1812History.com is committed to correcting factual errors clearly, responsibly, and as soon as they can be verified.
Historical research is an ongoing process. New archival material becomes available, scholarship develops, records are reexamined, and mistakes can occur during research, writing, editing, transcription, or publication.
When reliable evidence shows that information published on 1812History.com is incorrect, we aim to correct it rather than preserve an inaccurate version of the historical record.
Our Approach to Corrections
Accuracy takes priority over preserving previously published wording.
Our corrections process is guided by three principles:
Verify the problem. Correct the information. Make significant corrections transparent.
This reflects broader editorial standards emphasizing accountability for published information. The Society of Professional Journalists recommends acknowledging mistakes and correcting them promptly and prominently, while clearly explaining significant corrections or clarifications.
The U.S. National Archives similarly distinguishes between correcting information and documenting corrections when appropriate, including maintaining records of changes to published information products.
What We Consider an Error
A correction may be necessary when published material contains an objectively incorrect statement.
Examples include:
- incorrect dates
- misspelled historical names that change identification
- incorrect military ranks
- wrong locations
- misidentified battles
- incorrect military units
- incorrect ship names
- incorrect treaty provisions
- inaccurate casualty figures
- incorrect troop-strength figures
- mistaken relationships between historical figures
- incorrectly attributed quotations
- inaccurate descriptions of primary sources
- incorrect archival references
- citations that do not support the associated claim
- misleading image captions
- incorrect map labels
- significant chronological errors
Errors can occur even when an article was originally researched in good faith.
Once a substantive error is verified, the fact that it appeared in an earlier version of an article is not a reason to retain it.
Minor Corrections
Minor errors may normally be corrected without a formal correction notice.
These can include:
- typographical errors
- punctuation
- formatting problems
- broken internal links
- minor grammar improvements
- capitalization
- obvious spelling mistakes
- layout problems
- duplicated words
- minor metadata corrections
- stylistic revisions that do not change meaning
Correcting “18122” to “1812,” for example, would normally not require a permanent correction note when there is no reasonable ambiguity about the intended meaning.
Similar distinctions between substantive and non-substantive corrections are used by institutions such as the National Archives’ Office of the Federal Register, which treats formatting, style, and certain obvious typographical issues differently from errors that change the substance of a document.
Substantive Corrections
A correction is considered substantive when the error could materially affect a reader’s understanding of the subject.
Examples include:
- changing the outcome of a battle
- correcting the identity of a commander
- substantially revising casualty figures
- changing the date of an important event
- correcting a quotation attribution
- reversing an incorrect claim about a historical person
- correcting a treaty interpretation
- replacing an incorrectly identified primary source
- revising a conclusion because stronger evidence contradicts the earlier version
- correcting an article that confused two historical individuals or events
For significant errors, we may add a correction note explaining what was changed.
A correction notice should be concise but informative enough for readers to understand the nature of the error.
Clarifications
Not every revision involves a factual error.
Sometimes information is technically correct but can reasonably be misunderstood.
In those cases, we may issue a clarification.
A clarification may:
- provide additional historical context
- explain ambiguous terminology
- distinguish between competing casualty estimates
- identify differences between contemporary and modern place names
- explain that a claim represents one historical interpretation
- distinguish historical tradition from documented evidence
- make uncertainty clearer
A clarification does not necessarily mean that the original statement was false.
It means the presentation can be improved so readers are less likely to misunderstand the evidence.
Updates Are Not Automatically Corrections
Historical articles frequently improve without containing errors.
An article may be updated because:
- a new source has been digitized
- additional scholarship has been published
- new maps or documents have become accessible
- another historical perspective has been added
- a bibliography has been expanded
- additional context has been included
- internal links have been improved
- images or archival references have been added
These changes may be identified as updates rather than corrections.
An update becomes a correction when newly available evidence demonstrates that something previously published was materially incorrect.
Historical Disagreement Is Not Necessarily an Error
History frequently involves disagreement.
Two reliable sources may provide different casualty estimates.
Eyewitness accounts may describe an event differently.
Historians may disagree over motives, strategy, causation, or consequences.
The existence of another interpretation does not automatically make an article incorrect.
When credible interpretations differ, our preferred response is normally to represent the disagreement fairly and explain the evidence supporting the major interpretations.
We do not alter an article simply because one reader prefers a different interpretation.
A correction becomes appropriate when the available evidence shows that we have misstated the facts, misrepresented a source, omitted material context necessary to understand a claim, or inaccurately described the state of historical scholarship.
New Evidence
Historical conclusions sometimes change because the available evidence changes.
Newly digitized correspondence, military records, pension files, archaeological findings, manuscript discoveries, or improved scholarship may challenge earlier conclusions.
When better evidence becomes available, 1812History.com may revise previously published material.
Where such a revision significantly alters the historical conclusion of an article, we may explain the change even if the earlier version was reasonable based on the evidence available at the time.
Historical research should be capable of changing when the evidence changes.
Corrections to Quotations
Quotations receive particular attention because incorrect quotations can spread rapidly between reference works and websites.
Corrections may be necessary when:
- wording was transcribed incorrectly
- words were omitted in a way that changed meaning
- the quotation was attributed to the wrong person
- the source does not contain the quoted statement
- a modernized quotation was presented as verbatim
- a famous quotation lacks evidence supporting its traditional attribution
Where the authenticity of a quotation remains disputed, we prefer to explain the uncertainty rather than present it as unquestionably authentic.
Corrections to Numbers and Casualty Figures
War of 1812 sources frequently disagree about troop strength and casualties.
A change from one defensible historical estimate to another is not automatically a correction.
However, a correction is appropriate when we:
- copied a figure incorrectly
- confused killed with total casualties
- combined incompatible estimates
- attributed a number to the wrong source
- presented a disputed figure as certain
- discovered stronger evidence demonstrating that the original figure was inaccurate
Where no single number can be established confidently, the article may provide a range or compare competing estimates.
Corrections to Citations
Citations are part of the factual integrity of an article.
We may correct:
- incorrect authors
- incorrect titles
- wrong page numbers
- broken archival references
- incorrect document dates
- mistaken record-group information
- links pointing to the wrong document
- citations that do not support the associated statement
If correcting the citation also requires changing the historical claim, that change may be treated as a substantive correction.
Image and Map Corrections
Corrections may also apply to visual material.
Examples include:
- incorrectly identified people
- incorrect battle locations
- misleading captions
- wrong dates
- incorrect map labels
- mistaken attribution of an artist or cartographer
- incorrect repository information
- incorrect copyright or rights information
A historical painting created decades after an event may also require clarification if its caption could cause readers to mistake it for a contemporary depiction.
How Readers Can Report an Error
Readers are encouraged to report possible errors.
A useful correction request should include, whenever possible:
- the URL of the article
- the section containing the suspected error
- the statement believed to be incorrect
- the proposed correction
- supporting evidence
- links or bibliographic references to relevant sources
The National Archives similarly asks people requesting corrections to identify the specific information involved and, where possible, provide reasons and evidence supporting the requested change.
Detailed reports make it easier to investigate concerns accurately.
How We Evaluate Correction Requests
A correction request is not automatically accepted or rejected.
We examine the evidence.
Depending on the issue, this may involve:
- Reviewing the published claim.
- Checking the source originally cited.
- Consulting relevant primary sources.
- Comparing reliable secondary scholarship.
- Determining whether the issue is factual, interpretive, or editorial.
- Establishing whether the change is minor or substantive.
- Revising the article where appropriate.
For contested historical questions, several sources may need to be compared before a change is made.
Evidence Matters
Correction requests are strongest when supported by verifiable historical evidence.
Examples include:
- archival documents
- primary-source collections
- scholarly publications
- museum or historic-site research
- government historical records
- reliable documentary editions
An unsupported assertion that an article is wrong may still prompt review, but it does not by itself establish that a correction is necessary.
Likewise, the existence of another website with a different number or interpretation does not automatically prove either source correct.
We seek the underlying evidence whenever practical.
Correction Notices
When a substantive correction is made, an article may include a note such as:
Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that [incorrect information]. The article has been corrected to reflect [correct information].
For more complicated changes:
Correction: This section has been revised after reviewing additional primary-source evidence. The previous version identified [X]; the surviving record supports [Y].
Correction notices should explain the relevant issue without unnecessarily reproducing the entire inaccurate passage.
We Do Not Silently Rewrite Significant Errors
Minor edits may be made silently.
Material factual errors should not ordinarily disappear without explanation when doing so could mislead readers about what changed.
Transparency is particularly important when a correction affects:
- the central conclusion of an article
- the reputation or actions of an identifiable person
- casualty figures
- disputed historical responsibility
- a quotation
- a major date or event
- interpretation of significant primary evidence
The purpose of a correction note is not to preserve embarrassment.
It is to preserve trust.
No Fee or Favor for Corrections
Corrections are based on evidence.
1812History.com does not charge a fee to correct factual mistakes.
Likewise, advertisers, sponsors, organizations, descendants, authors, publishers, or other interested parties do not receive special editorial treatment because of a commercial or personal relationship.
A factual claim should stand or change according to the evidence supporting it.
Artificial Intelligence and Corrections
Automated systems can introduce errors, including fabricated quotations, nonexistent citations, incorrect dates, confused identities, and unsupported claims.
If AI-assisted material contributes to a published error, the correction standard is no different.
The error should be investigated and corrected.
Artificial intelligence should never be cited as authority for keeping a historical statement that reliable evidence contradicts.
Maintaining the Historical Record
We generally correct the current article rather than knowingly leaving inaccurate information online simply to preserve an earlier version.
Where preserving the history of an important editorial change has value, that history may be summarized in the correction note or revision documentation.
The National Archives similarly emphasizes both correction of published information and, when appropriate, maintaining a record of those corrections.
Our Commitment
No serious historical reference can guarantee that every published sentence will remain permanently correct.
It can, however, establish what happens when an error is discovered.
At 1812History.com, our standard is:
Investigate the claim. Follow the evidence. Correct factual errors. Explain significant changes.
We welcome well-supported corrections because improving the historical record is part of the purpose of the project.
Accuracy is not the absence of correction. Accuracy requires being willing to correct the record when better evidence shows that a change is necessary.