This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Ukraine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidents / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Presidents of the United States (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

71.85.19.64 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of today it’s been proven, it’s no longer a “false allegation”

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 22:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He self admitted it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY ~2025-38359-28 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No he did not admit to taking a bribe to prevent a corruption investigation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A judgement in the first sentence should not meet the standards of a decent encyclopedia. ~2026-30750-1 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The lead summarizes the body and the sourcing is in the body. I have no idea what this has to do with an ideological viewpoint. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To say that people "falsely allege" is an informal fallacy called "begging the question" whereby the premise assumes the conclusion. To add the word "falsely" implies that those alleging anything are not actually alleging. It should just read alleged. Similar biased verbiage in the article about Russian collusion 'hoax' and Hilary's Steele dossier--even the title is misleading, referring to the theory as the 'counter-narrative.'

For example: one would NOT say that flat-Earthers "falsely believe" that the Earth is flat. True or false--it should simply read that flat-Earthers "believe" that the Earth is flat. ~2026-54596-9 (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of allege is "claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof". Well what some are doing is falsely claiming or asserting that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof. Looks good to me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you bring up Flat Earth theory, which in the first sentence calls it an archaic and scientifically disproven conception. Modern flat Earth beliefs starts off with anti-scientific. We call false beliefs "false". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m concerned that parts of the lead and early sections rely on Wikipedia’s voice to characterize the allegations (e.g., “falsely alleged,” “falsehoods,” “lies”), rather than consistently attributing those evaluations to reliable sources.

Per WP:NPOV and WP:DESCRIBE, Wikipedia should describe significant viewpoints in an attributed manner, especially in politically contentious topics. Where reliable sources conclude that claims are unsupported or baseless, that assessment is best presented by summarizing those conclusions (e.g., “multiple investigations and fact-checking organizations found no evidence…”) rather than asserting falsity directly in wikivoice.

I’m not disputing the weight of the sourcing or the conclusions of the investigations, only suggesting that:

• Evaluative language be attributed to named sources or investigations
• The narrative clearly distinguish between what proponents of the allegation claimed and what subsequent reporting or inquiries concluded
• Section labels and phrasing avoid prosecutorial or judgment-laden wording unless clearly quoted

This approach should preserve due weight while keeping the article aligned with Wikipedia’s neutral, encyclopedic tone.Lexlex (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the body must provide sources for everything in Wikipedia and follow guidelines that you have mentioned. But a large percentage of Wikipedia readers only read the lead. And we generally avoid cites in the lead. If reliable sources make it clear that something is false and this is documented in the body, the lead should say so. Particularly in a BLP. Otherwise, the quick reader may go away with a false impression that may be defamatory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]