Source Policy.

BeliefField records sources by what they can reasonably support instead of treating every link as equal. Primary sacred texts support textual claims; official or tradition-representative sources support attributed institutional or community positions; academic sources support historical and comparative context.

A source role does not grant broader authority than the source actually has.

Sacred-text translations are edition-specific. Labels such as “Bible translation” or “Quran translation” are not precise enough when exact wording matters. Translator, publisher, edition, version, or text tradition is identified where applicable.

A website that hosts or links to a text does not automatically grant permission to reproduce every version it makes available.

Citation permission is not the same as republication permission. BeliefField can cite or link to a source without claiming the right to reproduce the source in full.

Short quotations, when used, should be limited, relevant, and tied to an identifiable source or edition. Source-owner restrictions can be stricter than the site’s general workflow and are respected.

Different religions have different authority structures, so BeliefField does not force them into one institutional model. A Vatican source can explain an identified Catholic position; it cannot automatically speak for every Christian. The same principle applies across traditions.

Comparative pages require evidence for each tradition represented rather than allowing one side’s sources to define the other side.

Official websites, URLs, editions, institutional statements, and licensing terms can change. Important source records should therefore be rechecked when a page is materially updated or when there is reason to believe the source changed.

If a source, edition, locator, attribution, or rights assumption proves incorrect, the affected page should be corrected rather than preserving the old record for consistency.