As ever, with any factual work, historical or otherwise, sources are key, and validating & verifying them an important part of ensuring your work is as accurate as possible. When drilling home my own idea of meta-history in the past, I have also commented on the various angles at which you can examine a source from. This post will look at another important aspect, that of checking details rather than just summaries.
The example I will be using is in a footballing context, but the subject is not important, more the lesson in fact-checking. It is something that is always worth keeping in mind, especially on those days where we’re feeling a little lazy.
We travel back in time a full century, to October 1922, and the FA Amateur Cup competition. Harwich & Parkeston had won their third qualifying match, and were set to play either Gorleston or Lowestoft Town in the divisional final, depending on the result. Sunday’s Weekly Dispatch newspaper reported on several matches from the previous day, including Gorleston-Lowestoft. Here is the report in full – see if you notice anything unusual.
Gorleston 0, Lowestoft 1.
Lowestoft lost their tie at Gorleston by the only goal, given by Langley, their goalkeeper, in the first three minutes’ play while saving a corner kick from Daniels. Both sides played fast and exciting football before over 2,000 spectators. Lowestoft were always aggressive but their efforts failed. Hunn saved brilliantly under great pressure.
The Weekly Dispatch, Sunday, October 29, 1922, P11
A classic error at play, where the scoreline given is the reverse of the actual score. The report makes it clear what actually happened, but those skimming the scores would get a different picture. Many local weeklies relied on these reports for information, as they didn’t have reporters at every ground, so there was always the chance other papers would repeat the error.
Take the Essex Chronicle, for example, a Friday publication. Their “Football Notes” section was fairly comprehensive from a local perspective, so when they reported that Harwich would “have to make another journey on Nov. 18, Lowestoft Town being their opponents“, it may well have confused several readers. Of course, nowadays readers have more ways of finding the correct information, and would perhaps send an email or a letter to the paper notifying them of the error.
Back then, not so much. What was originally a mostly harmless mistake became more of a problem, as a fortnight later, the day before the game, the Chronicle duly stated that “To-morrow Harwich and Parkeston will entertain Lowestoft Town […] in the final qualifying round of the Amateur Cup.” The error had not been corrected, and it is possible that a few poor readers who relied on the Chronicle’s footballing page for information may have travelled to the wrong place the next day. Either way, as said before, it certainly would have caused confusion.
The following week, the Chronicle published a report on Harwich’s defeat at Gorleston, without so much as a hint that they had previously made an error. Poor form at the time, and even now, looking back as a historian, something that keeps you on your toes!
Two lessons are to be learned from this. The first of course, the main point, is to ensure the information you are sourcing is accurate, which means reading it in full, not just taking info from a headline or summary. The second can be split into two halves – if you do make a mistake, as the Chronicle did, make sure not to repeat it, meaning if you are repeating a piece of information at a later date, double-check the original source. “Is this still the case?” is a good question to ask yourself. Also, when citing a source, determine if it is a primary or secondary source (i.e. a direct report or hearsay), and when possible, use other sources to back up the information found – in this example, the discrepancy was obvious, so it was easier to check other sources to see where it came from, but it is always worth checking other sources if you have them available.
Harwicensis 