Talk:Robert Byrd/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

CN tag removal and questionable external link

I removed a [citation needed] from the trivia point that Byrd and Senator George Allen had cameo roles in Gods and Generals. The claim is made on the Gods and Generals page untagged, and IMDB cites this as trivia for the film, and even lists a few other politicians with cameos. [1]

On an unrelated matter, I question the inclusion of an external link -- Just Who WAS the "White Nigger" Senator Byrd Was Thinking About? Banner of Liberty. There's also something from NewsMax with a group calling Byrd racist for not approving of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State; I've heard NewsMax is known for right-wing bias, so that may be something to consider as well. This article is marked as having disputed neutrality, and the external links might be a good place to start. We can probably all agree that Robert Byrd isn't too difficult a figure to attack. --BDD 03:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Other WP articles are not acceptable as sources, so a source needs to be cited in this article for the Gods and Generals claim. As to the 'right-wing' external links, you're welcome to try to remove them, but I suspect you will find that they have their defenders. -- Donald Albury 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Bottomline: if you are going to try to remove them then will need to go to the Sean Hannity article and remove all references to Media Matters, which is a left-wing organization that is cited all over Wikipedia, not just the Sean Hannity article. What is goose is good for the gander. Besides, enquiring minds want to know who was the "White N*****" that Byrd was talking about? Don't you want to know who the old KKK member was talking about?? I do.--Getaway 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Education

Our article seems to have plagiarised some material from Byrd's website, which I have now cited in this edit (which also hopefully cleaned up the language to erase plagiarism issues). I am not sure about copyright issues, as I do not know if Byrd's Senate website is in the public domain as a work of the federal government. Someone who knows more may want to look into this. Johnleemk | Talk 17:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Participation in the Ku Klux Klan

In the second sentence of the second paragraph, the article states that "Baskin told him,..." however there is no previous mention of who Baskin is. I assume it is a last name of someone, but this person has not been previously identified, and frankly I don't know who it is. I looked it up and I added who Baskin is. Killaferra 23:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In the second sentence of the first paragraph, the article states that "His father had also been a Klan member[2]." First, the external link is expired (MSNBC) and "father" needs to be clarified as to bio/adopted father.WikiTorch 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

President Pro Tempore, 2007 to present

A resolution was passed? I thought Byrd was elected president pro temp, by the Full Senate & sworn in as such (by VP Cheney)? GoodDay 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The passing of a resolution was the Senate's form of electing him, and yes he was sworn in by the VP. meamemg 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

He is 4th in line. Pelosi is 3rd in line for presidential bid. Thanks.

family

Why are his daughters names in brackets between the first and last names of their respective husbands (presumably) with the title Mrs? Who is 'Mrs. Mohammed Fatemi'? While it may be traditional to refer to the couple as Mr & Mrs Mohammed Fatemi, when you're only referring to her it's just confusing and doesn't actually convey the information which it's intended to convey (i.e. what her actual name is). Or is this antiquated naming convention still in common use in the US? (and so should probably stay since it's about a US senator). Anyway, it seemed confusing to me and may need revision if it's sufficiently confusing to others

131.251.0.8 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call. It has been fixed. BTW, it isn't really that common at all in the US anymore, either. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Leadership roles

"During the times he served as president pro tempore he was the fourth person in the line of presidential succession" - Elsewhere he is referred to as third in line, is there some difference between then and now? Padraic 20:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference is due to whether or not you count the president in the line. If you count the VP as the first in the line of succession, then the PPT is 3rd. If you count the VP as second in the line (behind the President), then the PPT is 4th. I believe common usage however would agree with the former definition of the PPT being 3rd in the line of succession. meamemg 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

KKK - Reversion War

I'm creating this category so people can discuss the back-and-forth on the placement of the KKK material. At first blush, it does indeed seem that the Senator's congressional service, which is current and longstanding, merits being placed higher in the article than his KKK history. However, I am not intimately familiar with his entire career (mostly just his eponymous scholarship), so I want to open this discussion. Antelan talk 05:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree on this: merits above his KKK history for the sake of importance. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I have been working for about two years to keep this article free of pov from right-wing bashers (whose edits come less from a commitment to civil rights but rather see an opportunity to hit a vulnerable Democrat on one of their own issues) and left-wing apologists (who try to brush away an ugly chapter in the life of one of their heroes). In order to maintain a cold, emotionless, opinion-free, judgement-free article, I feel that chronological order is the best way to go. Maybe there should be another RfC to get some outside opinion, however, and I am open to having my mind changed, if it can be shown that the fragile npov can be maintained. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that chronology is one way of achieving NPOV. I don't think it is the only way of achieving some NPOV in an article. However, in looking over several Wikipedia biographies, I do see that early-years-first seems to be the way these biographies are written, even when they contain controversial topics Dick Cheney is a good example. Antelan talk 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm here because I just read an allegation that Byrd filibustered for 14 hours against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I came to Wikipedia and found there is nothing on it. Any truth to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.49.54 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Here you go: Robert Byrd#Filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hope this helps! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no mention of a substantial filibuster - much less 83 days - on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 page? Something is not right here 86.4.60.47 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that we should include his early leadership in the KKK as part of his leadership roles. Really that is how he got his start, as he himself would admit that is when he first became interested in politics. I know that it would seem redundant but I think that it is reasonable considering the impact that the grand wizzard or whoever had on his life. Mjs072 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's already covered in a much more balanced manner and was accepted per consensus and discussion, and inclusion of the text you had would be potentially controversial and libellous, by which it must be removed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits to the article by some Senate staff member

Just for the record, it should be pointed out here on the Robert Byrd talk page that some Senate staff person has been tampering with Byrd's article. The IP address for this anon edit leads right back to the Senate. Thanks to WikiScanner and a reader of Wired. You can review the edit here: Example of Dubious edit by a Senate staff member in support of Robert Byrd.

Slate is not, nor does it seriously claim to be, a reliable factual source.

It's a liberal leaning op-ed. (See Slate). If you're going to to claim something to be a reliable source, don't source from an op-ed. Moreover, learn how to spell segregation. It's not "regregation". There is no problem with making factual claims about someone's fillibuster or past membership in an organization. But from either side here, we do not and will never have conclusive evidence about someone's inner motives on race. 10 "sources" will say one thing ... another 10 "sources" wiil say something else. But all 20 of these sources have one thing in common: they're stating opinion, not fact. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 06:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So? Every newspaper and magazine has a bias, whether it is liberal or conservative. Are we to remove every instance of reference to Slate just because it is "liberal leaning" -- in your own words? Instead of removing the statement, you should instead refute it in the next line with a general statement that can provide a point of balance -- for instance, that he softened up in his later years.
"Moreover," if you have a problem with spelling, then you should promptly change it instead of whining about it here. I was not the original contributor of that sentence.
Also, since you have a known history of right-wing editing, as evidenced by your contrib history and comments like this, I will reintroduce the paragraph but it should be followed up with additional statements on the opposite. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I added a citation from a newspaper on Strom Thurmond's statement that he was not regretting segregation (unlike Byrd). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating site. I will not purposely harm the project by sourcing another opinion site that is biased, even if on the other side. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debating site." That's not entirely true. You have constructive discussions that are contained in the various talk pages, which constitutes debate. It is a healthy and rational method of discussion that is openly encouraged. Second, the source is not biased, as you torted, as it was backed by the original interview and a published newspaper. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Slate does not meet Wikipedia's standard for a reliable source, Part II

  • NOTE: The following discussion was taken from my talk page.--Getaway 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Great edits at Robert Byrd! I undid one edit here, basically because I had to "prove" that the Slate article was not an op-ed piece and was verifiable. It is also not against policy to add more than one cite if it satisfies the basic requirement of citing a source. I can't recall if this was discussed at Robert Byrd or at Strom Thurmond more extensively, but let me know if you want to discuss this further! Keep up the good work, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't have a URL attached to a reference doesn't invalidate it. I suggest you do a little searching and I'm 100% sure you will find it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I did search and I did not find it. Also, the burden is on you to provide the citation, not me.--Getaway 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The citation is there. If you are not willing to locate the source, and others can vouch for it, then the burden is on yourself. There is no reference at WP:CITE regarding non-Internet sources. Would you disregard a book if it was a source if no free or snipped version was available online? Or a newspaper with no online homepage? For this particular article, it is in the archives and can be referenced through Access News Web -- although it cannot be hyperlinked here to Wikipedia due to its excessive length and because only academic students typically are the only users of such a service. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the burden is on you, the editor bringing forth the citation. If you cannot hyperlink to it, then you need to provide some of the wording of the source on Robert Byrd's talk page. That burden is on you, the proponent of the allegedly reliable source. You have made a claim that the citation exists, but you have not offered any proof that the citation exists. You have merely asserted that I must do your work and find the citation. Well, I did your work and I did not find the citation. However, there is a larger problem with the information. It is still an opinion that is offered as fact. And you are using an opinion piece to back up a commentary that you are offering as fact, even though it is opinion. Now, there is a third problem with the information. It does not provide anything of value to the article. The article already has several quotes from Byrd, not some source in a small town paper that no one can read, offering his mea culpa and apologia. And moreover, there is a fourth reason (but not the last reason) for the information's removal is that it was offered, in the first place, as simply a slam at Strom Thurmond somehow, and that is precisely what the Slate article does--clearly taking Slate into the area of opinion and not fact. Until the other article is provided (or some of the relevant wording is provided) then I am going remove the controversial material. Discretion is the better part of valor.--Getaway 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Note, the following three statements by Seicer (talk · contribs) are continuous, but are separated by Getaway (talk · contribs)'s comments.
The citation is there. If you are not willing to locate the source, and others can vouch for it, then the burden is on yourself. There is no reference at WP:CITE regarding non-Internet sources. Would you disregard a book if it was a source if no free or snipped version was available online? Or a newspaper with no online homepage? For this particular article, it is in the archives and can be referenced through Access World News -- although it cannot be hyperlinked here to Wikipedia due to its excessive length and because only academic students typically are the only users of such a service -- IOW, you would get a login page through the UKY portal. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No, once again, the burden was on you, not me. I'm glad that you decided to step up to your responsibility to provide more information. It wasn't that hard, was it? No, of course not!--Getaway 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the URL, however, since you are so inclined to believe I am deliberately falsifying sources: link Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No, once again, you are dead wrong. I never, ever stated that you are deliberately falsifying sources. You are attempting to put words in my mouth so that you can attack those words. As good ole Byrd himself would say, "You are attempting a diversionary tactic," the false claim he made against Clarence Thomas. You obviously did not like being asked to provide the information from the little tiny paper, Charlotte paper, so that others could read what you read. You should not be afraid of others questioning your work. If you are really offended by others questioning your work maybe Wikipedia is not for you. No I refuse to allow you to attempt to put words in my mouth. Your wrong. You were questioned and you did not like it. You need to assume good faith, that is the call of the Wikipedian. I never stated that you were "deliberately falsifying sources." Making that charge against me without having anything to back it really must be embarassing for you. Please follow the rules of Wikipedia and do not attempt to put words in my mouth and then give me a lecture about something that I never did. It is not professional.--Getaway 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The second citation from the Charlotte Observer was done was to validate the Slate source. There was disagreement by conservative editor WatchingYouLikeAHawk (talk · contribs) who refuted the source, saying it was nothing more than an "op-ed" piece. The Charlotte Observer article backed up the Slate article and that was its only intention until the argument by WYLAH was concluded. Snips from the article, which validates the "op-ed" piece from the Slate -- that WYLAH referred to it as. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The information is still in the article, just in a more appropriate place, because of the CNN article, the only really reliable source provided. Time to move on.--Getaway 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

DIXIECRAT LEGACY: AN END, A BEGINNING

Charlotte Observer, The (NC) July 12, 1998 Author: JOSEPH S. STROUD, Knight Ridder

[...]

Thurmond himself says of the 1948 campaign: ``I don't have anything to apologize for. I don't have any regrets.

The climactic moment unquestionably belonged to Thurmond. Speaking from note cards stuffed into his jacket pocket as he proceeded, he jabbed his right index finger into the air and declared, ``The progress of the Negro race has not been due to these so-called eman-ci-pators. It's been due to the kindness of the good Southern people.

``But I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, Thurmond said, ``that there's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.


[...]

Edition: THREE Section: YORK Page: 1Y Dateline: COLUMBIA Copyright (c) 1998 The Charlotte Observer

Record Number: 9807120094

As a "Super Delegate" has he endorsed/announced which Democratic Pres.Candidate for 2008 ?

There is a story in the NYTIMES today (Feb. 19, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/us/politics/17delegates.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1203276046-w2kREgRtaIstxAtckN19ig

that mentions 10 governors and 26 Senators have as yet remained uncommitted. Is he by precedent uncommitted? Timothyjshaw (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)timothyjshaw

Nope. He is still undecided/undeclared. y'amer'can (wtf?) 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
hehe. no, he's endorsing Obama, as of the 19th of May... it's pretty bad for Hillary when people who previously swore that they would never associate with people of her opponent's race suddenly endorse one for the highest leadership office in this country. why is she still campaigning?Fultron89 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Appropriations subcommittees listing

As of Feb. 29, 2008, the Appropriations Committee Website (http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees.cfm - each subcommittee's name is a link to its membership list), as well as The Almanac of American Politics 2008, list him as a member of the Defense, Energy, Interior, Military Construction, and Transportation subcommittees, and as Chair of Homeland Security. This article lists him as a member of all of the other subcommittees, ex-officio. It may be (but I don't know) that as Chair of the full committee, he's a member ex officio of every subcommittee, in addition to his regular assignments to a certain number of them. I also don't know whether an ex officio member of a subcomm. is a voting member; if so, there's no reason to list EO memberships and regular memberships in different categories. If he's a voting member of every subcommittee, then the listing should simply say "Member of all subcommittees" instead of listing each ex officio membership. If there's a difference between ex officio membership and voting membership, then the article should list only his voting memberships. Follow me, or would you like me to make it more confusing? :) JTRH (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Placenames

I've removed the entire section below on the basis of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information, and WP:NPOV - giving excessive space to a minor part of a topic is a violation of the neutral point of view.

I have no objection to the first paragraph being added back to the article, along with a very limited number of examples from the list, IF (and only if) some sources can be found for the claims made in the first paragraph. Otherwise, I refer editors to WP:BLP, which says that contentious information about living people should not be included in article unless it is appropriately sourced.

An alternative is to spin off the information below (minus the opening paragraph) into a new article, something like List of places named for Robert C. Byrd. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)



Byrd is known for having amassed one of the largest number of placenames in the history of Congress.[citation needed] This has caused consternation among some of Senator Byrd's critics, due to the fact that toponyms are typically bestowed posthumously.[citation needed] Others say that the placenames are simply a testament to his long record of public service. [citation needed]

Hospitalization

I recorded his current hospitalization and place current event tag --Chakira (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

In the Jeffrey Archer novel Shall We Tell the President? Byrd, a Senate Majority Leader, was mentioned as the Senator, possible involvement in assassination plot against President (in first book version Ted Kennedy and later Florentyna Kane), but he was a suspect just because he was in Washington D.C. at a certain time, not because he was a political enemy or had any interest in killing the President.

This sentence is confusing. I have not read the book; Could someone who has please re-write? KConWiki (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

POV?

"Despite his opposition to Brown's appointment, Byrd would later ally himself with the Gang of 14 that would ensure that Brown's nomination would not be filibustered."

I don't know enough to be sure, but I believe this should be:
"Despite his opposition to Brown's appointment, Byrd would later ally himself with the Gang of 14 that would ensure that Bush's candidates, among them Brown, would not be filibustered."
The original made it sound like he did something for just Brown. --68.161.173.37 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reversion War with Anon Editor

Over the last day or two, anon 75.175.255.175 has added disparaging text to the intro paragraph. He first tried "(He is also) noted as the most prominent racist to serve in the United States Legislature..." and then, after being reverted multiple times, he tried "(He is also) noted as the most prominent former member of the Klu Klux Klan..." In both cases, this is POV-pushing. Byrd's membership in the KKK is already prominently noted in his bio. I don't know if s/he technically broke the 3-reversion rule (probably not, because of the shift in terminology), but at the very least, anon 75.175.255.175 should bring his/her concerns to this discussion if s/he thinks there's a place for them in the intro. Failure to do so is editing in bad faith.--HughGRex (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Health issue

Can we put a short note about Byrd's not-collapse in the lead please? Readers are going to be coming here for information.--Tznkai (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing... in a more politeful manner than what was attempted prior. seicer | talk | contribs 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Not bad, but I meant a visible one. Maybe even an ugly but functional For information on Byrd's medical problems at the inaugural luncheon,see #Health issues--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary at the moment. It seems as if it was a false medical issue; anything more major, I can see. At least we aren't reporting on his death (!) as indicated by the multiple IP addresses. seicer | talk | contribs 21:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Party ID in infobox

Why is his Party DEMOCRAT not displayed in the box on the right? It usually is with most politicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.106.210 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Reason for not defecting

Just to clarify my reason for deleting a POV claim.

I am not disputing that Byrd's views have changed. I will take him at his word on this. But making a connection between that and the fact that he did not defect from the Democrats is pure POV. It is not even a POV that makes any sense. Virtually all of those involved who supported segregation who are still alive now assert point of view, whether they stayed in the Democratic Party or not. Those who defected principally did so because they disagree with the Democrats on other issues, not because there was any support for segregation in the Republican Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qlangley (talk • contribs) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Editing error in "Gang of 14" section:

ending the threat of the so-called a "nuclear option". 

                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

get rid of the word 'a'

Done See [3]. Thanks for your contribution! — DeontalkI'm BACK! 06:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Recent fall

Can someone add information about his fall and hospitalization today? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-robert-byrd-hospital-fall-home/story?id=8640031 24.14.191.192 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment from User:Dale Eastman

This article is crap and chock full of POV. For example, not only is the assignment of a political philosophy(ies) a POV statement the claim that the philosophy has changed as in "Byrd did not leave the party as its views shifted from social conservatism to social liberalism" is not close to being supported by reference(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale Eastman (talk • contribs) 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


filibuster reference

I can't edit the document to add this but there is a senate.gov reference to his filibuster of civil rights legislation. http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.41.137 (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

double reference to 1951

The paragraph about Sen. Byrd's witnessing the first electric chair execution in 1951, has a double reference to the year : "In 1951, then–State Delegate Robert Byrd was among the official witnesses of the execution of Harry Burdette and Fred Painter in 1951, which was... " Can somebody improve this, please? 85.158.139.100 (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Done meamemg (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

On vandalism and causality

First let me say that I acknowledge the edit I reverted was made in good faith; it moved a sentence tacked on at the end of a section to a chronologically appropriate place therein and drew more from the source cited. However, what it drew was synthesis: the BBC article does not attribute causality in the edits to the Byrd article and simply notes it as an example of an inappropriate edit the proposed/voted measure would allow established editors to intercept before it could be seen by the general public.

As to that earlier inappropriate edit mentioned in the BBC article, however, it was not a mistake. Sadly, this sort of edit is not unheard of at the bios of notable people, usually—though not always—at times when they are experiencing health issues. During the last months of Farrah Fawcett's life I reverted several such edits which, while wrong, I can assure you were not mere mistakes. It is macabre anticipation, it is repugnant obsession, perhaps it is something else I don't understand, but whatever it is it is about the anon and not about the article's subject, nor is it appropriate to mention in their bio.

Wikipedia is not an organization that breaks news, it is one that cites reliable sources on notable subjects, and as such any edit that presents erroneous information does so either because a reliable source has done so before us or because someone using or abusing the site, and the article, and those who would read it, is some kind of wrong. One IP editor at the Fawcett article actually responded to my admonition, admitting that they had no reason to believe she had actually passed away, but simply wanted to be the first to add the date to the article and were taking a stab in the dark. Such stabs—that kind of wrong—is not errata, it is vandalism, and whether they are headed off before the fact or reverted after, they do not deserve to be elevated to biographical noteworthiness in article space on the subject they vandalized. If Wikipedia's openness makes it complicit in allowing it in the first place, we would be more egregiously at fault for allowing it to continue to stain the article, even if we indicate that it was "mistaken". Abrazame (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Voting against the appointment of black justices of the supreme court

Under Race and race relation section, it reads, "Byrd is the only Senator to have voted against the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court, the only two African-Americans to have been nominated to the court." Byrd was not the only Senator to vote against the nominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.78.28 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The sentence reads that he's the only Senator to have voted against both of them. Not the only Senator to vote against Marshall and not the only Senator to vote against Thomas, the only Senator to vote against both. JTRH (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wigger?

The first occurrence of "white nigger" is wikilinked to wigger. I'm pretty sure that this phrase which "dates back to [his] boyhood" in the early decades of the 20th century does not mean "wigger" in the modern sense. That link should be removed. It's more likely something closer to white trash, although it would be best if someone actually familiar with that expression could comment. 192.91.172.42 (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the link is appropriate. It is currently set up to link to "white nigger", which, at this time, redirects to "wigger" as the word "wigger" (according to it's article) means "white nigger". meamemg (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox name change

I changed Senator Byrd's name in the infobox to "Robert C. Byrd". It had previously been listed as "Robert Carlyle Byrd", but that name is never used in any attribution to him. Examples include Robert C. Byrd High School in Clarksburg, West Virginia or the Robert C. Byrd Bridge in Huntington, West Virginia. Another is the Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System. To my knowledge, there is no substantial use of his full middle name. WVnativeson 12:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Claim about not defecting

At the moment the article contains the statement that: "A lifelong Democrat, Byrd did not leave the party as its views shifted from social conservatism to social liberalism." As documented on the Wikipedia page for the USA Democratic Party, this shift in views of the Democratic Party occurred about 1890, and the Senator had not expressed political views at that time. If the intent is to indicate that Senator Byrd has remained a Democrat through his career, that's what should be said. But I propose the sentence adds little value and should be removed or modified, as it contains an implied incorrect claim about the history of the Democratic Party.CSProfBill (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Southern party didn't make that change until a period beginning in the late 1940s and largely ending in the 1990s (although the Southern party is still relatively conservative outside the center cities. The passage you quote is pointing out how Byrd was different from fellow Southerners like Strom Thurmond and Dick Shelby. -Rrius (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually most (although not all) of the Southern Democrats rejected fiscal conservatism at the same time the Northern Democrats did (the National Convention of 1896 - the Convention that repudiated President Grover Cleveland - the last Conservative Democrat to serve as President of the United States). As for "social conservatism" it is hard to know what is meant by this - as such issues as abortion and so on were not a matter of debate between Republicans and Democrats in the 19th and early to mid 20th century (they were both "socially conservative"). If by "socially conservative" you mean in favour of racism then you should say so - but then your position makes no sense, as the well known religious evangelicals (in the 19th century as well as the 20th century) tended to be AGAINST racialism. Almost needless to say the most extreme racist to be President of the United States in the 20th century was President Woodrow Wilson - and he was indeed a "Southern Democrat" (although he made his name in New Jersey). But Wilson was rightly known as a Progressive, indeed an extreme Progressive, (not a Conservative) in both his academic writings and his political record.

What the article implies is that "social conservative" means racist, and Progressive (for I do not believe you mean "liberal" in the limited government, low tax, sense it was used in 19th century America) means antiracist. Neither of these two positions stands up to examination.91.107.236.241 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

hospitalized, in serious condition

No joke, it's true. Last year, many news sources reported that he was dead, including Wikipedia, but it turned out to be wrong. This should be in this article. Also should say that he is in the hopsital. RIPGC (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read more carefully - the current hospitalization is already in the article. And we generally try to avoid inserting Wikipedia itself into articles (see WP:SELF) unless it is integral to the story. This is a BLP of a man's whole life - the fact that Wikipedia erroneously reported about him for a short time is not really relevant to his bio. I would bet it's elsewhere in the encyclopedia anyway. Tvoz/talk 06:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is more than integral to the story, it is the story. Wikipedia reporting Byrd as dead 2 years before he died.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/premature-obituaries-may-force-new-wikipedia-rules-1516798.html?action=Popup
http://timeswv.com/local/x1687697914/Oliverio-campaign-charges-Wikipedia-information-altered
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8220220.stm
However, it is understandable that Wikipedia doesn't want to mention its shortcomings and would not want to mention it. Corporations do the same thing, not wanting to highlight weaknesses. Government press offices are the same way. RIPGC (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

CNN Breaking News: "West Vieginia Sen. Robert Byrd, the longest-serving member of Congress, has died, the senator's office said. he was 92. 02:32, 28 June 2010 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.10.93 (talk)

Barbaric

I'm probably not the first to ask this, but would it be worth noting that his dog fighting speech became famous for the repetition of the word 'barbaric'? --Half Price (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are the first. That speech is already noted, with a long quote that includes a use of the word "barbarism" as well as four "worst"s, two "sadistic"s, a "brutal" and a "cruelty". As you didn't suggest any source material, I'm not sure with whom that speech became famous for using that word, but I'm doubtful it's relevant beyond what we've already got there. Abrazame (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why no military service?

This article doesn't seem to address why Byrd, then in his 20s and apparently able-bodied, worked civilian jobs during World War 2 and never joined the military. Given the climate in America at the time this seems like a relevant thing to address. I tried to figure out for myself but my Google fu seems to be lacking: [4]. Does anyone know of a source that addresses this question? I think the answer should be added to the article, although it probably just warrants a sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.5 (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that point is already addressed in the article, with a quote no less. Abrazame (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Uh, where is that, exactly? I've looked over the article twice now and can't find it. Do you mean the "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side" quote? Because that's not really explaining why he didn't serve in WW2.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.5 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Shipbuilding was a Reserved occupation giving a draft deferment. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That explains the deferment, thanks... but still... has he ever explained why he didn't voluntarily enlist? You'd think with 50+ years of public service, this would have been an issue at some point. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In addition, Wikipedia covers things already written about him; if reliable sources have published this as being of note, then let's find them and evaluate their suitability as to getting such information in this article. As pure original research on my part (and therefore unsuitable for inclusion directly), I would also point out that he was married in 1937, so he might have been lower in the pecking order as a result. They may also have had children by the advent of direct American involvement in WW II in 1941.  Frank  |  talk  17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand. I tried googling with a bunch of terms but wasn't finding anything, that's why I asked here. I'm not accusing him of anything I just was curious and felt the article should address this, if reliable info can be found on the subject. There are lot of potential reasons why he technically didn't have to serve, but a lot of people had those reasons and served anyway... it just seems like over so many years of holding public office someone would have made an issue out of this. But if not, hey, obviously it doesn't belong in the article if it was never a real-world issue. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Here are a few:

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Byrd in Popular Culture"

The second item in this list is rambling, mildly incoherent, and features some dreadful grammar.
--Cogniac (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I edited it down to one (grammatically correct) sentence. JTRH (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Family sections

i just moved the family section back up as it is biographical info and thus part of the intro (as per other bio. pages). Perhaps the section can be changed to "Biography" (ive done this now, hope its better)Lihaas (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

it would be nice if someone showed what part of the state he represented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.2.178 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As a senator, he represented the entire state. Unless you're meaning something else? — e. ripley\talk 00:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro characterization

In the intro, I characterized Byrd's views on race in young adulthood and middle age as "strongly conservative". Someone edited that part out because it was "an affront to modern conservatism", so now it doesn't really tell us anything about his earlier views on race, except that he moderated them later on—moderated them from what? How should the views be characterized? Everyking (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "strongly segregationist"? JTRH (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That contributor should thank god I hadn't seen that; I'd have reverted them immediately. We don't play politics here, and "an affront to modern conservatism" stays, political expediency or not. His views were conservative, and they were segregationist (at least initially) as well. We don't speak ill of the dead here; we speak the truth. Anyone doesn't like that, Conservapedia is thattaway. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
While I disagree with the "affront" comment, it is absolutely true that "conservative" does not equal "segregationist". Some of the most conservative Republican members of Congress were instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other measures to dismantle legally required segregation. JTRH (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, and that isn't the point, JTRH: we do not alter historical fact based upon either personal political leanings or sensibilities. The anon was doing precisely that, and should have been trout-slapped with a whale for bringing his/her politics here to alter an article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment moved from top of page

Pork.

Senator Robert Byrd was famous for Pork project spending - more well known for it then any other Senator (indeed it is hard to find a government financed project in West Virginia that does not have his name on it), yet the article does not mention this at all.

Call the Pork spending "Stimulus" spending if you must - but cover it. After all for most of Robert Byrd's time in the U.S. Senate this is what he concentrated upon.91.107.236.241 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the article:
Byrd's seniority and influence enabled him to steer a great deal of federal money towards projects in West Virginia over the years;[7] in doing so he built an immense reputation and base of support in West Virginia, although some derided his efforts as pork spending[8] designed simply to appeal to his own constituents.
And:
Byrd was well known for steering federal dollars to West Virginia, one of the country's poorest states. He was called the "King of Pork" by Citizens Against Government Waste.[30] After becoming chair of the Appropriations Committee in 1989, Byrd sought to steer, over time, a total of $1 billion for public works in the state.[citation needed] He passed that mark in 1991, and the steady stream of funds for highways, dams, educational institutions, and federal agency offices continued unabated over the course of his membership. More than thirty pending or existing federal projects bear Byrd's name. He commented on his reputation for attaining funds for projects in West Virginia in August 2006 when he called himself "Big Daddy" at the dedication to the Robert C. Byrd Biotechnology Science Center.[31]
 Frank  |  talk  20:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess we could mention the cited info about how he arranged to have a Coast Guard training center placed in his state, even though it is landlocked on all four sides. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Never mind; I just noted it and the FBI fingerprin t repository as examples. Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

participation in KKK

Under the participation in the KKK section, near the middle, it states "He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[6]" The link references The Washington Post which says "By the time Byrd began organizing for the Klan during World War II, the organization had largely morphed into a money-making fraternal organization that was virulently anti-black, anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic."

The reference to "anit-communist" is in error, and even if Byrd at some time claimed such a reason, he would be wrong. My understanding of the KKK was it was resurrected in the 1920's by Communist influence as one of their many efforts to divide the USA with hate, racial violence being a major agenda. Byrd's big government or socialist (left leaning, as stated elsewhere in this wiki article) voting record also indicates anti-communism is not one of his top ideologies.

I don't know where Byrd tried to connect the KKK to anti-communism, but I didn't find it in the links. In any case it is an error, so if he did say such a thing it was an effort to discredit anti-communism, not a factual reason for his participation in the KKK. Hence, this sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellersw (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the source. I am not suggesting you are purposely trying to muddy the issue, it is quite possible that you simply did not read the whole reference and that you arrived at a conclusion before you got to the salient quote, and that you didn't think to search for the term in question.
When you say his statement was "an effort to discredit anti-communism", that is original research and based on your poor understanding of the subject. Wikipedia's own article about the KKK reads, "In 1915, the second Klan was founded. It grew rapidly in a period of postwar social tensions, where industrialization in the North attracted numerous waves of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and the Great Migration of Southern blacks and whites. In reaction, the second KKK preached racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Communism, nativism, and anti-Semitism." (Emphasis, of course, is mine.)
When you say, in the same sentence, that you "don't know where" Byrd made the statement that "He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[6]" and that you "didn't find it in the links", that further discredits your ability to comprehend what you read. The reference immediately after that statement, #6, leads to the Washington Post article you note, which reads "He explained that he had joined 'because it offered excitement and because it was strongly opposed to communism.'" Clearly our representation of his quote is an accurate one. This was Byrd's statement about his motivation on, and understanding about, the subject. If you choose not to believe that he meant what he said, that is your choice, but if you seek to push your belief as to why into an article, I warn you that you might have to actually read a whole article in a reliable source to do it, as opposing an article subject's quote requires some pretty significant reliable source.
I am no apologist for racism or the KKK. The record shows that Byrd associated, spoke, voted and identified as a hateful racist at one time in his life, and I find that repugnant. ?The record also shows that Byrd has not associated, spoken, voted or identified as a hateful racist in decades. My experience with the subject is simply anecdotal, but my understanding is that, on the ground, the members of the KKK were less like Communists than they were like Islamic terrorists, in that they twisted their religion to support their racism. I will repeat what I have said elsewhere: Byrd came out in support of Barack Obama, only days after his constituents in West Virginia voted overwhelmingly against Obama and for Hillary Clinton, greater than 2-1. It would have been easy for Byrd to throw his hands up and say "I'm bound to represent my constituents and their voice has spoken loud and clear, they and I support the white lady" but instead he came out for Barack Obama. Americans believe in growth and change; we believe that the right principles will win out over the wrong ones; we believe in second chances, and in a man's right to remake himself as his conscience directs him. The arc of Byrd's record speaks for itself. Abrazame (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
...unless he's a republican.
"I will repeat what I have said elsewhere: Byrd came out in support of Barack Obama, only days after his constituents in West Virginia voted overwhelmingly against Obama and for Hillary Clinton"
that tells me much about his partisanship and nothing about his principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.73.200 (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Somebody add the definition of Exalted Cyclops (The top officer in the local Klan unit). Redirect is not usefull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.88.98 (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; the definition per the source has replaced the term as it is apparently esoteric enough that it appears nowhere in our lengthy article on the Klan. Abrazame (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
i think the original confusion comes from the conflation of progressivism and communism. there was as much an anti-communist tendency in the progressive movement as there was in any anglo/u.s. political movement of the era. this by no means defines the progressive movement out of the left. the progressive movement is, however, yet kin with the conservative movement under the banner of liberalism. communist states generally forsake or eliminate republican institutions. progressives actually want genuine republics. whether they are prone to behave like mad scientists with the citizenry they've preserved is a matter of opinion.
there is cause to question the influence of anti-communist priorities in byrd's decision to join up with the kkk. anticommunism didn't become a significant force in u.s. politics until the fifties, years after byrd was advising the klan on how to preserve it's influence. which, in turn, is years after he claimed to have quit the terrorist group.
i've wondered why "only for the anticommunism" is presented by progressives as exculpatory in byrd's case. doesn't that just make him a double-boogeyman?
and the "young man" made this "youthful indiscretion" at the wild and impetuous age of 31: "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."
he joined the group when he was 24, which means the brevity of this "brief youthful indiscretion" measures at least seven years (that we know of). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.73.200 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For all that his past membership in the KKK is exciting and provocative, surely Wikipedia doesn't mean to suggest that it is the most important aspect of his entire career, does it? Then why is it one of the top sections, and the longest (or nearly so) in the article? Yes, it does tell an interesting story of "Haha hypocrite" in one side's view and "redemption" in another side's view. That doesn't make it more important than every other aspect of his career. And why is that section amplified by others of minor notability and undue length?

Just for starters, why is there almost nothing about his principled (or foolish) stands against the vast majority of his more-realistic (or lemminglike) colleagues late in his career? Or why is there only a single sentence mentioning his notability as "the fourteenth-most powerful senator" in a body of 100? Is it because there's not enough room for that given all the material that focuses on something few people except extremists would focus on and rant about?

I may come to regret even bringing the issue up, now that he's no longer protected by BLP. But I think this disproportionate focus on his past actions represents the attempt of one side to ram through their talking points, and another side to counterbalance it. What's needed isn't counterbalance, it's a weed-whacker (if not a bush hog). 76.22.25.102 (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Architect of the Modern Senate

Byrd came up with the modern procedures of reconciliation, tracking, and holds -- which give the senate the shape and character that it has today. Surely this merits a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.78.82 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We'd need to reference a WP:Reliable source that attributes those procedures to him. If you or anyone else can find a source and copy the URL (web address) to this page, someone/s will be happy to distill the info and write something about it for the article. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Google the phrase "Byrd Rule". That'll tell you a lot of what you need to know. I'm not sure he's responsible for the hold procedure, but he did have a major impact on the way the Senate does business, and he's more responsible than anyone else for the federal budget process. JTRH (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's one on the tracking system.[5] -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thurgood Marshall; gross misrepresentation of sources

Reference 63 (Juan Williams' "Right Times, Right Man?" in the NY Times) is grossly misrepresented. It does not say that Byrd opposed Marshall because he was an integrationist. For that matter, reference 64 (Saying Goodbye to a Great One" by Scott Johnson in the Weekly Standard) says that Byrd asked the FBI to look into supposed Communist ties because he "believed that Marshall was too liberal". In the WP article, it's strongly insinuated that he did so on the basis of race.

Unless an RS can be found posthaste which does support these claims, they should be removed. For that matter, this calls into question whether there's any non-synthetic rationale for claiming that his votes on Bush appointees is a matter of "race relations" rather than ideological affiliation, if not even the Weekly Standard (ref 64 - which advertises a "Stress Obama" you can beat up in the sidebar, complete with giant lips, chin, and ears) is willing to claim it.

For those who say reference 63 is hidden behind a NY Times login and therefore can't be verified, that is true if you follow the link given in the article. If, however, you do a Google search for the phrases "Juan Williams" "Right Time, Right Man?" you'll be directed to a working link. (This may be the first and last time in WP history that the results of a Google search were probative for article-writing purposes.) 76.22.25.102 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I read both the Williams piece and the Johnson Weekly Standard article. Here's Williams' only mention of Byrd: Sen. Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, wrote to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, asking if there was information about Marshall's ties to Communists. Johnson mentions Byrd's KKK past, but states that his concerns about Marshall were ideological. While there may be an insinuation of a racial motive there, that's a subjective judgment. I have to agree with the poster immediately above that these quotes do not provide ample verifiable evidence that Byrd's opposition to Marshall was based on race, and without that evidence, it's speculation which doesn't belong in the article. JTRH (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

his "Home" in West Virginia

In order to be a Senator you must be a resident of a state. To be a resident you must keep a home and have lived in the state for a certine amount of time. For many years his "Residence" in WV was nothing more than a post office box. He was shamed in the press untill he bought some land. I don't know if he ever visited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herogamer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum and we require reliable sources for assertions; original research is not acceptable. If you have reliable sources that indicate your concern is biographical, please share them. jæs (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No mention of KKK membership in LEAD?

Not being political or partisan in any way... why is there no mention of his former Klan membership in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize what is talked about in the article and should be able to function as a concise summary of the article on its own. There is a 4+ paragraph subsection on his membership in the KKK, it should either be mentioned in the lead or dropped from the article entirely(which would be ridiculous). VictorianMutant(Talk) 08:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

He's known primarily as a Senator, not as a Klansman. There's no reason to put it in the lead. JTRH (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan is known primarily as president of the United States, not as an actor or as governor of California; yet the article about him mentions both in the lead. Why? Because it goes into great detail in the article about him being an actor and a governor. Quoting directly from WP:LEAD now: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Without a brief mention of Byrd's membership in the Ku Klux Klan, the lead does not currently stand alone as a concise overview of the article and thus violates WP:MoS. VictorianMutant(Talk) 18:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Right now, it seems kind of tacked on. When people think of Robert Byrd, they don't (necessarily) go to his relationship with the KKK, but rather his 40-year service with the Senate. That's what makes him notable. The KKK stuff is only famous in relationship to his later positions of power within the Senate. Neutrality rules, of course. But if it must be in the lead, it should be placed in an appropriate manner within context. Right now, it's just placed at the end implying it was something he did as a Senator (it was not). I have no idea of a better solution, and feel it's better in his background (e.g. the article) and not an overview (e.g. the lead).--Tim Thomason 09:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Death date

The article states that he died in the early morning of June 28th 2011. It's only mid-afternoon June 27th and he's already dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.74.195.133 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There are some vandalism at the moment. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo accidentally put up a banner and news alert that Byrd died today. I think it confused some folks that didn't know that he had already died. LeahBethM (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes

Why does this article have pending changes protection enabled? Pending changes was removed from all articles per consensus. This is currently the only article in the mainspace with Pending Changes protection enabled. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

See this. Unfortunately, it appears to be provide more of a "how" than a "why" answer. Probably an oversight. Maybe ask the protecting admin?I have notified the protecting admin of this thread. Rivertorch (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Alright. I've decided left a message for the person who reviewed a revision for this article as well so that the next time he or she sees an article with pending changes protection enabled, then he or she will knew that something is wrong. In the meantime, I'll find a sysop to remove the pending changes protection, since Seicer doesn't appear to be all that active. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd be better off posting to WP:RFPP to ask that the correct level of protection be added. As it turns out, I happen to have noticed this and will fix it. Solving the problem is more important than figuring out who to blame for it. Risker (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but I wasn't blaming anyone. All I wanted was an explanation. It isn't a crime to ask "Why?" or "How?" --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The bigger question is why it is still technically possible to put an article under pending changes. I suspect a bugzilla is needed, but I won't have time to do it. Risker (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so, Risker. I'm not about to search the archives of that lengthy and contentious RfC, but my recollection is that there never was any question of actually disabling the feature. In fact, as I remember, the developers made clear that they wouldn't turn it off unless it was to be permanently off. Looking at the log, what I think is happening is that a few admins (semi-retired or perhaps in sensory deprivation tanks during the RfC) were unaware of the decision to remove PC from all articles. That doesn't strike me as a big deal, but in future it might be a good idea to spam notify all admins when something like that is decided. Rivertorch (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not been all that active and never really check my messages anymore since it's usually stuff I subscribed to years ago. Thanks for handling this - I must have clicked the wrong option or something. I was meaning to block IP addresses from having committed changes without having it reviewed, but it seems that may have been removed per consensus? seicer | talk | contribs 02:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct. See Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 3. Rivertorch (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Byrd joined with other Southern and border-state Democrats to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964,"

That seems misleading. Byrd joined with southern senators to filibuster the Civil Rights Act. He was the only border state senator to oppose the bill, much less filibuster it. Williams and Boggs of Delaware, Cooper and Morton of Kentucky, Beall and Brewster of Maryland, Symington and Long of Missouri, Monroney and Edmondson of Oklahoma, and Byrd's colleague Jennings Randolph of West Virginia all supported the bill and voted in favor of cloture. While I think that too much can be made, and often is made, of Byrd's segregationist past, I do think it needs to be presented accurately. Byrd wasn't from one of the Southern states where virtually every politician opposed civil rights. He was, in fact, far out of step with other border state senators, and with other politicians from his own state in particular (not only Randolph, but West Virginia's entire House delegation voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act.) One can present a fair portrait of Byrd that doesn't focus entirely on his bad record on civil rights without being misleading about that record. He didn't join with other border state senators to oppose the Civil Rights Act. Rather, he was the only border state senator, Democrat or Republican, to support that filibuster and oppose the Civil Rights Act. john k (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Robert Byrd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"conservative"?

i removed the sentence:

Over his career, he held a wide variety of both liberal and conservative political views, starting his career as a conservative Southern Democrat.

i don't know what this means. i suspect it is the overwrought product of an edit war between conservative editors, who would like to tar the entire democrat party by their passive and indirect association with byrd, and progressive editors, who would like to cast all of the unpleasantness about byrd's kkk involvement as a brief chapter of aberrant "conservative" tendencies.

in this, to side with the truth, i'm afraid, is to side with the conservative editors. i'm not certain which "conservative" views byrd held. in the sentence directly prior to the one deleted (or was it following?) an implicit example is made of his support for the vietnam war and later opposition to the iraq war. but support for the vietnam war, a war which was begun by one progressive democrat and escalated by another progressive democrat, does not a "conservative" view make.

it seems to me that it is the case here, as it is in other articles, that it is byrd's racism and segregation-ism which supposedly earns him the distinction of "conservative democrat". this is partisan nonsense. obviously the axiom being pushed is as vulgar as "racism equals conservative", but the broader point of this feint is to purify the democratic and progressive legacies by casting any of it's bad ideas and figures to "the other side" i've seen it go so far as to be used in the gary condit article, to cleanse the democratic party's legacy of a crime which, as it turns out, condit was innocent of anyway. as a fairly obvious NPOV violation, it's really not acceptable here.

also, this:

Rating his voting record in 1964, the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action found that his views and the organization’s were aligned only 16 percent of the time, less than even conservative Republicans of the era; by 2005, he had an ADA rating of 95 percent. Conversely, the American Conservative Union rated Byrd a conservative in its first ratings in 1972.

is completely unsourced. perhaps also OR, but if sources for the OR could be presented here, we could at least discuss reinstatement of the "conservative" appellation.

UPDATE: i checked the ACU source, and this appears to be an example of deceptive sourcing. byrd was given a 55% positive rating in 1972. every rating thereafter put byrd at less than 20%. the legislation on the block in 1972 was rather bland and not starkly partisan. the ADA, which appears to be further left than the ACU is to the right (it was formed by democratic socialists who broke from the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies because the group had become too anti-communist), didn't like byrd much in 1972 either, possibly for his support for a "workfare" program and non-opposition to the vietnam war. perhaps a less radical group might be a better choice to guage where byrd stood with the mainstream left.

The ADA is recognized by nonpartisan reference works such as Congressional Quarterly's Politics in America and the National Journal's Almanac of American Politics as being the most prominent liberal rating group, and it's the most widely cited group on that side of the spectrum for those purposes. The nonpartisan sources tend to present the ADA and the ACU as essentially mirror images of each other, not that one is considered a mainstream exponent of its views and the other is a fringe group. Besides, tracking down and sourcing another group's ratings, and determining that it's a better representative of the "mainstream left" (however you define it) than the ADA is, would take quite a bit of research. JTRH (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
PS: The groups' annual ratings can be verified through either of the reference works I mention in the paragraph above. The content isn't available online except to paid subscribers, but the print edition, properly cited, is a perfectly valid source. JTRH (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
so far as the ADA source goes, what you say may be so. regardless, the way the ACU source was used in the sentence which was struck was deceptive and inaccuratly portrayed byrd's stance with that organization. that deciet was then combined with the ADA source and synthesized into a doubly deceitful claim that byrd was both affirmatively non-progressive and affirmatively conservative.

the congressional ratings of both organizations are available free of charge on their respective websites, so i don't think their alleged lack of availability was the reason behind the omission. 155.43.111.22 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Byrd opposed George Bush's Iraq war. Then again George Bush wasn't a conservative really. Most conservatives today are against the iraq war. One must keep in mind that terms "liberal" and "conservative" constantly change in meaning over the years. Both parties in the 1960's were pretty conservative for instance. The democrat party in the early 1900's was pro-socialism and socialist democrat woodrow wilson was for the IRS. 2602:306:396F:33E0:901F:21D6:E3:D921 (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Robert Byrd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robert Byrd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Robert Byrd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Byrd/Archive_2&oldid=1084080113"