>>213132Ah, it's them LOL
Still, they are not exactly wrong in using that language: at the end of the day, those sites aren't dramatica and I suppose even dramatica would rather just stay smug than foul.
Like, if they post those images of her together with the "unprofessional conduct" description, it's basically a "sapienti sat" moment or sth
>wikipedia would never say "claim", but would rather in next sentence clarify that preceding view is unsupported by whateverTBH I feel like there is enough of yeehaw articles on wikipedia that doesn't quite see that much editing, i.e. they won't have that much citations to prove every claim they make.