Battlefields Trust Battlefields Hub Change Policy
Background
The Battlefields Trust Resource Centre was first created in 2004 by the Trust’s then Project Officer. It represents the Trust’s evidenced based view on individual battles and battlefields. Since it was created new research has been undertaken and new battle sites proposed for inclusion in the Resource Centre, requiring substantial change to existing entries or the addition of new ones. At the same time, minor, usually factual, changes have been identified.
Against this background the Battlefields Trust has adopted the following fair, open and transparent policy for making amendments to the Resource Centre.
Minor Changes
Minor changes are those of fact rather than interpretation. They can include, but are not limited to, the need to add details of a new information board that has been erected, changes in local parking arrangements or where a typographical error has been identified.
In these cases, the officer(s) of the Trust responsible for making changes to the Resource Centre should agree the change(s) with the chair(s) of the region in which the battle is located.
Major Changes and New Additions
For any major change or new addition to the Resource Centre, the Trust’s Research and Battlefield Threats Coordinator, who can be contacted at research@battlefieldstrust.com, should first review to see whether it meets the criteria set out below for Resource Centre contributors before seeking the views of the region where the battlefield is located. The Research and Battlefield Threats Coordinator should offer commentary on the proposal to the region where appropriate.
If the region and the Research and Battlefield Threats Coordinator agree that the major change or new addition has merit then the relevant specialists on the Trust’s Battlefield Panel should be asked to review the proposed changes, extending the review to up to two other peers, selected by the Panel, as necessary, so they can provide advice on the suggested change.
The advice provided by the Battlefield Panel experts should be reviewed by the region and the Research and Threats Coordinator. Taking this advice, together they should agree whether the proposed change should be accepted without any alterations, whether it could be accepted with alterations or if it should be rejected. The decision should be communicated back to the proposer.
If the proposer is unhappy with the outcome they should raise the matter with the Battlefields Trust Operations Director who will convene a review panel consisting of themself a regional chair from outside the region where the battle is located, and a Trustee to review the debate about the proposed change and make a final determination, by majority vote if necessary. No further appeal is allowed.
Information for Resource Centre contributors
The sources for most medieval and some early modern battles can be interpreted in different ways. To manage this ambiguity, the Battlefields Trust’s Resource Centre will not necessarily be limited to a single interpretation but will show and describe credible alternatives. Contributors should not expect to see their interpretation promoted over all others on the Resource Centre and any proposed changes and additions need to be based on the primary sources available. Contributors should be aware that any proposed changes or new entries will be tested by the Trust and they should be willing to accept that this is a key part of the process of making any interpretation as robust as it can be. Early, pre-submission engagement on proposed changes with the Trust's Research and Battlefield Threats Coordinator is encouraged.
Those wishing to suggest a new entry or change to the Resource Centre should provide a tracked change document (if an amendment to an existing entry) highlighting the proposed changes or a new document outlining the proposed text (for a complete re-write of an existing entry or a new entry). The reading of the primary sources to justify the interpretation should be set out in a separate document alongside the proposed change documents. Failure to adhere to this requirement will result in the proposal being rejected at the initial stage.
