We assess claims based on primary sources, which might include court documents, videos, photographs, eyewitness accounts, and other evidence from parties to the events being discussed. Using primary sources avoids inserting analysis and commentary from secondary sources like newspapers and magazines. It also empowers the reader to do further research on each claim.
Depending on the primary-source evidence, we label claims with the following ratings:
We have found primary-source material to support all of the claim.
We have found primary-source material to support almost all of the claim.
The primary-source material that we have found partially supports the claim, but contradicts at least some of the claim.
We have found primary-source material to contradict almost all of the claim.
We have found primary-source material to contradict all of the claim.
Either the claim itself is unclear, or we do not have access to primary-source material that clearly supports or contradicts the claim.
The claim has no basis in verifiable fact. This rating is especially applicable to normative (good, bad, ugly, e.g.) claims.