Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
  • Welcome to the forum!

    Welcome to the War History Online Community Forum, please register or login to start commenting.

Sapling

Fact checking

Recommended Posts

In the story "Royal Fail At the Royal Mail: “Best of British” Stamp Collection Confusing D-Day Beaches With Indonesia" there is a statement "...a picture of U.S. servicemen in Dutch New Guinea, known now as Indonesia, in May 1944..." with a picture captioned "Marines of the 1st Marine Division display Japanese flags captured during the Battle of Cape Gloucester (New Guinea campaign)" 

Cape Gloucester is on New Britain which was a part of Papua New Guinea - an Australian administered territory.
(
 Papua New Guinea established its sovereignty in 1975. This followed nearly 60 years of Australian administration, which started during World War I. It became an independent Commonwealth realm in 1975 with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state and became a member of the Commonwealth of Nations in its own right.)

An interesting story with a massive distraction.
Sadly this is happening way to often in way to many stories in War History Online.

Is there anyway that some form of proof reading can be instituted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No far from it. 

It was about "...a picture of U.S. servicemen in Dutch New Guinea, known now as Indonesia, in May 1944..." Wrong country, wrong government. "Papua New Guinea - an Australian administered territory. ... Papua New Guinea established its sovereignty in 1975."

But more importantly there are more and more of these kinds of silly mistakes (?) appearing.
Maybe taking a leaf out of Wikipedia's book and ask contributors for a bibliography would be wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Journalists . . . for the most part

don't understand history

can't read maps

any ship that's grey and has a gun is a battleship

if the writer never heard before of XYZ event, there must have been a, GASP, coverup.

I could go on and on . . . but fact checkers for journalists is somewhat incestuous.

Edited by R Leonard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×