DVN - Time to remove

b1c3d4e7

Johannes Michiel Daniel Otto

not d4e6 ?

rather remove than add incorrect information

The children of DR Yzelle had every wrong DVN number conceivable -- so I removed them

His number according to DVN numbering incorrect so rather not have wrong information just continuing .

All the profiles on GENI born before 1850 without any sources for any information on profile yet DVN numbers everywhere.
How can that be .

I do not see any use for them on Geni as it serves no purpose as it depends who you as an individual consider the "first" in your tree. Geni any way tells you how someone is related to you.

The deVilliers / Pama numbering system only makes sense in the context of a particular tree. The system is not flexible or generally applicable, being focused on the male line name . So there can be a debate about whether to use it all.

But a more particular problem is how it is implemented on Geni. The Profile you cite uses a DVN field, but the profile of his father has no DVN field but simply borrows a suffix field. How do you even create a DVN field? I personally find them an annoying distraction - I have a Badenhorst line to deal with.

Why add an obviously incorrect DVN number ; just because ?
At least try to match birth order of profile if you add a DVN and at least have birth or baptism sources for all siblings and half siblings to confirm birth order.

A DVN of 1 for a 3rd born child is just a waste of time and wilful obstinacy : follows no reason.

Information from Transcribed sources like SAG or familysearch or Stamouers or Published Family Trees or even FFY have to be confirmed by a primary source / reference or it has no value .

Just saw 24 profiles on FamilySearch with incorrect information originating from Geni added to their profiles there with NO sources at all. DVN even added for 2 siblings and other 5 siblings not even added as children making a mockery of the wrong DVN numbers. 🙄

With my limited experience it seems better to ignore, or remove.

Agree 100 % Adri

Thx June - then we should rather add incorrect DVN somwhere where it does not appear as an actual fact on a profile.
Useful can become a problem as some then use DVN as proof of birth order or justify removing other siblings or just their information to comply with incorrect DVN numbers.
Or even add possible incorrect siblings from incorrect DVN prominently displayed on a profile.
Maybe belong in overview .

b11c7d3e9f2 -- What do you think ; show by example ?
Number 3 or Number7 in 007 Spectre meetings ?
Number 5 reporting on Arms deals in Africa . All in this dark hall ----- Who is head of Spectre , number b11c7d3e9f2 ?

1984 we all just another number or another brick in the wall ? A statistic .

Soon our Y-DNA numbers also added to GENI profiles R1b1a1ab2b1a2b3 ?

Your Y-DNA signature does not belong in your name or suffix, but somewhere in your profile notes.
You have Dutch/Friesland male roots confirmed by genotyping.
Even give your GedMatch ID - that is much more useful for tracking down living relatives.

Dennis - Do our University qualifications belong in our names I may ask.
Not enough space for my husband's degrees definitely
My R-U106 not Dutch /friesland as with further 108 possible snp 's tested ; all negative to those snp's that would have placed me in that group . Still listed as proto -germanic.
Would you call the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha as Dutch/Friesland roots as they are also R-U106 🤔

None of the nearly 3000 males part of reasearch in Dutch y-dna come close to my R-U106. About 4000 years separate us.
Most likely recent origins for me according to DNA experts.
1. Hungary
2. Bavaria.
3. Norway
4.Northern Spain
As I have matches with individuals from these areas before 1000 ade

My atDNA also no Dutch/Friesan roots
29 % Iberian ,29% Scandinavian ,24 % Central Euripean
Further dispelling that theory

Gedmatch causes so much chaos on Geni I would never add that. My experience Gedmatch more often completely wrong hardly ever right.
My atDNA results have also made me doubt the origin of my so many " Dutch " ancestors here on GENI
Example Olivier most likely D'Oliviera from Iberia to Holland to SA .
Y-dna result a very definite thing not created or chosen , its not something one can just change as one would like.
The most correct information I would say of all information on my profile.

Y-DNA signature very specific and very distinguishing more than a qualification here on GENI
It shows I am not related to Weyers / Weyer with I1 , G1 and R-M269 > R-U106 ( from Holland ) Y-DNA. Separation from Dutch Weyer with R-U106 more than 3000 years before surnames existed.
It also shows possible links to other individuals that might even change my Surname. Currently Bennett ,Benedict or Grainger my most likely Surname according to my Y-dna.
Grainger even 2nd cousins with atDNA as well.

Y-DNA and atDNA results show and proove a genetic relationship ; this is GENI after all.
Definitely belong on Geni more than some other information displayed on Geni that has no genealogical value or those created like DVN that is too often incorrect accirding to bueth dates of individuals.

Wonderful and helpful discussion here on GENI regarding origin of mtdna N1a .According to Wikipedia Arabian.
Similar to all R-U106 being Dutch/Friesan claim
Proper investigation revealed Wikipedia outdated.
Mtdna N1A also in Europe in modern-day Belgium , Alsace ,North -Western France ,Finland and Germany. More than 3000 years. From more proper recent research.
So first assumptions as Arabian was wrong it also helped prove likely origin of two of my ancestors in Belgium / French border area formerly called Pas de Calais

The mtdna result of N1a even show a possible genetic connection between the two ancestors. Very helpful indeed.
However further testing might still prove Arabian origin for one or both if them. Or even a different origin in Europe or even the Levant .
Why N1a1a2a3a1 might be a much more useful result.

Dutch / Frisian ? not likely .

R-U106>R-L48>R-Z9>R-331 Spain Suebi Galicia

Hello everybody,
this is my first post. I am a newbie respect Y-DNA.
These are my Y-DNA results: R-U106>R-L48>R-Z9>R-331
All my known patrilineal ancestors are from Spain.

My surname is Maldonado. The origin of this surname is quite interesting, since in some old genealogical books from XVII century, it is referred to originate from another surname: Aldana, that, probably in legendary way, is related to the Suebi Kings who established a kingdom in Galicia and Northern Portugal in the V-VI centuries.
I was wondering if these results can support this hypothetical origin, or if there is a more probable explanation.
Thanks.

That's interesting and quite possibly from them too since it's found in South Germany. My haplogroup is more Celtic then Germanic. Your living dna results would be very interesting. Are you from north west Spain aswell??

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-34915.html
_____________

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/u106/about/background

The term SNP (pronounced "snip") means a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, or change at a single position on the Y Chromosome DNA strand from the usual result found in other Haplogroups. Y-DNA SNPs are very reliable, and are used by population geneticists to arrange the human family tree via the direct paternal (patrilineal) line of descent (Y Chromosome descent). Whereas STR markers (37, 67, 111, 500, 700) are merely “suggestive” of the line of descent.

SNPs form a line of descent out of Africa, into the Near East, and further around the world. Haplogroup R descends from a line that made its way from the Near East to the Far East, then back west towards Europe.

R1b-U106 is a patrilineal descended family that appears to descend from an ancestral R1b group located among or near the Yamnaya culture, north of the Black Sea. The group rose to significance in the area of present Germany and the surrounding areas probably a bit before 3000 BC. Although U106 is found all over Europe, and in countries that Europeans have migrated to, it is most significant in Germany and surrounding countries, Scandinavia, and Britain. In its time-frame of 3000 BC, U106 likely arose in the Corded Ware culture. Depending on which branch of U106 a member descends from, the people on that branch adapted to a variety of different cultures along the way, including various derivatives of Slavic, Latin, Celtic, Belgae, Saxon, Viking, and other cultural groups. U106 is a family, not a culture.

Some families of the historic nobility have paperwork ancestry that reaches back farther into The Genealogical Gap of the Dark Ages. This enables us to compare the paperwork to the DNA as follows: both the Bourbon family of the Spanish and the former French Royal families, and the Wettin family of Saxe-Coburg from which the British and the Belgian Royal families, and the former Portuguese and Bulgarian Royal families descend, are confirmed to descend from the same Branch of R1b-U106, being DF98. See also http://www.the-kings-son.com/royal_wettin_haplogroup

Meanwhile, the co-discoverer of DNA, Dr. James Watson, and along with him, the other scientist who together were the first to have their DNA mapped, Dr. Craig Venter, both belong to the R1b-U106 haplogroup. We accept the publicity benefit these folks bring to R1b-U106.

Digressing -- back to DVN.
Never seen a primary source with a DVN number on it.
No baptism ,birth ,marriage or Death documents ever a DVN number so using a DVN to distinguish similar named ind only works when the DVN from their parents are added .
But then you can distinguish the individuals from their parents anyway you do not need the DVN if you have the sources. Same sources used to create and attach the created DVN.
Same with siblings different DVN can only be created for siblings if you have their births so then you do not need the DVN anyway to place them in order of birth.
A completely useless attachment that information or sources neccessary to create it allready provide anyway.
A round circle
DVN like a crocheted Toilet roll cover -- why cover a toilet roll ?

Thinking why would I add DVN if I find if I find them unnecessary and a pain in the neck ?
Why add an incorrect DVN that does not reflect order of birth on a profile in big DVN letters attached; it just creates confusion .

June -- None of us will discover a Karel Fourie DVN b1c3d4e7 attached to his hip.
O he must be the son of Fourie b1c3d4 !
No one has a DVN tattoo on them
DVN created from sources or just nonsense completely and should one have proven dates of birth and all siblings confirmed back to SV/Prog anyway to even start with adding DVN . THEN you do not need any DVN to help you place any individuals with same or similar names as you have their baptisms ,births or DN"s that does it anyway.

SAG/SAF published trees too often not all siblings ,incorrect d.o.b , incorrect dates of deaths ., wong wives and children .
Often a legacy of Apartheid as well.
To perpetuate those incorrect details here is not really what all of us are working towards.
We are all trying to get correct sourced information or I should hope that is what we are doing here.
e.g. Carol Mattheus in SAG nearly every detail incorrect.