Talk:Condoleezza Rice/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Resignation

Boston College Prof. Steve Almond quit over her invitation to commencement good article

Sounds like that should raise the intelligence and academic standards at Boston College. Now, if we can get Almond to quit teaching entirely.-----70.114.205.215 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

This is regarding the trivia section. I have noticed the one line about her and her alleged failed relationship with an Iranian student during her college days was taken out due to the assumption that it was a rumor. However it is important to note that even though that might be a rumor it does not constitute a deletion. It is cited from reliable sources and the wordings specifically emphasize the fact that this is not believed by everyone. I think it is important for the readers to read it and come to their own conclusion about it. Klymen

No, it's is not from a credible source. It's third hand gossip -- an Australian news agency and a Persian student web site, each quoting a state-controlled Iranian news agency, which in turn attributes the gossip to a single Iranian legislator, without offering any evidence whatsoever -- not even the name of the alleged ex-boyfriend. I have therefore deleted it. Brandon39 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Who are you to judge what source is credible and what is not. The readers can judge for themselves. Even if it’s simply a rumor it has gotten enough press attention to be mentioned in the trivia section.Klymen
LOL. Okay. If you really want it in there, I've gone through and clarified this bit of gossip, so that the reader can judge for him or herself. I hope you like my editing!  :) Brandon39 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough Klymen
I think it's rubbish, myself. [emphatically not your work or arguments Klymen, but the Iranian report]. I don't know if you've lived overseas, Klymen, but accusations made in foreign media outside Western Europe, Japan, US, Canada, Aus/NZ can be absolutely insane. My argument, and I've made it in recent days elsewhere on this page, is that why not point out all of Ed Klein's sourced accusations about Hillary Clinton on her page? Because, despite the sourcing, they're highly speculative gossip is my answer.
On the one hand we're deleting unsourced accusations that Rice is a lesbian, and on the other we're staring at accusations that this woman was hurt by an Iranian ex-boyfriend, and that explains her behavior because, as a woman you know, she's not capable of responding rationally 20-30 years later. I am going to remove the Persian UK students blog reference, because that's ludicrous. I'm also clarifying slightly more than Brandon did. I am tempted to remove the whole thing, as Brandon and a previous editor did, but I don't want to do so without discussing it with you. If there's no response to this, I probably will remove it in a day or two; if there is, I'll consider and respond. Holmwood 14:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I perfectly understand what you are saying. However as you can see, even one Australian news outlet has mentioned the story. I’m not here to debate weather she did have an Iranian boyfriend or not and I agree that the factuality of her relationship can be debated however nothing in what is said in the article is false; this is something that has been put in public about her, both in western and eastern media. Also what was on the Trivia section is something that has gone through some editing. It’s not something that was put there over night. I believe the final edit of what was there is a perfectly fine representation of facts. Klymen
If the criterion that it's been put in public about her in "eastern and western media" -- that being *one* obscure Australian source and Iranian state-controlled media, then we'd have to make some serious changes throughout this encyclopedia. The London Daily Telegraph -- a generally responsible non-tabloid (though right-leaning) made a series of serious accusations against Clinton in the '90's. The American Spectator -- wildly anti-Clinton, but arguably media -- did so as well. All kinds of bizarre things were said about Clinton in the Indian and Russian press.
Iranian state-controlled media has reported that Mohammad Khatami stated that "women should cover their head because their hair emanates a dangerous ray that drives men wild." (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/1162). This was picked up and printed widely as a quote in Western media, far more widely than the Condi Rice story. The particular source I cited is Canada's National Post, a major broadsheet newspaper in Canada.
So: where are the articles about the deadly hair-rays of women? Let's add them to the Wikipedia article on Women, as a theory. Where are the comments on Hillary Clinton's lesbianism, in the Hillary entry? On Bill Clinton's ordering a hit on Vince Foster because he was Hillary's lover? [yes those last two statements are deliberately logically inconsistent, just like the Rice is gay plus she was jilted by an Iranian) Or... let's recognize this is crazy, and not do it.
Those things all belong in articles on conspiracy theories and smears.
Back during the cold war, the USSR had a policy of planting ludicrously false (but nasty anti-US) stories in third world media in the hopes they'd drift into anti-US papers in Western countries and possibly the US itself. It worked well. It's the way the "USA/CIA invented AIDS to kill Africans" story got started. I just see this as more of the same, and don't think we in Wikipedia should be supporting it. Holmwood 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There so many fallacies in your argument I don’t even know where to start. (Improper appeal to practice, guilt by association and strawman to name a few). I said it before I say it again, I’m not here to debate the weather she did date an Iranian student or question the validty of the sources. I think you should look up Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia. By definition Trivias are intersting facts of no importance to the article. There is nothing fictional about the comment you keep editing out and I agree that since the sources are questionable it is not important enough to be mentioned in the article. Klymen
I repeat: there's far, far more evidence (and from more credible sources) to suggest Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. Put that in "trivia" in her section? That's about as analogous and exact an argument as you can get and one you've failed to respond to.
Indeed, I find it interesting your response is a refusal to engage with any argument I've made but simply hurl feeble generalized first-year logic class attacks. No strawmen, no improper appeal to practice, no guilt by association (quite the reverse). If trivia is of genuinely no importance it should be removed. If trivia is very likely false then it should be removed. I have not "kept editing out"; I have yet to remove it even once! (Check the history page; you'll see a series of mostly-anon users have been doing the removal; they've also, like you and I, been doing good and positive edits in addition to simply removing). I'm not one of them, I sign everything I do (and I welcome any who have access checking my IP addy against those anon users, including for geographic location).
Talk about straw men -- red herrings even. The inclusion of almost certainly false propaganda under the guise of it being trivia is the best argument you can come up with? And you actually argue that Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia supports you?
The reason I haven't yet removed it is I wanted to give your responses due consideration. I'd actually been leaning to simply leaving it (and let you battle it out with whoever's removing it). Given the response you've made to my arguments, and given that you falsely accused me of repeatedly editing the comment out, I've made my decision. It doesn't belong. It doesn't belong, and your arguments have convinced me of this. This will be my first removal of the paragraph in question. (if no one's beaten me to it) Holmwood 09:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry; it was hastily of me to accuse you for editing. However I still stand by my argument about the Iranian accusation. What is there is nothing but facts. You can not argue the factuality of what’s being editing out. It is true that some Iranian MP said Rice had a failed romance with an Iranian student. If you prove to me that is wrong then, by all means, I will step down from the argument. (Prove that no Iranian MP ever said Rice had a failed romance with an Iranian student.)
As for Hillary Clinton, I have no knowledge of what’s being said about her. As far as I know in that case you can prove what’s being said is false. Which would mean you’re “strawmaning.” I am also devastated to hear that you have decided to “adjust” your position on the topic due to that fact that I accused you of editing it out. I apologize for falsely accusing you and I know you’re insulted; however I think it’s beyond you to make a decision merely on being upset. Klymen
The rumours that Rice dated an Iranian student are just that a rumour. There is no place in Wikipedia for rumour. It violates Wikipedia policy concering verifiability. Please stop putting it in. Please edit in good faith and don't violate one of the three main pillars of Wikiapedia. Thank you. -----70.114.205.215 22:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)---
What you're saying is a rumour, but what was mentioned in the article was not a rumour. An Iranian MP did in fact say that Rice had a failed romance with an Iranian student. That is not a rumour. I suggest you read it again before you edit it out. Klymen

Quick question -- where is the empirical source that confirms this "rumor" about Dr. Rice? I'd like to view it myself. --Mhking 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume that we can agree that the Iranian MP said such and such about Rice. The question is whether to include it. Personally, I don't think it is notable enough a fact to include, nor from a sufficiently reliable source (I recall the leader of Iran denying the Holocaust a few months back, for example). We are under no obligation to include every verifiable fact about a subject, and we should be very cautious about relaying statements of highly suspect origin. I think we should leave it out. — Matt Crypto 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, someone who understands my argument, I was getting tired of people using the rumor excuse to take it out. You are right Matt, at this point it depends on someone’s personal opinion and taste to whether include or exclude this fact. I believe including it would give the reader a more global sense of perspective about Dr. Rice. I believe they would find it interesting how she is being viewed outside of North America. I don’t believe in anyway including it will question the integrity of the article. I personally don’t believe in the allegations but I believe including facts like that is what makes Wikipedia articles intersting.Klymen
Let's go over this again. What we know and what we do not know. What we know: (1) the name of an Iranian MP who claims that she knows a secret about Rice, (2) the name of a Australian news organization. What we do NOT know: (1) the name of Rice's alleged boyfriend, (2) when this romance supposedly happened, (3) how we know for certain that this alleged romance has any effect on the current situation in Iraq, (4) where this person is today, (5) whether this relationship even happened, etc. So all we know for certain is that an Iranian MP has made an allegation about a rumour. There is a long-standing Wikipedia policy that requires that entries be VERIFIABLE. Please see: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Now that discusson makes it very clear that we as editors should and must decide if a source is credible. The wild allegation of a Iranian MP about the love life of Rice from 20, 25 or 30 years (man, we really don't know when this alleged romance took place, because it is after all a rumour) does NOT rise to the level of credible. There is no name, no date, no place. This allegation of a rumour does NOT even meet the bare requirements of what, when, where and how!!!! It does not meet these basic items. And that does not even deal with the sheer sexist aspect of it. The assumption put forth by this Iranian MP (who will not provide what, when, where or how) is that Rice, as a woman, can only response to rejection by starting a war. What an unbelievable sexist assumption! Now if this allegation of a rumour makes it through the process of Wikipedia then it will weaken the reputation of Wikipedia of course, but it will also make it easier to allow all sorts of allegations of rumours about a whole group of individuals. For example, if someone claims that Hillary Clinton is a big, ole, big, ole bull dyck then we need to place that allegation of rumour in the Hillary Clinton article because we will no longer be required to show 'how' we know Clinton is a big bull dyck and we will not be required to show 'where' we got that information, 'when' we learned that Clinton is a big, bull dyck. This is the exact type of thing that makes Wikipedia either a great source for research or a horrible source for research. If someone wants to shove their non-NPOV down someone else's throat or whether they want to play it neutral, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, neutrality. If I was not concerned about neutrality then I would wander over to the H.Clinton page and attempt to shove my opinion about H.Clinton's sexual orientation down everyone's throats, but I will not because that would not be neutral. By attempting to shove this allegation of a rumour about Rice down our throats, not only is one pillar of Wikipedia being violated, verifiability, but another pillar of Wikipedia is being violated, neutrality. Please edit in good faith and stop this this crazy quest to get an allegation of a rumour placed in the article. -----72.177.223.95 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Childhood

A whole section on Dr. Rice's childhood was eliminated and it will be restored. It was sourced and factual. --- --Keetoowah 14:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 68.46.142.66 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC) One thing I noticed that was omitted was social, does Dr. Rice have a social life? Inquiring minds do want to know.

Associated comment - relating to "Good Article" nomination. This article reads well and meets all the structural requirements of a good article. But, it sems very "one dimensional" to me. It is consructed around a career CV and says very litle about her as a person. For example, I believe that Condi made some progress in her early life as a figure skater. I do not see anything about that. Also, Condi is unmarried and I have seen it claimed in the press that she has never had a close romantic relationship. This seems curious and I wonder if some reference to this is required?. Condi is a fascinating character and I wonder if this article does her full justice?. I hope this helps. BScar23625 09:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Academics

How unusual is it for a university of Stanford's caliber to hire from the likes of the University of Denver? How did she manage to acchieve selection as Provost (the second-highest position in a University the very same year she became a full professor? Who were her patrons?

  • This may not be that unusual if she had a good dissertation. Having gone to a highly-ranked school for your graduate work is a strong signal, but is not as important to universities as a candidate's research. Were the papers that came from her dissertation published in top journals?
I guess the question is how is this relevant to the Condi Rice article?? But if you want to talk about then let's ask why do all Kennedys get into Harvard when they all have "C" averages??? Generally, they are the dim bulbs in the universe but because they are good liberals then Harvard let's them in--over and over again. Some of them can't hardly stay awake long enough to make it to class--through all of the alcohol and drugs but that doesn't stop Harvard. --- --Keetoowah 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Her academic abilities were pretty astounding. I have a good friend who was at Denver at the same time, and according to him, she was something of a wünderkind academically, though she kept to herself socially. As far as why an idiot doped-up Kennedy, or an idiot doped-up Bush, could somehow be a total moron and still get into Ivy league schools, well... that's the "legacy" program. The current US president would have wound up in a backwater community college otherwise. Ronabop 02:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Year of Affliation with Republican

In the article, it is stated : 

In 1976 she switched her party registration/affiliation to Republican.

But in the trivia, it is stated that the year she became a Republican was 1982.

Can someone please clarify and make the appropriate changes? --[Changed]

No, It hasn't been changed.

Since the second mention has a reference and the first does not, I removed the statement in the education section and left the one in the trivia section. Edgar181 15:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Condi Rice and Yo-Yo Ma

User Dris3 keeps deleting information about a concert that Rice did with Yo-Yo Ma. He deleting the information because he or she claims that just because Ma plays a cello then the concert could not have included a violin sonata. That is silly for two reasons. There are numerous references to the concert. There are pictures of it on the Internet. Yes, someone can play a violin sonata on a cello. Also, even if it was not a violin sonata, then why does Dris3 keep removing all references to the concert? Please, Dris3, edit in good faith.-----Keetoowah 20:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


Extraordinary rendition

I've just added a section at the end of the current article concerning this aspect of her carrear. If anyone wants to add to it, feel free. Fergananim 22:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Name Derivation or Error?

It is highly improbable that someone said, "Let's change this particular 'c' into an 'e.' " However, it is highly probable that someone wrote the Italian phrase "con dolcezza" that was printed on sheet music for piano. Since the letter "c" is very similar to the letter "e," it is most likely that it was incorrectly read from the cursive handwriting. There would have been no reason for anyone to purposely change one particular letter in that foreign phrase.Lestrade 15:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Lestrade


I too noticed the use of "derivation" to describe it. At first I thought it odd, but then I decided it was best. My reasoning is that even if the spelling were an error, it came from the Italian, so it was thus [[1]]. Even though "derivation" may imply deliberate choice when compared to "error," the word itself does not mean that the spelling was intentional. Neither Wiktionary (linked above) nor Webster's indicates that something must be derived purposefully. It just means (neutrally) that "Condoleezza" didn't come out of thin air as a random name. Rather, it was based on "con dolcezza" (by whatever means). If the author had said something like "Rice's parents chose to adapt it from the Italian notation con dolcezza, THEN I would have called for a change.
My vote is to keep the current text, which I see as neutral, unless someone can append a reliable reference that the spelling for "Condoleezza" was or wasn't unintentional. Ckamaeleon 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
FOLLOWUP: Actually, the article cited is less neutral. In talking about her mother, Angelena, the article states, "She crafted the name Condoleezza from the Italian musical notation “con dolcezza” (with sweetness). It rapidly became simply “Condi.” Since the article cited doesn't acknowledge any mistake on Angelena Rice's part (and based on the fact that she WAS a teacher), I see an argument against using language that implies that the name derivation was accidental. If anything, you might imply that it wasn't. But I still maintain 1) that neutral text is best regarding this and 2) that the current text satisfies neutrality with its passive construction and use of "derivation". Ckamaeleon 15:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, according to the biography entitled "Condi" by Antonia Felix, Condoleezza's mother did purposefully change the c to an e to make it more pronouncable. --130.108.192.177 03:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of name

I've seen this person's name spelled with only one "z", e.g."Condoleeza". Is this correct? -- anonymous comment by 69.104.7.176

No. See the Department of State page. --TreyHarris 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

5'8"?

It says in her trivia section that she is 5'8". Judging by this photo with Angelina Jolie (who is also reportedly 5'8") she looks to be more in the 5'6" range (Jolie's heels look an inch taller than Rice's).--Fallout boy 08:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm look at the heels Jolie is wearing.... they are much higher Bachs 21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Line of Succession

The qualification about Madeleine Albright is unnecessary and confusing. Despite being Secretary of State, Albright was always ineligible to succeed to the presidency due to her foreign birth, and thus she was never in the Presidential line of succession. That article says:

  • It has been a subject of controversy whether cabinet officers such as Carlos Gutierrez (born in Cuba) or Elaine Chao (born in Taiwan), who are not natural-born citizens, are constitutionally ineligible to be Acting President, because Article Two establishes only eligibility requirements for the “office of President”. The same question exists for officers in the line of succession who are not 35 years old or have not resided in the United States for 14 years. To avoid a needless constitutional dispute at what would likely be a time of great crisis, the statute (3 U.S.C. § 19(e)) specifies that even the acting president must meet the constitutional requirements for the office of president.

I've altered the text accordingly. JackofOz 02:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Is This Relevant?

-"In an article for the New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, writes, "Birmingham had one notably rich black family, the Gastons, who were in the insurance business. Occupying the next rung down was the family of Alma Powell, wife of former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell; her father and her uncle were the principals of two black high schools in town. Rice's father, John Wesley Rice, Jr., worked for Alma Powell's uncle as a high-school guidance counselor, and was an ordained minister who preached on weekends; Rice's mother, Angelena, was a teacher."[2] In 1967, the family moved to Denver when her father accepted an administrative position at the University of Denver."


How can you prove Birmingham had "one rich black family?" And what does "occupying the nest rung down" even mean? This whole passage just seems forced.

I agree that this section reads awkwardly in the article. The relevance to her life (and consequently, to the article) is far outweighed by the strain in creating a flimsy link between Condi's father and the Powells.

Hey is it me or is this article a total plant by I Like Rice.org?

Hey is it me or is this article a total plant by I Like Rice.org?

If you think so tell me how to dispute its neutrality.

Thanks

If it is, I Like Rice.org needs to be more active on Wikipedia cause this is a pretty straightforward, even bland, article. Joe Friday, "just the facts, ma'am" style.

Vandalism

The gap in her teeth isn't the size of Mars. The moon, maybe. --Disavian 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Who has a bigger gap - Condi or Letterman? Rklawton 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Please be mature in your conduct. Michael 04:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Critisism?

Why isn't there any critisism of Condoleezza Rice? I'm republican myself but I happen to think she has no substance; she seems to me like she's just an ugly little puppet (no offense to her supporters... ) but come on, when she discusses anything, she (well, hell, almost all politicians nowdays) goes into ambiguousity and plays the "beat around the question without ever really answering it" game. Ineptitude such as that cannot be measured. When people ask you a question they don't intend for you to spit out irrelevancies. The whole bush administration should be held accountable for blatant idiocy. Plus I don't think she's as "wise" as she tries to make her self out to be. I doubt very seriously she knows much french or russian. Maybe a little, she might know spanish but that one is easy almost everyone speaks it now in USA to an extent at least.

There are forums all over the Internet where you can rant/rave about your opinion of Condi Rice. Put it on your website/blog...and keep it out of an NPOV Encylopedia entry. But if you feel the need to add a "Criticism" section, so be it. In an effort to be balanced, I will then copy your entry (leaving yours intact and unedited), reword it slightly and call the section "Praise" How'd that be?? Jeravicious 23:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a regular thing to have a Criticism section of a politician's wikipedia entry (c.f. George Galloway) however the criticism that you have cited here is not conmensurate with the type of criticism that has been put forward on other politician's pages. Any criticism section should focus on opposition to the views of the politician in question, usually citing comments made by other politicians and people in the media. Having said that, I am very surprised that there is no Criticism section listed here. Triangle e 11:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The article does indeed have numerous shortcomings so I have added the NPOV tag. The article reads as though it has been written and edited by employees of the State Department as part of their day jobs. Condoleezza Rice, as the US's Secretary of State, is the representative of the Bush regime worldwide, so it cannot be denied that she faces criticism, even if she is comparatively well liked within the US (which I doubt). The discussion of criticism of the US occupation of Iraq makes no mention of the massive opposition Rice faces whenever she travels abroad and is merely confined to opinions of Republican politicians who believe the US could have fought the war better. An example of the type of opposition she encounters could be seen during her recent visit to North West England where she met with demonstrations in Blackburn and Liverpool - due entirely to her role in the Bush Administration. Neither is there any criticism of her often ham-fisted pronunciations on other countries' internal affairs. Her "Outposts of Tyranny" outburst is mentioned in the article, albeit in a neutral context, but this merely strengthened the opinions of people who already consider the USA to be imperialist. Surely her notorious "Chicken Kiev" speech which was written for and delivered by George HW Bush is worth a mention - this urged Ukrainians to remain in the USSR and avoid "suicidal nationalism". Finally some mention of Rice's rather extreme religious views would not go amiss - especially as the Bush regime supports denying women choice on abortion. 213.120.56.33 17:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I don't know if I've ever heard that argument before...You're disputing the neutrality of this entry because it DOESN'T have POV Criticisms of her and it only merely contains facts about her life. Interesting logic... Facts WITHOUT someone's criticisms is now considered POV?? Jeravicious 18:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So far, from what I've read there is no substantive criticism of Rice from 213.120.56.33. There are just complaints about her politics and then a slap on of the NPOV sticker. There is no offers to fix the article. There are suggested changes--just a slapping on of the NPOV sticker. Unless there are some specific corrections and additions suggested, forthcoming, the NPOV sticker will be removed. Also, the last statement is just simple partisan ranting. Who even knows what Condi's so-called "extreme religious views" are? Much less if they are supposedly "extreme." So far there is no case made for the NPOV sticker. It just seems to be a drive-by NPOV sticker and no real substance. Also, the comment that Rice is "ugly little puppet" is clearly a racist comment.--72.177.223.95 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any POV issues with the article. If anyone has valid criticisms other than kookery like "she must be evil, she is part of Bush's New World Order", then by all means put them on. I'm going to remove the NPOV tag from the article. Oscar Arias 19:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, someone beat me to it. Must have been looking at a cached page. Oscar Arias 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing I remember the most about Rice is her "mushroom cloud" statment in the run-up to war. It's one of the most famous things she said. Odd that it isn't mentioned here. To wit: "We don't want 'the smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12553823/site/newsweek/ 66.57.225.55 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)DEL

This is a valid point. That is a very well known quote of hers, and should be included. Criticism of the quote in that it may have added to unnecessary fear over Iraqi WMD programs would also be justified. Suggestions that she was lying would, IMO, not be. I'll take a stab at this... Holmwood 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, added, with a citation to the original Wolf Blitzer interview. I would suggest care in modifying this. An anon user 70.114.... tweaked my entry superbly, deleting the word "disturbing" and replacing it with "questionable" for a more neutral POV. Thanks to 70.114. Holmwood 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Theres a big debate on the Boston College campus this month concerning Rice's invitation to speak at the class of 2006 commencement. It appears that theres a chance she might not speak at all because of all the cricitism. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/03/invitation_to_rice_debated_at_bc_honorary_degree_draws_objections/ -5/8/2006

This article is ridiculous. There isn't even a mention of her appalling performance in front of Congress dismissively describing one of the most important warnings any president has ever gotten as a "historical document." --Tysto 06:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Me thinks there is a concerted effort to frame this article from a very WPOV (White Point of View). I am African American, though I don't think most who have posted here are, and she is not only criticized but despised as a traitor within "Our" community. I have even tried to relate the "Black Culture" view within the article but the "White Washing" is swift here. I have told many of friend of mine, the moment that she speaks one ill word of the Republican party, she will set the speed record for how quickly the world views her as "That Nigger". Blacks can't vote in the US without manipulation by the Republican party. I saw their antics within a Black voting district first hand, so to suggest that she should not be criticized for not only belonging to that party, but pushing their agenda, is downright absurd. She is a Black women in the Confederate party. Tell me again, how many black Klansman are there?--216.55.190.25 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather odd view of history you have there. Lincoln was a Republican. He refused to accept the early peace urged by the Democrats so long as the south refused to compromise on the matter of slavery. I'm assuming you are familiar with American history, so I'm curious why the bias? You clearly seem to hate the Republicans, but why? Take New Orleans for example. It's been a solidly Democratic city for over 100 years. It was and is a pit of poverty and injustice for African Americans. I find it rather inexplicable that at some point its citizens haven't said "the heck with it, let's give some other party a chance." Have the Republicans somehow conspired to stay out of power there? At any rate, you're welcome to add the African American point of view to this article. Just use verifiable sources to support what you write. It won't be all that hard. I think it's important for the world to see how Democrats view African Americans in positions of power. Rklawton 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have tried several time to add African American views to this entry but it seems to magically "disappear" for no good reason. Every prominent Democrat from Hillary Clinton and her Husband have full Wiki sections dedicated to their foibles, yet this women who can't travel anywhere on the globe without a full on parade of protestors has not a mention of mis-step? You seem naively stymied by why one "Black Man" such as myself would speak against her. Are you 12 years old or so party loyal that it blinds even your heart?
Maybe you can enlighten me about the so called Democratic New Orleans you speak of, being ignored by the "Republican Federal Government" in a time of need. I don't care what the local politics are, the government has a responsibility to help even when the voters aren't in their camp, white, rich or whatever criteria the Bush folks use to decide such matters.
To my contributions, there are many more negative Condi articles and posts online, than positive ones, yet this site seems to have found the 20 people who just write "White", I mean, "Right", whoops, I mean, "Good" stuff about her because she does what a good girl does for her master and doesn't give any lip. What you don't see in America my friend is they American "Black's" see daily. You speak from the perspective of someone so out of touch with our culture that you would cite New Orleans as an example of how Republicans would have loved to help us if we just had given them the chance, yet when their day came, which then became weeks, and then later months, and they still did nothing, "their day" became a showcase of the extreme Republican apathy toward Blacks.
But the cake, is that you cite "Lincoln" as the model Republican! Are we living in 1867 or 2006? Ok, then by your revisionist view, all blacks are proud to belong to the Democratic "KKK party of yore. Are you claiming "Lincoln" for the Republican party of "Today"? That is laughable. Bush is the embodiment of all that blacks feared from slavery. A Christian, White, Southern, Male possessing a birth-right level expectancy to do what he wants to whomever he wants but telling us "He knows what's good for us and to trust him"! If you ever crack a history book about slave treatment in the US, (As told from Slave perspective not "Gone with the Wind", you will find that these 4 attributes made for the worst of all slave owners. Blacks have seen this time and again in the faces of White men with power. The fact that he picks a few good negroes to validate his policy means nothing. Especially if those he picks are so critically out of touch with the people they represent. She was seen buying $1000.00 Shoes in NYC during the Hurricane and when another customer called her on it, she had that person escorted from the store by her security detail. My boy, she doesn't stand a chance of getting into most private Golf Clubs in the US but don't tell her that. I mean, you and I know which specific clubs, and why she can't get a "Membership" but don't ruin her mind trip with your observations of how the world works.--216.55.190.25 04:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


"Silly Person on TV" ranting! That is how dismissive White people are. That man "Ranting" is a celebrity musician, with a following in the Millions. He has more support than does the subject of this article yet to you "Silly Person". This is why Black's hold so much anger toward Whites. You think your wholesale dismissal of a man is enough to clean her slate. I am in fact compiling a list of other articles but the heading does not contain the kilobyte space for all of it so I am adding them in the reference section. (by 216.55.190.25)
He's an entertainer. I can find another entertainer of the same race with a bigger fan base who says the folks your entertainer represents are fools. At some point we really need to get at actual data. That's all we're asking of you, and that's the one thing you don't seem to be able to do. As I said, I agree that a lot of folks feel the way you describe - find some good sources that quantify this and report on it - or do you just like to hear yourself type? Rklawton 04:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's a start. Between two commentaries, you managed to find ONE unsourced statistic stating only 2% of Blacks support Bush. The rest of the article simply related the opinions of two commentators. Common, you can do a lot better than that. Rklawton 04:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so now we know only 2% of Blacks support Bush and Bush received 11% of the Black vote in 2004. That is the sum total of facts presented in the various articles you've cited. Please note that this data does not support the claims you've made in your article edits. Other than those few pieces of information, the articles cited represent commentaries. Commentaries are a dime a dozen and can go either way[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47449]. Let's focus on the facts and whether or not they support the claims made. I suggest leaving your edits up for a day or so and see if you or others can gather more data about this. Surely there must be a public opinion poll regarding Rice's support from various communities. After all, some folks want her to run for President. What you have so far included in the article still fails miserably to support your assertions. Rklawton 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
2% out of 100% certainly supports "The Claim". Would "1%" or some fraction thereof do it for you! Who are you anyway? You want DNA samples?

Funny, I thought being African American and having direct involvement with my community made me a reference to how she is viewed. You seem to want to rely on what "Whites" rely on and that is tampered with polls and voter machines that "Blacks" know all to well the outcome of. Even playing your game which I don't have to, since where does it says, I need a specific "Poll" number (and who decides which poll is accredited), and if the 2% number which has been cited by "every" major organization is not enough for you than who the hell are you? Of, I forgot, you are white. You demand such things and by golly you shall have them. Unless you are in the black churches, reading black print publications, sitting in the barbershops, and learning institutions, you won't get the same information I get but gee, since you are only depending on white media to inform you about deeply black held opinions, I can't imagine why you aren't in accord with my observartions. But so be it. I will bring on the polls. Washington Post.--216.55.190.25 05:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

NFL Commissioner

I do not think Condolezza Rice was considered to be a serious contender for the post, as she has no experience whatsoever working with the NFL.

The above comment just seems to be a political stab at Condi. There is no discussion of how this would assist in the development of the Wikipedia article. Just the inaccurate opinion of nameless Wikipedia, who obviously does not like Secretary Rice.--72.177.223.95 17:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC) It seems like these people commenting on Condolezza rice know nothing about this woman, and are just speculating. For example, the statement of doubt about her speaking multiple languages. People who lack the facts tend to spit opinions as if they are factual information--they don't realize that all they are doing is spitting propaganda.

PhD

Does anyone know what subject her PhD was in? Triangle e 11:23, 1 April 2006

Political Science at the GSIS of the University of Denver, see www.du.edu/gsis/alumni/profiles/condoleeza.html --David Blandford 11:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Has Condoleezza ever been married or dated anyone?

Just curious ... looking at her biography I see no mention of a husband or family ... does anyone have any information regarding her sexual orientation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.78.58 (talk • contribs)

Funny that this topic keeps coming up from the approximate same IP address. This was posted earlier by

One thing I noticed that was omitted was social, does Dr. Rice have a social life? Inquiring minds do want to know.68.46.142.66 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

--70.114.205.215 16:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that it has no relevance to this article, I don't see why it would matter. But I do remember her dating an NFL player at one time. PennyGWoods 13:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, little or no relevance. But to back up PennyGWoods, the London Times in a 21 November 2004 said -- "“When I grow up I’m going to marry a professional football player!” she said to the mother of one of her schoolfriends. (She did later get engaged to one at university, but it did not last.)" ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1367314,00.html )Holmwood 23:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice in Pop Culture

This article lacks any information about the various parodys and mentions of Condi in Pop Culture, can someone look into this? The Fading Light 7:02, 17 April 2006

I remember Janet Jackson parodied her on Saturday Night Live, and there was a running gag in the comic strip "The Boondocks". Sope that gets us to a good start. PennyGWoods 17:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section?

What on earth? Why do we have a trivia section?!? All the information in that (except supporting, of all things, the Adelaide Crows AFL team! where's the source for this, btw?) should be shifted into the main body of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say because some of what's printed about her in even respectable papers is pretty trivial. The whole "Dr. Rice Enters the Matrix" line of Washington Style articles for example. A large number of people seem interested in fairly trivial details about her, in a way that they probably wouldn't be for an elderly male caucasian Secretary of State. Talking about her fashion sense, her like of football, to whom she become engaged... these do not seem to me to be anything other than Trivia. The Trivia section seems appropriate to me. One could delete it in its entirety, but significant numbers of people do find it interesting as witnessed by the fact that it keeps cropping up in the media. Holmwood 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Real trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Much of this article's "trivia" section is not trivia, though. I've trimmed it, and renamed it "Miscellaneous". Most, if not all, of it could (and should) be integrated into the main body. — Matt Crypto 00:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Trivia is standard on wikipedia. Klymen
Not so. An encyclopedia article is a summary of a topic, and we give space to facts on a topic based on how important those facts are. Trivia is, by definition, unimportant, so it gets no space. See Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia. — Matt Crypto 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Now I’m getting this from what you showed me, it says that information that is interesting without being important should be mentioned in a trivia section. In my opinion some information here are important and do not deserve to be in a trivia section however the importance of things like She is a former competitive figure skater or In November 2004, Dr. Rice had surgery to remove a benign uterine fibroid can be debated, but I’m sure many would find it interesting. I guess what I’m trying to say is that when it comes down to it, it depends on someone POV what information is important and what is only interesting. So if you think there are parts of the trivia/ miscellaneous section that are too important to be in the trivia section then implement it in the article, don’t rename the trivia section and name it something ambiguous. There are many articles on wikipedia that have trivia sections, over time they have become a common practice and in my opinion changing it on this article would be confusing for regular wikipedia readers. Klymen
You've misread the essay. It's certainly not saying that "information that is interesting without being important should be mentioned in a trivia section". What it actually says is "even if a topic would be interesting, if it has no importance whatsoever, it is not included in Wikipedia". Encyclopedias summarise topics, and give space to information according to its importance. We can't include every fact in an article; so what do we exclude? Well, the most trivial facts, for a start. However, it is sometimes the case that information in "Trivia" sections are non-trivial. Therefore, it's better to rename it "Miscellaneous" and remove any genuine trivia, as a first step, then attempt to integrate the information into the main article body as prose (rather than an indiscriminate collection of bullet points). The fact that other articles have "Trivia" sections does not make it a de facto standard in the same way that the fact we have spelling mistakes in some articles does not make bad spelling acceptable. — Matt Crypto 11:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright , It’s just that Trivia has become a naming convention. However I got nothing against miscellaneous. Klymen

Full Title

In keeping with the norms, I am changing the name in the first line (not the title) to "Hon. Dr. Condoleeza Rice," but I will hear any objections. Pelegius 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC) No, I am not. I have just read the policy on this and, although I confess myself bewildered by it, I shall follow it. The Hon. Dr. is still more correct. Pelegius 01:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Languages

The article says she speaks several foreign languages, including Russian. Are there any sources for this? I've never seen her speak in any foreign languages. Perhaps it would be best to clarify just how fluent she is in each of them?KiwiDave 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

--We have covered this ground before. She speaks four languages. Period. Since when did Wikipedians judge how well or not someone speaks a language. That would be inherently non-NPOV. -----70.114.205.215 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not passing judgement, it's just a request for sources. Why would a claim like this not require sources?KiwiDave 15:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is of some relevance in that the French minister of foreign affairs was said to be unable to take a call from her because no translators were available. If she could speak French fluently, why would that be an issue? (An answer might well be the conservatism of the US state department, or a lack of desire to expose the Secretary to problems given a slip in a second language.) [I speak multiple languages, but never conduct negotiations in anything other than English for that very reason]. I agree with 70.114... there's ample evidence she speaks these languages reasonably well, and to probe further is non-neutral POV. It *WOULD* be relevant to a dissertation on US diplomacy in foreign languages, however. Holmwood 17:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In this speech she details her Russian fluency: [2] Rklawton 16:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

State department comments on her lack of French fluency. [3] Rklawton 17:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good links, Rklawton. Someone has just removed French, German and Spanish without contributing to the discussion. I'm going to restore them, but reword it to note that these are with varying degrees of fluency. Holmwood 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. And nice work, too. Rklawton 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The July 1 2006 edition of The Daily Telegraph clearly states that Rice's Russian is "poor." See website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/01/wruss01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/01/ixnews.html

Also, Rklawton refers above to one of Rice's speeches. He claims that it details her fluency in Russian. She does not. She has never claimed to be fluent in Russian. In that particular speech she talks about studying it, writing it and speaking it: that's all. Juliet Bravo

JB has repeatedly removed the reference to Rice's Russian fluency - and has done so without sources. Now he's found a source that isn't about her fluency at all but about the U.S. Iraq policy. In this article, a reporter interprets Rice's Russian fluency as poor based on a fact that she conducted a particular lunch meeting with other English speakers present in English. He wants to use this has his entire justification for overlooking all other sources commenting on her fluency. It is my position that this one article does not justify removing reference to Rice's Russian fluency in the face of all the other sources commenting favorably upon it. Rklawton 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to renew the call for sources supporting Rice's fluency in non-English languages. I spent some time trying to find information about her supposed-fluency in Russian and had a surprisingly hard time finding any good sources whatsoever. I definitely didn't see anything in her official biographies about any foreign languages.

I don't think a request for sources supporting factual assertions is at unreasonable or combative. At this point, I'm genuinely curious as to why it has been so difficult to provide sources supporting these facts which so many seem to take for granted. --ElKevbo 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo. Verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. That's also why I've repeatedly removed JB's edits - they simply lacked facts. Now to the point of sources. What would make a good source? I doubt her college transcripts or foreign language proficiency tests are publicly available. As a result, we're pretty much stuck with secondary sources. Here are a few regarding her abilities in Russian. Rklawton 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Future Prospects

This may become more controversial as we near 2008 (and the Republican nominee, if not Dr. Rice, starts looking around for VP candidates. I've removed the reference to Newsmax from a list of polls. I did so for two reasons: 1. Newsmax is not a polling organization the way that Zogby and the others cited are. 2. An interent poll/survey is emphatically not equal in validity to a scientific poll.

If significant numbers feel the newsmax reference should be back in, then it should be cited separately from the polls and clearly characterized as an internet survey. I'd probably suggest putting it in Trivia.

I've also removed references to Rice as a "politician", replacing the most prominent with "political figure". While I agree she is a political figure, being unelected and not having run for everything places her in a subtly different category. This is especially striking when she's compared to the other 7 female candidates for president being touted by 8 for '08. All other seven have both run for office and been democratically elected by constituents. Rice seems more of a backroom figure at this time. An argument could be made that she is a politician, by virtue of having campaigned for Bush in '04, but to me it would be quite a weak one. Of course, should she toss her hat in the ring to run for Presidential nomination, I'd have no argument against "politician". Holmwood 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lesbianism: Vandalism?

This weasling para was added by ElitistNerd:

"Some of her former Stanford colleagues purportedly claim that she is a lesbian. [citation needed] This would put the Bush Administration at odds with its top cabinet secretary, as it is vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage and actions. (President Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment to forbid states from allowing same-sex marriage shortly after the Supreme Court overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law.)"

Some former colleagues purportedly claim? What? This is nonsensical, in my view.

If someone of standing makes a credible statement on this matter, it might well be relevant given how public a figure she is. I certainly wouldn't remove it.

As it is, this accusation has been up for nearly a day, and no one has provided a citation.

Let's turn it around. If someone tossed in a sentence "Some of Hillary Clinton's former Rose Law firm colleagues purportedly made accusations she is a lesbian", how long would that last? I'd say it should last only seconds.

If there is credible evidence (and I don't mean a random poster on KoS or a rant on Air America) and a legitimate citation for this, then by all means let's put it back in. Until then, I'm deleting it as vandalism. The fact that the original person to add it hasn't responded to a request for a citation is suggestive. Holmwood 14:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a well known fact in most Wash D.C. gossip circles that she is having an affair with a certain female journalist/anchor at PBS. UNSIGNED EDIT made by 199.17.123.118 on 21:32, 9 May 2006

My question would be how would a state university in Minnesota know what is being said in Wash D.C. gossip circles? (Yes, that is where your IP address originates from Dear 199.17.123.118. Then my next question would be why are we even discussing this topic? This is gossip, not fact, and it violates Wikipedia policy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability --70.114.205.215 16:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
We can't use unsourced gossip as the basis for articles. This might leave us open to accusations of libel, I'd imagine. john k 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Not even sourced gossip belongs, IMO. Ed Klein wrote a book and actually cited someone stating Hillary Clinton was a lesbian and others that Bill Clinton raped her. Liberal journalist, NY times best-selling author. That's a lot sounder than "Some Stanford professor..." and "It is a well known fact in most D.C. gossip circles". Even there I don't think Clinton merits being tagged a lesbian. That's at the very least sourced gossip. That said, I'm pretty tempted if the lesbian charge keeps popping up here to add the accusation to the Clinton article. Tempted, but I don't think I'll do it. Holmwood 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Rumour does NOT belong in an encylopedia entry. There is NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, evidence to support the comments about Condi's romance with a fictional Iranian character and/or her sexual orientation. Also, the fact that there is a rumour that Hillary Clinton is a big, bull dyck and it is NOT in her entry and the fact that 199.17.123.118 wants to put these rumours about Condi in this article speaks to the clear non-NPOV of the entries. -----70.114.205.215 15:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever screwed up the article about Condoleeza Rice should be banned!!!! Does anybody have some kind of a a backup of the article so it can be restored?

I managed to restore the article. Some jerk had altered the article by writing "i like to suck dick' and 'oh i forgot, i also like to kill innocent people and kids'. If possible, ban the IP of this person please.

Political Views

(originally "Political Veiwa" This is one of the more bizarre edits I've seen. I assume the writer is not very well acquainted with English. "Condoleezza Rice supports preemptive [sic] War [sic] and opposes troop withdraw [sic] from Iraq. Secretary Rice also is in faver [sic] of free trade. Rice opposes gun control. Dr. Rice sides with the Democratic Party on the issues of abortion and Immigration.her [sic] veiws [sic] on the environment, taxes, and gay marriage are unknown."

No, the fact that someone supports the war in Iraq does not equate to them supporting "preemptive War" in general, unless you can define that term much more precisely. Nor is it entirely clear to what degree Iraq can be classed as "preemptive war". War with Iran or Syria would certainly be preemptive; in a narrow legal sense, war with Iraq and North Korea would not necessarily be preemptive, given the lack of a peace treaty in both cases.

Free trade? Most Democrats say they are in favor of free trade as well. Most rational people are, though all have concerns over outsourcing. Who pushed NAFTA through in '93?

Rice opposes gun control? To what degree? She thinks howitzers should be unregulated? Or she simply supports the Constitution? She opposes background checks? Supports them? In any event, how is this relevant?

Rice sides with the Democratic Party on abortion? In what way? What is the Democratic position on this? Most Democrats, when speaking, seem to be against abortion, but for "choice", as long as choice is extremely narrowly defined and ultimately under governmental control.

Immigration: can anyone explain the Democratic (or Republican!) position on immigration, as parties? To say that Rice sides with the Democrats is utterly meaningless. That could mean anything from "let's build a big wall and support the President" to "let's abolish all immigration laws". The Republicans are just as bad.

I don't see any value in this section. I see it as being akin to describing Rice as a politician; she's not. The framing of this section is very partisan [NB- I don't mean, by "partisan", that it's hostile; I simply mean that it's couched in a very narrow R/D of 2006 partisan mindset], and ultimately irrelevant to the future (assuming Rice does not become a candidate) and most foreigners.

If she becomes a contender for any elected office in 2008 -- even dogcatcher, I'll happily concur with the merits of including her political views on divers irrelevant [to SecState] subjects.

If you want to put this section back in, it needs to be massively cleaned up, attributed, tightened, AND an argument here posted as to why its relevant. Pursuant to that, here's an article where she talks (briefly) about gay marriage and appears to straddle a position somewhere to Bush's left [12]

As it stands, I'm deleting it. Please post here if you disagree. Thanks. Holmwood 07:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

People

I've removed her from both the 'Pianist' and 'Worst actress nominee' categories. Both are trivial. In the first case, she isn't a professional, international concert standard pianist (if she is, add her back and provide a citation). She certainly plays the piano extremely well, but it's a hobby.

In the second case, she's not an actress. One man nominating her for his razzie list isn't really relevant. Yes, I saw the kind person who threatened an edit war over this "!-- NOTE: don't bother removing this category, I'll just readd it. Also read WP:NPOV if you have any issues with her being in this category. --". (Indeed, this comment is why I'm spending my time adding discussion on this seemingly trivial point).

It's not about NPOV, it's about trivia and relevance. It's akin to Hilary Clinton's making the "Worst Dressed" women in People Magazine in 2002. Not really relevant to her profession and career. Rice isn't an actress; she isn't a pianist. Holmwood 07:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Uncle Tom's Cabin"

Please do not add "information" regarding Uncle Tom's Cabin without a reference that supports such assertions. Isopropyl 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that Rice is anti-black is POV and supported solely by a single article in a Zimbabwean newspaper. Please do not cite the list of black conservatives as evidence of Rice being an "Aunt Jemima" as it has nothing to do with the claim. Isopropyl 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
In American Culture this is a pervasive view. It is not represented solely by two articles, but those articles represent the discussion being had at a global level. If you are not African American or otherwise African descended, you more than likely will not be aware of the conversations and writings in publications, and media that represents the African cultures. If you do not like what is being written offer some counter to it, but to deny it wholesale on a weak argument of "I don't think you can support it" is silly. Talk to some Blacks to verify this. If you have not spoken to at least 2 blacks in the US, or read at least 2 black published articles on the topic of Condi, than you should remain quiet on this issue.--216.55.190.25 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stop re-adding this information unless you have verifiable citations on the matter. Also, please stop citing sources which do not pertain to the subject, such as bizarrely using Kanye West as a reference. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Isopropyl 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently user 216.55.190.25 is unaware of the writings in publications also, since he/she is (still) utterly unable to reproduce them here - and that, by the way, is all we are asking. The funny thing is, I believe user 216.55.190.25 is generally correct about the beliefs of a significant number of African Americans, and I'm quite disappointed by his/her inability to support these views with meaningful and verifiable sources. Rklawton 03:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversies section

I removed the following section:

  • Condeleeza Rice has been the subject of much controversy both in the US and abroad. Many protestors have sought to exclude her from appearing at Universities such as Princeton, and Boston College, which prompted the schools President to resign. There has also been tremendous international effort to prevent her from public speaking engagements abroad.

from the article because the opposition described in the sources has more to due to the administration she is representing, not to her personally. I also toned down the wording regarding the African American communities opposition to her; I don't think there's evidence that such opposition is extreme or representating the vast majority of that community. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the dumbest thing you can do. The article is 95% her involvement in the Bush Adminstration and government policy. This is not a bio of her personal life as such her issues are fair game. She is a political figure not a spokesman. Are you being willfully ignorant to her role? If you remove this on those grounds, then I will go through and remove all reference to her as a political figure and her connections to Bush.--216Cali 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's pretty clear the beef is not with the ideas (that are probably correct) but with the remarkably poor research. The articles cited are commentaries and as such are devoid of cited studies. These articles do list a couple of uncited statistics, but even those don't actually support the text in this section. It's not the text that's the problem. It's the research. Find the numbers that support these assertions, and you won't have any problems here. For example, it just isn't reasonable to say that 2% of Blacks support Bush - therefore Rice is anti-civil rights. Rklawton 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Where do I state that? You are making up arguments. I am posting information and links to overall stories that substantiate the sentiment. You are a statician I presume but that is your quirk and not a requirment for wikipedia submission. Where are the "Stats" to back up the remainder of the bio? How many references does she need to have here "Piano" capability posted. One, Two, or 200?--216Cali 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
My bad - I was addressing a problem at the top of the article. Rklawton 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, is this a "Condi" groupy website or a factual article? I don't agree with every point being made against Condi, but there is validity to it. She is not liked by her people and a general web search shows that. Problem is that the articles that are written about this topic are typically in blog form, or opinon sites, but to be fair, most prominent publications are run and written by whites so if you are looking for just articles written by The New Republic as a verfiable source that is pretty stringent. I personally don't know any black person that likes her either but if the standard for proving that she is hated by blacks is that "At least one Republican agrees with that statement" then this site will stay pretty sanitized. What is everyone so angry about anyway, I went over to the Hillary Clinton site and she has a lot of crap about her on there.--24.215.230.63 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your points and concerns. However, I think we need to move past the blogs, commentators, and editorials and actually look at the poll data. Such data would serve as the foundation that puts the more colorful commentaries in context. Without it, the conversation rapidly devolves. Rklawton 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
As an academic and a researcher, I understand your point and I agree with it. However, it must be noted that it is extremely easy to unintentionally use such data and create original research, an obvious no-no in Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that there are some in the African American community who are critical of her, mostly because of her involvement with the Bush administration. However, many of the sources cited (especially in regards to protests abroad) are about the Bush administration, not her in particular. I certainly never suggested that the community "loves her," as you suggested in an edit summary. I just don't think it's fair to say things like "extreme opposition" and make blanket statements about the African-American community's opinion of her without citing poll data.
It's not constructive to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a "Condi groupy." I'm only interested in keeping the article balanced and properly sourced, and trying to avoid undue weight issues. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Balanced? I agree with "Cali" that she is despised by blacks but there is no mention of that. How is that balanced? You are doing pure censorship because you don't like what is being written. I followed the links and they work.
Poll data is not being used exclusively to sustantiate most of what is asserted on this entire site. Mostly, I see citation of published articles, books, websites, technical guides but no one is just citing "polls" for each and every posting. If I look objectively at this, the data being added is not flattering so there has been some attempt to squelch it. I don't think anyone is untouchable especially if you cannot travel abroad without inciting a riot. How do you "Poll" for a persons "Riot-Quotient"? The facts are widely published that she can't travel abroad without protest, there are links to support that and it should be settled because I also saw and read about the protests. If someone said Ronald Reagan's enjoyment of jelly beans was criticized for the message he sent to children about eating sweets, would you need more than a few written articles on that topic to accept it, or would you require a poll of school children?--24.215.230.63 19:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with your methods or your interactions with other Wikipedia editors but I do agree with your central point regarding the lack of African American criticism of Rice. I look forward to you continuing to find reputable, verfiable sources to help us document this aspect of Rice's life and public perception of her. --ElKevbo 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into an edit war about this, so I've POV-tagged it until we can get some more consensus regarding the recent additions. I don't think it's fair to accuse me of censorship; I suggested moving one paragraph from the intro to the "controversies" section, I questioned some of the sources (as either being blogs/commentaries or not being focused on Rice) and removed words like "extreme" for lack of evidence. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Dude, this is a soft form of censorship. I know enough to call it what it is. If that was not your intent sorry, but that is the net outcome as I see it.--24.215.230.63 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You can call it whatever you like, but I call it neutral point of view. Once again, I'm not disputing that there are many (inside and outside of the African American community) who are critical of Rice. However, I question whether putting it in the intro paragraph gives it too much weight in the article as a whole. Words like "tremendously" and "extreme" also add a slight POV tone to the content. I'd also much rather see a statement like "the African American community thinks so-and-so" changed to "polls in 2006 indicated that a majority of the African American community feltl so-and-so." Blanket statements like that should either be sourced properly or toned down. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've taken the time to really examine the removed section and the links it contains, I must raise objections to the removal of the entire paragraph. In particular, I think the reason given ("the opposition described in the sources has more to due to the administration she is representing, not to her personally") is simply not true in half of the cited sources. The first cited source, The Daily Princetonian, quotes the leader of the group that organized the Princeton protests as saying, "She is not worthy of the position she represents — a notable and honorable position. She has told untruths and been rewarded for it." The second cited source, a letter of resignation reprinted in The Boston Globe written by a former adjunct professor at Boston College, quotes the author as writing, "Rice is a liar. She has lied to the American people knowingly, repeatedly, often extravagantly over the past five years, in an effort to justify a pathologically misguided foreign policy." Those are specific comments aimed at the person and not the position she holds.
I do agree that the international protests appear to be aimed more at American foreign policy than at Rice specifically. I also agree with the removal of the portion of the paragraph about the resignation of the president of BC as none of the cited sources support that claim (the person who resigned, according to the cited source, was an adjunct professor). --ElKevbo 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you remove "Condi" from her role in government when she travels abroad? The European attack on American Policy is as much an attack on its practioners. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice, are all part of the regime against which they are protesting. But she "Actively Votes, Supports, and Carries Out" the work of the party. She makes policy and decisions that affect the globe. They are protesting "Her", "Bush", the "US", and the "Administration". But when "She" travels, the protest signs have "Her name written out and spelled correctly on them with photos included. You are not one of those guys who buys that "they hate us for our freedoms" line are you?--24.215.230.63 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to engage in ad hominem arguments. My main concern is that the praise/criticism sections be balanced (especially in the intro paragraph) and that the article maintains the tone of an encyclopedia, not an editorial. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

An example

She is not well regarded in the African America community due to her support of a president who himself maintains a 2% approval rating with blacks as well as her silence on many social issues that affect minorities.

The link user to support this statement is an op-ed piece by a writer who's main point is that Rice perceived lack of connection with issues facing the African American community may have to do with her sheltered upbringing. The piece does not support the blanket statement that "she is not well-regarded in the African American community."

Or this one:

as well as a great deal of frustration from the gay and lesbian community

The "frustration" quote from the New York Post article has little (if anything) to do with the the content of the paragraph; the piece describes her internal reform efforts for the State Department, and how such reforms may be "frustrating" to diplomats employed in that department. The article concludes with the statement, The careerists at Foggy Bottom will erect bureaucratic barricades and try to wait the secretary out. They may succeed. But every American ought to hope that Condi Rice succeeds in breaking their rice bowls. That's hardly critical.

In other words, while the passages appear to be heavily sourced, a few of the sources do little to properly verify the statements made.

I will say that User:ElKevbo's recent edits have helped to tone down that language a bit. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think those are both excellent points and I have boldly removed those statements. I was editing with a pure focus on grammar and readability and not for veracity. Please let us know if there are any more such distortions or poorly sourced assertions so we can address them.
On a side note, I hope to make the time in the very near future to begin cleaning up all of the references in this article. They're a real mess. --ElKevbo 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have been reading the recent comments. It is clear that this is question about how the content is experessed in the article and not the content itself. I don't see a "censorship" issue at all. First of all, censorship usually involves the government banning a certain content. Obviously that is not the case here. If there is documented facts that support the OPINION in the removed sentences then it should stay, but I don't see that. I see the opinion of a few non-notable people. --- --BballJones 01:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
We're getting closer. I appreciate ElKevbo's good faith efforts in keeping critical material (which is absolutely legitimate for this subject) while working toward a properly sourced version of that material. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Does the remark "We are getting closer" mean that it is less offensive to your party? There is clearly a censorship issue going on here and to continue to both disregard and summarily dismiss the authors of the articles cited because they are not of "Note" to you is absurd. "Note" is relative, so unless you have some "counter" article or poll, then you have to leave the article alone. You controversies are well documented and represent millions of web site postings. If you wish to find a more White source for your comfort then look for one. The authors cited are of note within the African American community as well as the Democratic party. If "You" don't know of them, then it is your job to research their contributions but to not make a general assumption about them. I have cited a reason she is not liked and linked to an article supporting that specific reason. If you don't like the author because he is black, or offering an opinion which represents "The African American Community" well tough, he is writing for an esteemed publication (Washing Post) and he represents both the community I am referring too, the issue I am citing, and giving a beloved "Rklawton" poll.
Further, you edited out the Gay "frustration" remark because you thought it contained some vague discrepancy. Once again, you don't address the sentiment of the article, the strength of the source or the literal message being communicated instead focusing on some semantical minutia. Fine, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Condi is "Hated" by every Non-White or Rich group in the world so I will source any statement with more links. Instead of "Deleting" a link on the basis of something vague, let me know what is missing and I will update the source.--216Cali 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Please read about citing, about how to use citations in an article, and reliable sources, about what sources are considered reliable, rather than attacking other editors and making wild claims about censorship. Isopropyl 07:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, since the only edits by 216Cali (talk · contribs) are regarding this page, please review what Wikipedia is not. Properly cited information is welcome provided that it is backed by a reputable source. Isopropyl 07:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I am very tired of the deleting of my contribution based on the very racist dismissal of "Black Community" discussion, feedback, and commentary. I am contributing information based on the sentiment within the "African American" community. As there are few "White Noteworthy" sources that you find comfort with you will have to accept the "voice" of "The People" even if you don't routinely read these publications or if they fall outside of the traditionally White outlets. This is the most racist angle anyone can pursue. You are trying to discount entire black community contributions because the author's dad did not own the local paper and they decided like many young Americans, to write and publish their articles independently.
What I am including her is a direct and related series of posts, comments, and stories related to the general sentiment of the "African American" community and once again, you are ignorantly suggesting that I cannot cite "Black" publications or sources because you don't know of them or deem them poor fools with pens. Screw that. I have stated, the "Black Community" "VIEWS" Condi in this way, and have documented that sentiment with widely published and generally accepted "Black Views", providing links to cite my efforts, and you are saying, no, no, we need "publicized white views" that support the "Black" perspective. Screw that, I am looking for "Truth" not watered down "Gone with the Wind" interpretations of how blacks think as told by Margaret Mitchell. I am black, and in touch with my community. What about you? What involvement do you have in the black community? Do you read or contribute to Black Enterprise, Ebony, Jet, Black Commentary, or any other rag or TV outlet? I did not think so, but yet you know more than my cited sources. I am citing "Black Views" not Scientific Journal references. --216Cali 08:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Your continual ridiculous allegations of racism and censorship are wearing thin. Please cease.
  2. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
  3. I'm not sure why all of your additions were removed but I've readded some of them. I've made some edits, including:
  1. Removing the News24 reference as it does not reflect the views of African Americans but consists almost entirely of quotes from newspaper in Zimbabwe.
  2. Removing the duplicate entry of the Alternet reference.
  3. Removing the Counterpunch reference as a duplicate of another reference.
  4. Removing the CultureKitchen reference as utterly ridiculous and completing failing any tests of verfiability. Whereas the other references are commenting on events most agree are factual and lay out the opinions of the authors abotu Rice, this reference made unsupported allegations such as that Rice and Bush are sleeping together with absolutely no verifiable support for that claim.
  5. Removing the 365Gay reference as the criticism is not aimed at Rice but US policy.
--ElKevbo 18:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
re: :"the criticism is not aimed at Rice"
The article on the gay community is itself entitled "Frank Blasts Condi's UN Gay Position". How do you then reassign the focus to policy? From the articles opening remarks: "Congressman Barney Frank criticized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her role in the rejection of two international LGBT civil rights groups by a United Nations body." That is clearly focused on the person and her actions.
If you don't know, Barney Frank is an open homosexual and these are his remarks. If a congressman's words don't count here as verifiable, and if his direct use of language which includes the name "Condi" and phrase "anti-human rights" is unacceptable, then yes, this is censorship because that is plain verifiable and visible proof. He represents the gay community as a leader, he marches in gay parades around the country and votes accordingly. Clearly, this link and remark go back into the "Bad Condi" pile.--216Cali 19:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The article states:
"'I was deeply troubled to learn that the U.S. Government, presumably at your direction, sided with some of the most undemocratic, anti-human rights regimes in the world in voting against consultative status for two international organizations, solely on the grounds that they represent gay and lesbian people,' Frank said in a letter to Rice.
Clearly Frank is not only aiming his criticism at the US policy but he's not even clear that the policy is Rice's.
I've reverted your edits. You need to learn how to play well with others as we have been very patient with you and your suggested edits but continual accusations of censorship are winning you no friends and indicate that your edits may be in bad faith. --ElKevbo 19:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The article represents "Just One" of thousands of articles I have found on the issue. This one is describing a "letter written to Condi" about how he as a Gay Leader views her actions. You are trying to undermine his sentiment by distorting his conversation. Even if we agree he hates the policy, he is critical of Condi for promoting the policy. That is his view of her role in the action, plus the action, plus the outcome of the action, plus the everything tied to that action. You continue to try and seggregate her from her actions when it does not look good. Why not seperate her from her role in the Iraq war? She did not start the war, nor did she fire a gun, therefore, she has no direct part in it right?--216Cali 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Great! Then how about sharing some more of those "thousands of articles?" --ElKevbo 19:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I had added quite a few go back through my history, but they were deleted for "not verifiable enough". That is why I went with the congressman.--216Cali 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading through all of the posts, deletions and contributions here, I think there is some serious cleansing going on here. Cali, something fishy is afoot. I first thought you were being a little reactionary and quick to call out the race card, but after going through all the postings I have come to the conclusion that either "ElKevbo" & "BballJones" work for the Bush administration and are editing the information to maintain the "party" image, or Condi herself is taking a lot of time out to maintain the site. In either case, it is against the Wiki rules. "Bball", your bio suggests you are Basketball freak yet I see only posting for Condi. Does she got game I don't know about? The NPOV rules clearly state that ideas, opinions and fact can all be included dependant on the manner in which they are included. Since some of what is being written is unpopular, there is a rather impetuous tendency to just delete, revert or dismiss rather than "fix".
I would say that instead of removing or replacing a remark like "...her silence on many social issues that affect minorities have led some to brand her a race traitor" could be updated to quote a specific person like Harry Belafonte who has repeatedly disparaged the Bush administration as well as calling both Condi and Colin Powell, "Black Tyrants" and referring to Condi as "Aunt Jemima Rice", and Colin Powell ass Uncle Tom Powell.
Hillary Clinton is going to Fundraise with Harry Belafonte has because of his prominence in the black community and his recent attention as an outspoken liberal African American. Not only is he representative of blacks in the US but he is being called on continue his work with some of the highest political officials. To position an author's opinion so highly above these accessible facts falls into a new category of Biased POV.--24.215.230.63 05:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I'm not just a member of a cabal but a member of the Executive branch of the US government. Hell, I might be Rice herself!
Get real. Your accusations, while slightly humorous, are more offensive and indicative of serious paranoia. There is nothing I can do address your ridiculous assertions so let's see if we can address what legitimate assertions and questions you have raised:
  1. In general, material *I* have deleted or edited is because it is either unencylopediac (I recall removing several weasel words this morning) or mischaracterizations of the cited references.
  2. I agree that the line regarding Rice as a "race traitor" could be included if a source were cited with that quote. The previously cited source did not and using the previously cited source to support that was, as already noted, a distortion of the source. If you have a different or better source, please supply it.
  3. I don't know anything about Belafonte or his quotes so I can't offer any comment on that topic.
  4. The only comment of substance was an edit summary regarding the removal of Rice's "shoe shopping." The cited source, itself essentially a gossip column, cites a blog as the source for that particular incident. That doesn't meet the Wikipedia guideline for verifiability, IMHO.
--ElKevbo 06:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and found the Cybercast News Service article detailing Belafonte's "black tyrant" statement and added it in there. It was noteable and definitely belongs in this article and section.
I have also reverted back to the edits several of us worked on earlier with the sources properly cited, the redundant ones removed, and the sources properly discussed and not twisted or distorted. The sources listed in the previous edits are so bad, with several blatantly redundant and several twisted completly out of context or simply misquoted, that I honestly consider it vandalism to knowingly revert back to them. We can have civil, productive discussion about the content in the article and this specific section but there are obvious blatant flaws in the previous edits which have no place in this article or anywhere else. --ElKevbo 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I have found new sources for the submissions yet you can't delete them fast enough to read them. If you have a problem, discuss them here first and if verification cannot be found in a timely fashion then so be it, the remark can stay off but to remove random sections and then make contributors go through and figure out which you find offensive is absurd and vandalism in it's purest form. Finding support or verification for each section is exceedingly easy, it's the "guessing" which part "YOU" can accept that is absurd, silly and against the wiki rules.--24.215.230.63 07:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome to add to the article or make legitimate deletions. But that's not what you've been doing. You've been reverting to an older version with significant, known problems. You know about those problems and continue to revert to the same version and THAT is what I consider as vandalism.
And, yes, I saw your addition of the Belafonte video. It's a good source but it was added in a section of the article where it had little relevance. I prefer the text article as it's simply easier for readers to verify the information using the text than viewing a video (text has inherent usability and accessibility advantages over video).
So, once again, please consider adding properly sourced material to help improve this article instead of readding material which we know to be extraordinarily poor. --ElKevbo 07:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


I have added sourced material here in response to your aggressive deletions. I have posted counteless text articles, Video, Audio, and there are posted Photos too, I suppose we can add DNA samples to essentially demonstrate this point but you are not doing anything but deleting full comments without discussion or specific information as to why.

So far, the only standard seems to be, "What you agree with" and "Is it flattering" but nothing substantive. You are not editing any previous posting, you are deleting entire postings indescriminately.--24.215.230.63 07:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also incorporated the Spike Lee information and the Liverpool protest information (some of that may have been there originally and I think I may have missed it - not sure; if so, it was my fault for leaving it out!). Your additions are welcome but it's extremely hard to know what you've added when you continue to first revert to an old edit with considerable flaws and THEN add new sources. It's very difficult to separate out what you have added (which has been very good!) from the the "bad stuff" in the old edit.
Seriously, we do want to incorporate noteable, verifiable information regarding criticism of Rice into this article. You're adding some very good stuff but it's all mixed up with the known bad information since you keep reverting. --ElKevbo 07:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Earl Ofari Hutchinson remarks since they were suggested to be a response to Harry Belafonte's statements. The date he wrote his article was November 23, 2004 while the Belafonte march was August 08, 2005 so there is no way he is responding to "The Cited" remarks. He is in fact responding to Belafontes's previous "House Slave" remark from Belafonte which he notes in the article.
I also re-added the Dick Gregory remarks as they are within the context of a march both he and Belafonte participated in and were asked similar questions about regarding the African Americans in the Bush Admin. This speaks to the "general Black Community viewpoint" and since there are but two Blacks in his high office at the time, and just one now, there is no question as to whom he is referring.--24.215.230.63 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Good catch on the Hutchinson remark! I didn't think to compare the dates of the references (which is pretty terrible since I looked all of them up when cleaning up the references!).
When I get a few minutes, I'm probably going to edit out/down some of the quotes from this march. I think we can get the point across more concisely. This is a pretty long article and we need to practice care in adding or exapnding sections. --ElKevbo 03:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so much activity from the weekend makes me said I went away. Got some reading to do.--216Cali 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Tom discussion from Tavis Smiley's NPR show

I remove the citation to the news report by Allison Keyes on the NPR radio show by Tavis Smiley. The article was dominated by a very interesting discussion of the pejorative term Uncle Tom. It was so good an article that I added to the Wikipedia discussion of the term Uncle Tom, but it is not appropriate for the article on Dr. Rice. The article is 7 minutes and 33 seconds long and it only mentions Dr. Rice's name one time. The whole article is focused on the history of the term Uncle Tom and how many black historians believe that term Uncle Tom should be a complement and NOT an insult because the character of Uncle Tom in Stowe's novel gives up his life at the end of the novel to save other black women from sexual exploitation and abuse. Good article, but not relevant to the Dr. Rice article. --BballJones 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good deal. I left the reference in as I had not listened to it myself and was assuming good faith until such time as I could listen to it myself (it took long enough to read all of those references this morning; I wanted to take a break!). I have now listened to it and I agree with your reasoning. --ElKevbo 21:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I listened to the NPR thing and have read through the posts. You guys are ganging up on Cali pretty hard. I agree with him that you guys are relying on arbitrary "counts" to justify inclusion of a submission. You argue that the NPR story only uses "Condi's" name "Once" therefore should be pulled but you offer no "usage count minimum" needed to gain approval. I would argue that the NPR article is fair precisely because it uses her name in the context of a larger general discussion being held within the Black community as evidence that they do in fact regard her as such. It sounds as if you are saying she needs to be regarded as such by all media outlets (who would never use the term anyway) in order to be considered an Uncle Tom. Yet, if you ask any "Black" group to name recent politicians or public figures who fall into the category of "Uncle Tom" (or the alt "Aunt Jemima" which is just gender specific), they will list Condi Rice "ONCE" because she is just "One" of many. Why would you expect her name to come up 40 times? If the NPR story were a simple top ten list, then you could pull the submission under the same "One Use" standard. The fact that she is mentioned on a prominent "National" show which was having a "General" conversation about the topic is in itself evident of the view held within the community.
I listened to the whole 7:33 minutes and it was a historical discussion of the term Uncle Tom. It was NOT about Condi Rice. That is a fact. --BballJones 11:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you are intentionally censoring his contributions but you are litigating based on some very unusual and unclear standards. You even go so far as to extract a quote from the Earl Ofari Hutchinson story about who he regards as a "civil rights icon Harry Belafonte" (who African American's adore) and share only his poor opinion of "Belafonte", but you omitted that Hutchinson also said "Rice can be justly criticized for being too hawkish, too fawning toward Bush, too lacking in social and diplomatic graces, and too inexperienced to broker an Israeli-Palestinian settlement and resolve the crisis over Iran and North Korea's nuke threat". Now, in terms of standing and authority in the "Black Community" Belafonte has much more significance and I would go so far as to say since the section is regarding or "Criticisms" within the community, they should stay. They don't have to be right, fair, or even accurate to her, they just have to be truthful and accurate to the sentiment of those in the "African American" community which feels she is a "race traitor". It does seem that the NPR story supports the idea that this is a recognized view among blacks so even if it is not popular to any other group, this is all that would matter to support keeping it.
No. The NPR story does NOT support the idea that this is a recognized view among blacks. Once again, the NPR story is about the historical development of the term Uncle Tom. Also, it is simply not true that anyone shared Hutchinson's poor opinion of Belafonte. That is simply not true and the edit histories back that up. --BballJones 11:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the POV issue surrounding this overall article. It should be way more balanced and this thing reads like a resume up until the "Controversies" section. Why not get all the truth out there? This is a record of who she is, what she has done, and how the world responds to it. Is the world a better place because she is in it? I am sure she thinks so but there are millions of protestors in the US and abroad saying the opposite. They could be dead wrong, but it is fair to report here that they did and continue to speak out as well as which issues caused the most controversy is it not? Gays, other Blacks & Africans, and many Americans of other races & religions do not like her. How, the US, & International community react when she travels should all be noted honestly. I think you guys could do a bit more to sanitize her site by listing her "Good Deeds" than by just removing and debating the degrees of her bad and or questionable ones.--24.215.230.63 04:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia about a LIVING person. We are NOT obligated to put in heresay, propaganda and insults to create some false sense of balance, material that borders on libelous. Also, you do NOT speak for ALL black people. Not all black people "do not like her." Based upon opinion polls she is quite popular throughout the population. You have NOT cited one article that back up your OPINION that Dr. Rice has a low public opinion in the black population or any segment of the population. You may dislike her, but you opinion is NOT relevant. Also, just because Spike Lee or Harry Belafonte do not like Dr. Rice does NOT mean that everyone from the black community does not like Dr. Rice. Like it or not it is a FACT that the Bush Administration did receive over 2 million votes from African Americans in the 2004 Presidential Election. That is a FACT for which I can provide a citation. I have not seen a citation for your constant claim that "Blacks. . .do not like her." I have seen is your constant repetition your opinion. --BballJones 11:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this the 2 Million votes you are referring to? I did not know we counted black votes in that election so thanks for the information. You say I don't speak for "ALL" black people but you represent the contrary by removing each post and citation that asserts her place in the community. I live in the community, you are reading about this view exclusively from my citation but why not go out and verify this yourself firsthand? Conduct an informal survey, or have a conversation with that "one black guy" you work with but never hang out with after work. I am a member of a community and am representing the discussions and thoughts of the community and citing published information about this. You do not live in the community nor have you gone in for an investigation, instead suggesting that unless Fox News reports some statistic on it, it aint so. I have seen first hand black voters getting stopped from voting in the 2000 and 2004 elections and have family members who were affected by Republican tactics. What "Poll" do you need to see before you will accept that it happened? You think as long as nobody does the research or reports on it in a big paper that such things don't exist. You can't provide any "FACT" about voting in the US because no "Truth" exists regarding the vote. Votes were not counted, and an entire series of issues surrounding the election from redestricting, to full-on voter fraud, ("Ann Coulture" had two voter registrations from distinct districts and voted in both districts, but blacks could not vote in the one.) yet you would pull out a vote from a post "World at War" environment. Blacks can easily be mis-led trust me I know. You know it too which is why you try to cite the 2mm votes as some show of proof. It only shows your ignorance.
First of all, don't insult other editors by calling them ignorant, and that includes me. You may not agree with my opinion, but that does not give you the permission to insult other editors. Second, you assume a lot of information about me, that is not appropriate or relevant. You do NOT know me. You have just seen a small, small piece of work that I did on a Wikipedia article about Dr. Rice--that's all. That is NOT enough information to jump to conclusions and judgements about me. Also, your false and irrelevant judgements and conclusions about me are way off the point of an intelligent discussion of editing the Dr. Rice article. You keep attacking me (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks) personally and where I might or might not live and your assumption about what my race is. These attacks are unwelcome and unproductive. I would suggest that you stop them immediately and let's have an intelligent discussion about what is appropriate and acceptable information to be placed in the Dr. Rice article.
Further, I never said "ALL" blacks hate Condi, as it is a fallacy of argument to use such absolutes. I did say, a majority, and that simply means more than 51% which by just disdain for Bush and her association with him is enough to meet that requirement. Even the 2Million votes, out of 40Million blacks in the US is proof positive of disdain. If you say only half of the 40 MM is old enough to vote, you are at 10% support, which means 90% of African American's, or the "Wide Majority", Preponderance, Vast Quantity, do not agree with or support "Condi's Politics". How many people in the Republican party "Love" Hillary Clinton? They hate her because of her association with, and role in pursuing a liberal government and the same goes counter for Condi. Why is that hard to understand? What report do you need to read before you are convinced that the "Vast" majority of republican's hate Hillary Clinton? Do you need a poll, or are you comfortable with that assesment from your direct experience? --24.215.230.63 18:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with your premise in any way at all. I just do not believe that a "vast" majority of Republicans hate Hillary Clinton. Yes, a majority of them do NOT agree with her policies, but I do not believe and you haven't provided a citation to back up the notion that they "hate" HRC. Once again, you need provide solid sources for the information placed in the article. Your personal opinion does not back up anything. -- --BballJones 19:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Needs Repair in Citation Section

After the edit war of last night, the citation section at the end of the article is completely haywire. I have not been able to fix it. I ask for assistance. --BballJones 11:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that I got it fixed. --BballJones 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tag revisited

Here's a dif between the version I POV-tagged and the current version. As far as the criticism section goes, there is a much better balance of opinions. However, I think the paragraph in the intro still needs work; first of all, I'm not convinced that there is an "extreme opposition" and that the fact that there is salient enough to warrant inclusion in the intro. If a chorus of prominent African American commentators or activists were calling for her censure or resignation, that would be a different story. I see no evidence of anything like that going on right now. Furthermore, I think it's excessive to use seven(!) references to support one sentence. Here's my take on those references in this version:

4 Robinson's op-ed piece Relevant; focuses on Rice being "out-of-touch," speculating that it has to do with her upbringing;
5 Bush Approval rating drops about public support for Bush adminstration dropping; does not mention Rice
6 Commentary piece in WorldNetDaily about Bush approval A rehashing of 5 in commentary form; does not mention Rice
7 Mandela slams Bush administration' used to source in the black community view as oppressive; Mandela is the sole voice of the "black community?" Rice is not mentioned.
8 Condoleezza Rice Gets the Cold Shoulder in Britain used to source globally out of touch; I think the article is more about opposition to the administration's policies (of which she is a participant; architect). It's relevant to Rice (and the admin she represents) but I don't think it supports the phrase "out-of-touch"
9 Condoleezza Rice: The Devil's Handmaiden editorial in The Black Commentator used to source anti-black; mostly deals with Rice's role in the administration's affirmative action stance, and argues that her interests are more in line with Bush's interest than majority of African American's; the phrase "anti-black" is not mentioned in the piece. I don't think it's fair to equate "anti-affirmative action" with "anti-black." The commentary would be appropriate as a citation representing the opinion that Rice's views are not in line with the majority of African's American's.
10 Condi Rice's Disdain for the Civil Rights Movement opinion piece in Counterpunch that discusses Eugene Robinsons op-ed piece in the Washington Post (see #4 above).

My suggestion would be to change the intro statement above to something more like While some hail Rice's appointment as the first African-American Secretary of State, some voices in the African American community have accused her being out-of-touch with civil-rights issues and mainstream African American political beliefs, using #4 and #9 (maybe #10, though it's really an echo of #4). OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You suggest having a hard time finding evidence of an "extreme opposition" for Condi from the black community however even in one of the articles cited by the "Home Team" staff, the author "Earl Ofari Hutchinson" regards the great sin of both Condi and Colin to not be that they slavishly defend Bush's much maligned foreign and domestic policies," says Hutchinson, "But that they honestly believe that they can make a difference in an administration that many blacks loathe."

If conservative blacks recognize this as a general view of blacks toward the Bush regime yet you still can't "find" along with the ramaining citations as an indication of the original assertion, I don't think you can be helped by anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.230.63 (talk • contribs)

You have not addressed the main point raised in this section; that all but three of the "references" above do not directly support the statements that they followed. I attempted to revert to an early version in which someone else had removed the irrelevant references and formatted them according to Wikipedia reference standards, but someone keeps reverting it and claiming that there was no discussion about the removal of some of those references. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

POVish

Just noticed that this seemed a little POVish to me Rice is unmarried, but was temporarily engaged to Denver Broncos receiver Rick Upchurch, who, in 2000, was named one of the 300 best NFL players of all time.[49]

Rice currently resides at the famous Watergate Apartments in Washington, DC, where many famous leaders live and have lived, including Supreme Court Justices, Cabinet members, and Senators.''

Why is it important to state that Upchurch was named of of the best NFL players of all time? Is it really relevant to state that many famous leaders live and have lived in watergate apts? Myrockstar 12:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the information about Upchurch as I think it's sufficient to state that he's a pro football player; anyone who wants to know more can read his article.
I don't really care one or the other about the Watergate information. I think it's vaguely interesting but I won't complain if someone removes it. --ElKevbo 02:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reponse to criticism

Please discuss removing the properly cited rebuttal to criticism here. Isopropyl 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would we remove it? It seems pretty unbalanced to allow inclusion of criticism without also including Rice's responses. --ElKevbo 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly. Isopropyl 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Francespeabody's repeated removals and editing of the Criticism section is clearly being done with ulterior biased motive. The response Rice has made to criticisms over her "race loyalty" and the voiced support of major African-American Democrats for Rice are very relevant to the section and to this article as a whole. It's good to have a balance of opinions, and Francespeabody's editing to remove the quotes that are positive toward Rice and advance a clearly biased agenda by changing the wording of sentences to sound pejorative are not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV stance. I for one am an Independent voter with a great deal of scientific interest in American foreign policy and in the political personhood of Sec. Rice, and frankly, it is annoying and unethical from a Wikipedian standpoint to have this sort of ulterior agenda motivating the edits of this article. I respect Francespeabody's opinions toward Dr. Rice and race relations in general, as I'm sure we all do, but Wikipedia is a place for fact-based, unbiased research and report, not for making political statements. I would like to see Francespeabody be a productive member of this community and contribute to this article in a professional manner, but he has not yet done so. If this behavior continues, it may be a last resort option to report his activities to the Wiki moderators for further action. I sincerely hope it does not have to come to that. --Ai.kefu 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not the protocol followed on any other post. The section is not entitled "Criticism & Condi's Reaction" Read the following... --Francespeabody

Cleansing of the Condi Article is getting out of Control

I am a college student at a prominent black University and I intend to share this site during my history lecture tomorrow as a showcase of how White America operates at the propoganda level.

I have read through the various posts and clearly this is a Republican Love fest. The "Criticism" section should obviously represent just those ideas that are critical. Why would you need to stuff this section with "counter points" when the entire article above and below this section is designed for the "positive" contributions to Whitekind, I mean mankind? The section for critical opinion should retain critical opinion the way almost all other Wiki articles.

I have read through the discussion between various posters here and it seems that there are only two kinds, undeclared Republican "Whites" who want to keep all negative remarks off the site or to paint over the truth with a rainbow. Or folks like me, who are black, say they are black, and are proud to say they belong to the black community where we recognize that Condi is not just hated a "little" but experience how much she is detested. Yet to ignore that or to wash over that seems so biased as to be Jim Crow shocking.

If the contributors to this site now are working for the adminstration, that is against the rules, if you don't work for the admin, yet wish to keep hiding the view of at least every "Black" citizen contributing here, then you are being more than just revisionist historical authors, you are being racially discriminatory by removing black opinions and citations because they don't speak to your interests. Your party/race loyal love for Condi is all it takes for you to team up on and censor the black author contributions. I read in a previous comment where someone said that Hillary Clinton has a similar "Critical" section but I went there to verify, and she has a full Page dedicated to Criticism and Controversy without "Counter points" (Ohnoitsjamie). Yet here, the mere mention of well known facts which support how much she is hated by blacks can't be tolerated. Screw that, either be fair and honest or I will personally get my entire school to open season on every White republican whitin Wiki and just find and post the crap they all do. Finding the crap is the easy part.

This whole back and forth I see here is out and out racist propaganda! She plays such a "Good Nigger" for you and you all support that image in the US because she does not speak out for her people. The term "House Nigger" which is used to describe her and cited, is used precisely for the reasons you now feel compelled to defend her. You are so blind to your position that you can't see that. Otherwise, you would be over on Harry Belafonte's website defending his cite with equal dilligence yet I observed that not one of you has contributed to his or any other black person on Wiki. Good work btw!!

If Martin Luther King were alive today, he would be in the Belafonte bin too, but now that he is dead and no threat, you can all pretend to love him. Well, black people hate Condi despite what you all think about her. She has not attended any marches in support of black causes, and she does nothing to draw attention to the plight of our people other than shop for shoes when we are drowning in New Orleans.

Cali, keep up the good work. The other dude keeping it real, you got my props too, but the rest of you white fools, pull Bushs @#$% out of your hand long enough to use it to write some truth instead of just censoring black contributions. Censorship, bigotry, whitewashing, racism, elitism, classism, misquotes, all to keep this poor little negro from Alabama pure and her tale honest and non biased? Whatever!--Francespeabody 01:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There are prominent voices on both sides of the issue, and both sides deserve to be heard. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't feed the trolls. --ElKevbo 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Black voices are not being heard they are being deleted, censored, or softened for being too truthful. It's like you expect the world to be as ball clipped as the American press. I agree "Both" sides should be heard but only ONE side is being written and the other side is being pissed on. Anyone reading this can see that. I am new to the site and this is like a wakeup call to Democrats. Start speaking up for what you know or let guys like you make up the truth--Francespeabody 02:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, somebody else out there sees what is happening here. This is straight bullshit what they are doing. Hiding the truth about how Blacks feel about Condi is kind of like them trying to convince me that Bush is a black man's best friend. They even slammed "Kanye West" for what he said by calling him "Crazy" or something. They just dismiss black opinion and thought with no regard for truth.--216Cali 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem with that??? Kanye IS crazy. -- --BballJones 13:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling is how you define sharing the thoughts of an otherwise muted community? Go out into a black community and prove me wrong. You can't find any non-political support for Condi so you delete and censor what has been posted. I don't delete random Clinton diatribes but why not. If I can just accuse anyone of "trolling" or bias and delete at will then, I guess that is what being an American is all about. I thought it was sharing truthful ideas and not just fantasy but since Disney is what you want, I guess I can do that.

We happy po black folk much bliged' to be in yo' country. Yassa, u treatn' us real good, you put one of us in that thar oval office and she do might fine, mighty fine indeed.

I want to ask you one man to another, I am sincerely asking you to think about this one thing, and if you can justify it or reconcile with it, I will cease and desist at once but you must be honest in your answer.

If you saw thousands of white faces jammed into a stadium, threatened with shotguns if they left so they had to sit there dying in filth, if you saw that broadcast on TV for 48 hours and your highest representative in the Federal Government not only did nothing, but was seen shoe shopping after a broadway play, what would you do? I know what was done in the past!

The vast majority of those atrocities stories from the Superdome turned out to be just simple urban legends. Remember the story about six people dead and stuffed in the ice box, that was repeated over and over again on CNN???? I do. And it was a figment of someone's wild imagination. But what does any of this diatribe from francespeabody have to do with Dr. Rice??? The answer is simple. Not a thing. francespeabody in a racist and ignorant way is calling everyone who does not agree a biased white person, regardless of the fact that I'm not white. Then when I point this out to francespeabody, francespeabody states that he/she does not care that what race I am that as far as francespeabody is concerned I'm just white and my opinion is unimportant. This type of BS argument is NOT winning a friend over here and I'm making my third attempt to settle this peacefully. However, I read any more racial attacks then I going to have to take this to the next level. Seriously, francespeabody, for the third time do NOT refer to anyone else's race again (especially mine). Please, once again, review the Wikipedian rules on personal attacks and abide them. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please keep your comments and opinions about everyone's race to yourself and do not post it on these talk pages again. Thank you. -----BballJones 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What you don't see is that Black Americans feel abandoned in every way by this administration. We can't get votes counted in 2006, yet to have our opinions about (excuse me), "One of our own!!!" scrubbed for offense to non-whites, is beyond anything I wish to dignify.

I doubt any of you will pick this book up but it is written by one of yours and it tells a so badly needed conversation in America. The Heart of Whiteness, by Robert Jensen. At the very least, listen to his audio clip. You just can't seem to understand why we are seeking to be represented here but maybe you will find some enlightenment from this authors research on the subject race in the US.

The worst part of historical racism in the US is not about what has and continues to happen to Blacks, it is what has and continues to happen to Whites here that causes you to lose your humanity. Even the war we are in uses the rhetoric of "Camel Jockeys" and "Sand Niggers". It is always White against darker but no one asks "why?" Why are Whites so dependant on oppression? Where did that side of white culture come from? Why in a society that whites dominate, do we still have a KKK, and countless other "hate" groups? You have no idea how bad it is to be a minority and to think that there are groups still out there that are organized to maximize black and minority suffering. Despite that perspective, I ask you, what is it in the spirit of White men that deprives you of all humanity? What allows this kind of supremacy to continue and thrive?

Robert Jensen suggests in his new book that perhaps the deepest fear that lives in the heart of whiteness is not really a fear of non-white people. It's a fear of the depravity that lives in our own hearts: Are non-white people capable of doing to us the barbaric things we have done to them?--Francespeabody 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

To 24.215.230.63/Francespeabody (one and the same): I thought I asked you to stop assuming that everyone who is editing that does not agree with you is white?? I asked you to stop on your talk page and on this page, Dr. Rice's talk page, remember? Please stop assuming that everyone is white. It is inappropriate and irrelevant. Once again, please review the Wikipedia policies about personal attacks, especially the section concerning racial attacks: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. We are aware of your hatred of Dr. Rice. We have read it over and over. However, one cannot assume that because you, one single person, hates Dr. Rice then everyone hates Dr. Rice because, once again, she has very high popularity polls, so obviously someone likes her, and that includes a large number of black people. --- --BballJones 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

By "One and the same". Do you mean sharing an apartment with several people that have similar opinions is wrong, or do you mean I have a split personality and occupy the same physical space as two distinct indivuals? I have shared the story of this site from many others so I do expect to read more unbiased views in the coming weeks and months. I have asked each person making a contribution to sign up to a full account

As long as these newcomers work with us in a collegial manner and within the guidelines of the community, we welcome them and look forward to working with them. --ElKevbo 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"because you, one single person, hates Dr. Rice then everyone hates Dr. Rice because, once again, she has very high popularity polls, so obviously someone likes her, and that includes a large number of black people" That sounds logical. Because a "lot" of whites (no citation needed) like Condi, it is obvious that "large numbers" of blacks also like her. If by large you mean Condi and 5 black people she knows personally via familial circumstance, I agree with you. 5 seems like a big number when you are piled into a VW bug. The Pov is distored here and I chose to balance it. I do think those editing this page regard themselves as White no matter what non-black group they hale from. That also makes the NPOV issue all the more relevant. I repeat, I proudly represent black opinions here, I don't hide behind my PC and the anonymity of the Internet the way almost all of you do. That is your choice but in my experience, silence is evidence of guilt. I did phone call polling over the past few months to inquire about voting habits. I called 500 people but what struck me as funny is that the folks who were Democrat said so openly virtually no Republican would even admit to being one. They quickly said, "My business, not important, why are you asking" and other defensive answers if they did not hang up. I know why you are ashamed but it kills me that you lack the courage of your convictions to the party to not come out with such a basic thing that could be determined by face to face contact.--Francespeabody 17:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While I still find your continued allegations of racism offensive and completely groundless, I do agree with your central thesis that there is considerable disapproval of Rice among members of the African American community. The question with which some of us are grappling is how to best incorporate that information in a verifiable, encyclopediac manner. Many of the supplied references are suspect for a number of reasons and many do not support the statements they are purported to support. But it's clear to me, based on the information you have supplied, that your assertion has significant truth and we just need to find the best references to verifiable document it. --ElKevbo 17:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is defining Encyclopediac format here. When a post is negative then the contribution is viewed as "hatred" and quickly attacked, ammended, or counter argued within the inital contribution. Why are black Authors, Actors, Musicians voices not being heard here or accepted? The most powerful black women in America in the "Black View" is "Not" Condi it is Oprah but would you dismiss her voice as quickly as Kanye's who has the respect of millions of blacks? The problem here is the "definition" by which you lock down contributions. Blacks are represented by "Entertainers, Sports Figures, and Activists and other Public" figures we are NOT represented in Congress, Legislature, Federal Government or Fed Courts at a proportionate rate to our population, though if prisons are the standard we are hands down the winner. You fail to recognize that the system that locks blacks out of Government is now being used by you to disqualify black contributions because they cite contributions cited by black "Leaders" and not just the few blacks appointed to "Government". Spike Lee's thoughts are almost unanimously more in accord with the overall black community than is any political figure I can think of including Barack Obama precisely because he says what blacks actually think and does not have to water it down for political reasons. To say his voice does not qualify as proper citation due to his "activism" or non government affiliation is silly yet that is what happens here time and again.--Francespeabody 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
ElKevbo, I absolutely agree; references that were removed were removed because they did not support the statement they followed. Furthermore, I've never objected to the criticism section nor disputed that there are many in the community who dislike Rice and the administration she represents; I restored the criticism section when it was deleted from an earlier version. I do object to the removal of counterpoint arguments. While it is true that "Criticism" sections do not always have counterpoints, I think that this particular article merits one because the African American community is divided in it's opinions on Rice (not evenly divided, but divided enough that notable African American commentators and politicians have spoken for both sides). While the majority of African American voters still favor the Democratic party, a poll in 2005 found growing support for conservatives. I also found a poll conducted in 2004 by BAMPAC which indicated 42% of black voters had a somewhat or very favorable opinion of Rice, while 23% had a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of her (the rest had no opinion or did not know who she was). I haven't been able to find any recent polls specific to Rice. And before someone goes lobbing accusations against me again, I will say one thing (as much as I dislike revealing anything about my political attitudes on Wikipedia); I have never voted for a Republican presidential or gubernational candidate (and I do vote in every major election).
Francespeabody; I haven't seen anyone in this article removing commentary by Oprah or Spike Lee. Their opinions as prominent African Americans are as noteworthy as a conservative black senator (if not more noteworthy). Who is claiming that those voices don't count? And why such strenuous object to including counterpoint voices, even if those voices are not the majority? OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

From RKLawton RE: Kanye West remarks being deleted. "rv silly edits - a single person ranting on national TV does not provide any meaningful verification of the information presented..." We all see the world from a different perspective but that day, he said what blacks were thinking.

The "counter point" issue relates to it being out of place and standard for other articles. If we head down that path it sets a precedent that every good deed is open to a counter. So if Condi is reported to have been a "Great" pianist, I might argue that so and so said "She sucked so bad she once sat at Glen Gould's piano after his recital hoping for some osmosis from the chair". It might be said, but how does the counter add substance to the idea that she played piano and it is known she played piano?

The critcism for her is widespread in the community but to give voice to the few people who like her and I don't personally know any blacks that do, maybe you do, but I have many many black friends even conservative ones but they do not like her. It reminds me of the quote from a recent "Dog bites man" episode where a fake news crew covers a Republican convention. One character states to another, "I just saw a black Republican", the other replies, "Did you make a wish?". This kind of thing seeps into the American fiber for being a "wide" view and not a narrow one. This is a white show written by liberal white writers but there is no secret here. My objection is that you seem to want to "hide" this or diminish it with the counter of "ONE" person who himself does not like Condi.

FrancesPeabody's Personal Attacks On Other's Race is Out of Control

The vast majority of those atrocities stories from the Superdome turned out to be just simple urban legends. Remember the story about six people dead and stuffed in the ice box, that was repeated over and over again on CNN???? I do. And it was a figment of someone's wild imagination. But what does any of this diatribe from francespeabody have to do with Dr. Rice??? The answer is simple. Not a thing. francespeabody in a racist and ignorant way is calling everyone who does not agree a biased white person, regardless of the fact that I'm not white. Then when I point this out to francespeabody, francespeabody states that he/she does not care that what race I am that as far as francespeabody is concerned I'm just white and my opinion is unimportant. This type of BS argument is NOT winning a friend over here and I'm making my third attempt to settle this peacefully. However, I read any more racial attacks then I going to have to take this to the next level. Seriously, francespeabody, for the third time do NOT refer to anyone else's race again (especially mine). Please, once again, review the Wikipedian rules on personal attacks and abide them. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please keep your comments and opinions about everyone's race to yourself and do not post it on these talk pages again. Thank you. -----BballJones 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire issue being discussed is about Race, thus this section and the ongoing debate here regards views of the black community toward a person they view to be a Race Traitor. In response to this, there has been evidence of arbitrary removal of contributions, the editing of contributions to make it less agressive. The revising of this article to suite a "Happier Gentler" time is plain B.S. I am speaking of your constant revision of history here. I want to have the Black community view known and documented as valid in the black public view.
You don't know when you are being racist yet when I cite one instance (Kanye West's dismissal as "Crazy") then I am being the bad guy. Take this to whatever level you wish to. Does that mean burning a cross on the site? I suggested that if you are a "Non-Black", you will not always understand the common view or even be in a position to be exposed to is as I am however, since you are not in the community either go into the community and find out for yourself, or trust that someone from that community posting public information from Black Leaders, is accurate. The section is called "Criticism" what else needs to be said about the information to be included here. You already painted her a rosy future in the last section so do you think she will ever be hurt for her political actions? Blacks are hurting as well many minorities by her actions today but she won't be subject to them unless she happens to find herself unescorted within the black community. Not that blacks would harm her, I am talking about the police treating her as they treat the rest of us.
Today's civics lesson in black politics!
--Francespeabody 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


The "this is not necessarily the sentiment of all African Americans toward Rice" section being forced into the critics corner is not founded. The remarks don't respond or counter Condi's actions, the general civic mood of the black community nor do they specfically address any of the cited issues. They reflect opinions of her political colleagues and don't pretend to counter the "Larger Community" view. You should find black community representatives who support Condi's actions and political policy not just blind support for a fellow "Black Person" which is what your citations imply. They say, "Don't call her names" but the don't say, "She was praised for her role in rescuing drowning victims during the Hurricane." No, that award goes to Sean Penn.--Francespeabody 21:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Does anyone know how to archive? This is talk page is getting too big and I'm not sure how to archive. Thanks,--BballJones 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:ARCHIVE. Probably shouldn't archive the active threads though. Isopropyl 20:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Condoleezza_Rice/Archive_2&oldid=1087723634"