Unencyclopedic language in politically biased Wikipedia articles

I have written previously how Wikipedia is ridiculously politically biased when it comes to people, groups and movements that the extreme left opposes, and how Wikipedia is being used as a propaganda machine against these things, and how they ban people who protest against this.

As I mention in that in-depth analysis behind that second link above, biased articles can be quite easily distinguished by how many negative traits about the person or group in question are listed in the lead (and often in the table of contents) of the article, and overall how much irrelevant minutia there is in the article listing these negative things.

Another common trait that I have noticed in these articles is the unencyclopedic tone that they often use to disparage or discredit the person or group, usually by making strong unverified (and unsourced) assertions that sound more like someone's opinion on Twitter than something that should be written in an encyclopedia.

Consider, for example, this sentence in the lead of the "Gamergate controversy" article:

"#gamergate hashtag users falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson."

That word "falsely" there is not encyclopedic in tone, as it's making an unsourced and unverified strong claim, with no evidence. (It's not like there has been eg. some kind of court trial that has officially found the accusation as "false", so that it can be officially stated as such in an encyclopedic article.) That wording is not encyclopedic. That sentence would be more encyclopedic if written for example like:

"gamergate hashtag users accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson. This accusation has been deemed as false by most sources.[2][3]"

However, as it is worded currently it gives an air of certainty that's completely unwarranted.

Or consider the lead for the article for Milo Yiannopoulous, which says:

"Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News, a far-right media organization known for its promotion of fake news and conspiracy theories."

Again, the sentence makes strong assertions as if they were established facts, when they are just mere accusations. Also, the very use of the moniker "fake news", as if it were some kind of well-established official term, is not very encyclopedic. A more encyclopedic form of writing the above would be, for instance:

"Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News, a media organization that has been accused of being politically far-right and of promoting conspiracy theories and deliberately false news.[4][5]"

We can find more examples at the page for Carl "Sargon of Akkad" Benjamin:

"During the Gamergate controversy, he promoted a conspiracy theory that feminists were infiltrating video game research groups to influence game development according to a feminist agenda."

Again, this is not very encyclopedic language. This sounds more like someone writing on Twitter than the writings of a competent encyclopedic editor. It would be more encyclopedic if "a conspiracy theory" was replaced with "the claim", and the rest of the sentence reworded to be more neutral in tone. In fact, the entire sentence is of a nature that doesn't really belong to the entire article (much less the lead) because it's not a very important major fact about the person's biography (but, of course, smearing articles at Wikipedia are always full of these irrelevant minutia and biased claims, so it's to be expected).

When you start reading politically charged and biased articles at Wikipedia, you will find this kind of unencyclopedic language all over the place. In general, the same kind of language will not be used in other types of articles.