In this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University It seems that VERIFIABILITY : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Walnut.png This policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policiesin a nutshell: *Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Articles should cite these sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITEwhenever possible. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Is in a way in contradiction with the policy below in the same page:
* *Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information so long as:*
- *It is relevant to the organization's notability;* - *It is not contentious;* - *It is not unduly self-serving;* - *It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;* - *There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.*
Please clarify this. Do you want reliable sources or not? If an antagonistic group starts an article and uses a self-published source to hurt an organization's image, is this considered "non contentious"? or "relevant to the organization notability?" or "unduly self-serving"?Thank you for your attention to this.