176:
publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. For example, recent events may not have been subjected to published scholarly analysis yet, whereas events that occurred several decades ago may have been analyzed by multiple scholars. Try to cite scholarly consensus when available. Where sources disagree, material should be attributed in-text.
42:
231:. Linking to article copies on the Wayback Machine is presently considered acceptable. If you have found an article on a movement or countermovement website, verify the accuracy of the copy that you cite, as both movements and critics may censor or edit the wording of the articles they host on their sites.
297:
Editors working in this field who have strong religious allegiances, or firmly-held views on the value of new and established religious movements, are encouraged to disclose their allegiances or views on their user page. This prevents speculation and enables an open and collegial working relationship
384:
Contributors to NRM articles are often members of opposing communities, and wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Through reasoned debate, contributors can synthesize these views into a single article, and this creates a better, more neutral article for everyone. Every person who edits
226:
policy, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.
293:
While both critics and adherents of a movement may be drawn to an article on that movement, both should realise that
Knowledge is not a place for advocacy in favour of or in opposition to a movement. Editors should not attempt to turn the Knowledge article on a new religious movement into a glowing
252:
Due weight is established by secondary sources. Prominent topics in self-published sources (movement and countermovement) may not be prominent in third-party sources (scholarly works, high-quality mainstream media); it is the latter which establish due weight in articles on new religious movements.
325:
A movement should have its own article if it has developed social structures and behaviors that have attracted substantial coverage in reliable sources. If there is no substantial coverage of these aspects of the movement in reliable sources, a section in the founder's biography is sufficient to
175:
when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about new religious movements, particularly material from high-quality mainstream
163:
guideline demands that articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of
Wikipedians who have read and interpreted
294:
tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but attempt to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement. The same applies to articles on groups and individuals opposing new religious movements.
187:. Editors also should not use primary sources for explicit or implicit advocacy for or against a new religious movement, unless they cite a reliably published secondary source using the same primary source in the same manner.
221:
Both movements and countermovements frequently host newspaper articles favourable to their point of view on their websites. In most cases, these articles are hosted without the publishers' permission and license. Per
123:
The key to productive working relationships is to treat your fellow editors as unique individuals, with respect and without enmity based on their religious views. In
Knowledge, we are all, first of all, Wikipedians.
119:
articles in this contentious field is good sourcing: focus on using the best, most reputable sources, above all scholarly sources, and avoid the use of primary sources – both movement and countermovement sources.
227:
Instead, cite the original publisher and link to their copy of the article if it is online. If an article is no longer available on the publisher's website, see if you can link to a copy of the article on the
428:
21:
136:. As a result of these arbitration cases, over the years dozens of editors – both committed members and committed opponents of new religious movements – have received topic bans, even site bans.
132:
The NRM topic area is among a very small number of topic areas consistently generating several intractable disputes per year that require the intervention of
Knowledge's
348:
Where the article on a religious movement redirects to the article on the movement founder, the article on the founder should cover at least the following points:
414:
and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, but speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute
150:
279:. Where individuals have been linked to new religious movements, addition of related material must not unbalance or overwhelm the biography.
443:
228:
71:
448:
76:
404:
means of dismissing or discrediting their views – regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream – is a personal attack.
245:
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant facts and viewpoints that have been published by a
54:
411:
154:
17:
207:
Primary sources can be cited to support specific statements, but the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.
375:
64:
80:
275:
policy, biographies of living persons should have a broadly neutral structure and avoid claims that rely on
246:
112:
60:
171:
In the NRM field, as in any other field, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most
415:
379:
276:
371:
266:
90:
397:. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
334:
The article on the founder of a religious movement should cover at least the following points:
223:
216:
133:
50:
184:
180:
165:
116:
437:
394:
288:
272:
262:
240:
311:
The article on a new religious movement should cover at least the following points:
183:. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of,
172:
160:
27:
401:
385:
an article is part of the same larger community – we are all
Wikipedians.
390:
41:
352:
Biography, including important events in the movement's history
338:
Biography, including important events in the movement's history
115:(NRMs) have frequently proved contentious. The key to stable,
36:
249:, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
298:
even between editors with diametrically opposite views.
98:
393:
directed against another contributor are considered a
59:
It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more
197:
Writings or media recordings of a movement's founder;
200:Self-published writings of members and ex-members;
67:may be interpreted within their area of interest.
361:Reception of the founder and her or his movement
344:Reception of the founder and her or his movement
318:Beliefs, teachings or practices of the movement
8:
429:Knowledge New Religious Movements Work Group
203:Websites of members, ex-members and critics.
194:Writings or other media published by an NRM;
190:In the NRM field, primary sources include:
179:Articles should be based on reliable
7:
400:Using someone's affiliations as an
389:Racial, religious, ethnic or other
81:thoroughly vetted by the community
35:
22:New religious movements work group
283:Conflict of interest and advocacy
40:
151:WP:Identifying reliable sources
18:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion
1:
418:, which is a serious offense.
376:Knowledge:No personal attacks
330:Articles on movement founders
273:Biographies of living persons
257:Biographies of living persons
77:Knowledge policy or guideline
161:Identifying reliable sources
358:Description of the movement
465:
444:WikiProject content advice
369:
286:
260:
238:
214:
168:material for themselves.
148:
88:
407:Pointing out an editor's
302:Article content structure
449:WikiProject style advice
111:Knowledge's articles on
326:describe the movement.
315:History of the movement
155:WP:No original research
113:new religious movements
370:Further information:
307:Articles on movements
287:Further information:
261:Further information:
239:Further information:
215:Further information:
149:Further information:
140:Sourcing NRM articles
134:arbitration committee
79:, as it has not been
412:conflict of interest
380:Knowledge:Harassment
277:guilt by association
128:A contentious field
372:Knowledge:Civility
366:A note on civility
271:According to the
181:secondary sources
109:
108:
26:(Redirected from
456:
173:reliable sources
145:Reliable sources
101:
75:is not a formal
72:This information
65:content policies
44:
37:
31:
28:Knowledge:NRMMOS
464:
463:
459:
458:
457:
455:
454:
453:
434:
433:
425:
395:personal attack
382:
368:
332:
309:
304:
291:
285:
269:
259:
247:reliable source
243:
237:
229:Wayback Machine
219:
213:
185:primary sources
157:
147:
142:
130:
105:
104:
97:
93:
85:
84:
55:article content
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
462:
460:
452:
451:
446:
436:
435:
432:
431:
424:
421:
420:
419:
405:
398:
367:
364:
363:
362:
359:
356:
353:
346:
345:
342:
339:
331:
328:
323:
322:
319:
316:
308:
305:
303:
300:
284:
281:
258:
255:
236:
233:
212:
209:
205:
204:
201:
198:
195:
166:primary-source
146:
143:
141:
138:
129:
126:
107:
106:
103:
102:
94:
89:
86:
69:
68:
47:
45:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
461:
450:
447:
445:
442:
441:
439:
430:
427:
426:
422:
417:
413:
410:
406:
403:
399:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
381:
377:
373:
365:
360:
357:
354:
351:
350:
349:
343:
340:
337:
336:
335:
329:
327:
320:
317:
314:
313:
312:
306:
301:
299:
295:
290:
282:
280:
278:
274:
268:
264:
256:
254:
250:
248:
242:
234:
232:
230:
225:
218:
210:
208:
202:
199:
196:
193:
192:
191:
188:
186:
182:
177:
174:
169:
167:
162:
156:
152:
144:
139:
137:
135:
127:
125:
121:
118:
114:
100:
96:
95:
92:
87:
82:
78:
74:
73:
66:
62:
58:
56:
52:
46:
43:
39:
38:
29:
23:
19:
408:
383:
347:
333:
324:
310:
296:
292:
270:
251:
244:
220:
206:
189:
178:
170:
159:Knowledge's
158:
131:
122:
110:
70:
61:WikiProjects
48:
267:WP:COATRACK
63:on how the
49:This is an
438:Categories
402:ad hominem
235:Due weight
224:WP:LINKVIO
217:WP:LINKVIO
355:Teachings
341:Teachings
321:Reception
211:Copyright
99:WP:NRMMOS
423:See also
409:relevant
391:epithets
91:Shortcut
20: |
117:neutral
416:outing
378:, and
289:WP:COI
263:WP:BLP
241:WP:DUE
51:essay
16:<
265:and
153:and
53:on
440::
374:,
83:.
57:.
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
