Wikipedia talk:Find a Grave famous people

message: I looked up the first name that came to mind - George Jay Gould I - who is certainly "notable" and all, having been the owner of an almost-transcontinental system of railroads, and he's not on the list. (Pittsburgh and West Virginia Railway actually has a lot more about the railroads than his article at the moment.) His father Jay Gould is on the list, but that wouldn't automatically make George "notable". --SPUI (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete

message: The instructions read, in part:
:1)Do not delete any names from this list, even if they're blue links. 
:2)Only delete blue links if you've verified that the person linked is the same person on Find-A-Grave's site.
Doesn't sentence 2 contradict sentence 1 (or vice versa)?
--Calton | Talk 05:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been somewhat confused by these instructions, so have just added explanatory notes next to names - X is really Y, or we don't have an article on them but look at page Z where they're mentioned -  and left them on the page for someone more comfortable to remove when they get to the list. Shimgray | talk | 14:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: Brian, it's looking great so far but could the split pages be added to the top project page?  It adds an additional layer unnecessary navigation to click on E then click on Ea-Eb.  --Reflex Reaction 15:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split pages 

message: * [  Find-A-Grave profile for ]
I did not find this format to work. Both on Preview and after saving the page the PAGENAME remained instead of the article title replacing it. Doc 02:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Hi. Just wanted to say that I did some W's and realized how careful we have to be about removing links here. It is very easy to get the wrong one--or as I said in one of the lists, the "wrong Wright." Danny 15:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Word of Warning

message: I've become very interested in this project as I've written a number of "famous bios" on Find A Grave and posted both the Find A Grave and Find A Grave Forums pages here. I had already started posting a few of my "own" bios from FAG, as it is known in the Forums here when I found this project. These I only need to wikify, and at times update, as they are my own composition.
I feel that it is very important before a name is removed from this project to be sure that the link to the profile is on the page here as well. I have started to go through the names listed on my user page here, and be sure that they are all complete with the link.
My method is to pull up the page with the name on the project, then open both the wiki page and the FAG page from the links in the project on new browser pages. Then verify the match. Next I add the link for the FAG profile if it is not there. Next I look for any information in the FAG profile that is not already included on the wiki page particularly on the death and burial and add that information. After a preview and clicking to be sure that the link works then I save the page. Only then do I go and remove the name and change the numbers for the prune both beside the letter and in the running total string. Doc 18:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: any endorsements or warnings? If endorsed, this method should be incorporated in the project page. --P64 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use approximately the same method, except that I only worry about totals every hundred edits or so... note that sometimes the F-A-G bio adds very little information; in those cases, I sometimes drop linking to it. --Alvestrand 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method 

message: The copyright statement was not clear to me.  How can their text be taken?  Basically, I'm trying to figure out how careful I'd have to be on creating a page with that text as a basis to avoid copyright violations.  The line between using a source and paraphrasing and more than paraphrasing is thin... I thought it'd be useful to know. gren グレン 10:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: I've never been a fan of this word on Wikipedia, I much prefer 'notable'. Most important individuals with articles on Wikipedia aren't famous. For example, most people couldn't name the first man in space, or the inventor of the jet engine, but could easily name the lead singer of a contemporary pop band. The latter therefore are famous, but obviosuly not as important. 'Famous' is also a very limited field, where as notable is longer lasting and broader. Grunners 22:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'Famous' 

message: I have recalculated the percent completed - it never was 3.96 percent. It's probably significantly higher than 3.14%, but one has to count unpruned blue links - a vague guesstimate isn't very useful. Zafiroblue05 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Percent completed

message: I have trouble interpreting anything on the project page as clear instructions on how to help here.... I think that the instructions are as follows:
# Find a name in the list here
# Find the corresponding wikipedia article
# If not found, write the article
# Link the find-a-grave pointer into the article, if appropriate
# Delete the name from the list here
But there's nothing on the page that says so. And I don't dare to delete an entry before having it confirmed. Is my interpretation correct? --Alvestrand 06:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If crucial instructions will not be repeated here, the first paragraph should ask people to read WP:MEA instructions. There may be a similar problem for all WP:MEA subprojects. "What links here" naturally sends editors (who use it after moving or redirecting, for example) to somewhere down in the subproject pages. --P64 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's at the lowest level, where "what links here" sends us, that a reference to WP:MEA (instructions in particular?) would be most valuable. --P64 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The missing instructions? 

message: Would anyone mind if I did a reorg of the page to something akin to the Hotlist?  I don't do much work with the project so I'm find to leave it be, but I find it very annoying to click through multiple navigation pages to get to the actual links.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My biggest irritation is that moving the links around takes editing points in the file 200K apart - ideally, I'd like to just put a marker next to the link and have a robot move them to the appropriate category. The Hotlist schematic doesn't seem that much better to me. --Alvestrand 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A reorg doesn't really seem that necessary. It's somewhat annoying, but it doesn't seem like there's a great way to handle this many names. --Mathwizard1232 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorg? 

message: Is there a way to let Jim Tipton/Find-a-Grave know about corrections? Does he want feedback on minor corrections? (e.g., Find-a-Grave lists "Henry Prince of Battenburg" but "Battenberg" should properly be spelled with an e, not a u, in "Battenberg".) - Nunh-huh 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen a few of these misspellings, and even some years that don't match the marker at all.  It can be very sloppy, and I was wishing for an edit this page tab.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When working on a list, I wait until I've accumulated a list of a dozen or more corrections (with URLs), then send them all at once, (to info at findagrave dot com).  They seem grateful for the corrections, though since I've sent them multiple emails I now often get only a one-line "thanks!" reply.  Be careful with reports of duplicate entries -- this is sometimes intentional when there's more than one "burial site"/marker/memorial/etc.  — Catherine\talk 01:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Tipton 

message: I went through and updated the various counts, and then the statistics on the main page. Let me know if there are any comments. Ardric47 03:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status update 

message: I am wondering about the definition of "done" in this context....
on the T page, I have 1609 articles on the page, but only 980 of them are missing or not located - the rest are verified to be the same as their Wikipedia articles, but I've not verified whether or not there's a link to the F-A-G bio on the page. But if the 980 artciles are created, I'd consider it quite reasonable to consider the T space "done".
So what should the right "left to do" percentage on T be? 980/1705 or 1609/1705? --Alvestrand 06:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be nice to have the F-A-G bio linked (particularly for less notable people). I was doing the J page a little while ago, and I always added in the F-A-G link when I ascertained that the Wiki page matched the Find a Grave bio. But if you've already verified over 600 articles, I don't think it's necessary to go back and add the bios individually. zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll take the number of clearly missing articles as the number "left to do" - I'm now down to 969... --Alvestrand 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "done"? 

message: I went looking for a template for the find-a-grave references, and found one. Fixed it so that you don't have to specify the name of the page (but can if you want to).
Usage: . Seems useful? --Alvestrand 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Find A Grave 

message: "about 1 in 15 of the Find-A-Grave entries list dates contradicting ours"
This project might do something specific and consistent regarding f-a-g vital dates, such as cover the discrepancy in Talk.
This may be a question for some biography project but here goes. When should articles note discrepancies in vital data and explain resolutions, when relegate that to Talk? Should a reference consulted and dismissed be listed as a reference in order to show that it has been consulted? (for example, f-a-g consulted and its vital data dismissed as incorrect) --P64 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vital dates 

message: I've started keeping some notes on the way I attack F-A-G entries at User:Alvestrand/Find-A-Grave. I think everyone should do his own thing, but someone might find the notes useful. Having fun seeing progress! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal techniques and notes page 

message: I just want to share a toast with the contributors that have made this project pass the 1/3 completed point (as of January 4, 2008).
Great to see this project move! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! Congratulations everybody.  jwillbur 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A toast to the 1/3 point! 

message: As of today, 2008-08-05, all of the letters of the list have been pruned at least once. And we're almost at 2/3 complete. Hooray! --Alvestrand (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another sort of milestone 

message: I've declared about 130 people in /S non-notable, and researched out another 70 or so. That tipped us over the 2/3 mark. Hooray! --Alvestrand (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two thirds! 

message: Now that jwilbur is almost done with F, the only letter not marked as "searched" in the list is B, but that's so far along, I'm leaving it for now (and most of it is in fact searched). With that, we're closing in on the 75% mark (ever so slowly - this process takes MUCH longer than just breezing through bluelinks).
I'll be taking another scan at W, which at 70.0% is the one lowest on the "percentage completed" list apart from F.
Getting there! --Alvestrand (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished F, we're less than 1 percent away from 75% now. I'm going to start re-pruning M, just because it hasn't been done in a while and it's one of the largest pages. — jwillbur 20:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost done searching them all.... 

message: I just finished splitting out all the PNNs on /G, and that tipped us over the 75% mark. Hooray!
(but too tired to dig up more festive pictures) --Alvestrand (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three quarters! 

message: Would people have an objection to merging the sublists of letters like A, E, J which have less than 300 names remaining? Or even L, which has 400 remaining? Pichpich (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not object. I think 400 may be pushing it - it's a long piece to edit all at once when I do my sorting passes; 300 seems offhand like a nice limit. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. One has to strike the right balance and it's probably wise to handle sorted and unsorted lists differently. 300 unsorted names might be inconvenient whereas 400 nicely separated entries should be ok. Pichpich (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: Hello. Another stupid question from a newbie in the area. Is there any plan to actually remove the most obviously non-notable entries? And how should we determine this? Related question: would it make sense to move all the memorials on a distinct page? I've also found that for some letters, there are clearly notable people in the PNN section. Some are CMOH recipients, others are non-American politicians (Canadians in particular) who have held sufficiently high office to be automatically considered notable, others still are mayors of sufficiently large cities to justify an article. The depressing part is that moving these will decrease the % of progress... Pichpich (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I regard the PNN sections as a "very rough sort" - which is why I mostly don't want to delete people from it; the overhead of having more people in there is pretty low. The reason why many CMOH recipients are in PNN sections is that I initially held the opinion that doing one brave thing once isn't enough for notability, but after being pointed at WP:MILMOS#NOTE, I decided that I'd go with the community in this case, but I haven't yet found all the earlier misclassifications. WRT mayors - the rules at WP:POLITICIAN are so lax, almost anyone would get in there (see discussion on that talk page) - so I have not applied those. If we can figure out a reasonable guideline, we could move people - mayor of New York, New York, what would you suggest for a guideline? --Alvestrand (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the guidelines with respect to politicians are quite vague but I think it's safe to say that mayors of decent-sized cities are notable in the sense that their life or at least their political career have been documented to some reasonable extent. (I suppose that's the underlying argument in WP:POLITICIAN) The same is true for US representatives and Canadian members of parliament at the federal or provincial level. Of course, the sources might not be that easy to find, especially online, but state archives almost certainly contain enough info for decent short articles about politicians that have held such seats. Pichpich (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly non-notable 

message: After mulling about it for a while, I think Pichpich's idea of merging all the memorials to a single page is a good one. They clutter up this page set's single-minded focus on people, and they're all in the "possibly non-notable" category anyway, so they don't matter to the "done" percentage one way or the other. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monuments, memorials etc 

message: Along with WP:GEO, I'm interested in tagging articles with coordinates. Clearly this mostly applies to articles about places, or events that happened in a single place, but it can also be done for dead people with an identifiable grave, providing the coordinates used are specific to that grave, rather than generic for the cemetery, or wherever. I understand that this is outside the scope of this project, but I'm hoping that you have some 'local' knowledge that I can call on.
Firstly, how reliable and precise are the coordinates? Do FaG's users give them for specific graves, or more generally? Secondly, is there a quick or easy way to obtain them, perhaps by an API, or do we have to scrape the site page by page? Is there some way to disambiguate; to relate an article on WP to a specific page on FaG, or vice versa? Is there already some liaison between the two sites, to facilitate such work?
Thanks, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too optimistic. You can probably extract FaG's cemetery data to associate individuals and cemeteries (just do a search by cemetery) but I think you'd have to figure out the geo-coordinates manually. Note also that you'd need to account for the limited reliability of the FaG data and for multiple people with the same name. As for coordinates for the actual grave, I think it's pretty hopeless. Even for überfamous cemeteries such as the Père Lachaise Cemetery, I don't know how to get reliable data on tomb coordinates unless you take something like this map and calculate them. That sounds like a pretty awful effort/value ratio. Pichpich (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear you may have misunderstood me. Pages like http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=9576 have coordinates on them. The data seems very unstructured, though, with little semantic mark-up. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. There's a lot of interesting stuff on the FaG website but I don't think very precise data such as tomb coordinates should be trusted. For instance the satellite data for this grave suggests that the coordinates are a bit off. Another example of obvious problem is Mark Twain's grave where the given coordinates are just outside the cemetery. If the coordinates are a bit off, they're worthless. Pichpich (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I feared, but thanks for the confirmation, anyway. Bad data sucks. :-( Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: Thanks to Pichpich's efforts, we've now finally crossed that elusive 80% line. Hooray!
It took us from April to October to get there - 6 months for another 5%; I think most of those ~2300 entries were accomplished by looking at the lists and sorting out those who are probably not noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article.
There's some more of that work still needing to be done - perhaps another thousand or so that we can remove - but at that time, I think we're reaching bedrock; the rest of the list consists of biographies that should be researched and written up.
Harder work ahead - but work well worth doing! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  80% done 

message: Participants in this project may be interested in this discussion at the External Links Noticeboard regarding the appropriateness of external linking to the Find a Grave website. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive of that discussion . (Emperor (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at External Links Noticeboard 

message: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#We_need_to_talk. Once again on the appropriateness of the links. -- œ™ 22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another discussion heads-up 

message: Its been almost 3 months so its time for another weeks long discussion on the status of Find a grave. Here is a link to the discussion that is currently taking place, Again. on the external links noticeboard. Find a grave and IMDB. --Kumioko (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A discussion to eliminate the use of Find a grave and IMDB 

message: A vote is currently being held at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard as to wether we should ban the use of the Find a grave site and the thousands of links we have to it on articles. Please take a moment and place your vote. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting has begun

message: After a rather strange debate on Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites, I've concluded that the guidelines for creating articles here (which have been the same for years) need some revision, to make it clear that Find-A-Grave is not an acceptable sole source for a Wikipedia article, and that both WP:RS and WP:CP (copyright) need to be considered when you're creating articles. I'll take a stab at it - the project seems quiet at this time; I've been elsewhere for quite some time. --Alvestrand (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an acceptable source period (it fails WP:RS rules quite dramatically), nor is it an acceptable external link. DreamGuy (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reasonably obvious from the debate there that I don't agree with you - so there isn't a consensus. Sigh. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

text: OTR500, you have not responded (as far as I can tell) to my quoting of WP:CHALLENGE. The fact is that Wikipedia has lots of facts that are not controversial, and are not challenged. We have a tradition that we don't list sources for those facts unless the sources satisfy WP:RS - the result is that it's not possible in most cases for people to understand where that information is fetched from. I think the external link method is a reasonable thing to do that gives a better encyclopedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still cannot see why the fixation and the campaigning and expending all this effort over a simple external link. Why this one and not so many others used in a similar manner, such as  and ? It's a helpful, informative site yet some are making it out to be like the plague hellbent on destroying Wikipedia. If only editors would put this much earnest zeal into actually producing content instead I think we'd have a much better encyclopedia. -- œ™ 14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting article creation guidelines 

message: The debate that has been going on, and the fact that there are issues with Find a Grave, does not matter that improper instructions "have been the same for years". I previously listed issues with the following;
If you add facts from Find-A-Grave into the article, add Find-A-Grave as an external link, not a source, and add a comment  explaining what information you have fetched from the page. This allows people to check your facts with Find-A-Grave, but does not assert that the fact has a reliable source. If you don't enter any material, or if all the material you add is sourced from reliable sources, do not add a Find-A-Grave link</Blockquote>
While having left the external links debate to others I have been continually commenting against assertions that Find a Grave is acceptable as a source or reference, especially when masked as an external link. I have actually tried to get totally wild with my imagination and still can not figure out how anyone would not consider "adding material" from Find a Grave as not using the site as a source. I have listed the policies that Find a Grave fails. I will provide them here;
Find a Grave as a source or reference fails;  
*1)-WP:SOURCES; Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
*2)- WP:NOTRELIABLE; Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.
*3)- WP:SELFPUBLISH; Find a Grave is user edited and uses anonymous or pseudonymous editors.
*4)- WP:SPS; This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. Find a Grave is not currently specifically named as is IMBd but falls under "and so forth". Rational dictates that Find a Grave, while not listed by name in WP:SPS, certainly falls under the criteria.
* The Find a Grave project instructions states, Remember that all articles must satisfy Wikipedia core policies of notability (WP:NOTABILITY), verifiability (WP:VERIFIABILITY) and reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE SOURCES). Find-A-Grave is not considered a reliable source., and further, For any articles you create because of this project, you can add the entry's Find-A-Grave link to the External links sections of the article..
I do not consider the debate as strange but serious issues. Instructing editors to violate Wikipedia policies is serious. Continually arguing that the above policies somehow do not apply to this project can be detrimental. I am still trying desperately to support find a Grave as an external link but without some help I will have no choice but to take a different overall position. I am still trying to figure out why my comments concerning the possible release of pictures from a Find a Grave editor was not even worth discussion. In light of past discussions I am sure that a plea for reconsideration will be met with the same disregard but feel I had to give one more attempt. Otr500 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OTR500, you have not responded (as far as I can tell) to my quoting of WP:CHALLENGE. The fact is that Wikipedia has lots of facts that are not controversial, and are not challenged. We have a tradition that we don't list sources for those facts unless the sources satisfy WP:RS - the result is that it's not possible in most cases for people to understand where that information is fetched from. I think the external link method is a reasonable thing to do that gives a better encyclopedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still cannot see why the fixation and the campaigning and expending all this effort over a simple external link. Why this one and not so many others used in a similar manner, such as  and ? It's a helpful, informative site yet some are making it out to be like the plague hellbent on destroying Wikipedia. If only editors would put this much earnest zeal into actually producing content instead I think we'd have a much better encyclopedia. -- œ™ 14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate rewrite 

message: See: WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 21#Wikipedia:Fag. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion re a Find a Grave related redirect 

message: Anyone know what the final decision on was as to whether we were allowed to use FAG as a reference? A few months ago a purge was started to remove FAG as an external link and as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find-a-Grave and Template:Find a Grave. The former says that FAG is "Rarely" appropriate as an external link and is "Almost never" considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable source

message: This may not be the right place to ask, but what are the policies regarding uploading photos from findagrave.com to Wiki servers? For example, if a picture on that site has been uploaded by a user and does not credit any photographer (or mention if someone owns the copyright), is it OK to use it in an article? Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikicommons would be the place to go. But almost certainly the answer is that the images are copyright of someone until 70 years after the death of the photographer unless (and only unless) the copyright owner has explicitly released it under GFDL or other Open content license. --Red King (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs and copyrights 

message: In recent years Wikipedia steadily has been deleting any info from Findagrave. In researching the silent film actress Bessie Buskirk a still photo from the movie Her Official Fathers is posted with her being said to be on the left. The woman unnamed on the left is a much older actress than Buskirk(25 years old in 1917 at the time of the movie still). In looking up her Findagrave(and she did have one) a photo is posted showing her with her family and on a fishing trip. So in working out that Bessie Buskirk was born in 1892 and died in 1952, the birth-death stats are correct. The image in Wikipedia is in error. The family photograph of the REAL Buskirk is on the left of Findagrave giving us an idea what she looked like and who she was. No photo of Buskirk could be found on ebay, Google etc. But the family photo of Buskirk was located thanks to Findagrave which also yielded that Buskirk was adopted.
The photo can be seen on Findagrave and enlarged by clicking. see---> Findagrave Bessie Buskirk
Koplimek (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: An Argument for Bessie Buskirk and Findagrave