Editorial standards.
Applied the same way.

What we publish

Equal Standard documents specific, sourced examples of gender-based double standards: public statements, institutional policies, institutional responses and media coverage, mostly concerning employment and public life in Canada and the United States.

We do not publish:

• Allegations about private individuals, except where an expert review finds a compelling public interest.
• Anything submitted to us until an editor has checked it. Submissions are never published automatically.
• Contact details, workplaces or anything that could be used to target a person.
• Calls to contact, shame, threaten or pressure anyone or their employer.
• Claims about a person’s motives that the evidence does not support.

Inclusion in the archive is not a finding that anyone broke the law or acted in bad faith.

How a record is checked

Before a record is published, an editor confirms:

1. The original source: the statement, document or recording itself, or an archived copy where the original has changed.
2. The exact wording of any quotation, checked against that source.
3. The date of the original statement and the date we recorded it.
4. The context: the setting, the audience, the surrounding remarks and any satire, irony or qualification.
5. Any response from the person or institution involved, and any action taken as a result.

Each record keeps facts and interpretation apart. The summary and context describe what happened. Anything that interprets it appears under a separate heading marked Analysis, and each published record shows who reviewed it and when.

What the labels mean

Quote verified

The quotation and its source have been checked against the original. This says nothing about whether the claim in the quote is true or whether anyone acted wrongly.

Source verified

For records without a quotation: the document or event has been checked against its original source.

Disputed

The facts or the context are materially disputed. The record sets out the dispute and the evidence on each side.

Corrected

The record has been changed since it was published. The change and its date are listed on the record.

Withdrawn

The record no longer meets our standards and has been removed. Where appropriate, a short notice explains why.

Comparisons

A comparison sets two or more cases side by side to ask whether similar conduct was treated differently. We compare the actual conduct, the rules that applied, the institution’s jurisdiction, the employment relationship, the audience and reach, prior history, the context and the outcome.

Every comparison lists the material differences between the cases as prominently as the similarities. Where important facts are missing, we say so and do not conclude that a double standard exists.

Statistics

Statistical claims are reviewed against the original data, not a headline or an infographic. For each claim we record:

• The exact claim, who made it, when and where.
• The original dataset or study, its population, years, sample and method.
• What the number measures: its numerator, denominator and unit, and whether it is a rate, an average or a lifetime figure.
• The difference between describing a gap and explaining its cause.
• The strongest evidence for and against the claim, and its limitations.

We critique specific claims and methods, not groups of people. A misleading headline is not, on its own, evidence that anyone intended to mislead. Canadian and US figures, and figures from different years or methods, are not merged as if they were directly comparable.

Corrections and right of reply

Anyone can ask us to correct a record, including the people and institutions named in it. Changes are listed on the record with their date, and on our corrections page.

Independence

Donors, sponsors, directors and the people we write about cannot buy favourable coverage or veto a substantiated finding. Opinion and advocacy are kept separate from factual research.