Editorial standards
Facts dated. Positions named. Sources open.
These are the rules this association follows when publishing on this site. They exist so a reader can tell a confirmed fact from a plan from the association's own opinion — without taking our word for it. They apply to every page, article and timeline entry.
- Confirmed
- Stated in writing by a responsible body or a public register, with the statement linked.
- Planned
- Proposed in a document, with no decision attached to it yet.
- Position
- The association argues it — adopted at a general meeting and minuted.
Bürgerinitiative PRO Gewerbepark MN e.V. · Maring-Noviand, Germany · VR 42283, Amtsgericht Wittlich
The three labels
Three labels, applied everywhere
Every entry on this site carries exactly one of three labels. The label is not decoration — it says who stands behind the sentence and how far they will go with it.
-
Confirmed
A responsible body or a public register states the item in writing, and we can link to that statement. Registers, approved minutes, permits and published notices usually land here.
-
Planned
A document proposes the item but no decision is attached. A plan in a draft, a proposal at a council meeting, an indicative layout — all planned, never confirmed.
-
Position
The association argues it. It is adopted at a general meeting, minuted, and attributed to the association by name — never to a single member.
When an item moves from planned to confirmed, the entry is updated with a new date and the earlier state is noted, so a reader can see what changed and when.
Why labels, why dates
A plan can look exactly like a decision — same paper, same date, same corridor on the layout. The label is the only thing on the page that tells them apart.
We publish material of all three kinds, because the Maring-Noviand project will not be understood from confirmed facts alone. What we owe the reader is the label, the date, and the link that lets them check the classification themselves.
Sourcing rules
The original document, or nothing dressed as one
We cite the original document, or the publishing body's own copy of it, wherever possible. Press coverage is cited as press coverage, with the outlet and the date named. Where only a secondary summary exists, the entry says so — a summary is a pointer to a source, not a source of its own.
Primary document. Named, dated, linked. The register, the notice, the minute, the permit.
Press coverage. Named outlet and date, framed as reporting — never as the underlying document.
Secondary summary. Flagged as such in the entry, with the route back to the original noted where we have it.
Two rules we do not bend: we do not present an estimate from a draft as an official figure, and we do not attribute a statement to a body that has not made it.
Dating & versioning
The date of the document, not the date we wrote
Every entry shows the date of the event or the document it describes, not merely the day we published the entry. A reader should be able to place an item in time without opening our calendar.
Where a document exists in several versions, the version is named in the description. This matters most for drafts, where a single changed line about road access or drainage can change the whole argument behind the plan.
When we revise an entry, the revision carries its own date and a short note on what changed. Silent edits are not a house practice on this site.
What a dated entry shows
- The date of the event or document
- The version, where one exists
- A link to the source document
- The label — confirmed, planned, or position
Association positions
Our views stay in the section that says they are ours
The association's arguments appear only in sections marked as association positions, and they are attributed to the association by name. A member's personal view is not published as an association position.
Traceable to the meeting that agreed it
Attribution: the association, not the author
Adopted at general meetings
Every position is adopted at a general meeting and recorded in the minutes. That means a reader who wants to know when the association took a view, and on what grounds, can trace the entry back to the record of the meeting that agreed it.
Kept apart from facts
A position on the Gewerbepark is not written into a news entry as though it were a finding. It sits in a position section, where the reader can see it argued, and can disagree with it without having to unpick the site's reporting.
Not one member's voice
Where a member of the association disagrees with an adopted position, that view is not carried as an association position. The opinion of one person, published beside an adopted line, would blur what the association believes.
The 2026-11 series of corrections that has appeared on the site so far has been made under these rules, and the timeline carries the dates of the meeting where each position was agreed.
Conflicts of interest
No developer money, and interests on the record
We do not accept funding from developers or from parties with a commercial stake in the Gewerbepark decision. That is not a preference — it is the reason a reader can weigh a position section as something other than advertising.
Where a contributor has a relevant interest — owning land near the site, or working for a firm involved in the project — that interest is disclosed in the entry itself, in ordinary words, next to the contribution it affects.
If that disclosure cannot be made, the contribution is not published. We would rather lose the article than publish it with the reader unaware of whose side the author is on.
Corrections & right of reply
Nothing is removed silently
- Corrections are appended to the affected page with the date and a short note on what changed.
- Anyone named in our coverage may submit a reply, published alongside the original entry.
- Where we got a fact wrong, the correction says so in plain terms — no softened language on our own error.
Anonymous tips
Unnamed, but not unchecked
We accept information from people who need to stay unnamed, including employees of firms involved in the project. The name of the source is not the standard; the second source is.
-
Step one
We receive the material and record what it claims, without attaching it to a named person.
-
Step two
We look for independent verification: a second source, or a document we can hold and cite ourselves.
-
Step three
Where verification succeeds, the item is published with the label it earns and the corroboration named in the entry.
-
Step four
Where verification fails, we do not publish it. The reason is recorded in our internal notes rather than on the page.
The reason for that asymmetry is simple. An unpublished tip with a written note beside it tells the next editor why the claim was set aside; publishing it with an unnamed source and no corroboration would pass the doubt on to the reader.
Independent review
A second pair of eyes, and a clear statement of what that is not
Before a substantive article is published, a second person checks the dates, the labels and the links in it. On association positions, the check is run against the meeting minutes, not against the author's memory of the meeting.
What is checked
Dates, labels, and every source link in the article — in that order, before the piece goes live.
Where it is recorded
The review step is noted in the article's internal notes, not shown on the public page.
What it is not
This is not a legal review. We say that plainly rather than implying an assurance we cannot give.
Raise a concern
Corrections, replies, and complaints about labelling
Send corrections, right-of-reply requests and complaints about labelling to the editorial team. Include the page and the document you are referring to — it makes the difference between an acknowledgement and a fix.
We aim to respond within a few working days, and where the outcome affects the record on the site, the outcome is published rather than kept in a mailbox.
- [email protected]
- Post
- Im Webersgarten 25, 54484 Maring-Noviand, Germany
- Telephone
- +49 6535 944430
- Office hours
- Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
Where to go next
Read the record, or ask us about it
The documents page carries the source documents with their dates. The FAQ covers the ordinary questions about the project and the association's role.
Editorial standards · applied to every page, article and timeline entry on this site