Nitpicker, That's Me

On Friday I spent my work day at the medical library of the Large Public Hospital That Employs Me, working on my self-directed learning modules (hereafter referred to as 'modules'). That I get paid to do this is totally sweet, and that I am trusted enough to go to the library to do this (I did check in at lunchtime with my manager, which consisted of me popping my head into her office and saying "I'm here!") is very cool. And I really did sit in the library for the better part of 8 hours - with time out for lunch, a fire alarm and a trip to the uniform shop after lunch to collect two pairs of pants that had been on back order since July (and which still weren't in but they transferred over to me two pairs that had been waiting to be picked up for 5+ months).

Now the library isn't the hospital's library per se, but is run by a Large University who has lots of medical and nursing students plus offices on campus and a satellite branch next door to the Large Public Hospital. As an employee of Queensland Health I get library privileges - which will save me lots of time and money in my studies as I don't have a lot of oncology books/journals in my personal library at Chez Mooselet.

So there I was, coming back with from my lunch break and weighed down by my ginormous bag that had my modules in it when the new display they were putting in the library window caught my eye - Medicine in the Crusades. Now anyone who knows me would know I would be drawn to this like moths to a bug zapper. And it was pretty interesting, with factoids and timelines and a few photos to show just how primitive medicine was and how diseases influenced the Crusades.

Then this factoid caught my eye: "Henry VI was planning to go on Crusade when he was struck down by malaria in 1197." And I stared at it, trying to make sense of it because every fibre in my history-geek being said this was wrong. Richard I was king in 1197, not Henry VI. Henry VI never went on Crusade, they ended in the 13th century and Henry was king in the 15th century. And he didn't die of malaria, he died whilst imprisoned by Edward IV (and was likely murdered by Edward or his supporters). But the library did this display, and librarians are super smart, right? I walked back to my chair, puzzled.

The puzzlement didn't last, as a quick Google search sorted it out. The factoid was referring to Henry VI of Germany, who did indeed die of malaria in 1197 as he prepared to go off on Crusade. All good, right? Well, no. I went back out to read the factoid sheet again, and saw that kings from other countries were labelled as such. I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that when ones head of state is a monarch such as in Australia, then when a king is listed without a country you think he's from England. I stewed on this all afternoon, until it was time for me to go home. Do I say something to the librarian or not? I walked out without saying anything, since it was factually correct, but didn't get more than 5 steps before I changed my mind and went back inside.

I apologized for being "nit-picky", but did tell her the factoid was correct while not being clear about which Henry VI they were talking about. She was very nice about it and wrote it down, and even thanked me for pointing it out. But I still felt that I was overstepping myself a little bit. I will pop around early this week to see if they changed it.

What would you have done if you were me - if you knew a factoid on display was accurate but unclear. Would you speak up or let it go?