John Lee wrote:
I don't know who that editor is, and I don't care much for Moore either. The
fact that the content of our articles differs based on whether the subject
has harassed one of our editors in the past, however, clearly indicates that
we are not keeping in line with, at a bare minimum, the spirit of neutral
point of view.
You are arguing external links do not constitute content. But they do. An
article would not be considered comprehensive if it did not have a link to
the subject's official website(s) - I defy anyone to try to get such an
article past FA/GA. (I'd rant about the ridiculous nature of GA standards,
and its deviation from its original purpose, but that's for another time.)
If you want to argue that external links are not content, I suggest you try
to effect that policy change first. You're putting the cart before the horse
at the moment.
Johnleemk
____________________
We routinely judge the reliability and value of websites based
on their
contents.
[[WP:EL]] is not a policy, and no written policy that I'm aware of
mandates the use of any links. I'f I'm wrong please show me where it
says differently.
Will