Then you are easily insulted. I don't see what you find wrong about it, though. Maybe you would care to explain. If you want me to explain why I rewrote it as I did, I can do that too. --Larry Sanger
Your rewrite is fine; it just isn't significantly different in content. Saying "this is horribly biased" and then re-using 95% of it seems incongruous. Having been on the internet for 15 years, I merely note (but don't care about) things I consider insulting... others might not be so thick-skinned. --Belltower
Huge bias can be added, or removed, by small changes. In newspapers, for instance, bias is often very subtle, conveyed by the addition of a half-dozen words here and there, and the omission of some relevant fact that could be stated in one sentence--that sort of thing. What you did in the original article is essentially write an argument (admittedly, supported :-) ) against the use of sports utility vehicles. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. I think the article still has that problem, actually, but I'm not sure what do about it. --LMS
Since most folks buy an SUV for (let's face it) image reasons (lumped with a few rationalizations), it may be hard to not seem biased against them. I added a bit about their towing ability, which is another reason people buy SUVs. We might even add a bit about more recent Minivan designs and marketing, which have tried to present a less-stodgy image for those vehicles. --Belltower
I have to agree with LMS. In its present form, the article reads like a piece of advocacy rather than an encyclopedia entry. There's nothing wrong with the facts in the article (though there are lots of points missing about the utilarian origins of the vehicles and so on), but it needs restructuring.