Query on Report pages of a private diary contained in the diary of the 2nd Battalion Royal Irish Regiment.
-
I don’t agree with part of a comment made in the comments boxes for pages 307 and 308 of this diary which another person has tagged.
The comments being: (“#privatediary #duplicate this is typed version of pgs 302-304, already tagged.”) These are Report pages which are an extract from the #private diary of Major M. C. C. Harrison who would later be the Lt.Col. Although diary pages 302-304 were duplicated entries in this report.
I think the comment #duplicate may indicate that the Report is a duplicate. I do not think this Report is a Duplicate Report. It is report on its own detailing actions which occurred between 25th March to 3rd April 1918. See *Cover Page 306 link. The reason for the query is that the tag #duplicate may indicate the pages of the report are duplicate pages, which may not be tagged or included in the diary of the 2nd Battalion Royal Irish Regiment, although it still bears the tag #privatediary.
Therefore, I have tagged pages 307 and 308 and entered in their comment boxes (Tagged as Report #privatediary Not Duplicate Report). Was this the correct thing to do?
Page 306 – *A Cover page for this report of the private diary extract. Link: https://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD0003jy5
Page 307 - 1st page of the report - diary page Link: https://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD0003jwk
Page 308 is the second page of this report dated 29-30 March-1-3 April 1918. Link: https://talk.operationwardiary.org/#/subjects/AWD0003jvqPosted
-
by
cyngast
moderator
This seems to be a case where the information is duplicated in both the unit diary and the private diary, but in two different formats, if I understand you correctly. So the private diary pages are not an exact duplicate, such as a copy made with carbon paper. (I was going to say photocopy, but back then they used carbon paper!)
I think that your comment box entry is fine, especially in combination with Stork's comment that refers to the diary pages where the same information appears.
Posted
-
Cynthia it just says on the typewritten cover page -Extracted from #privatediary of Major. M.C.C. Harrison. Account of action 25 Mar-3 Apr 1918. 2 Btn RIR/49th Bde/16 Div/V11 Corps/ Fifth Army. So this extract makes up the report which I would say is not a copy.
I would mention according to my notes Major M C C Harrison took over from Lt. Col, J D Scott who was killed in action on the 21st March 1918 and as Lt. Col. signed the Diary for this Battalion at the end of March 1918. So I believe he is putting in the information from his report into the diary or vice versa. I would say the Report is not a duplicate.
By the way The tags for the pages in question where it shows Collections and Tags, have the Tag duplicate at the top of their pages. This was another confusing query concerning my comment which you say is fine. Thanks for your reply!
I just thought I would bring this query up in case other tagging these 2 pages marked #duplicate of the 5 page report, are tagged as Other and not tagged. Its a late night, my brain is not working that well with this query now!
Posted