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
policy<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies>in 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
sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources>es>.
Articles should cite these sources
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE>whenever 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.
--
Have a blissful day!
Luis Alberto Riveros