NPOV is obviously a lie, it's literally impossible to truly be neutral and you don't almost certainly don't want that. That said, it strikes me as extremely important that Wikipedia strives towards NPOV and I wonder if Wikimedia will intervene. Given that they're willing to lie to readers to get donations to funnel into the "progressive" aligned portion of the non-profit-industrial-complex, I suspect not.
Oh god, every one using their miligram of power for virtue signaling or taking side in something that is nothing else than a basic territorial war led by religious extremists.<p>'oh but my side is more moral than the other because of atrocity X, Y years ago. And also we have more deaths'<p>'but it was written in this book ZZZZ years ago'<p>People who pretend that this conflict is more complex that this are just trying to find an angle to promote their side. It's not the first conflict in the history.
Seems very much against wikipedia's principles. Taking a neutral point of view is considered non-negotiable and is a fundamental principle of wikipedia. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...</a>
This is bizarre, totally unnecessary and not something Wikipedia should be doing. The statements in it are misleading and not based in any sourced facts, either.
Not a fan. Wikipedia should be a truly neutral actor - regardless of situation. Once this starts, it won't stop, and it will start to burn the NPOV.