Corrections Policy

Use our contact page and include three things: the article title, the specific sentence or claim you believe is wrong, and — where you have one — the source that contradicts it. Specifics let us verify quickly; general disagreement is harder to act on.

We aim to acknowledge substantive error reports within five business days. Verifying a historical claim against primary sources sometimes takes longer than that, and we would rather be slow and right than fast and wrong.

We treat as correctable any error of fact: a misquoted document, a wrong date, a misattributed statement, a misstated legal or regulatory standard, a broken or misrepresented source, or a number that is simply incorrect.

We distinguish these from differences of opinion and interpretation. If you disagree with our political conclusions, that is a disagreement rather than an error, and we will not record it as a correction — though we do read and consider such messages, and they sometimes lead us to rewrite a passage for fairness or clarity.

For a substantive factual error, we correct the article text, update the article's visible last-updated date, and add an entry to the log on this page describing what was wrong and what it now says.

For minor issues that do not change meaning — a typo, a broken link, a formatting problem — we fix them directly without a log entry, since a record of every comma would make the log useless for finding real errors.

We do not delete an article to make an error disappear. If a piece is wrong in a way that cannot be repaired by correction, we retract it and say so plainly, leaving the retraction notice in place.

No corrections have been issued to date. This section will list every substantive correction we publish, newest first, with the date, the article affected, and a description of what changed.

An empty log is not a claim to infallibility — The Journal is a young publication with a small number of articles. We would rather show an honest empty log now and fill it accurately over time than leave readers unsure whether we track errors at all.

Founder and publisher Rico Sharma approves every article before publication and is responsible for issuing corrections. Corrections are not delegated to whoever wrote the original piece, so that the decision to correct never depends on the author's willingness to admit an error.

Our broader standards for sourcing, review, and disclosure are set out in our editorial policy.