This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BootsED.
Wikipedia is not to be used to un-brainwash the masses. We inform the masses about...attempts to brainwash them.[1]
Hello! I am BootsED. I am a human being and like to edit Wikipedia.
I do my best to follow Wikipedia best practices, properly cite sources, and assume good faith in discussions with other editors. Owing to the differing opinions many editors have with the real-world topics we document, I know it can be a hard job to keep calm! If I have offended you in any way, please know it is nothing personal! I admit I am not perfect.
If you disagree with my edits, please let me know on my talk page, or better yet, on the talk page on the page you disagree with my edits on (so other editors can see and chime in on the discussion).
Thank you for taking the time to read this and have a wonderful day!
"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view."
"At Wikipedia, 'neutral' does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, 'neutral' means alignment with RS, including their biases.
'Neutral' in NPOV does not mean 'neutral' in the common sense of the word. It does not mean without bias from sources, only without bias from editors. NPOV does not require that sources or content be without bias or be neutral.
Per NPOV, editors should be neutral by not removing the bias found in RS. We should document it and not whitewash it. That means the article will then read like biased content, and that's as it should be, as long as the bias is from sources and not from editors. The article about a person who is dishonest will give the impression that the person is dishonest because the weight of RS say so, and that is a very proper bias. Anything else [would] be dishonest. Wikipedia does not support dishonesty or whitewash it.
Editors are 'neutral' when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not 'move' or 'balance' content to the center to keep an article 'neutral'. That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content."
—Valjean (talk), in response to claims that certain Wikipedia pages are written with a biased point of view. (March 5, 2024)
.svg){kind=small}
_utca_fel%C5%91l_a_Honv%C3%A9d_utca_fel%C3%A9_n%C3%A9zve._A_szovjet_csapatok_ideiglenes_kivonul%C3%A1sa_1956._okt%C3%B3ber_31-%C3%A9n._Fortepan_24787.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
_-002.jpg){kind=small}
