Not only are these discrepancies challenging to resolve, but they may cause a family rift when identified or exposed. Sometimes what is presumed to be 'fact' travels down parallel paths of different family lines and, over time, gathers completely different details. There may be a single kernel of truth or fact there. However, when two family members from different lines come together to compare notes, both believing their account to be 'the' right one, the confrontation can be cataclysmic. This is especially true if family tradition holds the individual or the event described in the story to be illustrious, famous, pious, or imminently noteworthy in some other way. Whole generations may have been raised to venerate the memory of "our illustrious forebear." An intimation that the family idol may have be other than he or she was portrayed may cause tension, to say the least, and outright family revolution at its worst.

So what can you, as a genealogist or family historian, do?

A Thoughtful Research Approach
Whenever you encounter conflicting information, it is essential to look for the truth. My Grandmother Morgan's age was a matter of conjecture for some years, until she turned ninety and admitted her real date of birth and her age. (Apparently she suddenly became proud of having lived that long and survived two husbands and all of her friends.) As I began researching the facts of her date of birth, the conflicting information in the three censuses came to light.

It is essential that you understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are those records created at or near the time of the event. Secondary sources are those records and other materials created some significant period of time after the original event occurred. Primary sources, because of their chronological proximity to the event, are more likely to be correct.

Be open-minded when you encounter conflicting data. Don't automatically assume that one fact is correct and another is erroneous. Maintain a healthy perspective and remain open to the possibility that what you once thought was correct may really be incorrect.
ca. 1876 - ca. 1886 H. A. lived in Cook County, Illinois, but not in his current precinct.

Start your research by reviewing what you already have in evidence. Look at the documents you have, and the sources of all the information. That includes both written and oral data and accounts. Try to determine the source of each piece of evidence. (Was it published somewhere? Was it a family story and, if so, passed from which person to which other person? Are there any official documents, family documents, or both that you can personally review? Is there any reason for someone to have falsified a piece of information? If so, can you determine what motivation(s) he or she may have had?) All of these questions should be evaluated as you try to weigh the evidence.

Consider that primary sources are probably more accurate and stronger than secondary sources. If you cannot locate a primary source, look for multiple secondary sources. Do two secondary sources equal a primary source? Some researchers think so, but there can be strong arguments against that. In fact, there is sometimes a major fallacy in that approach. Occasionally, when a fact is transcribed or abstracted, an error is made. A date is transposed, a spelling error is made, or the transcriber makes an assumption and inserts his/her own opinion, as in 'correcting an obvious spelling error.' And as if that incorrect assumption/error isn't enough, another researcher will accept the erroneous data as fact without personally reviewing and verifying it. This new researcher may publish or pass along the information, promoting it as fact himself/herself, thus perpetuating the error. I have seen many, many examples of these errors, and you too, no doubt, have come across inconsistencies you know that you can conclusively disprove with other documentation.

Now, what happens when you come up with multiple primary and/or secondary sources, all of which conflict? In those cases, document all of them! If there is one or more that you believe is/are the best, document and notate each one to indicate why you feel one is better than another, based on your research and/or personal knowledge. And keep looking for more evidence to prove or disprove what you have found to date. Don't give up until you are satisfied you have the facts right.

Documenting the Truth
Regardless of the circumstances, you will always want to document the correct (or most correct) information. If you and your relatives are in disagreement about the veracity of a story or fact, do your best to obtain factual primary source evidence and document your findings. Tact and diplomacy are always the best tools for disclosing your findings. I once approached an argumentative cousin whose version of a family tradition and mine varied. I decided to search for the truth, no matter which way it turned out. Ultimately, my version was more correct that hers, and so I prepared copies of everything I'd found. I made contact by mail, sending a complete set of the materials, and included a cover letter. In it, I said something to the effect of, "We've both been given variations of the story of our Great-uncle Scott's situation. The enclosed documents were obtained from . . ." I then went on to state what I felt to be the correct hypothesis, and asked for my cousin's input. Presented with the evidence I had collected, she agreed that I had really uncovered the facts. We now both tell the same story.

At other times, however, your discovery of the truth may be hurtful or embarrassing to someone living or to their descendants. You must always record the truth for your files. However, you should be sensitive to others and perhaps refrain from making the truth public until such time as the facts are no longer hurtful. Be kind.

Summing Up
When considering conflicting family stories, family traditions, and any type of contradictory evidence, maintain an open mind and then seek to locate all the available information to help elucidate the truth. Then, perhaps, you can clear up those "he said - she said" situations to bring the real story to light.

Citation Corner
Thank you for the overwhelming volume of e-mail telling me how much you all like the Citation Corner. This week, since we're talking about family stories, let's look at the components of a citation for an interview with a family member. Remember, you want to record the WHO (the person), WHAT (an interview), WHEN and WHERE (the date and place where the interview was conducted), and WHO and WHERE (the name and address of the person or repository holding the transcription). My interview with my aunt would be cited as follows:

Weatherly, Carolyn Penelope, interview. 23 December 1999, at Deerfields, 1617 Andersonville Road, Asheville, NC 28803. Transcript in November 2001 in possession of interviewer, George G. Morgan: 123 Main Street, Anytown, FL 33445-5667.

For a married woman, you might list her name in the citation as follows, with her maiden name enclosed in parentheses:

Morgan, Sara Edith (Weatherly), interview.

Keep citing your sources and, until next week,

Happy Hunting!
George