FACT CHECK DETAILS

Civil War Fact Checks contain a details section that provides an explanation tag of statements contributors use to describe their conclusions. Below is a list of tags that can be used to support the final verdicts along with a brief explanations:

FACT TAGS

  • Factual Inaccurate: Used to describe a statement or measurement as fact that is not accurate. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:
  • Factually Incorrect: Used to describe a theory as fact that is not correct. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:
  • Combines Opinion and Fact: Presents an opinion as fact. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:
  • Factually Accurate:  Free from factual errors, describes reality in a way that is consistent with available observations or data. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:
  • Factually Correct: Tag used to support the following verdict badge:
  • Correct but, .. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:

EXPLANATION TAGS

  • Misleading: Leaves the reader with a false or poor understanding of how things work. Tag used to support the following verdict badges:
  • Misrepresents a Tangled Truth: Fails to recognize that an historical observation (for example, an event) can be influenced by more than one factor. Tag used to support the following verdict badges:
  • Fails to Grasp Importance of an Observation: Uses an observation in support of a conclusion that it does not support. Tag used to support the following verdict badges:

LOGIC TAGS

  • Flawed Reasoning: Conclusions do not follow the claim by the writer. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:
  • Logical Reasoning: Tag used to support the following verdict badge:

CONTEXT TAGS

  • Lack of Context: The claim lacks observations or explanations that would change the reader’s takeaway. Tag used to support the following verdict badges:
  • Cherry-Picking:  The act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:
  • Click Bait Headline: Title does not appropriately support the article. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:

EXAGGERATION TAGS

  • Overstates Historical Confidence: Presents a conclusion as conclusive while the theory is still being investigated and there remains genuine historical uncertainty about the claim. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:
  • Overstates the Historical Impact of a Finding: For instance, claims that a new finding overturns all previous knowledge when, in reality, it doesn’t. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:

SOURCE TAGS

  • Inadequate Support: Source used to support a claim that is non-existent or of low historic credibility. Tag used to support the following verdict badges:
  • Misrepresents Source (Strawman Argument): is an argument based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:

IMPRECISE LANGUAGE TAGS

  • Lacks Specifics: The claim is too broad or vague to be clearly verifiable. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:
  • Imprecise: Language might be said to be imprecise because it exhibits one or more of the following features: Ambiguity – when a word or phrase pertains to its having more than one meaning in the language to which the word belongs. Vagueness – when borderline cases interfere with an interpretation. Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). Accent – when the use of bold or italics causes confusion over the meaning of a statement. Amphiboly – when a sentence may be interpreted in more than one way due to ambiguous sentence structure. Tag used to support the following verdict badge:

Objectivity (Not reviewed)

  • Writer Bias: We do not evaluate the opinion of the author, but instead the historical accuracy of facts contained within the text, and the quality of reasoning used.