Editorial standards
Methodology
This site exists to let people check things for themselves. These are the rules we hold ourselves to, so that you can hold us to them too.
The guiding principle
We do not merely tell you that a teaching changed or a prediction failed. We show you the original publication, its exact date and wording, the later publication, and the outcome, side by side. If we cannot show it, we do not assert it.
Source hierarchy
- Primary Jehovah’s Witness sources. JW.org, the Watchtower Online Library, Governing Body Updates, official videos and captions, The Watchtower, Awake!, books, brochures, Kingdom Ministry material, elders’ publications where lawfully available, press statements, and scans or photographs of original publications.
- Primary public records. Court judgments, government inquiries, parliamentary and regulatory material, charity filings, archived United Nations correspondence, official statistics.
- High-quality independent sources. Peer-reviewed research, recognised medical organisations, reputable news organisations, academic books, named expert commentary.
- Discovery sources only. JW Facts, AvoidJW, AJWRB, Reddit, YouTube commentary, ex-member blogs, forums and social media. These help us find a publication, date or page. They are never the sole authority for a claim where a primary source exists, and they are labelled as discovery sources wherever they appear.
What we record for every source
Exact publication title; issue or publication date; page or paragraph where available; the exact quotation, kept only as long as needed to establish the point; the official URL; an archived URL where the official page has been removed or changed; scan provenance and attribution; the date we accessed it; its place in the hierarchy above; and a confidence label. All of this is visible on each source record and downloadable as JSON.
Confidence labels
Each source and each claim carries one of four labels.
| Label | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Verified | A reviewer opened the cited source itself (the official page, the Online Library, a court record or a lawful scan) and confirmed that the wording, date, page and context support the claim as written. A claim is only “verified” if at least one of its sources is verified and none of its support rests solely on a discovery source. |
| Supported | The wording and date match at least two independent sources, but we have not yet opened the original. We say so, and we keep looking. |
| Disputed | Sources materially conflict, or the organisation contests the reading. We present both and explain the dispute. |
| Unverified | Located only in discovery sources, or not located at all. Never presented as established fact; either omitted from the narrative or shown only as an unresolved item. |
The build fails if a claim has no source, if a claim is marked verified without a verified source, or if two records share an ID. The content system makes it difficult to publish a claim without its supporting evidence.
Quotations, scans and copyright
We quote the minimum needed to establish a point and link to the full source so that context can be checked. We prefer searchable text and direct publication links over screenshots. Where a scan materially helps, we link to the scan alongside a transcript and its provenance. We do not reproduce complete copyrighted publications. Short quotation for criticism, review and reporting is a well-established form of fair dealing, but we do not assume that any particular use is lawful, and we will remove or shorten material on a reasoned request from a rights holder. Copyright and fair dealing.
Language rules
- British English. Calm, humane, direct.
- We distinguish ordinary Witnesses from organisational leadership and published policy. Nothing on this site is a judgement on the sincerity of individual members.
- We say “the publication stated…”, “the later position differs in the following way…”, “the predicted event did not occur”, “the organisation now describes this as a clarification”, “the available evidence supports…”, “this claim remains disputed because…”.
- We do not use insults, mockery or exaggerated language, and we do not build arguments on labels such as “cult”.
- We do not say “millions died” or “every child on this cover died” unless a claim is precisely defined and supported. We explain the difference between documented individual cases, estimates, allegations, findings and confirmed facts.
- We keep “policy”, “doctrine”, “guidance”, “practice” and “personal conscience” distinct, and we label a retrospective organisational explanation as retrospective.
- We never present a medical possibility as a guaranteed outcome for a named individual.
- Where the organisation has a present explanation or response, we include it. The purpose is not false balance; it is to show the complete documentary record.
Living people, victims and privacy
We name individuals only where they are already named in the cited public source, and we describe them only as that source does. Where a court has anonymised a person whom a publication named, we use the court’s identifier. Where a person is probably living, was a private individual, and the point can be made without their name, we use a description instead. If you are named on this site you can ask us to remove it: see the privacy notice. We do not reproduce graphic detail of abuse. We do not collect personal testimonies. Survivors are referred to using the identifiers used by the official inquiry or court.
Review process
Before release, each evidence collection is checked by independent review passes with specific briefs: a source auditor who re-opens every important citation; a medical evidence reviewer for blood terminology, causation and mortality language; a legal and editorial risk reviewer for allegations, living people, copyright and privacy; a reviewer who reads as a current or former Witness to test whether the tone is fair and accurate to a Witness reader; an accessibility and usability reviewer; and an adversarial reviewer who defends the organisation and looks for anything overstated, decontextualised or easy to rebut. Their findings and our resolutions are published in the repository, and critical findings are fixed before release.
Automated checks
Every build validates the evidence ledger, rejects duplicate IDs and missing sources, checks internal links and fragment anchors, checks images for alternative text and controls for accessible names, and records the status of every outbound link. Links that cannot be opened automatically are marked so that readers know to check them by hand. Removed or changed official pages are shown with an archived copy where one exists.
Corrections
Errors are corrected openly and logged with the date on the corrections log. Report an error.
What this site is not
It is not medical, legal or mental-health advice. It does not tell anyone whether to stay in or leave a religion. It does not host testimonies, and it collects no personal data from readers, and counts page views only in aggregate, with no cookies and no way to identify anyone. It is a documentary resource: the evidence is presented so that you can weigh it.