Standards

 Speculation has little to no place on this blog. We maintain an ethical standard that the controversialist blogs and boards lack. Speculation based on the lack of records falls into one of the major logic faults. I am open to well researched articles, footnoted to original sources, even if they reach a conclusion other than one I 've reached. Neither Jerome nor I are open to anything based on flawed, speculative research. 

So you left a comment here, and we disallowed it? Return to your research. Improve it. Make it solid. Try again. One of the professional societies to which I belong notes the following standards. I expect those who comment here, especially those who wish to present 'controversial' conclusions to abide by them:

The maintenance of high professional standards includes:

• being acquainted with best practice in the use and evaluation of evidence, in whatever form it takes;

• understanding and following copyright laws;

• being mindful of intellectual property issues;

• taking particular care when evidence is produced by those still living, when the anonymity of individuals is required and when research concerns those still living;

• observing the ethical and legal requirements of the repositories and collections being used;

• being aware of conservation issues concerning materials that historians and those working in the heritage sector use and produce;

• eschewing plagiarism, fabrication, falsification and deception in proposing, carrying out and reporting the results of research;

• following the most rigorous procedures for the citation of sources, including materials obtained from the internet;

• observing the law of the land, and not committing, planning or colluding in the deliberate breaking of the law.