When evidence changes

A historical page should be updated when reliable evidence shows that a claim is wrong, incomplete or too confident. A newly located document might change a date; an additional account might show that an experience varied between districts. The American Historical Association describes historical interpretation as open to revision when new evidence, questions or perspectives emerge. Revision is part of research, but a new claim still needs examination: identify who created the source, what it actually says and how it relates to other evidence. Do not replace an established account solely because a later source repeats an unsupported assertion.[1]

Correct a record without hiding it

A correction can concern a transcription as well as an interpretation. The US National Archives advises transcribers to reproduce the record as written and use a tag or comment to supply a corrected spelling when a name or place is misspelled. That distinction preserves what the document says while helping readers search for the person or place. On a Punjab history page, a similar approach might quote or describe the spelling in a record and explain a supported alternative. Check identity carefully: a shared name alone is not proof that two records refer to the same person.[2]

Show readers what changed and why

A useful update gives the revised claim, identifies the evidence and explains any remaining uncertainty. The American Historical Association’s standards describe disagreements over evidence and interpretation as part of historical work, capable of generating further questions. A correction note can say, for example, that a date was revised after checking a newly available record, and link that record alongside the earlier source. If sources still disagree, present the disagreement rather than selecting one silently. Record the date of a substantive change so readers can understand when a page’s interpretation was last assessed and follow the trail themselves.[3]

Sources & notes

Source records include access dates and, where known, limits on what was examined. Checks used AI assistance; independent human or specialist review has not been completed.

  1. American Historical Association. Revisionist Historians ↗Written source · Source date: 2003-09 · Locator: Interpretation and new evidence. Accessed 2026-11-03.Institutional guidance inspected; application to Punjabi history is identified.Return to When evidence changes, paragraph 1 ↑
  2. United States National Archives. Transcription Tips ↗Written source · Source date: publication date not established · Locator: Original spellings and tags. Accessed 2026-11-03.Institutional guidance inspected; application to Punjabi history is identified.Return to Correct a record without hiding it, paragraph 1 ↑
  3. American Historical Association. Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct ↗Written source · Source date: 2023 · Locator: Historical evidence and disagreement. Accessed 2026-11-03.Institutional guidance inspected; application to Punjabi history is identified.Return to Show readers what changed and why, paragraph 1 ↑
Help improve this entry. Suggest a correction with a source.
Record PH-JOU-0098 · English edition · human review not performed