[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.

[ErikVandeWater]

Again your summary is misleading. He says there is good broad factual coverage but the interpretation is very biased.

[eldavojohn]

Why don't you quote his article and then the wikipedia "interpretation" that is "very biased"? Let's take concrete examples. I'll start, here's an excerpt from the section in question in Larry Sanger's article:

> The rest of the article—which, I confess, I did not read entirely, as it is very long

He cares so much about the bias that he can't be bothered to find it. The only thing I saw (and I mentioned in my original post) is that he took issue with the description of statue removal phrasing. So he skips through three long articles, doesn't read them all but finds what he's looking for. This is largely how people operate today, they start with what they want to believe then they go looking for it.