Corrections Policy
1. Our Commitment to Historical Accuracy
At Case File History, we believe that responsible history writing requires more than telling an engaging story. It requires examining evidence, acknowledging uncertainty, and correcting mistakes when reliable information shows that a published article needs to change.
Our publication covers hidden and lesser-known history, lost cities, historical mysteries, old criminal cases, World War I and World War II, Cold War history, espionage, colonial history, forgotten people, and significant events from around the world.
Historical research can be challenging. Original documents may be incomplete, contemporary reports may conflict, photographs may be incorrectly attributed, and new evidence may change how an event is understood.
We therefore recognize that even carefully researched articles may occasionally contain factual errors, incomplete explanations, broken references, or outdated interpretations.
This policy explains how readers can report concerns and how Case File History approaches corrections, clarifications, and updates.
2. What We Consider a Correction
A correction is appropriate when reliable evidence indicates that a published article contains a factual mistake or a materially inaccurate statement.
Examples may include:
An incorrect historical date, location, name, or event.
An inaccurate description of a person's role or actions.
A quotation attributed to the wrong person or source.
An incorrect archival reference or misleading citation.
A historical photograph credited to the wrong creator or collection.
A claim presented as established fact when the available evidence does not support that certainty.
A material error concerning a historical investigation, court finding, or criminal allegation.
We aim to correct significant factual errors in a way that improves the accuracy and reliability of the article.
Not every disagreement represents a factual error. Historical interpretations can legitimately differ, particularly when the surviving evidence is incomplete or contested.
3. Corrections, Clarifications, and Updates
We distinguish between different types of editorial changes so that readers can better understand what has changed.
Factual Corrections
These address identifiable mistakes in dates, names, locations, quotations, attributions, or other factual details.
When a correction materially affects an article's meaning, we aim to make the corrected information clear and, where appropriate, explain the nature of the error.
Clarifications
A clarification may be appropriate when wording is ambiguous, important context is missing, or a statement could reasonably be misunderstood.
A clarification does not necessarily mean that the original statement was factually incorrect.
Research Updates
Historical articles may be updated when new archival material becomes available, a relevant document is discovered, a credible source provides additional context, or established interpretations change.
Where appropriate, we aim to distinguish newly added information from corrections to previously published facts.
Source and Attribution Corrections
We may correct broken source links, incomplete citations, incorrect image credits, or other attribution problems when the relevant information can be verified.
4. How to Report a Possible Error
We welcome readers, researchers, historians, archivists, journalists, and other knowledgeable individuals who identify a possible problem in our published content.
To report a concern, email:
casefile.historyworld@gmail.com
Please include the following information where available:
Article URL: The full link to the relevant Case File History article.
Location of the issue: The sentence, paragraph, image, caption, date, or claim in question.
Nature of the concern: A brief explanation of what appears to be incorrect or misleading.
Supporting evidence: Links to original documents, archival catalogue entries, official records, scholarly publications, or other relevant sources.
Suggested correction: If possible, explain what the information should say and why.
You do not need to provide every item listed above to contact us. However, specific details and credible supporting evidence generally make a concern easier to evaluate.
Please use a clear subject line such as
Correction Request — [Article Title]
5. How We Evaluate Correction Requests
We assess correction requests according to the nature of the claim, the available evidence, and the significance of the potential error.
Where relevant, our review may consider:
The authenticity and provenance of the cited document.
Whether the source directly supports the claim.
The date, author, purpose, and historical context of the source.
Whether independent evidence corroborates the information.
Whether credible sources offer competing interpretations.
Whether a proposed change would materially alter the meaning of the article.
Primary sources can be especially valuable, but they are not automatically conclusive. An official document, newspaper report, memoir, or intelligence assessment may contain incomplete information or reflect the perspective of its author.
We therefore consider sources in context rather than accepting or rejecting a claim solely because it appears in a particular type of publication.
We may request further information when a claim cannot be evaluated from the material initially supplied.
6. Historical Disputes and Conflicting Evidence
Some historical subjects remain disputed because surviving records are incomplete, contradictory, or open to different interpretations.
This can occur in historical crime cases, espionage, wartime intelligence, political conflicts, colonial history, and accounts of alleged secret operations.
When credible sources disagree, we may retain an article's existing interpretation, revise its wording, add relevant context, or explain the disagreement more clearly.
A request will not automatically result in a correction simply because a reader disagrees with an article's conclusion.
Our aim is to assess the evidence fairly, acknowledge genuine uncertainty, and avoid presenting unverified allegations or speculative explanations as established facts.
7. Corrections Involving Historical Crimes and Allegations
We take particular care with factual claims about criminal cases, named individuals, alleged perpetrators, victims, and disputed investigations.
A historical accusation should not be presented as a proven fact unless the available evidence supports that description.
When a credible correction request identifies a material error concerning an allegation, court outcome, person's identity, or established finding, we will review the matter with appropriate care.
Where warranted, we may correct the statement, clarify the status of the evidence, add relevant context, or remove material that cannot be adequately supported.
8. Corrections Involving Photographs and Archival Materials
Case File History may use historical photographs, maps, documents, and illustrations from archives, museums, libraries, government collections, Wikimedia Commons, and other sources where reuse is permitted.
If you identify an incorrect photograph attribution, missing license information, misleading caption, or questionable copyright status, please send us the relevant article URL and the original source or file-page link, if available.
We will review the available information and take appropriate action where warranted. This may include correcting a credit, adding a source link, clarifying the license, replacing an image, or removing material where necessary.
A photograph being old or publicly available does not automatically establish that it is in the public domain or available for unrestricted commercial use.
9. How We Make Corrections
When a reported issue is substantiated, we may:
Correct the relevant statement or factual detail.
Update a caption, quotation, date, or attribution.
Add a citation or replace an inadequate source.
Clarify uncertainty or competing historical interpretations.
Add a correction note where the change materially affects the article.
Replace or remove an image where appropriate.
Remove or substantially revise a claim that cannot be responsibly supported.
The appropriate response depends on the seriousness of the issue and the evidence available.
We aim to preserve useful historical context while ensuring that readers are not misled by known material errors.
10. Correction Notes and Transparency
When a correction materially changes the meaning or factual substance of an article, we aim to explain the change in a correction note or update notice where appropriate.
For example, a note may identify that a date was corrected after reviewing an archival record or that a photograph's attribution was updated after new source information became available.
Minor spelling, grammar, formatting, or broken-link fixes may not require a separate public correction notice.
We do not promise to publish every correspondence or every correction request. Our priority is to correct substantiated errors and provide meaningful transparency about significant changes.
11. Response Times
We aim to review correction requests as reasonably practicable.
The time required to assess a report may depend on the complexity of the historical issue, the availability of original records, the need to compare conflicting sources, and the volume of inquiries received.
We cannot guarantee a fixed response time or promise that every request will result in a change.
For urgent concerns involving a potentially serious factual error or a significant rights issue, please explain the urgency in your message and include the relevant evidence.
12. Good-Faith Submissions
We welcome good-faith reports from readers who want to improve the accuracy of historical information.
Please provide information honestly and avoid submitting fabricated documents, misleading quotations, manipulated evidence, or knowingly false allegations.
We may decline requests that contain no identifiable factual concern, lack a reasonable basis for review, or seek to force an editorial change without supporting evidence.
Repeated messages do not, by themselves, establish that a claim is correct.
13. Editorial Independence
Case File History evaluates correction requests on their merits.
We do not promise to alter an article merely because a person, organisation, advertiser, commercial partner, or other interested party requests a change.
At the same time, we recognise that credible evidence may require us to revise a previously published conclusion, regardless of whether that change is convenient or expected.
Our objective is to improve accuracy and transparency, not to defend an article simply because it has already been published.
14. Relationship with Our Other Policies
This Corrections Policy works alongside our Editorial Policy, Archives & Sources page, Disclaimer, Terms & Conditions, and Privacy Policy.
Together, these pages explain our approach to research, source attribution, historical interpretation, reader feedback, and the handling of relevant enquiries.
Nothing in this policy is intended to limit rights or remedies available under applicable law.
15. Contact Us
If you believe a Case File History article contains a factual error, incorrect attribution, misleading historical claim, or other significant issue, please contact us:
Case File History
Email: casefile.historyworld@gmail.com
Please include the relevant article URL and supporting evidence where available.
We appreciate readers who take the time to help us improve our historical research and maintain a responsible, transparent publication.
Case File History — History deserves curiosity, evidence, and the willingness to correct mistakes.