Evidently, you do not understand my latest argument. (1) the section in question does not discuss the causes of the riot. It discusses the circumstances of the death of the kid, (2) I selectively chose to only cite the part of the quote that is presented as fact, not rumor, (3) I kept the full citation of that quote later in the paragraph, without expressing any objection, (4) I didn't argue against the veracity of the first part (see (2),) and (5) I noted that the second part of the quote was presented in Time as fact. I'm not "on a mission"  it simply appears to me that there are two sides to this story, and your version of the article is unacceptably slanted toward one side.