1919?

[sdelmonte]

So, if you are reading a work of history - in this case, about the 1934 St. Louis Caridnals - and you find that the author states World War I ended in 1919, do you immediately return the book on the premise that if the author and can't get that fact right, how can you trust them to get anything else write?

Or do you just ignore it and keep reading, since it's not exactly a biography of Kaiser Wilhelm or Woodrow Wilson?

ETA: 1919, not 191 as orignally posted. D'Oh!

Comments

[zsero.livejournal.com]

If I saw that WW1 ended in 191, I'd assume it was a typo, wonder what idiot of a proofreader didn't catch it, wonder next whether it crept in after the last proofread, and read on. If it really bothered me, I'd write the missing 8 in myself. Of course if I were to actually write to the publisher about it, I'd facetiously ask which calendar this was on, and whether the author thought the the Battle of Thermopylae was decisive in ending WW1.

[sdelmonte]

This is why I don't write or edit or publish history books.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Actually, the war did end in 1919. Remeber, 11-Nov is Armistice Day, not "end of war day". The Treaty of Versailles wasn't negotiated and signed until the next June; that ended the major part of the war. (And the Treaty of Lausanne, which finally ended it completely, didn't come until 1923.)

Also, from a baseball POV the fighting ended after the end of the 1918 season and before the start of the 1919 one, and that might be what the author meant.

[sdelmonte]

The author clearly says November 1919. At best, he is simply comflating things and telling us that the person in question really didn't come back from duty till then, but it doesn't read like it.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

November 1919? OK, then I'm back to blaming it on the typesetter. Wait, do they even have typesetters any more?

[happyfunpaul.livejournal.com]

I think I'd be very wary, and if I saw another such inaccuracy, give up on the book then. Unless I was in a weird sort of mood to play "spot the error".

[immortalthief.livejournal.com]

This is an interesting question.

I think perhaps read the book and then try to find another book on the same subject, that doesn't reference the one you are reading, and read that one as well. Should imporve the chances of getting the most accurate information.

Just an idea.

[sdelmonte]

I've done that for matters of serious history, such as studying WWII or the Civil War. But as much as I love baseball, I can't see myself reading two books about the 1934 Cardinals.

[immortalthief.livejournal.com]

Ahh, well then. Perhaps just read it taking it with a grain of salt. The book is about the baseball team rather then WWI then it is probably trustworthy in regards to that matter.