Jump to content

Talk:Robert Byrd/Archive 3

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

Byrd Amendment?

I came here via the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Lobbying_methods_and_techniques (which cites http://blog.washingtonpost.com/citizen-k-street/chapters/introduction/ ). These pages indicated that a Byrd Amendment imposed restrictions on lobbying in the US legislature. However, searching for Byrd Amendment gives a lot of unrelated legislation. Any ideas on whether to try to reference that on Senator Byrd's page?Mang (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

His real name when he was born was Cornelius Calvin Sale Jr. He was born in North Wilkesboro, North Carolina on November 20, 1917. A year later his mom died. Her wishes were that he would live with his aunt and uncle Byrd. They adopted him and changed his name to Robert Carlyle Byrd. Then they moved to a farm in West Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.43.231 (talk • contribs) 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Byrd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Letter to Bilbo

The letter to Bilbo was in 1945, not 1944. Integration of the military did not really become an issue until Truman became president in 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.223.188 (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Robert Byrd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Byrd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

legacy revisited

the section on KKK is fine but it doesn't much cover what's thought of him in recent years. not just 2020, but all sorts of recent denouncements of his KKK past.

in particular, where is the section about buildings being STRIPPED of his name? that trend had started even before the masses started targetting his statues.

speaking of which...where's THAT section?

neither this article nor the one "list of places named after..." gives much insight into recent changes. at the very LEAST that "list" should have "no longer" added where appropriate. 66.30.47.138 (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Factual error

I wasn't sure if I was supposed to edit the Bio myself or ask so I am posting the facts here.

In the first paragraph, the statement, "and the last remaining member of Congress to have served during the presidency of Harry S. Truman" is factually wrong.

Byrd was first elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in the same Presidential Election of 1952 that elected Eisenhower president, so he never served as a member of Congress under Truman. Skip Magyar jmagyar2@comcast.net Magyarj (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

He was sworn in 17 days before Truman left office, so it’s technically correct. JTRH (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Since they took a roll call and Byrd responded, I agree Magyarj (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are descriptions of him having founded a KKK chapter removed from his initial summery?

NO CONSENSUS FOR CHANGE TO LEDE
Normally, this discussion would fall into the category of discussions that do not need to be closed but there is a request at WP:AN/RFC and recent activity here indicating that involved participants are not satisfied with the state of the discussion. Participation in any area of Wikipedia is voluntary and one of the corollaries to that is the unfortunate truth that some discussions are not going to attract the participation we think the topic deserves. A lack of perceived levels of appropriate engagement with a proposal does not mean, however, that the proposal remains open until some desired ideal is reached. Lack of expressed opinion does not necessarily indicate a lack of opinion, either. See also WP:SILENCE, for example. This talk page is watched by over 250 editors and has had nearly 200 views in the last 60 days. A discussion that has been open for over 1.75 years has probably reached whatever level of discussion it is ever going to in that time. Given these factors, it is clear from this discussion that there is no consensus that the lede is not compliant with policy and the Manual of Style. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Any mention of him having created a chapter of the KKK are being actively removed from the initial summery. This was a pretty defining feature of this person and should be mentioned. Many people may leave this article skimming through that and leaving with no idea of his racial views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themaster debator (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on current environment focused on racial justice I think that it is important to point out Senator Byrd's connection to the Ku Klux Klan as a defining portion of his character. For example, Speaker Pelosi is planning to remove the portraits from the House of Speakers who were members of the Confederacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehatchman (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ehatchman: This topic has been debated on Wikipedia before. The consensus has been that Byrd's KKK membership is covered extensively in the body of the article, and was of such short duration and relative insignificance to the totality of his career that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the lede. If others feel differently now, I'm sure they'll comment here. If there's a consensus to make a change, then it can be done. If no one cares to comment or if the consensus is to leave the article as it, then that can be done.
Billmckern (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Billmckern: Certainly something that is "covered extensively" in the body of an article is presumptively worthy of inclusion in the summary of that article, not exclusion. The introduction is meant to summarize the succeeding content and is certainly not limited to content that is not covered elsewhere. Some consensus should be reached on how to best summarize the article's discussion of Byrd's KKK involvement, and that summary should be added. This will also preclude repeated revisions (which appear to be a problem) that do not accurately summarize the extent of his connection. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is Speaker Pelosi's letter to the Senate regarding statues. https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/61020-1

Here is Speaker Pelosi's letter regarding the Speakers who were members of the Confederacy. https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/61820

The world has changed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehatchman (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The consensus has been that Byrd's KKK membership is covered extensively in the body of the article

@Billmckern: could you provide link to previous discussion? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 07:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
It is so odd for an article to have a whole extended section that then completely gets thoroughly whitewashed out of the lede. Or maybe it is not odd at all! XavierItzm (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I really think this needs to be added... the summary is meant to provide a general impression of the subject, including for those who don't read on through the article. Knowing someone was a member of a racist terrorist organization, however briefly, would and should significantly alter how people regard and discuss that individual. Stowing this information away from the summary is not in the spirit of providing useful reference, and I think rather demonstrates undue glorification of Byrd. His other career accomplishments don't make KKK membership a detail to be glossed over. As mentioned above, many will leave this article with an impression of Byrd with no knowledge of his history of extremist racism, and that is unacceptable. Disturbnce (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Additions are still being deleted with the reasoning that it is covered extensively in the article. That seems to me like all the more reason it needs to be included in the summary. This needs to be further discussed. The information is clearly being excluded to paint a more flattering picture of Byrd, who said himself that he deserved to be held accountable for it indefinitely. It is quite relevant that he began his career in the KKK, as is evidenced by its extensive coverage in the article, and it is thus important to add to the summary (which is obviously meant to SUMMARIZE the content of the article, not cherrypick it). Disturbnce (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

He is primarily notable for being a Senator, not for being a Klansman. Lead paragraphs generally focus on primary notability. JTRH (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

While he spent most of his career as a senator, I'm quite confident he is also widely known for having been a Klansman. It's one of the few things a lot of people know about him. Note that many of the first search results when looking into his name are covering his Klan ties and subsequent civil rights record. Furthermore, this involvement marked the start of his political career and continued to affect it throughout his life. It seems sufficiently related his primary notability to me. Also, the reference to how "Byrd's views changed considerably over the course of his life" is seeking to acknowledge has early KKK involvement without actually informing readers of it, which is dubious seeing as supporting the Vietnam war is clearly not the most conservative stance he held during his career. Disturbnce (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@-A-M-B-1996-: RE: Your comment of 16 April, I'm just recounting what has gone on before - the issue of how to include Byrd's KKK membership in the article has been debated, and a consensus has been reached. I didn't make the decision, I just reported what it was.
That said, I agree with the consensus. Byrd's Klan membership and later repudiation of it are covered extensively in the article. His KKK activity and racist views occupied a relatively short part of his life, unlike some other public figures whose racism continued unabated. Byrd repudiated his previous Klan membership, explained himself, and apologized repeatedly. I think those facts need to be covered, but don't need to be given undue weight.
If you disagree with the consensus, you can try to change it. If your argument is persuasive, then the article could be re-worked along the lines you suggest.
Billmckern (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Billmckern: I think the argument I've laid out is quite clear if it's necessary to get a new consensus on this. See also WP:LEAD and the following comment from VictorianMutant in the archives:

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)

Can you point to what you believe to be the existing consensus? On my reading, there are no examples of formal consensus whatsoever in the archives and at least two discussions of this specific issue (KKK in lead) concluding in no firm decision either way, but in both cases an agreement that inclusion requires proper tone and context; though again, neither reaching a formal consensus. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@-A-M-B-1996-: Here's Archive 1. You can start there and work your way forward. I believe there are three archives, and there are links at the top of the page for the first one.
Billmckern (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Billmckern: As I made clear, I read through the complete archives. I even quoted directly from them. Could you please cite directly to the closed discussion or consensus to which you've been referring? If not, I think we can consider this the start of a renewed discussion of the issue and perhaps call for closure soon. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@-A-M-B-1996-: Respectfully, I'm not your researcher. But of you're still not satisfied, you can look through the edit history for the Byrd article and see how many times the protection template has been added to prevent disruptive editing. The disruptions are chiefly users (often anonymous) attempting to add references to Byrd's KKK career to the lede of the article.
And as I said before, if you want to make an argument for adding these details to the lede in an effort to build a consensus, you can certainly do that.
Billmckern (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Billmckern: Equally respectfully, you claimed a consensus existed and it does not. I only sought to establish what that consensus was before being sure of what my position is; as you made the claim, you bore the burden of research. No need to drag that out. I maintain my support for adding a context-dependent sentence or two on the grounds I've already made clear and I will call for closure if a clear consensus is not established within a week. If you'd like to make an argument to the contrary, feel free. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@-A-M-B-1996-: Just wanted to check in again on this discussion, as it seems no further argument against adding a sentence has been made. Disturbnce (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Disturbnce: I went ahead and moved for closure, but only on the broader topic of whether such a summary is appropriate, and not on what that summary should read. A new discussion establishing the summary sentence (or two) may be necessary. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • See wp:LEDE; if there is a sub-section in the article devoted to his KKK involvement, it is summarized in the lede. If you don't want that summarized in the lede, remove that sub-section from the article. If that can't, or won't, happen: summarize the section in the lede. This is a very simple guideline to follow. GenQuest "scribble" 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Byrd's siblings

This Ellwood City Ledger article says Byrd had at least 7 siblings. There's also this Tribune-Review article and this interview of Byrd where he states he had 3 older brothers and one sister. Just parking the cites here until I can find out more information. Shearonink (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The article already says he had 7 siblings: 3 full and 4 half.Dgndenver (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's because I was the one who fixed the family/sibling issues with this edit on January 9th, after I parked the cites here on talk in October 2020. Thanks for noticing, his family history can get slightly mangled from time to time since he was adopted by a relative, his name was changed, etc. Shearonink (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I should have dug into the edit history. Sorry. Dgndenver (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That recent maintenance template...

Eggishorn, Billmckern, Tbhotch, Therequiembellishere, Neutrality - I've pinged a few folks who have edited this article/talk page extensively/somewhat recently.

Recently the maintenance template of {{Copyedit|date=May 2021}} was placed on the article. Yes, yes, I know one of the Guild of Copy editors will get to figuring out what is wrong with the article but I think the issue - or, at least the main issue - is probably the lead. Taking a look at MOS:LEAD and especially MOS:INTRO, I think the lead section goes into too much detail...for instance, does the reader really need to know that Byrd was the last remaining member of Congress to serve under President Truman? And the last remaining member of the Senate to serve under Eisenhower? Are those facts important points of the main body of the article or are they rather trivia...interesting but trivia. Like that sentence about being the oldest member of Congress to die in office...that's not even mentioned in the main part of the article.
Keeping in mind MOS:LEADBIO, the lead section of a biographical article is supposed to be a summary of the article, an overview containing important facts, "The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight." I'd like to get after any possible issues and thought we could all work together to improve the article...at least get any possible issues improved upon so the maintenance template can be removed and maybe even get it up to being improved enough so it could be nominated for WP:GA status... What can I say, I'm a dreamer. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this edit to the lede is fine. It wasn't a partisan screed added by an anonymous editor, it doesn't give undue weight to the topic, and it maintains neutrality.
Billmckern (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Totally agreed. The recent edit to the lead by -A-M-B-1996- - well-done/neutrally-worded/factual. I'm more concerned with the why of the maintenance template... I think, in general, that this article is in good shape and with maybe a little bit of attention could possibly be put up for a WP:GA. I'm going to start trimming from the lead section, would welcome other eyes on possible issues. Shearonink (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
No, that edit was very problematic. A just-closed discussion on whether the lede should include that information found that there was WP:NOCONSENSUS for its inclusion. For a participant in that discussion to then cite it as an excuse to add the information that was disputed is not a good faith edit. Consensus can change but it doesn't change by attempting to substitute one's personal judgment over those of the other participants in a very recent discussion. Such edits are usually considered tendentious and can be sanctionable. I urge -A-M-B-1996- to revert their change and respect the discussion results. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I removed it. -A-M-B-1996-, this edit summary is patently false and misleading. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Yay, edit conflict and it's been removed. Anyway...
Ok then ((shrug))... My opinion was that their edit was an improvement over the previous version. Maybe let's discuss in this section the possible reasons for the maintenance template being placed on the article... Shearonink (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: The purpose of that discussion, which I was the one to invoke closure on, was to show that there was no consensus AGAINST including such a sentence, as had been falsely claimed. As closure established, there is no consensus for or against. There was nothing problematic about the edit whatsoever, and I will restore it. If you would like to reopen discussion to attempt to establish a consensus barring my edit (though such consensus would violate WP:LEDE), you may do so, but the edit was in line with the existing lack of consensus. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I mean, for goodness's sake — the person I was disagreeing with in that discussion, BillMcKern, who suggested a consensus existed, has given the clear thumbs up to my neutral edit. My only goal here is to prevent further partisan edit wars, which have been a long-standing problem here. There is no reading of my edit, after a long discussion showing a lack of contrary consensus, as bad faith. The reason I moved for closure was to take Bill's argument in good faith and hesitate before adding the sentence, ensuring that it did not violate a prior consensus. That was shown. I added the sentence. I stand by it. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Copy editing banner

Hey everyone, I just went through the article and couldn't find many things that needed copy editing. There may be some stuff I missed, but is the banner referring to the article in general, or a specific section? Thanks, Pefrectionist (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself. I tried to bring this up in a previous section - Talk:Robert Byrd#That recent maintenance template... and got nowhere. The article, sure, it isn't perfect but it is rated B-Class. All I could think of was maybe the lead section had too much detail and didn't follow MOS but I still don't think the maintenance template was justified. Shearonink (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I've removed it. I don't really see any great problems that warrant the template either. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Byrd and the KKK on the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include the proposed sentence about Byrd's KKK involvement in the lead. This is based on reliable sources and the principle that the lead should follow the body. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)



Should this text (or similar) be included on the lead: "Byrd entered the political arena by organizing and leading a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s, an action he later described as "the greatest mistake I ever made."" (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

As a quick background, Byrd and the KKK have always been contentious for the lead. From well-intended users to, more recently, be used as a political strategy against Biden.[1] It has been in the lead,[2] it has been removed from the lead;[3] it has been used as a descriptor,[4] and so on.[5] There has never been a consensus on what to do with that information. It kinda was discussed here, here, here, here, here, and here, a month ago, and this last one is key here. It was opened in 2019 by Themaster debator asking what practically everyone has asked before: why he is not called a KKK member. The discussion remained pretty much dead until -A-M-B-1996- (talk · contribs) commented on April 16, 2021. Long story short, after a few days of -A-M-B-1996- and Billmckern (talk · contribs) disagreeing with the opinion of the other, AMB decided to request its closure, and Eggishorn (talk · contribs) closed it with the following conclusion: "This talk page is watched by over 250 editors and has had nearly 200 views in the last 60 days. A discussion that has been open for over 1.75 years has probably reached whatever level of discussion it is ever going to in that time. Given these factors, it is clear from this discussion that there is no consensus that the lede is not compliant with policy and the Manual of Style."

Apparently what happened was that as the closure was not in favor of AMB's opinion, instead of doing what I'm doing now, they decided to include their own paragraph[6] based upon their own understanding of what consensus (or the lack of it) means. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." As of today, there is no consensus to include nor exclude it. That's it, that's what's happening here. This info is just in limbo because arbitrary edits like this put it in limbo.

Yes, AMB consensus is not required for every edit, but when something has been contested, discussed, changed, and removed for 18 years, it's better to look for consensus somewhere else than edit-warring to preserve your view on the topic. You can't throw away policies and guidelines as much as you would never throw away your constitution. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Support, obviously. The sentence is neutrally phrased, wholly accurate, is entirely necessary to summarize a key section of the article per WP:Lede, and in this particular case, will avoid future contentious and inaccurate edits. I appreciate your clarification and call for consensus on this sentence. Hopefully we can make this edit permanent to avoid any further confusion. Slight modifications, of course, (e.g. Byrd was only "briefly" the leader of such a chapter) could be possible, as the sentence was only intended to rectify the initial problem; But the problem necessarily requires a change. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Concur with -A-M-B-1996-, but add some sources. Since these are perfectly searchable, such as here 1 2, I agree, because how he got into politics is important. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - admittedly, I was somewhat on the fence; the thing that helped make up my mind was reading through some of the comments in the previous thread. That is to say, the reasons behind wanting this in the lede, which, based on the comments made, is to portray Byrd in a most vicious (and hypocritical) false light. In particular comments about his "extreme racist ideology", which conclusion they apparently arrived at purely from the knowledge that he had started a kkk chapter when he was young. Truthfully, Robert Byrd did far more in his career by a long shot that contributed toward the advancement of coloured people than all of the Republicans that have been in government for the last 50 years COMBINED have done - most of whom have made it a matter of policy to do all they can to hinder coloured communities, including, at the present time, doing everything within their power to prevent black people from being able to VOTE - just like it be 1875, hey! So it seems incredibly disingenuous to try to portray this person as ſome rabid negro-lynching (I HOPE he never engaged in that! I'm sure he likely did not) extremist, when in actuality that could not be farther from the truth. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The purpose of the edit and this discussion is to avoid portraying Byrd in a "false light" while adequately summarizing the article. Past edits have overemphasized or mischaracterized his KKK involvement, often for thinly-veiled partisan purposes. But it did happen, and it is a significant section of this article and has a significant impact on Byrd's legacy in public memory. It should not be excluded from the summary entirely on the possibility that some readers will distort Byrd's involvement; a clear consensus should be reached on a sentence like this one which plainly and factually reflects the extent of his involvement as localized and later regretted. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • 1. While I understand KKK is an organisation with a heavy negative connotation, Reuters explicitly says that in a fact-check, so does not-so-undeniably-reliable but from what I can understand here an OK resource that I mentioned in point 3 in my vote. Quote: In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 people in West Virginia to form a chapter of the KKK. Joel L. Baskin, the grand dragon of the mid-Atlantic region, arrived to organize the chapter. Baskin was impressed with Byrd’s skills and encouraged him to get involved in politics. This is mentioned in the main body. He then, immediately before his 1946 election to the House of Delegates in WV, received endorsement from a Grand Dragon of KKK (as reported in: NYT, WaPo and in syndicated content from the Associated Press). So, at least on a factual basis, the claim that he sprung to politics thanks to his ties with and encouragement from KKK is correct. This was not a controversy at the time he went into WV politics, it only became such in 1952, when he wanted to enter federal Congress, so I'm not convinced by the argument RisingStar uses; and even if so, being a leader of a local KKK unit is relevant enough to be in the lead if that was a path to further career, which by all indications it was. EDIT: after re-reading, I concluded WaPo doesn't say about his 1946 endorsement, but Seattle Times/AP implied it was about 1946.
2. Whatever he has done later on, particularly after mid-60s, does not influence what he has done beforehand. The sentence does not imply, however, he was a rabid racist; to suggest otherwise is to show your susceptibility to the association fallacy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
As for your point 1, my issue was that there is nothing in the body of the article that indicates that the KKK participation led to the state legislature. If we cite reliable sources (ideally multiple) that make this synthesis, that would address my concern. RisingStar (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll wait for the RfC to close so that we could reach consensus whether the sentence should be introduced, but, if approved, feel free to analyse and then introduce these links. I will introduce the links into the body of the article, as that should not spur controversy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Neutral assuming my concerns above and below are addressed. MOS:LEAD says that a controversy should be included only if it is prominent, and given everything else that Byrd did in his political career, I don't think his participation in KKK is prominent enough. Perhaps this would be relevant enough if, as the lead currently asserts, Byrd "entered the political arena" through the KKK, but the article does not say anything about how his participation in KKK led to his becoming a state legislator. RisingStar (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I understand this concern but think it is a fair characterization of his involvement based purely on what is already in the article. His leadership of the chapter was a form of (distasteful) community organizing and put him in direct contact with national political leaders, which the section itself makes clear. Byrd himself explicitly referred to it as the start of his political career on multiple occasions and also claimed he joined because of its anti-communist political stance. He ran for the House of Delegates within a year of his last KKK activity. This is all also made clear by the section the sentence summarizes. I agree it could be worded differently, but the idea was to have a single sentence, not to overshadow his long career as Senator. With all of this said, the clause could be removed, but the chapter is still essential to Byrd's political story in the same way the lede for Barack Obama briefly refers to his work as a community organizer in Chicago. (Do not over-interpret this analogy. I am not equivocating Barack Obama and Robert Byrd's early political work in any moral sense.) He spent much of his lifetime candidly discussing the involvement; like it or not, it certainly played a prominent part in his life. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It still feels like undue weight to me given that it is the first sentence of the paragraph. Perhaps it would be better if the paragraph began with a different topic sentence. RisingStar (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
That's perhaps not unreasonable. Do you have a suggestion? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we can put the sentence Byrd served in the West Virginia House of Delegates from 1947 to 1950, and the West Virginia State Senate from 1950 to 1952 before the reference to KKK. I understand that this is not strictly chronological, but since the plan is to frame the KKK participation as a stepping stone to his political career, I think this order will work. RisingStar (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Volteer1: Though I don't share this strong concern about sentence placement, I don't see a move as objectionable at all and does offer an opportunity for improvement. I don't know that a simple flip as @RisingStar: suggests would work, since that would perhaps imply he held KKK office after entering public office. Maybe a unifying topic sentence like "Byrd's career in West Virginia politics spanned several decades." would work? -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to a kind of short signposting sentence like that that introduces the topic. The KKK stuff is first chronologically as you say so it wouldn't make much sense to try and shoehorn it into the middle of the paragraph. But something like you suggested would probably alleviate the concerns over prominence without too significant of a drawback. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
We don't know when exactly he quit KKK or stopped explicitly supporting it. It definitely was not in early 1943, as he later said to deflect the bad associations (btw, it would be good to reflect it somehow in the body, because for now the reader may be wondering if that's 1943 or 1946), and probably by late 1946, but I wasn't able to do determine that exactly. I am also wary of using "state X politics" for federal officials, even if they are elected from a state - that's what is more often used for state legislators and governors. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. We shouldn't ever be deciding what to include in a lead because we want a person to look good to the world or look bad to the world. A MOS:LEAD section is meant to summarise an article's most important contents. There is a big chunky section in his personal life on his time in the KKK, and after his death Byrd's time in the KKK is often discussed, meaning it is an important element of his enduring notability that shouldn't be ignored. For both those reasons we can't just leave it out and hide it from the lead, and the specific phrasing in that edit is quite neutral so I'm struggling to see what the issue with it is. However, we do have to wait until this RfC concludes to add in disputed material. The WP:ONUS is on those who want to include disputed material to achieve consensus for it, not the other way around. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Byrd's time in the KKK played a role in the start of his political career and should therefore be included in the lead. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Per the above. Sea Ane (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support We have a subsection dedicated to this, therefor a sentence in the lead seems about right. Aircorn (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - It would be very disingenuous to not summarize in the lede a piece of information that is extensively covered in the body of the article and in reliable sources just because it would make the subject of the article "look bad". I don't think the fact that he had a long career after this incident is any reason to bury his involvement with the KKK, especially since said involvement directly led to his involvement in politics. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, "this text or something similar". It does seem somewhat disingenuous to pass by/ignore an issue in the lead section that is a major segment in the body. The KKK membership is part of the man's political and personal history, his repudiation of the Klan in subsequent years is also part of his growth as a person and as a politician. Reliable sources treat this issue extensively - Wikipedia should not ignore it in the lead. Shearonink (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, important for his early career even if he changed his tune later in life.Nyx86 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, Neutral, concise, and factual.Yousef Raz (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Note I see this discussion ended on the 18th. By coincidence, I edited the KKK into the article on the 19th. My apologies for missing the discussion, and unintentionally bypassing active adjudication. Lindenfall (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

Byrd was head of kkk. 2600:6C48:7E00:3AAA:DEF7:56FF:FE97:F8BC (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Harry Byrd

Is there any relation between Robert Byrd and Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia? Or is it just a coincidence that they share a last name and were senators from neighboring states? The existence or nonexistence of kinship should be mentioned in the articles for Senator Robert Byrd (WV), Senator Harry F. Byrd Jr. (VA), and Senator Harry F. Byrd Jr. (VA). Just a suggestion. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not add Harry F. Byrd Jr. and Adam M. Byrd?
Seriously, why would we be documenting a negative?
Billmckern (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

In the political party office succession box at the bottom, please the the link for the 1976 senate election so it links to the specific page, as shown in the example below.

67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. Shearonink (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation

In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[11]

-Early 1940 is completely false as Byrd was born in 1936, we was not a 4 year old KKK leader. Was this done to try and shew facts to paint him in a better light? It says he was 24 years old. Do the math. Does anyone freaking fact check theses? Truth is he was and remain a racist his entire life. It should say “In the early 1960s. This is the man Joe Biden called friend. They both are racist. History shows it. 184.99.31.114 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Byrd was born in 1917, not 1936. A simple reading of the article will reveal that fact.
Billmckern (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The timeline in the KKK section makes no sense. Near the end he is quoted during his 1952 US Congress campaign as stating he joined Triple-K in the early 1940's, stayed a year, dropped out and had no further dealing with them. That timeline indicated he joined in 1941 and dropped out late in 1942 - thus the intervening 9 years to 1952. Yet the article cites his letter of December 1944 that indirectly indicates membership, his 1946 letter to the Grand Wizard in support of KKK and his seeking out of Triple-K for support of his 1947 campaign. According to my poor math from 1947 to 1952 is not nine years. It's no more than 4 years. Someone was being less than honest in writing the KKK section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanaroGravedad (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Byrd/Archive_3&oldid=1135497557"