User:Bladious

Nothing interesting nor unique about me. I am a truth seeker even when the truth isn't what I wanted to hear. I am joining Wiki mainly so that I can contribute to the community and hopefully make a dent in some of the very obvious and flagrant half-truths and lies that I often find in articles that are supposed to be neutral. So many people today use Wikipedia as a source of supposedly accurate information and yet so much of it can easily be disproved if one has the interest and intellectual honestly to look.

It is also my hope that I do not contribute to these mistakes.

Neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia demands that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterise disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.