::I'm a little surprised by 's request for arguments that the presentation is one-sided. This is in part because this one-sidedness is not remotely subtle in the relevant passage. But it is also because it is hard to provide an argument that something is presented tendentiously except by simply quoting it.  

 ::I'll mention a few points, though. As it stands-I will change it momentarily-the article actually begins by discussing contemporary indictments of the 'Christ of Nations' idea. It does this before even providing its history, so at that point in the article a reader hardly knows what is being criticized.  

 ::Moreover, the section containing these recent indictments and nothing else is labeled 'modern usage', as though the only reason anyone would mention the idea these days would be to characterize it as an excuse for anti-Semitism. This is both unlikely to be true and, even if it were, impossible to adequately substantiate because it's hard to prove a negative. 

 ::The offending section also seems fixated on one book by Jan T. Gross and its interpretation by one historian, Tina Rosenberg. This seems to suggest that their work has an earth-shattering importance that would be surprising-however valuable and important it might be, it can't be relied on exclusively, precisely because this demonstrates a point-of-view: namely, theirs. If their opinions were well-established and reflective of a consensus, it would be hardly necessary for them to have presented these arguments to begin with. So they are inherently not neutral. 

 ::The article also refers to the book as 'shattering' symbolism, which is clearly not a neutral formulation. It then says that the book 'challenged the Polish self-image as victims, martyrs, and heroes', which presupposes that this is in fact the Polish national self-image. Whether this is true or not, it is surely not a neutral characterization. I doubt any living Pole, for example, would be willing to claim that her national self-image requires that all Poles be victims, martyrs, or heroes, and never 'perpetrators' (to borrow the article's term). All the remaining discussion in this passage is devoted to anti-Semitism. Again, this is odd in itself at this point in the article. But the idea that the Polish national self-image inherently encourages anti-Semitism is not 'neutral'. It is arguably outright offensive, but certainly not reflective of a consensus.