Rachel Elizabeth Slaton (Murfield) - Surname Murfield

Rachel Elizabeth Lawson I have removed her (made-up) birthname. I have also read Clinton's remarks about her.

There are a number of data conflicts on Rachel's profile; might someone have a document (or a few) which could be uploaded to the Sources tab to 'cite' which of these data conflicts are correct?

I thought Julia would jump in here. I do not know the whole story about "Murfield" supposedly being made up, but I searched for "Clinton Slaton thoughts about Rachael Muirfield" and got plenty hits. You can do the same, here is one link I thought informative:
http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/slatton/173/

We know that Clinton and Julia have invested a lot of time in the rootsweb family tree "Rough Guide to Ancestors of Arthur & Rachel Slayden of New Kent/Goochland Co, VA". This guide is listed in the rootsweb World Connect Project: sssfp_ar. In the rootsweb site as well as SPOKT there is detailed information regarding the Rachel issue.

I haven't had the chance to review all the data associated with this issue either. Meanwhile, I am continuing to add source data to other areas of the Slaton/Slaten/Slayden etc family tree. I think our collaboration on this site has been working well... we don't always agree, but that's part of the process, i.e., proving to ourselves and each other that the data is correct.

Well said Elida. Clinton is the expert here, even tho the Arthur and Rachel line is my line, he has studied the families in it for over 20 years. All at the same time researching all f his South Carolina. So the Murfield fantasy is about all I know of the other lines besides my direct line.
Dwight, the W. John Slayton and all his made up surnames is such a long and painful story for us, as Clinton did work with John early on and shared information, as did I. But selling books was his main priority and if he had to create a surname without labeling it as a conjecture, then he did so on many occasions.
Then John posted it all on the Mormon database, and these were then burned on their CD collections, which leads to errors in perpetuity, and they continue to be added to "Family Trees" by unaware genealogist who choose not to verify any information.
Clinton's Roots Web postings of data on our researched lines are upgraded at least weekly (except for when he was in the hospital in May and June), so it is a moving target. Any new research by descendants is welcomed and shared on Spokt and Rootsweb and the DNA project,and any new corrections to blatant errors is good for everyone's genealogy future. We would rather our research be corrected by facts than emotions. I would rather have a "Mary unknown" than waste my time on an incorrect surname. At my age I don't have lots of time to waste. So please, do correct our research with documents and facts, its in everyone's best interest. Also, Clinton manages a large DNA database on Slaton, Slayton, Slayden, so consider using Family Tree DNA, or FTDNA company to get on the project. You cannot deny your DNA .
He also includes the STATON lines, as transcription errors were easy on early documents, when a clerk just crossed the L and made it a T, and vice versa.