steven l. rubenstein said:
Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that claims should come from reputable sources,
You mean [[wikipedia:cite sources]] says this? I don't think it does. Where does it say thatsources should be reputable? What if I want to describe the British National Party's official policy on asylum seekers? Wouldn't the best way to do that be to cite the official policy itself? It isn't produced by a reputable organisation, but it's pretty authoritative on official published party policy.
Evaluation of sources is something that can be left to the reader. NPOV means that we report facts, and facts about opinions. We do not present an evaluation, we simply take care to describe the source accurately and correctly identify the information that the source provides. So for instance an official LaRouche website is a very good source for the content of the official statements of the LaRouche people, an official government website is a good source for the content of official statements of the government, and the UN website is a good source for the official published minutes of UN meetings and the like. It's up to the reader to decide what to make of the respective organisations.