After thousands of contributions to Wikipedia for several years in several languages, I quit of contributing to Wikipedia. Not because I think that some articles are not trustworthy, because they are in many fields, like maths and physics where passions and ideals do not play an important role, but I definitely do not want to lose my time contributing to a project, which in many fields, is nothing but a post-truth digital leaflet of american historical propaganda.
I refer particularly to the article for the "atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki", which is written strictly from the american side. Till here, no big issue, since Wikipedia works from contributions from donors, i.e., people like me that used to write for several articles enlarging them, so, it is not so uncommon that an article lacks a neutral point of view as the person who wrote it, might have had a biased approach. But as I tried to improve the article, providing reliable sources for the sentences I was adding, trying to confer more neutrality to such article, in a harsh debate (let's hope they will not delete it, as is is also typical sometimes), every step I made, in every sentence, was blocked by a bunch of "american patriotic" editors that seemed to think that dropping a weapon of mass destruction upon civilians does not raise an ethical issue. It's incredible ridiculous, but it is from this self-evident truism that the verbal tension arose.
It was a tremendous huge and harsh debate, as I was simply trying to include this sentence, which was blocked:
The ethical justification for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still debated to this day, due to several reasons including the number of casualties provoked by the bombings or the alleged militarily unnecessary, though other bombings such as on Tokyo have killed more people; but also due to the usage of weapons of mass destruction upon civil population.
I cite my last and final sentence to that debate:
Do we really need the other article [about the ethical debate of the bombings] to include such evident truism, so that it can be included here? Do we need sources for a truism? Even if we needed, I gave you as a source, a book with 552 pages that respects WP:SOURCE whose title is "Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction", which mentions several times Hiroshima? What do you need more to accept such sentence? If you want to convert WP in the digital leaflet of US post-truth historical propaganda, feel free, I'm out of WP as contributor, I quit. And I definitely, as a reader will stick to physics and math, as we based ourselves there on ''facts'' and not on patriotic ideals, and above all we do not make cherry picking (this article is cherry picking based from start to end), and I will give zero credibility to any article referring to US History or anything connected to US. You're a bunch of History re-writers, not better than Stalin's scripters.