Our Commitment to an Accurate Historical Record

NewThoughtHistory.org is committed to publishing historical information that is accurate, well sourced, transparent, and open to correction when better evidence becomes available.

History is reconstructed from surviving evidence.

That evidence can be incomplete. Sources can conflict. Dates may be reported differently. Quotations can be misattributed. Historical photographs can be incorrectly identified. Later biographies may repeat mistakes from earlier publications.

New archival material can also change what is known about a person, organization, publication, or event.

For these reasons, we treat correction as a normal and necessary part of responsible historical research.

Our guiding principle is simple:

When reliable evidence shows that we are wrong, we correct the record.

1. What We Consider a Correction

A correction is warranted when published material contains a factual or evidentiary error that could mislead readers.

Examples include:

an incorrect birth or death date;
a wrong publication date;
an incorrect organization founding date;
a misspelled historical name that changes identification;
an incorrectly identified photograph;
a quotation attributed to the wrong person;
an inaccurate quotation;
an incorrect teacher-student relationship;
an unsupported claim of influence;
a mistaken book title or edition;
an incorrect location;
a citation pointing to the wrong source;
a source that does not support the statement attached to it;
an inaccurate description of a historical organization’s beliefs;
or a statement presented as established fact when available evidence supports only a qualified conclusion.

The appropriate response depends on the significance of the error.

2. Minor Corrections

Minor corrections generally do not change the meaning or historical interpretation of an article.

Examples include:

typographical errors;
punctuation;
formatting;
broken internal links;
obvious spelling mistakes;
minor grammatical improvements;
inconsistent capitalization;
and layout problems.

These corrections may be made without a formal correction notice.

For example, changing:

Phineas P. Quimiby

to:

Phineas P. Quimby

does not alter the article’s historical argument.

Such changes are ordinary editorial maintenance.

3. Substantive Corrections

A substantive correction changes information that affects a reader’s understanding of the historical record.

Examples include changing:

1891

to:

1893

when the date matters to chronology;

correcting the identity of a historical figure;

removing a quotation shown to be misattributed;

changing a claimed teacher-student relationship;

correcting the date an organization was established;

or revising a statement of direct influence when the evidence supports only similarity or possible influence.

Substantive corrections should be handled transparently.

Where appropriate, the article may include a correction or update note explaining:

what was incorrect,

what has been changed,

and

why the correction was made.

4. Major Corrections

Some errors affect a substantial part of an article.

For example, newly located evidence might show that:

a central biographical claim is incorrect;
two historical people were mistakenly treated as the same individual;
a major quotation is fabricated;
a chronology is based on the wrong edition of a source;
an alleged organizational relationship did not exist;
or a central interpretation depends upon evidence that has been shown to be unreliable.

In such cases, simply changing one sentence may not be enough.

The article may require substantial revision.

When a major correction materially changes the article’s conclusion or historical narrative, we aim to make that change clear to readers.

5. Corrections Are Different From Updates

Not every change is a correction.

Historical articles may be expanded when new information becomes available even though the original article contained no error.

For example, an article may gain:

a newly digitized photograph;
additional primary sources;
a recently cataloged letter;
an expanded bibliography;
a new scholarly interpretation;
additional biographical information;
a clearer timeline;
or links to newly available archival material.

These are updates, not necessarily corrections.

Where useful, we may distinguish between:

Corrected

Information previously published was inaccurate.

and

Updated

New information has been added or the article has been substantially improved without necessarily correcting an error.

6. Historical Interpretation Is Not Automatically an Error

History involves interpretation.

Two qualified historians may examine the same evidence and reach different conclusions.

A disagreement with an interpretation does not automatically mean that the article requires a correction.

For example, historians may place different emphasis on the roles of:

Phineas P. Quimby,

Emma Curtis Hopkins,

mental healing,

Transcendentalism,

or other influences in the development of New Thought.

When credible interpretations differ, our responsibility is to represent those differences fairly and accurately.

A correction becomes appropriate when:

an interpretation is falsely presented as undisputed fact,

important contrary evidence has been omitted in a misleading way,

the evidence cited does not reasonably support the interpretation.

7. New Evidence Can Change Historical Conclusions

A statement can have been reasonable based on the evidence available when an article was written and still require revision later.

New evidence may emerge through:

digitized newspapers;
newly cataloged archival collections;
correspondence;
diaries;
institutional records;
revised library catalogs;
genealogical records;
newly accessible manuscripts;
or new historical scholarship.

When stronger evidence materially changes what can responsibly be said, we update the article.

Changing a conclusion in response to better evidence is not a failure of historical research.

It is how historical research progresses.

8. Primary Sources Can Correct Secondary Sources

Secondary works sometimes contain mistakes.

A later biography may report a date incorrectly.

A modern website may confuse two people.

An institutional timeline may simplify an organization’s early development.

A frequently repeated quotation may turn out not to appear in the works of the person to whom it is attributed.

When reliable primary evidence contradicts a secondary source, we evaluate:

provenance;
proximity to the event;
independence;
context;
authenticity;
and other corroborating evidence.

We do not automatically retain an error merely because it has been repeated in many publications.

9. Primary Sources Can Also Be Wrong

Primary sources are not exempt from scrutiny.

A newspaper can misidentify a person.

A memoir can misremember a date.

An advertisement can exaggerate.

A religious testimony can reflect the participant’s interpretation of an experience.

A letter can contain gossip or speculation.

An organization’s records can contain clerical mistakes.

For that reason, submitting a primary source does not automatically establish that an existing article is wrong.

The source must be evaluated within its historical context.

10. Correcting Quotations

Quotation errors receive particular attention.

A correction may be required when:

wording was transcribed incorrectly;
words were omitted in a way that changes meaning;
a quotation was attributed to the wrong person;
a paraphrase was presented as a direct quotation;
a later version was incorrectly attributed to an earlier publication;
or no reliable evidence can be found for a widely circulated quotation.

Where a quotation cannot be authenticated, we may remove it or change its description to:

commonly attributed,

unverified,

source not located.

A popular quotation does not receive a lower verification standard simply because it is widely repeated.

11. Correcting Dates

Dates are especially important because chronology can determine whether an alleged historical relationship is possible.

When correcting a date, we consider what the date represents.

For example:

An organization might have:

an informal beginning,

a first meeting,

an incorporation date,

and

a later official name.

These dates can all be correct while describing different events.

Rather than replacing one date mechanically, we may revise the article to explain the distinction.

12. Correcting Claims of Influence

Historical influence is often more difficult to establish than simple chronology.

If an article states that:

Person A influenced Person B

and new research shows only that both expressed similar ideas, the article should be revised.

Possible corrected wording might be:

“Their writings show similarities.”

or:

“Both developed within overlapping metaphysical environments.”

Likewise:

attended a lecture

does not necessarily mean:

became a student.

Our corrections should preserve these distinctions.

13. Healing and Medical Claims

Historical New Thought contains many accounts of mental and spiritual healing.

Corrections are especially important when wording accidentally transforms religious testimony into medical fact.

For example, a statement such as:

“Prayer cured her tuberculosis.”

may require correction if the evidence establishes only that:

she attributed her recovery to prayer and changes in thought.

The corrected version better reflects what the historical evidence demonstrates.

NewThoughtHistory.org documents historical healing beliefs and testimonies without treating them automatically as proof of medical causation.

14. Corrections to Images

Historical images can be misidentified.

Possible errors include:

incorrect person;
incorrect date;
incorrect photographer;
wrong location;
incorrect event;
misleading caption;
or incorrect rights information.

When an image identification is shown to be wrong, we aim to correct the caption, metadata, and related article text.

If identification remains uncertain, the image should be labeled accordingly rather than presented with false confidence.

15. Corrections to Citations

A citation error can undermine an otherwise accurate statement.

We correct citations when:

the link points to the wrong document;
the author is incorrect;
the title is incorrect;
the page number is wrong;
the publication date is wrong;
the archival identifier is inaccurate;
or the cited source does not actually support the claim.

Where possible, the corrected citation should point readers toward the underlying source rather than merely another page repeating the information.

16. Broken Links Are Not Necessarily Factual Errors

External websites change.

Libraries redesign catalogs.

Archives move collections.

Digital books receive new URLs.

A broken link does not necessarily mean that the historical citation itself is invalid.

When possible, we replace broken links with:

updated repository pages;
persistent identifiers;
library catalog records;
legitimate archived versions;
or another reliable copy of the same source.

The bibliographic identity of the source should remain clear even when its online location changes.

17. How to Submit a Correction

Readers are encouraged to report possible errors.

A useful correction request should identify:

The page

Provide the article title or URL.

The statement

Identify the specific sentence, paragraph, image, date, quotation, or citation believed to be incorrect.

The proposed correction

Explain what the information should say instead.

The evidence

Whenever possible, provide a source supporting the correction.

Useful evidence may include:

a primary-source scan;
library catalog record;
archival finding aid;
historical newspaper;
scholarly book or article;
official record;
or another reliable source.

The more specific the submission, the easier it is to investigate.

18. Evidence Is More Useful Than Assertion

A message saying:

“This page is wrong.”

alerts us to a possible problem.

A message saying:

“The article gives the publication year as 1902, but the first-edition title page held by this library is dated 1901”

provides a research path.

Readers do not need academic credentials to submit a correction.

The important question is whether the evidence can be evaluated.

19. Who May Submit a Correction?

Anyone may report a potential error.

This includes:

readers;
researchers;
historians;
librarians;
archivists;
members of New Thought organizations;
descendants of historical figures;
authors;
students;
and members of the public.

Corrections are evaluated according to evidence, not according to the status of the person submitting them.

Expertise can provide valuable context, but no correction is accepted solely because someone claims authority.

20. Descendants and Family Traditions

Descendants of historical figures can possess valuable information, photographs, letters, family records, and oral traditions unavailable elsewhere.

We welcome such contributions.

However, family tradition is evaluated according to the same historical principles as other sources.

A family story may be historically important without being independently verifiable.

Where appropriate, it may be described explicitly as:

family tradition

an account supplied by descendants

rather than presented as independently established fact.

21. Organizations May Request Corrections

Organizations discussed on NewThoughtHistory.org may identify factual errors concerning their history.

Such requests are welcome.

Organizational records can provide important evidence.

However, an organization cannot require an independent historical reference to replace documented history merely because it prefers a different interpretation.

Requests are evaluated using the same source standards applied to other corrections.

When credible institutional and independent historical accounts differ, the article may describe both.

22. We Do Not Change History for Promotional Reasons

Corrections are intended to improve accuracy.

They are not intended to:

improve someone’s reputation;
remove documented criticism;
promote an organization;
rewrite historical controversies;
create a preferred founder narrative;
suppress reliably sourced information;
or make historical material conform to modern branding.

Likewise, negative material should not be retained merely because it is sensational.

The standard is evidence.

23. Requests to Remove Accurate Information

A request to remove historically relevant information is not automatically a correction request.

If information is:

accurate,

reliably sourced,

historically relevant,

and

appropriately presented,

we may retain it even when an individual or organization would prefer that it not appear.

However, we remain willing to review:

accuracy;
context;
wording;
relevance;
sourcing;
privacy considerations;
and whether the material is presented fairly.

Historical accuracy does not require unnecessary sensationalism.

24. Corrections Involving Living People

Although much of NewThoughtHistory.org concerns historical figures, some articles may involve living individuals connected with contemporary New Thought organizations.

Corrections involving living people receive particular care.

We seek reliable sources for claims that could materially affect reputation.

Where an error is identified, we aim to correct it promptly.

Private information that is not historically relevant should not be included merely because it can be found online.

25. How We Review a Correction Request

A correction request may involve several steps.

Step 1 — Identify the Claim

We determine exactly what published statement is being challenged.

Step 2 — Review the Existing Source

We examine the evidence originally used.

Step 3 — Review the Submitted Evidence

We evaluate the source supplied with the correction.

Step 4 — Search for Additional Evidence

When necessary, we look for independent or stronger sources.

Step 5 — Compare Provenance and Context

We consider when the sources were created, by whom, and for what purpose.

Step 6 — Determine the Appropriate Action

Possible outcomes include:

no change;

minor correction;

substantive correction;

additional qualification;

expanded discussion of disagreement;

major revision.

26. When We May Decline a Correction

A requested change may not be made when:

the submitted evidence does not support the request;
the source cannot be authenticated;
the request concerns opinion rather than factual accuracy;
reliable sources support the existing statement;
the proposed wording is stronger than the evidence;
the request attempts to remove relevant documented history;
or the issue represents a legitimate historical disagreement rather than an error.

Where appropriate, an article may instead be expanded to acknowledge an alternative interpretation.

27. Correction Notes

Significant corrections may receive a note such as:

Correction: An earlier version of this article gave the publication year as 1902. The date has been corrected to 1901 based on the first-edition title page and library catalog records.

Or:

Correction: This article previously described X as a direct student of Y. The available evidence establishes attendance at Y’s lectures but does not confirm a formal teacher-student relationship. The wording has been revised.

A correction note should explain enough to make the change understandable without unnecessarily repeating the error.

28. Update Notes

Substantial additions that are not corrections may use a separate notation:

Updated: Additional primary sources and publication history were added to this article.

This distinction helps readers understand whether an earlier version contained an error or has simply been expanded.

29. We Do Not Hide Material Errors

A material factual error should not be silently rewritten when transparency would help readers understand the change.

This is particularly important when the incorrect statement:

affected the article’s central argument;
involved a significant historical controversy;
was likely to have been cited elsewhere;
incorrectly attributed a quotation;
misidentified a person;
or materially misrepresented a source.

For ordinary typographical or stylistic changes, a public notice is unnecessary.

30. Article Revision Dates

Where technically practical, substantial articles may display information such as:

Published

and

Last updated.

An updated date should represent a meaningful editorial change rather than being automatically refreshed to create the appearance of new content.

Changing punctuation should not make a historical article appear newly researched.

31. Corrections Should Not Destroy the Historical Source

An important distinction exists between correcting our description of a historical source and altering the source itself.

If a newspaper from 1901 contains an incorrect statement, that error remains part of the original historical document.

We should not rewrite the newspaper.

Instead, we can explain that subsequent evidence shows its statement to have been incorrect.

Historical documents should remain authentic to what their creators produced.

Our interpretation of those documents can—and should—be corrected when necessary.

32. Disputed Claims May Remain Disputed

Sometimes additional research does not resolve a disagreement.

One source gives one date.

Another gives another.

Neither can be decisively confirmed.

In such cases, the responsible correction may be to change:

“The event occurred on March 4.”

to:

“Sources disagree on the exact date; surviving accounts place the event in early March.”

The purpose of correction is not always to replace uncertainty with certainty.

Sometimes it is to replace false certainty with accurate uncertainty.

33. Corrections and AI-Assisted Content

Artificial intelligence may be used as an editorial or research-assistance tool, but AI output is not evidence.

If AI-assisted drafting introduces:

an invented date;
fabricated quotation;
nonexistent book;
incorrect relationship;
conflated historical figures;
unsupported interpretation;
or false citation,

the error is treated exactly like any other published factual error.

The use of a tool does not reduce responsibility for the published result.

34. Corrections Improve the Project

A historical reference should become more reliable as evidence accumulates.

Corrections therefore are not something NewThoughtHistory.org seeks to hide.

They demonstrate that published material remains accountable to evidence.

Our objective is not to preserve every sentence exactly as it first appeared.

Our objective is to preserve and explain the historical record as accurately as possible.

That requires willingness to say:

We found better evidence.

The previous wording was too strong.

The date was incorrect.

The quotation could not be verified.

The sources disagree.

or simply:

We were wrong, and the article has been corrected.

Our Correction Standard

When evaluating whether published material should change, we ask:

Is the existing statement accurate?

What evidence supports it?

What evidence challenges it?

Which evidence has stronger provenance?

Does the source establish the claim or merely report it?

Is this a factual error or a legitimate historical disagreement?

Would the existing wording mislead a reasonable reader?

How significant is the change?

Should the correction be disclosed publicly?

The answer determines the appropriate response.

For NewThoughtHistory.org, maintaining an accurate historical record matters more than defending an earlier version of an article.

History is built from evidence.

When the evidence requires a correction, the correction becomes part of responsible historical work.