64 Baker Street is committed to correcting factual errors, inaccurate citations, misleading descriptions, and other material problems in our historical content.
The history of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) is complex. Records may be incomplete, conflicting, restricted, miscatalogued, or interpreted differently as new evidence becomes available. Historical research therefore requires both care at the time of publication and a willingness to revise earlier conclusions when better evidence emerges.
Our goal is not to preserve an article unchanged simply because it has already been published.
Our goal is to preserve the most accurate version of the historical record that the available evidence allows.
Our Approach to Corrections
We distinguish between several types of changes:
- minor editorial corrections;
- factual corrections;
- citation and archival-reference corrections;
- clarification of uncertain or disputed information;
- substantial historical revisions;
- updates based on newly available evidence.
Not every edit requires a formal correction notice.
The significance of the correction should determine how prominently it is documented.
Minor Editorial Corrections
Minor changes may be made without a published correction note.
These can include:
- spelling corrections;
- punctuation;
- grammar;
- formatting problems;
- broken links;
- capitalization;
- obvious typographical errors;
- minor improvements to wording that do not alter meaning.
For example, correcting a misspelled place name where there is no ambiguity about the intended location would normally be considered a minor edit.
These changes do not materially alter the historical interpretation of an article.
Factual Corrections
A factual correction is required when a published statement is shown to be inaccurate.
Examples may include an incorrect:
- date of birth or death;
- mission date;
- operational location;
- military rank;
- SOE section;
- agent identity;
- codename;
- resistance network;
- aircraft type;
- award;
- casualty figure;
- arrest date;
- execution date;
- archival reference.
When reliable evidence establishes that the existing text is incorrect, we aim to correct it rather than preserve the error for the sake of consistency with an earlier version.
Accuracy is more important than maintaining unchanged wording.
Material Corrections
Some errors materially affect the meaning of an article.
Examples include:
- attributing an operation to the wrong person;
- identifying the wrong individual in a photograph;
- claiming participation in an operation unsupported by the record;
- confusing two agents with similar names;
- assigning an agent to the wrong network;
- presenting a disputed event as established fact;
- publishing an incorrect archive reference that leads to a different record;
- substantially misrepresenting the outcome of an operation.
Where a correction significantly changes the substance of an article, we may include a visible correction or update note.
The note should briefly explain:
what was incorrect, what has been changed, and why the correction was made.
Citation Corrections
A statement may be accurate while its citation is incorrect.
Citation errors can include:
- wrong page numbers;
- incorrect archive references;
- citations linked to the wrong record;
- incorrect publication details;
- broken URLs;
- sources that do not actually support the associated statement.
Such errors should be corrected even where the underlying historical conclusion remains unchanged.
A citation should enable readers to locate the evidence rather than create the appearance of documentation.
Archival Reference Corrections
Archive references require particular care.
The National Archives encourages users to report errors in its catalogue and notes that thousands of catalogue corrections are made each year based on user suggestions. Its catalogue is treated as something that can continue to be improved as mistakes are identified and better descriptions become available.
64 Baker Street follows the same general principle.
If an archival reference such as:
HS 9/[reference]
has been entered incorrectly, linked to the wrong person, or copied from an unreliable secondary source, it should be checked against the relevant archive catalogue and corrected.
We do not preserve a false archive reference simply because it appeared in an earlier version of an article.
Verify Before Correcting
A proposed correction should itself be verified.
We do not replace one uncertain claim with another merely because a different website, forum post, or unsourced family account provides an alternative version.
A strong correction is normally supported by evidence such as:
- an archival record;
- an institutional catalogue entry;
- contemporary documentation;
- official records;
- reputable scholarly research;
- a well-documented specialist publication.
The strength of the evidence required should increase with the significance of the claim.
Corrections Based on Archival Catalogue Entries
Archive catalogues are important, but a catalogue description and the underlying historical document are not always identical.
The National Archives describes Discovery as a catalogue that is actively maintained to improve accuracy, accessibility, and searchability. It also distinguishes catalogue descriptions from the underlying records themselves.
Where a proposed correction relies only on catalogue metadata, we consider what that metadata actually establishes.
For example, a catalogue entry may verify:
- the existence of a file;
- its title;
- its date range;
- its reference;
- the organization that created it.
It may not establish every historical claim contained within that file.
We therefore avoid overstating what a catalogue entry proves.
New Evidence
Historical articles may change even when the original version was reasonable based on the evidence available at the time.
New evidence may appear because:
- a previously closed file is opened;
- additional records are catalogued;
- archives are digitized;
- a newly published study identifies overlooked sources;
- photographs are reidentified;
- another national archive makes related material available;
- historians re-evaluate an established interpretation.
An article may therefore be updated without the previous version necessarily having been negligent or unreasonable.
Historical research is cumulative.
Changes in Interpretation
Not every historical revision involves a simple factual error.
Sometimes the evidence remains the same but its interpretation changes.
For example, historians may disagree about:
- responsibility for the failure of a network;
- the strategic value of an operation;
- whether a resistance organization had effective independence;
- the reliability of a particular agent;
- the reasons for a change in British policy.
Where a new interpretation is persuasive but not conclusively established, we prefer to present the competing arguments rather than silently replace one debatable conclusion with another.
Conflicting Sources
A correction request does not automatically establish that the current article is wrong.
Two credible sources may genuinely disagree.
When that occurs, we examine:
- the date of each source;
- its proximity to the event;
- the author’s access to information;
- whether the source is independent;
- whether later archival evidence changes the picture;
- whether one source is repeating another.
If the disagreement cannot be resolved, the most accurate correction may be to change the article so that the uncertainty itself is visible.
For example:
Earlier accounts give 14 June as the date, while later archival research indicates 15 June.
This is preferable to presenting either date as certain when the evidence remains contested.
Correcting Names and Identities
SOE history frequently involves aliases, codenames, cover identities, maiden names, married names, and variant spellings.
A correction should therefore establish what kind of name is being discussed.
An alternative spelling is not automatically an error.
Likewise:
alias,
codename,
nickname,
and
cover identity
do not necessarily mean the same thing.
Corrections involving personal identity should be handled particularly carefully.
Correcting Dates
Dates should reflect the precision of the evidence.
If an article gives:
3 June 1944
but the evidence establishes only:
early June 1944,
the appropriate correction may be to reduce the apparent precision.
Similarly, if sources provide conflicting dates, the article may need to present both rather than choose one without justification.
False precision is itself a form of historical inaccuracy.
Correcting Photographs and Captions
Image captions can become widely repeated even when the original identification was uncertain.
If credible archival or institutional evidence shows that a photograph has been misidentified, the caption should be corrected.
Where identification remains uncertain, wording such as:
possibly,
believed to show,
or
identity unconfirmed
may be more appropriate than a definitive attribution.
We also distinguish between correcting an image caption and changing copyright or licensing information.
Correcting Maps
Maps should be revised when new evidence changes:
- a location;
- operational route;
- drop zone;
- landing field;
- safe house;
- headquarters address;
- network boundary.
Approximate locations should not be converted into exact coordinates without supporting evidence.
If an earlier map implies a level of certainty unsupported by the sources, it may require correction even if the general location is broadly accurate.
Artificial Intelligence and Corrections
AI-generated information is not accepted as sufficient evidence for a historical correction.
The National Archives explicitly warns that AI systems can provide false information and hallucinated archive references, and recommends checking AI-generated document references directly against the catalogue.
Accordingly, an AI response cannot by itself establish that a 64 Baker Street article is incorrect.
If an AI tool identifies a possible problem, the underlying historical evidence must still be found and verified.
Reader Correction Requests
We welcome corrections from readers, researchers, archivists, family historians, and specialists.
A useful correction request should ideally include:
- the URL or title of the relevant 64 Baker Street page;
- the statement believed to be incorrect;
- the proposed correction;
- the source supporting the correction;
- an archive reference, page number, publication details, or reliable link where available.
Specific evidence helps us evaluate corrections more effectively than a general statement that an article is wrong.
Family Information and Personal Archives
Families of SOE personnel may possess important material unavailable in public archives.
This may include:
- letters;
- photographs;
- diaries;
- service documents;
- identification papers;
- personal correspondence.
Such material can be historically valuable.
We may request additional information concerning provenance, dates, or context before using it to change a published article.
Family tradition alone may be recorded as family testimony where historically relevant, but it should not automatically override strong documentary evidence.
What Happens After a Correction Is Submitted
A correction is evaluated against the available evidence.
Possible outcomes include:
- the article is corrected;
- wording is clarified;
- an additional citation is added;
- disputed versions are presented together;
- an editorial note is added;
- the correction is not adopted because the evidence does not support it;
- further research is needed before a change can be justified.
A submitted correction therefore does not guarantee that the requested wording will be accepted.
Correction Notes
When a correction is substantial, we may include a note such as:
Correction: An earlier version of this article gave the operation date as 14 June 1944. The date has been corrected to 15 June 1944 based on [source/reference].
For major interpretive changes:
Update: This section was revised following the identification of additional archival evidence concerning the operation.
The purpose of such notes is transparency, not embarrassment.
Historical scholarship improves through revision.
Updating Without Correcting
Some article changes are updates rather than corrections.
Examples include:
- adding a newly digitized photograph;
- adding another archival reference;
- expanding a biography;
- adding recently published scholarship;
- improving a map;
- adding context;
- connecting an agent to newly created database entries.
The previous version may still have been accurate.
In these cases, a formal correction notice is generally unnecessary.
Historical Terminology
Sometimes the issue is not factual accuracy but terminology.
Historical documents can contain language now recognized as outdated, offensive, or misleading.
The National Archives distinguishes between preserving original historical wording and improving modern catalogue descriptions by providing appropriate context. It also allows users to suggest corrections or contextual improvements.
64 Baker Street follows a similar principle.
We may preserve historically significant terminology when necessary for quotation, document titles, or research accuracy while providing modern context.
Editorial language written by 64 Baker Street may be updated when a clearer or more accurate term is appropriate.
Preservation of the Historical Record
Correcting our own article does not mean altering the historical source.
If a wartime record contains an incorrect spelling, mistaken date, or prejudicial terminology, that original record remains part of the historical evidence.
Our role is to explain it accurately.
We may write:
The original report gives the date as 12 May, but subsequent documentation establishes 13 May.
This preserves both the historical evidence and the corrected interpretation.
Transparency
We do not promise that every historical error can be eliminated.
Archives are incomplete. Sources conflict. New information emerges.
What we can commit to is a process:
identify the problem, examine the evidence, correct material errors, preserve meaningful uncertainty, and update the record when stronger evidence becomes available.
Our Standard
64 Baker Street treats corrections as a normal part of serious historical research.
A reference project should become more accurate as evidence improves.
The standard we aim to follow is therefore simple:
We do not defend an error because we published it first. We follow the evidence.
If reliable documentation shows that a page is wrong, incomplete, misleading, or unnecessarily certain, we will work to make it better.