Talk:Don Black (white supremacist)/Archive 1

Broken Links

Stormfront.org seems to be taken down, is it temporary or should we start removing links and reciting references? --67.190.143.199 (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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 10:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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 JeffLB 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

--Ryodox 18:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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. Devlin McGregor (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that link and its information is very broken, no need to mention it here. Rock8591 21:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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. --24.29.234.88 (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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. -Willmcw 18:57, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest Don black (white supremacist). TheCoffee 06:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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". elvenscout742 22:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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, -Willmcw 01:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

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. If he wasn't a racist, no one would ever have heard of him. His extremism is what makes him known and noteworthy... if it wasn't for that he'd just be another guy with a blog and board. I say "(white supremacist)"

I don't think Don Black, and those of his political ilk are "Nationalists", no matter what they call it. His website advocates ethnic separatism of an internationalist tone. Its infact somewhat anti-nationalist in tone. It certainly is not "patriotic". I'd vote Don black(white supremacist). Duckmonster 07:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism is not necessary patriotic, in internationalist empires it's in fact often anti-state and separatist. See for example nationalism in USSR. As for "internationalism" it's also selective view. Pure internationalism applies to everybody. Don Black's "internationalism" applies to people of European heritage only, at best. And it's not a new idea. Wasn't such thing an official American nationalism prior to Civil Rights reforms? As for the name, I suggest functionalist version - "Don Black (Stormfront admin)". --Poison sf 16:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This matter was settled long ago, after more debate than is shown here. Unless the current title is unacceptable we should retain it. Black has done nmore than serve as an admin, and will probably do other things as well. "Clarifiers" should be as neutral and short as possible. -Will Beback 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I changed it to Don Black (white nationalist) because that's what he is. He specifically promotes white nationalism, not nationalism. Spylab 19:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

from VfD

On 17 June 2005, a spin-off from this article was nominated for deletion. The page move history and title of this article were discussed. A recommendation to merge this article into either the Stormfront article or the Operation Red Dog article was also discussed. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Don Black for a record of the discussion. Further discussions about whether to merge or move this article (and if so, where) should be conducted on this Talk page.

Is he a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens?

Is he a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens?

Or does he just attend meetings?

I'm not sure about the relevance to say that he is simply a "member," unless you are trying to impart that he is one of the higher ups, for lack of better terms. It's not exactly difficult to become a member of the CofCC by any means. --Rock8591 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reagan and Don Black

In 1980 Ronold Reagan made a speach in Philidelphia Mississippi declareing the utost importance of states rights. Andrew Young pointed out the insensitivity of Reagan's making such a speach at the sight of the most infamous tripple murder the Klan ever commited.

Soon afterwards Klan Wizard Wilkinson endorced Reagan saying "The Republican platform reads as if a Klanmen had written it."

Wilkinson especialy like Reagan's lukewarn stance on afermitive action.

Reagan regected this endorsement. Weeks after it had been made.

"The Fiery Cross" page 387

That same year on september 1st Reagan claimed Jimmy Carter chose to open his campain in Tuscumbia Alabama because it "gave birth and is the parent body of the Klu Klux Klan" a lie that Reagan never gave a sincer apology for but used it when confronted with facts to further slander Jimmy Carter.

Soon after Regans lie Wilkinson went one step further and he argued The fact the Klan had been injected into the campain proved "the ideals of the Klan" had risen to high levels. "It's risen to such a high level that the GOP platform parallels our views almost one-hundred percent across the board"

"The Fiery Cross" page 388

In 1985 when Reagan was denied millitary support for the contras in Nicuraga Klansmen rallied to his side. Don Black announced that he had created a 120 man Klan Unit called "The Nathanian Beford Forrest Brigade" with the intention of aiding the contras. Black said the brigade would engage in psychological warfare in Nicuraga to foster anti-government seniment and would provde "a civi action unit to promote a stable economy" The Klan felt that they were acting with Regan's blessing because he had said in October that "traditional" for American volunteers to take such actions in other countries.

"The Fiery Cross" page 398

Picture

I was wondering, doesn't anyone think that this article should have a picture for Don Black by now? --Gramaic | Talk 00:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"Right Wing Conservative?"

Isn't this redundant and sneaky anti-conservative POV? Maybe we could say "extreme right wing" or something. Djbell 16:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

Added the terrorism sidebar. The attempted attack on Dominica is an important part of right wing terrorism history, and perhaps the section on Operation Red Dog needs to be expanded. Duckmonster 13:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Someone, who based on other edits appears to be somewhat of a sympathiser, has removed the reference to terrorism. The charge is not a contraversial one in this case. Don Black, engaged in a conspiracy to use violence against a people , illegitimately, for political gain, with members of the Ku Klux Klan. By almost any definition this is terrorism. I will not revert until this is discussed, but calling it merely 'armed' is just using weasle words. Should the article on Usama Bin Laden be stipped of the term "terrorism" on the same grounds? I don't think so. Frankly Don's site Stormfront is one of the biggest enablers of terrorist activity in the world. Even if he didn't participate in the Dominica conspiracy, it would be hard to argue his current activities do not constitute at least aiding and abbetting neo-nazi terrorism. Duckmonster 07:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think a coup attempt is terrorism. It is an attempt to forcibly overthrow the government. The coupsters were not "engaged in a conspiracy to use violence against a people", what a windy phrase. To take someone else I don't like, was Castro a terrorist when his rebels overthrew the Batista regime in Cuba?

Terrorism may be a part of a coup, of course, but attempting a coup does not qualify as terrorism per se. No, the charge of terrorism is not controversial, it is simply wrong and should be removed. 65.89.68.24 (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The terrorism sidebar has no place on the article page. Don Black is soft spoken in his public speaches and interviews and does not advocate violence. Stormfront, is a discussion board for White nationalism that does not allow the advocacy of violence or illegal activites. That sidebar is a clear projection of a POV. I am not a member of Stormfront and am not eligible because they consider me not White. That doesn't bother me -- I believe Chinese, African, Japanese or people of other races have a right to such a board and that people of the White race also have that right. I do believe that sidebar does not reflect a neutral standing and would like to remove it. I am a regular reader of Stormfront and follow the public activities of Don Black. There is nothing he does now that I know about that remotely would justify the terror sidebar. --JeffLB 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people reform, and when that happens it's a great thing. But it does not negate their past. If you read this article you'll see that Black previously engaged in activities which may qualify as domestic and international terrorism.

• In 1985, Black announced that he had created the "Nathanial Bedford Forrest Brigade" under KKK auspices to aid the Contras in Nicaragua. He said the 120-man unit would engage in psychological warfare to foster anti-government sentiment and would provide "a civil action unit to promote a stable economy".

Irregular warfare against a government and civilians is terrorism. -Will Beback 05:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Don Black - I don't like him or agree with his political perspective at all. In all humility, however, to consider this a reason for the terrorism sidebar is a stretch. --JeffLB 13:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if he might be called a "terrorist" due to his earlier activities, the template was an unnecessary addition. I've removed it. -Will Beback 10:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But being that he IS by definition a Terrorist, for the reasons enumerated above, it seems to be rather dishonest not to have it there. The article is about a terrorist. Therefore it should have the terrorist sidebar. Duckmonster (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Compromise. I've added him to the "American right wing terrorists" category. I think we can all agree that its a fairly accurate designation, being that he is American, Right wing, and a convicted terrorist. Duckmonster (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing mentioned thus far matters even slightly, because of the simple fact that one who, at one time committed an act that may or may not be definable as "terrorism," is not necessarily a terrorist. Is someone who once worked in a bank a banker twenty years later? Is someone who downloaded twenty movies as a kid a criminal twenty years later? No. "Terrorist" is not some attribute that one gains from at one time committing an act that terrorised someone. It's an occupation, a title that denotes that someone has committed themselves to imposing terror on others. Using it to describe anyone you disagree with just cheapens the term and, quite plainly, makes you look like a reactionary idiot. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So... would that make Osama bin laden also not a terrorist because his last attack was , well it sure as hell aint recently. It doesn't seem like a controversial statement. He was involved in a plot to violently overthrow a government as a citizen. He's actually , by definition , a terrorist. Its dishonest POV to not include him in that category. 121.45.247.32 (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Dominica

If this is true, then ROTFLMAO... what a hilariously disgraceful real troll :D Dave 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen D. Black or Stephen M. Black?

Court records indicate that his real name is Stephen D. Black. Why does this say Stephen Myron Black? Stick to the Facts 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What court papers are you looking at? -Will Beback · † · 08:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The court's ruling in the appeal of his sentence indicates his name is Stephen D. Black. UNITED STATES of America v. Stephen D. BLACK and Joe D. Hawkins The case cite is 685 F2d 132 and you can see a PDF of the opinion here: http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5914.

Unless there is some reasoned objection I will indicate in the article that court records indicate his name is Stephen D. Black. Stick to the Facts 16:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any sources for "Myron", so I'd say go ahead. -Will Beback · † · 22:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Donation to Ron Paul (R-Presidential Candidate)

Ron Paul said on FOX NEWS Neil Cavuto's show on December 19, 2007 that he has no intention of returning the $500 that Black donated to Paul.Steven (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed this badly-formed broken link from the External links section. You can figure out how to get to the right page by looking at the URL, but that info is too hard to incorporate into an encyclopedic entry. Perhaps someone can find a source which does not require a captcha. Milkfish (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Verification of source

• “We’re called anti-Semitic, we’re called neo-Nazi, we’re called racist [but] we’re none of that.” - Jamie Kelso on Stormfront.org, Fox affiliate “FOX Carolina” interview Nov 18, 2005

How can an editor verify this, and who is Jamie Kelso? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You can verify here, Jamie Kelso is a White Nationalist and an associate of Don Black. --CoheedLovesCambria (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. While the viewpoint of a "senior moderator" is helpful, it isn't necessarily an onbjective viewpoint. To be honest, the claim that the website's tone isn't anti-semitic or racist is ridiculous. While we can include Kelso's viewpoint, we should also include the viewpoints of others, including neutral observers like newspapers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, using Stormfront, its friends, and social circles as a source of verification is not reliable by any means. Rock8591 23:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

His last name

Isn't it kind of funny that one of the most well-known white supremacists has a surname of Black? How ironic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.246.153.217 (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Would he be a "Black" white supremacist?? As in Clayton Bigsby? --Rock8591 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don Black is not a White supremacist -- he simply believes Whites should have the same rights as any other ethnic group to have group cohesion, to look out for the ethnic group's interest -- that this is not in and of itself hateful, racist, fascist etc. -- any more than for Asians, Arabs, Blacks, Jews etc. Applying the term "White supremacist" to Don Black and any other European ethnic person who simply has the feeling that are legitimate for any ethnic group is a manipulative propaganda tactic. JeffLB (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He founded Stormfront. As if that's not enough, the reliable sources certainly think he's a white supremacist:[1]. Fences&Windows 22:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Today in America and the West, Christian European people who take any steps whatever to promote their ethnic group's cohesion and interests are generally considered White supremacists. If people of any other ethnic group do the same for their ethnic group, it is generally considered admirable eg. La Raza, American Jewish Committee, the NAACP or even the New Black Panthers, let alone Asians, American Indians, Arabs etc. Don Black, who I have heard talk on his internet show, and elsewhere numerous times, read what he has written and in other ways have looked at him, is a peaceful man who simply is concerned, I would say with good reason, about what is happening to people of the White European ethnic group. For Wikipedia to label him as White supremacist is promoting an agenda, IMO. JeffLB (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, to call him a white supremacist would be to accurately reflect the vast majority of reliable sources that have written about him. On the other hand, to argue that Black is not a white supremacist would fall under the aegis of WP:FRINGE. Stormfront is not an equal rights organisation - it is a Neo Nazi organisation, or an equivalent to the KKK. Your generous opinion of Black isn't what we use to write an encylopedia; we write it using what reliable, established sources with a reputation for fact checking say. Fences&Windows 02:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The "reliable sources" in the case of Don Black are almost entirely either the Southern Povery Law Center (SPLC), the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (ADL) or are derivative of information from these two organizations. Both of these "reliiable sources" are agenda driven organizations. Both of them consider any kind of White European cohesion or working for ethnic interests of Whites as bigoted and hateful. The ADL routinely justifies the killing of Palestinian children, women and men civilians by Israeli military forces and police. Both of them vilify those who hold traditional Christian values as haters. If when people or organizations try to make a case about predjudice against White European ethnic people, they find their very livelyhood or public standing threatened, there tends to be fewer such voices expressing such views. The point is, Wikipedia, if it is to be credible, should be above the effects of such cercion. JeffLB (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the reliable sources are mainstream newspapers. Please stay on topic - diatribes about the ADL and "White European cohesion" aren't helpful; this page is for discussing Don Black only. Wikipedia is about reflecting the world as seen through the eyes of reliable sources, not righting perceived wrongs - see WP:GREATWRONGS. If the world sees Don Black as a Neo-Nazi, a white supremacist, and a racist, then that's what Wikipedia should say, regardless of your reasoning to the contrary. Fences&Windows 20:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront as new Klan

The quotation is not complete, the question was whether it is the new Klan WITHOUT the hoods, aryan symbols, etc. Black then responds YES. The difference may be subtle but there is a reason why there is both Stormfront and the Klan as different entities, and why Duke/Black aren't Klan members.

I think the whole point of Duke and Black is to have the White movements be represented by normal looking professional people without violence. The Klan is about symbols, threatening looks, violence, etc.

The US still has the Klan. Stormfront is different in approach if not belief.

The original Italian article is still online. If in doubt go ask Don Black on stormfront, maybe it is already addressed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.26.90 (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe instead of deletion the info, that appear to be sourced and highly relevant, you could add additional context so to NPOV it? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

UK least wanted list

Don black has been placed on a list of people banned from entering the UK that has been publicly released. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/8033319.stm ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from office?

In the header section, it is mentioned that he left his office, presumably with the KKK, over a problem with his last name. Farther down the page, it is stated that he left on account of "rethinking his commitment". Could the correct reasoning, whichever it is, be put in both places? 71.235.24.176 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've cut this as there's no citation and it sounds made up. GreenReaper (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Don Black is not a Neo-Fascist

I removed the Neo-Fascist heading. I am not in any way connected to Stormfront or particularly sympathetic to their cause (though believe the people of the Christian European ethnic group have as much right as Japanese, Asians, Indians, Arabs, Blacks, Jews etc to identify with their ethnic group without it in and of itself being hateful, racist, fascist etc.) I have taken the trouble to extensively research Don Black and listen to many of his talks and discussion in audio format available on the web. The Neo-Fascist label does not fit him. He repeatedly and endlessly says he simply believes Whites should have the same rights to cohesion, looking out for their ethnic groups welfare etc as any other ethnic group. He is quite soft spoken and peaceful. It has about thirty years since he has been associated with the groups named in the first part of this article.

Putting the Neo-Fascist emblem on his biography is projecting a POV. JeffLB (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Don Black's talks etc are primary sources and cannot be interpreted by editors, the title should be based on what reliable secondary sources call him. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

POV title

It's a fact that a number of white supremacists individuals, websites, etc object to being called white supremacist and insist that they are just white nationalists. It's also a fact that others with a different perspective see them as white supremacists, and that can be reliably sourced. Stormfront is a case in point, as is Don Black. Unforunately the article title as it stands takes Black's pov. We need to retitle this, but I'm not sure what it should be. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)