[eldavojohn]

Honestly the section of the article on "The Antifa/BLM riots" was absolute garbage. He frames it that "National Democrats generally supported the rioters; portrayed them as “mostly peaceful” activists against fascism and racism, even contributing money to their defense; took seriously the notion that we should “defund the police” or backed similar police “reform” proposals; and stubbornly minimized the months of bloodshed, danger, and destruction the riots caused." But then he notes that at least one article included all this information and also agrees that the main article does a great job in neutrality. Then he has a problem with how monument removals was framed. sigh okay this guy is clearly cherry picking.

Trash article from someone trying to stay relevant.

[ErikVandeWater]

Please provide the exact quote where he says the main article does a great job in neutrality. What I see is that he says there is good coverage of relevant facts but the way in which the article writes about them is obviously biased.

[eldavojohn]

It's literally the start of the second paragraph:

> A neutral treatment would, of course, give broad factual coverage of such things as where the rioting took place, how many people were arrested, and numbers of injuries and deaths attributable to the rioting. The main Wikipedia article actually seems to do a good job there, as far as I can tell.

Sorry he said "good job" and I said "great job". I suppose there is a difference there and I apologize for that.