World Families Forums - When comparing y-DNA results, beware of provided ancestral lines

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 31, 2014, 05:25:01 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  When comparing y-DNA results, beware of provided ancestral lines
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: When comparing y-DNA results, beware of provided ancestral lines  (Read 702 times)
coolbreeze
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« on: March 25, 2011, 03:04:38 AM »

This is just a "cautionary word" to everyone out there, that I've seen evidence of many y-DNA test participants unwittingly provide “error-laden” ancestral line information to the project, which in turn, "throws off" many unsuspecting, yet actually-related, members of the public. Indeed, the farther back a test participant goes with his ancestral line, the higher the possibility that he will lead others astray, unwittingly, with his “line of conjecture”, rather than “fact”. Speaking of facts, over the last several years, I've seen this issue of errant ancestral trees being submitted by test participants as being a "growing" problem, and in turn, effectively derailing or confounding several of those ho visit y-DNA websites quite often, in hopes for any leads associated with a given surname in their family.

For example, although there has YET TO BE solid proof of John Bowen (bc 1740s/50s; d 1826, present-day Craig Co./then-Botetourt Co., VA), being the son of a Henry Bowen - OR even tied in with the Moses Bowen line, for that matter, we STILL see this “conjecture” posted all over the net, and sadly enough, on this y-DNA project web site as well. And so “why” is this “conjecture” included on a y-DNA website – where accuracy, if anywhere, is paramount? Aren’t people aware of the issues that errant and misleading data can cause, and realize “this” of all web forums, is “not” the place for conjecture, but rather “accuracy” (only)? As an example:
 
1.   The John Bowen I’m referring to (i.e., the father of Mary, and father-in-law John Lafon,) "didn't even have" a son named "Henry" – which, if “his” father had been named “Henry”, would have completely defied the heavily-adhered-to early American frontier tradition of naming one’s eldest son (or at least one of them) after one’s own father. Again, this is a tradition that we’ve all seen adhered-to most all pioneer families during the early years of this country. Instead, the John Bowen I’m speaking of had three sons – namely William, James and Hugh(a). No “Henry”.
 
2.   Secondly, "the John Bowen" I'm speaking of has long been exhaustively researched and proven NOT to have been the JOHN Bowen (II or III), from the Moses Bowen line - i.e., a brother of Reece Bowen, etc., as many an inattentive researcher continues to purport him to be. So unless one Bowen family had "two" sons named "John", then I guess you're "barking up the wrong tree", as they say.

3.   Thirdly, for most of his adult life, "this" John even lived at somewhat of a great distance away from those in Moses Bowen’s line of descendancy, in that “this John” resided for most of his adult life along  the Craigs Creek area, of present-day Craig Co., VA - which was part of Botetourt Co., VA until 1851.

4.   Fourthly, and for the moment, he seems to have only had family ties with those living in and around the Craigs Creek (Botetourt/Craig Co.) or Giles Co. area, and not with any Bowens in Rockingham, Augusta, Rockbridge, Tazewell or Russell Counties, VA. In fact, his son-in-law, John Lafon, was purportedly born in western NC c 1775 (possibly Guildford Co.), and apparently migrated up to the present-day area of Clover Hollow in Giles Co., by at least c 1797, at which time he married John's daughter. Further, records show that in 1811, "this" John even sold John Lafon him and his wife (John's daughter) some land he had preciously owned in the Clover Hollow area f Giles Co., although I've seen this deed either mis-recorded, or mis-transcribed as a "John Brown".   

5.   Fifthly, I’ve even seen that some have tried to tie him into a German line (e.g., "Bohn/Bohne/Bone” lines), a Bourne line, was tied in with Daniels Boone’s line or possibly even had NC roots. But all of that is merely conjecture, no matter how enticing. And that’s the problem: it’s “speculative” information, which is detrimental to, and has no valid place on, a y-DNA project website

So what’s the point? Well, that the accuracy of data “input”, as well as “output” on this type of website should be paramount. That accuracy, professionalism and certitude are a few of the most critical and salient aspects of this y-DNA service, yet we still see rampant examples of “speculative”, in nearly every project results table. Consequently, the errant info provided can be grossly misleading to those who follow the results on y-DNA website, and result in an actual, distant cousin (who sees their ancestor in your provided line) tied in with an INCORRECT earlier ancestor, and thus “mis-directed from the very “truth” this project is here to provide for serious family historians. Indeed, “this” project results table is CLEARLY not the place for one to preen and/or propagate 300 years worth of genealogical data – without realizing (or caring that) that the earliest few generations submitted are likely errant, in some way, and essentially based on nothing more than “conjecture”, rather than a stream of supporting historical documents.

Now this commentary is not meant to be an undue, or mean-spirited jab of any particular submitter’s information, but rather it’s merely to suggest that EVERY y-DNA project administrator, henceforth, should provide a clear and legible note/caveat/suggestion, on their respective web pages, which would instruct ALL participants to ONLY submit data that has been thoroughly researched and confirmed, personally. This project should, instead, remain “facts-based and oriented”, no matter how much that may crimp the style of, or limit the time to the most-distant ancestor for a prospective participant. So, if your data’s in doubt, just don’t provide it. It’s that simple. Better “no” data, than “bad” or “errant” data –at least in this case.  In fact, I’ve already noted how a reckless “copy-and-paste” special, has already needlessly and negatively impacted two other y-DNA projects I’ve been “keeping tabs on”.  That we need to “prevent” (or at least severely restrict) the propagation of  “tainted” (i.e., conjecture-based data) from ever entering any y-DNA results table, as again, the consequences can effectively lead many in the public astray from their “actual” immigrant ancestor, and instead, with their errant one you might have provided. “YES”, the y-DNA testing results should eventually “wash out”, or “rise to the surface” in the end, but in the interim it can, again, induce many an unsuspecting researcher to either give-up on, or redirect the direction of their genealogical investigation in an incorrect direction. Seriously, no one needs the needless, intermediary “wild goose” chase that speculative data can send someone on, as some of those poor researchers may not happen to visit this site again for months – and who knows how far off the beaten path they could get by then? Indeed, this type of carelessness really does provide a dis-service to everyone out there – including the “reckless” submitter themselves, shall we say. 

So please don’t allow yourself to come across as one of those “sloppy, dime-a-dozen, copy-and-paste, weekend-warrior", pseudo-genealogist” types that we’ve all seen on the internet, from time to time, and resist the urge to preen by throwing out "300 years worth" of unsubstantiated lines of connection out there for all to see, and potentially "get stung by".  . Instead, and instead, let’s all show some sense of restraint and judiciousness – at least with respect to “this” website.

Logged
bhobbies1
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2011, 02:31:00 PM »


I have been trying to find out my first generation William Bowen I (1620/1630-1660)  parents.
He was suppose to have been born in Northampton, VA and he died there in 1660.
He had three children: Mary, William and David.  Married Ann Smith in or abt. 1655.
After his death in 1660 Ann remarried a Lt. Henry Bishop and relocated to Snow Hill, Maryland.  I have my direct line from William Bowen I to present. But, I have not been able to confirm his parents just eliminate who wasn't.
I would appreciate any help on this. Been researching for over 10 years off and on.
Thanks again,

William Bowen & Ann Smith  VA
William Bowen & Mary Hammond VA

John Sr. Bowen & Elizabeth Merrill (his second wife was Comfort Truitt) MD
Brother: William Bowen & Rhoda Fassitt

Jethro Bowen & Atlanta White MD
Brother: John Bowen and Sarah Fooks

Jeptha Bowen & Catherine Truitt MD
Brother: Nathaniel Bowen and NancyBowen (Baskettown near Newark, MD)

Lemuel Bowen & Rhoda Cropper MD
Brother: Richard E. Bowen and Mary Furkis (second wife) (Baskettown near Newark, MD)

Kendell Truitt Bowen & Kristine Parker (Catherine) MD
 
William S. Bowen & Elenore Moore

James Kendell Truitt Bowen & Ida May Thompson she remarried and moved to California after he passed in 1911.

John Herschel Bowen & Nancy Pearl Clemons Dad was born in Missouri and has one sister Jennie Bowen/John Yochum



Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.101 seconds with 17 queries.