“neutral point of view” is a ridiculous idea to profess to be able to have. Any man who stakes such a claim is deeply biased without realizing it. The crux is

“neutral point of view” is a ridiculous idea to profess to be able to have. Any man who stakes such a claim is deeply biased without realizing it. The crux is that it be proportionally featured in what are considered “reliable sources”, but Wikipedia has no definition of what makes a source “reliable”. The other issue, of course, is that this U.S.A. “left vs. right” debate is often considered as though the U.S.A. be the only place in the world. The reality is of course that most continental Europeans will say that both the “left” and the “right” in the U.S.A. are very much “right” in their opinion, but they more so speak fiscally, rather than socially about these matters. “left” vs “right” in U.S.A. parlance seem to mostly refer to whose cause one arbitrarily champions in social identity politics, both having a rather similar, hignly right wing capitalist fiscal platform. English-language Wikipedia is of course also heavily biased towards Anglo-Saxon sources as one expects, but it does not report it as such. Very often in reviews of media it says that something was “critically acclaimed” when it only was among Anglo-Saxon criticism. And finally, when the entire world be considered, rather than merely the developed world, the situation becomes even more complicated. — English-language Wikipedia definitely does not repræsent neutrality with respect to the entire world, and does not attempt to do so, nor wishes to do so.