Possible mistake in regimental number

[Terry]

How common are errors in regimental numbers? I have a 1914-15 Star named to No.243 Sepoy Mehar Singh,24th Punjabis. On a check of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission site, I noticed an entry for No.343 Sepoy Mehar Singh, 24th Punjabis.

Now Mehar Singh, while not Smith or Jones, is a fairly common Sikh name (there are some thirty-five Mehar Singhs on the CWGC site), but it does seem odd that these names and numbers are so close. Could an error have been made either in the naming of the medal or in the CWGC files?

Have any of the Pals had similar examples?

[jim_davies]

Terry,

I've come across a couple. It was seem that they're the result of the scanning process the CWGC used when creating the online database. I think this was a bigger problem in the past than it is now, and was responsible for some bloke's ages being recorded as 3 or 4 years old, or a "S" appearing as a "5" in serial numbers. My understanding is that a great deal of work has been undertaken to purge the database of these type of errors.

You may want to see if any of the pals have the "original" paper copy of the cemetery/memorial Mehar is commemorated at to see what his number is.

Your best bet would be contacting Terry Denham, our local CWGC guru.

All the best,

Jim

[David_Bluestein]

Yes I agree, and have seen errors on more then a few occasions on the CWGC site. For example: '...228th Battalion CEF' that should read '28th Battalion CEF'. These kinds of minor errors are understandable.

However, the thing that really disappoints me about the site is the removal of phrases from the original register that may have read: '...killed in action at the Somme.' Or 'Died of Wounds recieved at Loos.' Sentences like that have been completely removed for the entries, and replaced by 'Died on...'

Every scrap of information is valuable to the researcher; My question has always been, WHY remove these things????

[Ivor Lee]

I came across errors recently on the CWGC site, one where the incorrect regimental number had been recorded and one where the incorrect date of death was shown. I notified them of the error and received a very nice response from them thanking me for pointing out the errors and saying that the database had been altered.

I am sure Terry will advise us to notify the CWGC of any errors so that the database can be made as accurate as possible.

David's point is a very valid one. It is interesting to see that they have recently improved the information shown under secondary unit but that other information has been removed. I wonder whether this is due to lack of space on the database or because there were too many errors in regard to cause of death?

[Terry Denham]

I have passed on Terry's query to CWGC and will let you know the outcome (There are too many Terrys on this Forum!)

There were many errors in the records for Indian troops and they are often the most difficult to correct due to lack of information - much of which came originally from the India Office.

There has been a massive amount of verification work (still continuing) in the last couple of years to remove scanning errors including much work amongst the Indians. I myself have found numerous Indian errors whilst assisting in the process.

Not all such mistakes are due to scanning errors though. Some are other clerical errors from the past and some are possibly mistakes in original documents - and in this case the medal could be wrong! Or it could belong to another soldier of the same name with the number 243.

[Terry Denham]

To answer David's point.

The information has not been removed. It is still in the database but not visible on-screen. You do get this info when ordering records from CWGC.

You have to remember that the vast majority of records have no info of this sort whatsoever - none at all for WW2. You also have to remember that CWGC is not all about WW1 - the other war gets equal treatment.

Also, there is no way of CWGC knowing if these causes are genuine as they were supplied by the next-of-kin rather than from official sources and inaccurate info of this nature could be sensitive.

I suspect also that CWGC anticipate that their appearance on-screen would generate a flood of applications/enquiries to to correct or add to such entries. This would be an eventuality with which they simply could not cope and the information is not of the type they are obliged to record anyway. The introduction of the on-line system was designed to reduce enquiries not increase them!

Having said that, the system is undergoing major changes at the moment (as previously discussed) and the final version is not yet available.

[Terry Denham]

Terry

CWGC confirm that the original records for Sepoy Mehar Singh show that his regimental number was 343.

Therefore you have three possibilities -

1) The original records are wrong

2) The medal is wrong

3) It is another man with the same name/different number who survived

[Max]

I think this was a bigger problem in the past than it is now, and was responsible for some bloke's ages being recorded as 3 or 4 years old, or a "S" appearing as a "5" in serial numbers. My understanding is that a great deal of work has been undertaken to purge the database of these type of errors.

Within the past three weeks I have reported to the CWGC three mens service numbers that have been displayed incorrectly, and they have been changed. As you say the original scanning that populated the database was reading 3/ as 31.

Also, my GGrandfathers Victory Medal gave his service number as 3/2641 when in fact it was 3/2614 so mistakes did happen.

Andy

[Terry]

Thanks all for your comments. I originally got the star because the 24th Punjabis were one of the units which went into the bag at Kut, but my casual CWGC check just seemed to me too coincidental. There were two Mehar Singhs who died with the 24th, regimental numbers 343 and 4936, both KIA on 14 April,1915, early in the campaign. It is possible that there was a third Mehar, number 243, but...