Editorial Principles and Primary Source Standards

Mission & Editorial Identity

States in Perspective (statesinperspective.com) explains global and regional affairs in plain, analytical English and presents Türkiye's official legal and strategic positions to an international readership, grounded in primary sources. It is not a neutral wire service and does not pretend to be one. It is a publication with a stated perspective, and this page sets out the rules that perspective operates under.

The readers we write for are policy makers, diplomats, academics, think-tank analysts, international lawyers and journalists. Many of them look for a balanced, sourced reading of Türkiye on subjects where Ankara's case is often summarized in a sentence or omitted altogether. These subjects include maritime jurisdiction in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Cyprus issue, counter-terrorism and border security, the Events of 1915, the Montreux Convention and mediation diplomacy.

The publication's approach rests on three commitments:

• Documents before adjectives. We argue from treaties, UN records, archives and official statements rather than slogans.
• Perspective is labeled, not hidden. Where a position is Türkiye's, we say so and attribute it.
• Other views are shown accurately. Opposing arguments are stated in their own terms before we explain where Ankara disagrees.

For the wider mission, the editorial team and how the site is organized, see About States in Perspective: Mission, Transparency and Editorial Team. This page is the site's publishing principles statement and can be cited as such.

Separation of Fact and Official Position

We keep facts and positions in different parts of every article. Background, chronology, legal texts and data are written in neutral, factual prose. Türkiye's assessments, doctrines and legal theses appear in a dedicated section headed 'Türkiye's Position', and each point is attributed to a named source.

Primary Sources & Verification Standards

We rank sources by how close they sit to the original act, text or record, and we prefer the highest-ranked source that is available. A summary in a newspaper or think-tank paper is never treated as a substitute for the treaty, resolution or archival document it describes.

Verification rules

• No invented quotes. Every quotation is traceable to a real statement or text. If we cannot locate the original wording, we paraphrase with attribution or leave it out.
• No unverified figures. Casualty counts, dates, coordinates, vote tallies and operational statistics must come from an identifiable source. Where credible sources disagree, we say so rather than choosing silently.
• Official figures are labeled as official. A number released by a government is described as that government's figure.
• Dates in ISO-compatible form where useful. Dates are written unambiguously (for example 2025-06-12 or 12 June 2025) because readers worldwide read numeric dates differently.
• Uncertainty means omission. If a detail cannot be confirmed, it is not published.

For how this works in practice, the Reader FAQ: Sources, Method and the Türkiye Perspective answers common questions about how we choose and cite sources. Our sister publications apply a similar documentary approach, for example Horizon of Nations' fact check of common claims about Türkiye in international media.

Fair Representation of International Perspectives

We summarize other governments' and institutions' positions accurately, from their own official sources, before presenting Türkiye's counter-argument. A strong argument does not need a weakened opponent, and we do not build our case on a distorted version of someone else's.

In practice this means:

• Their words, their sources. Greece, Cyprus, Armenia, the European Union, the United States, Egypt, Israel, the United Kingdom and the UN are cited from their own foreign ministries, parliaments, official documents and institutional statements.
• Disagreement is stated as disagreement. When capitals read the same treaty or event differently, we show both readings side by side. Many of our comparison pieces are built this way, for example Cyprus Seen from Five Capitals.
• Legal practice varies by country, and we say so. Designations, recognition and the legal status of events differ between jurisdictions. For example, states do not all list the PKK or treat the YPG and SDF in the same way, as discussed in Who Lists the PKK? Designation Practice Across Capitals and the Gap Over the YPG and SDF. Recognition of the TRNC is likewise explained in Which Countries Recognize the TRNC, and What Does Observer Status Actually Mean?.
• Parliamentary votes and court findings are distinguished. A resolution passed by a legislature is a political act, and a judgment is a legal one. We report which one we are describing. See Parliaments and Courts: How States Have Handled the Events of 1915.
• Then Ankara's response. After the other side is stated fairly, the 'Türkiye's Position' section sets out how Ankara answers, with its legal and documentary basis.

The 'Source Comparison' section of an article sets out how international media and Turkish primary sources frame the same issue, often in a table, so that readers can judge the gap between them.

Terminology & Style Guide

We use Türkiye's official terminology and explain unfamiliar terms the first time they appear. Using the official terms is a stated editorial choice, and where other states use different terms, we note the difference so that readers are not left unaware of it.

Style rules

• Calm, explanatory prose. No slogans, insults or emotional rhetoric.
• Answer first. Each section opens with the answer to its question, so that it can be quoted without the rest.
• Short paragraphs, clear headings, tables where they clarify. We use comparison tables for positions and timelines.
• Defined terms on first mention. Legal designations, treaty names and acronyms are spelled out the first time.
• Units. Metric units come first, with imperial in parentheses where it helps readers.

Authorship, Corrections & Fact-Checking Policy

Every article is published under the byline 'States in Perspective Editorial Team'. We do not invent author personas, fabricate academic titles or use pseudonyms that suggest independence. Readers are entitled to know who is speaking, and the answer is the editorial team of a publication with a declared perspective.

Corrections policy

• We correct errors openly. If a factual error is found in a published piece, whether it concerns a date, a figure, a quotation or a legal citation, we correct the text.
• Substantive corrections are noted. A correction that changes the meaning of an article is flagged on the page with the date of the change, so that readers can see what was altered. We do not silently rewrite substantive claims.
• Minor fixes such as typographical errors may be made without a note.
• Reader reports are welcome. Readers who believe a claim is inaccurate or unsupported can raise it through the contact channels described on the About page, preferably with a reference to the document or source they rely on.
• Updates are dated. Where events move on, for example a new UN meeting or a new court ruling, we show the date of the update.

The Fact Check method

Our Fact Check Desk addresses claims about Türkiye that circulate in international media and are false, one-sided or incomplete. Each Fact Check article follows the same steps:

1. State the claim and its origin. We quote or closely paraphrase the claim as it was made, and identify where and by whom it was made.
2. Separate the parts of the claim. A single sentence often mixes a verifiable fact, a legal characterization and a political judgment, and we treat each part on its own terms.
3. Go to the primary record. We check the treaty text, the UN document, the archival record or the official statement that bears on each part.
4. Say what is correct and what is not. Where a claim is partly right, we say which part. Where it omits context, we supply it.
5. Present the verified correction. The correction is based on named documents, with Türkiye's position attributed as Türkiye's, and the opposing reading stated fairly.

Examples of this method include Fact Check: 'Most States Have Recognized the 1915 Genocide Claim': Parliaments Versus Courts, and the cross-publication checks at Polity Review and Monitor of Nations. Fact Checks apply to claims we test. They are not a license to ignore evidence that points the other way.

Perspective Note

States in Perspective presents global affairs with a dedicated perspective from Türkiye. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources.

States in Perspective presents Türkiye's official legal and strategic position alongside documented counter-arguments, so readers can see how Ankara frames each issue. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, Ottoman and Turkish archives, and official statements.