Is is common practice? Did something similar happen for, say, the Ukraine war?<p>Taking a side in a conflict seems to me like an obvious deviation from the "neutral point of view" stance of Wikipedia.<p>I get solidarity for tragic events like earthquakes, promoting scientifically verified information, for example regarding climate change, or addressing global problems like the covid-19 pandemic.<p>But this is a war, and by definition, people disagree about who is right. Wikipedia should do its best to give accurate and unbiased information, and if that information is damning for one party, then so be it, these are facts. But openly picking a side, even a side you share a language, even if the other side is committing atrocities just feels wrong for what Wikipedia is supposed to be.