Contradictions and discrepancies

From FamilySearch Wiki
Revision as of 06:57, 15 November 2008 by DiltsGD (talk | contribs) (add problems)

Jump to: navigation, search

Contradictory evidence and discrepancies are normal in genealogical research. A novice researcher tends to ignore discrepancies. Experienced researchers tend to embrace them.

The best way to analyze information is by thoroughly researching and comparing ALL sources against each other. Understanding how to interpret the sources cannot happen until a researcher has detected and analyzed the differences and similarities between sources.

Any contradictory evidence must be resolved[1]

The best researchers always openly acknowledge, analyze, and attempt to explain discrepancies. It shows the thoroughness of their research, their openness with all  the evidence, and their analytical and reasoning skills. Knowing and admitting the weaknesses of a case leads to better analysis and conclusions. It strengthens the genealogical community by setting an example of honesty, and pointing the way to better interpretation of the evidence.

If a researcher hesitates to use sources with contradictions or discrepancies he may overlook important evidence. If he hesitates to mention discrepancies it makes his case look weaker. Other researchers may come to believe evidence was overlooked, or that such research is unreliable.

Weigh these factors

As you analyze a contradiction or discrepancy, weigh the following factors from the Wiki article Evaluate the Evidence to help determine which sources are most trustworthy, and to help explain possible causes of the problem:

Explain the problem and its resolution

In some cases the discrepancy may be so minor it need only be mentioned. Minor spelling variations of a name usually only need to be acknowledged in the source notes.

Any past controversies researchers have had over the evidence should be acknowledged and the resolution of the problem explained.

When genealogical research is significantly affected by conflicting evidence, or which lineage to follow hangs in the balance, a formal statement is in order. State the problem—explain how the evidence seems contradictory. Explain which version you believe is most reliable and why. Give one or more reasons why you believe the less reliable evidence was created.

Types of contradictions or discrepancies

These are some of the contradictions and discrepancies a genealogist typically faces:


Names and words are sometimes spelled several different ways in genealogical documents. If you cannot find your ancestor’s name spelled several different ways, you probably have not yet learned how to search correctly.


People and places sometimes have more than one name. People may go by their formal full name, by an alias, by married or maiden name, by middle name, by initials, or by abbreviated names. Different languages and different cultures affect the way names appear in records.


Calendar systems vary from place to place and from time to time. Be sure you understand the calendar your ancestor used, especially when the calendar changed at the beginning of the year, or during the switch from Julian to Gregorian calendar. Usually, a date which were recorded near the time of an event is more reliable than a date recorded years later from memory.


Boundaries and place names sometimes change. As a result of boundary changes a family living in the same house over a lifetime may have to visit three or four county seats to conduct their business. The same town may sometimes go by an Indian or a different European name. Researchers often give modern names for places that went by a different name at the time of the event—for example, pre-Civil War West Virginia.


Sometimes relationship terms are used in ways that are unexpected. Proximity implies a relationship, but can also be misleading. In the American colonies parents often sent their eight- or nine-year-old children to a friend’s household to raise to avoid spoiling them, or to give them a trade or education.


Always question the independence of sources. Did one source depend on the other for information, or did it come by that information without reference to the other? Was there a motive for the information provider, recorder, record keeper, or a genealogist to ‘fudge’?


  1. The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual (Orem, Utah: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 1-2, and Thomas W. Jones, "Proved?: Five Ways to Prove Who Your Ancestor Was" (printed handout for a lecture presented to library staff, 23 October 2003, Family History Library, Salt Lake City), 1.