CIA Tibetan Program[edit]

Can you explain to me the necessity of writing clearly not WP:NPOV compliant paragraphs? This is suspicious considering your account is new. Those changes will be reverted if there is no response from you. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry what is WP:NOV. please tell me why this is suspicious. Please tell me how I can rectify it.Thanks. Khedroob (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view means that you cannot write hagiographic-like texts such as:
Even though the resistance may not have been successful in the end, the fact that the Tibetan people stood up and fought against a vastly superior enemy was a testament to their courage and determination. The resistance fighters showed the world that Tibetans would not be easily subjugated, and they sent a message to the Chinese government that the Tibetan people were willing to fight for their rights and their sovereignty. Plus, the resistance kept alive the flame of Tibetan nationalism and resistance, which has persisted to this day. So, even though the CIA's program may have had its limitations, it still provided a valuable platform for Tibetans to demonstrate their resistance and assert their identity, which is something that should be remembered and respected.
The CIA officers who ran the ST CIRCUS project were among the most dedicated and committed individuals in the agency. They were deeply committed to the cause of resisting communism and supporting resistance movements around the world. They saw the Tibetan resistance as a critical part of that effort. These officers were not desk-bound bureaucrats; they were out in the field, working directly with the resistance fighters,  developing close relationships and genuinely caring about their well-being and success. Even though the project may have had flaws or limitations including logistics it was driven by dedicated individuals who admired the brave Tibetans, believed in their cause and supported the resistance for 18 years.
It is possible to cover the topic in a slightly positive light or imply what you did without this writing style, which looks like an advertisement. For example, if you look at the Warsaw Uprising article or the First Battle of the Marne do not have this type of wording where it can be described as advertising. The current article already has controversies from back to 2016 due to previously-added biased language. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks will rectify Khedroob (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get some help from you about how to make this writing more acceptable? I can do an edit. Thanks Khedroob (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]