I've attempted this several times when I noticed blatant NPOV violations or political propaganda in articles on the most diverse subjects. The result tends to b

I've attempted this several times when I noticed blatant NPOV violations or political propaganda in articles on the most diverse subjects. The result tends to be swift, the edits are reverted without any clear explanation. When I make edits I tend to add a section to the "Talk" page inviting other editors to discuss the proposed change and - after making the edit - add a note to the change calling for a discussion instead of a reversion. The discussion tends to be limited to "this is not a NPOV violation" or "there are sources" where the former is clearly untrue and the latter tend to be circular references to articles in activist publications. As it stands Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything which involves politics - which is getting close to being just about everything now that even mathematics is getting challenged by critical theorists. This is a classical example of the tragedy of the commons with political activists abusing the platform for their own purposes without taking into account whether this abuse weakens the platform - which it clearly does.