A moderator says that my mothers relationship to me is not confirmed with DNA [closed]

Question

I have posted my FTDNA mtDNA kit number.  I then checked my mother as confirmed by DNA, however a moderator says that I need another person to test this DNA to confirm my own mother.

And a cousin tested his DNA, but he is a busy lawyer with no time or interested in creating a wiki profile, but he has made his YDNA and auDNA available to me.  His father is confrimed by DNA, and the kit number is mentioned in his fathers profile. However this same moderator is telling me that his father can't be confirmed by DNA unless he has another person to test.  Impossible as he is the only son.

What is going on?

Comments

Have you had your mother tested on FTDNA? Cause if you haven't then it is conjecture that your mother is confirmed by DNA; the confirmation that you are attempting to assert relies on your assumption that you are genetically descendant from the person you believe to be your mother.

FTDNA might mean that to confirm your own mother that you need her direct test to compare to your direct test. That would be a strong confirmation if the test came out as is expected of a typical mother-son genetic relation.

Your genetic test on its own constitutes a weak confirmation by DNA in that we can infer indirectly about your mother's DNA from your DNA, and we might even extend that to inferring about the person assumed to be your mother in genealogy.

That's all without talking about what happens if your mother has genetic chimeraism or other anomalies of human genetics.

---

Oh so you are trying to tell me that my mother, might not be my mother.

That I was adopted our something.

And my mother passed at age 79 in 2000.She was cremated.

How hard people try to defend the indefensible, but that seems to be the climate of the time.

---

I am not saying that it is the case that your mother is not your mother. I am saying that organizationally the position that a corporation would likely take is that your mother could be genetically someone other than who you say she is, and they could even take the position that a relationship can only be said to be confirmed by DNA if and only if both people in the relationship have been tested to their standards and those tests were compared to their standards to demonstrate a direct and probable relationship by DNA evidence; this would be a sensible position for a corporation to take if they are willing to put their work up to the strict scrutiny of a legal court.

A natural consequence of such a position would be that not everyone can confirm their parent's DNA by those standards. Also, sells more product.

P.S. got confused reading the O.P. WikiTree's policies on confirmation by DNA are generally what I described anyway.

---

Is wikitree a corporation the?. Would not surprise me. It takes big bucks to finance such an operation as this. Of course voluneers cut costs, but a dedicated server, with maintenance and upgrade needs, not to mention, the massive data space to store all of the data.

No one is doing this out of the goodness of their heart. Someone is dipping into their pocket. Whois says Whitten-1 is the owner of the site. Doesn't really matter.

A bigger problem is around the corner H.R. 1313 is going to scare a lot of people away from DNA testing, while Wiki policies are simultaneously requiring more DNA testing.

H.R. 1313 will  make GINA obsolete, and people more shy of genetic testing than they already are. I know firsthand how difficult it is trying to persuade people to test, even if you volunteer to pay for it.

It's only going to get worse..

---

Hi William,

WikiTree is funded by ads. See: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/WikiTree_FAQ#Is_WikiTree_non-profit.3F.  And yes, Chris Whitten (Whitten-1) does this mostly out of the goodness of his heart. :)

Enough people have answered your post explaining why "confirmed with DNA" is not appropriate in the case of your mother and why "confident" is.  You may not agree with it but that doesn't change what WikiTree's policies on it are so it would be great if you could change your profiles accordingly.

Thanks!

---

Bottom line is that we need another line on the relationship level of "Confirmed" not with DNA, just confirmed, because confident just does not cut it for parental connections.  I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM, some of my relationships are a lot more than confident they are confirmed, not with DNA but with records and history.

Such as:

mother is non-biological
mother is uncertain
mother is confident
mother is Confirmed

mother is Proven with DNA

---

If you'd like to see a change or addition to current rules here's the procedure: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Developing_New_Rules

Thanks!

---

Definitely. I mean what confident and confirmed with DNA are vague but specific degrees of assertion for hypotheses about family relationships. Technically, sourced vs unsourced and heavily sourced vs under sourced should be included in indicating the degree to which a hypothesis is supported by evidence and data.

Answer 1

You don't need a third person for confirming parents. You do need to include a statement that supports why you used the "confirmed with DNA" status, similar to the ones here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/DNA_Confirmation

Comments

I was not in error, there is a genetic relationship between myself and my mother. There is a genetic relationship between all people and their mothers.

I am not using auDNA to confirm with DNA my mother's relationship to me.

I am more than confident that my mother is my mother and that she and I share the same mtDNA Haplogroup

There is no need for more.

---

Let's put it another way:

You have traditional evidence that supports that your mother is your mother.

You have traditional evidence that supports that your mother's mtdna is the same as your mtdna.

You do not have DNA evidence that confirms your mother's mtdna haplogroup is the same as your mtdna haplogroup.

So the most you can mark the relationship is "confident".

---

Gobbleydegook Greg. Unadulterated gobbleydegook.

 

On the one hand you say that my DNA confirms my mothers DNA, then you say that my statement that she is my mother is untrue.

I wonder how many people who have tested DNA, have tested more than one person, or been in contact with someone who is a maternal relative and has tested mtDNA.

I am fortunate to admin a YDNA surname site and have the genealogies and tests of over 50 men who are genetically related to me, within 4 to 9 generations.

No such luck with mtDNA. Women change surnames with marriage and mtDNA is such a slow mutator that most recent common ancestor was born a thousand or more years ago.

 

And auDNA cannot prove paternity or maternity,

---

The problem with humans is that once they assume the mantle of expert, they don't seem to be able to back down, thus they engage in ever more intellectual contortions to maintain their position or prove that they are correct.

Ironic, isn't it?

---

Ridiculous overreaching absurdity. Given this standard, there is virtually no confirmed by DNA possibility. Oh sure, there are exceptions.

I have my birth certificate. I have my mtDNA haplogroup. Nothing else is needed, my mother is my mother..period and her mtDNA is my mtDNA..period, any other requirement is absurd overreach.

Wiki or it's mods need to haul themselves in a bit, they are becoming puritans.

Why not just elminate the Confrimed by DNA box altogether, per standards I've seen here, very few have the money time and patience to chase down relatives, and possibly pay for their DNA test, just to put check a box, and we are not talking auDNA which is anothersubject.

---

Except I am not claiming to be an expert. But you pose as one.

---

It looks like there are some living people you could test... https://www.wikitree.com/treewidget/Weller-689/890

---

Nope, either I have no idea of how to reach them, or the ones that I can have already demurred, not interested, fearful, whatever, the more I plead, the more they dig in their heels.

---

William,

Fresh eyes here. From what I'm seeing, the instructions for selecting "confirmed with DNA" require another test in addition to yours. Because you don't have that, you can't select that option. Neither can I unless I get my 93-year-old mom to take a DNA test and the results of comparing her results and mine indicate a mother-child relationship. It doesn't mean she's not my mom. It just means that I have not compared her DNA with mine. That's all.

---

And the requirement for a second test (which is not triangulation) is ridiculous.

By requiring a mtDNA test to confirm by DNA the mother is actually an insult, not some kind of process. The actual inference is that one does not know for certain who is one's mother, unless they can get DNA confirmation from a relative.

The whole requirement is overblown and absurd. No skin off my nose though, my motivation was to help others now and into the future.

Now they won't have my information because I've even scrubbed the DNA data from my profile, and regret posting such private information in public, who knows how that info is being used or will be used.

 Perhaps for YDNA where the father is assumed, but not for mtDNA where the mother is known.. an exception is adoption, but how many adult adoptees have no knowledge they are adopted?

Answer 2

Taking a test gets you data about you own DNA to confirm a relationship you compare you data with a relative and check to see if it matches.

There are three tests:

mtDNA should match between mother and child. To use this to confirm your mother you would need either a sample of her DNA tested or a test from someone who would share her maternal line. Everyone inherits it from their mother but only females pass it on.

YDNA is very similar but it is only passed from father to son. Women do not have any Y-DNA. T confirm a relationship requires tests of two men who share a direct paternal ancestor. In most of the world this follows the same pattern as surnames, so I always find these relations easier to trace.

AuDNA is more of a grey area. Unlike the other two where it is a section passed on unchanged, you get half from each parent and it is mixed. When comparing two tests you can find a percentage that matches or a number of matching sections. With this information you can estimate the closeness of cousins. Going back in time with this gets complicated quickly, the half you inherited from your father is not usually exactly half of what he got from his father. At each generation the proportions passed on from the one before have some randomness. Several tests are needed to go back more than a few generations.

Hope that helps.

Comments

Greg: I am the admin of a YDNA project with over 90 members.

I am not asking a DNA question. I am asking a policy question.I have tested YDNA up to Y111 and Big Y, mtDNA and auDNA via FTDNA. I have tested with 23andme as well.

Answer 3

For ages now, I thought that DNA testing wasn't for me, but like a fool I gave in last week, spent all that money and tested, hoping it would provide a sort of 'surname distribution map' for at least the recent generations.  And maybe I could match with third cousins who shared a common ancestor.

Now I see that I need to have at least one other person test just to confirm the link with my parents.  What do I do?  Both my parents are dead, I have no brothers or sisters, all my grandparents are dead, all my maternal uncles and aunts are dead...I should never have bothered to test in the first place. :(

Comments

Ros, my opinion is that this DNA watchdog is overzealous and has confused herself, she is applying the rules for auDNA to mtDNA and YDNA

And frankly I am getting disgusted and tired of this "authoritarianism" . I have been inviting relatives and members of my DNA project to join wikitree, but have am thinking that I made a mistake.

I've brought  a lot of people into wikitreee as contributors, but am getting fed up.

---

Ros, If your auDNA test matches that of a third cousin that could allow you to confirm a shared ancestor. That would also allow you to confirm your relationship to one of your parents (the one on the same side of your family as the third cousin). You don't need a test from a closer relative for the confirmation. You would need to have the third cousin's profile and test information on WikiTree, and the third cousin's line back to your most recent common ancestor (MRCA) included on WikiTree. Then each of you could mark all of your line back to the MRCA 'confirmed with DNA'. See this page: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/DNA_Confirmation_Example

When you get your test results, let me know. I'd be glad to help.

---

Kay: I asked my question because of the private email you sent, telling me that I needed a second test subject to confirm my relationship to my own mother. Then you reply to Ros: "You don't need a test from a closer relative for the confirmation. "

I marked my mother and her mother as DNA confirmed because I have tested my mtDNA, and my haplogroup is J2b1a3, as indicated on my and my mothers personal page, but you sent me email saying that I still needed another DNA test from a relative before I could mark her DNA confirmed.

 

---

OK, I think I've got it.  She said I wouldn't need a test from a closer relative.

Say you, William Farrar, and your third cousin on your mother's side, matched.
Then you would both go back and back and back until you found a common ancestor.
Then you, William, would go forward and forward and forward until you got to your mother, and then to you.

I think.

---

William, I wrote her that she didn't need a test from a closer relative, but she does need to have a test from another relative. I'm assuming that she took an auDNA test and explained that if she matches a third cousin or closer, on her mother's side, it's possible that she could use that auDNA test to confirm her relationship to her mother. You could also do that with an auDNA test.

If you want to use an mtDNA test to confirm your relationship to your mother, you need to find someone who matches your mtDNA who has a maternal line back to a woman on the same maternal line as yours.

---

Yes, Ros. You've got it.

---

This is confusing auDNA with mtDNA or YDNA. We are not talking third cousins or auDNA, but a parent child relationship, and for that all that is needed is YDNA or mtDNA

---

This is nonsense Kay. I don't need to find a relative to test to confirm my mtDNA to my mother.  My mother is my mother, now fathers can be questioned, but not mothers, and I sure ain't adopted.

I think you have confused auDNA claims with mtDNA.

---

I don't think that you got it Ros. Kay has conflated auDNA with mtDNA. The two are not the same.

I am trying to prove a long distance relationship. And I don't need a cousin to prove my mother is my mother. I have a birth certificate that does that (and at age 77 almost 78) they weren't cribbing birth certificates back then to fufill some kind agenda.

And I have my mtDNA, which HAS, I repeat HAS, I repeat HAS to be the same as my mothers mtDNA.

If it were auDNA well that is a different question, her auDNA is out of reach, went up in smoke (literally).

---

William, you seem to be missing a very basic point of Wikitree and the 'confirmed with DNA' button.  To use the 'confirmed with DNA' button for profiles on Wikitree, two people have to have tested.  It's as simple as that.  It can be done via Y-DNA or auDNA for men, or autosomal or mtDNA for women, but it takes two people to be confirmed.  It's as simple as that.

No one is claiming that your mother isn't your mother.  But unless someone else has tested, you don't have DNA confirmation of the relationship.  It has nothing to do with 'cribbing birth certificates' or anytihng else.  Your mother is 'confident' in Wikitree, but not 'confirmed with DNA', because you have no one else that has tested, so you say, up your maternal line to prove it.

Kay isn't mixing up mtDNA and auDNA.  And parent/child relationships absolutely can be confirmed with DNA via autosomal testing.  I've tested both of my parents auDNA, as well as my own.  I share ~ 3,578 cM with each of my parents.  That proves they are in fact my parents.

---

So, the requirements for Confirmed with DNA have changed then. What's next?

And lots of luck getting more people to submit to DNA tests, with the new laws that our freely bought politicians are about to pass.

---

Every one seems to be missing the point.  Since her mother IS CONFIRMED as his mother (not by DNA), but CONFIRMED none the less.  Therefore her mothers mtDNA is also his so what the hell difference does it make.  I have had my run-ins with the DNA police here and they tend to come off like (I know the answer your wrong so fix it)  just not the way to handle it.

Answer 4

No one is doubting who your mother is. But to be proven by DNA, your mtDNA test results has to match against someone else's mtDNA results. Someone related to you via your mother (or her mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc).

The fact that you've taken a DNA test proves nothing. Even the type of test taken still proves nothing. Your DNA results merely says you got half of it from your mother, and half of it from your father. But it doesn't say who your mother was or who your father was. It can't. Regardless of test type.

All test types still have to match against another relative's DNA results. Another relative who shares a common ancestor -- either your parents, or grandparents, etc.

With an Autosomal test, you can't go back very far generationally, because you risk getting random matches. These matches can be traced paternally one generation and maternally the next. And with potential pedigree collapse (ancestral cousins marrying each other), this makes it difficult to know for sure if your matching DNA came from your father or your mother. 

But with YDNA or mtDNA, you can go back much farther in your direct paternal or maternal ancestral lines to match against a cousin, with whom you share a common ancestor along their direct paternal or maternal lines, and still be able to say with certainty that the matching DNA was indeed transferred along those direct maternal or paternal lines. Thus proving the relationship via DNA.

That's the difference in the types of tests.

You still need a relative who shares a common ancestor to match against, in order to prove the relationship by DNA.

Comments

You said: "Your DNA results merely says you got half of it from your mother, and half of it from your father

There you go, confusing auDNA with mtDNA and YDNA..

I got my mtDNA from my mother..period. not from Daddy or anyone else.

And like a lot of people here. I can't find a relative who shares my mothers mtDNA to test. And if I could, lots of luck getting any of them to submit.

I've wasted hours and hours just trying to get people to take a YDNA test, and now with HR 1313 looming, lots of luck getting anyone to test.

 

---

Ok, you are correct. I've misspoken there.

But it still only says you got your mtDNA from the woman who gave birth to you. How do you know that woman was the same woman that you grew to know as your mother? She told you? You have a birth certificate? Indeed, you can be certain that she is your mother, but that still is not "proven by DNA". 

We don't actually know what your mother's mtDNA looks like, because there is no test result for her. We assume it will look like yours, because we are certain that she is your mother, but until we can actually see it, we really just don't know.

So, somewhere in the world, there is a cousin who shares a great-great-great grandmother (or any other maternal ancestor) with you. When you compare their mtDNA results to yours, there are large segments of DNA strands that are exactly the same between the two of you. How is that possible? Its possible because of your shared maternal relationships. Even without a well documented paper trail, this DNA evidence proves, that your shared DNA segments were each inherited along your shared maternal lines -- thus "proving" your relationship to your mother by DNA.

---

This is ridiculous to the point of nausea. Pure proof that once someone espouses a position, and posits as an expert, there is no way they will backtrack.

Of course I have a birth certificate. that issue is settled, but it really doesn't matter. There are very few people , my age, (if any) who were adopted and don't know it. Perhaps in future, with surrogate Moms and the like, there will be issues.

But at age 77, Birth certificate in hand,, My mtDNA has to be my mothers mtDNA ergo she is my mother and our relationship is confirmed by DNA.

And no I don't have any other person who shares my maternal ancestry, that I can contact, nor should I have to contact some relative to "prove" that my mother is my mother.

If it were father, that is a different story. The father hopes, the mother knows. (in most cases), but she is the mother

Answer 5

Hello William,

Please see:

 https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/DNA_Comparison#If_there_are_no_testable_descendants

Two headlines down it says "What to Do When Tests Do Not Match as Expected"  

There are people who believe they belong to the same direct maternal line who have a mistake in their direct maternal line ancestry.  See for example: 

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pinder-57   

there under DNA Connections three people match each other who belong to haplogroup T1b and two people match each other who belong to haplogroup H1.  So one of those groups has a mistake somewhere in their direct maternal line.

If your direct maternal line went back "ten" generations you should NOT say each mother child relationship is confirmed with DNA because you have not yet compared and matched with a distant direct maternal line cousin to confirm that your mtDNA matches.

Sincerely, Peter

Comments

Does not apply Peter. Does not apply.

Different subject, different case, different people.

I have a birth certificate, my DNA, and I was born 77 years ago(78 next month) long before there was any invitro fertilization or surrogacy, and certainly wasn't adopted, as my birth certificate was bound into my "Baby's Book"

---

William, No one is saying that your mother is not your mother. All that we're saying is that you can't use your one DNA (either mtDNA or auDNA) test to confirm that she's your mother ​because 'confirmed with DNA' by definition refers to DNA matches between two or more people. It's fine to mark your relationship to your mother 'confident' and for you to enter any information you wish on either your profile or your mother's explaining why you are confident that she is your mother. But you haven't met the standard required on WikiTree to mark your relationship to her 'confirmed with DNA'.

Answer 6

William correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to be taking offence to the proposition that you may in fact not be your mothers son? That is not what is implied. What is implied is that from an objective stand point, until your relationship has been triangulated, it is not genetically confirmed/verified. This is a fact unrelated to WikiTree policy. Just as, objectively, my daughter is not genetically verified with a DNA test. It sounds ludicrous and utterly ridiculous considering I very much carried her for 9 months and gave birth to her! But childbirth isn't the gold-standard for proving genetic relationships. When she is older she can take a DNA test if she wants to and she will very much see she is my daughter. Until then however she is not genetically verified, simply because it has not been confirmed with a DNA test. Until that day she'll just have to take my word for it ;)

Comments

I am deleting all of my DNA information. I only put in because I thought it would be of help to someone else, somewhere down the line. It really isn't that important to me. I thought it would be helpful to others in the future, or some person that just joined and would be happy to learn that their ancestor was already DNA confrimed.

But with HR 1313 and other concerns militating against DNA testing, Then the question is probably moot.

Tell you what. Triangulation is a highly specialized ability, some lay persons have it in them to do a deep dive into genetic genealogy, but not all of us.

And finding one other person  to test is not triangulation.

Triangulation requires three people, not two.

You should be aware that, a chauvinistic attitude towards genealogy is creating a bar too high for anyone to crawl under.

Frankly I am very very uncomfortable with the attitudes of these moderating volunteers.  

I joined this project in the anticipation of helping others find lost ancestors, and breaking through brick walls. In some instances I think that I have fulfilled that desire.

But truthfully, I have had it with some of this volunteer moderators, overzealous is the mildest I can put it.

So I have gone back to my profile, removed all of my DNA test information, (privacy needs have come to my attention) and have removed all of the confirmed by DNA that I can find, anyone who finds more is welcome to remove them.

I also have to edit quite a few profiles to remove the DNA test information.

I didn't get into this, nor have I ever done family research for badges, or to find some "auspicious" ancestor, that stuff doesn't impress me, nor does bragging rights.

(I believe calling ouselves "genealogists" is a little over the top, when we are hobbyists and family researchers) 

But I am a helper and I like to help people, and that is why I put up over 5,700 profiles and have linked so many to others.

I've done the same via private email. It is what I do, but I don't need to bother my life with this puffery.

 

---

If this site fails it will be due to the attitude of people like Eowyn Langholf, and Kay Wilson.

---

We'd be lucky if more of our WikiTreers contributed as much as Kay :)

---

Eowyn and Kay are far from the problem here. I don't think anyone realizes how many hours each of them puts in here on a daily basis. It is due to their hard work and dedication that things get done, and they both have earned and deserve the respect of their peers on WikiTree.

People have tried countless times here to make the simple point that you can't claim "Confirmed with DNA" when only one person has taken a DNA test. This is an inarguable point. "Matching" can't be done with one thing. You have to have two or more things for matching to happen.

---

How many hours a person puts in is irrelevant. The problem is overzealous fantacism, especially from people who have no life otherwise, And being a moderator is assuming a position of power, and power is addictive. I am getting personal mail as regards some moderators who are perceived to be obnoxious and overbearing.

Very few people can get more than one person to test. And given the current political climate, and the fact that insurance providers seem to have a funding death grip over legislators, the situation is getting worse (H.R. 1313 for instance).In future the number of persons willing to submit to genetic testing will diminish, once word gets out as to what is in the pipeline.

And I personally regret ever haven published my Ysearch ID and Kit numbers.  I have no idea who has access to that information and is using it, In fact I regret having published any personal information what so ever, given that for all appearancs wikitree is being funded by My Heritage and perhaps other sites, perhaps even the Association of Health Insurance Providers (AHIP), for the purpose of scooping up information that they can use, including genetic propensities.

AS regards my "confirmed by DNA" I really don't care if it is there or not, I lose nothing. I only checked those boxes in the anticipation that sometime in the future, this information would be helpful to other family researchers (calling ourselves genealogists is a little overblown don't you think).

But I do like to help people, I find it rewarding.  And for that reason I have posted over 5,700 profiles and connected many profiles to parents and ancestors. That was my ,motivation.

But not motivated anymore. I notice that Kay Wilson went through a lot of the profiles that I haven't been able to get to yet, and changed confirmed to confident. Good for her (sarcasm).

I am naive, despite my age, and took wikitree at face value, never thought of who might be financing it, and it IS being financed, volunteers are free labor, Chris is being paid now, but the major experience is in connectivity, servers, storage and maintenance. That is costly and requires megabucks.. somebody is bankrolling the operation and they have their own agenda.

For instance 23andme, isn't much interested in YDNA as it is junk DNA, doesn't carry any useable genetic data, so their report provides only a major clade (e.g. R-M512) however mtDNA carries useful genetic information as regards physical characteristics and propensity for disease, and there 23andme drills down to sub, sub,sub,subclades, not to mention autDNA.

But when they asked me to answer 645 "Health Questions" that aroused my suspicion, especially since the Association of Health Insurance Providers (AHIP) is paying our legislators (H.R. 1313) to get their hands on this information for underwriting purposes.

My suspicion was confirmed when I started to answer their questionnaire (which I did not answer honestly),  and found myself answering irrelevant questions like where was my father born, or where was I born, (in a city or a farm),  and those are just the examples that immediately come to mind, there were more, many more. All of them irrelevant to MY genetic "health". Questions about smoking, me and my parents, irrelevant to my DNA, but this is information that insurance companies are interested in scooping up for their megadata analysis and underwriting.

---

William - I don't understand why you keep ignoring this point over and over:

"People have tried countless times here to make the simple point that you can't claim "Confirmed with DNA" when only one person has taken a DNA test. This is an inarguable point. "Matching" can't be done with one thing. You have to have two or more things for matching to happen."

This is an incredibly important standard for Wikitree.  If we did not have this standard, people would be free to come on Wikitree and "confirm with DNA" any relationship they choose with just a single test.  This is not accurate, and in many cases, could be incredibly harmful and misleading.  We would have countless examples of people using a single DNA test to confirm relationships that don't actually exist.  This would be a nightmare for people who have adoptions and misattributed parentage in their trees.  

I completely disagree with how you are characterizing this standard as "overzealous fanaticism."  I have more than 20 Ancestry DNA tests - several of which have adoption and misattributed parentage cases in their trees.  Accurate DNA matching is absolutely critical for helping people find their genetic ancestry.  Single test confirmation of DNA relationships is simply not acceptable.

---

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath.....  What everyone seems to be missing here is the difference between confirmation and confirmed with DNA.  Think of "confirmed with DNA" as the scientific proof of the confirmation You know to be correct based on the paper trail.  It is not saying anyone is less related without confirming with DNA.

And just about everyone on here has been right about the fact that you cannot confirm scientifically something with just one test. And we're not talking triangulation here, we're just talking about one other person who shares direct descent with the person in question. For MtDNA, it could be the children or female grandchildren of someone descended from her Mother, or it could be the children or female grandchildren descender from her.  Alternatively, any of the descendants of her Mother could be tested for AuDNA. And while there's always the possibility that there is no one to test that you are aware of, There are ALMOST ALWAYS someone out there who is related that you are not aware of.

The thing to remember is that the WikiTree people are a community and they are not trying to find ways to mess with you.  From what I have seen, they as a group have been very patient in trying to explain things in different ways. I have never had anything but helpful comments from any of the leaders, even when I did not always agree with their answer or how they said something (sometimes can be blunt, but so can I).  You have to remember that everyone here is here because they want to be, not because they are getting paid to be here.

Hope this helps, Ken

---

William,

I need to ask you to step away from this conversation. You are making assertions and assumptions about WikiTree and people who participate here that are not based on fact. It's counterproductive.

I'm sorry that you are having a hard time understanding the policy. It has been explained in multiple ways now.

I am closing this thread, and I would appreciate it if everyone would stop responding.