" 

 == Broken Links == 
 Stormfront.org seems to be taken down, is it temporary or should we start removing links and reciting references?    

  
 ==The link to the fake Martin Luther King page is an abuse of the Wikipedia's influence== 
 Yesterday I removed the link to Don Black's disinformative Martin Luther King page. I see no relevance to the article - the only point of the link seems to be to contribute to that page's Google ranking. Currently, the fake Martin Luther King page is the number one hit on Google if you search for ""Martin Luther King"", which is deeply disturbing as the page purports to be ""true"" information and looks like a genuine informative site but is entirely defamatory and presents a white supremacist rewriting of the life of the civil rights leader. The thirty or forty top ranking links to the site are from Stormfront, from libraries and educators using the site as an example of disinformation and why it's important to evaluate websites critically - and from the Wikipedia. JeffLB put the link to the fake Martin Luther King site back in the article - why? Is there ANY other reason than to drive up the pagerank of the site?   

 :Lijil: I'm not going to insert the link again but my thinking was that the site gives a good indication of where he is at. JLB   

 :The site (which is factual; sorry to disappoint you and your delusions that King was the paragon of morality) is there because it was created by Don Black. It's just as legitimate as Stormfront being mentioned. 
 :  

 ::Since the website gives us incite on just how hard Don Black sucks, we should probably keep it up, if only so the godamn hammerheads will shut the fuck up. 

 ::[refactored] 69.250.130.215 

  

 ::: That is clearly rubbish and ""American white nationalist"" propaganda.    

 ::::Agreed, that link and its information is very broken, no need to mention it here. Rock8591  

 :::: I can see no relevance to the accuracy or desirableness of a website in wikipedia's policies on this sort of linking.  Did I miss something?  Since wikipedia isn't a forum to promote your view of MLK, I don't see why you are mentioning all these things. 

 As an aside, is the MLK site actually false or does it just cite the most negative sources and present a biased picture?  I'm no expert on King and didn't look much at the site (and really consider the matter stupid to begin with as the man and the ideas are dispartate) but I'm curious. 
    

 ==Page title== 
 For quite a long time this article was simply ""Don Black"". Then an editor who apparently knows another Don Black became offended over the shared name and moved it to ""Don Black, White Nationalist"", then used ""Don Black"" for the other fellow, who doesn't seem notable. ""Don Black, White Nationalist"" doesn't conform to our naming standards, so I moved it ""Don Black (nationalist)"" and made ""Don Black"" into a disambiguation page. Next, the other editor moved ""Don Black (nationalist)"" to ""Don Black (racist)"". It is important for our page titles to be as NPOV as possible. I see no reason for this last page name change and am going to request that it be moved back to ""Don Black (nationalist)"", unless someone esle can suggest a better, NPOV title. -  

 :I suggest Don black (white supremacist).   

 ::Yes, I agree. I don't see why he can't be called what he clearly is. ""Nationalist"" has far more neautral implications, and to call him what he calls himself, when what he says is hardly ""NPOV"", is hardly the right way to go about it, unless it's a very accurate term like ""white supremacist"".   

 ::Based on extensive discussions on the VfD, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Don Black, my view is that it should go to Don Black (activist). That follows the example of Bill White (activist), a person in a similar line of work. Cheers, -  

 :: the guy is a white supremacist, is he not?  I think even he'd agree to that, if not ""white separatist"" ore ""white nationalist""  ""nationalist"" alone does not convey what he is most known for.