33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Link to Article: "The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr."  

This link Article: "The Unknown Martin Luther King, Jr." has twice been removed by one particular editor, first with a remark in including the words "What's next? a link to Stormfront?" which I do not understand, and later to dismissing the link as "racist", which like many convenience-words ending in "ist" can be defined to mean whatever the user intends it to mean (often a derogatory and empowering substitute for lack of intellingent reasoned discussion).  I do not think the link is one to be treated as vandalism, which I am sorry must be common in any article about a well-known leader.  The subject matter of the linked article does not seem to be concerned with expression of a particular point of view on race (if this is what "racist" means): if it did it would not be relevant to the MLK page.  But it does seem to be biographical, has some nice photographs, and is well-written and reasonable, and therefore of interest.  As an experienced (non-American, with no point of view on the subject of the article) contributor to wikipedia, I believe a variety of appropriate links to a subject is of interest, and contributes to understanding.  And a variety of independent views expressed of a subject enriches, and is the way to approach the truth, like any scientific research: it is not for editors to filter links because they contain matter showing the subject to be less than perfect - we are all human - and I can understand that this might be the reason.

Enough.  Please can there be viewpoints on the relevance of the link to MLK ?  And consensus.  Welcome from the editor mentioned above and others.  Thanks.    
We don't link to fringe sites such as AmRen without a very good reason, and there isn't one here; the article in question is an opinion piece by a non-notable grad student, and is of no particular value to the article. Sorry you don't like the term "racist", but it's an appropriate description for Amren. This article gets a vast amount of racist vandalism  that's why it's semi-protected  and non-vandalism pointing to racist sources is immediately and properly suspect. ∇∆∇∆ 15: