How we assess evidence

A reader question is identified as a question. Quotation marks and named speakers appear only when an original source establishes what was said. Variant questions help readers find the same evidence; they are editorial search phrases unless a linked source documents their circulation.

Original records first

Our starting point is the original record: legislation, a court opinion, an agency's guidance, the relevant dataset and methodology, or an identified religious text and translation. These sources do different jobs. A bill establishes enacted wording only after its status is confirmed. An investigation announcement establishes an investigation, not guilt. A named religious declaration establishes the authors' position, not the views or conduct of every Muslim. A translation is an attributed interpretation of language, not a substitute for all scholarship.

Each record gives the answer, the source that supports it, and the inference or limitation that changes how the answer may be used. We distinguish law from enforcement, protected belief from unlawful conduct, religious identity from nationality, a building count from a population estimate, and a dataset's observed scope from a national conclusion. We do not attach a numeric truth score.

Finding labels

Established

The narrow proposition has direct support in the linked sources.

Misleading

An otherwise recognizable statement omits a material distinction.

Needs context

A boundary in the sources changes what the statement means.

Unsupported

The cited evidence does not substantiate the specific assertion.

Partly supported

Some of the proposition is supported and some is not.

Unresolved

The available record does not yet settle the question.

Not a factual claim

The statement is an opinion, value judgment or question, not a checkable fact.

A label applies to the precise statement being evaluated, never to a person's honesty, a religion or a group. Assessment is recorded separately from review status and source access.

Interpretation

Religious traditions are internally diverse, change over time and exist within social contexts. Harvard's Religion and Public Life core principles support this approach; that framework does not endorse this publication or adjudicate a theological dispute. Where competing interpretations matter, we attribute them rather than present one as the universal Muslim position. Difficult theological drafts remain on an internal specialist-review queue until appropriate review actually happens.

Dates, review and corrections

The checked date describes the linked-source check, not permanent validity. Human editorial review is recorded separately and is never inferred from a successful build or automated source retrieval; every record currently shows human review pending. A stale court or agency record is labeled with its dated scope and marked refresh needed. If a source cannot be accessed, its access status is disclosed and it is not counted as newly verified. New information can change a conclusion, and material changes are added to the record's history.

Corrections can be sent through contact and our corrections page. The Evidence Desk is not accredited, not exhaustive and not a substitute for legal advice.

Copying and data

Copy with citation copies the finding with its material limitation, title, canonical URL and checked date, not a context-free verdict. The JSON and CSV downloads on the Evidence Desk carry the same fields. They are for reusable evidence, not automated messaging.