Editorial policy

Sources

Significant facts rest first on official Chadian sources, UNESCO, academic publications and recognised cultural institutions, then SIL, Ethnologue, Glottolog, RGPH, EDS-MICS. Each substantial page cites its references. Wikipedia is only an indicative marker (town coordinates) pending an official gazetteer. When inventories disagree, we say so.

What we distinguish

We separate cultural groups and languages, portraits published here and national totals, established facts, estimates, oral histories and community interpretations. One contributor does not speak for a whole people.

Structure of an entry

Major dossiers aim, when sources allow, for: historical and geographical background; practices, beliefs and material heritage; oral accounts or quotations only when consented and attributed; changes across generations and contemporary views; sources, credits, review date and a path to correction. Facts, oral accounts, interpretations and what still awaits verification are kept distinct. A community is not presented as uniform: practices vary by region, generation and family. An empty heading is a gap, not a silence dressed as fact.

Review and dates

Long dossiers carry “Last reviewed” and “Reviewed by” (editorial direction). Sensitive cultural information awaits validation by native speakers and cultural reviewers, recruited via Support: no name is invented. Corrections follow the sources and feedback from the communities concerned.

Methodology

Spelling: Chadian Arabic in the phrasebook keeps the cited source’s spelling (N’Djamena variety); alignment with the SIL Chad booklet (Heath, 2024) will come at review. Other languages keep the spellings of their sources, including name variants. Classification: people and languages are counted separately. Inventories (Ethnologue, SIL, Glottolog, Wikipedia) disagree; we say so. Population shares follow EDS-MICS 2014–2015, not RGPH 2009. The 23 provinces follow ordinance no. 038/PR/2018. A gap labelled “to document” is not an invented fact.

Languages of the archive

Four statuses, the same on the homepage, Sources and this page. (1) Fully translated and human-reviewed: French only, the writing and reference language. (2) Machine-translated, awaiting review: the other twelve interface languages (English, Arabic, Portuguese, Spanish, Kiswahili, German, Hausa, Russian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Italian); English and Arabic are the priority. (3) Menu-only: a page banner when the translatable share is too low; none of the 13 languages is “menu-only” as a language. (4) Community language contributions: Sara, Ngambay and the other Chadian languages grow through reviewed deposits at the language centre, not by machine-translating the site. All 13 languages have 100% translatable coverage (automatic measure): that is not native review. A page is never presented as “fully translated”. A page shows a named reviewer only when a real person has validated it. Arabic is displayed right to left.

Contributions

Nothing is published without review and consent. The right to share, the agreement of recognisable people, and agreement to be contacted are collected separately. You may request a correction or the withdrawal of your material via “Write to us”.

Review register

Information not yet reviewed by a native speaker or cultural reviewer, and corrections already published, are listed on the Reviews and corrections page. A point labelled “to verify” is not an established fact. Those reviewers are recruited via Support and Write to us; no name is invented to fill the team.

Page status

Each page shows a status computed from its sources. “Verified”: every statement points to a source listed on the page and no gap is flagged. “Incomplete”: sources are listed, but gaps are documented (missing recording or clip, custom or local name still to document). “Being verified”: the page has no source of its own yet, or relies on a general extract and “to be checked” points awaiting review. Nothing is marked “Verified” without listed sources.

Status : VerifiedStatus : Being verifiedStatus : Incomplete

Translation coverage

Four statuses, the same everywhere: (1) fully translated and human-reviewed — French only; (2) machine-translated, awaiting review — the other twelve interface languages, English and Arabic first; (3) menu-only — a page banner when the translatable share is too low; none of the 13 languages is “menu-only” as a language; (4) community language contributions — Sara, Ngambay and other Chadian languages via Contribute and the language centre. All 13 languages have 100% translatable coverage (automatic measure): that is not native review, and a page is never presented as “fully translated”.

• human-reviewed · reference — French only: reference writing, human-reviewed.
• machine — The other twelve interface languages are machine-translated, awaiting review. English and Arabic are the priority.
• menu only — A page banner when the translatable share is too low. None of the 13 languages is “menu-only” as a language.
• community contribution — Sara, Ngambay and other Chadian languages: recordings and translations via Contribute and the language centre, not by machine-translating the site.

Automatic measurement on the published site. The main criterion is translatable-text coverage: every text on the site (paragraphs, headings, lists, labels; header and footer excluded) must have a present translation (automatic measure; distinct from native or expert human review); only items that are not translated stay in French or their original language (proper names, ethnonyms, titles of works, quotations and references). A language is declared complete at 100% translatable coverage, and no banner is then shown. The overall percentage below also counts those kept items. French is the reference text.