Talk:Robert Byrd/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  "White [[nigger]]" quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Seeking compromise

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can we please get this settled? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Byrd's Good and Bad are part of history 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Job well done 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  "(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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  reinstating section with NPOV 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I also like the new stuff, but the information on recent racial controversies must stay.-----Keetoowah 12:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Consensus on recent edits/reverts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "like many southerners of the time" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  entire quote? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anon taking ownership of article 

message: 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)
thread_title: New entry, April 29, 2006

message: You've begotten Wikipedia yet another "friend"/. 204.52.215.107 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  youngamerican (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congrats, vandals

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ....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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Repeated POV Censorship & Vandalism

message: 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.  youngamerican (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Indeed, a possibly inflammatory statement as such would definately require sourcing. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 19:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 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.  youngamerican (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've cooled down a bit, but it will still be good to get some fresh eyes on the article.  youngamerican (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Let's get this thing to NPOV and leave it alone... Dubc0724 15:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough is enough 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Works for me.  youngamerican (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too. Thanks Dubc0724 19:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alito hearings section 

message: Robert Byrd is the oldest Senator at 88. Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oldest current, yes.  youngamerican (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Senator 

message: 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?  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Should KKK be in the lead? 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 22:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election results. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 01:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion in "Ku Klux Klan members" category 

message: 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.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If it is a primary source, then it is perfectly fine, as you say.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quote from Niger Innis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 88, actually.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Göring quote 

message: 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.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Innis and Brown 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia Citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Capital punishment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Term Segregationist 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Political attacks on Byrd violate Wiki policy 

message: 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.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sorting this out. 

message: Editor Mtmdem, at 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Charges of Making Up "Fake Quotes" 

message: 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—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—which he fails to cite—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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  (Comments removed as personal attacks.) --Getaway 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:   (Comments removed as personal attacks.) Rjensen 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the personal attacks, Rjensen.--Getaway 23:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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—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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Good analysis, you should probably edit the article as you mentioned above. Ramsquire 23:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Civil Rights Act Edits

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: By the way, who is Ines Niger?????--Getaway 16:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (Personal attack on a Living Person removed.) NBGPWS 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Byrd and the MLK Jr. memorial 

message: 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)
replies: text: There is citation to the Senate record.--Getaway 14:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree.Getaway 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text:  If the quote IS in the Congressional Record. Maybe you can find it here. National Archives NBGPWS 00:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Deleted unsubstantiated derogatory info 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Judge Janice Brown

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Should I add tag

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

text: 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.  youngamerican (yo) 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link that both establishes the event's rarity and describes it. -Will Beback 22:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1988 Senate arrest 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Contested Age?