Talk:Robert Byrd

The related Category:Ku Klux Klan members and Category:Ex-members of the Ku Klux Klan has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

CN tag removal and questionable external link

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

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

Other WP articles are not acceptable as sources, so a source needs to be cited in this article for the Gods and Generals claim. As to the 'right-wing' external links, you're welcome to try to remove them, but I suspect you will find that they have their defenders. -- Donald Albury 10:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bottomline: if you are going to try to remove them then will need to go to the Sean Hannity article and remove all references to Media Matters, which is a left-wing organization that is cited all over Wikipedia, not just the Sean Hannity article. What is goose is good for the gander. Besides, enquiring minds want to know who was the "White N*****" that Byrd was talking about? Don't you want to know who the old KKK member was talking about?? I do.--Getaway 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Education

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

Participation in the Ku Klux Klan

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

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

President Pro Tempore, 2007 to present

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

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

family

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

131.251.0.8 17:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Leadership roles

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

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

KKK - Reversion War

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

I'll agree on this: merits above his KKK history for the sake of importance. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been working for about two years to keep this article free of pov from right-wing bashers (whose edits come less from a commitment to civil rights but rather see an opportunity to hit a vulnerable Democrat on one of their own issues) and left-wing apologists (who try to brush away an ugly chapter in the life of one of their heroes). In order to maintain a cold, emotionless, opinion-free, judgement-free article, I feel that chronological order is the best way to go. Maybe there should be another RfC to get some outside opinion, however, and I am open to having my mind changed, if it can be shown that the fragile npov can be maintained. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 12:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that chronology is one way of achieving NPOV. I don't think it is the only way of achieving some NPOV in an article. However, in looking over several Wikipedia biographies, I do see that early-years-first seems to be the way these biographies are written, even when they contain controversial topics Dick Cheney is a good example. Antelan ^talk 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the article by some Senate staff member

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

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

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

So? Every newspaper and magazine has a bias, whether it is liberal or conservative. Are we to remove every instance of reference to Slate just because it is "liberal leaning" -- in your own words? Instead of removing the statement, you should instead refute it in the next line with a general statement that can provide a point of balance -- for instance, that he softened up in his later years.

"Moreover," if you have a problem with spelling, then you should promptly change it instead of whining about it here. I was not the original contributor of that sentence.

Also, since you have a known history of right-wing editing, as evidenced by your contrib history and comments like this, I will reintroduce the paragraph but it should be followed up with additional statements on the opposite. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I added a citation from a newspaper on Strom Thurmond's statement that he was not regretting segregation (unlike Byrd). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Just because it doesn't have a URL attached to a reference doesn't invalidate it. I suggest you do a little searching and I'm 100% sure you will find it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I did search and I did not find it. Also, the burden is on you to provide the citation, not me.--Getaway 17:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The citation is there. If you are not willing to locate the source, and others can vouch for it, then the burden is on yourself. There is no reference at WP:CITE regarding non-Internet sources. Would you disregard a book if it was a source if no free or snipped version was available online? Or a newspaper with no online homepage? For this particular article, it is in the archives and can be referenced through Access News Web -- although it cannot be hyperlinked here to Wikipedia due to its excessive length and because only academic students typically are the only users of such a service. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you, the editor bringing forth the citation. If you cannot hyperlink to it, then you need to provide some of the wording of the source on Robert Byrd's talk page. That burden is on you, the proponent of the allegedly reliable source. You have made a claim that the citation exists, but you have not offered any proof that the citation exists. You have merely asserted that I must do your work and find the citation. Well, I did your work and I did not find the citation. However, there is a larger problem with the information. It is still an opinion that is offered as fact. And you are using an opinion piece to back up a commentary that you are offering as fact, even though it is opinion. Now, there is a third problem with the information. It does not provide anything of value to the article. The article already has several quotes from Byrd, not some source in a small town paper that no one can read, offering his mea culpa and apologia. And moreover, there is a fourth reason (but not the last reason) for the information's removal is that it was offered, in the first place, as simply a slam at Strom Thurmond somehow, and that is precisely what the Slate article does--clearly taking Slate into the area of opinion and not fact. Until the other article is provided (or some of the relevant wording is provided) then I am going remove the controversial material. Discretion is the better part of valor.--Getaway 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The citation is there. If you are not willing to locate the source, and others can vouch for it, then the burden is on yourself. There is no reference at WP:CITE regarding non-Internet sources. Would you disregard a book if it was a source if no free or snipped version was available online? Or a newspaper with no online homepage? For this particular article, it is in the archives and can be referenced through Access World News -- although it cannot be hyperlinked here to Wikipedia due to its excessive length and because only academic students typically are the only users of such a service -- IOW, you would get a login page through the UKY portal.

No, once again, the burden was on you, not me. I'm glad that you decided to step up to your responsibility to provide more information. It wasn't that hard, was it? No, of course not!--Getaway 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the URL, however, since you are so inclined to believe I am deliberately falsifying sources: link

No, once again, you are dead wrong. I never, ever stated that you are deliberately falsifying sources. You are attempting to put words in my mouth so that you can attack those words. As good ole Byrd himself would say, "You are attempting a diversionary tactic," the false claim he made against Clarence Thomas. You obviously did not like being asked to provide the information from the little tiny paper, Charlotte paper, so that others could read what you read. You should not be afraid of others questioning your work. If you are really offended by others questioning your work maybe Wikipedia is not for you. No I refuse to allow you to attempt to put words in my mouth. Your wrong. You were questioned and you did not like it. You need to assume good faith, that is the call of the Wikipedian. I never stated that you were "deliberately falsifying sources." Making that charge against me without having anything to back it really must be embarassing for you. Please follow the rules of Wikipedia and do not attempt to put words in my mouth and then give me a lecture about something that I never did. It is not professional.--Getaway 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The second citation from the Charlotte Observer was done was to validate the Slate source. There was disagreement by conservative editor WatchingYouLikeAHawk (talk · contribs) who refuted the source, saying it was nothing more than an "op-ed" piece. The Charlotte Observer article backed up the Slate article and that was its only intention until the argument by WYLAH was concluded. Snips from the article, which validates the "op-ed" piece from the Slate -- that WYLAH referred to it as. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The information is still in the article, just in a more appropriate place, because of the CNN article, the only really reliable source provided. Time to move on.--Getaway 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

DIXIECRAT LEGACY: AN END, A BEGINNING

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

[...]

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

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

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

[...]

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

Record Number: 9807120094