How we decide what to say

This page describes the standards every published article must meet. It exists so readers can hold us to them.

Sourcing

Sources are ranked, and we reach as high up this ladder as each claim allows:

1. Primary documents — official inquiry reports, laws, treaties, court judgments, original scientific papers.
2. Institutional sources — central banks, statistical institutions, international organisations, national archives and agencies.
3. High-quality academic work — peer-reviewed research and scholarly reference works.
4. Journalism of record — for colour and chronology, never as the sole basis for a disputed factual claim.

Every factual article ends with a complete source list; each source names its publisher and links to an original that we have actually opened and confirmed to resolve.

We never fabricate a statistic, quotation, citation, URL, event or source. If a claim cannot be traced to a source we trust, it is removed before publication. A vivid detail that cannot be verified is a detail we do without.

Fact-checking

Before publication, every material claim — every number, date, name and causal statement — is checked against the source list. Where reputable sources give different figures, we either give the range, choose the most authoritative measure and say which one it is, or drop the number entirely.

Fact, interpretation, uncertainty

Every article keeps three registers explicitly apart: established fact(checked against the source list), respectable interpretation(signposted as such — "historians argue", "one reading is"), and open uncertainty (named plainly, often in a dedicated "What remains disputed" section). A reader should always be able to tell which register a sentence belongs to.

Neutrality and disputed subjects

Where experts disagree, we present the disagreement itself as the fact to be understood — who argues what, and on what evidence — rather than quietly picking a side.

Neutrality does not mean false balance. When the evidence overwhelmingly supports one conclusion, we say so plainly; a fringe view is described as a fringe view. Nor does it mean timidity: explaining why something happened is our job, and explanation requires judgement. We aim for the judgement of a careful historian, not the both-sidesism of a nervous broadcaster.

Clarity without distortion

Articles must be understandable without prior specialist knowledge. We simplify by choosing what to include, never by changing what is true. Where a simplification hides something an expert would consider important, we say what has been left out.

Corrections

When we get something wrong, we correct the article, note the correction with its date at the bottom of the piece, and update the “last updated” date. Substantive corrections are never silent. Readers who spot an error are warmly invited to say so.

Drafts and publication

Questions begin as drafts. A draft becomes a published article only when its claims have been checked against its sources and it meets the standards above. Draft material never appears on the public site.

Independence

No article is sponsored. No source pays for placement. The publication carries no advertising and tracks its readers as little as the web allows.