[Bjartr]

Spent a few minutes trying to find an answer to "why do this?" Beyond just implying that it should be done and the most I was able to find was one sentence buried amongst paragraphs and paragraphs of "what" and "how".

> these materials were largely unknown and inaccessible to historians, journalists, and genealogists

I think it would be worthwhile to lead with that and include a little more detail too.

If there isn't a clear motivation, people will assume the worst.

[draftsman]

I think it’s critically important to mention that the VA provided all this data to Ancestry.com years ago. According to the newletter op linked, Ancestry.com charges $300/year for access to this data. This unfairness is what prompted the lawsuit and ultimate release of data.

[Asparagirl]

Indeed. This is ABSOLUTELY not the first time we’ve dealt with a government agency (at the local, state, or federal levels) providing a copy of a public dataset to Ancestry.com and not to the general public. Our taxpayer-funded data keeps ending up solely behind a $300/year paywall. It’s not fair.

(Also, the stripped-down version of BIRLS that has been on the Ancestry website for a while now is much smaller and older.)

[irunmyownemail]

How recent was the last death of a veteran, given to Ancestry.com, compared to what your efforts have now exposed?

[Asparagirl]

Ancestry has a somewhat smaller copy of the BIRLS database online, covering just the years 1850-2010 [1], and it seems to have been published on their website in 2011: https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2441/

Our data set from the VA contains data through mid-2020, and was turned over to us in 2022 after undergoing extensive double-checking by the agency, including through non-public VA sources, to confirm the veterans really were all deceased. There's a paper showing the agency's methodology on our site, which we FOIAed from them.

There are a significant number of deceased veterans whose data is *not* included in the BIRLS database, because they (or their family/heirs) simply did not have any contact with the VA concerning benefits in or after the 1970s, which is when the database was first starting to be built. That is, their files almost always still exist on a warehouse shelf somewhere, but they weren't active any time in the past fifty years so they didn't get pulled and indexed into the database. You can still make a FOIA request to the agency asking for one of those files, but the VA will have a lower chance of successfully finding the file, and it usually will take longer for you to get a response.

[1] 1850 is very likely an approximation. While there are certainly deceased veterans listed in the BIRLS database who had birthdates or deathdates in the mid nineteenth century and/or service in the late nineteenth century, they are relatively few. Many of them are actually veterans with likely birthdates or deathdates in the twentieth century whose data seems to have been initially recorded by the VA with a two digit year of birth or death or enlistment/entry, and then assigned to the wrong two digit prefix, causing an incorrect four digit year of birth or death or year of entry/enlistment into service.

In other words, the VA's historic data is very messy and is a great example of an actual Y2K issue.

[toomuchtodo]

Tremendous work on this, thanks for the work to unlock these records for the public.

[Suppafly]

I think it's pretty obvious why this material should be available.

>If there isn't a clear motivation, people will assume the worst.

This is just a weird assumption.