As I said, the article you are linking has been questioned by numerous users and the onesidedness of it's arguments is blatantly obvious, citing hardly a hand full of authors (Oh, Huntford, what a surprise= and leaving the requests by other fellow Wikipedians to back with more credible citations left unanswered for more than four months and counting. Consequently, the link you tried to implement is thoroughly contradicting with encylopedic principles so there is no other choice but revert in order to uphold the principles of neutrality and impartiality.