Talk:Condoleezza Rice/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Continued edits of "Criticism"

Edits continue on the criticism section at a very quick pace. I don't really think we're making very good progress since many of the edits are very large and often remove entire paragraphs or more which often results in a quick revert accompanied by strong words. If things continue at this pace, it may be necessary to ask for a temporary block on editing until we can all work out our differences and come to a consensus.

A specific issue I would like to address is the following sentence and reference: "Democrat Mike Espy, the first African American Secretary of Agriculture, stated that the black community's hearts would always be with Rice."

This needs to be removed. First, the reference is from an excerpt of a book and not the book itself, which strikes me as bad form. Second, not only is the quote inaccurate it is also taken out of context and misleading. Espy does not state that the community's heart will always be with Rice; to say so is inaccurate and dishonest. The quote is also in the context of a hypothetical presidential runoff between Hilary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. The full quote is: "'They are two brilliant women,' Espy says, 'evenly matched, both well rounded, both with interests outside politics.' How would the black community vote? 'Their heads would be for Hillary,' Espy predicts, 'but their hearts would be with Condi.'" --ElKevbo 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Espy quote to put it in context. As for locking the entire article, I would hate to see it happen, as I am currently in the middle of updating and expanding some of the sections as I have already done (Cuba, Iran, etc.) I for one am an Independent scholar with an avid interest in American foreign policy and the political personhood of Dr. Rice. If anything, I would vote for the moderators to simply take disciplinary action against Francespeabody, which I do not hope it comes to. There is not even really a large debate over whether the responses to the criticisms should be in the section; it's basically just him deleting it over and over. I don't think anything will be resolved with him in a discussion. He has evidenced himself to mostly be a troll with an agenda, and locking the article will do no good. --Ai.kefu 22:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We'll see. I'm just trying to clean up some of the references in sections unrelated to the ones "under fire" and I'm having a real tough time since my edits keep getting reverted by editors on all sides of this "heated debate." --ElKevbo 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Responses to criticism are inherently relavent to the section. See parallels at string theory, where the section is a discussion of the problems. Isopropyl 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to make subsections with "Responses to criticism" as one of the subsections. I don't think it matters one way or the other so if it's a necessary compromise I'd be perfectly fine with it.

On a related topic: What about creating a subsection for "Criticism from African Americans?" I think there is more than enough material for a subsection. It would also be nice to separate the criticism based on race from that based on her policy or decisions made while in office. --ElKevbo 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It just doesn't really make sense. Even with the "Responses" residing within the Criticism section, the section isn't very long. I'd vote that we keep it simple and just put it in a single section. --Ai.kefu 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Ai.kefu, and the assertion that I am reverting over and over, you overlook that the article is being reverted to a "NPOV" state equally over and over. This is mathmatically simple. The section is entitled "Criticisms" and should contain citation of "Criticisms" exclusively. Please cite other Wikipedia articles that do otherwise and I will review them but so far no one has considered the simplicity of what is being done in the edit.

If I put a Race Criticism in the "Future" section, I would expect someone with half a brain to re locate it. I pointed to the Hillary Clinton article as an example of where no "Counter" argument is included in an antire dedicated page to her "controversies". A Whole page of negative remarks being sacredly guarded by some zealot Wike nuts but in the hope of getting "Known, Widely felt (by the black community) sentiments included a a section for "JUST" critical information, you guys are acting like 8 year olds and just sticking in irrelevant citation that not only does not belong but does not accurately counter the specific criticisms being cited. For example, Harry Belafonte, Dick Gregory and Spike Lee were quoted and discussed issues related to her direct actions and involvement in the Bush administration. In response, you don't say anything about "Harry, Spike, or Dick" you say, the "Democrats in the Senate complain that others in the Senate should treat Condi better".

1. How does that address what was cited?

2. How is this "Critical of Condi"? as is necessary for inclusion to a topic heading "Criticism".

See, just two simple points and none of you offer reasons beyond, "because" or "I feel it should be..." but not logical reasons.

Lets Separate the criticism based on race (ElKevbo)

Wow, that is a wily choice you made to suggest the separation of criticism "By Race" by ElKevbo. To suggest that the black community criticism of Condi is not related to her policy but just "Blacks hating other Blacks" shows a near commitment to stupidity on your part. From the mouths of babes? "Hate is such a precious thing!"

To suggest that Blacks somehow inherently can't discern policy from the epidermis (traditionally a staple of "White America") is borderline retarded. If you had not written it I would not believe it could be so sloppily uttered by you. OMG!

"It would also be nice to separate the criticism based on race". I had to repeat that line for clarity in my head. That is what you suggest as a solution? How about these options:

We can separate our schools too if you like.

Maybe blacks I can login to a new "Black Wikipedia" site using a new URL meant "For Blacks Only". Those of us who can read and write, will read and contribute to just this site. That way you only have to read White thoughts about all issues on race. Unless you wanted to come over to our site and listen to some "colored music". We won't be allowed to view yours without a Frank Sinatra like escort but you feel free to login to one of the sites dedicated to this new ElKevbo system.

ElKevbo's Proposed "URL's for Darkies".

blacks.wikipedia.org or ebonics.black.wikipedia.org or shold that be "eb.black.wikipedia.org"?

This is the most insane, racist thing I have read so far, I just can't beleive it. Ok, one more, how about en.nigipedia.org?

I heard things had taken a turn here but Jesus Christ, get a clue. (sorry, chances are you are a Christian and that might offend you). Not as offensive as say, the en.wikinegroes.org site you propose but, bad enough. Praise be to your glorius Christian God for giving you the sense and sensitivity of a grapenut.--24.215.230.63 03:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Priceless!--Francespeabody 04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ban the Black Voice

Now, you are all conspiring the ulitmate in Censorship. The seeking of my being Banned. Do we stil burn witches or just leftist books and liberals?

I get the fact that you all Love Condi, and you have every right to Love Condi. But right a song about it, and stop trying to force what you consider to be unpopular opinion out of the public record because you disagree.

Follow the rules of engagement. Each reason you think you could Ban me, holds true for each of you. You are breaking rules left and right, ganging up on unpopular opinions, deleting them and worst of all, you don't have the courage to admit your position, political stance, race, or other relevant details that enlighten your motives for carrying on in such fashion. It is obvious how to ID each of you from your actions, but it kills me you still choose to hide behind anonyomous usernames. Ban the Blacks! I beg you to ban me. I will then lead the charge and wage full war with you to ban "All Future Black" author contributions. I will side with your moral conviction and go through each pro-black or semi-black article and look for ways to quiet the voice of the entire people. I get it known that black views are not wanted, and if the "black community" can't find representation in the Government to speak for them, then they are not welcome here to do it individually.

I came here to set the record straight. I was in shock that the article had no mention of her unpopularity in the black community. The first thing I saw that attempted to be honest came from a Republican this was the conversation.

"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.

I thought we read and dismissed this BS before, but it has raised it ugly little head. How can anyone take a commentary that makes racist comments seriously. Yes, racist comments, e.g., "she's just an ugly little puppet." Just a politically motivated rant and a racist one at that. -- --BballJones 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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)"

True to form, Jeravicious and the rest of you maintain the tone of his name and his bold promise. The funny thing is, I side with him. Create a "Praise" section just as even that idiot knew would be required. He did not say, I will edit and "within" your new section (which is what all of you are doing) he promised an appropriate counter section! Why if this guy discussing his pure biased attempt to counter gets that it is wrong to do it the way you are doing it, can't you see it after all the discussion I have maintained saying the same thing. Oh wait, a White voice has said this, so maybe now you will understand. I see this a lot. Sometimes when a black person says something they look to a white translator who says the same thing only slower maybe and then there is a collective "ahhhhh,... we understand" moment.

The section will be edited once again by me. The counter arguments will be removed from it. That is not vandalism, that is maintanence of the wiki policy. --Francespeabody 02:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What Wiki policy are you referring to? Let me first say that this would be more process would be more constructive for all involved if there were more assumptions of good faith on your part, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia culture. Looking at the article now, there is a pretty healthy criticism section, with only a few counterpoints. I don't see the harm in having a one or two counterpoints next to a larger number of criticims, especially given that Rice doesn't have any major controversies attached to her (like either of the Clintons, Cheney, DeLay, etc.) I don't understand the steadfast insistence that the article must conform to a single version that is palatable to you. Most of the other editors (including a few who are more vocal in their criticism of Rice) have made efforts to move the article towards a consensus. A little more compromise and discussion and a bit less name-calling and accusation would be appreciated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Sections

Ohnoitsjamie asks: "What Wiki policy are you referring to? I don't see the harm in having a one or two counterpoints next to a larger number of criticims, especially given that Rice is so much "nicer than Hillary Clinton"

Here is why!!!

Criticism Sections Criticism in a "Criticism" section from Wiki Rules. Criticism sections should not violate Article structures which can imply a view. These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are.

Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it.

Nowhere does it say, "please include counter argument and or thoughts to just the criticisms you don't like." It says exactly the opposite.

Criticism in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section Often Wikipedia articles separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. This is primarily used in the case of a "Book, Movie, Recording" work where reviews can run the gamut. This is not generally applied to "Rebuttals" of each criticism listed within this section.

Each of you editing out these thoughts entirely and inserting the "preferred" message is effectively violating the rules regarding Criticism Sections so please stop adding "Complements" to the "Criticism" section. Does this make sense in a court of law. Does it need to be more slowly spelled out? You can't add counter points to each critical point in the Criticism Sections!--Francespeabody 06:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that's a proposed guideline. It's not approved. Nor is it even a policy which means we could ignore it even if we wanted to (a weakness of Wikipedia, IMHO - too many "please do this we think it's a good idea" guidelines with no teeth).

Second, you're completely misunderstanding even this proposed guideline. What it really says is that we could not create a Criticism section which intentionally presents the criticism as weak in nature ("marginilize[s] [the] criticism"). Presenting a balanced view of the subject and the criticism of that subject is certainly marginalizing the criticism. --ElKevbo 06:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Frances. The above suggestions are meant to discourage use of the straw man argument and not an excuse to remove a discussion of criticism. Furthermore, if you wish to truly abide by policy, as it would seem you are so concerned with, you could start by reading WP:3RR, WP:AFG, WP:NPA, WP:SOCK, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and what Wikipedia is not. Isopropyl 06:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Francespeabody, please don't misquote me. I never said "Rice is nicer than Hillary." Second, the page you cite states:

Criticism of a topic in an article about a critic of that topic should relate to the critic and his/her work (or notability) even if it is found in a section titled "Criticism of <topic>". In other words, don't add criticisms by other critics of the topic in the article about the critic. Of course, criticism regarding the critic can be inserted in the critic's article, per the above. (My emphasis).

If the "purity" of a section titled "criticism" is so important to you, perhaps we should rename the section "Public Opinion," which is not a one-sided topic.

And once again, please discontinue the personal attacks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism Section remains under attack by the "Cleaners"

Create a "new" section called "Reasons Condi is a Black Goddess" and stick to just critical citation in this section.--24.215.230.63 17:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

POV paragraph in introduction

Despite her early childhood experiences with segregation, Condoleezza Rice has faced extreme opposition from the African American[1]community for her role in the Bush[2] administration and the Republican Party, which many[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47449] in the black community view as oppressive[3], globally out of touch [4], and in many cases both anti-black [5]and against Civil Rights.[6]

The above paragraph has been removed, as "extreme" is decidedly non-neutral, and the other references are mostly concerned with criticisms of the Bush administration in general and do not mention Rice. Feel free to refactor the paragraph and stick it in "criticisms" or something out of concerns for undue weight. Isopropyl 22:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about some of that. It seems pretty clear to me that it's fair to level some (but how much???) of the criticism of Bush's policies against Rice. As a long-time senior member of his cabinet, she is a major architect of many of those policies. I'm just not sure how we can properly measure or express this without explicit quotes attributing dislike directly to Rice. Your position seems a bit extreme but it's understandable. --ElKevbo 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC

I agree that Rice deserves to share the administration's blame, but the assertion that the opposition is "extreme" is not supported by the reference, and in any case I believe that the introduction should be an introduction to Rice, not the administration's low approval rating. There's a whole criticism section in which this information can be addressed. Isopropyl 22:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur on both of Isopropyl's points; for a blow-by-blow examination of the sources (and why only two or three are even relevant), see Talk:Condoleezza_Rice#POV_tag_revisited. (I'm sorry for repeating myself, but the fact that most of those sources are irrelevant has been steadfastly ignored by a few).

With regards with the removal of "counterpoint" because it was not technically criticism; I tried creating a separate section for it as was suggested, but that was summarily dismissed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. In the future I'll check previous discussions before creating new ones. Isopropyl 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here a quick summary (copied from the talk archive) of the content of each of those seven links in the aformention paragraph::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).

While some of those are relevant to critical sections, some of them aren't. As noted above, many of them don't support the statements that they follow. Furthermore, it's excessive to source one sentence with seven links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

No one has given a good reason why they keep reverting back to the version that (1) had seven links that did not all match the the statements they followed and (2) used POV words like "extreme" and "anti-black" (the latter term is not mentioned in ANY of the sources listed as far as I can tell. If this is going to turn into an edit war with no discussion, the only solution will be to take it to the request for comment process. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

A former good article, Condoleezza Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) fails the stability criterion as of 01:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC). Isopropyl

Delisted WW

A former good WW White-Washed article no longer squeaky clean the way we tried to keep it. Removed from white-wash status since the article now contains more than one pov.--24.215.230.63 03:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Swing and a miss. Thanks for playing. Isopropyl 04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff on rendition

I want to add some remarks on extraordinary rendition. This page [7] talks about it being a form of kidnapping. Is there any objection to my doing this? Eiler7 12:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as the kidnapping remark is attributed properly (i.e., to Tom Malinowski from Human Rights Watch), and it's presented in an WP:NPOV fashion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Improper citation"?

Can you please explain what it "improper" about this passage? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Removal of Large Amounts of Information Without Discussion or Concensus

There is a section of the criticism area that francespeabody keeps removing from the section without discussion or concensus. He has removed more than five times today, I think that is the right count. Here is an example: [[8]]. Please work with the other editors. Removing large amounts of information without discussion or concensus is vandalism. Please review this policy: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you. -- --BballJones 22:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

I am considering requesting page protection, as extensive edit warring and disregard for the three-revert rule has been taking place. Thoughts? Isopropyl 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Propose we protect the page and move to RfC, as we can all attest that attempts to defuse the situation have failed. Isopropyl 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree Myself and another editor began discussing filing an RFC earlier today. Great minds think alike and all that. --ElKevbo 23:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that given the edit war that this has devolved into, an Request for comment seems to be the only solution. I think I'm too closely involved with the situation to protect the page myself, but I wouldn't object to it if others we in agreement that it was necessary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For those who are interested in working toward a consensus, I propose we work from this version. Following this version, Francespeabody (talk · contribs) removed a section and marked it as an "improper citation" without explaining what exactly was "improper". Following that, Frances added additional content to the quote, which I don't object to, but also changed the intro sentence to read "Rice attempted to defend herself from criticism on one occasion"; I imagine that Rice has defended herself more than once; I don't understand the need to qualify it as "one occasion." Following that edit, anonymous IP 208.253.181.34 (talk · contribs) reverted back the version of the intro with seven sources that didn't match up with the statements they followed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree -- --BballJones 00:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree! You are teaming up to censor ideas you don't share but that the majority of the Black community does. If Bill O'Rielly can say that directly to "Condi" how can you deny that it is a generally held view? Yet despite every attempt to include the "Black Community" view you continue to insert "White" opinions to counter it, and when that gets called out, you insert politician comments to unrelated "Race" matters and attribute them to her defence, and finally, you stick "ONE" Condi remark as proof of her "Defense" to "Each and Every" criticism, yet not only does it not speak to more than one criticism, it does not even speak to any criticism cited in the section.

Each time an argument arises that you can't defeat, you revert, each time some kernel of truth is included that you don't like, you delete it or add the "anti-kernel" of truth to counter it. This is not a "Debate Squad", this is an encyclopedic contribution that needs to reflect the "Entire Truth" as it exists not "Truth as we want it" and that is all you are doing.

I have been told that I did not cite proper sources, then I found dozens of sources and included them, (see the first paragraph that keeps vanishing for proof) and you still removed the valid sources saying things like, "Kanye is crazy", Dick Gregory can't be included because at the march he attended (that I also attended) he did not direct his attack at "Condi" because he said "Black" therefore he should not be included nor his opinion mentioned because he does not like the entire "Bush" regime not just Condi' yet when I was there he spoke directly of Condi and Colin directly and if the news reporter edits that it does not edit out the truth of the larger community sentiment.

The entire point is that this is a reflection of the "Black Community" toward her Policies, involvement in the Bush Admin, and general indifference to black causes. New Orleans was under water, Oprah built houses and she went shoe shopping. What do you think Blacks would say to that? What do you think "MOST" blacks would say to that? The same thing white New Orleans residents say, "That is BullShit" and we don't like her.

This should be a simple matter. I created a section called "Criticism" and included well documented criticisms. That should be a done deal.

Oh, but wait, you don't like that and that is the only motivation you have. YOU don't agree but that is irrelevant to what "Blacks" agree to. Why is that hard to understand? In every article you cite where she is being defended, the same article details why exactly she should be criticized but try to refocus the criticism away from name calling and more toward her actions. As both issues exist, I included both and you still can't have that??

This is not about POV this is about fact collection. --Francespeabody 02:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested the article be protected and filed an article content RFC. --ElKevbo 03:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the motivation behind hiding well cited negative opinion? If not bias then what? You guys aren't offering any pretense of "keeping it real" just keeping it nice. It's a little embarrassing. I have shown the site to many of my peers at work today, black and white and they are in awe of the "Republican Machine" at work. They could not beleive it went down to the "wiki" level but I had that laugh. Request for Protection? Request for protection from the opinions of African Americans I guess but at least label it for what it is. You can take your hood and robe off now, I am going to watch some TV. Fox I guess. --216Cali 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no desire to hide well cited negative opinions. The issue is whether or not they're really well cited. I don't think that many of them are well cited. The specific objections to the references you keep trying to replace in the intro are listed above. It's the second time they've been listed. And no one has addressed them - they just keep being added and then complaints made when they are removed and the editor is asked to participate in the Talk page. Please address the concerns raised above so we work towards a stable, NPOV version of this article.

If the page is protected, it will be locked from all editing, probably in whatever state it happens to be in when the admin locks it. If it happents to be the version you like, fine, it stays that way while we work things out and then request the article be unlocked. It's extremely poor form for someone to complain about a page that is protected in the "wrong" version. --ElKevbo 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

TimothyHorrigan, welcome to the "Party". As you see, all contributions will be summarilly discharged without comment or inquiry into validity. They have a "Delete" until you can prove an assertion to "my individual random standard" policy in effect here. First they will say, you did not properly cite the remark, than you will find 10 citations from Senators, Commentators, former presidents, etc... and they will say, the citation does not name Rice in every line of the article so it has to be about Bush and not "her". Then when you find citations including, "Audio references, video clips and photos of folks holding posters with "Rice's image, her name spelled out, and a crowd of angry people behind it", they will say, "that is not anger at "Rice" but anger at "Policy". No matter they name her, they know not what they do poor fools.

I reference to the first article of the peice where the paragraph includes your previous "issues": Reread the article history and either correctly attribute the citations to a "Phrase" you "THINK" it needs to be next to, or "ADD" the word you think it needs, or restructure the paragraph to make it fit your grammatical preference. But in the essense of NPOV and objectivity, to simply "DELETE" the paragraph which is valid and legitimately cited is Censorship. The worst part is that the links you are questioning are not the original links posted but links "YOU YOURSELVES" added to soften the article and then later took issue with.

These are the reasons they included for deleting the entire thing over and over again.

4 Robinson's op-ed piece Relevant; focuses on Rice being "out-of-touch," speculating that it has to do with her upbringing;

This is your opinion of the article but not what he says in the literal. "He does not speculate, he states boldly the view, but more importantly, this is a widely held view in the black community and this article only has to support the statement made in the paragraph the weight of the accusation does not fall entirely on the citation, a citation simply "supports" the article but you seem to have made up some rule of "Bible Law" that holds everything Christian loyal.

Ohnoitsjamie I don't object to this citation, though Robinson is hardly voicing "extreme" opposition. He makes the point the he feels that Rice is out-of-touch with mainstream African American issues.

5 Bush Approval rating drops about public support for Bush adminstration dropping; does not mention Rice

The citation clearly references the "Black View of the Bush Administration" phrase therefore does not need to cite her, just their view of the admin! This is valid.

Ohnoitsjamie Fair enough.

6 Commentary piece in WorldNetDaily about Bush approval A rehashing of 5 in commentary form; does not mention Rice

This speaks to the term "Extreme Opposition" which was constantly debated for quantification. I could put dozens of these articles (and did) to speak to the extreme negative view but then you said "POV" was skewed and removed them, now you are saying that just having two is redundant. You are censoring on top of censoring but you have now lost your place in it. This is valid as well the other original citations which speak to the "Extreme View".

Ohnoitsjamie I still feel that this is redundant with 5, though if it is included, should be placed next to 6 (since it's mostly about black opposition to the Bush admin)

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.

This spoke to the "International View" which was there originally but once again, you edited out this and other links from London protests and other cities but now that you pulled that stuff out, you have a new argument of "Sole Voice". YOu just go round and round with yourselves and then forget that almost all of the current article issues being debated directly reflect your own censorship actions. This Stays! Not because I want it too, but because it supports the original assertion of frustration from "World, Gays, and Blacks". Do you remember that original post from way way back before you starting pissing on the stuff you did not like?

Ohnoitsjamie I don't think that Nelson Mandela solely represents the world, either. It's more along the lines of 5 and 6 except that it's from a non-US citizen.

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"

The key words here represent the heart of the problem. "I Think..." you say it twice but you really should stop thinking for everyone else. "I think the Britain's use of protest with full view posters that display her name and picture is not an attack on her..." I think you are an idiot. Clearly, they are protesting Condi, Bush and the Admin but the signs show "Condi" and this has been stated time and again, yet "You Think" is enough to delete and censor all of Great Britain. The arrogance you have that they are misguided with the Condi' posters is typical of American Whites who think the rest of the world should just shut up and do what their master says. This stays!!!

Ohnoitsjamie Enough with the persona attacks. Who said they were misguided? I made no "editorial" comments about the protestors; I'm only concerned with whether the citation is relevant to the statement it follows. It is relevant to Rice, but would be more appropriate in the section of the article that talks about the protests she's encountered while touring the globe.

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.

What, what and what? You are not even making an argument just citing your opinion and since you don't qualify as a citation source it does not matter to this article. It Stays! Why do you think "your interpretation over rules the citation"? Are you the Judge of all truths? I just don't understand your audacity. Do you feel you were born into this role of judge or did you work your way up from Bush ball cleaner?

Ohnoitsjamie You didn't address my argument. The article never says the phrase "anti-black," and thus should not be used to support the phrase "anti-black." The article is primarily about her stance on affirmative action, and should be used to source any info in the article about that topic.

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,

You have not said anything here. This supports the widely held Black view and that is it. It is not a record of her childhood just a support citation for the black view. Ohnoitsjamie The opnion piece expands on Robinsons article with a decidedly harsher tone; in the current version, it's fine as a citation for her views "running contrary to civil rights".

Before you delete any further, I demand that everyone who endeavors to delete go back and look through the history of the article. Almost every issue now being purported can be cited from previous work and articles. No one wants to take the time to look as it is easier to vandalize in the name of censorship. You are clearly focused on cleansing and I am clearly focused on expressing black views regardless of how you might view them but they are legit, well cited, and documented over and over again. Your arguments are only opinion and don't come close to countering the work so you resort to these drawn out conflicts of edit and delete then criticise for not having enough truth after your edits therefore more deleting is called for. I guess it is a game to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216Cali (talk • contribs)

Ohnotitsjamie I have seen no one is trying to "cleanse" the article. Attempting to balance the article in the interests of neutral point of view is not cleansing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

Okay, now that the page is protected, we're forced to have a civilized discussion. Here are the three problems that I think need to be addressed; two are content-related and one is user-related. Let's start talking... Isopropyl 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Do the sources in the introduction support the claims made? Are the sources relavent? Does the paragraph conform to WP:NPOV? Given that there is an existing "criticisms" section, is there an undue weight issue?

First, I think there is a problem with "many in the black community view as oppressive[4]". I looked up Source #4, and it was a Guardian UK article about Nelson Mandela's criticisms of the Bush administration.

A). This is not, nor does the source itself claim to be, the opinion of "many in the black community". It is merely the opinion of Nelson Mandela. If this is to be included in the article, then it should be referenced as "Nelson Mandela's view" toward the administration, not "the black community's view" toward the administration. Even "Some in the administration, like Nelson Mandela," but to say that it is the view of "many in the black community" is misleading. The current statement is not based on the cited source, but based on the opinion of the writer that (to him/her) it seems that "many" in the black community view the Bush admin as "oppressive". See WP:NPOV, which states: "For instance, 'John Doe is the best baseball player' is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: 'John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre', as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."

B). This statement does not relate to Rice. In fact, Rice is not even mentioned in the cited article. In that case, I hardly think such a statement qualifies as something important enough to be in the opening statement/description. Perhaps later in the Criticism section, but the opening statement is usually reserved for the candidate's core personal data, job history, and other extremely, extremely pertinent facts, which this is not. So, as for #4, I think it needs to be properly cited, properly quoted in context, and moved to the Criticism section if it is to be kept at all.

I think the comments might be appropriate for the Nelson Mandela article, but this article about Dr. Rice, not relevant at all. -- --BballJones 12:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Next, I looked up Source #5, and no where does it state (or even suggest for that matter, without a real stretch) that "many in the black community" see the Bush administration as "out of touch".

A). Source #5 has absolutely nothing to do with the black community, let alone "many" in the black community. In fact, it has to do with Brits protesting. This article cannot possibly be used to support a statement that the black community opposes the Bush administration.

B). This source does not state, or even imply, that the Bush administration is "out of touch". If anything, it implies that the Bush administration was wrong in its decision to invade Iraq and that Dr. Rice was wrong in her decision to support the invasion. However, it actually seems to imply the opposite as far as the administration being "out of touch". In the article, Rice directly and sympathetically responds to the protestors, acknowledging them and accepting their views with respect. Rice states that she has seen such protests everywhere she's visited. She even says to the protestors "by all means [continue to protest]". Rice even says she realizes the Bush administration has made "thousands" of mistakes in the war. I hardly think this qualifies for backing up a statement that the Bush administration is "out of touch".

Source #6 was just as disappointing. Nowhere does it say that "many in the black community" view the Bush administration as "anti-black". It does, however, list the opinion of one unnamed writer for www.theblackcommentator.com.

Source #7, alas, suffered from the same problem. Nowhere does it say or imply that the sentiments therein are those of "many in the black community," but rather that they are the sentiments of J.L. Chestnut, Jr., and by implication Eugene Robinson (a reporter for WaPo), and oh--Mr. Chestnut also implies that his wife is not fond of Dr. Rice either. If this source is going to be used at all, it should alert the reader to the fact that these are the opinions of 1-3 blacks, not necessarily "many in the black community".

Now, going back to Source #3, the source that supposedly gives the word "many" to the number of people in the "black community" who feel these ways about the Bush admin. The only thing that could be sourced is the title and the first sentence. The rest is basically an article praising the Republican Party's positive history of civil rights and racial justice, while denigrating the Democrat Party's negative history with regards to civil rights and racial injustice, quite the opposite, I'm sure, of what the writer was trying to get across about the Bush admin/Republican party and the black community. All Source #3 says is that 2% of blacks are in support of the President's performance. For all I know as far as this source, 98% of blacks could be unsure/indifferent about the President's performance, and 0% could be opposed to the President's performance. You just can't say that "many in the black community" are opposed to the Bush administration based on this article. And that's beside the fact that Rice isn't mentioned anywhere here. This source, if its statements are properly put into context, could still have use in this article, but for not even mentioning Rice, I hardly think it deserves to be in the highly specific introductory section to Ms. Rice's Wikipedia page.

After reviewing all of these things, it is my suggestion that the statements in question are either A). Removed, or B). Properly quoted in context and moved to the Criticism section--they are not relevant or pertinent enough to need to be in the introductory section which is reserved mostly for personal facts about the person (i.e. date of birth, death, etc.) and the person's career history.--Ai.kefu 02:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am somewhat leery of adding condemnations of the Bush administration so early on. The introduction should be an introduction to Rice and not the administration's low approval rating. As you said, there is a section devoted to criticism that would provide better context. Isopropyl 12:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the full comments. Most of the citations now included reflect edits made by you guys going back and forth and most of the citations removed for reasons of POV. If you remove the related articles for POV but they contain the necessary citations to support the statement then the fault is yours and not the article. Either do the version research or make suggestions as to which previous deleted citations should update the current section.

Introduction Sources Removed now need to be Replaced

The better question is "Which version of the previous citations and sources best support the claims in the opening, or can you find new sources to "better" support the claims. Many sources had been included over the course of edits and almost all were summarily discharged. The question you pose relates only to the "Current Set" of citations that survive the most recent "Freeze". The paragraph conforms to widely established fact of a POV not "MY Own" but of the community cited.

From the other POV I quote from a citation: MR. O'REILLY: One more question on this. Does it hurt your feelings that most black Americans don't like the President? SECRETARY RICE: No. MR. O'REILLY: Do you take it personally? SECRETARY RICE: I don't take anything personally, no. No. But I do like to have an opportunity to talk to people about what this President has meant for the empowerment of black Americans. MR. O'REILLY: Does it hurt your feelings when some anti-Bush people say that you're a shill for him and sold out your race?

If Bill knows this is a common Black View, then why do you continue to say it is a minor opinion of "just a few silly negroes?" The citations provided support the claim of the Black View of the Bush Administration and correlates this view to her role in it as she is both Black, and Female, a traditionally oppressed group in America. Black Women have it worse than any group in the U.S. so to not speak to issues of concern that affect them is a bad thing in their view. "Black Voting Rights, personal choice to have or not have a child, social services, etc... But for her to speak to and side with the opposing view is more than scandalous, it is a painful betrayal, and any group in similar circumstances would hold equal contempt. The Bush Regime had done more to turn back the clock on all manner of equality going so far as to try and put "Anti-Gay" laws in the very constitution written to guarantee "Liberty". What this says boldly is "Liberty for just a few". "Few" is to be defined by whomever we say. That is why "Blacks" were property in the early days, and now "Gays" are sub-human.

Nobody can exert such terror like this over people and not get anger from the citizens directly effected. To tell two US citizens who you gladly take taxes from, no, you "Demand" taxes from, that they cannot have the right to marry and or make decisions in their shared estates after one dies (because "God" says it's bad) is going to make people angry. Yet you advance the notion that "Because of these particular actions which undo human rights, and restrict human freedoms (under the law of "God" which should not be part of the discussion to begin with but somehow is), then the citizens directly affected by such restriction would not, nor could they if they tried, have any right to anger or disdain for those who inact it, is borderline insane.

You could say that Hitler's misdeeds belong in a Criticism Section too but they also belong in the opening heading because that represents the large view by Jews who were affected. If you are a Neo Nazi then you would argue in similar fashion to what you now argue but it does not diminish the consensus view of the Jewish people even if you yourself don't know any Jews or choose to delete most of the citations because they came from the Jewish Grandchildren and not the deceased victims directly but that would be equaly inane.

Ask yourself this question and I think it will help you make better sense of things here. WWWPD? (What would white people do?) You won't seemingly tolerate a even a difference of opinion with the black community view of Condi without a month long battle so what if you had to actually be proverbial "Blacks" for a day? Most would hang themselves rather than suffer this reality. --216Cali 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Is it appropriate to include the response to criticism in a so-called "criticism" section?

I believe that both Rice's response to criticisms leveled against her, and other African Americans' responses to criticisms leveled against her, are both inherently relevant to the section. As written in WP:NPOV in the "Fairness of Tone" section: "[W]e should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." What is the point of having a section for criticisms against Rice if the editors who added that section won't allow other editors to also add in Rice and others' responses to those criticisms? As it is, the responses to the criticisms take up maybe 1/3 of the article. Even in George W. Bush's Wikipedia page, the Criticism section ends with a nice big paragraph detailing positive non-criticsms about him to help balance it out. The "responses to criticisms" in the Condoleezza Rice Criticism section are well-sourced, accurately cited, and inherently relevant to the section. It seems blatantly obvious that the editors who continually remove the responses to the criticisms are doing so because of their personal disdain for Ms. Rice and are attempting to selectively weed out certain facts to make her look worse/less popular than she is. I myself am personally a moderate independent and am just here because of my interest in American foreign policy and the political personhood of Sec. Rice--I absolutely have no problem with a section dealing with controversies and criticisms surrounding Rice, but to particularly pick out certain well-cited, relevant facts in such a manner suggests to me that these editors are not here for honest, non-biased research and reporting, but to cast a discolored image of Sec. Rice to the readers of the article. I think the responses to the criticisms need to stay, as they are written in a fair tone and help balance the POV factor of the section. --130.108.192.180 02:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The sources are not relevant or in defense of the criticisms within that section. If one criticism is about her being called a "Black Tyrant" by Harry Belafonte, than the response should be related to that comment and Harry Belafonte. Once such incident that was removed was where someone included a commentator response to a Belafonte remark from a full year before he ever said the "tryant" thing and they tried to say that was a valid response.

If you add responses, than do them in response to each matter cited not unrelated things.

In each case, the response is citing something unrelated and the text is taken entirely out of context. EXAMPLE 1: In response to the view that "Black America" dislikes Condi' and Belafonte's remark that she is a "Black Tyrant" this was included as the counter. "Democrat C. Delores Tucker, chair of the National Congress of Black Women, in 2005 voiced her opinion that Sec. Rice is "more qualified to be Secretary of State than possibly 80 percent of the persons that sat in that office" and stated that her friends in the black community "support her" and want to "let her know that we're with her and we don't like what is being done to her""

This is actually a direct response to an issue she has with what the other "Senate" members were doing. "Why are Senate Democrats debating the qualifications of a woman whose accomplishments speak for themselves, some prominent black Democrats wondered on Tuesday.

EXAMPLE 2:Citations suggesting her response to Hurrican Katrina and the black anger that stems from that does not get countered by what a commentator says in response to "who will be the next president Condi or Hillary" where the remark "Not all blacks feel this way" is supported by an unrelated article purporting how she might be voted for if she ran against Hillary.

An article comparing here vote potential does not relate to the "Black View" so how is that a response? If you allow these to stay, you might as well counter the following.

Condi was protested in London following a speech she gave. (citation, citation, citation) Response: Condi discusses the meaning of John Lennon's lyrics with the Ambassador while a crowd of British onlookers waited in the rain. (link to Beatles record on Amazon)

Allegations of racism

Do spurious accusations of racism constitute personal attacks? Do they create a hostile environment which inhibits the free editing of the page, cause a lack of trust between editors, or intimidate one side or another, a la legal threats?

I personally do not believe that anyone and that includes everyone should not be discussing the race of anyone else. What my race (or the race of anyone else who is editing) is not important or relevant to a discussion of Condi Rice. The question that we should be asking ourselves when we discuss each and every addition is whether that addition adds to the article in a informative way, without violating any of the goals of Wikipedia, which includes the policy of neutral point of view. I agree that the article needed to add valid criticisms of Dr. Rice, but I do not believe that the Wikipedia article should take a side for or against the criticism. It should present the criticism and a response. That is the template of the all of the other political figures in Wikipedia and it should be the goal of this article. What my heritage is is NOT relevant to this discussion and any commentary (especially incorrect and insulting commentary) should not be a part of this talk page. That's my two cents. -- --BballJones 02:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

These are the issues that I feel must be resolved before progress can be made on this page. Isopropyl 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There have been several specific statements made by folks that are directly racist. "Lets Separate the criticism(s) based on race (ElKevbo)" is a good example.

Most issues of race and racism are subtle but permeate througout the dialogue here. Here, as with much of life folks don't even know when they are being racist. "Oh, I'm not prejudiced, I have black friends" is s perfect one. The tone of the overall attitude here is that the entire "Viewpoint" of black people should be supressed and it is obvious some of you have made it a job to delete what black people all know and talk about daily. The idea that "Well we don't talk bad about Condi, therefore I don't beleive it is as bad as they are saying" is enough to justify your actions is a form of racism. To dismiss someone like "Kanye West's" emotional response to his and every other blacks view of neglect on a mass scale, as "Crazy rantings" is racist. I am convinced that a Whites view of what a racist is, is limited to just those Robe wearing idiots but that is not even close to true.

If you think "Affirmative Action" is a bad thing, chances are you are a racist. Not the Robe wearing kind but the subtle permeating kind that thinks all white wealth today came from thier own sweat. That the job you have is based solely on merit and not institutional priviledge. If you think that anyman can do anything in the US ask yourself this, Condi is purported to speak several languages and a master of International diplomacy. "She is Well spoken" and generally regarded as highly intelligent. She represents the best of "Black American's". George Bush is well, not so well spoken, a C student and generally regarded as not the brightest bulb in the room. Tucker Carlson once said, "Watching Geore Bush speak is a lot like watching a drunk man cross an icy street".

You see, for a black women to get to the high office you got to be sharp sharp sharp, but for the White guy, not so sharp. Whites argue all the time Affirmative Action pust unqualified people in jobs other people should get. How do you justify this "Bush debacle"?--216Cali 03:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the question? Isopropyl 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop twisting my words. I believe that you know exactly what I meant when I proposed creating new subsections. There is crticism aimed at Rice largely or solely based on her policy decisions and criticism aimed at her largely or solely based on her race. It's perfectly reasonable to explore organizing the criticism along those lines. To attempt to twist that reasonable proposal into a racist proposal advocating the organization of the criticism based on the race of the critic is absurd and offensive.

I am politely asking you one more time to cease the personal attacks and contribute to this discussion meaningfully, honestly, and in line with the content of the article and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Further personal attacks and baseless accusations of racism will likely result in a user conduct RFC. I would hate to do that but if this activity continues I simply don't know what else we can do to try to bring this coversation back on track. --ElKevbo 17:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to remind myself, I am talking to a Bush supporter. Let me use small words.

The "Racism" within the activity of the board is rampant though not always overt. I tried to relate the minor ways it manifests itself in your contributions, edits and repsones but I have to remember, you don't think you are a racist so it matters not what others might think. I am sure a pedophile thinks he just likes kids "a whole lot" but can't see his problem. The accusations were made as each incident surfaced. You think it spurious because its targeted at you I presume but that is natural. To say it is spurious because you are not bright enough to know when you are being offensive is an issue you have to take up with your parents.--216Cali 04:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving all of my points. Isopropyl 04:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward (summary)

Okay, it's been a couple days, and the suggestions from discussion are pretty much as follows:

1. Move the paragraph from the introduction to the criticism section, removing unrelated sources.
2. Response to criticism is relevant to the criticism section, sources should be checked to make sure they support their assertions.
3. The race or nationality of editors is not relevant to a discussion of Condoleezza Rice.

Support/Oppose? Further discussion for another day or so and then we'll request unprotection to implement these changes. Isopropyl 20:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

I am disappointed (but not surprised) by the lack of discussion after some editors were so willing to jump in and begin editing the page a week ago. I'm sure it says something about those editors but I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. --ElKevbo 22:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All three of those suggestions sound reasonable and fair. I have no problem with critical info/opinions toward Dr. Rice being included in her Wiki page, but when you take quotes out of context, put them in irrelevant places, and continually remove non-critical info/opinions, it shows that you are only here to further a biased agenda. It will look better with the intro paragraph in question moved to the Criticism section, the Response to the Criticisms retained, and all of the quotes/citations in question put into proper context. I think the time has come that we can move forward now with requesting unprotection to implement said changes. --Ai.kefu 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well-stated. I'm in agreement with points above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. The criticism is appropriate as long as it is presented in a NPOV. Also, the introduction should not be a long list of criticisms of Dr. Rice. That is just not appropriate, leave it to the criticism section. -- --Getaway 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward (closure)

This article is good the way it is now. It needs no further work and should be protected until further notice.

In response to your "questions" First off, you know you had my username "Banned" for reverting my previous edits to which you did not edit yourself so to pretend you don't know why "i have not heard anything from the opposition" is silly, stupid and is hereby called out for general cowardice.

Second, the three points have been well debated over and over again. Listing them here for the sake of discussion is not only redundant but clearly a tactic to try and hijact the POV yet again. If they lock the article in it's current form for good, I would be happy with that because it opens with the truth, and contains a section that details an account of how she is viewed by the segment of the population each criticism relates to.

The opening paragraph reflects a "Mass" view point just not one "You" share so I understand why you wish to move it but you offer no discussion as to how to either improve that paragraph or expand on it but only to deny it as factual or true. --Francespeabody 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The opening shouldn't have opinion in it. The opening section/introduction, PER the precedent of all other Wiki pages, is a skeletal list of the most pertinent core objective facts about the person. Even Hitler's Wiki page doesn't have public opinion about him--it just lays out the facts about who he was and what he was known best for doing, not about who liked him and who didn't. I for one don't have ANY problem whatsoever with critical opinions and information against Dr. Rice being included in her Wiki page, but per precedent, it is not needed in the opening section. --Ai.kefu 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to criticism is a moot point. Criticism is the heading on this and all other articles in Wiki, but in an effort to hijack the POV, this attempt was made by you and your followers to try and detract from the well cited, and popular opinions of the "Black American" people. No other article in Wiki offers a "Response" to a criticism section yet you insist this article needs one despite precedent!!! --Francespeabody 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the responses of Rice and other black leaders to criticisms leveled against her is inherently pertinent to the section. I honestly cannot see how you can possibly say otherwise. It's just common sense. Even on George W. Bush's Wiki page, the last half of his Criticisms section balances out with some positive information on him. --Ai.kefu 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Third, a discussion on race, wether you like it or not is relevant if you insist on diminishing the Black POV from this article. Each time a black voice spoke here you deleted it and to not speak to your motivation is clearly a POV that is either White, Republican, Racist, or more likely all of the above. Why else would the black voice be muted so repeatedly without defense? Why would black authors cited here be called to question, even senators, and leaders not in politics but that hold sway with black people were dismissed. This speaks to motive and if you have none but to promote truth, you cannot pretend to wish these thoughts and views away from the article. --Francespeabody 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know WE'RE not black? Well, just for the record, I AM. I, however, am not simply a partisan troll on this website. I'm here for honest to goodness research and reporting on things that interest me--namely American foreign policy and the personhood of Dr. Rice. So, because I added in Rice's and other black leaders' response to some critisms leveled against her, and because you kept deleting it out, then YOU were silencing MY voice, and hence, YOU were diminishing the Black POV. But you know what? The Black POV should NOT be included in this article because Wikipedia is strictly NPOV. And yes, that means the White POV shouldn't be included either--or the Republican POV or the "Racist" POV. We should simply report the facts--the objective facts that can be verified through empirical data. That, and we should report those facts in a professional, scholarly way that looks at them from a distance, uninvolved. We also need to cite them and quote them in their correct context and make sure they are in the best placement here in the article to contribute to the overall professionalism and balance of this article. Keep your racist trolling off this page, Frances--we're all race-neutral here, but it seems you're the only one insulting other peoples' ethnicities. Blacks can be just as much racists as whites can. We need to focus on the article itself, not on the personal lives of the editors. Your inability to do so shows a great immaturity on your part; one that I don't think qualifies you to objectively edit this article. --Ai.kefu 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I for one, support the article AS-IS and would request that the site be LOCKED from future edit the way the George W. Bush site is now. --Francespeabody 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't support locking the site from future edit as it is now, because Sec. Rice is doing a lot of things, and the page needs to be updated and expanded frequently to accomodate history. For instance, I was planning on writing up a section on her diplomatic role in the Israeli-Palestinian affairs, but cannot do so if the page is locked as is right now. The issues have been well-discussed, and we've came to a sensible, reasonable conclusion that the vast majority of involved editors here have approved. We're keeping the criticsms and negative opinions toward Dr. Rice in the article, but citing them in context and putting them in the appropriate section. We're not diminishing anyone's opinion, we're simply restoring balance and objectivity to the article. --Ai.kefu 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The African American peoples voice demands to be heard here and the minor way in which is comes across, the citation included, and the wealth of information that supports the view make it hard to ignore. --Francespeabody 06:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you will take the time to look through the citations in the paragraph in question in the introductory section, you'll see that most of the citations quote words and phrases that aren't in the sources provided, are taken out of context, and are in the wrong section of the page altogether. Nobody here is trying to diminish any peoples' voice. Stop trolling your skin color and just try to be objective and professional about this. --Ai.kefu 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is this "you" to whom you are speaking, particularly in your second full sentence (the one beginning "First off...")? --ElKevbo 06:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Ai.Kefu Should be banned for good!!!

I was waiting for you to try and pretend to be black. It was only a matter of time before you would try to claim this as a way of dignifying your position. It is silly on its face so please, don't lie about something so deep you could not possibly understand. Your writings give you away and your false objectivity is contradicted by both the limited amount of total contributions you have made to the Wikipedia of any other article and the near blind allegience to something no respectable black would ever do, and this is loyalty to a party of those who not only hate blacks but have done as much in the last 8 years to prove it through policy and reversal of programs implemented to uplift the same group you purport to belong to.

No, Ai.kefu, you are not only not Black, but a bold faced LIAR about what and who you represent: I present exhibit A where if I do a "Page Find" for the unusual name "Ai.kefu" it appears here on a Condelezaforpresident.com website. An organization that begs her to run for president to which you offer a comment on the topic which I quote here.

Did you even read the post from the guy preceding your comment? A true "Black"? Let me quote him. "Many black people do feel our leader didn't care enough to rush the relief from Katrina, we have many things going agaisnt us."

But this is the Kicker!!! YOU ARE THE FREAKING MODERATOR FOR RUNRICE 2008

Here are your glorious comments:

Exhibit C« Condoleezza Rice Says “NO” To Presidential Run, BUT…The Fire Burning In Africa »

President Eisenhower stated emphatically on dozens and dozens of occasions, even to his closest friends and family, that he would never seek the presidency, and yet he served two terms. The pivotal factor here is the level of patriotism, loyalty, and duty to one’s country that characterized both Eisenhower and Dr. Rice. Dr. Rice is a public servant, she is a patriot, she is a woman who loves her country and steps up to the plate when she is asked to do something. All she needs to see is that the American people are giving her a mandate to take the reins, not a fanciful proposition. Once she does realize this, she will open up to the idea, and once the public shows its support for her, she will be inaugurated. It’s as simple as that. Welcome to the Condistas!

Oh, and as to your general "Blackness", I have this final sweet tidbit of an offering.

Not too much black folk in Austria, Germany, in the 1800's but hey if you were adopted and they raised you to ignore something obvious about being black than they did you a dis-service. This is exactly why "RACE" matters here, because folks like you declare falsely and to the point of agregious lying, that it does not matter yet do and say things "while pretending to present the black view" at the same time you boldly fly the Condi' flag everywhere you can.

This is not a NPOV. You should be BANNED for every offering a line of thought to this subject and all related contributions should be stricken from the record. I was "Banned" from contribution for reverting a widely known series of truths to their prior state because of what you and othersl like you tried to do hide, and if you don't get Banned, this will prove my point all the more, this site is in no way NPOV. Black, proud of it, American too, and I have a right to speak. Enough of my peoples blood has been shed for that right so please go back to the high school you just graduated from and ask for a refresher course in your Civil Rights History or rather purchase this book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong --Francespeabody 20:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, but that person is not me. Funny enough, because I do know that person, or at least am acquainted with him, rather. I've spoken with him on occasion, and his e-mail address is actually the inspiration for my Wikipedia account name. "Ai Kefu" (or "Aikefu") is not a random amalgamation of letters--it's a Mandarin Chinese phrase which means "Love Overcomes," from I Corinthians 13:7-8 in the Bible. Sorry, but I'm not the same person as him.

Secondly--yes, I am a private supporter of the Draft Rice movement in my own personal life, however, I am an independent voter and am not here to defend the Bush administration, which I myself believe has made many mistakes. However, just because I think Dr. Rice would make a good President does not mean I cannot edit and contribute to this article in a helpful, non-biased way as I have been. I was sincere when I said I am not here to further any ulterior agenda and that I am genuinely interested in foreign policy and the political personhood of Dr. Rice. I don't think I should have to lay out my personal feelings about Dr. Rice in order to contribute to her Wiki page. My balanced, objective, non-biased contributions to this article speak for themself.

Thirdly, I ask you politely--do not EVER, EVER bring my skin color into this discussion. Your race-baiting tacts are abominable and you should be ashamed of yourself. I am proud of the fact that I am black. I am also proud of the fact that, at the same time, I can think for myself and hold my own political opinions and do not have to merely go along with the rest of the black community all the time. Stop making this a racial issue. I'm asking you, quite nicely I think, to step back and just take a look at this from an objective, professional perspective. --Ai.kefu 23:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this has certainly taken a turn for truly bizarre... :)

Frances, I would recommend filing a user conduct RFC against ai.kefu if you really want to pursue these "charges." I think your evidence is pretty tenous (going from Wikipedia username to Google mail address to genealogy) but an RFC would be the proper way to pursue this further.

If ai.kefu is indeed associated with Rice in a significant way, I do think that should have been mentioned at the outset or on ai.kefu's User page in the interests of full disclosure. I wouldn't not too upset about it as I do think that his or her contributions have been in line with Wikipedia policy and I certainly wouldn't think it nullifies his or her contributions. It sure doesn't merit being banned from this article, IMHO.

Again: Frances, if you're going to pursue this, take it an RFC or to ai.kefu's Talk page. --ElKevbo 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tenuous at best? Damn! What more does it take. Consider the mathmatical possibility of a name with such a unique combination of characters as ai.kefu and the only other surfacing of that combination to be on "Condi" sites the very topic of this discussion, plus the unhinged amount of bias he has for her here makes this so airtight I don't know how "Tenuous" can be uttered.

Elkevbo, anyone can contribute what they want to any site. You do it too. In response to a basic question about Bush and his involvement in Skull and Bones, its known rituals and his refusal to talk about it this site asked "Why is there no discussion of Bush's Satanism?"

You Wrote:

"Allegations and assertions aimed at or about living persons, even on the Talk page, should be supported by citations and sources. It's both a good legal principle and the least we can do for our fellow human beings. --ElKevbo 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)"

This is a theme you also carry out here what with the "Cite this and cite that" but what you fail to see is that most of the Adminstration activity like "Bush's" past is closed for conversation, his government is closed from scrutiny, and because little is officially known about his activities, much is known from others who have witnessed the activity and they do speak out. If you take that conversation above, even Bush admits to being in the Skull and Bones but states "That is all I will say about that"! so does his cryptic answer absolve him from answering basic question . The work of uncovering the truth or questioning him about things he wants to hide has the easy advantage of your ability to say "if you can't cite a fact or quote from an admission then it does not and should not be included" and that is wrong. The fact that you hold this pro Bush sentiment on multiple sites proves though that you don't and are not looking for a NPOV either.

I do not belong to any other site, I came here to see the Encyclopedia thrive with honesty but I now see that that is never going to happen here. The thing that most scares me is that the age of you folks is so young, even your female perspective on this speaks to a kind of detachment from female equity that most women possess.

This kid was wrong and I stand by the assertion that "Truth" should be included even if it is unpopular. I was happy to allow the Demcratic leader wiki's to stay stained with crap the way they are now until you guys started just deleting out and out true and documented facts, opinions and citations.

I blame all of you not just the misguided "Ai" because none of you have interest in NPOV or unpopular opinions. Your sole goal is to keep her "Good Name" in tact and that serves no one but her, and those who support her. If you represent the future and are already willing to lie, cheat and steal the way Ai did or worse, to minimize what he did, then you are well on your way to a full Republican congress once again.

The United States represents a place where people with opposing views can be heard. Censorship however it manifests itself should not only be not tolerated, it should be battled against with the fervor we now pretend to hate Muslims in the mid east. We are being used and our emotions played to make us hate an unnatural enemy. No muslim, including Osama ever did anything to you or the US that can be proven beyond even assertion yet if you beleive even that crap why are we not fighting him but muslims in another country?

You guys need to wake up. Open your eyes. I know you have been sheltered from many things but the enemy lies within our own government and you perpetuate it without question.

I was once told I should be proud of Condi. We have a black in high office they said. One out of thousands of possible government positions and she chooses to represent the worst of us. I beg you to research her father and his activism in the 60's. You would be in debate with him right now given your positions. Oh, I did cite that here but might have been removed. I am proud to be black, American, and to have the freedom to express my view. None of you has the right to supress it, none of you.--Francespeabody 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Francespeabody, this talk page isn't the place for your complaint. Kindly follow the suggestion given by ElKevbo and take this issue to RfC. It would be nice if this talk page could be used as it was intended, e.g., to discuss changes to the article. No one is suppressing you, we are simply requesting that you use the proper channels. -Fsotrain09 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Ai.Kefu Should be banned for still pretending to be black!!!

Dude, give it a rest. I don't have to EVER, EVER bring your skin color into it because we now know you just lie about that altogether anyway. You pretended to be black to make a failed and sloppy point and you wasted my and everyone elses time with your false contributions. You suggest you happen to "Know" the guy on the other site, but you also write like that person, share the same Condi Love, and are both "Independants" but somehow despite your claim that you "borrowed" his name obscure pen name, and you just happen to know the "hidden Mandarin Chinese" interpretation of his pen name is comically stupid. It would take a 19 year old conservative to think that excuse stood a chance. You really do think Blacks are as dumb as history portrays us?

I do respect your commitment to stupidity. That you happen to share the exact views, name, thoughts, party, IP Address and quotes of "this mystery Moderatory of RunRice2008.com is either the mother of all coincidences or I to am a 19 year old snot nose from Dayton who pretends to be black instead of an adult Black male who has lived a life and knows shit from shinola. --Francespeabody 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Frances, I'm sorry to have to say this, but you are a complete and absolute idiot, my friend. You claim to know "shit from shinola," yet everything you have spewed thus far has been nothing but the former. It might interest you to know that he and I go to the same university, hence, I'm guessing, the similar IP addresses, and we took Chinese 103 together because he's a language major (I think) and I just graduated this spring with a pol sci degree (I'm off to State this fall, so after that, you won't have to worry about me). If you would pull your head out of your rectum and stop avoiding the issues at hand by playing racial games, you would easily be able to find through a Chinese-English online translator that YES, "Aikefu" is indeed a Chinese phrase that means "Love overcomes". Of course, it's not in the traditional characters and it doesn't have the pinyin marks, but trust me, it is. It's not an "obscure phrase," it's a rather well-known saying--but you would know that because you're obviously an expert in Chinese, right? I've tried to be patient with you, and please know that I don't hold a grudge against you, but YOU, sir, need to try a little of this thing called "loving your neighbor" instead of trying to judge someone that YOU'VE NEVER EVEN MET. Would you like to see pictures of me? Would you like me to get on a freaking webcam for you? What the heck do you want from me to prove to you that I am who I say I am so you'll cut out these juvenile tactics and return to discussing the REAL ISSUES? You know, just because I'm black doesn't mean I HAVE to conform to YOUR VIEW of what the so-called "Black POV" is. You know, in my state, there's a conservative guy named Ken Blackwell who is black and (*gasp!*) is the Republican candidate for Governor. What, are you going to disrespect him too? And what about Lynn Swann, and Mike Steele, and Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell? And you know what? Martin Luther King, Jr. was a conservative Republican too!! And Condi Rice's father, John Wesley Rice, who you talk about, was also a conservative Republican who called the Democratic party a party of bigots and hypocrites and patronizers. Did you KNOW, Mr. Peabody, that the Civil Rights Acts of the 60's were passed by CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS? Did you KNOW, sir, that the first Affirmative Action legislation was passed by Richard Nixon? Did you ever stop and think about the fact that Abraham Lincoln, the guy who passed the freakin' Emancipation Proclamation was a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN? No, sir, it is YOUR ignorance and inability, NAY, UNWILLINGNESS, to see the truth that is the issue at hand here. This has NOTHIN to do with the skin colors of the editors. It has EVERYTHING to do with following Wikipedia's standards, and I think the fact that you can't handle the unbiased objective truth about Dr. Rice leads you to divert the attention away from the real issues and attack the race of the editors. You sicken me, and no, I will not sit down and shut up just because you told me to. I'm staying right here and contributing because I have every right to. --Ai.kefu 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your collective youth betrays your unwillingess to look at harsh issues and to debate them. The easiest path is always to hide or dismiss but to confront takes courage which is sorely lacking here.

My father told me "You can't argue with stupidity" so I will end that here and now. Please do not contribute to this conversation any further. You have been identified, called out and tarred the "Liar" that you are. Please limit your contributions to the Pro Condi websites you started and keep that bias off of here. --Francespeabody 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your father is more correct than you could possibly know. You don't even know me, yet you can say with one hundred percent certainty that I am a "liar," because you tracked down some other kid that has the same online name. I think it's freaking hilarious that in our pop culture we call eachother "brothers" and "sisters," and yet it's people like you that make these words hollow and void and meaningless by your ignominy and ignorance and hypocrisy. If you want me to prove to you that I'm "black", then fine, just say so, but keep your race-trolling off this site. If you want to discuss this man-to-man, then email me ([email protected]) so we can keep this Talk section clean. --Ai.kefu 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If any of you take the time to review what was written by me you will see it is not a biased POV in the actual article but the citation of established and well cited information. This crap that has evolved via the discussion is the example of where the country is as a nation. A nation of kids who buy what the government says without questioning anything. You get the government you deserve! But I have lived long enough to deserve the respect of those who wish to engage me and if you are going to be a liar, I chose not to debate you. --Francespeabody 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why Ai.Kefu (Master of Chinese Love Poems) Should be banned for still pretending to be black!!!

As funny as it would be to see you pretend to be some black kid using some randomly googled images from some yearbook cut and paste job, I would rather not watch this sink into that low mire.

You cite some ignorant crap. You say that Republican Conservatives blacks of yesterday in some way reflect the party today. If you read my entries far enough back, you would see that I have addressed this the first time some Republican tried to convince me of such a thing.

Do you not know that for about 300 years the Republican party was the party of the Blacks the way Democrats are now. That means "HATED" by whites. (By hate I mean, more guns, pitchforks and death.)History Snapshot for Ai. Please visit the link to my history snapshot to get a view of the "Democratic Party" of yesteryear and make the same stupid argument about the Republican's today reflecting the interests of black republicans from yesterday.

I know what Lincoln was. Dude you are like 12 years old going on 19 and you are trying to take me to task over history. You have not lived enough to argue the points you are trying but while I would give others an credit for trying, you are a liar, and a Condiphile!!!!

You still think I fell off the cabbage truck on its way into town and that you can fool me with your mystical Chinese Parable Obscura.

If you were Black, and copied some German kid sitting next to you in "Uni" whilst you both happened to be studying the nuances of Mandarin Chinese Love Poems, from behind the walls of the forbiddin city nestled comfortably within the Peoples Republic of Dayton, Ohio, then I suppose I would be, hmmm, hmmmm, hmmmmm, Steve-O perhaps?--Francespeabody 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You, my friend, are portraying yourself as incredibly ignorant. You're not worth debating on here because you know that you're wrong when it comes to the Wikipedia-related issues and so you're trying to divert the attention to the personal lives and skin colors of the editors. Yes, I DID take a class with him, he DID get me interested in the Draft Rice movement, and no, "Aikefu" is not an obscure parable. It IS the Mandarin translation of one of the most beautiful passages in the Judeo-Christian Bible and it's a well-known phrase. Stop talking about things you know nothing about and focus on the real issues at hand, instead. Your personal attacks and diversions from the real issues are frankly quite annoying. You have proven that you are not here on Wikipedia for real, professional scholarship, and that you are simply a troll. This page is about discussing editorial changes on the "Condoleezza Rice" page. If you want to talk to me one-on-one, I have offered you the chance to email me. But since you chose not to do so, I think it shows that you are afraid of debating me, because you know that your spouting of ignorant liberal propaganda can only hold up so long. You should be banned from this site, Frances, because you have consistently evidenced yourself to be an immature, hateful, racist troll with a blatant agenda. Either shape up or ship out. --Ai.kefu 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Editprotected

The article could be immediately improved by purging excess wikilinks to dates and dozens of redundant links to National Security Advisor, et al. Also reference to the "huge statue of the Roman God of fire and metalworking" should link to Vulcan statue. --Dystopos 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

(Also, to the editwarriors, I advise meditating on the meaning of "neutral POV" before returning to the battlefield.) --Dystopos 22:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The links are redundant and plentiful due to the constant demand for more and more citation "or else" tactics being used to disqualify any unfavorable posting.

In terms of RFC for the other users, I will let you all read this and decide for yourselves if that is the course of action to take. I am curious to know if you have it within yourselves to do the right thing or if it something I must pursue entirely. If I purue this the obvious defense will be that I have a political agenda but I would do the same for a democratic party view whereby the person worked for an organization and did not come clean about it. I would bring up the RFC in such a case so I would expect the same from Elkevbo.

This started with the simple inclusion of a "Black View" of Condi paragraph that expressed the viewpoint of an entire community. Everyone who deleted, edited or contradicted the widely known sentiment either came from outside of the community and made no show of investigating for the truth, so I and a few others were held to task for proving over and over again how valid a widely known truth in the black community is about Condi.

I felt it was important to include this view because it is not small or minor as would be the view of most political transgressions but because it represents the view of over 90% of the people it encompasses. The neutrality of this statement is that it is not "MY OPINION" contained in the article but the well cited "Black American View" that exists with or without any external requirements. I have used as many analogy and example as possible to demonstrate why this is a common NPOV of how Blacks Feel. (Condi is Black btw).--Francespeabody 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Excessive linking has nothing to do with citation. It's a matter of accepted style guidelines, not a matter of disputed content. Putting brackets around every single date doesn't support any viewpoint. --- If I were offering advice on the section to which you refer, I'd say that citing multiple individual opinions to make a statement about a view held by a group, even if accurate, is original research. To speak of a widely held view you would either need to cite an opinion poll or attribute the obervation to a reputable source (i.e. 'In Eugene Robinson's view, a lot of African Americans wondered what the deal is with Condoleezza Rice and the issue of race". I don't know if that's been done with the flurry of references because frankly, I don't think gauging everyone's opinion (or, for that matter, breaking opinions down by race) has much to do with a fact-based, neutral and encyclopedic biography. I'm sure it has everything to do with White House public relations problems and the 2008 election. That's just me. Best of luck with resolving the dispute. --Dystopos 23:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is racist to describe points of view as "black" or "white". Opinions about Condi should be categorized in accord with the opinion, not the sex, color, race, height, intelligence, etc of the person. Mostly it is about left verus right or democrat vs republican or poor vs rich. WAS 4.250 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• It may be racist to say that a certain opinion is a "Black point of view", but it is not racist to report opinions that are gathered scientifically. The non-racist wording would be something like "80 percent of those polled who identified themselves as African-Americans agreed or strongly-agreed with the statment that..." In the big picture, opinions about Rice, except as they create a verifiable impact, are not particularly relevant to her biography. They remain what they are... opinions. --Dystopos 00:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the {editprotected}. The request isn't critical, and someone can just take care of it when the article is unprotected.--Commander Keane 09:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dystopos: Et to brutus?

So typical of Whites to dismiss the concept "altogether" rather than investigate for truth. It is also typical to have either no understanding of what "racism" means let alone accepting culpability for engaging in it.

"It is racist to describe points of view as "black" or "white"." is now the new Webster's definition of Racism as assigned by the great Southern Dystopos who's southern perspective would inherently be devoid of racist precepts. There is no possible way you could have grown up White, Christian and from Birmingham and not have but the purest pro "all creatures are equal" perspective of the broad world.

Please let me help you with one thing. If you are White and American, you have racism bread into you and if you do not admit or accept this basic notion, you are not worth debating. The Heart of Whiteness written by a "White" author is one of many who discuss this truism. Racism is defined not by the general description of one point of view as you have suggested but the idea that one race holds itself superior to another.

The idea that only your interpretation of what qualifies as valid and not the assesment of "Black Point of View" when it is clearly defined as Black Point of View and relevant to this article because the subject herself is "Black" and prominent is inherently racist. It asserts that since "YOU, or other Whites" do not share in discourse on this topic that it is invalid. It suggests that if I cannot provide proof of a prevailing view according to "Your Terms" which by the way shift with every citation, that the black view is "less valuable" than your view and lets make this clear, it is convenient to "blanket" the White view with "Wiki Rules" and "Statistical" citations and any other historical White tactic that can be used to over rule what is widley regarded in the black community is inherently "Racist". Consider that the president Thomas Jefferson who himself owned slaves argued that Blacks were happy in this relationship with the master and generally had an understanding that kept all involved at peace. Can you please recall the "Poll" that contradicts this from his time? Oh, but there were no polls because no whites took them nor were blacks permitted to discuss that matter at all so by the Dystopos/Wiki standard, Blacks Loved Slavery because no polls showed anything to the contrary.

The idea that you can comfortably suggest whay you are now and not know how dismissive it is, is evidence of a similar detachment from the voice of Blacks and to say that unless the POV has ONLY a POV you identify (Left, Democratic...) is valid. Worst of all, you casually sweep all of the issues into a bag called "White House PR" problems and yet again dismiss the possibillity that the entire voice of the African American community is tilted by bad PR and not her actions.

It angers me to the point of wanting to slap the hell out of everyone of you that you continue to dismiss the entire view and assign it to some larger Whitehouse gaff as though Blacks are too stupid to know better. That we don't know personal actions, or lack of actions and how they affect us from how the larger Institutions effect our lives daily. I am embarrassed for all of you that this is your honest view. That you lack the courage to look deeper into how you came to form such detached opinions. The racism you possess is in the very notion that you think your opinions merit inclusion at all times and in all debates where the White media has offered a white thought or worse, some pimple faced high school student on the Condi for God.com campaign decides his voice supercedes that of a aging black male who has seen the world in action and been dealt the "Even" and "Fair" hand of the US that locks up more blacks than it educates.

I pray that each of you finds yourself in a court full of black jurors for some minor offense someday. Just to give you a small taste of the "Colorless", Ageless, Genderless" bias you now claim exists. Scientifically, I should not be able to read and write, I should be in jail, or coming out of it at my age, but somehow I have never been to jail. If I defy the social science then what of the science you think exists for the rest of Black society?

I see that you have contributed to sites such as Megadeath, 16th Street Baptist Church, and Mary Morgan Keipp a wonderful German decended photographer who specialized photographs that depict rural African Americans going about their normal routines in the Reconstruction South. Or Films shot in the South or my favorite article you contributed to Wiki "Nickajack" which describes accurately something I see at play here.

Quote from Nickajack: "On January 7, 1861, Alabama Governor Andrew B. Moore called delegates from Alabama to Montgomery for a convention to debate Articles of Secession. Delegates from South Alabama wanted the convention delegates to determine the vote, while Northern delegates wanted the issue put to a popular vote. Because the apportionment of delegates to the convention was based on total population (including slaves), the southern delegates effectively voted "on behalf" of the African-American slaves which made up a large proportion of the population in their region. In a popular vote, the balance of power would shift to the North, which was mostly white."

Yes, I see that there is a desire here to let you and the rest of the Red State Conservatives pretending to be "Neutral" until I do a little fact finding about you shows you to be anything but, control or rather, "vote on behalf" of the African-America". If I look at just this example, and nothing more, you would be the person who said that "Blacks" voted for what they got in 1861 and ignore a detail like the vote was done on their behalf. (Note: This is not what the article says. Try reading it again. --Dystopos 19:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Until someone truly neutral can come into this conversation, I think all of you Red Stat, Bible thumping idiots ought to stay out of it. You have a 1000 other White Faced protectorates to work over in your "special" kind of white-washing way but for Condi, Blacks have an opinion, and I would ask that you not "vote on our behalf".--Francespeabody 02:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use the talk pages of articles as soapboxes, Frances. File an RfC, take this to mediation, or go elsewhere, but please allow other editors to get back to the task of working to improve this article. Thank you. -Fsotrain09 02:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Soapboxes. Here we go, yet another Roman Catholic censor looking to dismiss and diminish the entire conversation because they cannot find fault with any of the issues detailed and find that truth stings a little bit too much to continue engaging it so I think you should go about hiding under the covers and let those with the stomach for it continue.

Truth hurts but I can't hide from it the way you choose to. I will be black in the morning, blacks will still feel the way they do about Condi, and you will still be peering from under the covers until I dissapear. The signal I presume you need to engage in Safe Clean Christian conversation. Historically, you guys were the worst toward blacks and to this day the majority of all Hate based groups share your love of a Blonde Blue-eyed Christian God. Despite his having come from Sub-Saharan land during a time when all others were black, he according to your "science" I am sure will prove to be as White and Black, Liberal & Fag hating as you are.

I am sorry, which of these fine African topics are you the author of?

Foresthill Bridge -- started

Louis W. Goodman -- started

Amos Yarkoni -- started

Solveig Gunbjörg Jacobsen -- started

Each one of you most in disagreement with me is either a Pro-Slavery wing-nut, Christian/Bush worshiper, or just authors of topics none of which qualify you to judge the POV presented by blacks. None of you are informed enough to make any opinion and a quick look at what you do, how you say it and your motives confirm this.--Francespeabody 03:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are now clearly in violation of WP:NPA. Neither I nor any other editor here is looking to "censor" anything. And just as an editor's skin color has nothing to do with their integrity and/or ability to maintain NPOV, religion does not either. Frances, you must know that you are very close to being banned from editting. Please stop making personal attacks. -Fsotrain09 03:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So you are the authority on communication in the talks session? You attacked me as a "Soapbox commentator", told me that "I should go elsewhere" meaning "anywhere else that will have my kind" but your views are not welcome here, and you say that I am the threat?

Each one of you has a right wing, and conservative bias in almost all of your wiki contributions yet think it ought not be considered in this discussion where race is the key issue. Don't be so full of yourselves. I know the truth hurts but stop trying to censor unpopular opinion with threats and either stay out of the conversation or contribute something of value to it. Each time, you threaten to do something but you don't debate the issues at hand. This shows just how weak your thoughts indeed are.--Francespeabody 04:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Francespeabody, the contributions I have made on this page are made only with respect to the editorial guidelines of Wikipedia. Your attempt to imagine what my biases and prejudices may be based on my profile and edit history would be repugnant if it weren't actually just laughable. You are entitled to your opinion of me, but do know that your fantasies about me are entirely irrelevant to the matters on which I have commented. Please, in the future, avoid making personal attacks and spend your time seeking consensus on those editorial matters you believe are truly important rather than seeking vindication for your paranoia. --Dystopos 05:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, Dystopos, thank you. -Fsotrain09 05:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"made only with respect to the editorial guidelines of Wikipedia"

This seems to be the go to defense and mantra for each of you who has an issue. I disagree with your entire contribution because of its non-conformity to "MY View" of guidelines. I don't need to cite any specific contribution in question, I'll just make the blanket assertion and that about covers it.

I don't have to fantasize about your bias, you writing details it quite literally. I am saying stop pretending to be Neutral when nothing about your history holds such to be true. It is the White Elitist attitude that you can even be neutral regarding an issue of race that I detest. The same neutrality you claim to have here is the same neutrality every white Juror claims to have before issuing a verdict on a black defendant. What is the ratio again on Black inmates to population? Neutral, right neutral. Thanks but no thanks.

You cannot be neutral with your background. None of you can but I have put my cards on the table, spoke to the voice I represent and one by one I have been attacked for sharing the Black view. I can live with it but don't tell me you're some pure hearted angel with even eyes for all of gods creatures.--Francespeabody 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Boring!!! Ok, we get it. You are incapable of making a mistake. You are the only person who is right d correct and only your opinion counts. Only you should make decisions about what should or should not be in the article. You are smarter, kinder, stronger, wiser than everyone else who dares to touch or even look at the article. We have heard your opinion. There is no need to go on repeating it over and over again. There is no other point-of-view except yours that is acceptable. We got it, ok??? So please stop the torture. -- --BballJones 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although my interest on this page is largely restricted to the Cuba section (see below) and I have no thoughts about Rice either way - I can't help feeling that user:Francespeabody certainly has a point regarding the content. There is a meagre sentence or so representing responses from critical African American groups countered by a vast amount of material dissmissing these views. Whatsmore, the critical arguments from an article such as Eugene Robinson's are poorly represented and are overshadowed by brief language such as "race traitor" and "black tyrants". How about this from the Black Commentator page "for a Black gathering, Rice’s words were more than strange – they were evidence of profound personal disorientation. A Black woman who doesn’t know how to talk to Black people is of limited political use to an administration that has few African American allies". There needs to be more balance here reflecting Rice's not-so-positive standing amongst African Americans, baring in mind the reality that African-American views are inherently underepresented in the electronic media, so such pieces as are sourced here should be given a greater hearing.--Zleitzen 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great, Zleitzen. I personally have no problem with adding that in if you so wish (after this page gets unprotected). However, I do have a problem with the fact that Frances continually reverted out anything semi-positive or non-negative about Dr. Rice when we tried to add it in to help balance the article. Add in all the negative opinion you want, just don't try and block the positive opinion because that action is clearly NPOV. --Ai.kefu 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we will create a very good article by heaping references to competing opinions against each other. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not a competition. An appraisal of Rice, in and of itself, is unfit for Wikipedia unless it has some other claim of importance: If the opinion is a widely held popular opinion, we should cite a poll which establishes that fact. If the opinion is widely held by a particular group, we should likewise cite verifiable research. If the opinion is that of an influential individual, (Fidel Castro's or Laura Bush's, for example) it should make reference to that person's influence. If the opinion is not noteworthy in itself, but only used to support a claim, then we may be dealing with Original Research and should consider carefully whether the opinion need appear in the article at all. --Dystopos 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ai.kefu, you really should stop posting here. You have been called out on the Condiforpresident.com website that you moderate. How can someone working her campaign suggest any NPOV? You should not be contributing to to the article nor future conversations. Wiki rules state you can't work for the organization and post about them as well.

But Zleitzen, (and without trying to pull you into my maelstrom), the lack of representation in both E-media, and Print media is a point I have made countless times here but in the US, the view that "if I don't see something in the Christian Right media news that I read" it does not count. Blacks don't control any major media outlets in the US and the kids posting here are too naive to understand why the black voice is not heard in the mainstream media. I guarantee that none of them has ever even heard of "Black Commentator, or picked up Black Enterprise, Ebony, Jet, or even Source for that matter. They don't read black literature, they don't speak in the black community or go to black churches and I do all of this. I have come to officially report on the black view and cite it very well yet they have no interest in hearing it because, and lets cut to the chase, it is unflattering and they support her. None of them has been to a single liberal candidate's website and contributed so much as a typo edit so to pretend their is some NPOV motivation to what they are saying is complete crap.

I have gotten angrier and angrier having to live in this damn country where everyone pretends the "House Nigger" represents the field hands.

I just googled the term "House Nigger" and "Condi's name was the first to come up!!!!"

It crushes me to think that anyone could think Blacks feel positive about Condi in anyway because in the 7 years her name has been in the public, I have only seen, heard, and experience the negative view. But I went ont the "media trail" and found many, many sources to validate the point despite the web limitations for black information, but each of my citations was systematcially edited, deleted or worse countered in debate for within the article and that is a clear POV issue.

If I place a statement of fact. "Harry Belafonte, called rice and Aunt Jemima", which he did do, the statement exists as a citation of the POV by an esteemed and prominent member of the African Amer. community, yet this citation was met with about 14 different counter faux citations ranging from Black commentators being misquoted or taken out of context, to other articles not even relating to Harry, Condi, or politics but just the general sentiment of "why we love her".

The article locked now at least offers a fuller view of the propaganda peice that I started with.--Francespeabody 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To Dystopos

I'm trying to read your comments correctly so I apologise in advance if I'm wrong. But you seem to be suggesting that a canonical description of competing opinions is not the way to write an article on wikipedia. I beg to differ. A description of different sourced, notable views is the basis of a good article, particuarily when dealing with controversial issues. The specific problem here is, as Frances has noted, that the negative view of Rice amongst many African-Americans is widely held but poorly represented here. At present I see a 10%-90% split between what I would consider serious negative criticism and rebuttals in the relevant section. This ratio should be addressed to reflect a more realistic spectrum of views. It would be helpful if users regardless of belief searched for legitimate notable criticism of Rice from the African American community. Bearing in mind, as I said before, that this group is crucially under-represented in the media - and such notable criticism is thus not easy to find. Nevertheless, it should be the responsibility of this encyclopedia to present this spectrum. Otherwise we run the risk of losing out to systemic bias.--Zleitzen 23:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the 10-90% split you're talking about....it looks fairly close to 50/50 (maybe 40/60 at most). While it is an op-ed piece, the blackcommentary.com editorial, Condoleezza Rice: The Devil's Handmaiden is referenced in many other online pieces; that piece is used as a source in the intro, but could also be given more space in the criticism section. As to the question of where Rice stands among African-American's in terms of poll numbers, I've been unable to track that down. I've seen a few poll results that show that she has the highest level of public support of anyone in the Bush admin, but those polls didn't break the support by race. Anyone have any numbers? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• The problem isn't that we are citing a diversity of views. The problem is that we are using the article as a scoreboard to make the case of which competing view is more popular. Doing that is original research. If you have a viewpoint that needs to be supported by your own collection of evidence, you need to go somewhere else to publish it. Wikipedia does not publish research, it reports research published and reviewed by others. So with that in mind, the only verifiable source I could find that addresses the matter of African-American public opinion directly is from 2002. It was conducted by the Joint Center of Political and Economic Studies [9] between September 17 and October 21 (the same time that Belafonte made news with his criticisms of Powell and Rice). At that time, of 850 African Americans surveyed, 350 (41.1%) gave (then National Security Advisor) Rice a favorable rating. [10]. --Dystopos 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to be as flexible with the research and have had at least 95% of my citations removed. It is hard to find data but it is not impossible. The problem is that they keep removing it from the cite for random reasons. Well, not random, they don't like the message. Bro, I see you are from the UK, I envy your political social awareness for how things work in the US. The Equality we supposedly have is a myth, and as you saw on your news, we can hardly get to vote in the Southern states to this day. The Whites do not want us to "Vote" let alone contribute to an article they seek control of. Condi represents the worst of Black culture though her kind have existed since slavery here.

They are not looking for notable criticism, I tried that, they are not looking for citation, I tried that, they just want to control the prevailing "opinion" for a person they like. I put in here her receptance in the UK where she was protested, offered links to photographs, video, audio, all of which showed the "Place, Time, Who, What, Where" and they said "Video and multimedia" is a bit biased or too much.

Trust me, they want control of her image and are charading as NPOV wiki contributors. I outed one of her Campaign volunteer wannabees and he still maintains he is neutral. With Neutral like that, who needs friends!--Francespeabody 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. . . how long do we have to read this crap from francespeabody. He is NOT interested in having an intelligent discussion about the Dr. Rice article--just personal attacks and providing his random, wandering political BS opinions. It is a joke. Can't we do something about this nuisance???? --Getaway 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I started to work on a User Conduct RFC the other night and got distracted. I think a User Conduct RFC is definitely the way to go and if you (or anyone else) files one before I finish mine you certainly won't hurt my feelings. --ElKevbo 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started a draft of the RFC here. Please add to it or constructively modify as appropriate. It will probably be a day or two before it's in good enough shape to file although that depends on potential contributions and assistance from others. --ElKevbo 23:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Here Ye, Here Ye! Public Lynching for francespeabody! Set for the last week of July in the year of our Lord 2006"

Event Trustees: "Elkevbo" and his new pet censor: "Getaway".

Getaway asks "Seriously. . . how long do we have to read this crap from francespeabody..." I don't recall anyone making you read the discussion. I was under the impression that this was a public site where all contributions were valid and you could excercise a choice in reading what you wanted, oh but wait, you mean not having to read "Things you don't want to see", kind of like how Fox News in the USA is preferred by the Republicans in office because it speaks not of the bad things they do. This is not Fox Getaway, it is a public resource and that means you do have to deal with things you do not like. Even Black people as in this case.

Getaway asks, "how long do we have to read...?" It is funny how disagreement with conservatives quickly elevates to book banning. I mean you burn books routinely for hinting at gay themes, sex, politically left topics so why not burn my written citations of black views in the US.

I will spell out your next steps.

As pulled from the FBI playbook on how to stifle free speech.

1: Dismiss the target as "Crazy". EX:(his random, wandering political BS opinions)

2: Gather your lynch mob: (I've started a draft of the RFC here. Please add to it or constructively modify as appropriate. It will probably be a day or two before it's in good enough shape to lynch/file)

3: Go to the courts and seek support of my brother the judge. (Get my username banned for some offense you drum up)

4: Burn Cross on front lawn as final warning! (Burn Cross on front lawn as final warning)

5: Lynch 14 year old boy for whistling, writing, learning to read, holding a different POV,... just whatever you feel like. I'm sure you will feel better about it. (user is banned from topic)

6: Send nifty postcard to family and friends. (See photo above).

7: Democracy restored. Now that we have an neutral discussion at hand, lets get back to the business of the circle jerk we were engaged in prior to all of this nastiness! God Love America! Land of the Free, Home of the Brave! --Francespeabody 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Busy with little progress

I have been away and now upon my arrival I see things have just gotten more silly, and more oppressive. I have read through most of what is written here in the discussion but it seems like one guy against the "vast right wing". Not sure if it is worth commenting here until the open up the page for edits, but I think it is ok in its current form and that only new sections should be added or edited but that the rest should be locked from future edits. Just my 2cents.--216Cali 00:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but please remember that the protection policy is to use temporary protection to enforce a cool-down on an edit war. Permanent protection is reserved for things like the main page. Isopropyl 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

Can someone wake me up when this page is unprotected. There are some problems with the Cuba section. One of them is that it was Michael E. Parmly that Castro referrred to as a "little gangster", not Rice. She was just the "mad woman". --Zleitzen 07:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User Conduct RFC filed against Francespeabody

I have filed a User Conduct RFC against Francespeabody. I encourage all who are interested or who believe they can contribute to this process in any way to please take part. I am sorry that it has come to this and I hope the process is fair and swift. Please feel free to leave me comments on my Talk page, particularly if you believe my posting this message on this page is in any way inappropriate. I am not trying to "stack the deck" or anything - I honestly believe that many editors that view this page regularly may have some interest, positive or negative, in this RFC and I believe the process should be full and open. --ElKevbo 05:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I am surprised by the RFC. It seems the conservative side has been gunning for this since day one and it was only a matter of time. I disagree with the idea altogether. The initial article had a very biased POV until FranP added his section about the Black View. After that, there seemed to be a concerted effort by everyone with a counter-view to pick apart point by point anything potentially negative. I can't say that if the same had happened to anyone else, that they would not have gone on the defensive but whatever you say about his "discussion off the main article" his contributions to the article were valid and definately should remain.

I for one think RFC is a cheap and uncivil route to go. He did not take that cheap shot at even the Ai.Kefu guy who works for Condi (which suprises me because that is against the rules).

I work for Condi? Well, I didn't know I was in my office at the State Department already! How does the information that he dug up on some other guy affect me and my ability to contribute to this article? I don't "work for Condi," and I don't even have any official role in a Draft Condi organization. I merely support the concept of a Rice for President candidacy in my personal opinion, and that doesn't disqualify me from editing the "Condoleezza Rice" article any more than a computer geek is disqualified from editing the "Microsoft" article because he "obviously holds a biased view(!)". Besides, even if I did work for 4condi.com, I believe they're a "527", which prohibits any official contact with Condi or the State Dept. So any way you look at it, no, I do not "work for Condi". --Ai.kefu 13:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I will say that Francesp says some very dangerous things but his thoughts contain more truth than anything I have seen posted elsewhere here. I get that if you are republican that you want to keep your candidates reputation fairly spotless but there was not a single negative or critical thing listed here before he added it and that simply is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. I don't think you can be in the current Admin and not have a criticism section and say that is NPOV. There is just that much discord with them at home and abroad. Even if you look at just the split of Dems vs. Rep you have to admit that.

I would recommend that Frances pursue the RFC for Elkevbo, and Ai.Kefu, for sure but that you also maintain your position that the views of blacks should be noted here because Condi is black and has done and said things that has been at odds with the black community. If you speak the truth on the article and defend yourself agressively in the discussion here that is well within your right. The other thing I would say is that bigotry and racism is not hidden here in regards to what is being said about your contributions and your defense. I also know that racism is not always about burning crosses but often it is displayed in the more insidious manner of a general attitude or view that what one group or party says or believes in is right from the start, and that it is the job of everyone else to prove themselves not against "facts" but against what that group believes truth to be. The shifting target of how that kind of truth is defined is a losing proposition. You said sometimes truth was defined as "printed citation", sometimes it was "need more polls from blacks voters", sometimes it was "quantity of citations in support of opinion" and at other times it was the "quality of the person" cited. (like the Kanye dismissal) You seemed to have included all of those things at various points and having done so but failing any further counterpoints from the "right", you are now just being singled out for exclusion.

The lynch photo was a bit much for my taste but I guess that is just my own sensitivity for seeing what people are capable of. Good luck. I vote that you stay on and deal these guys more truth.--216Cali 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the article needs improvement. It would be very helpful if the discussion were restricted to the content of the article, and not by making up fallacies about other editors in order to attack their qualifications. --Dystopos 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

216Cali, I encourage you to voice your opinion in the RFC process. There's even a specific portion of the RFC reserved for those who hold opinions contrary to those who filed and support the RFC and it would be most appropriate and welcome if you would share your thoughts there.

I can't speak for others, but I have stated several times (and I think my actions support my statements) that I agree with Francespeabody's central thesis that criticism of Rice, particularly from the African American community, is underrepresented in this article. I thought that we were beginning to make good progress towards including that criticism in a NPOV, verifiable manner when Francespeabody became more concerned with disrupting the article to prove a point and ridiculous allegations of racism and censorship. Fundamentally, I take issue with Francespeabody's hostility and constant disruptions. It has progressed well past the point of "Gee, I don't really agree with you and your methods" to intentional disruption and personal attacks against multiple editors. If Francespeabody's posts here accurately reflect his world view, I grieve for him and I am sorry that he lives in constant fear and paranoia. But that's no excuse to disrupt this community and our efforts and accuse us of racism and censorship. --ElKevbo 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of living in "fear and paranoia" is equally unhelpful, ElKevbo. All users should immediately cease commenting in this fashion. One of the risks one takes when submitting an rfc is that the attention is also focused on the submitter. It would therefore be wise to refrain from such personal analysis.--Zleitzen 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to echo those comments. I think that there is a place in the article for criticism of Dr. Rice, but there is NO place for francespeabody's obnoxious and disrespectful (and inaccurate and self-centered, etc.) charges that anyone dares disagree with him is (take your pick) stupid, ignorant, racist, narrow-minded, etc. He has changed the topic of discussion from the article itself to what francespeabody thinks and what francespeabody wants and who francespeabody's enemies are, etc. It is total joke. His attitude reminds me of those who believe that either you agree with me without question or you are an infidel. And the funny thing is he is calling others narrow-minded. Also, I'm not going to take him seriously until he stops completely commenting on my skin color--which he can't see--or the skin color of any of the other editors. It ain't none of his damn bizness. --BballJones 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BballJones, having written the above, ask yourself this question. Are your words helpful to resolving a dispute between users? I repeat - All users should immediately cease commenting in this fashion. That includes comments such as "obnoxious", "self-centered" and "I'm not going to take him seriously". --Zleitzen 14:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen, I hear what you are saying, but now YOU need to ask yourself this, what does my skin color have to do with a certain citation deserves to be in an article in Wikipedia?? Not a damn thing. Now, ask yourself why I'm supposed to ignore his comments where he calls me white, when I am not white??? Now, ask yourself why he rants and rants and you are asking me to ignore his personal attacks on my character as a person and he spreads lies about the color of my skin?? Now, ask yourself why you are focusing on me and when I have asked him, at least three times, to stop commenting on my skin color and the skin color of the other editors??? Now, ask yourself if you were in my moccasins (after attacks on my personal character and my skin color) I should just "turn the other cheek" and let francespeabody continue, after I have asked him to stop, to bully and insult me???? I'm not attacking him personally I am trying to comment on the article. Why should I take a personal who does not respect me as individual--that just incorrectly believes that I am just another white man--seriously??? I'm sorry I have self-respect and I won't take his attempts to negate me as a human being quietly. I understand your position, but you have asked me to see things as you do and I am simply asking you see them from my perspective. --BballJones 15:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zleitzen: this conversation is unproductive, particularly in terms of improving the Condoleezza Rice Wikipedia article. I understand your frustration and the desire to defend yourself or even attack Francespeabody. But this is neither the time nor the place to do so. Personal defenses and counterattacks are just as out of place as Francespeabody's original attacks. If you want to continue this, please do so elsewhere. It really is in our best interests to ignore the personal attacks and concentrate on the article. The policies that Francespeabody has ignored and violated, particularly WP:NPA, apply to all of us; please respect those policies even in the face of uncivility and personal attacks. --ElKevbo 15:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: How about we all just completely ignore Francespeabody's off-topics attacks on our personal lives, and only respond to him when he addresses the Wikipedia-related issues? The more I think about it, we shouldn't even be dignifying some of his insults with a response. Unless he speaks to the real issues at hand, I for one am not even going to acknowledge his remarks.

Besides, if he really wants to go on a race crusade on behalf of us blacks, perhaps he should heed the words of MLK: "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline." If he was really about battling "racism" then he wouldn't be so bitter and hateful himself. --Ai.kefu 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Zleitzen, the ad hominem attacks have gotten so out of hand that it is almost difficult to take him seriously. Frances has made many valid points, but it's getting harder and harder to sift through the morass of scathing personal attacks to find them. Isopropyl 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There's simply no cause or excuse for any breaches of civility here from any party. Before anyone contributes further to this page, users should ask themselves whether their comments will help in resolving this dispute.--Zleitzen 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Today President Bush addressed the NAACP. Seems the president is willing to accept what most here continue to deny and that is the disparity between African Americans and the Republican Party. He even goes on to cite Condi's Fathers fight with Civil rights but he spoke not of Condi's fight. She has not done any fighting which is the core issue of what the article did not reflect. --Francespeabody 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. The speech that Bush gave to the NAACP does NOT prove your point. As a matter of fact, it completely disproves. I watched the speech on C-Span and he started the speech by acknowledging his low approval ratings in the African American community. [rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e072006_bush.rm?mode=compact] [11] He even made a couple of joke about it--at his own expense. No, the speech does NOT prove your point. When the President brought up Dr. Rice the audience, consisting of the leadership the NAACP, the leadership the African American community, whom is predominately anti-Bush politically, gave resounding applause just to the MENTION of Dr. Rice's name. Her name was not heckled--as one would expect if your theory that she is "hated" in the African American community were true--it was NOT even ignored. It was clearly and resoundingly applauded by a very partisan audience made up of leaders from the African American community. After Bush finished his comments about Dr. Rice's explanation of her father's history in the Civil Rights Movement. The audience applauded again. I watched the speech with my own two eyes and there was nothing, absolutely nothing there to support your constant and repeated claim that Dr. Rice is "hated" by the African American community. I have looked for information to back up your claim, but it is not there. There is evidence and support that Dr. Rice is NOT the most beloved African American woman in America. There is evidence and support that there some very, very vocal critics of Dr. Rice such as Bellafonte, but there is NOT evidence that she hated or overwhelmingly disliked. All and all I would claim that she is popular in the African American community, but not overwhelmingly so. --BballJones 21:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More of the same

BballJones and the "Selective Informatin" technique!

Here you say that the article I include and my comments entirely miss the point. You also suggest that Bush was applauded uncontrollably when he mentioned Condi's name. First of all the Bush regime refused to speak at the event period despite your claims that he was warmly received. Second, to suggest that blacks are so uncivil as to not applaud a visiting politician during a welcome is yet again another of your delicious racist tidbits.

Bush, true to his uninformed reputation as the "decider" made jokes about his absence from the event or his many invites. Glad he can laugh about his actions but not all were laughing.

You did not mention the "Protesters" who were there and had to be escorted away. Thankfully, FoxNews reported this.

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also attended the event. She received applause as she took her seat shortly before the president spoke. Presidential adviser Karl Rove also joined the president.

Toward the end of Bush's speech, a number of protesters were led out of the hall after yelling out attacks on the president, including "Get rid of Dick Cheney! Can you spell Adolph Hitler?"

The president continued speaking uninterrupted.

Every president for the past several decades has spoken to the Baltimore-based group. Until now, Bush, who received 11 percent of the black vote in 2004, had been the exception. His appearance comes in a critical midterm election year, when Republicans fear losing control of Congress"

But your typical "NPOV" categorized the overall event as disproving my thoughts while "CNN" reports and includes the voices of several Black Leaders in this video included on the website.

Watch as Bush gets a lukewarm reception during his speech -- 2:38

You also mention Condi's name callout as a significant example of her love yet she did not speak at the event? Hmmm, why would that be? You say that this is an example of how Blacks love Condi yet the highest ranking Black in the US would not be invited to speak at a premiere Black event such as this? Do you not see that her not being asked to speak nor her direct involvement is in itself a view of her position? She shared the same stage and contribution to the event as "Karl Rove".

You chose to ignore a fact like "Bush, joined by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and his chief political adviser Karl Rove were Protested" but the point I was trying to make in including it was that this staged event was in and of itself proof the adminstrations awareness of discord with Blacks. If only 11 percent voted for him than 90% didn't and that is not a minor feat. If you are Black and represent that party (Condi) how many more polls do you need to read before you get the idea to start doing something or speaking to your people?

Condi's Dad and the Lessons of War is an article written about her dad from a former white student of his. Her dad did more speaking about race in a year than she has collectively from her career.--Francespeabody 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please give me an example of where one of the recent participants in this debate has doubted that the majority of African American's do not favor the Republican party. However, I've also seen polls that indicate she is currently the most popular high-ranking member of the current administration (though I couldn't find any very recent polls that broke those stats down by race). I'm not disputing that Condi is unpopular with a signficiant percentage, perhaps a majority of African Americans. Nonetheless, we have statements from African American voices on both sides of the issue represented here. The "pro-Condi" quotes in "criticism/response" section certainly don't outnumber/outweight the "against-Condi" voices. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the way I view it at all. Some guy gets a four line rebuttal at the end of the article and so on, meanwhile the negative comments from the African American community are left as brief soundbites - they are completely undermined and appear reactionary. There are simply no expanded negative arguments put forth from the black communtiy on the article as of yet. Yet these sentiments clearly exist as we have discovered from the various sources. --Zleitzen 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

What is "Despite her early childhood experiences with segregation, Condoleezza Rice has faced opposition from some in the African American[1] community for her role in the Bush[2] administration and the Republican Party, which many[3] in the black community view as oppressive[4], globally out of touch[5], in many cases anti-black[6] and running contrary to civil rights.[7]" doing in the Introduction to the article?

One would think that at worst the truncated "Despite her early childhood experiences with segregation, Condoleezza Rice has faced opposition from some in the African American[1] community." would be more than sufficient. Consider the introduction on Hitler, which merely summarizes: "By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the genocide of 11 million people, including about six million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust."

Note that it does not continue "and was widely considered to be a monster, a lunatic, etc etc" and certainly doesn't incorporate 5 different citations right in the intro. Questions of NPOV etc aside (I have no idea what the black community actually feels about her, and don't claim to), it's simply not good form. And hopefully we can all agree that Condi didn't exactly kill six million blacks, no matter how racist (!?) her policies may be. Icewolf34 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Black View of Condoleezza Rice

It appears that the disputed content all revolves around the question "What do African Americans think of Rice?". The first question is, in what context do we place this topic? Is it part of the introduction? Does it belong in a section on criticisms? A section on African-American views pro and con? Or applied piecemeal to other topics. Secondly, what type of information do we bring to bear? Do we report aggregate data on approval (the 2002 poll above is the only source for that I've found so far) or do we cite commentators who make reference to general views held about Rice by the Black community? Lastly, what do we do with opinions of individuals who are leaders in the African American community - do we cite them as individual opinions or do we use them as evidence of widely held views? These are all more or less reasonable ways to move forward, and I hope we can start making improvements and corrections to the article soon. --Dystopos 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good questions.

• The material should not be in the opening section - that is not standard wikipedia biography practice.
• The views should demonstrate arguments rather than mere soundbites. There are a couple of points from the articles provided that can be worked in here. Plus a quite interesting comment from Spike Lee that I spotted about this subject. Also it would be correct to cite the poll. I'm not entirely sure about the talkshow host business. Particuarily as the rebuttals and aftermath overshadow the actual details of the allegation.--Zleitzen 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I really wish I could find a more recent poll, but a lot has happened since 2002...I think it's safe to say that a lot more people know about Rice now; there seem to be a lot more supporters (as evidenced by people who want her to run for president) and a lot more detractors (by those who think she is "out-of-touch" and object to her alignment with Republican administration, e.g. "The Devil's Handmaiden" ref). If the poll is cited, it should be made clear that it was conducted in 2002 (when she had been National Security Advisor for about a year). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more quotes and views concerning this issue

• As I watched her on the news I felt an inexplicable discomfort. I realized that my feelings resulted from a desire to be proud of the accomplishments of another black woman. But in the case of Condoleezza Rice and others, race pride can become a dangerous means of self-delusion. [12]

• But it’s fair to say that many African-Americans who also cherish the Civil Rights tradition and vote mainly for the Democratic Party, think her use of the rhetoric is cynical.[13]

• Black America's long honeymoon with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice may be nearing an end - Rice is perceived as very cold and distant and only black by accident,"[14]

On the subject of the poll, here is something,

• In the 2002 survey, Rice was viewed positively by blacks by a margin of 41 to 12 percent, and by a slightly larger margin among the general population. But two-fifths of all respondents did not know her well enough to rate her, reflecting the fact that, despite its importance, the position of national security adviser remains an obscure one to many Americans, especially in this administration.[15]--Zleitzen 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• The Tilove article, in particular, deals with the issue of Rice's (and Powell's) standing in the African American community in what seems to be a fairly comprehensive and balanced survey of available polls and significant opinions. He confirms that the 2002 Joint Center poll is the only hard data available, but also quotes a researcher there on his perception of changes since 2002. Perhaps we could summarize this 2004 article with more specific citations and updated information - using it as a guide for the scope and range of opinions unless someone uncovers a more authoritative source. --Dystopos 04:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that within that article, a non notable punter is quoted to have said about Belafonte's comments - "people are very frustrated," and Belafonte's words ring true. "He said what most people in the African-American community feel." And remember that this was before the major shifts of opinion following serious Iraq war difficulties and Hurricane Katrina. So although I am unable to verify Frances's central thesis - you have to agree that the largescale negative impression is certainly not a figment of his/her imagination. It would be helpful if the next few contributions from users were actually texts conveying how that section is going to read. --Zleitzen 13:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like original research if we start to devine what her supposed "real" popularity in the African American community is without quoting or citing other sources other than our gut reactions to what we perceive the truth to be. ----Getaway 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am certain that our sense that Rice's standing has deteriorated in recent years is accurate, but as encyclopedists (rather than, say, bloggers) we have to base our discussion of the subject on other sources. So the questions remain, what type of sources will we use and how will we keep current? Or, in a larger sense "who speaks for Black America?". The answer to the larger question is something we are unlikely to resolve here, but it must be kept in mind while we seek a solution that satisfies the consensus. --Dystopos 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to other black figures on Wikipedia

In nearly all articles featuring prominent "African Americans", race is a central or primary theme to the articles content and as Condi is both Black, and American, she finds herself in this same circumstance. Visit any other prominent black wiki and see for yourself where "Race" is a key issue in the content. David Dinkins, Spike Lee, Harry Belafonte, or even Bill Cosby has more negative wiki content about his "POLITICAL VIEWS" than does Condi and he is not a politician! How do you account for a comedian's exhaustive "Controversial wiki content" on the topic of his POLITICS? More than Condi and she is a politician!!! Good bad or indifferent, doesn't that just smell funny?

Here is an excerpt:

Bill Cosby's sociopolitical views, especially about the black community, are complex and have often been reduced to a simplistic representation. He has a long history of endeavors to advance African-Americans, which he sometimes tries to accomplish by being critical of African-Americans. He opposes Affirmative Action on the premise that it does the African American community more harm than good. The media was not very accepting of Cosby's Pound Cake Speech with Richard Leiby of the Washington Post saying "Bill Cosby was anything but politically correct in his remarks Monday night at a Constitution Hall bash commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision," (Leiby, Richard). He was the first bigtime entertainer to cancel an appearance in Cincinnati after a boycott was called in response to the 2001 Cincinnati Riots. His support of this cause encouraged other stars to follow. Cosby has been critical of African-Americans regarding those who hold low standards and allowing fatherless single parent households, high crime rates, and high illiteracy rates. He encouraged a more proactive effort from African-Americans to reduce those problems. He expanded upon his remarks in San Jose, California during an event to promote the Read-2-Lead Classic. The way his speeches were portrayed by popular media provoked a great deal of anger from some African-Americans. Cosby was the impetus for the formation of ARISE Detroit! when, in a January 13, 2005, speech at Wayne County Community College he challenged black Detroiters to stop blaming white people for problems they could solve themselves. "It's not what they're doing to us. It's what we're not doing," the entertainer told the audience of nearly 2,000 people. A little more than a year later, ARISE Detroit was formed to address this issue. [1]

Yet you folks seem to suggest that not only should this "Black Politician" have Controversial issues listed at all, as was initially the case, but that if and when someone includes something Controversial, there should be one-for-one rebuttal to everything listed to counter just those things viewed politically unfriendly.

Notice in the Cosby wiki data above, you don't see a 40/60 positve comment to negative comment split or a 50/50, 20/30/50, or any other division, what you see is a full "Controversy" section without the mathmeticians like Bball, and Elkevbo rushing to the defense with some bold testimony of their steadfast and truthful NPOV claiming good deed for the day! Why won't you guys do the right thing and help Cosby balance his controvery section out? A guy who has done more positive things for the USA than Condi could dream of doing in her lifetime should suffer a controversy section equal in length onlty to Condi's section on "Russian Tea Ceremonies of the late 14th century"?

Bill gets invited to speak at black events and is quoted, he's a guy who when is asked about Black issues doesn't grab his piano and start singing "Russian" folks songs. Oh, wait he is not Republican. Right, right, right, I see now. It all makes sense. Oh well.--Francespeabody 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for this level of antagonism on a discussion page. Criticism of Rice deserves to be aired on the entry page, but it will be easier to accomplish with a more civil and constructive approach.--Cberlet 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. I think there is some consensus to move forward here and present a more rounded balanced view in that section. Can we focus on the way this section is going to read and move on from the personal disputes? I'm still needing the unprotection so I can make my damn Cuba amendment. --Zleitzen 04:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said the first time, this article isn't about me and it isn't about you. Let's put the grudges and bad blood aside and work out a fair presentation of the facts. --Dystopos 04:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a "Discussion about a heated issue and antagonism finds itself here from the tone and nature of all the responses I am getting.--Francespeabody 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Frances, I hope User:Cberlet doesn't mind me saying this but if you check the article you've referenced earlier up the page "Condi's Dad and the Lessons of War" you'll find that the writer and the user above are one and the same person. So on this page we've got a number of different views including yours, mine, many other users and the student who was taught by Dr Rice's father and has written about the subject. Your points concerning the article have validity and I agree that this is a very serious and potentially emotive issue. If it means anything, I wrote 90% of the British African-Caribbean community page and the surrounding articles having been similarily staggered by the lack of Black British representation in wikipedia. Now, users really need to get down to meat of the wording, what sources to use - how is this going to read etc. --Zleitzen 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I hear you, I will tone down. I have to deal with so much of this race stuff in US on a day to day basis it just makes it all the harder to deal with it online when it is being so prorly dealt with out in the open. From the start, the article said not a single negative thing about a Bush Adminstrative official. That on its face is biased even if you accept the more generous poll ratings. But every approach I tried was met with uncivility and summary dismissal of contribution.

Look through my history of edits and how quickly they were either undone, contradicted with something not related or in many cases, the opinion of two or more folks. The equivalent of "hey who is with me? I second that! Done!! Delete it!!" If Cberlet writes the history on the home page himself I would be willing to withdraw all aspects of my contribution. I feel he would be a strong and balanced representative but I know for certain he would be much much softer on Condi than I would ever be. --Francespeabody 14:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Race Matters

First things first, Ai.kefu lets finalize the decision on what the words of a party member are worth. You stated that you at least work for the 4Condi, oh wait, "even if I did work for 4Condi...," damn, I can't keep your lies straight. I know you are pushing her campaign for president and claim to be Neutral. In a world of Hobbits, and Fairys, I suppose you can find this kind of neutral. I live in the real world and belonging to a Condi 12-step program colors your every contribution. The "Computer Geek to Microsoft" analogy is as silly as just about everything else. A more accurate analogy would be to compare your contributions to this article like a "Microsoft Technical Intern" writing about why "Mac's" are not the best PC for other Dayton area high school students.

Dude, Please don't quote MLK. It is unspeakeably ugly to me when white folks quote such men to gain credibility with blacks. I would have imagined you could have found at least a dozen "Mandarin Chinese" folk heroes of equal merit to have quoted similarly but I guess since you were talking to "Black folk" you thought it best to use some color in the comment but it serves you poorly.

The final thought I will give today is that the "Black View of Condi" which is what all this is about directly relates to race, racism in the US, politics, and a dozen motives editors might have for doing what they are doing. To say race does not matter in regards to a topic about race is a silly as saying, "My Political affiliation has no bearing on my contributions to this or any other article but especially not this article titled 'Democrats I would like to burn at the stake!'"

The very notion that no ones political background effects what they write here and how the edit is not just self deception, it is lying because everyone with exception to minor concessions, has consistently written to the favor of their party." Myself included but I at least have the balls to admit my party, my race, my thoughts and why I think the views of other Blacks should be noted here. I came out and said from the beginning. "Within the Black Community that I live and the circles I travel in, there is a harsh view of Condi. Here are some citations tha support this, here are videos, photographs, and events that support this" yet each of you says, "Race is a non-issue nor is the party I belong too, or where in the US I live when we discuss the issue of Race and Condi." "That said, I think Blacks Love her because I have not seen otherwise, I disagree with your citations from other Blacks because well, they are crazy and don't reflect ALL blacks, just most of them, and the conservative media I read daily does not share in this POV so either you find some way to combat these concerns of mine or I will delete, edit and ban your ideas." (whispers: my race is irrelevant)

If race is irrelevant here is my final challenge to all of you good people. I beg you to go through all of the Wiki contributions and remove the term "African American" from all prominent American's written about here and simply replace each usage with "American", "Citizen", or the titular position of the individual. Rice should not be the "First African American Women" elected to such a post, just the 2nd female Sec. of State, and the same for any other person of note.

If race truly does not matter, than lets remove all mention of it from this wonderfull site! Who's with me? We don't need that clarification right?

Example: Wiki says this about Oprah (opening paragraph)

According to Forbes magazine, she was the richest African American of the 20th century and the world's only Black billionaire as of 2004.[2]

If race does not matter this should read quite differently would you not think?

The very distinction of being a billionaire for Oprah is that she is the only "BLACK" one. Can you still agree race does not matter?

Here is Bill Gates wiki opening paragraph:

Forbes magazine's The World's Billionaires list has ranked him as the richest person in the world for the last twelve years straight.

Why not "White Person"?

In the world we share, Bill is a "Person" but Oprah is a "Black Billionaire", the wealthest African American of the current century, but Bill is referred to only in "Name". So lets recap. Whites are identified by their family name, and taxonomy but the highest of all folks with Brown Skin are denied even this dignity with society preferring the added disctinction of "Race".

But Race doesn't matter here!!!!!

It does matter for Oprah (as she is the richest black women) but it does not matter for "Ai.kefu" because he is just some Mandarin loving German student but as a German descendant, he gets the "BILL/Person" treatment, race does not matter for Bball, Elkev or any other "PERSON" because well, see above, but as for anyone else, no matter what their status, slap the "Race" tag on them so that "WE" know what we are dealing with when we look at one.

I can do no more to "esplain" the issue of race to any of you. You have made a commitment to stay ignorant to the entire topic so that you may serve your political masters and so be it. For those of you with a little Bballs in your pants, I leave open the challenge!!

I know full well none of you is going to do this but I hope that pointing out the fact that while "You think your races is irrellevant" to this topic nor should your contributions have your "Race" assigned to them (the indignity), the rest of the world uses race as a label of distinction for our highest and brightest blacks for not just what a "person" does with a life but how they do so in relation to or as measured by "Whites" otherwise known as "People"! --Francespeabody 05:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bill Gates vs. Oprah. If Bill Gates is the richest person in the world, it goes without saying that he is also the richest white person in the world. That information is true, but it is redundant. Oprah is not the richest person in the world, but she is the richest black person. Therefore, that information is not redundant. A Venn diagram (or common sense) makes the logic of this comparison exceedingly obvious. Icewolf34 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Never heard any call Warren Buffet the second wealthiest White Person, or maybe you can tell me who the 143 richest White person is? I was making a point about the usage and rellevance of race in our society when it comes to labeling and perspective. Oprah is not just rich, she is "rich for a black". This distinction is something that finds its way into her Wiki Bio. The clarificatino does not find itself in any of the other top 100 white richest "people". But this is typically, try and start picking at the minor issue instead of investigating the truth of the matter. It is obvious that no one wants to learn anything about themselves or the matter of race, they just want to win some article about a "Black" women who is in their camp. No matter how she is viewed by blacks, that view is not relevant here and the attitude of most is that "I will do whatever it takes to keep the negative out of her article". I noticed you answered not to a single other point but the hierarchacal redundancy in Bills placement. It should have been obvious for you to have seen my next logical move, one step down as if playing chess. Oh, but you are not looking ahead, just for any small move to try and dismiss the argument altogether. Well, you failed! "No Venn Diagram" (No commen sense)--Francespeabody 14:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: You know what, this conversation isn't actually relevant to the article. I'll paste my response to your talk page, if you'd like to continue. Icewolf34 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that race matters in the United States. It is all around us. It is in our history. It is in our day-to-day interactions. Whiteness is a real (though invisible and contested) identity, and it is hegemonic. The construction of being Black as an identity is not unidimensional. So I am not asking that race be ignored, I am asking that we as editors try to find a way to edit constructively so that all the varying views and realities are included in an appropriate way. It is absurd to suggest that we not discuss the anger toward and resentment of Condi Rice in the Black community; just as it would be absurd to ignore the praise she gets. It's complicated. So having asked that people tone down their anger, I will now ask politely that editors do not simply dismiss the issues being raised by Francespeabody. --Cberlet 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For the week or so that I've been involved in trying to get this dispute settled so we can get back to editing the page, I have not seen anyone trying to dismiss the legitimate issues raised. I wouldn't expect that anyone would want to go back to having an article which ignores notable criticisms of Rice's role in the present administration or even critiques of her racial (self-)identification. In the last day or so I think we've made a little progress in forging a consensus for how to incorporate those aspects into her biography. In the last week, however, the dispute has not been about these issues, but about who is qualified to edit the article or voice an opinion on the talk page (matters largely not up for discussion because they are clearly spelled out in Wikipedia's basic policy). The dispute of the last few days has been entirely disruptive of attempts to build consensus. The sooner we can put all of that behind us, the sooner we can address the legitimate issues of bias that are, at present, clumsily handled in the article. --Dystopos 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Nobody here has EVER suggested that we simply remove any negative information or criticisms of Dr. Rice from her Wiki page. People have, however, pressed for the fact that the reporting of the information is balanced and fair. For instance, there have been many notable black personalities who may disagree with Rice politically but do not despise her or view her negatively per se, and a few examples of those notable black personalities were quoted. Also, I think it's good to have a quote of what Rice herself has said about the opposition she faces from other black people. I have no qualm with including the negative opinions about Dr. Rice in her Wiki page--just don't delete out anything mildly positive or non-critical either. Does anyone else agree with me on this? --Ai.kefu 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with the assertion that nobody EVER suggested the removal, the removal was "DONE" on many occassions. To move forward I would say that if you are going to include a controversy section about what the "Many" think, it need not have a counter point from the "Few". By that logic, the Skin Heads would be right to counter argue every bad deed Hitler performed and offer their support or defense of his actions. The fact that they represent a small view and that their view of his actions is heavily biased, one would argue that it not be included in an Encyclopedia. Their view does not inform the general world view of Hitler. The majority of Blacks disaprove of Bush, the Republican Party, Condi's lack of action in the party with regard to black issues but the height of this frustration can be seen in the time period following hurricane Katrina.

The view I am attempting to related is the voice of many millions of unhappy blacks. And you propose to balance that with one or two republican commentators. That does not seem fair. But I also brought up the Bill Cosby controversy section and the fact that he is not a politician and has not only a "political controvery" section but it contains no such "point by point debate" from one or two commentators. I asked for help from all of you to go over there and clean his image up a bit but no one has commented on that request or contributed to the site.--Francespeabody 20:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are welcome to improve the Bill Cosby article yourself, or discuss your concerns on the talk page related to that article. Getting back to business, to whom should we attribute the claim that "the majority of Blacks disapprove of ...Condi's lack of action in the party with regard to black issues."? Is that your own observation? Short of the 2002 poll we still haven't identified a verifiable source for that observation. The article which is currently cited to back up the statement that "Rice has faced opposition from some in the African American community" is Gene Robinson's October 2005 op-ed. The article does question her world view and identifies it as contrary to "most black Americans." For lack of a better source for your claim about the majority opinion, I think this could suffice, as long as it was presented accurately and as Robinson's observation. If we wished, we could go even further with Robinson and add information about Rice's childhood, which he considers to be the "Rosebud" to understanding her apparent disconnection with the majority of her race. That information is certainly verifiable and of encyclopedic interest, as are the quotations he uses regarding her perspective on Civil Rights. The next few references in the introduction also reference the post-Katrina approval rating of the administration but don't actually support our text in any particular way. The Black Commentator makes a passionate case for the GOP conspiring to use specific black appointees to deflate racial opposition to their policy goals, but likewise the reference is not used appropriately here since the view that the GOP is "anti-black", accurate or not, is expressed in the piece only as the anonymous author's conclusion. The last citation, from J L Chestnut is largely a summary of Robinson, but does add a responsible voice from the black community and provides additional biographical detail. --Dystopos 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Version

As I'm still pacing around waiting for my Cuba edit to be unlocked - I've drafted a rough version of how I believe this section should read which I think is more balanced and allows for some tangible arguments to be aired. It refers solely to Rice's standing in the African American community by the way. A user above has made some comment about "original research" - given that everything here is sourced I don't think that is a worry. Excuse the poor referencing styles.--Zleitzen 15:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• See User:Zleitzen/Condi

I like this version. It sounds very fair and NPOV. The critical voices against Rice are not downplayed and the criticisms are not drowned out by positive statements. It's pretty much a 50/50% split between the criticisms and the anti-criticisms. The first paragraph is a mixture of critical and supportive statements, the second paragraph is critical, the third paragraph is supportive, and the same amount of lines are equally devoted to each sector. I could vote in favor of this version, unless anyone else has other suggestions. --Ai.kefu 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen, I think your proposed draft is solid, but I can see the wisdom in reducing the number of individual defenders and limiting those to the most authoritative voices. I would propose dispensing altogether with the exchange between Sylvester and Hutchinson, (in my opinion Sylvester was after publicity and Hutchinson defending the high ground more than Rice in particular). We probably make too much of her alleged support by "African Americans across the political spectrum." We might reduce that to "a few notable African Americans have defended Rice from across the aisle, including Mike Espy (#), Andrew Young (#) and C. Dolores Tucker, chair of the National Congress of Black Women (#)." There might also be something valuable in Robinson's op-ed, as I describe above. What do you think? --Dystopos 21:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that your draft section appears to be a reasonable good start at resolving these disputes. As an outsider to this topic I can say that it is easy to follow and appears to neutrally separate the fact of Wikipedia from the opinions expressed by the cited sources. I have not thoroughly checked all the citations though, nor do I know if this sampling is an overall fair representation...I'm assuming the other editors here can decide that. I do have just a few initial editorial suggestions on first reading.

1. Referencing style should be consistent (but you're aware of that already).
2. The word "black" is not a proper noun or adjective and so should not be capitalized, except of course when it is inside a direct quotation and the original source capitalized it as such. Note though that in "African American", both words are capitalized according to English rules. Also African American is not hyphenated. (Which term should be used is not a judgment I'm qualified to make).
3. The periodical title Black Commentator should be italicised, not quoted.
4. Because the statments by John Sylvester were from 2004, it may be best to make the subsequent reference to Colin Powell clearer; as in: ...Sylvester called Rice an "Aunt Jemima" and then Secretary of State Colin Powell an "Uncle Tom".
5. The response by Earl Ofari Hutchinson needs a citation.
6. When describing poll results of "margin of 41 to 12 percent" it needs to be clearer what each number is and why they don't add to 100.
7. Somebody may want to create a stub article for National Congress of Black Women, or perhaps leave it red linked here.
8. There are some minor style errors (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation). For instance when a quotation spans more than one sentence, you should use an ellipsis "..." to indicate where you are omitting part of a sentence. Also, because of the density and quantity of quotations as well as having several that consist of multiple sentences, it may make it easier to read by using typographical left/right quotation marks—the "smart quotes" available in the "insert box" on the edit page. (Wikipedia makes no official stance on this though, it's left as a decision to be made by the editors)
9. Also due to the high density of direct quotations, make sure there are no scare quotes which could be confused with a direct quotation; for example the "ringing true" quotation should be checked against the citation.
10. It would be nice if the inclusion of dates were more consistent, if known. In some places just the year is mentioned, in others the month, and yet in another a specific date. This makes it challenging for the reader to form a mental timeline of the cited events without actually having to read all the cited materials. I suspect that just using a month-precision would probably be fine.

--Dmeranda 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the draft is moving in a good direction. I do think that what Dmeranda says about the status of those cited in the counter arguments as less than authoritative. I was hoping to convey the general position of the "African American" community which represents millions of people and the issues detailed in this proposed section are spoken about daily in Black Media amongst Black scholars, community leaders and activists, etc... For those of you unfamiliar with "Black Discussion" here is a great link to an ongoing Podcast. News & Notes with Ed Gordon. You don't have to use this NPR source for any other thing then to learn directly what Blacks are talking about regarding politics and to provide you with the very POV that is central to the reason the article needs a "Controversies" section.

Disagreeing, on the other hand, completely with Ai. that a "mixture of critical and supportive statements" is needed. I know it may be the desire to have such equity but there is no "50/50" split in black society on this issue no matter who is cited. (At best it is 90/10 but I would argue closer 98 against). To force the article into a "citation & rebuttal" format would be to do so at the peril of truth and neutrality.

I think there should be a "Controversies Section" which details the African American View, well cited of course, but that includes the issues of Gay and Lesbian groups, the UK protestors who held signs up with her name, & likeness with disparaging remarks. Many prominent Black Americans have spoken out against her, politicians have spoken out, citizens have spoken out and other minority groups have spoken out so this should be an easy thing to do though so far it has not been.

The entire article above and below the "Controversy" section can serve as the official record of her "Good Deeds". They are currently serving in that capacity now and no one is proposing for that to be undone. What was proposed in the opening paragraph was to include a general comment on the issues of race surrounding her because her name cannot be uttered in the Black community without drawing the heat and ire of blacks. It is not a "Small" thing to blacks. In fact, the only other time I have seen such anger in recent years has been with Clarence Thomas because, as with Condi, many view he benefits from the efforts and sacrifice of thousands of blacks preceding him and now he does things that oppose our core beliefs and hold us back to this day. From his own Wiki Bio "Organizations including the NAACP, the Urban League and the National Organization for Women opposed his Supreme Court appointment based on Thomas's criticism of affirmative action and suspicions that Thomas might not be a supporter of Roe v. Wade. (By the way, his Wiki has no "Controversy" section so I now know what my new project is going to be once things settle here)

When a black gains a high office and promptly rejects the causes of the group that paved the way, this causes discord. It is that simple of a thing. All I ask is that concerning blacks, when this kind of reversal comes about and directly puts us at peril (See Katrina) we should make sure the record of that person reflects this so that we learn from our mistakes and try to educate our children better about social responsibility.--Francespeabody 00:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Correct me where I am wrong, for I am sure, at this late hour, to overstate. However, it appears that you are saying that blacks have a specific responsibility to their race which Secretary Rice has rejected. Would you characterize this as a matter of fact, or a matter of opinion? I am not aware of a factual basis for the responsibilities of a black woman. In fact, as we read, the "striving" middle-class black community that raised Ms Rice did not instill her with the same responsibilities that have been imparted to the wider African American community. They specifically set her apart from the "uneducated and misguided" (to use her father's terms) among Birmingham's protesters and urged her to pursue success as an individual by being "twice as good" as the white people that would compete for her roles. So, from this (now disfavored) point of view, did she not fulfill her responsibilities perfectly? But most African-Americans do not share that point of view. It is said by more than one commentator in the black community that African American's would like to thrill in Rice's personal achievements - unprecedented in the United States, but that it becomes impossible to respect her when her affiliations have so directly contravened the political aspirations of the black community at large. We can certainly support factually the notion that African Americans have demonstrated political views at odds with the modern GOP, in which Rice plays a central role, but can we identify that disconnect as a "failing" of Rice's without pushing a particular point of view? Specifically that which supplies her with responsibilities on behalf of her race? These matters are simply beyond Wikipedia's competence, in my view. They belong properly with the numerous outlets for editorial that are not restricted to encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a defender of free political speech, it is a repository of unbiased information. --Dystopos 06:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Dmeranda about the consistency of style etc. I knocked it out pretty fast and didn't make much effort to tidy up. It was aimed to present a starting point for consensus. Agree with Francespeabody that this material should be placed alongside other criticisms such as the UK visit and so on. Users should keep working on the detail, keep the conversation on the points of the article itself and we can unprotect it, making the relevant amendments.--Zleitzen 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Frances that we should not strive for a "50/50 split" of criticism and responses to criticism. My reasons for believing this are very different from his, however. I think that striving for an even mix of criticism and responses to criticism is inherently flawed and can easily cross into OR, undue weight, and POV issues. We document the criticism and responses as appropriate and necessary without giving undue weight to any particular viewpoint. If, for example, there are many critics and few responses then the section naturally will not have a "50/50 split" and that is perfectly natural and correct. --ElKevbo 16:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the Black Community POV, I do think it is etremely important to include her role and record as it relates to that community. She belongs to the Black community and she is not considered white by any standard of American standards. Raised to be "twice as good as white" is not an exclusive expression to Condi, the middle class blacks or immigrant blacks it is a widely known expression blacks who seek to acheive have been taught. It is not meant to exclude you from racial aweareness it is meant to inform you of the effort you need apply to acheiving similar gains of a white person.

What I am saying in regards to Race is that since race weighs so heavily in our society in all other aspects of American life (Rice is the first African American woman, second African American (after Powell), that to ignore than the black view of her is dismissive. She would not be in that position were it not for the sacrifice of so many blacks and liberal Whites who paved the way for our inclusion. Conservative parties historically excluse "our kind" and I have cited many examples of that so to say that she does not owe something to those who opened the door is beyond self deception, it is a slap in the face of an entire ancestral line. Zleitzen, I am sorry to keep going off track and into race but I feel I must answer to the questions that arise behind my motive. I feel that I should explain it to those who question things if they come from a black view. Their questions are valid and I do try to answer them exstensively with examples, comparisons, etc... but sorry if it goes too far off the subject.--Francespeabody 17:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

9/11

Sorry to be out of form like this, but I cannot believe that 9/11 or Dr. Rice's preparations for and response to 9/11... ....is not even discussed... ....in this article! Is that right?? No mention of 9/11 at all? Big big BIG whole right where all the criticism should be! Why is that?

Compared to her (completely documented) lack of serious preparations, failure to inform the President on any number of foreign intelligence warnings and subsequent cover up of her role in these lapses (remember "Well, I believe it was titled 'Bin Laden determined to...'"??), all this race talk sounds like acedemic nit picking to most people out there. Sorry, but there it is.

Let me close my interrruption on your airy debate by saying I (and most people hungry for truth) would expect any article on the person who was the "National Security" chief during the biggest single failure of national security in the history of the United States to have some serious critical discussion of this dimension here (let alone a single sentence!!)

NPOV indeed! Now then...wish me to the cornfields...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.248.144 (talk • contribs) 11:07, July 23, 2006

And your suggested additions and sources would be...? --ElKevbo 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's some sources and ideas for your additions:

1. Richard Clarke, counterterrorism “tsar” for the Clinton administration, briefs National Security Adviser Rice and her deputy, Steve Hadley, about al-Qaeda. [Washington Post, 1/20/2002] Outgoing National Security Adviser Sandy Berger makes an unusual appearance at the start of the meeting, saying to Rice, “I’m coming to this briefing to underscore how important I think this subject is.” He claims that he tells Rice during the transition between administrations, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.” Clarke presents his plan to “roll back” al-Qaeda that he had given to the outgoing Clinton administration a couple of weeks earlier. [Time, 8/4/2002] He gets the impression that Rice has never heard the term al-Qaeda before. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 227-30; Guardian, 3/25/2004]

2. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke submits (on January 25, 2001) a proposal to National Security Adviser Rice and “urgently” asks for a Cabinet-level meeting on the al-Qaeda threat. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 230-31] He forwards his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 “Delenda Plan”. He lays out a proposed agenda for urgent action:

Approve covert assistance to Ahmed Shah Massoud’s Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]

Significantly increase funding for CIA counterterrorism activity. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]

Respond to the USS Cole bombing with an attack on al-Qaeda. (The link between al-Qaeda and that bombing had been assumed for months and is confirmed in the media two days later.) According to the Washington Post, “Clarke argue[s] that the camps [are] can’t-miss targets, and they [matter]. The facilities [amount] to conveyor belts for al-Qaeda’s human capital, with raw recruits arriving and trained fighters departing either for front lines against the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel coalition, or against American interests somewhere else. The US government had whole libraries of images filmed over Tarnak Qila and its sister camp, Garmabat Ghar, 19 miles farther west. Why watch al-Qaeda train several thousand men a year and then chase them around the world when they left?” No retaliation is taken on these camps until after 9/11. [Washington Post, 1/20/2002]

Go forward with new Predator drone reconnaissance missions in the spring and use an armed version when it is ready. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]

Step up the fight against terrorist fundraising. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]

Be aware that al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US are not just a potential threat, but are a “major threat in being.” Additionally, more attacks have almost certainly been set in motion. [PBS Frontline, 10/3/2002; Washington Post, 1/20/2002]

Rice’s response to Clarke’s proposal is that the Cabinet will not address the issue until it has been “framed” at the deputy secretary level. However, this initial deputy meeting is not given high priority and it does not take place until April 2001. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 230-31] Henry Shelton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman until 9/11, says, “The squeaky wheel was Dick Clarke, but he wasn’t at the top of their priority list, so the lights went out for a few months. Dick did a pretty good job because he’s abrasive as hell, but given the [bureaucratic] level he was at” there was no progress. [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/2004; Benjamin and Simon, 2002, pp. 335-36]

3. President Bush issues a little-noticed directive that dramatically changes the way information flows among top Bush administration officials. It states that attendees of National Security Council (NSC) meetings shall continue to include the president, vice president, secretary of state, treasury secretary, defense secretary, CIA director, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and assistant to the president for national security affairs. However, other officials, including the “heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials” are excluded from the automatic right to attend NSC meetings. Instead, they “shall be invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.” National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is given a pivotal position. In addition to attending all NSC meetings, she is responsible for determining the agenda of all the meetings. The directive also states, “The existing system of Interagency Working Groups is abolished.” Instead, Rice will coordinate a series of eleven new interagency coordination committees within the NSC. She is designated the executive secretary of all eleven committees, meaning that she will schedule the meetings and determine agendas. She is made chairperson of six of the committees, including “Counter-Terrorism and National Preparedness,” “Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence,” and “Records Access and Information Security.” Professor Margie Burns will later ask rhetorically, “How could the White House ever have thought that abolishing the interagency work groups was a good idea, if security was the objective? Why was so much responsibility placed on the shoulders of one person, Condoleezza Rice, whose [only] previous experience had been at Stanford University and Chevron?” [Chronicles Magazine, 1/2004; US President, 2/13/2001]

4. Over a two-month period (May-July, 2001), the NSA reports that “at least 33 communications indicating a possible, imminent terrorist attack.” None of these reports provide any specific information on where, when, or how an attack might occur. These reports are widely disseminated to other intelligence agencies. [US Congress, 9/18/2002; MSNBC, 9/18/2002] National Security Adviser Rice later will read what she calls “chatter that was picked up in [2001s] spring and summer. ‘Unbelievable news coming in weeks,’ said one. ‘A big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar.’ ‘There will be attacks in the near future.’” [Washington Post, 4/8/2004] The NSA director later claims that all of the warnings were red herrings. [US Congress, 10/17/2002]

5. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke on June 25, 2001 warns National Security Adviser Rice and Assistant National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley that six separate intelligence reports show al-Qaeda personnel warning of a pending attack. These include a warning by al-Qaeda leaders that the next weeks “will witness important surprises” and a new recruitment video making further threats. The 9/11 Commission will say that “Clarke [argues] that this [is] all too sophisticated to be merely a psychological operation to keep the United States on edge...” It is unclear how Rice and Hadley respond, but the CIA agrees with Clarke’s assessment. [Newsweek, 7/22/2001; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 257]

6. The first Bush administration deputy-secretary-level meeting on terrorism in late April is followed by three more deputy meetings from June 27 to July 16, 2001. Each meeting focuses on one issue: one meeting is about al-Qaeda, one about the Pakistani situation, and one on Indo-Pakistani relations. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke’s plan to roll back al-Qaeda, which has been discussed at these meetings, is worked on some more, and is finally approved by National Security Adviser Rice and the deputies on August 13. It now can move to the Cabinet-level before finally reaching President Bush. The Cabinet-level meeting is scheduled for later in August, but too many participants are on vacation, so the meeting takes place in early September. [Washington Post, 1/20/2002; 9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004; 9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]

7. CIA Director Tenet writes on June 28, 2001 an intelligence summary for National Security Adviser Rice: “It is highly likely that a significant al-Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.” A highly classified analysis at this time adds, “Most of the al-Qaeda network is anticipating an attack. Al-Qaeda’s overt publicity has also raised expectations among its rank and file, and its donors.” [Washington Post, 5/17/2002] Apparently, the same analysis also adds, “Based on a review of all source reporting over the last five months, we believe that [bin Laden] will launch a significant terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.” [US Congress, 7/24/2003] This warning is shared with “senior Bush administration officials” in early July. [US Congress, 9/18/2002] Apparently, these warnings are largely based on a warning given by al-Qaeda leaders to a reporter a few days earlier. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke also later asserts that Tenet tells him around this time, “It’s my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 235]

8. In 2002, Newsweek will report, “The White House acknowledged for the first time, [President] Bush was privately beginning to worry about the stream of terror warnings he was hearing that summer, most of them aimed at US targets abroad. On July 5 (2001), five days before the Phoenix memo, Bush directed [Condoleezza] Rice to figure out what was going on domestically.” [Newsweek, 5/27/2002] In 2004, President Bush will explain why he requested this. “[T]he reason I did is because there had been a lot of threat intelligence from overseas. And part of it had to do with the Genoa [Italy] G8 conference that I was going to attend.” [US President, 4/19/2004] Though he doesn’t mention it, the chief security concern at the late July 2001 conference he mentions is intelligence that al-Qaeda plans to fly an airplane into the conference. This threat is so widely reported before the conference (with some reports before July 5) that the attack is called off. For instance, in late June, Time magazine mentioned a German intelligence report of a bin Laden plot “to fly remote-controlled model aircraft packed with Semtex into the conference hall and blow the leaders of the industrialized world to smithereens.” (see June 20, 2001) Bush’s request will result in the later-famous August 6, 2001 briefing entitled, “bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." [US President, 4/19/2004]

9. On July 6, 2001 counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke sends National Security Advisor Rice an e-mail message “outlining a number of steps agreed on” at the Counterterrorism and Security Group meeting the day before, “including efforts to examine the threat of weapons of mass destruction and possible attacks in Latin America. One senior administration official [says] Mr. Clarke [writes] that several agencies, including the FBI, the CIA, and the Pentagon, [have] been directed to develop what the official [says are] ‘detailed response plans in the event of three to five simultaneous attacks.’” However, no response or follow-up action has been pointed out. [New York Times, 4/4/2004]

10. In mid-July 2001 CIA Director Tenet has a special meeting with National Security Adviser Rice and her aides about al-Qaeda. Says one official at the meeting, “[Tenet] briefed [Rice] that there was going to be a major attack.” Another at the meeting says Tenet displays a huge wall chart showing dozens of threats. Tenet does not rule out a domestic attack but says an overseas attack is more likely. [Time, 8/4/2002]

11. On July 27, 2001 counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke reports to National Security Adviser Rice and her deputy Steve Hadley that the spike in intelligence indicating a near-term attack appears to have ceased, but he urges them to keep readiness high. Intelligence indicates that an attack has been postponed for a few months. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] In early August, CIA Director Tenet also reports that intelligence suggests that whatever terrorist activity might have been originally planned has been delayed. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]

12. On August 6, 2001 President Bush receives a classified intelligence briefing at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The memo provided to him is titled “bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” The entire memo focuses on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. [Newsweek, 5/27/2002; New York Times, 5/15/2002] Incredibly, the New York Times later reports that Bush “[breaks] off from work early and [spends] most of the day fishing.” [New York Times, 5/25/2002] The existence of this memo is kept secret, until it is leaked in May 2002, causing a storm of controversy. While National Security Adviser Rice claims the memo is only one and a half pages long; other accounts state it is 11 1/2 pages instead of the usual two or three. [Newsweek, 5/27/2002; New York Times, 5/15/2002; Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002] She disingenuously asserts that, “It was an analytic report that talked about [bin Laden]’s methods of operation, talked about what he had done historically, in 1997, in 1998. ... I want to reiterate, it was not a warning. There was no specific time, place, or method mentioned.” [White House, 5/16/2002] A page and a half of the contents are released on April 10, 2004, after Rice testifies before the 9/11 Commission. [Washington Post, 4/10/2004] Rice testifies that the memo is mostly historic regarding bin Laden’s previous activities, and she says it contains no specific information that would have prevented an attack. The memo, as released, states as follows:

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -REDACTED-service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told -REDACTED- service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in—-, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaida encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaida was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members—including some who are US citizens—have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a -REDACTED- service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the US that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004] The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry calls it “a closely held intelligence report for senior government officials” presented in early August 2001. [US Congress, 7/24/2003]

13. On September 4, 2001, hours before the only significant Bush administration Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism before 9/11, counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke writes a critical memo to National Security Adviser Rice. He criticizes the Defense Department for reluctance to use force against al-Qaeda and the CIA for impeding the deployment of unmanned Predator drones to hunt for bin Laden. According to the Washington Post, the memo urges “officials to imagine a day when hundreds of Americans lay dead from a terrorist attack and ask themselves what more they could have done.” [Washington Post, 3/24/2004; Washington Post, 3/25/2004; 9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004]

14. On September 4, 2001, President Bush’s cabinet-rank advisers discuss terrorism for the second of only two times before 9/11. [Washington Post, 5/17/2002] National Security Adviser Rice chairs the meeting; neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney attends. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke later says that in this meeting, he and CIA Director Tenet speak passionately about the al-Qaeda threat. No one disagrees that the threat is serious. Secretary of State Powell outlines a plan to put pressure on Pakistan to stop supporting al-Qaeda. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld appears to be more interested in Iraq. The only debate is over whether to fly the armed Predator drone over Afghanistan to attack al-Qaeda. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 237-38] Clarke’s earlier plans to “roll back” al-Qaeda have been discussed and honed in many meetings and are now presented as a formal National Security Presidential Directive. The directive is “apparently” approved, though the process of turning it into official policy is still not done. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] There is later disagreement over just how different the directive presented is from Clarke’s earlier plans. For instance, some claim the directive aims not just to “roll back” al-Qaeda, but also to “eliminate” it altogether. [Time, 8/4/2002] However, Clarke notes that even though he wanted to use the word “eliminate,” the approved directive merely aims to “significantly erode” al-Qaeda. The word “eliminate” is only added after 9/11. [Washington Post, 3/25/2004] The Washington Post notes that the directive approved on this day “did not differ substantially from Clinton’s policy.” [Washington Post, 3/27/2004] Time magazine later comments, “The fight against terrorism was one of the casualties of the transition, as Washington spent eight months going over and over a document whose outline had long been clear.” [Time, 8/4/2002] The primary change from Clarke’s original draft is that the approved plan calls for more direct financial and logistical support to the Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban groups. The plan also calls for drafting plans for possible US military involvement, “but those differences were largely theoretical; administration officials told the [9/11 Commission’s] investigators that the plan’s overall timeline was at least three years, and it did not include firm deadlines, military plans, or significant funding at the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks.” [Washington Post, 3/27/2004; Reuters, 4/2/2004]

15. On September 6, 2001, Former Senator Gary Hart (D), one of the two co-chairs of a comprehensive, bipartisan report on terrorism released in January 2001, meets with National Security Adviser Rice to see if the Bush administration is implementing the report’s recommendations. He later claims to give her a grave warning. He recalls to tone of her response: “She didn’t seem to feel a terrible sense of urgency. Her response was simply ‘I’ll talk to the vice president about it.’ ... Even at this late date, nothing was being done inside the White House.” [Salon, 4/2/2004]

16. On September 10, 2001, Another deputies meeting further considers policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, and makes further revisions to the National Security Presidential Directive regarding al-Qaeda. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] By the end of the meeting, a formal, three-phase strategy is agreed upon. An envoy is to go to Afghanistan and give the Taliban another chance to expel bin Laden. If this fails, more pressure will be put on the Taliban, including more support for the Northern Alliance and other groups. If the Taliban still refuse to change, the US will try to overthrow the Taliban through more direct action. The time-frame for this strategy is about three years. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] CIA Director Tenet is formally tasked to draw up new authorities for the covert action program envisioned, and request funding to implement it. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] The directive is then to be sent to National Security Adviser Rice for approval. President Bush is apparently aware of the directive and prepared to sign it (though he hasn’t attended any of the meetings about it), but he does not sign it until October. [MSNBC, 5/16/2002; Los Angeles Times, 5/18/2002; Washington Post, 4/1/2004]

Shouldn't this stuff be summarized and assessed in this article? Or is there a (political) motivation for it being skipped altogether when talking about Dr. Rice's achievements and failures?

Thanks.

________________________

The 911 issue related to Condi is an amazing and shameful oversight on my part as well. This is a massive issue that should be included and I will do some research on the topic to find some ways to present them.--Francespeabody 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Rice is a highly controversial politican and there are many sources expressing sharp criticism out there. Many less controversial figures have whole pages of criticism, including controversies and responses. That this page had nothing until quite recently amazes me.--Zleitzen 16:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

unprotection

So, it seems like everyone has had a chance to air their views and, though we might not be in absolute agreement on every point, I think there's probably enough consensus on how to resolve disputes that we could try unprotecting the page and getting these major improvements underway. Fair enough? --Dystopos 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed--Zleitzen 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dystopos "simplifying the intro" or "Over Simplifying his Censorship"

Here we go again. Dystopos, This is "Over Simplifying" censorship!!!!

Dystopos does not cite why he has censored the first paragraph or the "Entire Race Issue Section". No issues with the original citations, or content with the original paragraph he just "did what he felt like" without reason. This is the kind of crap that will get the article locked again because I will be reverting this section over and over again and I will continue to demand a point by point reason for each edit.

A general "oh, i thought it might be simpler to pull all the negative stuff I don't like out and replace it with much softer polite wording" will not suffice! Stop trying to censor the Black View from the article or to otherwise diminish it with a clearly right winged POV. Once again, a term like "Simpler" is a racist way of saying "All that black talk was a bit much don't we all agree? How nice it would be to use a more common language that we all prefer, so I will take it upon myself to do this as my first grand act!"

There needs to be either a full discussion on each of those issues you find fault with and an alternate citation to what was there if the citation source is the issue but to continue to delete and censor will bring this article back to its former miserable glory.

As was pointed out, I will also be adding the very necessary fumbling of 9-11 when she held the defense position as some mention of her recent dismal response from this past few day's Israel visit. She is failing by the day in terms of policy and world view so this is going to be very easy to augment. The site had just a few negative comments originally and then the "Cleaners" come out and it makes the entire site that much more honest though negative overall. I started with one paragraph initially and now we are on our way to a full dedicated page of "truths about Condi"! You never learn! --Francespeabody 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I differ with your characterization of my edits. They were based on discussions that have taken place on this page by multiple contributors. The paragraph which I removed from the introduction made improper use of references and was too specific and too much of a pointed argument for its position in the article. This is not an opinion I made up, but one that has been expressed by several people. The consensus on how to expand and preserve the criticisms from the "Black View" was discussed in the section above titled "Version" and you are still welcome to contribute to that discussion. You are NOT welcome, however, to presume that you have ownership of this article. You are NOT welcome to continue making personal attacks against me or other editors. --Dystopos 05:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that francespeabody is engaging in personal attacks again, now that the page has been unprotected. I also want to point out that it is clear now that he never had any intention to follow the Wikipedia rules when he stated earlier that he would. It is just more of the same ole violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. --Getaway 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

His user conduct RFC is still open; I would encourage you and anyone else to comment on and participate in the process. --ElKevbo 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Protect This Page For Good

Partisans have made a mess of this discussion page and of the article IMO. Please look at the following paragraph.

"Rice's role as advisor to the President and chief diplomat for the United States during a period of intense criticism of America's "War on Terror" has made her a controversial figure. Her ethnicity has also been a divisive issue as observers cheer her pioneering position of power, but also blame her for failing to address administration policies that are overwhelmingly rejected by African American voters."

Critisism from the opposition party (which isnt news) ... and overwhelming rejected by African American voters... what silliness is this.

On issues of taxes, religion in the public arena school choice and vouchers poll by poll blacks agree with the GOP. There are also other issues that they do not agree on. This paragraph is not neutral in the slightest.... and after reading this talk page it is clear that the Dr. Rice wiki entry should be edit protected permanently. Bachs

• The "administration policies...rejected by African American voters" is made in reference to a longer explanation further down in the article (backed up by voting patterns and by the 2002 poll cited below. The statement wasn't specific enough, I thought, to require a direct reference since it's backed up by more specific language in the later section.) As to your other observation, I did not refer to the opposition party as the source of criticisms. It is a general statement and doesn't, in an encyclopedia, need to be "news". I still don't think permanent protection will benefit the article. There are other means of dispute resolution that can be effective. --Dystopos 12:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit that paragraph to make it more neutral, or I will remove it. If you would like to talk polls, I can start posting some about school choice and other issues where African Americans in poll after poll agree with the GOP on several issues. Bachs

I think the introduction should introduce all the topics that are discussed in detail in the body of the page. Feel free to rewrite it to more accurately conform to the way the subject is treated in the "controversies" section, or to add introductory material that balances what you see as bias. --Dystopos 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That comes across as a bit demanding. Can you at least add a "please" in there somewhere? :) --ElKevbo 17:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bach, you are a little late to the party. The opening paragraph reflects a watered down view of what I had originally submitted and will be editing. Your assertion of Black accord with the GOP is pure fiction. I am black, live among blacks, and have been to many black events in the low, mid and high level of black society and with exception to just a few at the very top, there is no wide or general support for any GOP intiative with the one possible exception of the religious exploitation the GOP is so proud of but that is not supposed to be a political issue (just happens to be).

Cite your polls, contribute to the article, or discuss it but any massive unsupported change or edit you make will be reverted summarily unless you can support it.--Francespeabody 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Deconstruction of Francespeabody

Frances, thanks for making your partisan stripes plain for everyone to see. I will give you a little more time to come to your senses. If not than we will just be reverting back and forth till its locked. You say that my assertion of black accord is pure fiction, well here is the evidence....

Minority Support for School Choice Potentially powerful and growing support for school choice is found among minority parents. A 2002 National Opinion Poll conducted by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that 57.4 percent of African-American respondents favored a voucher system when asked, "Would you support a voucher system where parents would get money from the government to send their children to the public, private, or parochial school of their choice?"76 An earlier poll by the Joint Center found that, while 69 percent of black elected officials oppose vouchers, 60 percent of the black populace supports them and that 70 percent of blacks under the age of 50 support vouchers.77

A July 2001 poll by the Latino Coalition and Hispanic Business Roundtable found that 73 percent of Hispanic adults surveyed supported the following statement: "The government should provide taxpayer-funded vouchers to help low-income families send their children to a better public, private, or church-run school." An even larger percentage of respondents supported giving all parents a $1,000 tax credit for educational expenses, including tuition.78

A June 2002 poll conducted by Black America's Political Action Committee (BAMPAC) found that 63 percent of African-American parents would like to transfer their children from their current public schools to a public charter school or private school. More than half of the respondents gave their children's public school a grade of "C" or lower. BAMPAC President Alvin Williams declared that "African-Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with the public school system and its failure, in many cases, to provide a quality education for their children. This just shows us that the idea of choice is widely supported by the African-American community."79

In September 2000, the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) began a public information campaign to highlight the importance of choice for children in inner-city communities. The campaign featured a compelling slogan: "School choice is widespread unless you're poor." BAEO Chairman Howard Fuller supports the view that giving minority parents vouchers to take their children out of failing schools is the best way to close the racial achievement gap.80

76. David A. Bositis, "2002 National Opinion Poll: Politics," Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, 2002, at 130.94.20.119/whatsnew/2002_NOP_text&tables.pdf.

77. Center for Education Reform, Education Reform Newswire, July 10, 2001, at www.edreform.com. For the full report, see www.jointcenter.org.

78. Latino Coalition and Hispanic Business Roundtable, "National Survey of Hispanic Adults," July 24, 2001, at http://hbrt.org/surveys/010724.htm.

79. Ellen Sorokin, "Poll Finds Most Blacks Favor Charter, Private Schools," The Washington Times, July 19, 2002, p. A13.

80. Scott Greenberger, "Many Blacks Seek Choice of Schools," The Boston Globe, February 26, 2001, p. B5.

Now Frances, since I have proven my point, I give you one more day to make it more neutral, or I will do it for you and keep it that way. Bachs05:33, 27 July 2006

• Most of hese articles seem to support one GOP plank, regarding school privatization, and so I presume your contributions to the article will reflect that fact, rather than be wielded merely as a blunt tool to support wholesale deletion of the section on race-based criticisms that has emerged through editorial consensus. --Dystopos 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bro, you are not even a little clever. Like D says, this is just one issue and not even a good one. The GOP says "we polled a 1000 blacks and 99% of them said they want their kids to go to better schools". Is that what you call support? Do whites differ from that in what they want for their kids?

Is that vast overwhelming Black support? Where are the issues? Where are the polls that show varied response to the view blacks have and discuss in Black media? I found this diddy on what Republicans really want for our children.

What did you deconstruct? I only see your limitation as a contributor. Please don't waste my time with such things or have the respect of opening your contribution with the following line: "I am only bringing my "D" game today so keep that in mind while reading the following...--Francespeabody 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remember, you have been warned several times about making personal attacks. This discussion is about the article, not about you, me, Bachs, or anyone else. --Dystopos 21:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Frances said that my point was "pure fiction"... I just proved that it wasnt. Now you are moving the bar from, none, to more than one. So you were wrong about your "pure fiction" comment and I would hope that you would be big enough to admit you are wrong. I am curious to see your answer before I post the next issue where I can show alot of agreement with most black Americans and the GOP. The point is that Frances not only claims to be black, but claims to speak for Black America, so proving him wrong on these rediculous absolutes of his is all too easy. Usually the most strident partisans and ideologues speak in such absolutes. Bachs

This is straying from the topic at hand. Try to limit discussion here to that which is pertinent to the article. Move it to user talk if you must continue. Isopropyl 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Isopropyl, you have a good point, so in the spirit of good will, I will give Frances another 24 hours to either edit the non-neutral paragraph or remove it. Bachs

• In my opinion, making ultimatums is not in the spirit of collaboration. Why don't you suggest a phrasing which you think we might be able to build a consensus around and then, if there's agreement, we'll implement it and defend it until something better comes along. --Dystopos 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not in agreement with any part of the "Bach" argument. I have not moved the "bar" from none to anything and firmly hold my position that your inital assertion of "Support" is Pure Fiction. I pointed out that if you were "Right" you only make the case for one argument and that in no way reflects wide consensus of the Black View. I stated that what you contributed was "Obvious" and not limited to or reflective of black support for a Republican view but to the rather obvious view of what "Good Parents" want for their children generally. You could argue that Republicans like food and blacks also like food therefore blacks support Republican's and attempt to make a point but that would be equally silly.

As for the attack, Bach is obviously wasting time with his contributions and threats. Nothing meaningful will come of it and I see no point in pursuing any further conversation. I have not obligation to engage every 14 year old who wishes to debate nor does the threat of a revert hold me to discussion with anyone of such a low level of debate. You are giving me 24 hours to argue against the inane point that "If blacks support a Universal view" that blacks love Republicans is itself a bullet point for why this is the last response I will offer you directly.

You have offered no discussion, commentary, or contribution beyond the ultimatum so stop wasting my time and the time of others. You act as if any contribution you make won't immediately be reverted. (I will purchase a clue on your behalf.) --Francespeabody 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Isopropyl, as I have already proven beyond reasonable doubt, Francespeabody has no interest in negotiation. I however have been most patient, but there comes a time when you cant go anywhere with people with certain motivations and you just have to do what is right. I made my case, and Francespreabody made a countercase that has fallen apart. Bachs

Two wrongs do not make a right. The incivility of another editor is not an excuse to be yourself incivil. If you have points to make regarding the article, that's fine, but avoid personal attacks. Isopropyl 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote in Criticism Section by Margaret Kimberly

I edited the quote in the criticism section by Margaret Kimberly because she was completely misquoted. The comments of someone else were attributed to her incorrectly. It was incorrectly quoted as this: "When Rice invoked the civil rights movement to clarify her position on the invasion of Iraq, Margaret Kimberley, another writer for Black Commentator, felt that her use of the rhetoric was cynical. [16]" I fixed it with the correct word that she used, which was "offensive." User:Kuzaar felt the need to revert back to the incorrect word of "cynical." I have correctly reverted it back again to the absolutley correct word of "offensive." Please review the article from the Austrialian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC.net.au): "Stan Correy: The connection between Birmingham 1963 and Baghdad 2004 is one that Condoleezza Rice makes with passion. But it’s fair to say that many African-Americans who also cherish the Civil Rights tradition and vote mainly for the Democratic Party, think her use of the rhetoric is cynical. New York based African-American journalist, Margaret Kimberley, found her invoking the Birmingham bombing victims in the cause of the Iraq War ‘offensive', and here’s a reading of her comment. Poor Condi Rice and company are left unable to sing about freedom or little else because our Iraq policy was based on lies, and is now such an obvious failure. It is difficult for the Bush Administration to build democracy in Iraq because that was never their true intention." No, it is very, very clear that the correct word from the African American (remember that was what the big debate was about, i.e., putting in the article some criticism from members of the African American community) was "offensive," not "cynical." It really isn't important, but it must be pointed out that Stan Correy is a white Australian, why are we quoting white Australians to get a negative word about Dr. Rice?? Could it be that finding these negative words is actually kind of difficult, regardless of how much anyone jumps up and down about it??? Also, notice that the negative comments are coming from two sources: (1) people associated with TransAfrica Forum, an organization that is on the verge of falling apart, and (2) Black Commentator, an online web magazine. nuff said. --Getaway 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments of Anon User

This article reads as if it were issued by Rice's paid biographer. There is not a stich of criticism in it. I would like to know if she really can speak Russian, and what why Stanford wanted her so badly so fast. What has she done on the academic front? I find the woman to be a lightweight and my impression is reinforced by this sort of arselicking tribute which can only have been dictated from the office of an admirer. 24.201.169.149 10:32, 26 July 2006

Try reading the previous discussions first before throwing insults around. This has been debated many times, and you're certainly not adding anything useful or creative with your offensive tone. Remember to be civil and assume good faith. Isopropyl 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, it is not our role to formulate criticisms, especially of living people. Where criticisms are justified, these are published in other works (books, journals, etc) and then can be referenced here. I agree that the current article borrows a bit heavily from administration sources, but this is something that is being worked on by more than one editor. Perhaps the progress is slow because recent changes to this page have been highly contentious (see above). That said, her academic credentials are described accurately and her fluency in Russian is affirmed in numerous publications. Perhaps one of those outlets would have the capability of performing an investigation for you. --Dystopos 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A lightweight in your impression.... well so much for objectivity. Stanford thought very highly of her and so does Notre Dame. Could it be that an extreme partisan would tend to believe that everything that is in her bio or said about her is some jkind of lie? You tell me... Bachs

Remove Neutrality Dispute Tag?

Well, we've at least come to a relatively peaceful compromise on this, the protection block has been lifted from the article, and there have been no major edit wars. There are a few kinks here and there that are being worked out, but overall, I think the article will be fine. I don't think the article's overall neutrality is disputed by a large number of people presently, and frankly, the Neutrality Dispute Tag (and most tags in general) are cumbersome and distracting. I propose that we remove the tag and see how things go. --Ai.kefu 03:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the issue of an extended critique of her role in 9/11 intelligence and response is still on the table. If we do remove the tag, we might want to keep it handy depending on how that goes. --Dystopos 05:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That may be a bit premature. The 911 stuff I am digging up is sure to raise issues.--Francespeabody 19:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a bit premature. Does anyone else have issues with the "Racial criticisms" section? --GHcool 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this would be premature but for different reasons that those stated by Francespeabody. My main objection is to the title of the section. It's unnecessarily amigious and open to intepretation. Are these criticisms of her race, criticisms of her because of her race, or criticisms of her by critics of a particular race? Unless the answer is "yes" to all three of those questions, the title can be more specific and descriptive of the contents of this section. --ElKevbo 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)The title is ambigi

Any suggestions? --Dystopos 00:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I took it down. There has not been any discussion or substantive changes. Just a status quo and the tag still remains. People are commenting that it should remain, but where are the suggested changes?? --Getaway 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems a lot of conversation has occurred but little progress

I fail to see why the rush to remove the NPOV tag when clearly so much debate remains over what content should be included and that everyone has a POV representative of their party affiliation.

I also agree that contributors should acknowledge their party affiliation so that the conversation can find some semblance of neutrality through dialogue thus keeping contributions in a proper context. It is soooo obvious where people stand anyway that to pretend to be Neutral with an issue like this is going to just make folks look silly. (Seriously, it's kind of like the hand-picked crowds the President enjoys speaking in front of, where all the reporters lob underhand wiffle ball questions at him. You see, everyone else in the world watching on TV knows it is a staged event with a staged crowd.) Nobody is that naive as to think such is in any way neutral but here we are on this article pretending to particpate in a similar game with supposed "Neutral" Wiki Contributors. So instead of insulting those of us who represent the Democratic side with a false neutral position, lets put these things out there and demonstrate to each other our capacity to have an adult dialogue. Otherwise it is just really sad and embarrasing to continue. Nobody here is neutral. If you have deleted or edited this article at least 3 times to make it nicer you are a Republican, and if you added anything negative you are a Democrat. See how simple? If you say you are an Independant, but are still writing pro-Republican contributions here, you too are a "Republican" and that should be indicated. (Right-Leaning Indie would work)--216Cali 07:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are incorrect. --Dystopos 13:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• I think it is human nature for everyone to have a certain point of view and certain built in bias. I also think that everyone who is interested in this particular topic, Condi Rice, is going to be somewhat political in personality, otherwise it would seem that non-political people would naturally work on other less inherently political material in Wikipedia. I don't think that it makes anyone look silly, however, I just think that is the way everyone is. We all see the world through our own perspective and are we really shocked that others see it differently? I don't think so. Let's focus on the specifics of the article. --Getaway 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. Per official policy, nothing qualifies or disqualifies an editor from contributing except the quality of those contributions. -- Dystopos 15:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • ..and, at a certain point, his or her behavior as part of the Wikipedia community. --Dystopos 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have pushed for a similar position. I agree that "hiding" under some anonymity rings false in terms of motives but as you say, it is obvious who sides with what party based on the contribution. I noted before Republicans are almost always anonymous when you ask them about their party directly. I think it has to do with a private shame they feel for the adminstration or the pang of guilt about the "Me, Mine, for Us" attitude required to belong to the party. I did some poll calling a few months back and the Democrats always identified themselves if you asked what party they belonged to whereas the Republicans almost always hid from the title. I see in the responses here the same kind of back stepping that I heard on the phone. I could not understand it then and don't understand it now, why aren't you proud to be Republican? I view it as a selfish party but certainly if you view it favorably enough to register and vote for them, you can identify "anonymously" as one? They won't own the party anonymously here so forget about a street level inquiry. Regardless, you know who they are by what they don't say and what they contribute so it may not matter at all. I do think it is a bit immature too since this is a political issue.--Francespeabody 17:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, those who most strenously label other editors are members of particular groups or political affiliations often not only completely miss the mark (as is the case here, at least for me) but only succeed in identifying themselves as members of the group or political affiliation most opposed to the group to which they accuse others of belonging. In other words, those who are apt to point fingers at others and label them as conservatives are likely not only wrong but also liberals. Which is all very nice and all but has nothing to do with this encyclopedia article. Drop the pathetic ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations and assumptions and get back to work on the article. --ElKevbo 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the partisans are trying to bend neutrality every chance they get to make her look bad, it reminds us that hate indeed is a powerfull and relentless motivator. Bachs

• You're absolutely right, ElKevbo. Part of why I keep coming back here is to chuckle when I get called a right-wing conservative. It's a refreshing change from what I get called here in Alabama. (As far as I know, I cast the sole vote for Nader in my district) --Dystopos 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What "party affiliation?" Not all of us are from the USA, and not all of us have a bias here. How about everyone just concentrates on getting the facts straight?KiwiDave 16:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section Again

There have been comments placed from Hugo Chávez about Rice. The comments are both arbitrary and off the wall. One is a taken from an article in People's Daily!!!! I thinking about moving these comments to a section about Venezuela and putting those off the wall comments of Chávez in their proper context. --Getaway 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• in my opinion, unless Chavez' comments have achieved something, an official response, even, then they could probably be left out of an encyclopedia article. Of course, by saying that I will no doubt be labeled a censor. --Dystopos 22:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro...part 43285972

Frances, we've discussed the paragraph in question a bazillion times, and it seems like most people are cool with the "intense criticism" and "controversial figure" sentence. You're welcome to add the information in the paragraph in elsewhere. Also, when you added the paragraph to the intro again, you used the edit summary "There has been discussion but no new information provided to support the views included", which I don't fully understand. Could you elaborate on the "no new information provided to support the views" part? That sounds like a reason not to include the paragraph. Isopropyl 05:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Frances, for the thirtieth time; the various sources in that paragraph do little to support the words (e.g., the reference following "anti-black" does not ever use that phrase). If you still feel that some voices aren't being adequately represented, it would be more constructive to incrementally add a sourced statement (or several) rather than to keep stubbornly reverting an old section that has few supporters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply saying "We talked about this" does not a conversation make. You have not discussed this, or offered any point by point counter to each of the citations, you have simply removed the entire section without edit repeatedly.

The entire paragraph is not a one time edit, it reflects a 10 day edit, revert, discussion, update and citation run that culminated in the final paragraph that is now included. Some late comers finally decided that the entire thing did not suit them and removed it without discussion but there was never discussion on the content just the wholesale dismissal and that is not in the spirit of NPOV.

Either please provide a point by point citation level issue with the paragraph or leave it alone until you have had time to cool down and do some research. You say the citations do little to support the content but offer no substantive example to support that. Do some homework, examine black publications and writings within the scope of your research or stand down.--Francespeabody 05:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What? Do we need a line-by line examination to show that a sources does not say what you claim it says?. You appear to be constructing Original Research based on your synthesis of sources. That is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. --Mmx1 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

'The entire paragraph is not a one time edit, it reflects a 10 day edit'; No. It's the same paragraph that you and a few others have been readding for more than a month. [17].

'Either please provide a point by point citation level issue with the paragraph or leave it alone until you have had time to cool down and do some research.' I did that nearly a month ago, and others weighed in on the topic as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 08:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)