How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth parent if everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. Just a custom and courtesy. Sam Sloan On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Doug, > > That did not read the way I intended it! > > I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect the > privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant to say as > an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born before 1900 > were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons born after 1900, > than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet trees are occasionally > wrong about living status. I even found one Internet tree indicating I was > dead, something which I disagree with. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via > > "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just the > presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published genealogical > books claim that certain USA families descended from brothers in the 1600, > whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers did not have the same > Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line ancestor in the past > 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it still > would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. > > > > In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their > earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. In > some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. > > > > One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented > pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to > infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were hugely > helpful. > > > > I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born > before about 1900, but there are different views on that." > > ----------------------------- > > > > Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? > > > > Doug McDonald > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

The Census Bureau waits only 70 years. The 1940 census was released in 2010 and includes countless individuals still living. Of course, only persons born by 1940 can be linked with their parents. Loretta -----Original Message----- From: genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genealogy-dna-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sam Sloan via Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 8:17 PM To: AJ Marsh; genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA matching system ideas (was: "Where to yDNA Test") How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth parent if everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. Just a custom and courtesy. Sam Sloan On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Doug, > > That did not read the way I intended it! > > I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect > the privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant > to say as an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born > before 1900 were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons > born after 1900, than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet > trees are occasionally wrong about living status. I even found one > Internet tree indicating I was dead, something which I disagree with. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via > > "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just > > the > presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published > genealogical books claim that certain USA families descended from > brothers in the 1600, whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers > did not have the same Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line > ancestor in the past > 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it > still would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. > > > > In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their > earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. > In some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. > > > > One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented > pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to > infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were > hugely helpful. > > > > I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born > before about 1900, but there are different views on that." > > ----------------------------- > > > > Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? > > > > Doug McDonald > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Although there are a handful of people in the world who live to 115, I suggest a much more useful cutoff would be something like 85. After all you can gather all sorts of data off ancestry on people who lived in the 1940 census through their newer linked records system. -----Original Message----- From: Sam Sloan via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> To: AJ Marsh <ajmarshnz@gmail.com>; genealogy-dna <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 9, 2015 5:18 pm Subject: Re: [DNA] Y-DNA matching system ideas (was: "Where to yDNA Test") How is any person who has been adopted going to find their birth parent if everybody born after 1900 is excluded from the trees? I do not think it is a legal requirement to exclude living persons. Just a custom and courtesy. Sam Sloan On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, AJ Marsh via <genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Doug, > > That did not read the way I intended it! > > I meant the trees should not include persons still living, to protect the > privacy of living persons who may not be the DNA tester. I meant to say as > an arbitrary cutoff, it was reasonably certain persons born before 1900 > were not still living. It is safer to exclude persons born after 1900, > than to exclude "living" persons, as I find internet trees are occasionally > wrong about living status. I even found one Internet tree indicating I was > dead, something which I disagree with. > > John. > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 10/12/2015, at 10:57 am, McDonald@lists3.rootsweb.com wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > On Behalf Of AJ Marsh via > > "You raise a good point about a line of ancestors rather than just the > presumed most distant. In my surname project, early published genealogical > books claim that certain USA families descended from brothers in the 1600, > whereas Y-DNA clearly shows the assumed brothers did not have the same > Y-DNA, ie did not have the same direct male line ancestor in the past > 30,000 years. So giving a line of ancestors is more helpful, as it still > would work even if it wrongly assumes the most distant ancestor. > > > > In my projects some even believe family legends, and claim their > earliest known male line ancestor was someone living 1000 years ago. In > some cases they may be right, in others they may be wrong. > > > > One good thing about the Sorenson database was the well documented > pedigrees. When I found matches in that database I was really able to > infer a possible point or region of connection, the genealogies were hugely > helpful. > > > > I think the default should be no names of ancestors living or born > before about 1900, but there are different views on that." > > ----------------------------- > > > > Huh??? none born BEFORE 1900? Does that not make it useless? > > > > Doug McDonald > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENEALOGY-DNA-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message