Method matters. We are not asking readers to trust our take on instinct. We want them to look at the sources, the labels, and the update process behind each page.
What we are trying to do
Every serious page should help a reader tell three things apart. First, the record: the document or data itself. Second, the inference: the conclusion we think the record supports. Third, the argument: why that conclusion matters. These are related, but they are not the same.
How research gets built
We start with primary material when it exists. That means treaty texts, statutes, government designations, original poll releases, court rulings, institutional reports, and archived public statements. Sometimes primary material is not enough on its own. Then we add strong secondary sources. These include peer-reviewed academic work, Congressional Research Service reports, and trusted institutional analysis. News reporting covers dated events, investigations, and updates when that is the right layer for the question.
What readers should expect on the page
We date our numbers. We back debated claims with sources that can take pushback. When a page makes a broad claim, it marks where the evidence is strong, where a point is inference, and where reasonable people may still disagree. If a page changes in a real way, we treat it as a correction or a dated update. We do not edit silently.
This approach tracks public standards. It mirrors the disclosure norms at AAPOR and the survey transparency practice at Pew Research Center. For legal and diplomatic history, it follows the source-first model used by the State Department’s Office of the Historian. The rule is simple. A reader should see not only what OZJF thinks, but why the page thinks it.