Editorial Standards

We aim to be transparent about what is known, what is debated, what is interpretive, and what is still being researched. Claims are reviewed, labeled, and corrected when needed.

This page distinguishes established historical evidence, public records, archaeology, scholarly interpretation, community memory, oral tradition, spiritual interpretation, DNA research leads, and claims needing more review.

Original value standard

• A page should do more than restate a screenshot, viral claim, or unsupported community conclusion.
• A page should help a reader understand the source lane, the wording risk, the place context, or the next review step more clearly than a bare post can.
• If a page has no new synthesis, no usable caution, and no clearer evidence trail, it is not strong enough yet.
• We would rather slow publication than fake certainty.

Evidence Level labels

• A – Primary sources: original records, scans, peer-reviewed studies.
• B – Secondary sources: reputable historians, museums, and scholarly summaries.
• C – Interpretive: reasonable interpretation where evidence is incomplete.
• D – Hypothesis/community theory: speculative or debated; shared for discussion, not as settled fact.

Claim Status labels

• Open – a question is being explored.
• Supported – evidence exists, though disagreement may still exist.
• Disputed – credible disagreement exists.
• Corrected – a correction was issued and noted publicly.

Article framing rules

• State what kind of page the reader is on: explainer, field note, fact check, place hub, learning guide, tale, or interpretation lane.
• Keep source facts separate from interpretive conclusions and from spiritual or community-memory meaning.
• Use place and institution detail to narrow a claim instead of inflating it.
• Do not use workflow metadata, citation count, timing, or confidence labels as proof by themselves.

Author and public-name rule

Public names should be safe, readable, and non-doxxing. Pseudonymous participation is allowed, and email-like public names should be masked rather than exposed as public bylines.

AI and drafting tools

Drafting assistance can help structure or standardize work, but fluent text is not evidence. Pages still need source review, disclosure logic, correction pathways, and human responsibility for final wording.

What a high-value page should leave the reader with

• A clearer source trail than they had before opening the page.
• A better sense of what can be repeated publicly and what still needs review.
• A more specific next step: place hub, source review, claim review, correction, or safe-sharing action.
• Enough context to keep place, institution, and timeline language from collapsing into one unsupported conclusion.

Claim review frame

This frame adds one disciplined move to public reading: separate the sentence being made, the evidence behind it, the uncertainty around it, and the wording that is actually safe to publish.

What the claim says

Write the claim in one plain sentence before adding interpretation.

What evidence supports

Name the records, maps, archaeology, oral-history notes, or scholarly summaries that can be checked.

What remains debated

Mark interpretation, community memory, spiritual reading, or open questions honestly.

Recommended wording

Use careful wording that does not certify identity, ancestry, tribe, legal status, DNA conclusions, or community membership.

What remains open: A completed frame improves clarity, but it does not settle a claim until the source trail is strong enough and the wording survives review.

Before any sensitive claim is strengthened, use the Source Review Workflow to capture exact wording, source type, support limits, privacy risk, and owner decision.

Identity disclaimer: This project is educational. It does not certify identity, ancestry, tribe, nationality, DNA conclusions, legal status, descent, or membership in any community.