Friedrich Both, SV/PROG - Theunis Botha - Appel

I agree, Peter.

Can we assign him as (b1) or [b1] with the appropriate notes explaining - a compromise which doesn't then affect the whole tree?

There must be a rule we follow, we can't have negotiated compromises every time an issue arises...
If it is too much work to keep updating numbers they should be abandoned on Geni

I suspect that you are in the minority here Don! I also think that this situation is quite unusual - life is full of compromises!

You may be right June, I would still like to know what the rule is, and why the rule should be abandoned in this case...

Why don't you contact GISA and see if there is a "rule" on this Private User?

I thought you have already done that and we are waiting for their input.. June?

I agree with Don. Having an incorrect number system is going to CAUSE mis-merges, not prevent them. There is no logic to that, unless GENi is being viewed as an offshoot of GISA.

I have conceded to the argument that displaying the last 2 numbers prevents mis-merges, but, if that logic is also being thrown out of the window & could actually now 'cause' mis-merges, then I'm re-thinking my support.

We are not an off shoot of GISA - and there are good reasons not to just perpetuate the apartheid genealogy tree as is.
GENi's strength is in having far more flexibility to make necessary changes faster than print media, and it should.

Unless the DP numbers reflect accurate history on GENi, they should not be forced into the Suffix field of the Display Name, and should be kept in the AKA block in my opinion.

The problem being that those de Villiers numbers established in the publications are the backbone to many people's genealogy

True, June. I think we need to think about it carefully.
But is it a good enough reason to knowingly perpetuate factual inaccuracies for the rest of us on the Geni tree?

How is that any different from the fictitious trees that medieval genealogists maintained to suit the preferences of royalty to stay linked to the right people?
On Geni we are told to remove factually incorrect data immediately; now we’re suggesting we should knowingly add it on the SA part of the world tree?

What are we going to do as we add the Coloured children fathered by the Stam Vaders between their children with their White wives? - not number them in correct birth order either? What will we tell our slowly growing Coloured users about why we’re doing this?

I agree Sharon - there are problems and I have documented inaccuracies (as have others) in the publications and notify GISA when I do it.

This Botha revelation is so far reaching that we do need to think carefully about it - if we want to be accurate on GENi (and this is always my aim) then yes - the re-numbering has to be done. When it is done it will involve locking fields to prevent people from reverting to the present published tables - because they will want to do that when they see the numbers do not tally with their research!

I would like to know what GISA is going to do about this in future publications and will let the list know when I hear from them in response to my query.

In the interim I do think that using the [b1] (where the numbers are used) is a compromise that will work for the time being, because it is not going to be something everyone agrees on overnight. We are not hearing from many people at this stage - hopefully users will start letting us know their thoughts? I will certainly help when the time comes - sticking to the full number in the AKA field and the last 2 generations in the suffix field.

Come on Botha folk - have your say!!!

We will have to deal with other children that emerge as we have always done - documented support to change the numbers. If we are to use the numbers then you are right - they have to accurate.

http://westggsa.blogspot.com/2008/05/a1b4c5d2e8f7-what-does-it-mean...

"In this system ONLY BLOOD RELATIVES ARE GIVEN NUMBERS, and by that I mean blood relatives of the one person whose descendants we are describing."

Very pertinent Donovan. This is the crux of the matter. Thanks for finding it.

Sorry June to make you the brunt of the process of trying to examine all angles in the absence of any other input . The work you've done on our tree deserves a standing ovation, so I'm just thinking through the precedents created by your points, not criticizing at all.

June said =This Botha revelation is so far reaching that we do need to think carefully about it - if we want to be accurate on GENi (and this is always my aim) then yes - the re-numbering has to be done. When it is done it will involve locking fields to prevent people from reverting to the present published tables - because they will want to do that when they see the numbers do not tally with their research!=

Yes, it is far-reaching and involves a lot of work. But it is really just the first test case of what is about to happen regularly on the old apartheid DP genealogy tree, as DNA and descendants of slave women by SVs are factually incorporated into the old lineages.

So, to my mind, our decision is really about whether:
1) we want to put in the work to keep the DP numbering factually correct in the Suffix Field (regardless of whether GISA chooses to maintain inaccuracies) to aid correct merges on GENI, or
2) we want to leave the GISA DP numbering in the AKA field instead so it does not cause mis-merges as the factual information on the GENi tree overtakes that on GISA

That is the crux of the matter Sharon, but I know that if we don't add the correct number and LOCK as in 2) then others will come along and put the old numbers in. It is a big job but can be done.

I think the full number in the AKA field is good, but it is not visible were it matters for merges and so for the majority of users they have to be added in the suffix field. UNLESS the AKA field can be made visible!!! We can only encourage the inclusion of the the full number in the AKA field and the last 2 generations in the suffix field.

The issue with merges is problematic in that we are going to have profiles with our newly derived DVNs being merged with profiles with DVNs derived from SAF/SAG.

The numbers will now be different, so how are they an aid?, and why do they need to be visible?

Agreed June. People PLEASE come and engage with the discussion arguments above about the pros and cons of the best way to implement this.

June - yes, we will definitely find ourselves having to lock the DP numbers at areas of likely mismerges. That is our job as Curators.

I don't know about what happened on the Niemand tree?

And these areas of possible DP mis-merges will keep increasing with DNA data and slave children added to sibling line-ups under the SVs, because the incorrect DP numbers will contradict the layout of the tree. (eg Theunis is now under his biological father, but with an incorrect DP no for that positio; The slave children will be slotted in on treeview according to their actual birthdates by the Geni programme, but their DP numbers will contradict those positions) unless the numbers are re-worked to show the true facts.

For me I can't see a positive solution that doesn't point to changing the DP numbers to reflect the factual history, if they are going to be useful on GENI in the suffix field.
I also can't see how we will justify as Curators locking in data we know to be factually incorrect.

We would only lock data fields with CORRECT numbers - I didn't say lock the numbers as they are - they would need to be locked when revised in order to protect them from being reversed to those publish in SAF.

The baptism records for the early years have been extensively subscribed and we are daily adding the findings to GENi - so the slave children where there is evidence have been/are being added - many of these with no DVN numbers added. When and if DNA proves there were other progeny then they will be added and where necessary numbers adjusted.

Niemand - there is reference to the revisions on the profiles and also in the Irregularities project. The same for Eksteen, Oelofse and loads more.

=We would only lock data fields with CORRECT numbers - I didn't say lock the numbers as they are - they would need to be locked when revised in order to protect them from being reversed to those publish in SAF.=
Agree completely

=so the slave children where there is evidence have been/are being added - many of these with no DVN numbers added=
Why aren't we adding DVN numbers to them?

For the DVNs to be "genealogically correct" I would think yes it would be obligatory to give slave children who have a settler father a DVN, otherwise we perpetuate what Sharon calls the "sanitised apartheid tree"

Sharon, 6th cousin, Apartheid is history and to follow the modern trend to blame that for a numbering system that does not work is just drawing our attention from the real issue and that is to work out a system that will work for every case. Every body that live and who`s name is put on geni has a right to a number to be identified by.
I am proud of my Slave, khoisan and what ever nation Grandmothers. Just see what proud and brave nation they have brought to life. They and their legitimate and illegitimate offspring deserves a number. The problem is to make that possible with out letting the existing system fall to
pieces.
One of my Norwegian 27th cousins asked me what the numbers next to my name meant. After explaining his comment was Oh a primitive numbering system. May be the system is to primitive for modern times.

The problem with the numbering system is that it is/was only true for the document/book it was published in or in our case it is only as true as current knowledge allows. It is a historic reference and can possibly be better used in the about section of the profile with each change documented.

Daan Botes came up with this bit of information which is indicative of how adopted children are handled using DVNs

Adopted children are numbered exactly the same way as if they are biological children, except that the number is placed in brackets.

In this case where Faculyn was adopted by Gous.

b 1 c 7 Andries Stephanus (GOUS)≈ 12.6.1740 x 2.2.1767 Maria Hendrina MULDER (pleegouers v.Andries Stephanus Faculyn, later Gous)

(d1) Andries Carel Eduard Alexander Faculyn * Neuf-Brisach, Elsas, Frankryk 23.3.1782, vertrek saam met sy ouers na Kaap, maar hy kom as weeskind aan, omdat albei sy ouers tydens die reis ter see sterf. Na sy stiefouers se afterwe word hy eienaar v"Kleyne Fontein", dist Clanwilliam, maar woon later "Klaarfontein", Koeberg † c. 1839 # "Langerug", dist Philadelphia x Swartland 13.7.1800 Alida Jacoba MOSTERT †
"Langerug", Swartland 16.5.1848 (66.8.25)
(e1) Andries Stephanus ≈ 14.12.1800, jonk †
(e2)

As Theunis was considered to be the son of the SV is this not a way of dealing with this? Essentially he was "adopted" because his true parentage was not known.

Which contradicts: "In this system ONLY BLOOD RELATIVES ARE GIVEN NUMBERS, and by that I mean blood relatives of the one person whose descendants we are describing."

Okay, useful. In this case that would mean removing Theunis from his biological father on the tree though. That is a definite possibility but it is also a decision that is far reaching , and means our tree is not going to be useful for DNA analysis in the future.
I wouldn't support that myself, but will go with the majority thought on that one.
It's actually an important decision to make so it's very good to think through.

Cross posted. True Don. We need to get Daan here to tell us what he knows about that. Is he still out in the middle of nowhere or back home?

Thanks Dries and Peter for joining the discussion so usefully. What a relief to not just be talking to ourselves. :-)

I think we could leave him as the son of Appel but with the bracketed b1 and explanation as is.

On Dries and Peter' s points: I would support putting outdated DVNs in the About or the aka with records of changes. We could put and lock the corrected last two numbers in the suffix field if people were committed to maintaining them correctly. That way, changes on the b generation sibling numbers will not cause us to have to re-number the whole descent line everytime we discover another slave child.

June, I will go with that if that is what the majority want. But would then prefer the number to be kept out of his Geni suffix field because it is confusing not useful on tree view where you are unable to see the notes. Given that his Appel no should be b2c1.

It doesn't solve the problem of the fact that the Botha sibling b line DVN numbers in the suffix are now going to invite continuous additions of a duplicate Theunis to fix them , as happened already yesterday.

There is the side issue of deciding on what rule we are creating by applying in Theunis' case an assumed adoption by Botha not by Jan Cornelisz whose name is on Theunis' birth certificate. But this is small, I think.