CWGC death date error

[BottsGreys]

Yesterday I was viewing the CWGC entry for Major Percival William Anderson, MC, 85th Bn CEF (Nova Scotia Highlanders), KIA at Passchendaele. His date of death on the CWGC (and consequently on the Canadian Virtual Memorial) is given as 28/10/17, but the Bn War Diary and the Bn written history (authored by the Bn medical officer) are quite clear that he was KIA on 30/10/17---Major Anderson playing a major role in planning and executing the Battalion's attack on that date.

There was a Lieutenant Anderson (Frederick J.) of the 85th Bn who was KIA on 28/10/17. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion? Any suggestions about how to get the error corrected? I know Terry D. or someone has probably already addressed this kind of thing, but perhaps someone can point me to that thread.

Chris

[pat]

Hi Chris

I have contacted the CWCG via e-mail (address on their website) about 2 relatives I have researched with evidence from war diaries etc (and copied them the scans too).

They were very helfpul. E-mailed back within days saying they would look into it and let me know idc. In one case I was supplying extra info (Christian names, age and nok details) so this was quite straightforward. In the other case I wanted them to make a change - as you do - to info already there and this took a bit longer. Anwyay, in a month or so they emailed back to say they agreed with my new info on both men and would change the website at the next update.

Good luck!

Pat

[John_Hartley]

Chris

Sounds like pretty good evidence. Suggest email to CWGC telling them what you have. They will probably want a photocopy or scan as evidence.

Good luck

John

[Terry Denham]

Chris

Email CWGC on casualtyenq@cwgc.org with your query.

The difference could be caused in one of two ways.

Firstly a simple clerical or scanning error at CWGC. If this is the case, they will spot the fact from their records and amend the entry immediately.

The second possibility is that it is a factual error in the info given to CWGC by the military. In this case you will have to provide very good evidence to prove your point. This will take a little longer to resolve as was indicated in the case above but it will be done eventually.

Remember that when CWGC amend their database, it will not show up on the internet site until they next update the copy of the 'live' data which it uses.

[Terry Denham]

I have just checked the original 1926 edition of the CWGC register for this man and that gives the date as 28.10.17.

This means that it is a factual error from the military or an error by a typesetter in 1926!

[BottsGreys]

Thanks everybody for the assistance. I will get a query off to CWGC and will report back what they say. Terry, thanks for checking the original register. I will be sure to put your findings in my query.

Chris

[BottsGreys]

Well, I received this e-mail today:

"Dear Mr Jordan

Thank you for your email.

Before we can amend the records any of our casualties, we need a copy of their birth certificate to confirm name, age and parentage along with some documentary evidence connecting the birth certificate with the casualty - this could be a memorial card or obituary notice etc. The reason for this is that we must be sure that the birth certificate does refer to the casualty commemorated by the Commission. Photocopies are acceptable but we cannot use emailed copies.

I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you but I am sure that you can appreciate the need for accuracy in our records.

Evidence should be sent to:

(name withheld)

Enquiries Section

Commonwealth War Graves Commission"

Apparently (and perhaps justifiably), the fact that the error surfaced as a result of information in the official Battalion records carries no weight. (Although, having worked many years for a bureaucracy myself, I'm not naive enough to believe that the Enquiries Section actually did anything more than scan my inquiry for certain buzzwords.)

Anyway, I have gone to the Canadian Nat'l. Archives Website and found addresses in Nova Scotia where I can inquire about the availability of the records CWGC requires on Major Anderson.

Chris

[Terry Denham]

I'm not naive enough to believe that the Enquiries Section actually did anything more than scan my inquiry for certain buzzwords

Chris

You are totally wrong in your assumption and your allegation is both unfounded and unfair.

Your enquiry would have been checked against all existing original documentation in their possession to see if any clerical error had occurred. If it had, the mistake would have been corrected.

However, due to the reply you received, you can tell that the original documents disagree with your ascertion and further proof is necessary - which you were warned of above. Factual amendments cannot be made without concrete proof (Battalion documents would not be enough on their own - they can be wrong as well).

As far as I can see, the records dept staff have behaved exactly as they should have done and you are now taking the appropriate course of action!

[Max]

Factual amendments cannot be made without concrete proof (Battalion documents would not be enough on their own - they can be wrong as well).

On this occasion Terry, I totally disagree.

As the man in question was such a senior officer within the Battalion I would have thought that the Adjutant, or whoever wrote the Bn Diary, would have been in the best position to determine when the 2CO was killed.

Andy

[BottsGreys]

Terry,

Thanks for your learned insights. I will go and see which of my local eateries is serving crow. However, with all due respect, I cannot tell from their reply that the original documents disagree with my assertion since they didn't tell me that they had compared them, and I am not a mind reader. Personal experience enables you to know what the Enquiries Section did in response to my inquiry. The e-mail I received indicates that E.S. did nothing but reply to the overall topic of my inquiry--"amending a record." I've worked for a large federal agency for the past 18 years responding to inquiries from Congress and the public, and I know a "boilerplate" reply when I read one. For my edification, (and based on your own latest posting) the CWGC could have briefly & simply stated what it had done in response to my inquiry, for example:

"Your inquiry was checked against the original existing documentation in our possession and no clerical error appears to have occurred in this instance. These original documents were found to disagree with your assertion, and it is necessary that you provide documentary proof, outlined below, to support your assertion.

Before we can amend the records of any of our casualties..."

Chris

[Terry Denham]

Yes. You are correct in that they could have explained that.

However, they get about 20,000 enquiries a year and full explanations are not always possible.

Andy

You misinterpret what I said. I said diaries 'can' be wrong NOT 'were' wrong. Without other proof, CWGC would not make what amounts to a judgement call on one piece of evidence - no matter how likely it is to be correct. When drawing up evidence guidelines, they have to be applied equally in all cases.

In all cases the death certificate is the starting point as that is the only generally accepted evidence available that a person is dead. It then builds from there. Unfortunately sometimes a certificate cannot be found and that is when problems start!