Talk:Robert Byrd

participation in KKK

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

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

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

You are misrepresenting the source. I am not suggesting you are purposely trying to muddy the issue, it is quite possible that you simply did not read the whole reference and that you arrived at a conclusion before you got to the salient quote, and that you didn't think to search for the term in question.

When you say his statement was "an effort to discredit anti-communism", that is original research and based on your poor understanding of the subject. Wikipedia's own article about the KKK reads, "In 1915, the second Klan was founded. It grew rapidly in a period of postwar social tensions, where industrialization in the North attracted numerous waves of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe and the Great Migration of Southern blacks and whites. In reaction, the second KKK preached racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Communism, nativism, and anti-Semitism." (Emphasis, of course, is mine.)

When you say, in the same sentence, that you "don't know where" Byrd made the statement that "He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[6]" and that you "didn't find it in the links", that further discredits your ability to comprehend what you read. The reference immediately after that statement, #6, leads to the Washington Post article you note, which reads "He explained that he had joined 'because it offered excitement and because it was strongly opposed to communism.'" Clearly our representation of his quote is an accurate one. This was Byrd's statement about his motivation on, and understanding about, the subject. If you choose not to believe that he meant what he said, that is your choice, but if you seek to push your belief as to why into an article, I warn you that you might have to actually read a whole article in a reliable source to do it, as opposing an article subject's quote requires some pretty significant reliable source.

I am no apologist for racism or the KKK. The record shows that Byrd associated, spoke, voted and identified as a hateful racist at one time in his life, and I find that repugnant. The record also shows that Byrd has not associated, spoken, voted or identified as a hateful racist in decades. My experience with the subject is simply anecdotal, but my understanding is that, on the ground, the members of the KKK were less like Communists than they were like Islamic terrorists, in that they twisted their religion to support their racism. I will repeat what I have said elsewhere: Byrd came out in support of Barack Obama, only days after his constituents in West Virginia voted overwhelmingly against Obama and for Hillary Clinton, greater than 2-1. It would have been easy for Byrd to throw his hands up and say "I'm bound to represent my constituents and their voice has spoken loud and clear, they and I support the white lady" but instead he came out for Barack Obama. Americans believe in growth and change; we believe that the right principles will win out over the wrong ones; we believe in second chances, and in a man's right to remake himself as his conscience directs him. The arc of Byrd's record speaks for itself. Abrazame (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

...unless he's a republican.

"I will repeat what I have said elsewhere: Byrd came out in support of Barack Obama, only days after his constituents in West Virginia voted overwhelmingly against Obama and for Hillary Clinton"

that tells me much about his partisanship and nothing about his principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.73.200 (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the heads-up; the definition per the source has replaced the term as it is apparently esoteric enough that it appears nowhere in our lengthy article on the Klan. Abrazame (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

i think the original confusion comes from the conflation of progressivism and communism. there was as much an anti-communist tendency in the progressive movement as there was in any anglo/u.s. political movement of the era. this by no means defines the progressive movement out of the left. the progressive movement is, however, yet kin with the conservative movement under the banner of liberalism. communist states generally forsake or eliminate republican institutions. progressives actually want genuine republics. whether they are prone to behave like mad scientists with the citizenry they've preserved is a matter of opinion.

there is cause to question the influence of anti-communist priorities in byrd's decision to join up with the kkk. anticommunism didn't become a significant force in u.s. politics until the fifties, years after byrd was advising the klan on how to preserve it's influence. which, in turn, is years after he claimed to have quit the terrorist group.

i've wondered why "only for the anticommunism" is presented by progressives as exculpatory in byrd's case. doesn't that just make him a double-boogeyman?

and the "young man" made this "youthful indiscretion" at the wild and impetuous age of 31: "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

he joined the group when he was 24, which means the brevity of this "brief youthful indiscretion" measures at least seven years (that we know of). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.73.200 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Architect of the Modern Senate

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

We'd need to reference a WP:Reliable source that attributes those procedures to him. If you or anyone else can find a source and copy the URL (web address) to this page, someone/s will be happy to distill the info and write something about it for the article. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Google the phrase "Byrd Rule". That'll tell you a lot of what you need to know. I'm not sure he's responsible for the hold procedure, but he did have a major impact on the way the Senate does business, and he's more responsible than anyone else for the federal budget process. JTRH (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's one on the tracking system.[1] -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thurgood Marshall; gross misrepresentation of sources

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

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

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

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

his "Home" in West Virginia

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

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

"conservative"?

i removed the sentence:

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

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

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

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

also, this:

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

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

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

The ADA is recognized by nonpartisan reference works such as Congressional Quarterly's Politics in America and the National Journal's Almanac of American Politics as being the most prominent liberal rating group, and it's the most widely cited group on that side of the spectrum for those purposes. The nonpartisan sources tend to present the ADA and the ACU as essentially mirror images of each other, not that one is considered a mainstream exponent of its views and the other is a fringe group. Besides, tracking down and sourcing another group's ratings, and determining that it's a better representative of the "mainstream left" (however you define it) than the ADA is, would take quite a bit of research. JTRH (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: The groups' annual ratings can be verified through either of the reference works I mention in the paragraph above. The content isn't available online except to paid subscribers, but the print edition, properly cited, is a perfectly valid source. JTRH (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

so far as the ADA source goes, what you say may be so. regardless, the way the ACU source was used in the sentence which was struck was deceptive and inaccuratly portrayed byrd's stance with that organization. that deciet was then combined with the ADA source and synthesized into a doubly deceitful claim that byrd was both affirmatively non-progressive and affirmatively conservative.

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

No mention of KKK membership in LEAD?

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

He's known primarily as a Senator, not as a Klansman. There's no reason to put it in the lead. JTRH (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan is known primarily as president of the United States, not as an actor or as governor of California; yet the article about him mentions both in the lead. Why? Because it goes into great detail in the article about him being an actor and a governor. Quoting directly from WP:LEAD now: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Without a brief mention of Byrd's membership in the Ku Klux Klan, the lead does not currently stand alone as a concise overview of the article and thus violates WP:MoS. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 18:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now, it seems kind of tacked on. When people think of Robert Byrd, they don't (necessarily) go to his relationship with the KKK, but rather his 40-year service with the Senate. That's what makes him notable. The KKK stuff is only famous in relationship to his later positions of power within the Senate. Neutrality rules, of course. But if it must be in the lead, it should be placed in an appropriate manner within context. Right now, it's just placed at the end implying it was something he did as a Senator (it was not). I have no idea of a better solution, and feel it's better in his background (e.g. the article) and not an overview (e.g. the lead).--Tim Thomason 09:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Death date

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

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

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

Pending changes

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

See this. Unfortunately, it appears to be provide more of a "how" than a "why" answer. Probably an oversight. Maybe ask the protecting admin?I have notified the protecting admin of this thread. Rivertorch (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I've decided left a message for the person who reviewed a revision for this article as well so that the next time he or she sees an article with pending changes protection enabled, then he or she will knew that something is wrong. In the meantime, I'll find a sysop to remove the pending changes protection, since Seicer doesn't appear to be all that active. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be better off posting to WP:RFPP to ask that the correct level of protection be added. As it turns out, I happen to have noticed this and will fix it. Solving the problem is more important than figuring out who to blame for it. Risker (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I wasn't blaming anyone. All I wanted was an explanation. It isn't a crime to ask "Why?" or "How?" --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The bigger question is why it is still technically possible to put an article under pending changes. I suspect a bugzilla is needed, but I won't have time to do it. Risker (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, Risker. I'm not about to search the archives of that lengthy and contentious RfC, but my recollection is that there never was any question of actually disabling the feature. In fact, as I remember, the developers made clear that they wouldn't turn it off unless it was to be permanently off. Looking at the log, what I think is happening is that a few admins (semi-retired or perhaps in sensory deprivation tanks during the RfC) were unaware of the decision to remove PC from all articles. That doesn't strike me as a big deal, but in future it might be a good idea to spam notify all admins when something like that is decided. Rivertorch (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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