Recently I did a deep dive on some minor historical event in the 1800s that I won't bother to go into detail here, except to say that it has been claimed by an activist editor who was made it a personal mission to re-frame the event as an example of "westerners" committing sexual violence against helpless "easterners".

While certainly this kind of story is common throughout history, in this case, there's absolutely no documentary evidence of the event, and what little event exists points in the other direction. This is not just the weight of evidence -- it's what all current historical experts believe. Nonetheless, the Wikipedia editor clings to a bad reference (in an extremely biased book) that makes an off-hand assertion. This assertion, in turn, is sourced with only a single citation to a 1960s-era historical novel that a) didn't actually support what the author claims, and b) essentially made up signficant details of the event in question based on (among other things) popular movies of the time. It's garbage all the way down.

Nevertheless, anyone who edits this article to reflect accurate current knowledge is immediately embroiled in a war with this editor, because unfortunately, there's no "trusted source" that says the opposite of the bad citation. And so the lie remains. To fight this battle would require escalating the issue and possibly getting the editor removed. Who has time?