How We Document
The processes, standards, and systems behind The Words Record archive
What The Words Record Does
The Words Record is a documentation platform that archives public statements made by public figures, organisations, and institutions. Every entry is sourced, cited, and preserved for long-term reference.
Thematic Focus
The archive focuses on public discourse related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and related geopolitical events. This scope allows for depth and consistency across entries.
Neutral Documentation
The Words Record does not take editorial positions. Content is documented factually: what was said, by whom, when, and in what context. Readers form their own conclusions.
Academic Citation
All entries follow numbered referencing standards with bi-directional citation linking. Sources are archived to ensure long-term verifiability.
Open Access
The archive is publicly accessible. All sources are linked, all methodology is documented on this page, and corrections are welcomed through established channels.
From Statement to Case
Content enters the system as individual statements. When a statement generates sufficient public discourse, it may be promoted to a case — a documented incident with a full timeline, multiple actors, and broader context.
Statement Created
A public statement is documented with its source, speaker, date, context, and classification. It is published at its own URL with full citations.
Responses Accumulate
Other public figures and organisations respond. Each response is documented as its own statement, linked to the original to form a response chain.
Eligibility Check
Statements with more than two documented responses are automatically flagged for review. Editors can also flag statements manually based on significance.
Qualification Scoring
Flagged statements are evaluated against four criteria: response count, media coverage, real-world repercussions, and public reaction. A minimum score of 50 points across at least 2 criteria is required.
Case Published
Qualifying statements become cases with full timelines, all related statements linked, people and organisations indexed, and metrics tracked. Cases are published at their own URL.
How Statements Are Recorded
A statement is the atomic unit of content: what someone said, with sources and context. Every statement has its own page and can exist independently or as part of a case.
Statement Types
Statements are classified by their role in the discourse. Only original statements can trigger case formation.
Response Chains
Statements form directed response chains. When a public figure responds to another statement, their response is documented and linked, creating a tree of discourse.
Original Statement (Person A) ├── Criticism (Person B) │ └── Clarification (Person A) ├── Institutional Response (Organisation X) └── Support (Person C)
Each response in the chain is a full statement with its own page, sources, and context. Response types include criticism, support, institutional response, disciplinary action, legal action, and more.
Verification Levels
Every statement carries a verification level that indicates how thoroughly it has been checked against sources.
When Statements Become Cases
Not every statement becomes a case. The qualification system ensures that only incidents with documented significance — multiple responses, media coverage, or real-world consequences — are elevated.
Qualification Criteria
A statement qualifies for case promotion when it meets at least 2 of the following criteria and achieves a combined score of 50 or higher.
| Criterion | Threshold | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Response Count | 2 or more documented responses | 25 |
| Media Coverage | 3 or more news outlets | 30 |
| Repercussion | Any tangible outcome (job loss, legal action, etc.) | 30 |
| Public Reaction | 10,000+ views or equivalent engagement | 15 |
What a Case Contains
Once published, a case page includes:
- The originating statement and its full response chain
- A chronological timeline of all related events
- People and organisations involved, with their roles
- Documented repercussions and outcomes
- All sources and citations
Source Standards and Citation
Every statement in the archive must have at least one reliable source. Contentious claims require two or more independent sources. All sources are publicly linked and archived.
Source Requirements
Minimum Sources
Every statement requires at least one reliable source.
Contentious Claims
Disputed or contested statements require two or more independent sources.
Primary Preferred
Primary sources (direct quotes, official records) are preferred over secondary reports.
Archived
All source URLs are submitted to web archiving services for preservation.
Source Credibility
Sources are rated by credibility to help readers assess the strength of evidence behind each statement.
Citation System
The archive uses a three-tier citation system:
Numbered superscript within statement content, linking to the reference list.
Full structured citation at the bottom of the page with bi-directional linking.
Each source has its own page with metadata, credibility rating, archive links, and all statements that cite it.
How We Write
The Words Record follows strict editorial guidelines to ensure neutral, factual documentation. The reader should never be able to tell what the author thinks about any statement or person in the archive.
Core Principle
“Document what was said, by whom, when, and in what context. Do not interpret, evaluate, or editorialize.”
Attribution Language
The words used to describe how someone communicated carry implicit judgment. The archive uses neutral attribution verbs exclusively.
| Preferred (Neutral) | Avoided (Loaded) |
|---|---|
| said, stated, wrote | claimed, alleged, admitted |
| described, noted, observed | confessed, conceded, boasted |
| responded, addressed, commented | lashed out, attacked, slammed |
| asked, questioned, raised | demanded, grilled, interrogated |
Language Rules
No Intensifiers
Words like “very”, “extremely”, “merely”, and “just” are removed. If something is significant, the facts demonstrate it.
No Loaded Adjectives
Terms like “controversial”, “shocking”, and “explosive” imply editorial judgment. Descriptions are factual.
Specific Over Vague
“12 organisations signed” rather than “many organisations signed”. Numbers and names replace vague quantifiers.
Attributed Reactions
“The statement was described as harmful by [name]” rather than “The statement was harmful.” Reactions are always attributed.
Archival and Preservation
Web sources can disappear. Social media posts are deleted, news articles are paywalled, and websites go offline. The Words Record archives all sources to ensure statements remain verifiable over time.
Web Archive (Primary)
All source URLs are submitted to the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine). The archived URL is stored alongside the original and linked from each citation.
Backup Archive
For sources that Wayback Machine cannot capture (paywalled content, dynamic pages), archive.today is used as a secondary archival service.
Screenshot Preservation
Social media posts and ephemeral content are captured as screenshots with timestamps, stored as evidence in case the original is deleted or modified.
Content Integrity
Archived content includes metadata (capture date, original URL, content hash) to verify that preserved material matches what was originally published.
What We Can and Cannot Do
Transparency about capabilities and limitations is part of the methodology. The following commitments and constraints shape every entry in the archive.
Commitments
Known Limitations
Language Coverage
The archive primarily documents statements made in English. Statements in other languages are included where reliable translations exist, but coverage is not comprehensive.
Non-English Language Policy
The archive documents public figures and statements across languages and writing systems. The following policies ensure accuracy and respect for original sources.
Names in Non-Latin Alphabets
When a person's name originates from a non-Latin writing system (Arabic, Hebrew, Cyrillic, Chinese, etc.), their Latin transliteration is used as the primary display name. The original name in its native script is stored as an alternative name and displayed alongside the transliteration on their profile page.
Statements in Other Languages
When a statement was originally made in a language other than English, the original language version is presented first, followed by the English translation. This preserves the exact wording of the original statement and allows readers who speak the source language to verify accuracy directly.
Translation Attribution
All translations are cited with the translation provider (news outlet, official translator, or translation service). This attribution acknowledges that nuance, tone, and meaning can be altered in translation, and allows readers to assess the reliability of the translation independently.
Additional Limitations
Thematic Scope
The archive focuses on a specific thematic area. It does not attempt to document all public discourse — breadth is traded for depth and consistency.
Temporal Constraints
Verification takes time. Entries may lag behind breaking events. The archive prioritises accuracy over speed.
Context Limitations
Written records capture what was said but not the full experience of an event. Tone, body language, and audience reactions are not always documented.
Source Availability
Despite archival efforts, some sources may become unavailable. When this happens, the entry is flagged and alternative sources are sought.
Reporting Errors and Submitting Corrections
Accuracy depends on feedback. If you identify an error — factual, attributional, or contextual — corrections can be submitted through established channels.
Identify
Locate the specific entry and note the error. Include the URL or statement ID if possible.
Submit
Use the corrections form or report page to submit the correction with supporting evidence.
Review
Submissions are reviewed against available sources. Additional verification may be conducted.
Implement
Accepted corrections are applied with a change log entry noting what was changed and why.