Methodology
What This Site Does
Is This Normal? presents structured evidence for political claims that appear in public discourse. Each claim page provides primary sources, a summary of evidence for and against the claim, a chronological timeline of events, and a structured interpretation section.
This site does not offer legal advice, editorial opinion, or partisan commentary.
How Claims Are Selected
Claims are selected based on public interest, search volume, and recurring appearance in news cycles. We prioritize claims that are widely repeated, frequently mischaracterized, or difficult to verify through a single source.
How Claims Are Researched
Each claim undergoes the following process:
- Identification: The claim is stated as precisely as possible, in the form it most commonly appears.
- Source collection: Primary sources are gathered including court filings, official government statements, inspector general reports, congressional testimony, and credible news reporting.
- Evidence structuring: Evidence is divided into what supports the claim and what provides additional context or contradicts it.
- Timeline construction: Key dates and events are organized chronologically.
- Status assignment: A status is assigned based on the weight of available evidence.
Status Definitions
Supported by Evidence
The available primary sources substantially support the claim as stated.
Mixed Evidence
Some evidence supports the claim, but significant caveats, context, or contradicting evidence exists.
Not Supported by Evidence
The available evidence does not support the claim as commonly stated.
Unresolved
Insufficient evidence exists to make a determination, or the matter is still pending (e.g., ongoing investigation or litigation).
Continuous Fact-Check Coverage
We continuously monitor structured fact-check ecosystems (including Google Fact Check claim reviews and dedicated fact-checker feeds) to identify where claims are evolving, disputed across outlets, or newly resurfacing with updated context.
Existing fact-checks are used as a starting map, not a final verdict. We prioritize claims where new evidence, official records, or changed circumstances may alter the interpretation.
Editorial Standards
- All factual assertions are cited to primary sources.
- Language is neutral and avoids adjectives that imply judgment.
- “What This Means” sections present structured interpretation, not opinion.
- Claims are updated when new evidence becomes available, with update dates noted.
- No claim page expresses support for or opposition to any political party, candidate, or ideology.
Corrections
If you identify an error in any claim page, including broken source links, factual inaccuracies, or missing context, please contact us. All corrections are reviewed and applied promptly, with the update date reflected on the affected claim page.