Editorial Principles: How WorldPoliticsDaily Separates Fact from Position

What These Principles Are and Why We Publish Them

These are the rules WorldPoliticsDaily follows every time it publishes, and they exist so readers can tell what is established fact, what is a government's stated position, and what is our own explanation. We publish them in full because a site with a stated viewpoint owes its readers a clear account of how that viewpoint is handled.

WorldPoliticsDaily explains world politics in plain English and conveys Türkiye's perspective to an international audience. That purpose is described on About WorldPoliticsDaily: Who We Are and Why We Publish, and this page is linked from there as our publishing principles. We are not a neutral wire service, and we do not pretend to be one. We are a publication with a declared perspective that commits to keeping that perspective visible, labeled and sourced.

If you are new to the site, the WorldPoliticsDaily homepage shows the range of topics we cover, and the FAQ on sources, perspective and method answers common questions in short form.

Principle 1: Fact and Position Are Kept Apart

We write background, chronology and data in factual language, and we place Türkiye's assessments in a separate, labeled section with attribution. The goal is that a reader can always see where description ends and argument begins.

In practice this means:

• Background and timelines state what happened, when, and according to which record (a treaty text, a UN document, an official statement, a reputable dataset).
• Evaluations such as “this action violates international law” or “this policy is justified” are never slipped into the background. They appear under the heading Türkiye's Position and are attributed: “Ankara argues…”, “According to the Turkish Foreign Ministry…”.
• Our own analysis stays explanatory. We may explain why a dispute matters or how a legal framework works, but we do not present a government's preference as an established fact.

The “Türkiye's Position” section is used where Türkiye is a party, runs an active policy, or has announced an official stance. It summarizes that stance in three to five plain-English points. Each point is tied to a primary source where one exists: Foreign Ministry statements, statements from the Presidency and the Communications Directorate, decisions of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM), Türkiye's statements at the United Nations, or the text of bilateral agreements.

We also explain the historical and legal basis of the stance. For example, an article on the straits will explain the Montreux Convention, and an article on Cyprus will explain the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee and what Ankara says it allows. The section is visually separated from the analysis so it cannot be mistaken for neutral narration.

Where Türkiye has no official position or is not involved, we do not invent one. The section is simply omitted.

Principle 2: Other Sides Are Represented in Their Own Words

We summarize other parties' positions accurately, without distortion, and with reference to their own sources. A persuasive case for Türkiye's view does not depend on making the opposing case look weaker than it is.

Our working rules:

• Use the other side's primary sources. If Greece, Cyprus, the European Union, Russia, Ukraine, the United States, Armenia, Israel or any other party is described, we cite their official statements, legal filings or published documents where possible, not a hostile summary of them.
• Describe the strongest version of the argument. We state an opposing position as its holders would recognize it.
• Do not attribute motives without evidence. We report what a government said and did, not what we assume it secretly intends.
• Show disagreement as disagreement. Where parties interpret the same text differently, such as maritime delimitation rules in the Eastern Mediterranean, we lay out each interpretation and the document it rests on.

Every article follows a fixed structure that supports this: Key Players & Positions presents each party with sources, and Source Comparison shows how different outlets, including Turkish ones, frame the same event.

Principle 3: Accuracy Over Speed

We do not use fabricated quotes, unverified figures, or claims whose source is unclear, and we do not publish information we are unsure about. Being later and correct is better than being first and wrong.

This translates into specific habits:

• Quotes are used only when we can trace them to a recording, transcript, official publication or reliable report. We never reconstruct or “improve” a quote.
• Numbers carry a source and, where it matters, a date and a definition. Figures such as the number of displaced people or trade volumes vary by agency and method, so we name the body that produced them. Our coverage of Syrian refugees in Türkiye is an example of how we attribute counts and policy costs.
• Uncertain facts are either omitted or described qualitatively, with the uncertainty stated. We would rather say “estimates vary” than pick a convenient number.
• Dates use the ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD) in metadata and are given unambiguously in text so readers in any country can read them correctly.
• Single-source claims are flagged as such, and contested claims are presented as contested.

Principle 4: A Calm, Respectful Tone

We write in a calm, explanatory and respectful voice. We avoid slogans, insults and emotionally loaded language, and we aim to persuade through clarity and evidence rather than pressure.

In practice:

• No name-calling of leaders, peoples, religions or nations.
• No headlines built to provoke outrage.
• No emotive adjectives where a precise noun or a documented fact will do.
• Serious subjects such as terrorism, war, displacement and civilian casualties are described with restraint and respect for those affected.

A firm position can be stated plainly. “Ankara rejects this reading of the treaty and cites Article X” is stronger and more useful than rhetoric.

Principle 5: Official Terminology, Explained at First Use

We use Türkiye's official terminology, and we briefly explain any term that may be unfamiliar to an international reader the first time it appears. This keeps our usage consistent with the sources we cite while staying understandable to people who do not follow Turkish politics.

Examples of how this works:

Term	How we use it	First-use explanation
Türkiye	The country's official name, used throughout	Noted as the name used by the Turkish government and in UN usage
PKK	Used as Ankara uses it, as a terrorist organization	Explained as the Kurdistan Workers' Party, listed as a terrorist organization by Türkiye, the United States and the European Union
YPG	Described with Ankara's view of its links to the PKK clearly attributed	Explained as the People's Protection Units in Syria; we note that views of the group differ among governments
FETÖ	Used as the Turkish government's term for the network it blames for the 2016 coup attempt	Explained as the “Fethullahist Terrorist Organization”, Ankara's designation; we note that not all governments use it
DEAŞ	Turkish name for the group also called ISIS or Daesh	Explained on first use

When a term reflects an official designation, we say whose designation it is. For the PKK, the fact that Türkiye, the US and the EU all list it as a terrorist organization is stated as a verifiable fact; our fuller explanation is in Why Is the PKK Designated a Terrorist Organization?. For the YPG, where governments diverge, we say so and point readers to YPG vs PKK: What Is the Relationship?. Using official terminology is not the same as claiming every government agrees, and we do not blur that line.

Authorship Policy

Every article names its author as either a real person or the “WPD Editorial Team”. We do not use invented author personas, fake expert titles, or pseudonyms designed to look independent.

• Bylines reflect who actually wrote or edited the piece.
• Credentials are stated only if they are real and relevant.
• Publication and last-updated dates are shown on every article and included in our structured data (Article and FAQPage markup, with WorldPoliticsDaily as the publisher).
• Every article ends with this perspective note: “WorldPoliticsDaily presents global affairs with a dedicated perspective from Türkiye. Sections marked ‘Türkiye's Position’ reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources.”

Sourcing Policy

We prefer primary sources, name them in the text, and distinguish them from secondary reporting. Readers should be able to see where a claim comes from.

1. Primary first: treaties, official statements, parliamentary decisions, UN documents, court rulings, and official datasets.
2. Reputable secondary sources for context and reporting we cannot verify ourselves, named in the text.
3. Official Turkish sources for Türkiye's position, always attributed as such.
4. Other parties' own sources for their positions (see Principle 2).
5. No unattributed claims. If we cannot say where a claim comes from, it does not run.

Because official sources represent governments, we treat them as evidence of what a government says, not automatically as proof of what is true. Where a statement is factual and checkable, we check it. Where it is a political judgment, we label it as such.

Corrections Policy

When we get something wrong, we correct it visibly rather than quietly. Accuracy matters more than appearances.

• Factual errors (names, dates, figures, quotes, misattributed positions) are corrected in the text, and the article's updated date reflects the change.
• Significant corrections carry a short note explaining what was changed.
• Minor fixes such as typos and formatting may be made without a note.
• Disputed characterizations of another party's position are reviewed against that party's own sources, and we adjust if we find we misrepresented them.
• Reader reports of possible errors are welcome through the contact route described on the About page and are reviewed by the editorial team.

We do not remove articles to hide mistakes. If a piece is fundamentally flawed, we say so and explain what changed.

Fact Check: Our Approach to Misinformation

We maintain a separate Fact Check category for false or incomplete claims about Türkiye in international media. In those articles, we quote the claim and name its source exactly, then correct it using official statements and documents. A fact check follows the same rules as everything else here: we do not paraphrase a claim into a weaker version in order to refute it, and where a claim is partly accurate, we say which part.

What These Principles Do Not Promise

These principles do not make WorldPoliticsDaily neutral, and they do not guarantee that you will agree with us. They promise something narrower: that you will know whose view you are reading, that facts and positions will not be mixed without a label, that other sides will be described fairly, and that errors will be corrected openly. Readers are encouraged to compare our coverage with other outlets; our Source Comparison sections are built to help with exactly that.

Standards on terrorism designations, sanctions, maritime law and territorial disputes differ among countries and institutions. Where they do, we say so rather than presenting one country's rule as universal.