![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Presumption of death be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I suggest a merger of the content of this the
Presumption of Death article into
death in absentia, and redirecting this page to that article.--
h i s
s p a c e
r e s e a r c h
07:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Since it seems everyone agrees with this (as do I), I will carry out this merger. Terraxos ( talk) 02:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see John List was never declared dead in absentia...? Pennywisepeter 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Princes in the Tower" anyone? I suppose they never have been presumed dead on a certain date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.13.74 ( talk) 18:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The term “death in absentia” is completely bogus. In the USA, for example, there is not a single reported case in any state that uses the phrase “death in absentia” or “dead in absentia” in this sense. (There are cases where a person was sentenced to “death in absentia,” but that is not the same thing.) More to the point, there is not a single citation in this article that includes either phrase. The term has no conventional existence outside of this article, articles based on it, and the 2011 low-budget horror film "Absentia" (a film about trolls) which is probably also influenced by this article. Apparently someone just made it up and put it on Wikipedia. How unusual! In any event, there is no reliable source to show any acceptance of such a phrase. It has had a reference flag since 2009. The article should be given a non-bogus name. Criticality ( talk) 20:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there any need to have a section for famous cases here, when a reader can simply be pointed to the (far more comprehensive) article List of people who disappeared mysteriously? I'd think the list in section could be removed and replaced with a {{ seemain}}. Grutness... wha? 10:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Declared death in absentia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The above title redirects to this article. However, this article does not mention "Cestui que vie" or any Cestui que vie Act.
There are two other Wikipedia articles relating to Cestui que vie Acts: Cestui que vie Act 1540, and Cestui que Vie Act 1707
Both these articles are stubs.
The UK statute Law database contains entries for both "Cestui que Vie Act 1666", and "The Cestui que Vie Act 1707", but none (that I can find) on Cestui que Vie Act 1540
On this basis, I believe that "Cestui que Vie Act 1666" deserves a freestanding article of its own - even if it is only a stub to begin with similar to those for the 1540 and 1707 Acts.
I have added "see also" links in this article referring/linking to both the Wikipedia "Cestui que Vie Act" articles. Hedles ( talk) 10:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems unnecessary to have the "declared" in there. It feels clunky and less like an encyclopedia title and more like a name better for a redirect. Führerstand ( talk) 05:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Declared death in absentia → Presumption of death – "Presumption of death" is the common term, as seen in the United States Code [3]and the Presumption of Death Act 2013 in the UK [4]. As far as I can see, none of the sources used in the article use the term "death in absentia". As discussed previously, there is reason to believe that the term is nonsense and the examples of its use are citogenesis. The Law.com Dictionary has a definition, but that dictionary is not reliable as it invites readers to add their own definitions. The current Black's Law Dictionary does not use the term. I have also searched the Lexis Nexis and Westlaw databases and can find no evidence that it is commonly used. Jack Upland ( talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Was she i n a parliament office 💬💬 169.255.185.23 ( talk) 13:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
In terms of this sentence (how I hate such lazy phrasing!), is a declaration of disappearance the same thing as a declaration of absence? or is the latter (nowhere else mentioned) a prerequisite of the former?
Would anything be lost by deleting up to the first comma? — Tamfang ( talk) 23:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Presumption of death be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
I suggest a merger of the content of this the
Presumption of Death article into
death in absentia, and redirecting this page to that article.--
h i s
s p a c e
r e s e a r c h
07:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Since it seems everyone agrees with this (as do I), I will carry out this merger. Terraxos ( talk) 02:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see John List was never declared dead in absentia...? Pennywisepeter 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Princes in the Tower" anyone? I suppose they never have been presumed dead on a certain date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.13.74 ( talk) 18:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The term “death in absentia” is completely bogus. In the USA, for example, there is not a single reported case in any state that uses the phrase “death in absentia” or “dead in absentia” in this sense. (There are cases where a person was sentenced to “death in absentia,” but that is not the same thing.) More to the point, there is not a single citation in this article that includes either phrase. The term has no conventional existence outside of this article, articles based on it, and the 2011 low-budget horror film "Absentia" (a film about trolls) which is probably also influenced by this article. Apparently someone just made it up and put it on Wikipedia. How unusual! In any event, there is no reliable source to show any acceptance of such a phrase. It has had a reference flag since 2009. The article should be given a non-bogus name. Criticality ( talk) 20:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there any need to have a section for famous cases here, when a reader can simply be pointed to the (far more comprehensive) article List of people who disappeared mysteriously? I'd think the list in section could be removed and replaced with a {{ seemain}}. Grutness... wha? 10:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Declared death in absentia. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The above title redirects to this article. However, this article does not mention "Cestui que vie" or any Cestui que vie Act.
There are two other Wikipedia articles relating to Cestui que vie Acts: Cestui que vie Act 1540, and Cestui que Vie Act 1707
Both these articles are stubs.
The UK statute Law database contains entries for both "Cestui que Vie Act 1666", and "The Cestui que Vie Act 1707", but none (that I can find) on Cestui que Vie Act 1540
On this basis, I believe that "Cestui que Vie Act 1666" deserves a freestanding article of its own - even if it is only a stub to begin with similar to those for the 1540 and 1707 Acts.
I have added "see also" links in this article referring/linking to both the Wikipedia "Cestui que Vie Act" articles. Hedles ( talk) 10:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems unnecessary to have the "declared" in there. It feels clunky and less like an encyclopedia title and more like a name better for a redirect. Führerstand ( talk) 05:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus. ( non-admin closure) – Ammarpad ( talk) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Declared death in absentia → Presumption of death – "Presumption of death" is the common term, as seen in the United States Code [3]and the Presumption of Death Act 2013 in the UK [4]. As far as I can see, none of the sources used in the article use the term "death in absentia". As discussed previously, there is reason to believe that the term is nonsense and the examples of its use are citogenesis. The Law.com Dictionary has a definition, but that dictionary is not reliable as it invites readers to add their own definitions. The current Black's Law Dictionary does not use the term. I have also searched the Lexis Nexis and Westlaw databases and can find no evidence that it is commonly used. Jack Upland ( talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Was she i n a parliament office 💬💬 169.255.185.23 ( talk) 13:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
In terms of this sentence (how I hate such lazy phrasing!), is a declaration of disappearance the same thing as a declaration of absence? or is the latter (nowhere else mentioned) a prerequisite of the former?
Would anything be lost by deleting up to the first comma? — Tamfang ( talk) 23:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)