Code of ethics

Historic Prism’s editorial promise rests on a simple rule: facts are sourced, interpretations are owned, and the two are distinguished.

Historic Prism does not claim an abstract neutrality. An author may have a point of view, sensitivity or thesis; that never authorises inventing a fact, hiding a decisive contradiction or presenting a hypothesis as certainty.

Whenever possible, research begins with primary sources: official texts, full speeches, archives, court decisions, institutional documents, original data and direct testimony.

Sensitive, serious or disputed claims must be cross-checked. A source is assessed according to its proximity to the fact, traceability, possible interests, date, context and whether it can be confronted with other evidence.

Insufficient evidence must be presented as such.

A quotation must preserve the meaning of the statement and its context and, where relevant, allow the reader to find the original archive or reference.

People or organisations accused of serious facts should have their position sought and fairly presented where it is available. Requests for correction or right of reply are examined on the basis of the facts and applicable law.

An established factual error must be corrected. Where a change substantially alters the understanding of an article or dossier, Historic Prism indicates the nature of the correction or update.

Documentary content may be enriched over time: a new archive, better dating, an additional source or correction of a relationship in the Atlas.

AI is an assistance tool for research, classification, comparison, reformulation or the exploration of hypotheses. It is neither a source nor an editorial authority.

• No content is automatically published by AI.
• A quotation, date, figure or reference proposed by AI must be verified before publication.
• A source that does not exist or cannot be verified must never be presented to the reader.
• The editorial lead retains final responsibility for the angle, selected facts and publication.

Funding, partnerships, invitations, benefits or personal relationships must not dictate coverage. Where a relevant interest could affect or raise doubts about editorial independence, it should be avoided, disclosed or signalled according to its nature.

Subscriptions fund access to tools and editorial production; they confer no right to intervene in published content.

Images of death, injury, detention, victims or violence are not used merely for spectacle. Their documentary value, context and the risk of harm to dignity must be assessed before publication.

Historic Prism rejects discrimination, harassment and dehumanisation. This does not prevent criticism or the documentation of hateful statements where their reproduction is necessary to understand a fact.