Talk:Condoleezza Rice

• talk page archive
• tak page archive 2: 2 May 2006 — 11 July 2006

Continued edits of "Criticism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. How does that address what was cited?

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

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

Lets Separate the criticism based on race (ElKevbo)

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

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

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

We can separate our schools too if you like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban the Black Voice

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are forums all over the Internet where you can rant/rave about your opinion of Condi Rice. Put it on your website/blog...and keep it out of an NPOV Encylopedia entry. But if you feel the need to add a "Criticism" section, so be it. In an effort to be balanced, I will then copy your entry (leaving yours intact and unedited), reword it slightly and call the section "Praise" How'd that be?? Jeravicious 23:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)"

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

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

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

Criticism Sections

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

Here is why!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Criticism Section remains under attack by the "Cleaners"

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

POV paragraph in introduction

Despite her early childhood experiences with segregation, Condoleezza Rice has faced extreme opposition from the African American[1]community for her role in the Bush[2] administration and the Republican Party, which many[3] in the black community view as oppressive[4], globally out of touch [5], and in many cases both anti-black [6]and against Civil Rights.[7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here a quick summary (copied from the talk archive) of the content of each of those seven links in the aformention paragraph::4 Robinson's op-ed piece Relevant; focuses on Rice being "out-of-touch," speculating that it has to do with her upbringing;

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

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

7 Mandela slams Bush administration' used to source in the black community view as oppressive; Mandela is the sole voice of the "black community?" Rice is not mentioned.

8 Condoleezza Rice Gets the Cold Shoulder in Britain used to source globally out of touch; I think the article is more about opposition to the administration's policies (of which she is a participant; architect). It's relevant to Rice (and the admin she represents) but I don't think it supports the phrase "out-of-touch"

9 Condoleezza Rice: The Devil's Handmaiden editorial in The Black Commentator used to source anti-black; mostly deals with Rice's role in the administration's affirmative action stance, and argues that her interests are more in line with Bush's interest than majority of African American's; the phrase "anti-black" is not mentioned in the piece. I don't think it's fair to equate "anti-affirmative action" with "anti-black." The commentary would be appropriate as a citation representing the opinion that Rice's views are not in line with the majority of African's American's.

10 Condi Rice's Disdain for the Civil Rights Movement opinion piece in Counterpunch that discusses Eugene Robinsons op-ed piece in the Washington Post (see #4 above).

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

Edit warring

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

Delisted GA

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

Delisted WW

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

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

Some stuff on rendition

I want to add some remarks on extraordinary rendition. This page [8] talks about it being a form of kidnapping. Is there any objection to my doing this? Eiler7 12:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

"Improper citation"?

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

The Removal of Large Amounts of Information Without Discussion or Concensus

There is a section of the criticism area that francespeabody keeps removing from the section without discussion or concensus. He has removed more than five times today, I think that is the right count. Here is an example: [[9]]. Please work with the other editors. Removing large amounts of information without discussion or concensus is vandalism. Please review this policy: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you. -- --BballJones 22:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohnoitsjamie Fair enough.

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

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

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

7 Mandela slams Bush administration' used to source in the black community view as oppressive; Mandela is the sole voice of the "black community?" Rice is not mentioned.

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

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

8 Condoleezza Rice Gets the Cold Shoulder in Britain used to source globally out of touch; I think the article is more about opposition to the administration's policies (of which she is a participant; architect). It's relevant to Rice (and the admin she represents) but I don't think it supports the phrase "out-of-touch"

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

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

9 Condoleezza Rice: The Devil's Handmaiden editorial in The Black Commentator used to source anti-black; mostly deals with Rice's role in the administration's affirmative action stance, and argues that her interests are more in line with Bush's interest than majority of African American's; the phrase "anti-black" is not mentioned in the piece. I don't think it's fair to equate "anti-affirmative action" with "anti-black." The commentary would be appropriate as a citation representing the opinion that Rice's views are not in line with the majority of African's American's.

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

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

10 Condi Rice's Disdain for the Civil Rights Movement opinion piece in Counterpunch that discusses Eugene Robinsons op-ed piece in the Washington Post (see #4 above,

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

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

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

Moving forward

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction Sources Removed now need to be Replaced

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Criticism" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations of racism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward (summary)

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

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

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

Sounds good to me.

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