I get it - you feel the word “neutrality” should only be used to mean military neutrality - and you’re annoyed that Wikipedia has used a broader definition used by various media outlets.
I think what your arguing here is semantics, as opposed to something that’s “factually incorrect”.
The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will.
It’s a downside of requiring citations to support statements. But probably unavoidable.
I think what your arguing here is semantics, as opposed to something that’s “factually incorrect”.
The problem you describe is one Wikipedia suffers from. If the conventional wisdom is wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. And it will never be the first declare the conventional wisdom was wrong, the majority needs to change their mind before it will.
It’s a downside of requiring citations to support statements. But probably unavoidable.