. However, other photos uploaded to the various memorials of the interees are in many cases already copyright infringements found in various Internet sites. FAG members play fast and loose when it comes to copyright recognition. 68.197.49.241 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Things like this needs, what Bugs says above, to be added to the article. There has to be sources that also show the short comings of this site. Most of the references in this article are Find a Grave sources. We shouldn't be using the sources from subject of the article. We need to find outside sources to replace a lot of the Find a Grave sources. I'm going out of town in a few hours and will only have minimal access to the site so I won't be able to do this or help until next week. This has to be done though to make the article follow policies and guidelines. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, this article reads like an advertisement. It needs less fluff and more meat to it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that a "reliable third-party publications tags" is good idea. Article space is not the place to discus the fact that the links are all over Wikipedia. As we have an essay called Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites that states some of the communities concerns over its use (over use) here on Wikipedia. Moxy (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal views about the use of this site on articles aside unless you can find a source that discusses the sites usage the ongoing debates of it then we don't need to discuss it in the article. I do agree that this article needs some work in sourcing and prose but we need to focus the discussion back to the EL discussion and not here. --

talk

) 21:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is misuse of the wikipedia site to have FIND A GRAVE links at the bottom of every dead celebrity page. If you want to use findagrave.com as a source for the burial location and put the burial location in the wikipedia article, fine. But linking to the site along with its advertisements, amazon.com referral links, etc. is really just supporting a business instead of an encyclopedia. I think all outside links to the findagrave.com web site other than the ones in this article itself should be removed. Jcc1 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. And it seems that you are referring to the use of the template {{Find a Grave}}, or its hardcoded equivalent, in the External links sections of articles. That discussion belongs elsewhere, possibly at Wikipedia talk:External links, as this talk page is supposed to be about its corresponding article page. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

For every article where FAG is the best source of grave info (pic etc) for the individual the article is about, it makes sense for the article to have an FAG link of some sort. If there are other better sources of such info, great, than an FAG link is not needed... -96.237.8.174 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Many informative Web sites (e.g., The New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, Time Magazine, The Economist, National Geographic, etc., etc.) carry advertising (and are for-profit businesses). I don't think it's possible to single out this cite on this basis. Doremo (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pls see

Wikipedia:FINDAGRAVE.Moxy (talk

) 20:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Find A Grave is becoming increasingly popular. Our son supported an Eagle Scout project with FAG. — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Another great source of cemetery details in the US is Histopolis -- please start an article for this.-96.237.8.174 (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Any progress to date? — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

i think an additional section talking about other grave finding services could be helpful here. BillionGraves and TombFinder have both become fairly large recently and lots of talk has been generated on the Find a Grave forums about them and in other media. I don't know if either is notable enough yet to warrant their own articles, but maybe a mention here might be appropriate since they are all the same industry and trying to accomplish the same purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.44.78 (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at both sites, and I would say that any mention, that would not just be advertising, would require

verifiability with proper sourcing. Otr500 (talk

) 15:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Check this out: https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/BillionGraves

Do the two work together? (BG & FAG) — We'll ask at [6] — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My brief experience with Find A Grave is that many contributors as so busy racing to add memorials from obits online of people they do not know, that they make large numbers of mistakes, and are insulted and angered when asked to correct their data.

My experience on their forum is that moderators and members are quick to attack and judge members who are simply asking for advice and clarification of the rules.

This is not a nice place to be apart of if you are looking for a nice community to join. Dreamcraftmw (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Better Business Bureau

"This business is not a BBB Accredited Business."

"Find A Grave Inc has a BBB Rating of C-"

This is a very large Web site with a large number of unpaid volunteer contributors. Over the years, some have gotten very upset, over controversy and conflict in the forum, allegedly arbitrary actions by administrators particularly with regard to "memorials" and "privacy" concerns of families and relations regarding recent deaths.**(redacted blacklisted URLs)**

Company Name Find A Grave Inc
Headquarter 360 West 4800 North
Provo, UT 84604
Phone Number +1.801-705-7000
Industry Business Services
Ownership Privately Held

-96.237.8.174 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How does this info improve the article? Actually, the BBB rating on FAG is A+, not the C- as stated above. The lack of a BBB Accreditation has not impacted FAG's receiving an A+ rating. (The lack of accreditation is now mentioned in the article.) **(redacted blacklisted URLs)** is a blog. **(redacted blacklisted URLs)** gives FAG a "5 star" rating, although it does not explain the rating system and seems geared to posting complaints only without the balance of kudos.--S. Rich (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as of today, the Utah BBB site has the following rating. It improves the article because the listing verifies the official name of the company, the name of the owner, and the address of the company:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Findagravesux (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

[Rating data from BBB redacted. Per their policy: "BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes." – S. Rich (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)]

http://www.bbb.org/utah/business-reviews/cemetery-equipment-suppliers/find-a-grave-in-salt-lake-city-ut-22270560

For the "a is an article, not a capitalizeable word" people, you'll note that even the BBB acknowledges the company's prefered name of "Find A Grave".

Thanks, 68.197.49.241 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Various editors (perhaps

See WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 21#Wikipedia:Fag. – S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

In searching, I find that there are also sites: findagrave.org and findagrave.net. If these are somehow related to findagrave.com, then they deserve a mention in the article, or at least outlinks. If they are spoof-sites, which entrap and infect/track unwary visitors, this is also worthwhile information, and this article might be the correct forum for a warning.

Also, previous comparisons/references in the 'capitalization' discussion to the exclamation point in Yahoo!, Inc. 's official name did not mention that Yahoo! did not start out with the exclamation point. There was a question of tradename infringement (Yahoo chocolate soda), and the exclamation point was added to differentiate between the tradenames. I read this either on Wikipedia, or on an official Yahoo! site. Rags (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Find a Grave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120928200532/http://www.citypages.com/2000-02-16/books/grave-matters/ to http://www.citypages.com/2000-02-16/books/grave-matters/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721035421/https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/controller to https://delecorp.delaware.gov/tin/controller

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is my member # the same as a deceased person's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.170.118 (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Because the site has (at least) three sets of objects that they assign numbers to: members, memorials, and cemeteries. Member 42 is not the same as memorial (grave) 42, and neither are the same as cemetery 42.

In the current scheme, member IDs are as noted in URLs as "MRid", memorials as "GRid", and cemeteries as "CRid".--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Find a Grave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119082706/https://secure.utah.gov/bes/action/details?entity=2442925-0151 to https://secure.utah.gov/bes/action/details?entity=2442925-0151
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406120559/https://secure.utah.gov/bes/action/details?entity=4729413-0143 to https://secure.utah.gov/bes/action/details?entity=4729413-0143

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This was removed as saying "This is an enecyclopedia for readers, not for editors. Keep this out of article space"

Actually, no, the edit you reference was removing the template link, which I restored in the very next edit a few minutes later. I don't think that we should be linking to templates from article space, but it seems to be common, so I'm not going to argue about it. As for the hatnote for using Find a Grave as a reference, you added it here, it was removed by Michael Bednarek here, you restored it here, I removed it again here, and Michael Bednarek reverted my other changes but left out that hatnote here. So two editors have disagreed with your hatnote. Rather than adding it again, you need to get consensus for its inclusion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Pls read over

Selfref}} is used to help guide editors from an article to a related Wikipedia policy or guideline page.....not to a template we are activity removing all over Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find-a-Grave --Moxy (talk

) 13:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I have already asked for the article to be renamed. The name of the website and the company is "Find A Grave". This is not a style or grammar issue. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to check the

technical move requests. — Newslinger talk

05:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)