Talk:Robert Byrd/Archive 1

''Removed editorial comment: Wikipedia is not a message board. Mike H 21:33, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)''

Byrd on Iraq
I think that his views on Iraq should be made clear and mentioned as a reason he is famous (a recent reason) in the general part of the article. Since he quite literally WAS the senate opposition to war, I think it is important. Like ignoring Eugene McCarthy's antiwar stance, it made him famous. More information about it should be at the bottom like the racial remarks part. The Bhat

If this article is going to go so far as to point out Byrd's stance on the US-Iraq war, it should also speak of his other positions. Otherwise, it seems like it violates NPOV by presenting only one view, the one that happened to agree with the person who added that text. Why should an article about a senator mention only one political view? Surely, the longest-serving member of the senate has had other views? Daniel Quinlan 11:39 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the Iraq text and speech link. There are many other speeches on the Byrd website.  I see no reason why this one should be singled out unless Iraq-related views are more important than all of his other views.  Daniel Quinlan 11:44 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"White nigger" quote
This article places too much emphasis on the "white n*gger" remark...
 * I agree, the man has been a Senator for approaching half a century and yet discussion of this remark constitutes a quarter of the article.
 * On the other hand, not enough information is presented on his Klan days. For example, it sounds like he happened to pay dues for a year and write a single letter, yet he was a top Klan LEADER. Not some casual dabbler. I'm gonna gather up some references and then insert the relevent information here.

Anyhow... didn't Byrd run for President in 1976? In the Democrat primary he won West Virgina (mind you, even Jesus couldn't beat Robert Byrd in West Virgina). It may have been a write-in campaign though. Should be mentioned. Al

done I added his presidential run 67.165.14.100 04:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

sorry that was me, I added it Alxt 04:57, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Out and Out RACIST!
I have searched the article for the word racist and it is not there. This Senator of the Democratic Party is an out and out racist! Read this: Ex-Klansman Blocks Condi's Confirmation If he makes racist remarks in public, what are is true beliefs and feelings?

In my opinion the wrong Byrd was dragged behind a car in Texas! I have a right to make these remarks. The fact is this article is bent to the left. I will keep posting this! Mike H did not like my observations and has already censored me once! People are allowed to give their opinions on a disucussion page even if you don't like what I have to say! MelisGood 21:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Your link points to an article about some hypocritical college banning the Passion of Christ, not about Byrd. I'd like to read it, to see how this relates to his being racist, since one could easily oppose Rice on many grounds beside race. Not that I'm denying the guy's probably a closet racist, there's as much evidence of that as there was of, say, David Duke. Kaz 00:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I corrected the link. People will always bring up, David Duke, who, of course, is and was a racist! However, his racism was reported in the press constantly and he was only a State Rep. and never attained as much power or accolades as Senator Byrd! David Duke's article mentions his Klan leadership in the first paragraph but Byrd's leadership is mentioned later in the fourth. Duke is synonymous with the Ku Klux Klan and rightly reviled but Byrd is not and it is hardly ever mentioned. One Republican senator was forced to resign because he praised Strom Thurmond who had believed in segragation, but Sen. Byrd himself believed in segragation and as late as 2001 was still throwing around the N word! I don't like the fact that because one politician is of one party, his being a racist is terrible, but a racist in another party is not. A racist is a racist is a racist I hope they all rot in hell! MelisGood 01:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This discussion is in no way trying to help fix the article...it's basically an editorial comment, which are not allowed on these message boards. Mike H 02:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is rather obvious that you are a Democrat who has no problem censoring someone who says something bad about one of your own! Of course my comments are indeed trying to make a point to help the article be more balanced. And as far as being able to state my opinion, which you don't like and have tried to silence, you have done nothing but state your opinion. Does erasing my first posting help the article? No, of course not. You have a lot to learn, but maybe you have learned what you wanted to already, just delete things by people with ideas different from your own! In fact, the last poster Al gave his opinion where are your comments there? That's right you only try to blot out the comments that call attention to this Senator being a racist and that the article just glosses over it. A racial remark after alll isn't the same as a racist one, is it? Have fun! MelisGood 20:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight here:

The statement "In January 2005, Byrd led the Democratic party in attempting to block the confirmation of prominent African-American Condoleezza Rice" is inaccurate. 12 Democrats, or 27% of the Democratic delegation, voted against Rice's nomination, with the remaining 73% of the delegation voting in favor. I do not see how "the Democratic party" in the Senate can have been "led" to do something that three-quarters of its members did not do. It is also inaccurate to portray opposition to Rice's nomination in the Senate as exclusively Democratic, as the Senate's single independent member also voted against it. In addition, if there was a single leader of the opposition to Rice, it was Barbara Boxer, who was Rice's most prominent opponent on the Judiciary Committee. On the floor of the Senate, the opposition was "led" by Boxer, Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and Harry Reid. It is misleading to imply that Byrd stood alone at the vanguard of the opposition.

Similarly, the statement "In 2004 he fought to keep black Appeals Court nominee Janice Rogers Brown from receiving a confirmation vote" is, depending on one's interpretation of the word "fought," either misleading or wholly false. The sum total of Byrd's "fight," as far as I can determine, was joining 42 other senators to vote against invoking cloture on her nomination. (This, incidentally, is identical to the treatment Byrd and most of the Democratic caucus had given two weeks earlier to judicial nominee Charles Pickering, who is controversial because of a 1994 case in which he appeared to bend over backward to improperly help out a defendant accused of burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple. It seems to me that those who would accuse Byrd of racist motives in voting against cloture on the Brown nomination, against all available evidence, would first need to explain his behavior regarding Pickering.) --Paul 18:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, if you're going to keep posting inaccurate and irrelevant information in this article, I'm going to have to keep reverting you.

Your insistence on repeatedly adding inaccurate information to this article, as well as your apparent reluctance to discuss the matter here, are making you difficult to work with. --Paul 21:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You removed the statement "Byrd's defenders note that both nominations were widely opposed on the left by people of many different ethnicities and that Byrd has not opposed other people of color that Bush has nominated in the past, such as Secretary of Education Rod Paige and Secretary of State Colin Powell", calling it a "lie," but that is not true. As I am sure you know, the NAACP opposed Janice Brown's nomination, and Rice was opposed by prominent African-Americans including Julian Bond, Maxine Waters, and Al Sharpton, as well as by many people of color in the rank & file of the left (one need look no further than the comics page). It is also not true that, as you contend, "all of the Senators that voted against Rice were white": Sen. Daniel Akaka, who is of Chinese and Hawaiian ancestry, voted nay.
 * You also wrote that "Even former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, a Democrat, questioned the motives of the small number of Senators who voted against Rice's nomination." There are two problems with this statement. First, in the link you supply, Young simply states his belief that Rice should be confirmed; he does not speculate on anyone's motives at all. You appear to be putting words in Young's mouth. Second, even if Young had said exactly what you claim he said, his remarks would be more appropriate for the Condoleezza Rice article, unless he had indicated in some way that Byrd was one of the senators he was thinking of.

Keetoowah, please do not keep adding inaccurate information to the Robert Byrd article. I went into detail on the talk page about why I had to revert some of your latest additions. I understand that this is something you feel strongly about, but that does not justify abandoning NPOV and posting untrue statements and inflammatory assertions without evidence. If you still do not feel this is something we can come to a consensus on, we can go to Requests for comment and ask for additional perspectives. But I will continue to revert any untrue statements you add to any article. --Paul 21:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally, I don't acknowledge the comments of someone who goes out of his/her way to talk down to me. Suffice it to say that the burden of proof is on you and the Democrats to prove that the Grand Kleagle is NOT a racist pig of a Senator.  He was the one who choose to join the Klan, it was he that choose to recruit new members to the cross-burning organization.  It was NOT me that made him do those things.  It was him that wrote several articles defending the Klan after he supposedly left it.  It was him that as recently as 2001 was throwing around the n-word.  He is the racist, not me.  You have chosen to use your time and effort to defend the racist.  You need to look inside you for your personal motivation on why you feel that you must defend the racist.  The section of the article defending the Kleagle is indefensible.  Look at Trent Lott's bio.  There is no Republican writing an apology for Lott's comments.  Why do you feel the need to defend the Kleagle?  Oh, by the way, I can't believe that I even responded to you.  I only responded because you are fellow Jayhawk, but I normally would not respond to comments of your tone.  I will continue to remove and edit any untrue information that you place in an article also.  Only 13 Senators voted against Rice.  That is 13% of the Senators.  That is not a large segment of the society--no matter how hard you try to make people believe that it is.  The one African-American Senator did not vote against her.  Only the most partisan Democrats voted against her.-Keetoowah 01:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Friend Jayhawk, it has never been my intention to talk down to you, nor have I any particular interest in Sen. Byrd, whom I have never met and generally have no opinion on one way or another. My only interest is in seeing that untruths and inflammatory accusations do not find a home in Wikipedia. You may call me disingenuous for saying that; I don't really care.


 * Suggesting that someone has racist motives for pursuing a course of action is a serious charge, and the burden of proof is on the accuser to provide serious evidence to support it. You have not done this, either because you do not want to or because you cannot. It is not enough to say, well, he used to be a vicious racist, therefore he still is. If George Wallace can be redeemed, presumably anyone can. I don't know what's in Robert Byrd's heart, and am not qualified to take a position on whether he is a racist. I do know that the "evidence" you've presented in support of that contention is laughable, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article without challenge. You do not seem willing to consider the obvious explanation that Byrd's opposition to Rice may have had something to do with her part in the atrocious prosecution of Bush's war, which Byrd has opposed from the start. Actually, that's not quite true--you tacitly acknowledge it by saying that "[o]nly the most partisan Democrats voted against her," which suggests that political motives were at the heart of senatorial opposition to Rice, not racial ones. (And it wasn't even really the most partisan Democrats who voted against her, anyway; Evan Bayh is one of the more conservative members of the Democratic caucus--as is Robert Byrd on a number of issues, as a matter of fact.)


 * This is the third time you have deleted a passage saying that Rice's nomination was opposed by people of many different ethnicities, even though nobody, to my knowledge, denies it and it is a viable counter to charges of racism. Why is this? If you can provide evidence that this is not the case--which should be difficult for you given that, as I believe I mentioned earlier, one need look no further than The Boondocks for proof--I will stop restoring it. --Paul 03:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You call my argument laughable when you resort to quoting the race pimps of a political cartoon like The Boondocks? Get over yourself.  Byrd has a 60 year history of espousing racism and you are pointing to one over-the-top cartoon.  Your sense of balance, now that is what is laughable.
 * You never responded to my main argument in that the article has a whole paragraph dedicated to being an apologist for the old racist, that in and of itself is non-NPV. If you could argue that the man was a racist and Kleagle earlier in life (his 20s and 30s--not the early 20s like you stated) and then he turned around and live a completely different life, then you MIGHT have an argument.  But that is not the case.  The Kleagle has been throwing around the n-word as recently as 2001 (in his 70s and 80s), obviously old enough to know better.  And finally, your agnostic approach to whether the Kleagle is a racist or not doesn't fly with me.  You know damn well the Kleagle is still an old racist segregationist at heart, you are just engaging in sophist argumentation to defend the undefensible.-Keetoowah 15:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand now. It is not possible to disagree with Keetoowah about anything without being either a racist or a "race pimp," whatever that is. Thanks for clearing that up. --Paul 06:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Phenry, I apologize that I won't roll over and agree with your bully tactics (See your comments above). I filled the article with facts and since you can't pull out facts, you simply got mad and put a "disputed" sticker on the whole article.  That was very childish of you.  Why do you feel compelled to make excuses for the old racist anyway?  Making excuses for a man that is 87 years old and there is documentation of racist comments from the time the man was 20 years old to the time he was 84 years old!!!!  60 years of documentation backing up Byrd's racist attitude, but yet you want to defend the guy.  You should be embarassed.  And the only documentation that you point to is a cartoon!  Pure Genius!!!  You defend the Kleagle and then you come back at me!  Get over yourself.  There exists 60 years of documentation where Byrd the Kleagle has been spouting off racist comments and you are defending the man as misunderstood!!!  Does the Kleagle have to whack you aside of your head for you to see that he is a Kleagle!  What is the problem with you????  Why don't you go over the Nazi page in Wikipedia and put together some Doonesbury cartoons to defend Hitler, okay?-Keetoowah 15:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, unilaterally removing an NPOV tag from a page is a pretty big no-no, I believe. The nature of the disagreement we have been having is prima facie evidence that the neutrality of this article is in dispute. Whether you believe it should or should not be in dispute is not the issue. By removing the NPOV tag you indicate that you are unwilling to even attempt to forge a consensus here, which all but consigns this article to a never-ending edit war, unless it is protected.

I have listed this page on Requests for comment, in hopes that others might be able to help resolve this impasse. I am also willing to enter into mediation with you if you would like. However, I no longer wish to be subject to your constant personal attacks and insinuations. If I have been uncivil to you, I apologize. I hope you can see your way to extending me the same courtesy. --Paul 21:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been silent for at least two weeks and there has been no attempt on your part to reach a consensus. It is clear that you slapped the sticker on the top because you did not have valid reasons to edit out what is in the article.  I'm going to remove the sticker because you have NOT listed a definitive listing of what is wrong with the article--you have merely given the world your arbitrary position that the article is NPOV--that is not enough justification for the sticker.-Keetoowah 14:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You made it fairly clear that you were not interested in reaching any kind of consensus at all, or anything else other than turning the article into a platform for your personal beliefs. If you've changed your mind about this, great! But I have no desire to waste any more of my time trying to craft a middle-ground position with someone who'd rather fling insults than work on a compromise. --Paul 20:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My personal beliefs do not appear in the article--just facts and they are facts that you do not like. Without further discussion, the disputed tagline will be removed.-Keetoowah 21:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If you remove it I'll just revert it again. If you're genuinely interested in working towards a middle ground here, then let's proceed. But I don't intend to let you get away with turning this article or any other one into your personal sounding board and then erasing any evidence that others disagree with you. --Paul 23:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Why don't you make a specific complaint other than just constantly stating that you don't think the article is NPOV? Could it be that you don't have a specific complaint, you just like to make comments such as this, "If you remove it I'll just revert it again."  Somehow or another it must give you some sense of power and control.  What is your specific complaint with article?-Keetoowah 23:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Robert Byrd/temp for my response. --Paul 19:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redundancy
Yes I did trim many of the redundancies in the article on Bryd's racist past. The new version mentions his Klan membership and opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, this cannot be the focus of the article, as Keetoowah seems to demand that we make it. Where he has been most influential is not his opposition to civil rights legislation four decades ago but as a party later and later the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. 172 23:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I'm sure David Duke could have been influential, if his Klan membership had been covered up by the media, instead of them crucifying him for it. And it's a shame about Stromm Thurmond's retirement being tainted by a mainstream media obsession with what he did two generations ago, not to mention the harm it did to the Lott for commending him. And, certainly, the same standard should have been used for Byrd/Dod as Thurmond/Lott, either way.


 * But, in real life, all the facts deserve to be covered, embarassing and glorifying, with precisely the amount of space necessary to include all the information. The redundancy in the article certainly should be cut, but you were using it as an excuse to censor it, deleting legitimate facts that people have discussed and researched extensively. That is entirely unacceptable.


 * I will edit the article to remove the double mentions (which were probably the result of an undelete war with some censorship freak), and put the rest into chronological order. But the facts are all staying. If you have more facts to add...I was noticing that his prominent role in the Clinton impeachment is entirely ignored, for example...then you can do that, to add some sense of balance and proportion. More stuff from the latter part of his career, instead of hiding stuff from the former part. Kaz 01:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have now edited the page, removing all the double entries (I could find), and putting everything in chronological order, as much as is possible while retaining some of the continuity. I had to change wording mostly just where paragraphs started with a reference to the formerly previous paragraph or such, and I added some non-controversial stuff. We definitely need more about Byrd's time in the West Virginia state government, his time as a US Representative, what his platform as a Presidential candidates was, and pretty much anything else except his time in the Senate and Klan. And I still think we need some mention of his role in the Clinton impeachment. Kaz 01:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, take a look my rewrite that was reverted by a POV troll. I already added it. 172 02:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the people who reverted your "rewrite", which was centered around deleting or hiding at the end anything embarassing truths about Byrd, while using grossly PoV wording to talk about what a great guy he is. I have now integrated pretty much all of the bits of original content that you included in that version, but am keeping it in chronological order, which is much fairer and more objective than either you hiding any negative truths at the end, or your opposites trying to fill the entire beginning of the article with all the bad stuff at once.


 * Oh and, ironically, you had some of the negative stuff in there twice. Keeping it chronological fixes that, cutting it down to a single paragraph about his Klan membership, for example, instead of two separate ones. Kaz 03:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't assume what my POV is. I am no fan of Bryd (and I really disliked him when I was younger, thinking of him as a complete reactionary and Dixiecrat throwback), but I insist on maintaining an encyclopedic tone and style, keeping these partisan controversies in proper perspective. Thanks to the two of you, we have now a hit peace worthy of World Net Daily or the Drudge report more foucsed on digging up mud rather than his actual influence in the Senate, not a serious encyclopedia article. 172 03:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, what we have is an article not evading the tough stuff. Perhaps you worship the immitation of commercial encyclopedias which have to softpedal the establishment in their articles, in order to get access to current government information...but we don't have to do that, here.


 * And if you're so into a good article, you should paste your stuff into Word and run it through the spelling/grammar checker. While you're trying to mass-censor the article, you're filling it with poorly composed text.


 * You also confirm that you have a PoV agenda..."reactionary" is the criticism of a Green/Socialist/Liberal/Progressive, whatever you want to call yourself, which means that the closest thing you have to an ally in the government is the Democratic party, and like it or not Byrd is their eldest member, and treated as some kind of honored statesman by the rest of them...so of course you don't want a balanced approach to the article, which actually includes the good and bad. Fortunately, there are people of your political leaning who won't cast aside their principles to defend Their Man...perhaps you should consider their influence.


 * As I often say, the obvious difference between the guy who's out to force his PoV and the guy who wants to create a good encyclopedia is whether he rewrites things which he claims to find flawed, or just deletes them to fulfill his actual agenda of censoring the article. We've seen which you started with, and toward which you still lean with your careful reordering to hide negative material out of order at the end.Kaz 04:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you worship the immitation of commercial encyclopedias which have to softpedal the establishment in their articles, in order to get access to current government information...but we don't have to do that, here. So you are a POV troll. Thanks for letting me know. 172 04:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're proving yourself the PoV censor, here. You're upset because we won't censor the articles to only include the most flattering information. I wonder if you feel the same about Bush...perhaps you should go delete all the unflattering facts from the Dubya article, as well. And hey, eventually Stalin grew out of that mass murder phase, too, why are we including that? Kaz 15:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt that Eastern Europeans would appreciate your exploitation of the millions of victims of Stalinism as a rhetorical devise for U.S. partisan rhetoric... Byrd was not notable as a Klansman. Furthermore, it was nearly not as alarming for a poor, white young male to join the KKK 60-65 years ago in southern West Virginia as it is today. The attention that his Klan membership is getting on this page completely disregards the context of the era and his background. It is worthy of mention in his early background (the amount of detail that it receives in authoritative references), but it does not warrant more attention than (say) his role as the top Democrat on Appropriations... BTW, shouldn't serious U.S. conservatives be more concerned about his work to steer billions of dollars in pork-barrel spending to his pet projects in WV than his vigilantism as a youth? 172 19:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to know how you earned the title to decide who is "a serious conservative" and who isn't? Also, how is that relavant to whether something is NPOV or not?  I don't think your comment has anything to do with what is NPOV, but I am absolutely sure that your comment indicates that you are bias.  It doesn't matter if Byrd was a Kleagle 60 years ago or 50 years ago or if was a Kleagle in 2001 when he was talking about "White N****."  The fact that he was a Kleagle is the probably one of the most important aspects of his whole career.  He even admits that himself when he tells other potential Kleagles not to become Kleagles because the whole Kleagle thing--even if you are like Byrd and think the Kleagle thing is cool--will hurt you because guys like me (the supposedly UNserious conservative) will remind him of his Kleagle days every chance that I get.  Byrd was a Kleagle and that is one of the most important aspects of his whole career.  He even admits the fact that his Kleagle-ness has held him back to bigger and better things.  And don't argue that he didn't want bigger and better things than to be the head Kleagle from West Virginia.  He did run for the Presidency and the whole Kleagle surely couldn't have helped.  You like the guy, so you want to minimize the Kleagle thing, but it would NOT be NPOV because that's who Byrd is:  the oldest, highest ranking Kleagle still in politics.  Head Kleagle.  Grand Kleagle of the Senate.  El Demo Grande Kleagle.Keetoowah 03:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seeking compromise
A few days ago I started working on what I hope can become a compromise version of some of the more contested parts of this article, at Talk:Robert Byrd/temp; it got lost in the shuffle during the ensuing edit wars and Talk page archiving. Comments and contributions welcome. --Paul 15:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm disturbed by the extent of his talk page archiving, myself, especially when we were just getting close to a compromise version of the site...but then again, it seems to be his pattern; to come in and wipe everything out, pretending his own petty version is now, suddenly, authoritative. Kaz 15:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't been around for a couple of days, so I missed most of the fireworks from 171 and Kaz but I find the edits to be less than satisfactory than what Phenry was working on. At least what he put together seemed to make sense.  I still don't believe that Byrd's KKK past can be minimized but 171's self-centered edits don't always seem to be based upon anything other than a desire to control and dominate--which is always annoying.-Keetoowah 03:31, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The author is focusing on Byrd's racist relations more than anything else. This "moderate" viewpoint sickens me and displays how much of a problem wikipedia can be.

You need to grow "some" quick and settle this nonsense.

Factual note - the article states that Byrd set a record for a Senate filibuster with a time of 14 hours. This does not seem to be possible - Strom Thurmond already held that record with a time of 24 hours in 1957. Could someone who knows more or has access to more resources please resolve this?

Filibuster
I believe that the Civil Rights Act may in fact have had the longest floor debate of any bill in U.S. history since it actually had be clotured and lasted a full 57 days. See: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm The filibuster may have the record for longest group filibuster in history. I don't know this for certain. Robert Byrd's individual particpation, however, was not record setting in any case. (Dharlon)

a full third of the information posted about Senator Byrd implicates him as a racist. While some of it is appropriate (i.e. his filibustering of hte Civil Rights Act), some of it is nothing more than Republican slander. Some of the material, such as suggesting that Byrd is racist for opposing a couple of Bush judicial nominees, is nothing more than Republican sludge, and it should be deleted. I tried deleting that section, but it was added by the nutcase who insists on driving his right-wing ideology through this encyclopedia.

Fix this. FreeRepublic is not a real source. Lets use actual documents instead of right wing (or left wing in the case of Demounderground) reactionary nitwits.

Can we please get this settled?
This is getting ridiculous. Robert Byrd is possibly the most distingushed Senator in the History of this nation, and having a giant "neutality disputed" banner on his wikipedia entry is scarring his good name. This needs to be settled.

SMolldrem

"distinguished" only in his rip-off of the citizens of all 49 states not called "West Virginia." Not only is Byrd a former KKK member, he is the reigning King of graft, waste and pork-barreling laws. Something about his personal contribution to the national debt should be included in his bio to make it truly neutral, because it's going to be his legacy for all of us who have to pay for it... ---

He's also pointed out again and again his regrets for having been part of the KKK back then. He's done many other things since then. Might be a good idea to point those out. After all, even Nixon gets credit for top drawer diplomacy and opening China up to the West...as well as that little Watergate affair.

As for the pork...well when you've got a state as poor as WV, it makes sense that you might want to develop job and economic opportunities for the people of your state. After all, they're the ones that hired you to do their work for them. Granted things like the Robert Byrd Technology Park in southern WV aren't nearly as important an Alaskan bridge to nowhere or an Iowan rainforest. At least those two have poetic merit...right?

Kat


 * Did he apologize for all the pork and graft, too? And I never did hear an explanation for his "white nigger" comment.  Truth is, he gets a pass from some because of political expediency.  There are many Democrats one can point to as being distinguished members of Congress.  Byrd isn't one of them. Jkp1187 13:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Okay, where did the picture go? And if by the description its a doctored picture of the Senator in KKK garb, where did the CORRECT picture go?

Picture
Okay, where did the picture go? And if by the description its a doctored picture of the Senator in KKK garb, where did the CORRECT picture go?

Much like Palpatine, Byrd's true face has now been revealed.

Byrd's Good and Bad are part of history
Like it or not Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK. He made those decisions, and he has to live with them. Senator Byrd has done much good as well, championed for the poor, helped with road funding. He has been partisian to the point of being out of step with people in West Virginia. You have to take the good with the bad. This is history, not politics his bad deeds as well as his good should be reported. You don't get to choose based on political views. --71Demon 01:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that there are good and bad (if we are going to use abstract terminology here) parts of Byrd's life. But "partisian to the point of being out of step with people in West Virginia?" Sure, Bush has won the state twice, but what is the makeup of the state legislature? What percent of the popular vote did Manchin get? Youngamerican 15:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Job well done
It is impressive to view the high quality of the article in the context of this emotional debate. When I first heard of Wikipedia's approach of endowing any user with editing authority, I reasoned, 'It will never work'. By and large though, it does work, and that's fascinating.

Beyond that, I wonder how many readers are aware of the irony of further extending the debate on Senator Byrds early racism. To me, the debate has come to resembles a filibuster :-)

--Philopedia 13:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! Good observation. But I remember the "glory days" (so to speak) of filibuster. The nature of the beast was not to talk endlessly about the legislation, but about anything at all. A Senator could read a complete novel in front of the Senate, or his wife's recipes for chicken fried steak--just to keep the bill from coming to a vote. Hopefully Wikipedia content is a little more relevant. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We need a new photo.
We need a new photo.

that one is just weird looking.

use this info
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062000140_2.html


 * I think this one is more accurate for the Exalted Cyclops http://asininity.pmachinehosting.com/images/uploads/kuku.jpg

and while I don't trust him people (including Klansmen) can change. For proof look into SCJ Hugh Black. 132.241.245.23
 * last I checked Byrd hasn't been part of the Klan for half a century.


 * Oh, so what you are saying then is it does not matter if someone was once a Nazi or Klansman as long as they advocated hanging to death innocent people from trees years ago. At what point when you stop beating your wife do you stop being a wife beater??  So, since Byrd advocated killing black people in the 1940s and he was defending the Klan in 1958 (at the age of 41) then in 2005 we should ignore those comments and keep Byrd's Wikipedia article whitewashed, so to speak? What hogwash.
 * Please tell me, oh anon Wikipedian, when do you advocate the point when, in your opinion, it is appropriateto cover up for famous "liberal" Democratic Senators and when it not appropriate--and what is the criteria that you apply when you cover up for the liberals. How do you explain that he was talking about "white n******" as recently as 2001--just 4 years ago?  Why should we ignore that?  By the way, what proof do you have the Hugo (not "Hugh" as you incorrectly spelled it) Black was a reformed racist?Keetoowah 30 June 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Link a page bottom for "Independent" links to American Independent Party. VT sen. Jeffers is not, I believe, remotely a member of this. I don't have the energy to change this on 400+ Wiki pages. Ideas? -Erik Hanson

I don't know how to post this photo
http://byrd.senate.gov/biography/byrd_old_senate_chamber.jpg

reinstating section with NPOV
I'm kinda new at this Wikipedia thing, but I'm intent on following the rules and playing fair. I just reinstated a section that I wrote earlier this afternoon after it had been (correctly) deleted for not subscribing to NPOV.

I can't help but wonder, however, why Keetoowah felt it necessary to scrub the entire section, rather than the one offending opinion. For somebody who's a little obsessed with people "whitewashing history," he sure seems more than willing to toss out records that don't suit his interests. 24.197.65.102 08:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear 24.197.65.102, if you are really new to Wikipedia then your comments seem strange. I will take your comments at your word and I will assume that you are really "new" to Wikipedia.  So, the whole section was and is biased and it is an essay by you defending the old KKK member.  These articles are not designed to support the view of one particular Wikipedia member.  That is why is was deleted and it will be deleted again.  You stated YOUR opinion.  That is against Wikipedia policy.  Also, if you are really "new" to Wikipedia how can you comment on my editing practices unless you have been around awhile and you are a sock puppet hiding behind a new number.  --Keetoowah 13:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I will agree with Keetoowah that it is still a bit too much POV, parituclalry in the first sentence. But at the same time, the amount of support he currently receives from the African-American community certainly is very relevant, particularly in light of his former KKK associations and Byrd's current membership with the Democratic party.  Should the Strom Thurmond article not mention the fact that he later supported African-Americans in various ways (e.g. federal court judgeships, hiring them, etc.) because it's just defending him and excusing his former segregationist views? So I think that mention of his approval by the NAACP, etc. certainly is relevant and certainly is proper to include.  I don't know that Keetoowah's attitude is helpful, either -- you are not Wikipedia, and I don't see your opinion being more valid or more well-thought-out than 24.197.65.102's  I agree the section should be reincluded with edits, but I'll wait to let Keetoowah respond and defer to 24.195.65.102 to do them .  Geoff.green 21:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you've got such a problem with the information I've submitted, feel free to rewrite it in a manner which you find to be acceptable. To focus entirely on the senator's prejudiced past while completely ignoring that he has supported NAACP interests more than the vast majority of the present-day US Senate is disingenuous, one-sided, and wrong-spirited at best. 24.197.65.102 02:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are biased. You wrote the section in a biased, non-NPOV manner.  It had to be reversed. When you wrote it you even admitted that you wrote with goal in mind to defend the old KKK member.  Also, just because he gave some money to the MLK memorial does not negate his racist past.  As a matter of fact, it seems to be just a stunt to cover up his Keagle past. The vast majority of people have not forgotten his unforgivable past. And only when you were corrected twice did you give up on the clearly biased wording.--Keetoowah 22:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "(No need for a special section, based upon two, tiny, tiny initiatives in a 50 year career)" -- this commentary is obnoxious. Also, "the vast majority of people have not forgotten his unforgiveable past"?  What exactly is your source for this?  I think most people don't give it much thought, anymore, particularly given the efforts added to the article.  I'd be curious to find out what percentage of the A-A vote he got in 2000; I couldn't find it through Google. Geoff.green 02:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear Geoff.green: Kleagle is a Kleagle forever.  You may believe deep down in your heart that my comments are, as you state, obnoxious, but I really don't care.  Byrd is a Kleagle.  He will always be a Kleagle.  You oviously like the Kleagle.  You have no hard evidence to back up your point of view either, other than your deep, strong love for the Kleagle.  That is your opinion, not based upon any hard evidence as far as I can see.  Remember:  A Kleagle is Always a Kleagle.  That is Klan Law.  Keep defending the Kleagle!-Keetoowah 16:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice. Now you're calling me a racist.  Also nice to see that you consider Klan law to be inviolate. Didn't take you long to get to personal attacks, I see. Geoff.green 16:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's get something real straight: I never engaged in a personal attack.  I just pointed out the obvious.  You are defending a Kleagle.  That is a fact.  You are the one who used the word "racist".  I will not apologize for a word that you used.  Also, I was engaging in sarcasm. And for that I won't apologize either.  If you are embarassed about your defense of the Kleagle then you need to look at yourself, not me.  I will not be berated by someone who feels the need to defend a Kleagle.  A Kleagle is a member of an organization whose main goal in its existence is to make sure that people of my race do not exist.  If you are embarassed to be defending those people then you need to look inside yourself and ask why you feel the need to defend the Kleagle.-Keetoowah 23:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "I never engaged in a personal attack" -- "You oviously like the Kleagle" "Keep defending the Kleagle!" You know what, Keetoowah, when someone jumps onto Hitler's Wkkipedia page and adds something that might seem positive about him I don't call the contibuter a Nazi who obviously wants to exterminate my people.  Hopefully some day you'll grow up, although based on the commentary to my small change in the stem cell article, I find it unlikely. Geoff.green 11:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I can't remember what the original argument was about.  But obviously you feel compelledto get in the last word.  You must have control of the situation.  Just like when you attempted to turn my criticism into a "personal attack" so that you could use the Wikipedia Star Chamber system to shut me up.  Real good.  Byrd was a Kleagle and no amount of actions that he takes when he is 118 years old (or whatever the heck he is, is he 130 years old? I don't know. I can't remember.  He is just very, very old and the Dems just keep voting for him in goosestep fashion.) is going to change or clean-up his Kleagle past.  And you should not use Wikipedia to create a false image for him.-Keetoowah 20:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I need to get the last word in because you're clearly delusional. "Star Chamber system"?  What criticism did I try to turn into a personal attack?  I don't know what or who you're talking about, but it's not me. Geoff.green 00:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Geoff, I doubt there is any specific exit polling in West Virginia on the subject since 1) the state has few Afro-Americans and 2) Byrd's win was a forgone conclusion. I am, however, trying to find the results for certain precints around Charleston, Huntington, and Beckley, where a large portion of the state's Black community live.  When I find them, I will post a link or a reference here. However, based on the voiting paterns of African-Americans for these precints in many recent elections, I would guess that it would show strong electoral support for Byrd and most Democrats from the Black community. Youngamerican 12:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)         Looks like I would have to go to the courthouses in order to get the data, as i cannot find it online. As I work during the hours of operation, unless someone else in the area can make it, your specific inquiry will remain unsolved for now. Youngamerican 14:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

New archive
It seems time to create an 'archive 2' for this talk page. Youngamerican 02:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on recent edits/reverts
Personally, I think all of the cited additions add to this article. I like both the new stuff on the book and on questionable alliances in the past. I would agrue to keep most of it and work on reorganizing the article without losing whats here. Youngamerican 04:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I also like the new stuff, but the information on recent racial controversies must stay.-Keetoowah 12:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I meant to put it in there, but it was like 2 AM when I did that and I desire to see fair consensus may have been hazed by an intense lack of sleep.Youngamerican 14:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

"like many southerners of the time"
I am going to restore the anon's deletions because they were both quite appropriate.

In the first case, I myself, having been around in the pre-civil-rights and civil-rights eras (in a quasi-socialist Brooklyn family) am aware that saying "He, like many southerners of the time, participated in the KKK [my emphasis]" is both unwarranted evaluation and a bit slanderous. First, West Virginia is not a Southern State. It was part of Virginia until the Civil War and in 1863 broke off from Virginia (which a southern state, but not the "deep south"), and joined the Union. I am not arguing that West Virginians by WWII were the soul of cosmopolitanism, but they did not suffer from Reconstruction and did not have the deeply ingrained assumption of black inferiority that characterized the Civil Rights battlegrounds of, say, Alabama and Mississippi. Even in the Deep South, though many admired or simply tolerated the Klan, very many did not and only a distinct minority joined it. But what is damning with Byrd is that he did not simply "join" or "participate," he took it upon himself to organize a chapter in a border state where none existed before, at the same time that President Roosevelt (also a Democrat) championed tolerance. He took enough himself the title of Kleagle and also accepted the elected post of Exalted Cyclops, or leader of his chapter.

Everyone in the U.S. at the time, who was even vaguely aware of the Klan, knew what it was and what it stood for. Whether they admired it as upholding Southern Dignity, or "keeping blacks in their place," or hated it as a violent racist organization, no-one believed that they were a social club that did no more than hang out, drink a few beers, and watch dirty movies.

Was he a racist? Does he still harbor racist sentiments? I have no way of knowing, though, after WWII, he certainly made gratuitous racist comments about the suitability of blacks serving in the Army. OTOH, if he organized a Klan chapter and wasn't a racist, that is certainly not flattering, because he was willing to organize 150 people to put on sheets and hoods to further his political ambitions. Nice man.

But my point is that he doesn't deserve the cloak of "like many Southerners." He wasn't a real Southerner (except maybe in his heart), he did what most "real" Southerners never did, and he doesn't deserve the excuse.

As to the other anon's change, noting that others opposed Condi Rice's nomination on grounds of qualification. First, that is an evaluation that has neither a place in, nor is supported by, the thrust of the article. Second, the section properly notes that this is a charge made by Conervatives, it is not presented as indisputable fact. The question is not whether others opposed Ms. Rice for substantive reasons, it's why Byrd opposed her. If we can present any citation showing that the concept that Byrd did not have a racist bone in his body, present that. -- Cecropia 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well said. I tend to agree with your edits, however, I have a few points to bring up on the subjects that you touched. Basically, it is somewhat incorrect to assume that southern West Virginia is a part of Yankeedom. If you have ever visited the area, you will know that places such as Crab Orchard (Byrd's own little klanton) definately have a southern streak, unlike the decidedly rust belt feel of Huntington, Wheeling, or Charleston. Many of the people in that area are the decendants of Confederate soldiers and never supported the partition of Virginia. Furthermore, Byrd was in fact born in North Carolina, a mid-southern state. That being said, the "everyone else is doing it" apology holds little water and is not acceptable for wikipedia or any other semi-academic source for the reasons that you stated. Furthermore, I believe the article with the deletions still illustrates that CORE's accusations against Byrd are at least partially politically motivated, as was Byrd's opposition to these office-seekers (let's face it, Byrd and CORE both have political agendas). I personally feel the burden of proof falls upon his supporters when discouting his racist past, as I feel that it is the responsibility of his detractors to prove he currently still holds those beliefs, ie by default this article should assume that he was a racist and now is not, unless sourced evidence shows contrary (and it is out there). Consider this to be a concurring opinion of a fellow wikipedian (agreement, but for slightly different reasons). Youngamerican 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the concurrence and your interesting remarks. Yes, I'm aware that all of West Virginia is not Yankee heaven. I can point you to places above the Mason-Dixon Line where, in my memory, there was a distinct "southern attitude" plus places normally considered "northern" (like Maryland). But my point, as you apparently acknowledge, is that putting Byrd's Klan activities in the general category of "Gee, it's just what them thar Suthin' boys did, they didn't know no better" is a *cough* "whitewash." -- Cecropia 21:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm commenting a week or so later, but this is not a courtroom. The burden of broof lies neither on CORE or on Byrd. It lies dead in the center. The fact that Byrd was in the KKK and Byrd has used the n-word on TV in recent history makes these racism charges credible for Byrd whereas they would be less credible for say Hillary Clinton, though opposition of any black person will lead to charges of racism. BlueGoose 16:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

entire quote?
part of this quote is in the article, part isnt.

"They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said, but added that he believed people talk about race too much.

"My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much

sources: Lenn0r 01:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon taking ownership of article
Would the anon who removed massive amounts of unflattering but well-sourced material about Byrd care to identify him/herself and explain shy he/she is threatening to block other editors from an anonmymous IP? -- Cecropia 10:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

New entry, April 29, 2006
Under the heading "Participation in the KKK," the final sentence now states: "To this day Senator Byrd is often ridiculed for this misclaculation [sic] he has however remained a quiet supporter of white supremacy." A link is provided to a newspaper article. I don't see anything in the linked article that supports this statement. InvisibleSun 00:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, vandals
You've begotten Wikipedia yet another "friend"/. 204.52.215.107 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He is kind of right, wikipedia really shouldn't be used as a citation in research. But that being said, I doubt the opinion of one journalism major in NJ is going to bring the project to a crashing stop.  young  american  (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
It's probably of note that 63.97.189.140 wrote "He is also know as the King of Pork for all the money he has stolen for the stat of W.V." on the bottom of the page and no one noticed...Dark jedi requiem 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeated POV Censorship & Vandalism
It's disgusting that one editor would be so biased as to repeatedly censor true facts in this article. The Democrats **did** make Byrd their 1st in line for the US Presidency in 2001 for the 1st time. The only evidence Byrd is a **former** Klansman is his own claim. If there is any other evidence post it now. --12.74.187.194 04:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the president pro tem is traditionally the longest-serving majority member of the Senate, it would be incorrect to say the Democrats "installed" Byrd. And it is possible to write something that is technically true but still opinionated. There is no need for us to note that a former klan member was third in line for the presidency. It's a meaningless combination of facts. Would you mind if Wikipedia noted that a former "C" average student commands the most powerful military in the world (it's true)? And personally, President Ted Stevens and President Bob Byrd are both equally scary. Rhobite 04:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There have been many president pro tems who were not the longest serving majority member. In fact, Byrd was before John Stennis' retirement. Why would a non-klansman scare you as much as a klansman? The klansmen was the Democrats' 1st in line for the Presidency not third and the fact that Democrats selected him to be in that situation should be noteworthy both for Byrd supporters and detractors. BTW - I would not mind a mention of President Bush's grades as long as his opponents' grades were mentioned as well. --138.162.0.41 16:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ....I really don't know what to say to someone who is so intent on putting in information that...well...just isn't information. I used to be a boy scout.  Its only my claim that I am no longer a boy scout so I must still be a boy scout.  That's really what you're saying here.

If you'd like to draw that inference about whether or not you are a boy scout you are free to do so, but the Byrd Klan text never makes that conclusion. It only states fact. The text points out the fact no other evidence has been brought out that Byrd has quit the Klan but his claim. If you wanted corroberating evidence you were no longer a Boy Scout all you would need to do is produce membership rolls. Byrd has not done that. He has not even furnished a Klan contemporary of his to confirm his claim. --138.162.5.9 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And let me just say, I don't know WHO the hell this guy is. I've never heard of him.  I don't give a crap.  I'm here to serve the best interests of Wikipedia and that only. --mboverload @  04:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous poster is right but I will say this, that ex(?)-Klansman looks like hell. I've changed that to possibly former klansman. --DaveThomas 17:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is funny how sympathetically (forgivingly?) the KKK section was written. The KKK was not acknowledged as being a racist, hate group - which we know it is.  It was written as if Senator Byrd had no idea what the KKK was, and accidentally joined.  I wonder if he were not a Democrat, would this have been so favorably written?  One needs only look at the Trent Lott article to get some idea. Not sure this qualifies as NPOV. Dubc0724 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC
Do statements that suggest that Byrd may still be in the KKK need to be sourced, such as those inserted by DanKorn and several anon. IPs?
 * I would say that they do, per several of the users that have reverted the edits. If the user can find evidence that suggests that Byrd may still be in the KKK, please add it to the article. This article does not exist to glorify or defame him, but rather to give a npov encyclopedic overview of his life and work, warts and all. But any praise or snarks must be sourced.  young  american  (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying Byrd has not provided evidence he left the Klan beside his own claim is NOT saying he may still be in the Klan. One appears to be fact while the other is speculation.  Do you have any evidence beyond Byrd's claim?  --DaveThomas 04:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't imply that people are lying in Wikipedia articles unless there is evidence that they are lying. It is also inappropriate to describe a content dispute as vandalism in your edit summary. Please stop. Gamaliel 04:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article most certainly would need a notable mainstream source saying that Byrd was still in the KKK. I echo the sentiments of a user above who said "I don't know WHO the hell this guy is. I've never heard of him. I don't give a crap". Attempts to imply that Byrd is still in the KKK without such a source should be removed immediately, to protect the reputation of the encyclopedia. --Zleitzen 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a possibly inflammatory statement as such would definately require sourcing. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 19:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Without a notable citation, speculation that Byrd was not truthful about ending his membership and paying his dues becomes original research. Since the 1940s and 1950s, the KKK in West Virginia has fractured into numerous groups. To imply that Byrd is now a member of one of these successor groups without a source is not a NPOV.--Leuliett 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with everyone else here... I don't think anyone can make a case for including unsourced materials of such a nature. Dubc0724 18:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough
Watching this article for right-wing bashing and left-wing whitewashing has kind of gotten old. If I am not reverting a suggestion that he is still in the Klan, I'm cutting out a comment that makes it seem like "he really didn't mean to be racist." I'm going to put up a request for peer review to get some fresh eyes on the article that do not give a crap about his policy on Iraq, earmarks, or civil rights. Although its hard to believe at times, this is an encyclopedia and not a place to laud or defame your favorite or least favorite politicians.  young  american (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've cooled down a bit, but it will still be good to get some fresh eyes on the article.  young  american  (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's get this thing to NPOV and leave it alone... Dubc0724 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alito hearings section
''On the day that West Virginia Radio Corporation owner John Raese announced his candidacy to oppose Byrd for his Senate seat, Byrd broke from his party's stance during the confirmation hearings of Judge Samuel Alito. On January 26th, 2006, Byrd announced his support for Alito's confirmation as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, being one of four Democrats to do so. [13]''

Is this to imply that Byrd supported Alito to curry favor with voters as a challenger was named? I think we need a source for that, as on its face it seems to interject anti-Byrd POV into the article. The source listed only discusses the Democrats that crossed party lines. Anybody got info? Dubc0724 19:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think a seperate section for his vote on Alito is unnecesary, let alone the mention of its timing. I added it to the "Voting Record" section with his Roberts vote. I believe that is all we need on that topic. Mtmdem 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me.  young  american  (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too. Thanks Dubc0724 19:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oldest Senator
Robert Byrd is the oldest Senator at 88. Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oldest current, yes.  young  american  (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Should KKK be in the lead?
User:68.48.82.180, despite refusing to discuss the change over here and callin me an "asshole" on my talk page for reverting his or her edits, has brought up a good point when he inserted a mention of Byrd's Klan history in the first sentence (his or her credibility was damage by the "colorful metaphor" and his or her recent vandalism to Democratic Party (United States). Should the KKK be mentioned in the lead somewhere? I tend to think that it should, although not in the first sentence. I am not sure where, though. Any thoughts?  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 16:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be briefly mentioned in the lead, but the section discussing it should not be so defensively (apologetically?) written. I can only imagine if Mr. Byrd had an [R] beside his name how the article would be treated.  See Trent Lott!  It certainly doesn't need to be in the first sentence, as some have suggested.  Thanks for the input. Dubc0724 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Election results.

 * 1976 Robert C. Byrd 	Democratic 	566,359 	100%

I went and checked the linked source of this, and yeah, it seems that they didn't record any opposition. Nevertheless, I find this highly doubtful, and more likely a rounding thing. Did nobody write in their brother or something? Does somebody have another source, or was it West Virgina's habit to drop out "irrelevant" votes before submitting to the Clerk? SnowFire 22:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not at all sure if this the case, but it is possible that no write-in registered. Write-ins must register in WV, at least as of 2000, and this may have been the case in 1976. That being said, a citation on that sepcific amount would be nice.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 22:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion in "Ku Klux Klan members" category
Should Sen. Byrd be listed in this category? The category title seems to imply current and/or active membership if describing a living person. As he is a former member who has acknowledged his membership as a youthful misjudgement and cut his ties with the Klan, his inclusion in this category seems a little harsh, if not incorrect by definition of the word "member."

Thoughts? Leave in? Remove? New category for "ex-Klan members"? Castlecraver 00:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering the care that is being taken these days to avoid possibly libeling a living person, I would say it is best to remove him from the category if there is any connotation of current membership. The same goes for anyone else in the category who is not a current member. I also feel it would be inappropriate to create a new category just for the Senator. If there are other living persons in the category that no longer belong to the Klan, creating a category of former members would be appropriate. --  Donald Albury ( Talk ) 01:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the best option would be to create a category for people that were once Klansmen but severed their ties (Byrd, Hugo Black, etc.) before death. His days in the Klan should not be glossed over, but it also should not be implied that he is still anyway affilitated with the KKK.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 01:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good solution, as there are other persons to add to the category. --  Donald Albury ( Talk ) 02:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the new category... I agree that the KKK link is notable, but it isn't fair to put living individuals who have broken their ties in with proud, current KKK members. I'm going to start going through the KKK "members" category and populating the new one now. Castlecraver 03:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Niger Innis
Is there a better source than NewsMax on that? They are a news outlet with something of a political agenda, and it seems a bit like sourcing Air America or Sean Hannity or something like that.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 12:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I did a quick search of the Internet and it seems that quote is all over the place, mirror website quoting this Wikipedia article. However, the quote is exclusive to NewsMax because NewsMax interviewed Innis, so it is a valid primary source.  If the quote had come from somewhere else then Wikipedia should use it. I would point out though that there is this statement in the same section: "Byrd, however, made it clear at the time that he opposed Rice's nomination because of her role in the War in Iraq which he vehemently opposed", which is not backed up by a source or quote or anything.  So what you have is a direct quote from Innis, criticizing Byrd (even though it is from an admittedly partisan news source), and no citation, source or quote defending Byrd.  Unless you can point out the NPOV issue then I'm fine with leaving it in. --Getaway 13:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is a primary source, then it is perfectly fine, as you say.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Göring quote
I do not see how recalling that Byrd quoted Göring, with a summary of Göring's opinion, is "not NPOV". David.Monniaux 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, we shall leave it, but the word "famously" will be removed because that is not NPOV because it is not famous and Byrd saying it is not famous, that is just your opinion. --Getaway 13:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * However, in retrospect, I believe your demand that we quote the Klansman Byrd quoting the Nazi Göring as appropriate and it shows the type of people that your hero is reading, a kind of unintentional slap in the face to the 180 year old Klansman.--Getaway 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 88, actually.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 14:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which hero are you discussing? Note, however, that technically Byrd did not read Göring, but the works of a US psychiatrist commissionned by the US government to undertake studies of the defendants at the International Military Tribunal. This psychiatrist discussed the topic of leading people to war with Göring. David.Monniaux 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Innis and Brown
I found a source where Innis describes himself as a conservative. I think it helps illustrate the politics of apology, not just of criticism. As for Brown, I think the comment stating that he hasn't explained his reasoning for opposing her is ok for inclusion.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just thought the previous description of him as "Republican consultant" makes him look like a Republican, which is not true.  Conservative works for me.--Getaway 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Citations
For the trivia fact about Byrds appereance in Gods and Generals, you can find confirmation of this at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0279111/fullcredits. I am not sure how to add this to the article and was hoping someone could show me how/do it for me eric 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Capital punishment
What about Byrd's vievs on capital punishment. He is a lifetime senator. It mus be know 83.24.213.33 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Term Segregationist
Robert Byrd was a "segregationist." That is a historical fact. Now, in the article there is an attempt to white-wash that part of his life away. One Wikipedian wants to use the term "opponent" of the Civil Rights Act!!!! You can review the edit and the justification for it here: For a man that was the floor leader of the longest filabuster in the history of the Senate. There is a movement to sugar-coat the man's actions by stating simply that he was an opponent of the Civil Rights Act!! This encyclopedia is supposed to attempt to reflect history and other topics in a manner in which they took place, not in a manner in which we wished they took place. The reasoning given so far is that Byrd has rejected the term segregationist!! So?? We are going to explain his behavior from many, many years ago in the terms that he chooses today?? I don't think so. Looking back, Byrd knows all of the things that he did were wrong and there is a movement to protect his legacy and whitewash over the nasty things he did in the past. He lead the filabuster, the filabuster was organized by segregationists and now someone wants to remove the term "segregationists" because, according the Wikipedian attempting to do this, Byrd NOW rejects the term. That is historical revision. And it is wrong. In the article about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the wording states: "Despite an 83 day filibuster in the Senate led by conservatives and segregationists, both parties in Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Act, and President Johnson signed the bill into law"  Clearly another part of Wikipedia calls Byrd what he was a "segregationists."  Also, let us look at Strom Thurmond's treatment by Wikipedia: "On September 16, 1964; Thurmond, increasingly at odds with the national Democratic party over racial integration switched his party affiliation, becoming a Republican. In South Carolina and other states of the Deep South, white segregationists supported Goldwater in 1964 instead of Johnson, whose support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and integration rankled the segregationists." Notice once again, Wikipedia has made the editorial decision to call Thurmond and Thurmond's band of merry segregationists exactly what they were:  "segregationists." In the Wikipedia article dedicated to racial segregation, Wikipedia states the following about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the one that Byrd was organizaing the filibuster of: "Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice by the efforts of such civil rights activists as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., working during the period from the end of World War II through the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 supported by President Lyndon Johnson. " Notice the article dedicated to the term "segregation" specifically refers to its end by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of which Byrd organized the filibuster. Apparently, you are a segregationists if you opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unless you are Robert Byrd and you tell everyone that you have rejected the term. In other words, if I say the world is flat, then it is flat. I suppose that now that Byrd has disavowed all of his activities as a former KKK member, we need to edit the article so that we no longer refer to his a member of the KKK or an Exalted Cyclops or a Kleagle, etc. Why? Well, he NOW rejects these terms. Why don't we go further and pretend that Byrd wasn't a Klan recruiter? Why don't we pretend that Byrd is really just 30 years old and he never joined the KKK and that he was an assistant to Martin Luther King, Jr.? Why don't we just make up all kinds of the things just to protect Byrd's reputation? I know that it violates POV rules, but one Wikipedian has decided that he is going to do just that.--Getaway 14:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Civil Rights Act
This article is no place for inflammatory comments painting Byrd as a "segregationist." There is no reason that his oppossition to the Civil Rights Act be set aside in its own sub-section&mdash;especially given the take that he has denounced his vote hundreds of times. The section also implied that Byrd himself filibustered the bill "for more than 14 hours." Byrd only gave a few speechs during this long filibuster; he didn't speech for 14 hours. There is no citiation for the Declaration of Independence quote&mdash;or any other eccentric claim in the section. Had the quotes been cited, we would have seen that they came from a site called DiscoverTheNetworks.org (Which I discovered through a simple Google search.) That article was not cited simply because it is not a credible source. After all, the subtitle of the sight is "A Guide to the Political Left." The site's own Wikipedia article doesn't paint it as a reliable, unbiased source. Let's stop engaging in this nonsense and move on. Mtmdem 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * FACT: Byrd filibustered for 14 hours. There is a citation for this fact in the article.  FACT: Byrd did make those comments on the floor of the Senate during the filibuster.  There is citation for this fact in the article.  The Dec of Indep quote has a direct cite to the record of the Senate.  The section will stay.--Getaway 01:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fact--to say the bill was opposed by conservatives is highly misleading--they split on the issue and in fact the bill written by conservatives esp Senator Dirksen. The opposition came from southern Democrats, many of whom were liberal. calling Byrf a "segregationist" is simply POV--there is no reliable source. Here it sounds like Byrd argued in favor of segregation, which he did not, The highly detailed history of the 1964 bill never mentions Byrd--he was a minor player (albeit one with strong lungs). Rjensen 01:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Why make a separate section of Byrd's Opposition to the Civil Rights Act? And why cite material from a biased source? Have you found that yourself in the CR? Or are you just relying on what someone else has said? Senator Byrd has repudiated his actions a countless number of times for the past forty years, so get over it. No one can say that Byrd has not owned up to his past. I am not removing it completely from the section about his legislative career&mdash;it shouldn't be. But to blow it out of proportion is not appropiate in a Wikipedia article. If you have personal qualms against the Senator, keep them to yourself because such libel violates the standards of Wikipedia.Mtmdem 03:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * it's ridiculous to remove historical material because he changed his mind. Lots of politicians change their mind--and they change their own websites but Wiki needs to tell what happened. Rjensen 03:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What I removed is not historical material. In my edits I ensure the the fact of him voting against and participating in the filibuster of the VRA remains in the article. However, there is no historical reason to distort Byrd's role in the debate. I admit that he voted against the act and supported its filibuster. He admits that. And that is what I left in the article&mdash;nothing more, nothing less. The Declaration of Independence quote has yet to be cited by a reliable source. I agree Wikipedia needs to tell what happened, and I can assure you that it did not happen the way it is portrayed in the recent edits. You still have not answered my question: why do we need a separate subsection for his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, especially given the fact he has repudiated that stance? Have you seen his quote in the Congressional Record? Mtmdem 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Dec of Indep quote has a citation directly from the Senate archives. I have cited it.  Now, I understand a little better what Rjensen is getting at.  Let me explain why I wrote "conservatives and segregationists."  Not that I think that is the correct terminology, but as I described above, the other Wikipedian articles on the subject use the phrase, "conservatives and segregationists."  Now, that you have worked a little harder at making your point, I tend to agree with you.  I would appreciate if you would attempt to engage in discussion, and not be so quick to simply revert things.  Byrd was a segregationist and were the other segregationists that opposed the bill.  Also, Byrd was the floor leader of these folks that opposed the Act.  I agree with youngamerican in that the word "conservative" is not appropriate because it does not mean the same thing today that it meant over 40 years ago.  I believe every single person in the Senate both Dems and Reps from Mass. to Calif. would have been a "conservative" under today's standards, so that it is not an appropriate word.  However, the debate in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was lead by Senate Strom Thurmond and the Senator that assisted him, Senator Robert Byrd.  Now, once again, I would like someone to respond to this: Why does Wikipedia believe that it is appropriate to call Thurmond a segregationist, but not Byrd??  Why can I cite article after article where the opposition was called segregationist, but for some reason Byrd is exempt from that term, the man who organized the filibuster?  --Getaway 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone was a Conservative in 1964 by today's standards? Huh?  Certainly not on economics. john k 15:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. I was referring to the civil rights.--Getaway 15:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems questionable too. How was Humphrey a conservative by today's standards, for instance? john k 16:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess everything is "questionable." You can question anything.  However, I find it very hard to believe and I would challenge you to find a direct quote from Senator Humphrey where he stated that he believes that two men should be able to get married with the sanction of the State.  You can "question" anything.  I find it impossible to believe (and once again I would challenge you to find) a direct quote from Senator Humphrey where supported the decriminalization of sodomy (as the United States Supreme Court did in the Lawrence, et. al. v. Texas).  Senator Humphrey was merely "liberal" by the standards of his time, no more, no less.  He was a great Senator, but his views do not match these times.  That is why is crazy to use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" of today and attempt to apply them to historical figures.  Thomas Jefferson was a great "liberal" of his times, but he was also a slaveowner.  So the use of the terms from one period of history do not apply to another period of history.--Getaway 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought we were using "civil rights" as a euphemism for "race/segregation." Sorry for the confusion.  Obviously, on sexual issues, everyone was more conservative in 1964 than they are now.  That's only a tiny part of the whole political spectrum. john k 19:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever, the sexual revolution is not the only change in 40 years. It is the only issue that I focused on.  I could give others, but I don't see the need to because basically your standard argument style is to stand back and say "Not so!" There has to be a better argument than that in you somewhere.  Anyway, in the spirit of the current debate I must point out that my point is made.  Obviously, Humphrey was not the great liberal that you were trying to make him out to be.--Getaway 00:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any proof that Byrd is a "segregationist"? Byrd's reasons for voting no were not to to preserve segregation, and Byrd himself makes that clear. Why can Thurmond be called a segegationist? Becuase, in 1948, he ran for president on the Dixiecrat party and ran a single issue campaign&mdash;pro-segregation. Byrd, unlike Thurmond, has never blatantly and openly endorsed segregation. You still have not answered why Byrd's opposition to the Act deserves its own section. Would you be willing to accept a section titled "Repudiation of Past" or something to that affect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtmdem (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 September 2006
 * So you believe that a man that once was a member of the KKK was not a segregationist? That does not make any sense.--Getaway 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooh, rushlimbaugh.com. Well done.  I don't think it's fair to call Byrd a segregationist if he did not explicitly defend segregation.  Byrd was, at any rate, an unimportant senator in 1964.  I think it's best not to dwell on the issue, except to note the fact that Byrd generally opposed civil rights legislation. john k 19:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He was the floor leader of the segregationists who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964!!!! Unbelievable. He was a member of the KKK!!!  He was a Kleagle, a Klan recruiter!!!  That is not enough information for you to think that he was segregationist??  If that is not enough information for you then nothing ever will be.  Basically, you have never given any information to back up your personal opinion that Byrd was not a segregationist.  Not one.  So, ok, your opinion is noted, but your personal opinion is not a source that can be used to alter a Wikipedia article.  How about your provide some kind of historical document that backs up your personal opinion like, I don't know, how about a book or article which states the names of the Senators that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Byrd's name is not on it.  That would be helpful to back up your personal opinion.  I know, why don't you provide a copy of all of the speeches that he gave on the floor of the Senate during the filibuster.  I'm sure that every single one of them will be focused solely on federalism and not one of them will focus on segregationist views. It should be easy for you to track down all of his filibuster speeches  You would think that Byrd would have all of those speeches written down in one of his numerous books.  There we go.  Go get all of his 14 hours of filibuster speeches and we will publish every single one of them IF in each and every one he condemns segregation.  There that should settle it.  It shouldn't be hard information to find, I'm sure Byrd is quite proud of the things that he said that day.--Getaway 00:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * President Harry Truman was a another famous Democrat who joined the KKK, just like Byrd. However, Truman accomplished things in the world of civil rights that Byrd has not and will NEVER, ever do.  Truman worked to integrate the military.  In other words, Truman desegregated the military.  The great Robert Byrd opposed the integration of the military.  He wanted to keep the military segregated, hence the title that Robert Byrd has forever earned: SEGREGATIONIST.  Let's review what he stated in his opposition to the desegregation of the military:


 * Who says he was the leader of anyone in 1964? The main history of the passage of the bill does not even mention him.[The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law That Ended Racial Segregation ed by Robert D. Loevy State University of New York Press, 1997--zero mention of Byrd, 65 mentions of Senator Russell] It is bad history to say, "the title that Robert Byrd has forever earned: SEGREGATIONIST" -- and heavy-handed POV. Rjensen 02:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, that is your opinion and as a Wikipedian your opinion is not acceptable information on which to edit a Wikipeida article. I removed your opinion.  You have not provided any evidence that Byrd was not a segregationist and you have not provided any proof that Byrd did not as floor leader.  And especially, you have not provided ZERO amount of information to back up your personal opinion that Byrd played "a minor role."  That commentary was removed and will be removed in future. Have a good day.--Getaway 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree&mdash;a Wikipedia article is no place for your opinion, especially when it is undocumented. The burden of proof is on you. The only evidence you have to suggest Byrd was a segregationist is a fake quote from Rush Limbaugh. Byrs was not a member of the KKK at the time of the Civil Rights legislation. And his opposition to the legislation does not suggest that he is a "segregationist." This is Byrd speaking of former Senator Richard Russell in 1989, and I think it explains Byrd's own views during the debate of the Civil Rights Act:
 * "By the early 1960's...Russell recognized that effective and meaningful civil rights legislation would be passed. The national mood had changed, southern resistance had weakened, and an effective political leader, Lyndon Johnson, had become president. After Johnson moved into the White House, Russell frankly admitted that nothing he and other anti-civil rights forces could do would be sufficient to stop civil rights legislation. After all, Russell was a political realist. As the 1964 Civil Rights Act was about to be passed, he spoke movingly, and at length, against it. His purpose, however, was to make a statement of principle, with no thought of defeating the measure. He knew that the outcome had already been determined. After passage of the law, he urged all people to 'comply with the law of the land,' a statement that brought praise from President Johnson."
 * Likewise, Byrd knew that the CRA would pass. He simply "made a statement" of principle. Byrd has repudiated even these actions and I think it is time to move on. Mtmdem 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

'''Let's get something very straight, Mtmdem, You charge, falsely, that I have placed in this discussion, in your own words, "a fake quote from Rush Limbaugh". This is a incorrect statement. You made an assumption, I don't know why, but you made an assumption that because I credited the Rush Limbaugh website for the quote then it was, in your personal opinion, a "fake quote." That is faulty logic and it is not good faith discussion efforts. I have tracked down other sources to back up the quote that took from the Rush Limbaugh website. Limbaugh got the quote from a PBS American Experience production called "Citizen King," which I had previously quoted. However, I did not provide a link to the PBS program because I could not find the link in my earlier Google search. I have now found the link to the PBS production "Citizen King" and PBS has a transcript of the show where they show Senator Robert Byrd making the comment about MLK right into the camera. You can review the transcript of the great Senator Robert Byrd making segregationist-style comments here: PBS, The American Experience, Citizen King'''--Getaway 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mtmdem: What do you base your personal opinion on? Also, I have verifiable evidence that he was a segregationist.  He opposed the integration of the military during the Truman Administration and he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 AND then he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1965.  You are attempting to impose your personal opinion upon the historical facts about Byrd.  Byrd was the floor leader of the segregationist opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He filibustered the legislation in coordiation with Senator Strom Thurmond.  Thurmond filibustered for 18 hours and Byrd filibustered for 14 hours.  The filibuster went on for days.  Thurmond was a segregationist, Byrd was segregationist and every single one of the Senators that participated in the filibuster were segregationists.  They filibustered because they opposed the integration of society--the definition of the segregationist.  Also, we know that Byrd was Senator from a Southern state and he was a Democrat--let's see, segregationist hallmarks.  He was a former member of the KKK.  Let's see if your personal opinion, for which you cite no evidence, is correct that it was merely a federalism or "state's rights" issue, then why did Senator Robert Byrd vote down the nomination of Thurgood Marshall for the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967, three years after he filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and two years after he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1965??  Justice Marshall was a top-notch and completely qualified candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, a lawyer that had argued in front of the Sup. Ct. hundreds of times and had won some the of most important court decisions in the history of the United States, quite possibily in world history.  Yet, Byrd, the old Klan recruiter and the man that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, just three years before voted against him?  He was a segregationist. Now, I understand that you have some reason that you want to believe that Byrd was not a segrgegationist, but a Southern Senator that filibustered the CR Act of 64, was a fomer member of the KKK and who opposed the integration of the military and stated that he would never fight with a n**** by his side is a segregationist. I have provided tons of the evidence and you have provided nothing but your personal opinions.--Getaway 00:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Getaway is inventing his stories without reliable evidence. Add a very heavy overlay of POV and we have serious NPOV trouble here. Rjensen 01:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Let us repeat once more that you, Rjensen, added your own personal commentary and opinion to the article where you stated in the Robert Byrd article that "Byrd played a minor role" in the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I removed your personal commentary that was not supported by any reliable source, just your personal opinion. I removed before and I will remove it again in the future.--Getaway 03:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Byrd is not mentioned once in the 380 page major history of the passage of the act; that is reliable evidence he was only a minor player. [The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The Passage of the Law That Ended Racial Segregation edited by Robert D. Loevy (1997).] The notion that he was floor leader is based on no evidence at all and so cannot be included. Rjensen 08:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Political attacks on Byrd violate Wiki policy
Wiki policy is very clear that attacks on a living person are highly suspect, especially when they are unsourced. Byrd is running for reelection in November 2006 and his political opponents are trying to fill his Wiki bio with POV attacks. This seems to be a coordinated effort with paid consultants used to dig up dirt. It violates the letter and spirit of Wiki rules and cannot be tolerated. Rjensen 01:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rjensen: You have made allegations in this posting, but you have not provided one example of the things of which you complain. What evidence that you have that: (1) personal attacks, (2) unsourced information, and (3) coordiantion "with paid consultants.  Those are three allegations, but you have NOT provided one example of where this happening.  Who is coordinating with whom?  Where is the unsourced information? What is the personal attack?  You have the burden under the rules Wikipedia to provide evidence and support for your allegations.  Until you provide that evidence and support then I am going to assume that you do not have anything about which to complain.  Please provide even the smallest bit of evidence to back up your unsupported POV claims.--Getaway 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal opinions are not involved here at all. Wiki has strong rules against unsourced negative statements about living people. (statlments like Byrd was a floor leader of segregationists.) Getaway keeps inserting false statements, and has been repeatedly told they are false. He refuses to document them. Wiki has had real trouble recently about politicians changing their Wiki pages and we have to keep alert to signs like this one. (Comments removed as personal attacks.) Rjensen 14:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, as I pointed out on your personal talk page: Do not violate the 3RR rule, which you have already done in last 24 hours.  You have reverted the Robert Byrd article four times already.  Also, do not engage in personal attacks.  You have decided to attack me personally.  That is not acceptable.--Getaway 14:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Using Wiki during an election campaign to launch attacks on candidates around the country is a serious violation of Wiki's NPOV rules. I will criticize anyone I spot doing this, so it is not personal. (Comments removed as personal attacks.) Rjensen 14:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not talking about the article, you are talking about me. That is not supposed to be the focus of the discussion on the talk page.  It is supposed to be the article.  You are discussing topics way beyond the proper function of the Wikipedia.  You are also engaging in personal attacks and you have already violated the 3RR rule.  AND you have not provided any examples of the unsourced material that you claim exists in the article.  Please engage in a reasonable discussion.--Getaway 14:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rules? try this rule: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.  (Comments removed as personal attacks.) Rjensen 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorting this out.
Ok, based on the reversions on the article, it appears that this controversy is based on two statements in the article. The first point of contention is whether or not it is fair to call those that opposed the Civil Rights Act "segregationist." Is there any evidence that anyone opposed to the Act (specifically Byrd) was not a segregationist at the time? I do not feel that calling Byrd a segregationist in 1964 implies that he still holds these beliefs today or that he is at all racist in his curren thought. but if it happened (he did appear to oppose the Civil Rights Act on segregationist principles) in the past, it does merit inclusion in the article. This Act is a turning point in American political history, and the views of the parties invovled, especially if they were heavily invovled, would merit a good bit of discussion. As to him being the "floor leader" of the segregationist cause, is there a good source on that that I am missing? I always thought that it was Thurmond that was the "floor leader" in that particual fight.

As for the bit about Stevens, I do not see how that is a personal attack against Byrd. That being said, I also do not see a source that indicates that they are friends or that they have had a falling out over the Iraqi War. Can this information be found?

Overall, I think Rjensen gives Getaway's influence over the American and West Virginian electorate too much credit. According to the polls, Byrd seems to be cruising to easy re-election and I do not believe that, even if editing a Wikipedia article could influece the outcome of the Novembe contest, Getaway intends to act as a political operative. He or she does hold some strong personal views that might not be to everyone's liking, but the user is also smart and willing to compromise when confronted with sourcing, and I do hope that Rjensen will also compromise if Getaway finds something on the Stevens comment and Byrd's status as the floor leader.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 15:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No one has explained why Byrd's opposition deserves a separate sub-section. Why not just tie it in with the other legislative information. The things written in that section are a blatant violation of the NPOV rules. This goes beyond any editor's political persuasion; it is about adhering to the policies of Wikipedia. That, unfortunately, is not being discussed. Mtmdem 00:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There needs to be more detail on Byrd's legislative history throughout. On the other hand, the Civil Rights Act was a seminal bill, and Byrd's opposition is notable not only because he is the only currently serving senator to have been involved in the opposition to it, but also because he was the only Democrat from outside the old Confederacy to vote against the thing, and was one of only six total senators from outside the old Confederacy to oppose it.  His West Virginia Democratic colleague, Jennings Randolph, voted in favor, as did the two Republican senators from Kentucky, and all the other border state Senators.  It was a long time ago, and I don't think we should make the article into some kind of hit piece against the guy, but it does seem worth highlighting.  john k 02:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to note, neither Thurmond nor Byrd was the "floor leader" of the Southern senators. Richard Russell was the leader of the southern senators, and his chief lieutenants were Allen J. Ellender, Lister Hill, and John Stennis.  Thurmond was one of the leaders of the hard-liners in the southern caucus, along with Sam Ervin and James O. Eastland.  Byrd of West Virginia was not, so far as I can gather, even a member of the Southern Caucus, as West Virginia was not considered a southern state.  He was more of a border-state well-wisher.  See this PhD dissertation for a detailed discussion of Southern resistance to civil rights legislation in the Senate, with a couple of chapters relating to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Robert Byrd is rarely mentioned.  He is noted a couple of times as the only "northern" Democrat to vote against various Civil Rights acts (a couple of other non-southern Democrats generally joined him in voting against cloture, notably Carl Hayden of Arizona, who apparently prided himself on always voting against cloture, even though he supported civil rights legislation, and the two Democratic senators from Nevada), and as having participated in the filibuster, despite not being technically a "southern" Democrat, but otherwise he is not much mentioned.  It's quite clear that the opposition was led by Russell, as it had been for the previous twenty years. john k 02:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

False Charges of Making Up "Fake Quotes"
Editor Mtmdem, at 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC), stated that I, Getaway used a "fake quote" to make a point about Robert Byrd's segregationist past. I just want to set the record straight that (1) I did not use a fake quote, it was taken directly from a video documentary put together by Public Broadcasting Service in a program called "Citizen King", part of the American Experience series. The video shows Robert Byrd making horrible comments about Dr. King. I pulled the quote and placed in this discussion and Mtmdem did not believe that the quote was real so he ASSUMED that it was, in his words, "fake" because I originally pulled it from Rush Limbaugh's website. But that was violation of the Wikipedia policy because Mtmdem did not give the benefit of doubt, or good faith, to assume that the quote was legitimite, he merely attacked me over it. Below I provide the link to the transcript of the program from PBS's website.--Getaway 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC) This is Mtmdem's orginal comments that I recorded in the edit history: I agree&mdash;a Wikipedia article is no place for your opinion, especially when it is undocumented. The burden of proof is on you. The only evidence you have to suggest Byrd was a segregationist is a fake quote from Rush Limbaugh. Byrs was not a member of the KKK at the time of the Civil Rights legislation. And his opposition to the legislation does not suggest that he is a "segregationist.". . . Likewise, Byrd knew that the CRA would pass. He simply "made a statement" of principle. Byrd has repudiated even these actions and I think it is time to move on. Mtmdem 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) And following is the correction that I put in the discussion record: '''Let's get something very straight, Mtmdem, You charge, falsely, that I have placed in this discussion, in your own words, "a fake quote from Rush Limbaugh". This is a incorrect statement. You made an assumption, I don't know why, but you made an assumption that because I credited the Rush Limbaugh website for the quote then it was, in your personal opinion, a "fake quote." That is faulty logic and it is not good faith discussion efforts. I have tracked down other sources to back up the quote that took from the Rush Limbaugh website. Limbaugh got the quote from a PBS American Experience production called "Citizen King," which I had previously quoted. However, I did not provide a link to the PBS program because I could not find the link in my earlier Google search. I have now found the link to the PBS production "Citizen King" and PBS has a transcript of the show where they show Senator Robert Byrd making the comment about MLK right into the camera. You can review the transcript of the great Senator Robert Byrd making segregationist-style comments here: PBS, The American Experience, Citizen King'''--Getaway 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Directly from the Public Broadcasting Corportion's website and there discussion of their production "Citizen King":

DOROTHY COTTON: Dr. King felt very strongly, he didn't want to be a part of anything that was disrupted with that kind of violence 'cause it appeared that people who were in the march had thrown bricks and disrupted the march.

''ANDREW YOUNG: It was obviously a planned disruption. In fact, there was some of the young people that told us that they were paid to start trouble.''

''SENATOR ROBERT BYRD (archival): Martin Luther King fled the scene. He took to his heels and disappeared leaving it to others to cope with the destructive forces he had helped to unleash. And I hope that well-meaning Negro leaders and individuals in the Negro community in Washington will now take a new look at this man who gets other people into trouble, and then takes off like a scared rabbit.''

REPORTER (archival): Dr King.

MARTIN LUTHER KING (archival): Yes.

''REPORTER (archival): You've been criticized for coming in from outside and then abandoning the march when the going got rough. What is your reaction to that?''

There you have it. Mtmdem's comment are proven to be bogus POV pushing.--Getaway 16:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Civil Rights Act Edits
At issue is whether or not the added emphasis on Robert Byrd's actions against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives undue weight to the issue and therefore violates Wikipedia's NPOV and biographies of living persons policies. Furthermore, do the sources used by Getaway adhere to Wikipedia's reliable sources policy?
 * It is clear that Getaway's edits place an unnecessary emphasis on Byrd's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Getaway unfairly links Byrd to segregationists&mdash;a fact not consistent with history. A more appropiate term for those who opposed the Civil Rights Act would simply be "southerners." Additionally, Getaway's only source for the information&mdash;which he fails to cite&mdash;is a partisan web site called DiscoverTheNetworks.org (Which I mentioned before) That article was not cited because it is not a credible source. The site's own Wikipedia article  doesn't paint it as a reliable, unbiased source. According to Wikipedia's policy, "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used..." It is clear that Getaway's source meets the description and the information "should not be used." While I have argued this before, it doesn't seem to be working. Edits such as these reflect badly on Wikipedia and should be stopped at once. This article is no place to demagouge Senator Byrd. I hope we can come to a swift resolution. Mtmdem 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was in PBS documentary. I have linked to that PBS documentary. I proven beyond a shadow of doubt that your claim that I was just making up "fake quotes" have proven to out and out false.  What other things are you not being truthful about? I believe that now that you have continued in your insistance that it is not a good quote I will start work today in incorporating the important cited and sourced information into the article.--Getaway 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Will Wiki's POV hurt Senator Byrd this year. No--he's far ahead in the polls. However earlier this year he was considered in trouble and his opponents set up research squads to dig up dirt on him. Wiki cannot allow itself to be used for this kind of attack--whether or not the person attacked is ahead in the polls or tied (as in Maryland Senate race, that is likewise getting a Wiki "treatment".) Rjensen 01:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Comments removed as personal attacks.) --Getaway 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, once again, you are engaging in an untrue personal attack on me. And you have not provided one shred of evidence to back up your allegations.  When will you provide the evidence?--Getaway 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC response - I really see no personal attack in the comments Getaway objects to. WP:V places the responsibility solely on the editor who adds information to justify its retention. Per WP:BLP Wikipedia needs to be especially cautious regarding living people.  Durova  15:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia also needs to be especially careful when one edit claims falsely about another editor. (Comments removed as personal attacks.)  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.--Getaway 16:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the RfC. The section about Byrd's filibuster of the Civil Rights Act is fine as it is. I don't think WP:BLP applies because it is something that Byrd did and it is in the Congressional record. One other thing both Getaway and Rjensen need to keep in mind "Comment on the content, not the editor." Ramsquire 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Regardless of how many editors come to the talk page and give Rjensen the "approval" to attack me personally he is not supposed to be making comments about me personally.  I will once again remove all personal attacks from this page, including mine.  If the redaction are removed then I redact them over and over again because we are not supposed to attack Living Persons in the articles and we are not supposed to attack editors on the talk pages.--Getaway 20:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Comments removed as personal attacks.) Rjensen 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop the personal attacks, Rjensen.--Getaway 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the charge against Getaway is necessary. Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act.  Big deal, so did a lot of other Southern Democratic Senators.  It happened, Byrd apologized.  It's all in the article and it's all verifiable.  To keep out the filibuster would be POV.  So it's in there and it's done relatively fairly.  Can't we all just move on. Ramsquire 22:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that it should be removed. Rather, it is given undue weight, which is a clear violation of the NPOV policy. It is not done "relatively fairly." The Declaration of Independence quote has yet to be cited from the Congressional Record. You are proving my point&mdash;it is not a big deal, sure a lot of southern Senators did it. That is why Byrd's role should not be stressed as strongly as it is in the article. It should stop at Byrd's advocation of federalism. By suggesting that Byrd disagrees with the phrase "all men are created equal" (a suggestion that is NOT cited) is a POV violation. Mtmdem 00:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Declaration of Independence quote either was not in the article when I commented it was relatively fair or I missed it. If, I missed it, sorry.  I do believe we need a reliable source for that and that Newsmax and the other cite does not pass muster.  But my point was let's deal with the problems with the article, and stop accusing each other of being political operatives. (I know you were not a part of that). Ramsquire 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be easier to see your point of view if you did not refuse to discuss rationally. I found a quote where Byrd attacked MLK personally and you stated that I simply made up the quote. After I pointed out that the quote was from a PBS documentary, you refused to acknowledge that the quote was real and attempted to argue that it could be used for some other obscure reason. However, it is from a PBS documentary. I have not put the quote in the article. But I do have a valid source for it and I could use it, but I'm choosing not to. However, you are deleting cited, sourced information and that violates Wikipedian policy. Also, you removed this comment here, which is also a violation of Wikipedia policy.--Getaway 01:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you do a Google search for the quote in the article that Byrd, citing the phrase "all men are created equal," said the Founders "did not intend that these words should be taken literally to be true" you will get four (4) hits. One is this Wikipedia article, of course, and another is the Reference.com copy of this same article. The other two sites are DiscoverTheNetworks.org which I have mentioned numerous times. This is not a reliable source, pursuant to Wikipedia's reliable source policy. The other site is from Humane Events online  again, as its subtitle "The National Conservative Weekly" suggests, is not a reliable source either. Google has made the true source of this information obvious. It is not appropiate to base a historic article on sources like this. Mtmdem 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If those are the only sources, it shouldn't be in the article. NBGPWS 02:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A thought on the quote. There were two senators named Byrd in 1964.  The other, Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, was a hard-core segregationist, and far more prominent in the filibuster than Byrd of West Virginia.  Although, at first glance, I would suggest that it is unlikely that anybody said this quote, it seems at least potentially possible that it has been misattributed. john k 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A point I've been mulling on this whole issue is the description of Byrd as a "Southern" Senator. This seems incorrect to me. Sources I have read note Byrd as the only non-southern Democrat to vote against the Civil Rights Act. West Virginia was always considered a border state. It's also worth noting that Ralph Yarborough is generally considered the only southern senator to vote for the civil rights act. But Byrd's colleague Jennings Randolph, the two Republican senators from Kentucky, and the four Democratic senators from Missouri and Oklahoma, as well as the 3 Republican and 1 Democratic senators from Maryland and Delaware, all voted in favor of the the Civil Rights Act. Given this, it seems to me that we should indicate that Byrd joined the Southern senators in opposing the Civil Rights Act, without suggesting that Byrd himself was a southern senator. He was a border state senator, and most border state senators did vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act. "The South" in these contexts was generally taken to mean the 11 ex-Confederate states, of which West Virginia was not one. john k 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good analysis, you should probably edit the article as you mentioned above. Ramsquire 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Byrd and the MLK Jr. memorial
Where should this info be entered into the article?

In 2005 Senator Byrd offered an amendment to provide $10 million in federal funding for the planned national memorial in Washington, D.C., to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The amendment is cosponsored by the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

Byrd said:

"I have come to appreciate how Martin Luther King, Jr., sought to help our nation overcome racial barriers, bigotry, hatred, and injustice, and how he helped to inspire and guide a most important, most powerful, and most transforming social movement."

and

"Dr. King’s vision was not only about what America could be, but what America should be!" MLK Jr. memorial

Should this be a whole new section? How about a section of quotes from prominent African Americans in support of Byrd, and attesting that he is not 'racist'? Surely these are as important as the minority view of Niger Innis. NBGPWS 04:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that it is a great idea and I will work in the quote where he personally verbally attacked MLK. Maybe I will add a YouTube link to the PBS documentary where he says all of these things. Thanks for the idea.--Getaway 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, who is Ines Niger?????--Getaway 16:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll write it tonight. Niger Innis is who called Byrd racist. I had his name wrong. NBGPWS 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know who he is. I was pointing out your misspelling which leads me to believe that you really don't know who he is.--Getaway 23:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... how conservative is one to get the "Far Right Wing" label. I mean how do you differentiate?  Or is it that all conservatives are extremists in your opinion?  Please remember WP:LIBEL also applies on the talk pages. I edited your entry to take out the defamation. Ramsquire 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is 'defaming' about calling someone far-right-wing? Perhaps you hate conservatives. The far-right-wing conservatives I know are not ashamed of it, and wear the label proudly. NBGPWS 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't play stupid, you know what you wrote. And if you forgot, check the history, it was the other thing that you passed along which was defamatory. Sorry if I didn't make what I was talking about clear.  My opening sentence was tongue in cheek.  And it may be all well and good among the extremists you know, but the question remains, what makes one far right or far left, as opposed to being just right or left? Ramsquire 16:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack on a Living Person removed.) NBGPWS 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah but passing along such accusations makes you just as liable for the libel as the person who originally said it. FTR-- I removed it again. Ramsquire 19:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted unsubstantiated derogatory info
As Mtmdem pointed out...


 * If you do a Google search for the quote in the article that Byrd, citing the phrase "all men are created equal," said the Founders "did not intend that these words should be taken literally to be true" you will get four (4) hits. One is this Wikipedia article, of course, and another is the Reference.com copy of this same article. The other two sites are DiscoverTheNetworks.org which I have mentioned numerous times. This is not a reliable source, pursuant to Wikipedia's reliable source policy. The other site is from Humane Events online  again, as its subtitle "The National Conservative Weekly" suggests, is not a reliable source either. Google has made the true source of this information obvious. It is not appropiate to base a historic article on sources like this. Mtmdem

This accusatory derogatory info can't be included on a BLP with such flimsy non WP:RS + V sourcing. Gone. NBGPWS 05:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is citation to the Senate record.--Getaway 14:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I challenge it. A statement so contoversial should be documented in numerous unrelated places. It's not. Please find an acceptable source, like you did with the transcript of the PBS show before adding back in, since the criteria for BLP requires it. Thanks NBGPWS 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree.Getaway 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah NBGPWS is right. We're going to need a reliable secondary source or the exact passage of the record where Byrd said that.  Ramsquire 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'exact passage' is not going to suffice if it's not independently documented from a NPOV WP:RS + V source. NBGPWS 20:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the quote turns out to be in the Senate Record, then it's verified. It may still violate NPOV policies (I think it probably would), but it ought to be up for debate.  The truth is an absolute defense against libel, and if he said it, and it's in the congressional record, to include it couldn't possibly be libellous.  I still think it probably shouldn't be included, but there's two different questions here: 1) is the quote genuine; and 2) should the quote be in the article.  I think the answer to 2 is probably "no," but we don't need a secondary source to demonstrate 1. john k 21:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that a non WP:RS like 'Newsmax' or ANY other highly partisan POV source 'claiming' its in the Senate Record will not suffice. NBGPWS 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, of course. Ramsquire referred to "the exact passage of the record," which you seemed to disagree with.  By "exact passage of the record" I assume he meant, the exact passage in the Congressional Record where the supposed remarks can be found.  Do we all accept that actual reference to the Congressional Record would be sufficient evidence that this statement is genuine? john k 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's what I meant by exact passage-- the exact location of the statement in the Congressional Record, the year, Congress, date, page and line or if we can't get that, then a reliable secondary source. Ramsquire 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any source will have to meet WP:RS + V and be NPOV. As I said above: 'Newsmax' or ANY other highly partisan POV source 'claiming' its in the Senate Record will not suffice. NBGPWS 22:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Congressional Record", published by the Government Printing Office(GPO) is the official transcript of the U.S. Congress. Although, a primary source, it meets the standard of WP:RS  if the user is using it only to provide an accurate quote. Ramsquire 22:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the quote IS in the Congressional Record. Maybe you can find it here. National Archives NBGPWS 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is what I was telling Getaway when I said "Yeah NBGPWS is right. We're going to need a reliable secondary source or the exact passage of the record where Byrd said that". The burden is on him to find a reliable source. Ramsquire 00:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

More thoughts on this.

The so-far unsubstantiated claims of the obscure author Joshua R. Preston - whose only published work appears to be a 3 part series attacking Senator Byrd on highly partisan POV websites - that Byrd's comments appear in the Congressional Record is suspect. His citing and 'documentation' does not even follow the citing requirements needed for a college paper!

He writes:

"Congressional Record -- Senate, 6/9/64, 13213"

It should be written (example):

"U.S. Congress. House.  1986.  Representative Williams of Alaska speaking for the Drug Enforcement Act.  H.R.  3490.  82d Cong., 1st sess.  Congressional Record 128, pt.  3 (11 July)."

please see NBGPWS 06:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

C.O.R.E.
CORE is a non-profit organization like the NAACP. Therefore they have to be nominally apolitical to keep their tax exempt status. So calling it "Republican leaning" is an accusation that needs to be backed up. The same with saying the "Democratic leaning" NAACP. I suggest just referring to CORE as an organization whose leadership has taken conservative positions, if you need to make that kind of statement at all. Ramsquire 16:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. I'll have to document it better. I'll be adding a lot on CORE and Roy and Niger Innis proving how their views are out-of-sync with the vast majority of America's African Americans, leading several prominent Black leaders to refer to Innis by the descriptive yet pejorative name of the lead character in a famous Harriet Beecher Stowe novel, and a brand of cookie. (names you keep removing through your misinterpretation of WP) see here NBGPWS 20:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OFF TOPIC-- (The following is tongue in cheek. Don't take it seriously. I'm sure it was a typo on your part)  I am a bit amused that you wrote "America's African Americans".  It seems redundant but in actuality can be accurate.  My sister-in-law is British but also black and she is often called "African-American".  So I guess you can be British African American, Canadian African American, etc.  Ramsquire 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OFF TOPIC RESPONSE -- I have a White friend whose family emigrated to the USA from South Africa when he was a child. He refers to himself as an "African American" for effect.


 * LOL!!! Hey, I'm just trying to protect you if Mr. Innis just happens to stroll by this page. Trust me on this one, passing a slur along is just as bad as originating it, unless you document who said it (which I'm sure you can) and makes sure it is not the opinion of the editor or WP (which I'm sure it isn't).  Ramsquire 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been a movement lately to strengthen enforcement of WP:BLP and this has extended to talk pages. A user was recently blocked for making insulting comments about the subject of an article.  So I'd lay off the remarks about Innis to be on the safe side, even if you are just quoting others.  Gamaliel 21:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's good to know - and then Innis' scurrilous attacks on Byrd's character - calling a man who got a 100% rating from the NACCP a "racist" - should definately stay out of the article. NBGPWS 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Those attacks should stay out because a)they're irrelevant to the article as presented and b)yes, they violate WP:BLP since they were not from a reliable source. Ramsquire 22:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. NBGPWS 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Judge Janice Brown
I removed the discussion of Judge Brown because I could find no mainstream news reports stating that Byrd was a major factor of holding up her nomination in the Senate. Since this is ancillary to Byrd's career, and is a highly sensitive, and POV subject, I don't think it is necessary to include it, or the Niger Innis newsmax interview, for that matter. Ramsquire 20:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - and I think the Innis attacks on Byrd should be deleted as well - but if any Niger Innis info does stay - it needs to be pointed out that many of his views are diametrically opposed to those of mainstream Black America. NBGPWS 22:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 21:36, 5 October 2006
 * I'm ok either way you go; however, I need to point out that it is BS that there should be "pointed out that many of his views are diametrically opposed to those of mainstream Black America". What does his skin color have to do with it???  What horse hockey.  Do you need to point out that Hillary Clinton's view are diametrically opposed to those of mainstream WHITE America???  No.  And we don't need to do that with Niger Innis.  It looks like the concensus has agreed to leave it out. However, if the decision went the other way then I can guarantee you, NBGPWS, I would have overturned each and every attempt you would have made to engage in such skin color-oriented behavior. Such BS.--Getaway 13:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I add tag
I'm thinking of adding a not verified tag to the article. There are numerous salient points in the article that are uncited. Right now, I am simply going to add a fact tag to the information, but should I add the tag to the top of the page? Ramsquire 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think not. Add fact tags - note them here - so editors can attempt to source them - and if they're not sourced within 2 or 3 days, remove the unsourced assertions. NBGPWS 22:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's where I was leaning (although it would be much easier to add the tag to the top of the page). Ramsquire 22:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

1988 Senate arrest
It's an interesting bit of trivia & I think that some mention of it should be made; although I'm not sure where the most appropriate place would be. For those that aren't familiar w/ the incident: Sen. Byrd, who was majority leader at the time, motioned for a call of the senate, issuing warrants for a number of absent senators who were trying to prevent a quorum. One of the absent senators was subsequently detained (arrested) by the sergeant-at-arms and escorted to the chambers to achieve the quorum.--Apotheosis247 21:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can find a reliable source for it, add it to the trivia section. Ramsquire 22:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's entirely notable. It's a standard of many state and national legislatures that members may be forced to attend. See Call of the house. An extraordinary example was the 2003 Texas redistricting, in which members were pursued across state lines. Unless we can show that Byrd's action was truly unusual I think it is routine business. -Will Beback 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it would fit well in a discussion of his knowledge of some of the Senate's more archane rules, but not as a discussion itself. It did indeed happen, so finding a source shouldn't be too painful. As far as it being exceptional, it is a very rare case of the Sergeant-at-Arms using his policing power over members of the Senate.  young  american  (yo) 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a link that both establishes the event's rarity and describes it. -Will Beback 22:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think the rarity of the situation, the fact that it occurred in the US Senate, and that it shows Byrd's attitude towards parliamentary procedure make it notable enough to include in the trivia section. It's an interesting anecdote about Byrd. Ramsquire 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added it to the section titled "Byrd's leadership roles", in a paragraph about his use of parliamentary procedure. Feel free to edit. -Will Beback 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Achiving soon
I am going to archive this talk page sometime in the next couple of days. Leave a message if there are any objections.  young  american (yo) 00:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Contested Age?
Should it be noted that Colbert claims that Byrd is 5,670 years-old ("135 Gillibrands old)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.191.171 (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)