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)

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

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

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

Moving forward (closure)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name: Josiah Schmidt

email: ai.kefu@gmail.com 
From: Dayton, OH 
Age: 19 
Date: Wednesday October 12, 2005 
Time: 04:51 PM -0400 

Comments We need Ms. Rice now more than ever. She must run...

Exhibit B: Josiah Schmidt (Runrice2008) Username: Runrice2008 Post Number: 18 Registered: 10-2005

So, it looks like I'll be helping to get the ball rolling on this project. If you guys have any ideas or input or information as far as the AFR Newsletter goes, post it here or send it my way at "ai.kefu@gmail.com" Thanks.

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

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

Username: Runrice2008

Full Name: Josiah Schmidt

E-mail Address: ohio@4condi.com

Last Logged In: July 10, 2006

Registered: October 15, 2005

Total Posts: 183 Status: TEAM CONDI Forum Moderator

First Name: RunRice2008.com

E-mail: ai.kefu@gmail.com

Home Page URL: http://www.runrice2008.com/

City: Dayton State/Province: OH Country: USA Sex (M/F): M Party Affiliation (optional): Independant

Here are your glorious comments:

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

A Comment From A Reader Josiah Schmidt, from the newly - formed Condista site, Run Rice 2008 at http://www.runrice2008.com/ comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editprotected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dystopos: Et to brutus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I see that there is a desire here to let you and the rest of the Red State Conservatives pretending to be "Neutral" until I do a little fact finding about you shows you to be anything but, control or rather, "vote on behalf" of the African-America". If I look at just this example, and nothing more, you would be the person who said that "Blacks" voted for what they got in 1861 and ignore a detail like the vote was done on their behalf.

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

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

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

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

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

Foresthill Bridge -- started

Louis W. Goodman -- started

Amos Yarkoni -- started

Solveig Gunbjörg Jacobsen -- started

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

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