Talk:Condoleezza Rice/Archive 2

message: Boston College Prof. Steve Almond quit over her invitation to commencement good article
::Sounds like that should raise the intelligence and academic standards at Boston College.  Now, if we can get Almond to quit teaching entirely.-----70.114.205.215 12:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignation 

message: A whole section on Dr. Rice's childhood was eliminated and it will be restored.  It was sourced and factual.
---  --Keetoowah 14:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood 

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

message: In the article, it is stated : 
 In 1976 she switched her party registration/affiliation to Republican.
But in the trivia, it is stated that the year she became a Republican was 1982.
Can someone please clarify and make the appropriate changes? --[Changed]
--------
No, It hasn't been changed.
: Since the second mention has a reference and the first does not, I removed the statement in the education section and left the one in the trivia section.  Edgar181 15:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Affliation with Republican 

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

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

message: I've seen this person's name spelled with only one "z", e.g."Condoleeza". Is this correct? -- anonymous comment by 
:No.  See the Department of State page. --TreyHarris 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of name 

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

message: The qualification about Madeleine Albright is unnecessary and confusing.  Despite being Secretary of State, Albright was always ineligible to succeed to the presidency due to her foreign birth, and thus she was never in the Presidential line of succession.  That article says:
*It has been a subject of controversy whether cabinet officers such as Carlos Gutierrez (born in Cuba) or Elaine Chao (born in Taiwan), who are not natural-born citizens, are constitutionally ineligible to be Acting President, because Article Two establishes only eligibility requirements for the “office of President”. The same question exists for officers in the line of succession who are not 35 years old or have not resided in the United States for 14 years. To avoid a needless constitutional dispute at what would likely be a time of great crisis, the statute (3 U.S.C. § 19(e)) specifies that even the acting president must meet the constitutional requirements for the office of president. 
I've altered the text accordingly.  JackofOz 02:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Line of Succession 

message: The gap in her teeth isn't the size of Mars. The moon, maybe. --Disavian 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who has a bigger gap - Condi or Letterman?  Rklawton 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be mature in your conduct. Michael 04:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I do not think Condolezza Rice was considered to be a serious contender for the post, as she has no experience whatsoever working with the NFL.
::The above comment just seems to be a political stab at Condi.  There is no discussion of how this would assist in the development of the Wikipedia article.  Just the inaccurate opinion of nameless Wikipedia, who obviously does not like Secretary Rice.--72.177.223.95 17:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFL Commissioner 

message: Does anyone know what subject her PhD was in? Triangle e 11:23, 1 April 2006
Political Science at the GSIS of the University of Denver, see www.du.edu/gsis/alumni/profiles/condoleeza.html --David Blandford 11:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PhD 

message: Just curious ... looking at her biography I see no mention of a husband or family ... does anyone have any information regarding her sexual orientation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.78.58 (talk • contribs) 
:::Funny that this topic keeps coming up from the approximate same IP address.  This was posted earlier by
One thing I noticed that was omitted was social, does Dr. Rice  have a social life? Inquiring minds do want to know.68.46.142.66 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that it has no relevance to this article, I don't see why it would matter. But I do remember her dating an NFL player at one time. PennyGWoods 13:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, little or no relevance. But to back up PennyGWoods, the London Times in a 21 November 2004 said -- "“When I grow up I’m going to marry a professional football player!” she said to the mother of one of her schoolfriends. (She did later get engaged to one at university, but it did not last.)" ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1367314,00.html )Holmwood 23:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has Condoleezza ever been married or dated anyone? 

message: This article lacks any information about the various parodys and mentions of Condi in Pop Culture, can someone look into this? The Fading Light 7:02, 17 April 2006
::I remember Janet Jackson parodied her on Saturday Night Live, and there was a running gag in the comic strip "The Boondocks". Sope that gets us to a good start. PennyGWoods 17:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condoleezza Rice in Pop Culture 

message: In keeping with the norms, I am changing the name in the first line (not the title) to "Hon. Dr. Condoleeza Rice," but I will hear any objections. Pelegius 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Title 

message: The article says she speaks several foreign languages, including Russian.  Are there any sources for this?  I've never seen her speak in any foreign languages. Perhaps it would be best to clarify just how fluent she is in each of them?KiwiDave 07:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is of some relevance in that the French minister of foreign affairs was said to be unable to take a call from her because no translators were available. If she could speak French fluently, why would that be an issue? (An answer might well be the conservatism of the US state department, or a lack of desire to expose the Secretary to problems given a slip in a second language.) [I speak multiple languages, but never conduct negotiations in anything other than English for that very reason]. I agree with 70.114... there's ample evidence she speaks these languages reasonably well, and to probe further is non-neutral POV. It *WOULD* be relevant to a dissertation on US diplomacy in foreign languages, however. Holmwood 17:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

message: This may become more controversial as we near 2008 (and the Republican nominee, if not Dr. Rice, starts looking around for VP candidates. I've removed the reference to Newsmax from a list of polls. I did so for two reasons: 
1. Newsmax is not a polling organization the way that Zogby and the others cited are. 2. An interent poll/survey is emphatically not equal in validity to a scientific poll. 
If significant numbers feel the newsmax reference should be back in, then it should be cited separately from the polls and clearly characterized as an internet survey. I'd probably suggest putting it in Trivia. 
I've also removed references to Rice as a "politician", replacing the most prominent with "political figure". While I agree she is a political figure, being unelected and not having run for everything places her in a subtly different category. This is especially striking when she's compared to the other 7 female candidates for president being touted by 8 for '08. All other seven have both run for office and been democratically elected by constituents. Rice seems more of a backroom figure at this time. An argument could be made that she is a politician, by virtue of having campaigned for Bush in '04, but to me it would be quite a weak one. Of course, should she toss her hat in the ring to run for Presidential nomination, I'd have no argument against "politician". Holmwood 23:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Prospects 

message: This weasling para was added by ElitistNerd:
"Some of her former Stanford colleagues purportedly claim that she is a lesbian. [citation needed] This would put the Bush Administration at odds with its top cabinet secretary, as it is vehemently opposed to homosexual marriage and actions. (President Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment to forbid states from allowing same-sex marriage shortly after the Supreme Court overturned a Texas anti-sodomy law.)"
Some former colleagues purportedly claim? What? This is nonsensical, in my view.
If someone of standing makes a credible statement on this matter, it might well be relevant given how public a figure she is. I certainly wouldn't remove it.
As it is, this accusation has been up for nearly a day, and no one has provided a citation.
Let's turn it around. If someone tossed in a sentence "Some of Hillary Clinton's former Rose Law firm colleagues purportedly made accusations she is a lesbian", how long would that last? I'd say it should last only seconds.
If there is credible evidence (and I don't mean a random poster on KoS or a rant on Air America) and a legitimate citation for this, then by all means let's put it back in. Until then, I'm deleting it as vandalism. The fact that the original person to add it hasn't responded to a request for a citation is suggestive. Holmwood 14:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My question would be how would a state university in Minnesota know what is being said in Wash D.C. gossip circles? (Yes, that is where your IP address originates from Dear 199.17.123.118.  Then my next question would be why are we even discussing this topic?  This is gossip, not fact, and it violates Wikipedia policy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability --70.114.205.215 16:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We can't use unsourced gossip as the basis for articles.  This might leave us open to accusations of libel, I'd imagine. john k 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even sourced gossip belongs, IMO. Ed Klein wrote a book and actually cited someone stating Hillary Clinton was a lesbian and others that Bill Clinton raped her. Liberal journalist, NY times best-selling author. That's a lot sounder than "Some Stanford professor..." and "It is a well known fact in most D.C. gossip circles". Even there I don't think Clinton merits being tagged a lesbian. That's at the very least sourced gossip. That said, I'm pretty tempted if the lesbian charge keeps popping up here to add the accusation to the Clinton article. Tempted, but I don't think I'll do it. Holmwood 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumour does NOT belong in an encylopedia entry.  There is NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, evidence to support the comments about Condi's romance with a fictional Iranian character and/or her sexual orientation.  Also, the fact that there is a rumour that Hillary Clinton is a big, bull dyck and it is NOT in her entry and the fact that 199.17.123.118 wants to put these rumours about Condi in this article speaks to the clear non-NPOV of the entries.  -----70.114.205.215 15:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lesbianism: Vandalism? 

message: (originally "Political Veiwa"
This is one of the more bizarre edits I've seen. I assume the writer is not very well acquainted with English. 
"Condoleezza Rice supports preemptive [sic] War [sic] and opposes troop withdraw [sic] from Iraq. Secretary Rice also is in faver [sic] of free trade. Rice opposes gun control. Dr. Rice sides with the Democratic Party on the issues of abortion and Immigration.her [sic] veiws [sic] on the environment, taxes, and gay marriage are unknown."
No, the fact that someone supports the war in Iraq does not equate to them supporting "preemptive War" in general, unless you can define that term much more precisely. Nor is it entirely clear to what degree Iraq can be classed as "preemptive war". War with Iran or Syria would certainly be preemptive; in a narrow legal sense, war with Iraq and North Korea would not necessarily be preemptive, given the lack of a peace treaty in both cases.
Free trade? Most Democrats say they are in favor of free trade as well. Most rational people are, though all have concerns over outsourcing. Who pushed NAFTA through in '93?
Rice opposes gun control? To what degree? She thinks howitzers should be unregulated? Or she simply supports the Constitution? She opposes background checks? Supports them? In any event, how is this relevant?
Rice sides with the Democratic Party on abortion? In what way? What is the Democratic position on this? Most Democrats, when speaking, seem to be against abortion, but for "choice", as long as choice is extremely narrowly defined and ultimately under governmental control.
Immigration: can anyone explain the Democratic (or Republican!) position on immigration, as parties? To say that Rice sides with the Democrats is utterly meaningless. That could mean anything from "let's build a big wall and support the President" to "let's abolish all immigration laws". The Republicans are just as bad.
I don't see any value in this section. I see it as being akin to describing Rice as a politician; she's not. The framing of this section is very partisan [NB- I don't mean, by "partisan", that it's hostile; I simply mean that it's couched in a very narrow R/D of 2006 partisan mindset], and ultimately irrelevant to the future (assuming Rice does not become a candidate) and most foreigners.  
If she becomes a contender for any elected office in 2008 -- even dogcatcher, I'll happily concur with the merits of including her political views on divers irrelevant [to SecState] subjects.
If you want to put this section back in, it needs to be massively cleaned up, attributed, tightened, AND an argument here posted as to why its relevant. Pursuant to that, here's an article where she talks (briefly) about gay marriage and appears to straddle a position somewhere to Bush's left 
As it stands, I'm deleting it. Please post here if you disagree. Thanks. Holmwood 07:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Views 

message: I've removed her from both the 'Pianist' and 'Worst actress nominee' categories. Both are trivial. In the first case, she isn't a professional, international concert standard pianist (if she is, add her back and provide a citation). She certainly plays the piano extremely well, but it's a hobby.
In the second case, she's not an actress. One man nominating her for his razzie list isn't really relevant. Yes, I saw the kind person who threatened an edit war over this "!-- NOTE: don't bother removing this category, I'll just readd it. Also read WP:NPOV if you have any issues with her being in this category. --". (Indeed, this comment is why I'm spending my time adding discussion on this seemingly trivial point).
It's not about NPOV, it's about trivia and relevance. It's akin to Hilary Clinton's making the "Worst Dressed" women in People Magazine in 2002. Not really relevant to her profession and career. Rice isn't an actress; she isn't a pianist. Holmwood 07:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People 

message: Please do not add "information" regarding Uncle Tom's Cabin without a reference that supports such assertions. Isopropyl 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that Rice is anti-black is POV and supported solely by a single article in a Zimbabwean newspaper. Please do not cite the list of black conservatives as evidence of Rice being an "Aunt Jemima" as it has nothing to do with the claim. Isopropyl 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In American Culture this is a pervasive view. It is not represented solely by two articles, but those articles represent the discussion being had at a global level. If you are not African American or otherwise African descended, you more than likely will not be aware of the conversations and writings in publications, and media that represents the African cultures. If you do not like what is being written offer some counter to it, but to deny it wholesale on a weak argument of "I don't think you can support it" is silly. Talk to some Blacks to verify this. If you have not spoken to at least 2 blacks in the US, or read at least 2 black published articles on the topic of Condi, than you should remain quiet on this issue.--216.55.190.25 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop re-adding this information unless you have verifiable citations on the matter. Also, please stop citing sources which do not pertain to the subject, such as bizarrely using Kanye West as a reference. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Isopropyl 03:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Apparently user 216.55.190.25 is unaware of the writings in publications also, since he/she is (still) utterly unable to reproduce them here - and that, by the way, is all we are asking.  The funny thing is, I believe user 216.55.190.25 is generally correct about the beliefs of a significant number of African Americans, and I'm quite disappointed by his/her inability to support these views with meaningful and verifiable sources.  Rklawton 03:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Uncle Tom's Cabin" 

message: After the edit war of last night, the citation section at the end of the article is completely haywire.  I have not been able to fix it.  I ask for assistance.  --BballJones 11:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I got it fixed. --BballJones 12:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs Repair in Citation Section 

message: Here's a dif between the version I POV-tagged and the current version.  As far as the criticism section goes, there is a much better balance of opinions.  However, I think the paragraph in the intro still needs work; first of all, I'm not convinced that there is an "extreme opposition" and that the fact that there is salient enough to warrant inclusion in the intro.  If a chorus of prominent African American commentators or activists were calling for her censure or resignation, that would be a different story.  I see no evidence of anything like that going on right now. Furthermore, I think it's excessive to use seven(!) references to support one sentence. Here's my take on those references in this version:
:4 Robinson's op-ed piece Relevant; focuses on Rice being "out-of-touch," speculating that it has to do with her upbringing;
:5 Bush Approval rating drops about public support for Bush adminstration dropping; does not mention Rice
:6 Commentary piece in WorldNetDaily about Bush approval A rehashing of 5 in commentary form; does not mention Rice
:7 Mandela slams Bush administration' used to source in the black community view as oppressive; Mandela is the sole voice of the "black community?"  Rice is not mentioned. 
:8 Condoleezza Rice Gets the Cold Shoulder in Britain used to source globally out of touch; I think the article is more about opposition to the administration's policies (of which she is a participant; architect). It's relevant to Rice (and the admin she represents) but I don't think it supports the phrase "out-of-touch"
:9 Condoleezza Rice: The Devil's Handmaiden editorial in The Black Commentator used to source anti-black; mostly deals with Rice's role in the administration's affirmative action stance, and argues that her interests are more in line with Bush's interest than majority of African American's; the phrase "anti-black" is not mentioned in the piece. I don't think it's fair to equate "anti-affirmative action" with "anti-black." The commentary would be appropriate as a citation representing the opinion that Rice's views are not in line with the majority of African's American's.
:10 Condi Rice's Disdain for the Civil Rights Movement opinion piece in Counterpunch that discusses Eugene Robinsons op-ed piece in the Washington Post (see #4 above).  
My suggestion would be to change the intro statement above to something more like While some hail Rice's appointment as the first African-American Secretary of State, some voices in the African American community have accused her being out-of-touch with civil-rights issues and mainstream African American political beliefs, using #4 and #9 (maybe #10, though it's really an echo of #4). OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not addressed the main point raised in this section; that all but three of the "references" above do not directly support the statements that they followed. I attempted to revert to an early version in which someone else had removed the irrelevant references and formatted them according to Wikipedia reference standards, but someone keeps reverting it and claiming that there was no discussion about the removal of some of those references. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag revisited 

message: Please discuss removing the properly cited rebuttal to criticism here. Isopropyl 01:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we remove it?  It seems pretty unbalanced to allow inclusion of criticism without also including Rice's responses.  --ElKevbo 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sentiments exactly. Isopropyl 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Francespeabody's repeated removals and editing of the Criticism section is clearly being done with ulterior biased motive.  The response Rice has made to criticisms over her "race loyalty" and the voiced support of major African-American Democrats for Rice are very relevant to the section and to this article as a whole.  It's good to have a balance of opinions, and Francespeabody's editing to remove the quotes that are positive toward Rice and advance a clearly biased agenda by changing the wording of sentences to sound pejorative are not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV stance.  I for one am an Independent voter with a great deal of scientific interest in American foreign policy and in the political personhood of Sec. Rice, and frankly, it is annoying and unethical from a Wikipedian standpoint to have this sort of ulterior agenda motivating the edits of this article.  I respect Francespeabody's opinions toward Dr. Rice and race relations in general, as I'm sure we all do, but Wikipedia is a place for fact-based, unbiased research and report, not for making political statements.  I would like to see Francespeabody be a productive member of this community and contribute to this article in a professional manner, but he has not yet done so.  If this behavior continues, it may be a last resort option to report his activities to the Wiki moderators for further action.  I sincerely hope it does not have to come to that. --Ai.kefu 22:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reponse to criticism 

message: Does anyone know how to archive?  This is talk page is getting too big and I'm not sure how to archive.  Thanks,--BballJones 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ARCHIVE. Probably shouldn't archive the active threads though. Isopropyl 20:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive