How do I use Confirmed with DNA?

Question

On SmithConnections Northeastern DNA Project, we have had matching yDNA tests for several years in our group NE18. There are additional tests in this group, but these are the ones of current interest.

Kit# -------- Immigrant Ancestor ------------------------- Son's name

85xxx-37  Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via Edward

111xxx-37 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via Edward

133xxx-37 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via Joseph

138xxx-67 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI v ia Benjamin

148xxx-37 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via William

148xxx-37 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via Simon

163xxx-37 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via Joseph

269xxx-37 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via Simon

343xxx-37 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via Edward

346xxx-37 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via Joseph

B36xxx-25 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via William

N29xxx-37 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RI  via William

N74xxx-12 Christopher Smith c1591 ENG-1676 RII  via Joseph

These used to be known as the four Smith brothers and RI Chris.  The recent WikiTree collaborative discovery of the Register of Stratford on Avon baptism records of all of these sons verify that they are all sons of Christopher Smith.

So my question is, are these yDNA matches and verifying transcribed records in The Registers of Stratford-on-Avon enough "proof" to mark Christopher Smith as the "Confirmed with DNA" father of these five sons?  I have marked them as "Confident", but I think they are now "Confirmed with DNA".  What do you think?  

Comments

Straight answer based on the help page for this tag: yes, what you've got is suffucient.

What disturbs me about "Confirmed with DNA" (as a phrase) is that it conveys nothing about the fact that original records also have confirmed the relationship. Therefore, despite the help page that clearly indicates 

"Confirmed with DNA" can't be used if the genealogy is incomplete

people are using this tag without citing the documentation support. 

---

Good point, Jillaine.  

I think the line should be reworded to something like, "Confirmed with DNA can't be used without additional sources that support the specific parent-child relationship. (ex. birth or baptism records)."  The instruction should not be misconstrude as addressing other things that might be sourced in a biography, but the documentation of the individual parent-child relationship specifically.  Generally, I prefer a lot of latitude in the WikiTree instructions and policies, but in this case, I think we need to be specific that we need a record that supports the parent-child relationship.

Personnally, I think a genealogy or profile is always incomplete. This new "discovery" is a clear demonstration of that.

Answer 1

The common ancestor, Christopher, is confirmed. Since any of the sons could be inter-changed with one another to produce the same DNA result, none of them can be confirmed.

UNLESS a distinctive marker or combination of markers, SNP or STR, can be attached to one or more of the lines . . . which would require two or more of the descendants of those lines to all have those marker(s) while they are not found in the other lines. In which case you would be able to advance the confirmed tag down a generation.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Comments

If I have a Y-DNA test and my paternal first cousin has a Y-DNA test and we match, then do you believe it would be wrong for me to say my relationship to my father is Confirmed with DNA?  Is reason because the real father could be my father's brother?  If so, it is important to keep in mind we are talking about confirmed rather than proof.

Sincerely, Peter

---

For very close relations such as your example here, I agree that the DNA relationship is confirmed. But wouldn't you agree that the relationships in Kitty's original question are more difficult to say are DNA confirmed?

I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here; if you look at my profile and lineage you'll see I have indicated all of the profiles connected to the Beardsley DNA testers are DNA Confirmed. That said, if anyone came along and questioned the use of the tag I would not disagree with removing them, UNLESS my caveat above was in play.

As others have pointed out, using the term "confirmed" may be almost as problematic as proven. I'll end by asking the same question I posed in another thread, how anal do we want to be with this?

Answer 2

Sounds good to me, what a great result!