What is the correct tense for deceased individuals in the “Biography” section of a profile?

Question

When referring to deceased individuals in the “Biography” section of a profile, do you refer to the individual as “was the son or father” or “is the son or father”?

Comments

I use was.  Biscos they ain't is no more.

If I were referring to a living person, I would use present tense; but these people are (long) dead, so it should - in my opinion - always be past tense.

---

depends on the narrative style you use.  Basically, you use either past or present or plu-perfect or whatever.  For instance, with a person whose children are still living while that person is deceased, they are the parent of those children, but they were born at x-date.  How you treat it in bio reflects style and nothing on rules of grammar.

---

asked 19 hours ago in Policy and Style by Enrique Treat Gleason G2G6 (6.1k points)
edited 32 minutes ago by Traci Thiessen

.

What was edited? 

---

You know something was wrong..... will be wrong with the world in Wikitree, when Enrique Gleason was connected to the global tree, and Jackie Gleason won't be. or wasn't rather. www.wikitree.com/wiki/Gleason-906

Enrique? Does you knew if Jackie was a cousin of yours?

I think I will have destroyed tenses forever.

TAG 'Policy, and, Style' became 'Style, Biography'

Incidently Enrique, you should probably change your LNAB to one name. But, up to you.

Answer 1

Just avoid it, by saying, 'was born to ....'. If you want that is. It isn't a huge issue.

Funny thing is though, this reminds me of a passage in Luke, where the Sadducees ask Jesus a question regarding the resurrection, which they didn't believe in. He said, the LORD said to Moses, that He is the Lord of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for He is not a God of the dead, but of the living.

So, if it would be offensive to you, or someone who asks, to use 'was' instead of 'is'. Who cares, keep them happy. In the mean time, do what ever you are most comfortable with.

Comments

Agree, and we are all going to be ‘was’ sooner or later!

---

hmmm, maybe we should start worrying about whether to say "is born to ..."   <grin>

---

I usually just say "name was born on date, in place (or at place), the son/daughter of name and name." because they were born.

They were the child of their parents.  If all parties are dead, they cannot be is.

---

Noooooooo. I'm going to have to change hundreds of profiles now. lol

Actually, I think I'll change them to future tense. 'will be born to....'.

Enrique, I think Melanie is probably correct, but word it as you please. The beauty of Wikitree, is that you can reflect your own style, or even the style of the person you are working on, if you know enough about them. That isn't to say that there isn't sometimes a more proper way, but keep enjoying what you are doing.

---

I also get the whole "once and always" concept - because whether I'm alive or not, I will always be my father's son, and my son's father. Those are "is" moments. So I suppose technically, "is" would work. But I tend to either use non-tense like above (Son of... Husband of... Wife of... Daughter of...) in most cases, unless I'm writing a complete biography. In those cases, I do use past-tense as it's awkward to say things like, "John is (present tense - implying "still") the son of Jack. They lived (past tense) in the Big Valley and later moved (past tense) to Another Valley." It makes it much cleaner and smoother to just keep the whole thing in past tense, as it avoids those types of awkward transitions.

Answer 2

something I dither on. I try to rewrite so a verb isn't needed...

Justinian, son of dad and mom, was born ...

edit - I should have said...

something I dither on. I try to rewrite so that "son of" (or "daughter of") is stated in an appositive phrase following the person's name. This practice shifts the verb to a discrete event that was clearly in the past (e.g., "was born").

Comments

Justinian, son of dad and mom, was born ...

.

Still saying "was".

The past is past, so it was.

The present is present, so is.

---

you can avoid it all

 A Born to x and y , in place, date.

A married B in place, date.

A died in place , date.

---

@ Melanie: was born - "born" is an event in the past. I'm avoiding a verb for his parents.

---

Actually, the funny thing is, "married", "died", even "born" in that context, is all past tense, so "was" would fit grammatically better." Even if my statement here wasn't grammatically correct.

And you would hope that everyone "was" born, in the past tense. Other wise, we can start working on profiles for people who weren't born!! lol

---

You can't write in sentences and avoid verbs.

---

To be born is a verb.

---

Yes. And "to be born" is definitely an event that is in the past. I  edited my initial answer to clarify.

---

At least we all had a sense of humor!! Or is it have???

---

LOL on all this.  Something good to smile about this morning.

You could always legitimately say "was born to" because the birth for any known person was in the past, whether they are living or not.

Answer 3

For a person who is dead, definitely "was".

Answer 4

I use IS because their relationship hasn't changed, just what side of the ground they're on.

Answer 5

Either is acceptable. "Is" is logically adequate because a person is not transformed through his own death to some other ancestry. Thus in the case of my father, Earl Warren Brower (1932-2016) remains the son of Paul Evans Brower (1912-1999) and Ofa Pearle Harbaugh (1911-1980)  because he certainly did not become the son of some other couple after his death!

Comments

I totally agree, Paul. A person is not assigned to new parents when their own parents die. So, I use "is" the son or daughter of.