> Why do we need a dedicated section in Built-in Types about Comparisons?

It is nice to have some of that information collected together.  I think people learn about comparison logic as a single topic rather than piecemeal type by type.

To Jim's point, the discussion of "is" and "is not" should probably be factored-out (their meaning is type-invariant and is not overridable with a dunder method).  Also, they don't have the same reflective logic as the rich comparisons.