Talk:Condoleezza Rice/Archive 4

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

Rice denies Armenian Genocide recognition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyR57NVh7C8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.238.166 (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


Social views

Great writing in the article, first of all. Now for a suggestion: could an expert on the topic add a "Social Views" section or something similar for Rice, especially in light of the support for her to run for President? Something about her stances on socio-cultural issues. Chiss Boy 11:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead does not summarize

The lead does not properly summarize the article. This can be remedied in part by placing the footnoted items in a section later in the article.

See item reversed by Mgunn for an example.Ohioan1 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vulgar Comments by Foreign [red haired demon] Leader

The comments by the Russian liberal party properly were not dignified with a response by Rice. It is unclear why comments demeaning to women are thought to add value. They certainly have no relationship with Rice. Is there some reason I am missing in this regard?Ohioan1 03:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing Polls

An editor has blocked reporting of recent declines in Rice's poll results. The stated reason for the blocking is that the difference between favorable and unfavorable results is less than the margin of error in the poll. Such rationale does not justify the erasure of the fact of the decline, particularly because the article otherwise reports on favorable polling results for Rice. The fact of the decline should not be suppressed. Ohioan1 05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What you precisely said was, "the ratio of favorable to unfavorable respondents has dropped significantly, with Rice scoring a negative result beginning February 2007" You cannot say this because the difference between the positive (46%) and negative (48%) is not statistically significant because the margin of error is 3%.
Let's say some hypothetical Dr. Bob had a fixed 48% positive rating and a 46% negative rating. Let's also say that a poll was taken each day in February with a 3% margin of error for each poll. If you do the math out, it's expected that on at least 7 of the 28 days, the polls will show a higher negative rating even though the real rating is actually positive!! (In excel, NORMDIST(47,48,1.53,TRUE) yields 25% probability that each poll gives result with higher negative than positive and BINOMDIST(6,28,0.25,TRUE) is less than .5)
The point is, you can't make factual statements if they aren't statistically significant. -- Mgunn 08:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion reached by Mgunn is precisely incorrect. One can make a factual statement that a poll has taken place, and report its result with 100% certainty. That the poll took place is a fact. That the poll returned a negative result is a fact. That the informed reader knows polls carry a margin of error is a fact. Poll results are real even if they show results within a margin of error. The unrevised article is misleading in that it excludes the current events. Notwithstanding these facts, I will resubmit the report with wording that should be more palatable to Mgunn.Ohioan1 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you were misinterpretting the result. -- Mgunn 16:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
While I did not see how I was "misinterpreting" the result, I modified the presentation to accomodate your requests for precision in the discussion. It is thus unclear to me why you have now obliterated the reporting. Your stated reason for your edit does not explain why you have deleted this reporting.Ohioan1 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with you inserting an accurate version, but not in the lead. -- Mgunn 02:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead details two items that once were correct but are now incorrect. The lead should summarize discussion in the article, and I proposed moving details to a separate section. This move was blocked.Ohioan1 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Economist Rumor

The Economist now has on the front page of its website a rumor that she may take over the VPship for Cheney prior to the end of the current administration. It is being circulated on several of the major media networks. Calling for opinions if it should merit inclusion in her article.

This (post right above this line) is interesting-- but it would help if this post was dated. Is this still relevant? Or an old flash in the pan?

67.42.243.184 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

small correction needed

"Gaza is now under Palestinian control once again for the first time in 38 years."

Actually, 38+ years ago Gaza was under Egyptian not Palestinian control... For some reason there's no editing option on the page so I can't fix this myself.

The page is "semi protected" so your Wiki ID needs to be four days old to edit the section. I revised the section, if you come back please see if you can do better.

Thank you, Ohioan1 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

roles and cultural orientation

Since Rice's cultural orientation is largely skewed toward Central America, the assessment of the performance of her international roles would include African-American criticism. 15:51, 23 August 2006 Beadtot (Talk | contribs) (roles and cultural orientation)

Huh? Chiss Boy 11:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GA

This article is most certainly a good article. I think it is good enough to be a FA, though some might complain about the recent edit war, despite it seeming to have ended.Some P. Erson 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait another two weeks at least before taking this article to FAC. That should fulfill stability requirements, barring an unforeseen flareup. -Fsotrain09 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural/Ethnic/Racial description as an "African-American"

I have trouble understanding what is the substance of the term "African-American" in general. When used in connection with Condollezza Rice I get even more confused. Condi seems to have racial features accross the board so it is not a racial description after all?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.239.129.42 (talk)

What else should she be classified as? Chinese American?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Condoleezza Rice is an "African American" in the sense that her great-great grandparents on both sides of her family originated from the continent of Africa, and in the sense that she is an American citizen. Therefore, she is an "African American". I don't know what other racial description you could use to classify her. Is this what you mean? --Ai.kefu 00:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
How about simply "AMERICAN"? Rice probably has some European blood, if that's what you're getting at. A lot of Americans of African descent have a considerable amount of European ancestry. There is a tendency for those with ancestry x and European ancestry to be considered x, while ignoring their European ancestry. Chiss Boy 11:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Rice, according to her own biography and numerous published sources, has both caucasian and african ancestors, on both sides of her family tree. It is also said she dislikes the term African-American, as "immigrant" flavored, while she has been in this country for generations and prefers American. Both of these, but certainly the former, should be mentioned here.96.224.165.154 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

--Vandalism-- 70114205215 said: "Dear Apple Rancher: Please stop vandalizing the Condi Rice page as you did today. Also, Don't go on the Condi Rice Talk page and claim that you fixed the vandalism that you created. -- 70114205215 19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)"

Very funny. Since you saw my comment about my repair to the Rice page "today" (the day I fixed it) It is probable that you were watching the site. Since you have no concern about asserting that I vandalized the page without any cause for such assertion, I find it likely that you were the culprit (the fact that you have registered under a string of numbers also indicates that you have no personal interest in the site, its community or its purpose of providing accurate information). Given that you have nothing to do but vandalize the work of others and watch all day to see if anyone notices, I suspect that you are either a bureaucrat or unemployed. Either way I feel sorry for you.

Please watch this site for future vandalism. It also might become necessary to check into user names that are all numbers or that appear to be randomly generated to see if they are posting to regularly vandalized pages. Apple Rancher 02:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Historically, if you were black with anything else, you were black. If you were half white and half whatever, you were that other race. That's how it is. If a black person and a white person marry and have children, it would take many generations of the children marrying white people in order to get white children again. Black is a stronger gene than white, so the person is black. Simple. That's how it has been for hundreds of years, and probably hundreds more. Whatever race has the stronger gene on your appearance or genes, you were that race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

  • You're speaking of a historical legal description, not a biological fact. --Dystopos (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that's on a biological scale. Look, I'm white. And I think the lady looks black. So what if blacks don't want to acknowledge their European ancestry. How many of us 1/3 white americans acknowledge our African Ancestry. Exactly, Non. So leave the blacks alone. No matter how light they are, they are still black.

Condi's talent: Rhetorical skills/spin?

1. Bush administration first 8 months: holiday at Crawford? Condolleezza Rice has tried to defend Bush administrations passivity before 9/11/2001[[1]]. It is arguable that she seems to deliver a substantive rebuttal, but as we check the facts we realize that she did not. However, she did succeeded rhetorically during the performance.

2. Foreign policy skills. Codoleezza failed to get anything right Israel adn Lebanon. She didn't manage to buy time for a military solution and she failed to bring US in as the mediator after the military solution came to a dead end. Instead the middle ground of diplomacy in ME has been lost to EU and it's partly socvialist govenrments. How about quiting diplomacy and working for Rummy instead?

3. Russia? Well, there she went again rambling about her competence in Russian affairs after 2000 elections. And now after 6 years of Condi's advice Russia has EU and China by the balls - and US waisting money to get alternative oil from Iraq...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.239.129.42 (talk) 02:09, September 27, 2006

Please keep discussion directly related to the Condoleezza Rice article. --ElKevbo 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Agreed! This is not an opinion board. Nor should she be assaulted merely because she is Black and a Moderate Conservative on foreign policy.

Phil

67.42.243.184 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on going for FAC

How do editors feel about this now? The editwar has been over for a few weeks, and the article is largely stable at this point, allowing for the vandalism-draw of the subject's notability. Would a few more days or weeks be good, or should we try taking this to FAC now? -Fsotrain09 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There are still quite a lot of formatting issues: refs should come after a comma or period, but not before. Under #Academic career, "The school at that time was running a deficit of $20 million" requires a citaiton. The #Business career also needs a bit of citing. I was suprised to see that she was one of the board of directors for HP. Iolakana•T 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we should try and work towards nominating this article to FA status. By that, we should seek some of the more experienced editors' advice on how to improve this article, and once we feel that there are no substantive flaws, then we can finally submit it for FA. But I think it's time now that we should push really hard to perfect this article and make it FA-worthy, definitely. The editwar has been over for about two months, actually. I'd say this article is stable enough, has a good enough reputation as a GA, and is close enough to acceptable that it wouldn't take an immense deal of work to finally make it a FA. --Ai.kefu 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
What was the revert war about? Iolakana•T 20:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Incomprehensible" Quote, Woodward's proof

So the NY Times has broken the story, just hours after Rice's denial, that she was, as Bob Woodward's book reported, briefed by George Tenent on July 10th, 2001 about the immenent threat that Al Qaeda posed. She said yesterday (Oct. 1, '06) that it was "incomprehensible" that she ignored the threats 2 months before the Sept.11 attacks. "I would remember if I was told, as this account apparently says, that there was about to be an attack in the United States, and the idea that I would somehow have ignored that I find incomprehensible," Rice said. Well, it just got a lot more comprehensible. If there was ever an item that needs to be added to the 'criticisms' section, it's this. Condi Rice, 'did not recall' such a meeting, while Tennent felt they were getting the "brush off," which apparently they were, considering Rice doesn't even recall being warned. There is now conclusive proof that this meeting did occur, according to White House records, according to Sean McCormack, a State Dept. Spokesperson. This info needs to be added, as it's a relevant crticism: Rice was warned, 2 months prior to 9/11, that Al Qaeada was planning an attack, possibly on American soil, and she ignored it. When this was brought up in Bob Woodward's book, Rice denied it happened, until White House records proved her wrong. This is relevant because she was the National Security Advisor at the time, so she was in a position to do something with this information, but didn't. We could also add this to the page on Woodward's book, as it proves him right. Here's a link to the article. [2] 70.104.134.105 00:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)TS (Oct. 2, '06)

I believe that issue should be covered in the article, but not in above manner of 70.104.134.105. Clearly the above representation is POV and conclusionary. Woodward does not more proof of the way things happened than anyone else. It is just ludicrous to assume that if Woodward says it, its true. Besides, it is not up to mere Wikipedians to decide what it true and what is not true, that is inherently POV, just like the above commentary of 70.104.134.105.--Getaway 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong w/70.104.135.105's representation. clearly it is factual, empirical, verifiable, NPOV, chronlogical. It's ludicrous to give a single person of questionable credibility whose assertions are contradicted by the official record the same weight as multiple people with high credibility whose assertions are verified by the official record. Kevin Baastalk 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but it is a fact that Richard Ben-Veniste, a partisan Democratic political hack and a member of the 911 Commission has backed up Condi Rice's version of the story today. The meeting was disclosed the 911 Commission and there turns out not to be an issue here other than an attempt by some Democrats to create a false story to damage Rice and the Republicans right before an election. Yawn. Please review this article: The independent Sept. 11, 2001, commission was given the same “scary” briefing about an imminent al Qaida attack on a U.S. target that was presented to the White House two months before the attacks, but failed to disclose the warning in its 428-page report.

Re: Katrina Criticisms

Changed one word regarding Rice's activities during Hurricane Katrina and kept the citation intact, but rather within the confines of a redirect to Snopes (which quotes the same source). This change is both public and more NPOV than the previous entry. -PJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiwanjacoby (talk • contribs) 02:34, October 8, 2006

Please finish changing the reference citation if you're going to use Snopes as the reference. It is unacceptable to state that the reference is from one source when the URL is for a different source.
And please sign your posts (with four tildes: ~~~~). --ElKevbo 07:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, response sent. Obiwanjacoby 03:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Obiwanjacoby

To-Do for Article Improvement

From both the automated Peer review and user comments:

  • Trim the lead, making sure it summarizes the article
  • Cleanup WP:MOS issues: only full dates and years/decades/centuries providing context should be linked; remove relative time phrases and instances of "th" from dates
  • Condense the ToC: combine shorter sections and/or spin out daughter articles (political stances and the early life and education sections were suggested as candidates for that)
  • Make sure each section is in Summary style.
  • Get reliable references for statements in the "Criticisms" section
  • Remove embedded links in the article, move to "External links" section if necessary
  • Remove weasel words and redundancies
  • Thorough copy-editing, including checking for use of non-breaking spaces
  • This article reads like an excelent whitewash.
  • Chevron was heavily involved in bypassing the Oil4Food program bribing the Iraq government/Saddam Hussein with at least 20Mio$ during her tenancy on the board of directors there. This puts a twist to much of her positions expressed later.


-Fsotrain09 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this worth adding somewhere?

Asteriks 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi

I've twice removed additions that add mention of Nancy Pelosi in relation to Rice's current status as the "highest ranking woman ever." If someone else readds the information I won't remove it again as I will obviously be in the minority. I simply don't think it's necessary, helpful, or even particularly informative to add this information to this article. When Pelosi takes over as House Speaker then this article can be updated. Until then I think this info should remain out. But that's just my opinion and I'm not going to live or die over this issue as it's not that important or critical. --ElKevbo 22:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, now she is Speaker of the House, so I guess it can be updated now. Eenyminy 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somehow Condi's picture was replaced with Gary Coleman's with an equally silly caption underneath, I have removed this vandalism. Shanew2 13:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Iranian section

the iranian section, like most of this article actually, reads like a press release from the state department. Can we please add Irans side of the story to it? --Aliwalla 18:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please see the last sentence of the Iranian section. Something about her exchanging curses with her counterpart from Iran; the source cited gives no indication of such an event. --anon

Squashed in-between

Did "Condi" know about; "The real reason-David Beckham left; Manchester United FC"; well; its a European thing; & it involves the future "Tech", of; if a cloned human being is born; does that human have the right to say; with-her-free will; "Don't take me; & use my organs". A big deal; for a boy from Essex. May-be a doctorate is coming; from-The Nazi Party-Get tough with Europe; you must. Russpear (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Russpear (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As in; "Condi"; smart lady

Mr A; David Beckham-Hollywood-Manchester Evening News Arena-Mr A-bankrolled it; its staff; & Nazi political ops, from it; & they all got involved in a masses thing; & it went to far; thats what the credit crunch is about-{Watchtower; & Salt Lake City; & Paul Saleem-UK, arm of, quaker-faith based, fanatics-"Pyramid Fraud"-either the banks start lending to each other again, or; put their crimes, on the front page of the New York Times, hence forth, to be known as; "Paper for murderous, lawless; degenerates". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russpear (talk • contribs) 22:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Little Maddy

Less said; better put it right; us good folk in the UK, will help; but; we are, few in number. Russpear (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If it does not work; make it clear to Gordon Brown, that David Beckham, should hang; & will, if the palace gets involved. We are; & you are; looking down the gun barrel of anarchy-{Gangs of New York}-if; all the people involved in this terrible act-are not-put on notice; do it now-or, "I" will do it for you. Let me remind you-this type of act-was; directly, cataclytical to the genocide of WW2. Russpear (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fashion

Condoleezza has been noted by several magazines to be a sharp dresser. Maybe there should be a small section on this? In the interests of covering not just her public career, but other aspects as well..

Could you please shorten your new sig? It's a bit long. --ElKevbo 01:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And then after that, try to get a life (to "Hunterd"). Armyrifle (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

-I second that motion. Condi has made it to both Vanity Fair & Vogue's best-dressed lists on several occasions. Methinks that her fashion accomplishments merit some space in this article.

Middle Name

Does she have a middle name? SkaTroma 19:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Titusville

In Dr. Rice's biography, the neighborhood she grew up in (Titusville) is referred to as a "ghetto"...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice#Early_life_and_education

Rice was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up in the ghetto of Titusville.

However, the Wikipedia entry for the neighborhood of Titusville refers to it as "a community of middle-class African American families"...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titusville,_Birmingham,_Alabama Since the early 20th century Titusville has been a community of middle-class African American families, including architect Wallace Rayfield and minister John Wesley Rice, Jr, the father of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. One of these entries is glaringly inaccurate... I wonder which???

Keithengland 06:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The answer is probably 'both'. Here's how--

I went to school with a number of close African-American friends from "the ghetto" of SouthEast Washington D C.--

Some of these kids were clearly middle class, some were blue collar and some were from poor families. Due to the after-effects of segregation there were a number of Black middle class enclaves in Southeast D.C. that were surrounded by, or neigboring, much poorer communities. I'm sure this was not an unusual pattern for those times. So there may not be a 'conflict' in this description of Dr. Rice's early life at all. In those days middle-class Whites lived in the suburbs-- but many middle class Blacks, due to discrimination, remained in small enclaves within larger 'ghetto' communities. I believe such enclaves exist to this day and are in fact growing, although Black suburban populations are also growing.

These families, by the way, often played courageous local leadership roles during that era. Less than famous-- but no less courageous.

Phil

67.42.243.184 20:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say either is glaringly inaccurate. As a resident of Birmingham, I've heard every neighborhood/city/surrounding area referred to in so many different ways, it's hard to keep up. More than likely, two different editors wrote the sentences in question and refer to the area in different ways. You are of course welcome to be bold and change one of the two articles for consistency. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- AuburnPilottalk 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. After finally finding when this term was added, it was most probably vandalism....hmmm I guess I assumed too much good faith. ;-). -- AuburnPilottalk 06:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is an interesting way of putting it... it appears to me that someone was trying to over-dramatize Dr. Rice's story... either that or someone in the Titusville community was trying to enchance its historical description... I suppose the generic "neighborhood" is preferable to the inaccurate, overly dramatic "ghetto" description, but I'm curious as to why the description of Titusville in Dr. Rice's bio still differs from the description of Titusville under its own heading. keithengland68.70.222.23 15:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you know more about this particular topic or care to do the appropriate research, please make any necessary and proper changes. --ElKevbo 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that the description of one place differs in two sections on the same site based on my ability to read... I'm not sure what constitutes "appropriate" research beyond noting that there's a discrepancy... beyond that, I'm satisfied that the word "ghetto" has been replaced with a less-dramatic one... it will be interesting to watch and see if it reappears... keithengland68.70.222.23 16:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • A couple of observations: During Rice's childhood, Titusville was pretty solidly middle glass, but also racially segregated from white middle class neighborhoods. The word "ghetto" can properly be used to describe a forced enclave for an ethnic group, but since its most common meaning connotes poverty, it would be inaccurate to use it in Rice's biography. Currently the neighborhood is still largely black and has been affected negatively by poverty, fragmentation and structural decline. Middle class families remain, but do not predominate. "Ghetto" would be an apt description, especially from outside the context of Birmingham's other inner city neighborhoods. Personally I would avoid the loaded word altogether. --Dystopos 17:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

The article is very detailed on Ms. Rice's professional life. However, there is not a single trace about how her private life is going on. What about her parents? Are they still alive? Is she married? If yes, to whom? Does she have children? The article doesn't give any information about that at all while I think it should. Some info needs to be obtained. --Maxl 23:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This topic has been dealt with on the talk page several times.--Getaway 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

-Maybe it can be mentioned that there have been alleged rumors of an affair w/ Dubya junior? Because that issue has been getting a lot of media attention, especially over the summer of '06. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.105.86 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2007

As Wikipedians, we are not allowed to repeat rumours in the biographical articles. There are a series of rules that apply to this. Please see WP:BIO. However if you, Mr. Anon Wikipedian 75.19.105.86, choose to do that to the Dr. Condi Rice article, then may be, just may be, we should add a section to Hillary Clinton's article concerning the series of rumours concerning her lesbian lifestyle? It only seems fair! Have a good day!--Getaway 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So, we are not allowed to state a fact? I.e. that she lives with another woman? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.103.9 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a much needed family and personal life section, in which I have stated some basic facts: her parents are both dead. She does not have any siblings, although her father's widow has a child. Condi is a spinster without children. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone provide evidence and details regarding her living with a woman? Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Derived from Condomlezza..."

I'd like to see more detail on this. How can Condoleezza be "derived from" Con dolcezza?

I'd speculate that this is a euphemistic (and therefore non-neutral) way of saying that someone goofed—committed a typo, or misread someone's handwriting, or wrote the wrong letter...

What was the point of the double-E-double-Z?

If the intention were, say to make the name more easily pronounced, wouldn't the spelling would have been "Condoleeza," with one Z, if the intention was to pronounced the way it is pronounced, or "Condolchetza" if the intention was to pronounce it like "Con dolcezza?" Dpbsmith (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this is another example of a topic that has been talked to death on the talk page. Please review the archives. The spelling is the spelling created by her mother and it is a deliberate spelling. There are biographers that have covered this topic. Please review the archives. Thank you for your opinion, but unfortunately it is merely the opinion of a Wikipedian and as such not quotable.--Getaway 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dpbsmith: You can review the earlier discussion here: [3] This discussion gives citations to an article and a book by Dr. Rice's biographer that outlines the origin of the name.--Getaway 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

2 heartbeats away; for 24 hrs

Should it be mentioned? from Noon EST January 3rd, 2007 until Noon January 4th, 2007 (until new Speaker & President pro tempore) are sworn in, Secy of State Rice is 2nd in line of succession to the Presidency? GoodDay 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Actully, the leader of the House if in emergency is Hastert, and the Senate is Stevens. Should Bush/Cheney die today, it would be Hastert to be President. Carpet9 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Condi Rice, would become President. GoodDay 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. In only 1 hour, the new Congress will be sworn in. Carpet9 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fake Quotes & Poor Editing

I removed the following sentence from the article: In 2002, Belafonte used a variation of the term, White House nigger, to characterize former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.[1] Now, there are several reasons why I removed this sentence. First of all, the article has ALL of the Harry Belafonte hatred that it needs, but also the sentence is just flat full of lies. I actually read the underlining article that supposedly serves as the citation to back up this POV BS. No where in the underlining article from Front Page magazine is the term "White House nigger" used. The term is merely the nasty, racist hatred of a Wikipedian and I tried to remove it immediately after I saw it. However, ElKevbo, who is usually a good editor, immediately reverted me without taking the time to check and see if the quote was correct or whether it was just the racist rantings of a nasty, racist Wikipedian, which of course it was. Belafonte did NOT in any way use the word "nigger" just a racist Wikipedia did. I am having feelings of deja vu. If you go back and look through the archives of this article you will see that this particular article about Dr. Condi Rice has been the target of racist hatred over and over again. Good Wikipedian editors would be on the look out for this nasty, narrow-minded, toothless hillbilly, racist, Democratic Underground tactics. If this sentence comes back in any form it will be immediately removed.--Getaway 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight. Your reason for the original removal of the material was "No. We aren't going to repeat Belafonte's racist comments. Wikipedia is not about racism and hatred." In turn, I reverted your edit with the edit summary "rv: Wikipedia is not censored; there may be valid grounds on which to remove that phrase but objection to the character of the content is not one of them." Given your stated reasons for making your original edit, I stand by my action.
If the statement is not supported by the cited reference then it must be removed - no question. If, however, your only objection is that "I don't like it! It's mean!" then that is a completely invalid objection. There may be (and probably are) other valid objections - undue weight, unreliable source, non-notable material, etc. - but removing cited material solely because you disagree with its character is prima facie censorship. And Wikipedia is not censored.
We both initially missed that the cited article does not contain the phrase "house nigger" (although it certainly expresses the sentiment!). I apologize for not vetting the source as thoroughly as I should. --ElKevbo 17:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I should have made it clear that Wikipedia was not "going to repeat Belafonte's racist comments" because the article all ready has plenty of Belafonte's ignorant spittle, making the new comment redundant. At any rate, whenever the "n-word" raises it head and it somehow makes it way into a Wikipedia article there needs to be review of the source, the editor, the context, and decision needs to be made whether Wikipedia needs to lower itself to that level. That is NOT censorship, but good editing. Just for the record, any sentence that use the "n-word" in the future I will remove it immediately. In that situation, I am going to shoot first and ask questions later.--Getaway 19:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sister hoax?

Shortly after Rice first became the NSA, I remember seeing a woman on a daytime talk show, can't remember if it was Oprah, one of the cable news talk shows, or some other daytime talker, but this woman was claiming to be Condi's sister. She was supposedly a liberal professor somewhere, and disagreed with her sister politically, but they got along well as sisters. I believed that Rice had a liberal sister for years, until recently when I read that she is an only child. I figure the sister thing was a hoax, but on researching it, I cannot find any mention or record of this woman's claim, and all references state that Rice is an only child. Does anyone else recall seeing this woman on TV back in early 2001? I clearly remember this interview, but can't find anything about it. - Crockspot 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just sounds like hooey. Not notable, not real, shouldn't be in the article.--Getaway 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I know that she does have a cousin named Condi Rice, a lawyer in the Los Angeles area. z ε n ♪ 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice's cousin, Connie Rice, is a lawyer for the NAACP. Dr. Susan Rice is an African American woman who worked at State during the Clinton administration. While there she specialized in African affairs. In 2004 she served on John Kerry's presidential campaign as a foreign policy advisor. Interesting parallels.Light Bulb 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Just discovered Susan Rice has a Wikipedia article. According to the article she graduated from Stanford University. A quick internet search pulls a magazine article where similarities between the two as observed by Democrats is mentioned.Light Bulb 07:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina criticism

I'm just wondering how Rice buying shoes has any real relevance other than anti-Rice rantings. If I remember correctly, the world doesn't stop when hurricanes hit land unless you happen to be where it hits land. I doubt all of the United States sat home and cried as this happened. This comes off as petty BS so I went ahead and removed the paragraph. I'd appreciate some discussion on this if it is re-inserted. AuburnPilottalk 18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If her piano playing has relevance, why doesn't her buying shoes have relevance?Nbauman 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Because her piano playing doesn't violate WP:NPOV. Apples and oranges my dear. auburnpilot talk 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
How does it violate NPOV to say that she was buying shoes at Ferragamo's during Katrina, and she was criticized for doing so by a fellow shopper, and later by Spike Lee? It would violate the NPOV policy on "Information suppression" to omit it.
Fred Shuttlesworth and others have accused Rice and her family of ignoring the black struggle. There is no substantive criticism of Rice in this entry. In particular, there is no specific criticism of Rice's policies by black people, but merely generalized straw-man statements that she is "offensive", can't talk black, etc.
This entry needs more specific criticism of Rice. Her silence and lack of concern during Katrina is a good place to start. What would you prefer? Nbauman 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion unrelated to article removed; please view history to find it. --ElKevbo 04:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a political cartoon in real life. It's a comment on Rice personally, on black Republicans, and the Bush Administration in general.
I realize Rice didn't have direct responsibility for dealing with floods, but she was a senior official in the Bush Administration, she knew people were dying, she saw how incompetent they were, and if she had any concern for other African-Americans she could have said something. You or I may not think it's fair, but that's what her critics, like Spike Lee, want to say.
Convinced? Nbauman
Convinced? Not hardly. That equates to a nice story and great personal experience, but it doesn't amount to anything more than original research and is contrary to WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter what could have happened. Rice buying shoes is irrelevant. As to "mostly black" people dying, take a look at the statistics within the Hurricane Katrina article. While areas effected by the hurricane were 60% black in population, 49% of deaths were black. As in 51% (a small majority, granted) were not. Rice shopping for shoes is a nice story but nothing more. AuburnPilottalk 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the head of the State Department was shopping in New York the same weekend as a hurricane hit New Orleans is trivia. The criticism directed at her for it is only marginally notable, meriting the briefest of mentions, at best. To say that her actions "are a comment on Rice personally," or the like is an interpretation that is neither neutral nor verifiable. --Dystopos 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Counterterrorism

I'd suggest we engage in discussion, the only section of this article which is of some interest to me is terrorism section, which is (in its current state) POV. As pointed in the links above Dr. Rice failed to recognize some very clear, present & blatant warnings. Whether you consider this to be criminal negligence (failure to provide proper and or reasonable level of care - with regards to her position, of course…) or not is not an issue here. These are known and important facts; facts which definitely belong in the article. Lovelight 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are wanting to add your own personal opinion. Wikipedia does not allow original research, whether it is correct original research or badly misguided conspiracy theory original research. Please review the applicable policy here: WP:NOR.--Getaway 16:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This is in no way original research, if it is anything, than it would be addition of the missing context. These issues are well known to anyone who is interested in background of 911. As it is stands now, section about terrorism actually recognizes Dr. Rice's criticism of the agencies, while it is quite clear that it should be the other way around. I hope that you understand my reluctance to accept such distortion of well known facts? Lovelight 16:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "State the facts and let the readers decide" seems to come up more and more frequently. If you wish to provide sources for the section, I highly encourage you to do so. But, please, do not interpret the sources. State the facts; let the reader decide. As to the youtube link, they are never appropriate. Videos can be changed, manipulated, taken down, copyrighted, etc etc. Youtube links put Wikipedia in a very bad position because there isn't nearly as much over-watch on Youtube as there is here on Wikipedia when it comes to infringement. AuburnPilottalk 17:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of youtube issues, as well as of those unfortunate comments, certainly striving to find alternative before placement... however, I do recognize testimony or news report for what it is and from such perspective youtube becomes somewhat useful repository… but let's not ping-pong on that… Thinking about your kind invitation I've took another look at the article and noticed that there is no transcript of the testimony where one would be appropriate? Transcripts are plenty. As for terrorism section, I would be interested to hear the thoughts of editors involved and with regards to neutrality there, for example this intro which exists in following form:

"Dr. Rice's policy as Secretary of State views counterterrorism as a matter of being preventative, and not merely punitive. In an interview that took place on December 18, 2005, Sec. Rice stated: "We have to remember that in this war on terrorism, we're not talking about criminal activity where you can allow somebody to commit the crime and then you go back and you arrest them and you question them. If they succeed in committing their crime, then hundreds or indeed thousands of people die. That's why you have to prevent, and intelligence is the long pole in the tent in preventing attacks."[112]

Wouldn’t you agree that such prelude is hardly acceptable, concerning provided references? imo & as it is, that whole section should be rewritten with some decent perspective. For example, that cooperation? There were numerous warnings about (monumental) al-Qaeda attacks in the six months before 9/11, five that mentioned hijackings and two that mentioned suicide operations, numerous means at least 50 as stated in Commission report… or as Cofer Black said it: "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head." I don’t see adequate emphasis on such serious issues anywhere, yet I did thought I'll find some in the NSA section?? As for that paragraph about terrorism, after closer study it actually looks like something lady herself would wrote? Some sort of huge and colorful citation? POV extreme? Unfortunately these sorts of lapses are reoccurring everywhere, and I'd strongly encourage editors who are already involved and therefore well aware of these issues to clean this article themselves. As Dr. Rice would put it: "There needs to be better cooperation because we don't want to wake up one day and find out that Osama bin Laden has been successful on our own territory." Lovelight 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The above comments are full of your opinion. You are welcome to work on the article, but if you base the changes on your opinion then it will be removed.--Getaway 02:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate

Condoleezza Rice is born 13th november official at 23:54 offcial birth extrait elle est née le 13 novembre officiellement a vingt trois heures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.90.168.206 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2007

According to her biography on the US State Department's website [4], as well as her biography on the White House's website [5], Rice was born November 14, 1954. auburnpilot talk 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

References at the bottom

The references at the bottom seem to be broken, but I can't figure out how to fix it. Anyone know how? --HappyCamper 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Castro's comments

The following quote by Castro should be translated differently: "group of shit-eaters who do not deserve the world's respect" The "shit-eater" is the literal translation of the spanish "comemierda" which I believe has not the same connotations in both languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.108.167 (talk) 13:40, January 30, 2007

Reviewed translation dictionary, noting multiple connotations including: moron and "two-faced." The translation is of dubious accuracy and is certainly not required to convey the meaning. So, I removed the gratuitous profanity and structured the quote to retain its primary value.Ohioan1 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Powell/Rice African American

I reverted the most recent change. Powell maintains he is African American and his Wikibio says the same. The reference provided for the change is less than reliable in my opinion. If you read the article, it actually justifies its claim that Powell is a "Black Caucasian" by stating "Next summer, look at George W. Bush, a white Caucasian, when he is just back from his Crawford ranch and he stands next to Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Black Caucasian. Powell is lighter than Bush. He is much lighter in skin tone." I mean come on...if we go by this article, Michael Jackson and anyone suffering from Albinism would be Caucasion. - auburnpilot talk 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

From Powell's Wikibio "He became the highest ranking African-American in the executive branch and was the highest ranking African-American in the military in the history of the United States." auburnpilot talk 07:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that he's African-American. I'm disputing that he's black. The former is a social group consisting of anyone with any known degree of sub-Saharan ancestry, while the latter is a racial group consisting only of those with predominantly sub-Saharan ancestry. See one drop rule#preponderance of ancestry Multiracial
I submit that the issue of whether someone is "black" is subjective. Hang out in Talk: Black people for a bit to see for yourself.
I further submit that referencing a Wikipedia article is unacceptable - cite off-Wikipedia sources, please! --ElKevbo 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the wikipedia section I referenced is completely referenced by off-Wikipedia sources. Some of those sources objectively define the term. But I agree that there's no universal standard and racial classification varies from America to South Africa to Brazil (see one drop rule#Reverse one-drop rule). However polls show that most Americans recognize the difference between a black person and a multiracial person [[6]] hence I think it's unfair to not give Rice credit for being the first black secretary of state, when Powell is percieved by some sources as multiracial-he still gets credit for being the first non-white secretary of state or the first African-American (because African American is a social term) I'll change it to Rice is arguabley the first black secretary of state to satisfy your concerns Multiracial
I have no dispute with your sources as my comment was largely aimed at other editors. "Verifiability and not truth" and all that. --ElKevbo 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just so used to people disagreeing with me that that's always the first thing I assume.:-)Multiracial 16:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Using the phrase "arguably" would be POV. Powell self-identifies as black and that is what we as Wikipedian should follow.--Getaway 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
So If Powell decided to self-identify as Native American wikipedia should follow that too? Wikipedia should just uncritically report every thing public figures say without putting it into a broader context? Multiracial
  • I don't think it is necessary to use weasel words to allude to the black-box of racial identity. Rice is commonly accepted as the first female African-American Secretary of State and the second African-American Secretary of State. To highlight the problems of common identifications in a general encyclopedia begins to push a POV regarding them. It should suffice to link the terms Black people and African-American to separate articles which further illuminate the imprecision. Significant differing views regarding the common identification of these individuals can be given a place in the article, but not in the introduction. These views should be cited to avoid original research. --Dystopos 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I did cite sources describing him in a multiracial context. I think the intro should highlight Rice's most exceptional achievements. Being second to someone else does not seem an achievement worthy of the intro, but being the first black, by some definitions, does. How about we get rid of arguabley (a weasel word) and replace it with by some definitions with an exact link to said definitions. Multiracial

Here’s the exact quote where Powell is described as multiracial [[http://www.amren.com/9911issue/9911issue.html]]: Prof. Spencer is particularly touchy about the idea that some of the icons of black history might have been "multiracial" rather than black. Nothing seems to infuriate him more than the thought of the white parents saying to their hybrid children, "Colin Powell, Lena Horne, Alex Haley, and Malcolm X were multiracial, just like you." He thinks this is nothing less than the theft of black history, adding, "The United States has a history of this kind of grand larceny." "Is Black History Month to be replaced by Multiracial History Month?" he asks. For Afro-centrists this may be a real worry because without the one drop rule, not even the most brazen of them can claim that Nefertiti, Jesus, Rameses, and Beethoven were "black." Multiracial

  • The ethno-history of race is a social project and no longer a scientific one. What we know is this: Both Powell and Rice are nearly universally recognized as "black" and as "African-American" in the operative, practical, unchallenged senses of those terms. The problemitization of the terms is more relevant to the encyclopedia articles about them as charged terms than it is to the biographies of these individuals. Therefore I repeat the suggestion to remove the marginal view to the appropriate place while agreeing that their achievements should be highlighted more than their ethnicity. --Dystopos 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Except I back up the view that Powell is multiracial with 4 cited sources. I çompletely disagree that Powell would be nearly universally recognized as black. In fact I would argue that with the exception of segments of the U.S. population, he would be nearly universally recognized as not being black. If you think he would be recognized as black in Latin America read one drop rule#Reverse one-drop rule. If you think he'd be universally recognized as black in South Africa I suggest you read the article on South Africa's coloureds most of whom look blacker than Powell but are not considered black. You are trying to impose a very U.S. centric definition of blackness on an international encyclopedia (and outdated one based on the racist one drop rule) and in the process are robbing Rice of her status as the first black secretary of state and robbing multiracial people of a unique identity Multiracial 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Multi-racial or not, Powell's identification as "black" is affirmed by thousands of references. We have no responsibility to establish anything about Rice's status that is not part of general worldwide consensus. The view of your 4 references is clearly out of the mainstream. The US-centricness of calling mutli-racial persons "black" should be addressed in the article on Black people. --Dystopos 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
It might help if you'd supply a few of those references. I don't doubt your claim but "verifiability, not truth," right? --ElKevbo 22:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Powell is considered black only in a very rough and ready sense, but users of an encyclopedia want more precise information. I don't doubt that you can find many references calling Powell black, but I found 4 references describing him as multiracial which makes Condi not Powell the first black secretary of state. If there's a legitimate school of thought that would argue Condi and not Powell is the first black secretary of state, then Condi's wikipedia article should not conceal it because it's paramount to her place in history. And who are you to decide what's clearly mainstream. I cited a scientific poll which showed that most Americans regard Barack Obama as multiracial instead of black, and Powell probably has less African ancestry than Obama does. And if most Americans don't regard multiracials as black, then imagine the opinion of other places like Latin America and South Africa where things like the reverse one drop rule and coloureds exist. Multiracial
And btw, in addition to the 4 sources I put in the article (which you reverted) here's an additional source: In most countries of the Caribbean, Colin Powell would be described as a Creole, reflecting his mixed heritage. In Belize, he might further be described as a "High Creole," because of his extremely light complexion. So which is he, black or Creole? It depends on the culture making the distinction. Ethnicity purports to be based on human biology [[7]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Multiracial (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
Ethnicity is often used as being based on culture, not "human biology." The common usage of race is a social construct. Chiss Boy 12:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice musical abilities

This comment was left on my talk page: Hello Getaway. OK, no trivia section in the article about Condoleezza Rice. However, the problem with that paragraph about her ability to play piano is that, in my opinion, that is out of place in the early life section. It refers to facts that break the time continuity of the section. What about opening a new section for this paragraph? For a comparison, Tony Blair's article has a number of miscellaneous sections about facts that are not directly related to his political career. Thanks. Miguel Andrade 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Miguel Andrade: Thanks for the comment. I would agree with your comment about her earlier life, but there is two ties to that era in his life: (1) her name is a derivative from music and obviously she was named at birth with a musical name and (2) there was period in her early life when she wanted to be a concert pianist. Also, I would agree that her talent with the piano is tied to her career in that she meets with hundreds of diplomats every year and she plays the piano for many of them. For example, later in the article, there is reference to her playing the piano for the Governor General of Canada. So, if you feel the need to move the information, then how about the section where there is a discussion of her concert with Yo Yo Ma or her private concert for the Governor General.--Getaway 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tenure Age

A recent article in TIME: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1584810,00.html says that Dr. Rice had earned tenure by the age of 26. From the article, Dr. Rice was born in 1954 and received tenure in 1987, which would put her about 33 years of age. Is there a discrepancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maneesh (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 February 2007

The TIME article must be wrong. Dr. Rice received her PhD when she was 26, in 1981. She had not even started working for Stanford at that point. She received tenure at 33, after teaching and working at Stanford for seven years. The writer of the TIME article must have confused the age that she received her PhD, 26 years of age, and the age she was when she was granted tenure, 33 years of age.--Getaway 20:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

She was a great women and loved ice skating when she was young. She also plays the piano. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.190.225.43 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Edits by Ohioan1

Editor Ohioan1 keeps adding in his personal comment on Dr. Rice popularity. Editor Ohioan1 bases this opinion on the results of one opinion poll that he/she cites. The opinion poll does not reach a conclusion. It does not have analysis attached. The analysis in the article is provided by Ohioan1 and it is his personal opinion and as such it is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. His comments on Dr. Rice's popularity do not meet the requirement of Reliable Sources. It is not the opinion of an independent third-party reliable source.--Getaway 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing. Ohioan1 please stop referring to my edits in the edit summary as "vandalism". Merely because someone does something that you don't agree with does not make it vandalism. Please stop.--Getaway 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more from Ohioan1. I'm not sure I would consider simple arithmetic to be original research but I'd like to know more about how he or she is reaching this conclusion and from where he or she is getting the data. --ElKevbo 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Getaway. Ohioan is using synthesis of source material to reach a conclusion, and to charactarize that conclusion as "significant". That is original research. I have already given Ohioan a friendly warning with links to the guidelines that must be followed. I would have (and will in the future) made/make the same reverts that Getaway made. It is inappropriate to characterize a revert of a BLP violation as vandalism. - Crockspot 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree on the characterization of either of these sets of edits as "vandalism." This is a content dispute and to characterize it otherwise is at best confused and at worst dishonest and misleading.
I am not, however, completely convinced that it's original research. I tend to think that it is but I'm reserving judgment until Ohioan1 can make his or her case. --ElKevbo 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
From my brief review of material, it might be factual to say that Rice's popularity has minorly declined in the past few months. It would be incorrect to say that she has an unfavorable rating. The CBS poll here http://pollingreport.com/P-Z.htm#Rice explicitly contradicts this and the Harris poll asks how good of a job she is doing (not people's opinion of her) and the Harris poll does not use the words "favorable" or "unfavorable." Also, in the Harris poll, the difference in "Excellent/Pretty good" vs. "only fair/poor" is not statistically significant. The next question is, should this recent minor decline in popularity be in the lead? I don't think so. Other major figures do not cover tracking polls in the lead, and I don't see why Rice's article should be different, especially since she isn't an elected official. Her recent decline in popularity does not affect her relative popularity in the Bush administration, and it is still accurate to say she has the highest poll rating of any administration official. If some mention were to take place, I think might go in the "Future Trends" section, however, I doubt even this would be a good idea. Tracking polls fluctuate substantially, and I for one don't want to have to keep going through making minor updates each month. A minor drop in the polls shouldn't be surprising given current views on the Iraq war. I just don't see what a mention of this adds. On a slightly different note, Ohian1 has repeatedly tried to insert negative poll material into the lead that isn't supported by evidence, and I hope his/her edits were just an honest mistake and not some weird attempt to push unsubstantiated negative POV material into the lead. -- Mgunn 18:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Crockspot and Getaway on this one. Had I been near my computer, I would have made the reversions as well. We cannot use an explicit poll (nothing but numbers) and interpret it to show trends/opinions/etc. This was without doubt WP:OR, but neither the addition of the material nor its removal was vandalism. auburnpilot talk 19:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd like to point out that Ohioan1's edit history is, except for one edit, limited to the addition of this material to this article, or the discussion thereof. I left a welcome notice with some guidelines linked on his talk page last week, and a firmer quasi-warning about it today. - Crockspot 19:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the last addition of polls to the introduction. The intro should be a general overview of the article, with more details given in subsequent sections, and is not the place for exact numbers/percentages. auburnpilot talk 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how I have inserted my personal opinion into the question of Rice's poll results. I have simply stated a fact, which corrects the bias contained in the preedit copy. In squelching the addition of this fact, it has been asserted that the statement was incorrect. When I showed that it was correct, it was asserted that my report was not documented. When I documented the fact in greater detail, it was asserted that I had synthesized material. Apparently comparing period A to period B is a huge leap with some. While I do not agree that such comparison was synthesis, I modified the report to respect that view. Many of the reversions were executed without explanation, one reversion was accompanied by a threat, and one reversion wiped out contributions of another Wikipedian as well as style corrections by myself. In that context, I felt some of the changes were vandalism. But, it now appears to me that such term is not correct, particularly in the language of Wikipedia. So, please accept my apologies for that. Currently, it appears that some now accept that there has been a marked change in the polls, but argue that this fact does not belong in the header. And some Without proper clarification, the preedit header is biased. Re: my focus on the Rice page, I have found Wikipedia to be a very useful tool. I noticed commentary that the Rice site was POV, and since have found the experience of contributing to the site interesting.Ohioan1 01:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have had two main objections. (1) Your initial claims/poll analysis was not statistically significant and (2) the poll material you added does not belong in the lead. As you notice, I did not object to or revert your insertion of accurate poll material inside the article. I did object to POV political analysis, statistically insignificant statements, and non-lead material being placed in the lead. It is a notable statement to say that Condi is the most popular figure in the Bush administration. It is not lead material to start quoting ever-changing numbers from tracking polls. -- Mgunn 02:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming overly tedious. The poll's choices are "Favorable", "Not favorable", "Undecided", "Haven't heard", and "Refused". Changing the paragraph to describe Rice as the "least disfavorable" is ridiculous to say the least. Ohioan1, I beg of you, stop now. Discuss things here before continuing. auburnpilot talk 03:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel the process is tedious. The arguments offered to me have changed no fewer than seven times; it is difficult to converse with continually changing complaints (often from the same individuals), strewn in different locations and forms. No, the categories in the Harris Poll are not what you state. They are instead Excellent/Pretty Good and Only Fair/Poor. Stating that Rice currently has the "highest favorability" ratings is not fair or neutral presentation considering that she is less than 50% (E/PG) in the Harris Poll. AuburnPilot, I trust that you can see that this position is not ridiculous. The reverts have continued a presentation that was accurate six months ago. It no longer is accurate, fair, or neutral. So, if you have some suggestion as to how resolve the variation in perspective, I would appreciate that. Sincerely,Ohioan1 06:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ohioan1, bad edits & potential sock puppetry

I have been exceedingly patient, but Ohioan1 appears to be completely ignoring concensus and exhibit a single-minded desire to put poll information in the lead and then spin it in a negative light. Several times, these edits were blatantly inaccurate, and now they just appear to be selective quoting. In any case, the LEAD is not the location for a detailed polling report. IMHO this has progressed past the warning stage, and I think some kind of temporary ban is in order. He/she is in essence edit warring and doing the standard 3 reverts a day to not violate the 3R rule. I'm beginning to wonder if this is a sock puppet (does anyone believe this is a new wiki editor?!?). In any case, I have a real job and don't have the time to babysit/edit war, so I hope an editor with actual authority can police this. -- Mgunn 02:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand Mgunn, why you now say the edits are inaccurate. You stated previously that you were ok with my accurate statement, just not in the header area. Please clarify your position. BTW, your wonderings are baseless.Ohioan1 05:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously not a new editor to Wikipedia. What is your original/main account? -- Mgunn 19:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I read that a "Sock Puppet" is one who uses multiple ids to masquerade their ideas as another's. I am having a hard time imagining who my true identity would be? Getaway?

Since you apparently believe the characterization I have made is not neutral, please consider posing the following question to some neutral acquaintances you may have.

Polling results for three individuals rate performance in two categories, “Excellent/Pretty Good” and “Only Fair/Poor”. The “Excellent/Pretty Good” percentage results for the three individuals are as follows: A-46; B-32; and C-29; and the “Only Fair/Poor Ratings” are A-48, B-66; and C-58. Which of the following are fair to say regarding A’s results? 1. A has the highest job rating of the group. 2. A has the least disfavorable job rating of the group. 3. A has less than a 50% favorability job rating 4. A has a disfavorable job rating

If you think this question is unfair, please let me know how you would make it fairer. Thank you for your communication. Ohioan1 14:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Schelling

Getaway, why did you delete my reference to Thomas Schelling? He's a Nobel laureate, worked on nuclear strategy during the cold war, and was interviewed in the Wall Street Journal. Nbauman 19:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. Your edits got overturned when I reverted Ohioan1's POV edits.--Getaway 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll put it back. Nbauman 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gay And Lesbian Community

Gay and Lesbian community? Just wondering, how exactly is the fact the she's being cristized by 'the gay and lesbian community' releveant to Wikipedia. Perhaps if she had a job that was connected to that area of society would certainly be fine, but I don't see how it's that revelant as the gay and lesbian community and global politics aren't really that connected. Do we need to list every single group and community that has critized her? --125.238.25.64 12:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, she does live with another woman. Also, the issue of gay rights certainly can be an international issue. Just like any other human rights issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.103.9 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Article length

If you guys need to make this article a future featured article, I would strongly recommand to shorten up the Secretary of State (2005-present) section into 1 or 2r separate articles, because of it this article is very long, so I've tagged it in consequence.--JForget 15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything categorized under "Region issues", with the exceptions being "Terrorism" and "Travels", should be part of a seperate article.Light Bulb 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Several other items under "Region Issues" are integral and it would be difficult to have a cohesive separation point. One area that could be moved is the Presidential aspirations section, which could be merged with the preexisting wikipedia article on the topic.Ohioan1 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Some items under so-called "Regional Issues" are not integral at all. Does an encyclopedia reader really need to know what moronic comment Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro said about Rice?? No. It is just silly, moronic comments from two silly moronic men. Crap like that is just filler and needs to go, no, not to another article but go. Period. However, if some Wikipedian wants to save the sexist, moronic comments of those two clowns in another article then by all means I don't want to stand in the way. But they are not "integral" to an article about Dr. Rice.--Getaway 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I was beginning to question those same entries you mention. Those comments are far more reflective of the people who have made them than of Condoleezza Rice herself. This is especially true since Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are not debating any policy decisions made by Rice but rather attacking her person in order to promote their own idealogical propaganda. The statements should remain on Wikipedia but only in the Chavez and Castro articles and not in Rice's.Light Bulb 09:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Ohioan's trimming of Rice's piano playing makes sense. However, I reinserted one sentence to show that Rice uses her piano in her diplomatic work. Other than that the other stuff was padding, so I left it out as Ohioan's did.--Getaway 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, some of these long foreign policy discussions could be trimmed down and focus just on various aspects of how Rice was involved. Some of the sections are over long.--Getaway 14:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that the entire political career section should be spun off into a seperate article with a little info on the main page. 216.102.74.220 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. While Condi Rice is notable for being Sec of State, a separate article titled along the lines of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State could reduce this article by ~70 kb. Replacing this huge section with a direct to the main article and a brief 1-3 paragraph summary seems appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 20:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Rice has declined the Presidential race, so it may make sense to put this info into the preexisting article on the topic, with a lead in from the main article. Separately, there are an extraordinary number of references to Rice's race, which with a few exceptions, have little to do with her status. Paring these references back would better focus on her accomplishments and standing. Rice's current position and prinicipal contribution derives from her position as Secretary of State, separating this would likely make for a choppy presentation.Ohioan1 02:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Condoleezza Rice's race is only irrelevant to the article as mentioned in "Racial criticisms". These are grievances brought forward by special interest groups and have little if no bearing on her role as Secretary of State.Light Bulb 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I continue arguing for "Regional issues" to be seperated into its own article. This would not mean all of Condoleezza Rice's tenure as Secretary of State would be removed from the existing article but only her interaction with other countries. This would follow the pattern of articles on the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Though Rice is not a head of state her position as head of foreign affairs and the current state of these affairs would justify following this mold with a seperate article where issues may be expanded on.Light Bulb 03:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

pictures

This article has more pictures of the person in question then any other I've seen at wikipedia! is there an award for this, or can we cut down on some of these useless pics. Even presidents, and supermodels dont have this many pics on thier wikipages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.71.10 (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC).


Sen. Boxer and Rice

Getaway, you want to keep 3 sentences from Saunder's op-ed, but don't want to include a single line each from Rice and Boxer? I fail to see how some random commentator's opinion is more notable than the opinions of Rice and Boxer when this incident directly involves them. - Maximusveritas 04:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about Boxer. When you take out the commentary of Debra Saunders (No. She is not just a "random" commentator and her comments are right on point, toward both Rice and Boxer.), then all you have left is: (1) Boxer's first attack of Rice, (2) Boxer's second attack of Rice, (3) a weak defense by Snow, (4) a comment by Rice which does NOT even qualify as a defense by Rice, (5) one last attack by Boxer. Since when did Boxer's opinion of Rice become the be all and end all of commentary of Rice? Boxer's opinion is not any more important than anyone else's and, let's see, since Rice is from California and there has been talk that Rice might just run for office from her home state (after a return to Stanford) then could it be possible that Boxer is just a politician trying to rough up a very, very popular member of the opposite party?? The simple answer is, yes, Boxer is a biased source and the simple answer is that as the information is presented, if it was a Boxing match (pun intended), then Boxer would get three solid jabs in and Rice hasn't even raised her gloves. The presentation needs to be balanced and the removal of Saunders's commentary takes the balance away because Saunders's, if not flat out decks Boxer, at least completely neutralizes Boxer's silly argument that it is "ok" for Boxer to comment and makes decisions on the war, but not Rice.--Getaway 04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The sub-section is about the exchange between Rice and Boxer, so they should be the main people quoted from. That's all there is to it. I don't think your opinion of what balances/neutralizes the section is relevant at all. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia don't pick random commentators to "neutralize" sections just because they think it might come off badly for one of the parties. What we have is (1)Boxer's original statements (2) The responses from Rice and other notable people (3) Boxer's later clarification. That's what any encyclopedia would include. Leaving them out is leaving out a major part of the story and gives an incomplete picture of what happened. If Rice had a rebuttal to Boxer's clarification, that could go there as well, but I couldn't find one. If you can, feel free to insert it. - Maximusveritas 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa! Your comment that "That's all there is to it." is a conclusionary argument. It does not speak to Wikipedian principals like "undue weight" "balance" "fairness", etc. These are all Wikipedian principals that you, incorrectly, choose to ignore. Yes, we do make these choices as Wikipedians all the time. It is not proper to say "anything" about a LIVING PERSON and then take the attitude that you do above and "don't pick random commentators to "neutralize" sections just because they think it might come off badly for one of the parties." WRONG! Rice is a living person and Wikipedia's WP:BIO rules apply. Please review them.--Getaway 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The subsection is about Rice and Boxer. Their comments are enough. All the bluster, obfuscation, and bad faith arguments in the world will not change that. Eleemosynary 15:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert back to my version for now in order to prevent an edit war, but I think my version is clearly superior to the one you reverted to. You can refer to as many principles as you want, but you don't seem to be able to show how my version violates those principles. You also have yet to give a reason for why Saunder's commentary is notable enough to be included in that section and yet Rice and Boxer's own words don't belong there. I'll wait to see what the consensus is here, but I'm pretty sure what it'll be. Maximusveritas 23:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Maximusveritas Eleemosynary 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The Boxer v. Rice debate doesn't belong in this article. It's just not important. User:Mharb 09:59, 01 August 2007

Children

Rice has 400 children?? i think not! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.11.76.216 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been reverted. - auburnpilot talk 18:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia" Edit

Where do you add in where she called bush her husband?

Ohioan1 has made numerous edits to the article as of late. As of yet I have not had an opportunity to read them all but one that I disagree with and, if there are no objections from a third party, will more than likely revert involves Condoleezza Rice's community work as had been found under "Business career". Ohioan1 dubbed it as "trivia" but I think it is worth including.Light Bulb 09:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rice is properly recognized as an extremely powerful individual. In this circumstance, that she served on the Board of WQED 20 years ago appears trivial to me. I am in favor of a trivia section, but the consensus apparently has been against it.Ohioan1 03:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles discusses how the practice of trying to incorporate individual facts into a coherent article will often usefully separate unencyclopedic trivia from useful information. In my opinion, Rice's public service work is worth mentioning, but perhaps not worth detailing. --Dystopos 04:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not having replied sooner. The suggestion for a revert is not to reinstate a trivia section. The information on her charity work is very much a part of her status as a "powerful individual". I will try and find sources to cite and once I have I will revert the edit.Light Bulb 21:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Courage for caution," not "caution for courage."

The article misquotes MLK's speech after the bombing of the Birmingham church: The article says,

<<Martin Luther King called on "every Negro" who has passively "stood on the sidelines" to "substitute caution for courage."[12]>>

But the substitution went the other way, "courage for caution." (When I substitute x for y, I remove y and replace it with x.)

See the original text of the speech at:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/Eulogy_for_the_martyred_children.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.13.241 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Africa

the section on Africa is more about Egypt, which is both in Africa and the middle east. Maybe a seperate section for sub-saharan africa [8]Muntuwandi 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And actually, the Middle East comprises territories in Asia, Africa and even small parts in Europe. Egypt is still in Africa, as the Middle East isn't a continent or a subcontinent. I fail to see your point?--Ramdrake 11:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Depending on the context africa may mean sub-saharan africa. In this case what has condi done with respect to sub-saharan africa, scant information is given. But her involvement in the middle east is already well documented.Muntuwandi 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It pains me to say this as I'm not a fan of either of these people by any means but the current entry in the Africa section is a bit disingenuous isn't it ? Can it be improved conform to the NPOV policy.

dictator-President .... I doubt that he puts that on his name badge at conferences. Can't we just say President as per the usual standards ?
The welcome was extended 35 days after the State Department issued a report noting instances of “torture, arbitrary arrest, judicial corruption, child labor, forced labor, and ‘severe restrictions’ on freedoms of speech and press.”[139].....what is the purpose of this sentence other than being disingenuous ? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that in the section labeled "Africa", only one African nation is named? Why not label the section Equatorial Guinea since the article speaks only of that specific nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakon09 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Featured?

It seems that this is not a featured article mainly because there isn't enough criticism on such a "controversial topic". Unlike someone (say, Hillary Clinton), Rice hasn't broken the law, made herself out to be an idiot, hasn't consented and helped enemies of the States... she basically doesn't have a history. Seriously, there is nothing wrong with having a (mainly biographical) article without much/any criticism. Maybe there is almost nothing wrong with her. People who oppose her do so simply because she's not on their side. There's virtually nothing to criticize (except that she's working for Bush and is Republican). Colonel Marksman 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

When I first read the reasons why the article wasn't promoted to feature status I too felt that citing a lack of criticisms was simply bias posing as legitimate concern. Most of the criticisms now listed, as I've mentioned previously, are from special interest groups regarding Condoleezza Rice's race. Rice's reputation, despite desires from detractors of Bush, is really quite untarnished and her critic's frustration is likely why there was any objection to "featuring" the article. I think most responisible contributors to Wikipedia would agree that this is the case and the article's standing since being nominated is that of an accurate and resourceful one. Attempts at controversializing the article simply does not improve it.Light Bulb 08:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedians can find a heap of facts relating to some criticism, cite them, and put them in the article, then I cannot and will not object. Colonel Marksman 17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There is "criticism" but it is of a biased nature. As you previously mentioned, it is almost exclusively due to the president she serves and her political affiliation. These simply do not merit being mentioned, an issue those complaining for a lack of criticisms ignored.Light Bulb 09:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Degrees

On her whitehouse.gov web page, she is credited with receiving other various degrees "She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004."-http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/rice-bio.html I can't seem to find what the degrees are though. I would imagine the one from the Mississippi School of Law is a law degree but I am not sure about any of the other ones. I would appreciate any help on the issue.

My guess is that -- as the source says -- they're simply honorary doctorates, probably given in tribute for her public service, as opposed to earned degrees (such as her own Ph.D.) stemming from actual academic achievement. These are not uncommon among people of her stature (and I find that Wikipedia listings of them can often grow unnecessarily long and tedious.) DagnyB 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We should at least mention that she has numerous honorary degrees even if you don't want to list them. Besides, if you earn an honary law degree, it IS a law degree and you may practice LAW. When you are awarded honorary degrees the university or college that issued them felt you were expert enough to, in this case, practice law or whatever the degree entitles you to do. I believe they are worth mentioning. The purpose of wikipedia is not to be vague or brief but to inform people. If the government felt it appropriate to say she had honorary degrees to show her intelligence (not that other things cannot) or whatever then wikipedia editors could take the two minutes it requires to either list them or at least mention them. When Benjemin Franklin recieved a honorary doctorate degree he refered to himself as "Dr. Franklin." It IS an academic achievement that she earned. She just earned it through another way other than formal instruction. If the university that issued her the law degree felt she knew enough about the law to have a degree in it, she knew as much as a law school grad. That is the purpose of honorary degrees.

Having a law degree does not give someone the ability to practice law. If you pass a bar exam, with or without a law degree, you can practice law. Jons63 12:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This is way off topic at this point, but let me point out that only one state allows you to sit for the bar exam without a law degree and that is California. So Jons63's comment is not completely correct. You have to have a law degree to sit for a bar exam (49 states).--Getaway 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The article is trying to say Rice's policies are good.

Example: When beginning as Secretary of State, Rice promoted a rapid expansion of democracy in the greater Middle East, pioneering a policy of Transformational Diplomacy. Her emphasis on supporting democratic governments... In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and rules, it is better to just say her ideas and policies.--Lordfkiller 09:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some would argue that these policies as advocated by the Secretary of State are not good because they stem from ideaology.Light Bulb 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the text copied above to better neutralize the article. If there are any other areas of concern please let them be known now.Light Bulb 05:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Uh the whole article? Zeelog1 2/8/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.145.73.175 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sexist Attacks

Why is it that this article no longer contains no mention of the many sexist attacks on Ms. Rice? The fact is that throughout her career countless people have made all kinds of sexual attacks on her. In Russia a columnist made sexual refrences to Ms. Rice, as did Hugo Chavez later, and lately there was another incident on Radio where to shock jocks joked about it being funny if she were raped.

The fact is that Elisabeth Dole, Janet Reno, Madeliene Albright, Hilary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Nance Pelosi, ect . . . were never put through this sort of abuse. Shouldn't the article mention that she has been a target of an unussually high number of personal, sexual attacks that even other female politicians of her rank have not been subject too? 216.201.33.24 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed and discussed previously on this very Talk Page. The consensus was that the comments did not reveal anything about Condoleezza Rice but instead were more telling of the people who made them. Of course, you are welcomed to add them in a well organized and well cited manner under Public Perception and Criticisms, but even there it may not fit because none of the article covers attacks.Light Bulb 08:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Protect from Vandalism

I propose this article be placed under the template due to multiple vandalism by unregistered users. Mikebar 08:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Husband

This article will not be perfect until it mentions her calling President Bush her husband. Perhaps with some conspiracy theories thrown in.--209.243.31.233 08:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Happyme22 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly notable and has been reported by reliable sources. It should be in the article. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Interests

Is this section really necesarry?--Dominik92 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally, no. However, she did mention many times about her very long-standing ties with American Football. The reference is just a reminder and example[2]. She even mentioned that she wanted to become the president of an NFL team. San Francisco 49ers is interested in her. When she was in Stanford, she met Bill Walsh, who was the 49ers head coach and Stanford alumni.TimHowardII (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Walsh was the head coach and athletic director at Stanford, but not an alumni. I've read his master's thesis, and it's located at Clark Library at San Jose State. Gentgeen (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cited reference contradicts the assertion it cited in proving

I clicked on reference 102 to read more about the "heated" encouter between Rice and Mouttaki, but found that the site contradicts what is written in the article.

The article reads: "She exchanged curses with him on 3 May 2007 in Sharm el-Sheikh during a heated encounter that nearly turned violent when their respective security details intervened.[102]"

The cited article from the Times online reads: "Dr Rice and Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, exchanged pleasantries during lunch at which they sat at the same table, without apparently discussing politics.

“They said, ‘Hello’. That’s about it,” said Sean McCormack, a US State Department spokesman , adding: “It was not about substance.”

In his speech yesterday Mr Mottaki blamed Iraq’s turmoil on “the flawed policies of the occupying powers” – an apparent reference to the US."

So this article does not say anyhting about an almost violent conforntation between the two. I'm not sure if the source has change since the article was written, if the wrong references has been cited, or some erroneous information has been inserted into the article.

Please correct this mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.225.173 (talk)

Thanks for pointing this out; I've made the correction. I'm not sure if it was a mistake, or if somebody intentionally placed incorrect information within the article, but I was unable to find any source confirming a heated encounter. - auburnpilot talk 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Exercise equipment

what's her sports video with exercise equipment called? -- 172.178.54.77 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor Error

The date of the memo to the president, "Bin Laden to Strike in U.S." was 8/6/01, not 8/6/00. (The cited source has the correct date in its title.) Perkins29 05:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

fixed, thanks. --YbborTalk 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Strikingly biased

This entry reads like a hagiography. The section on Rice's job performance the summer before the events of September 11th is woefully incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.193.160 (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is important to point out that the above comment by 76.108.193.160 is the first edit of any type on Wikipedia by 76.108.193.160. The comment is incorrect of course.--Getaway 15:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please link to Werwolf

There is an article Werwolf which should be linked to where Werwolf is mentioned in the Iraq section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.4.46 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Request edit of Venuzuela section

The section on Venezuela opens with the views of the administration (not Rice's personal statements) and then follows with a quote in reaction to the nationalisation of the assests of a privately owned television station. I request that the following quote from Mrs. Rice and accompanying source be added, so that it reads like this: The Bush administration has been particularly critical of the leadership of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and brands the country an "outlaw country in the drug war."[137] Following the dramatic return to power of Mr. Chávez after a failed coup[one], Professor Rice, while serving as national security advisor, said "I hope he takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship which has been moving in the wrong direction frankly for quite a long time,"[two]. During Rice's confirmation hearings, she commented on Chávez: "We are very concerned about a democratically elected leader who governs in an illiberal way, and some of the steps he's taken against the media, against the opposition, I think are really very deeply troubling." Source one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1928873.stm Source two: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1931942.stm And I notice that her existing quote in this paragraph does not have a cited source. ~~Veracity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.185.23 (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

forbes/time

I think that seicer's edit represents a good compromise, despite my edits, I think the mentions of forbes/time are relevant, they don't however belong in the introduction. nice edit seicer.Sennen goroshi 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that an almost identical statement was already listed without a citation, and a movement from the header to a more appropriate section was needed. The header should be reserved for generalized commentary on the user or subject and shouldn't be wholly biased towards one side (e.g. pasting nothing about positive remarks in a header leads into bias). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

shes a great woman when you find out all the facts and things she has done for our country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.131.63 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From archive

I found this message incorrectly tacked on to the bottom of the archive file, don't know what to do with it, parking it here:

I am curious that this article refers to Rice's father as Dean Rice, and then again as John Wesley (please correct me if I am wrong, it is late and I am old). There is no explaination for this in the text that I can discover. More research is in order. thank you D. Self

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

sub section

There's a subsection that reads like

===this

so that should probably be fixed.

206.223.211.189 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Degree/Title

Shouldn't subsequent references be to 'Dr. Rice', rather than to 'Rice'? ...Lorenzo Ident failed to appear LorenzoB (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Special Interests"?

"Special Interest Issues" (or something close to that) is the heading title for the passage of the article describing the controversy over Rice's stance on affirmative action and the ethnic studies programs at Stanford. Could we change this to something less prejudicial, like (maybe) "Race Issues," instead? Use of the term "special interest" biases the question from the get-go: supporters of affirmative action and ethnic studies programs claim that society as a whole has a vested interest in policies that they believe will help create more equitable social participation on the part of minorities and women. I.e., supporters of affirmative action believe that an interest in things like affirmative action and ethnic studies program isn't "special" but precisely society-wide. So "Race Issues" would be more NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.131.112 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 27

The link in footnote 27 in the main article that references the Salon.com article that quotes Bush 41 is broken.

If someone with privleges cares to fix it, the new link is: http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/20/rice/

68.226.186.97 (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

sexual orientation

nndb lists her sexuality as being a "matter of dispute". As I do not live in the U.S. and hear very little about Condoleeza Rice on the news, I can say now that I've never heard any such allegations but this is interesting. Perhaps something should be mentioned about it in the article if anyone can find anything else out? Discuss.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.136.223 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Until a reliable source can be found that confirms one way or the other, it should not be mentioned. Zoomwsu (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

She lives with another woman, and they have the same bank account. Figure it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.103.9 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An article in the Washington Blade noted the rumors and cited anonymous sources. I do not believe the subject bears mentioning in the article. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Political future

I have seen a number of articles through realclearpolitics.com that suggest that Dr. Rice is being considered for McCain's VP? Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbgarman (talk • contribs) 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


error! - repeating of a sentences

"With the election of George H. W. Bush, Scowcroft returned to the White House as National Security Adviser in 1989, and he asked Rice to become his Soviet expert on the United States National Security Council. According to R. Nicholas Burns, President Bush was "captivated" by Rice, and relied heavily on her advice in his dealings with Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin."

These few sentences are appearing in the two close points within the text, so in the one of them it should be deleted!

Also, the fact that Chevron honored Rice by naming an oil tanker Condoleezza Rice after her is repeated, too.

So much repeating within the article! Probably more than I've been able to notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.90.113 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

Hello. Can anybody work into this article the fact that she was engaged to Rick Upchurch? Thanks! Themalau (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Excerpt from 2002 radio interview
  2. ^ http://blogs.nfl.com/2008/10/26/49ers-interested-in-condoleezza-rice/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Condoleezza_Rice/Archive_4&oldid=1171387407"