Talk:Condoleezza Rice/Archive 3

message: :::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)
replies: text: Priceless!--Francespeabody 04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets Separate the criticism based on race (ElKevbo)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ban the Black Voice 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Criticism Section remains under attack by the "Cleaners" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: A former good article,  fails the stability criterion as of 01:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted GA 

message: 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)
replies: text: Swing and a miss. Thanks for playing. Isopropyl 04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted WW 

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

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

message: 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:  [].  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)
thread_title:  The Removal of Large Amounts of Information Without Discussion or Concensus 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Criticism" section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Moving forward (closure) 

message: Dude, give it a rest. I don't have to EVER, EVER bring your skin color into it because we now know you just lie about that altogether anyway. You pretended to be black to make a failed and sloppy point and you wasted my and everyone elses time with your false contributions. You suggest you happen to "Know" the guy on the other site, but you also write like that person, share the same Condi Love, and are both "Independants" but somehow despite your claim that you "borrowed" his name obscure pen name, and you just happen to know the "hidden Mandarin Chinese" interpretation of his pen name is comically stupid. It would take a 19 year old conservative to think that excuse stood a chance. You really do think Blacks are as dumb as history portrays us?
I do respect your commitment to stupidity. That you happen to share the exact views, name, thoughts, party, IP Address and quotes of "this mystery Moderatory of RunRice2008.com is either the mother of all coincidences or I to am a 19 year old snot nose from Dayton who pretends to be black instead of an adult Black male who has lived a life and knows shit from shinola. --Francespeabody 03:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frances, I'm sorry to have to say this, but you are a complete and absolute idiot, my friend.  You claim to know "shit from shinola," yet everything you have spewed thus far has been nothing but the former.  It might interest you to know that he and I go to the same university, hence, I'm guessing, the similar IP addresses, and we took Chinese 103 together because he's a language major (I think) and I just graduated this spring with a pol sci degree (I'm off to State this fall, so after that, you won't have to worry about me).  If you would pull your head out of your rectum and stop avoiding the issues at hand by playing racial games, you would easily be able to find through a Chinese-English online translator that YES, "Aikefu" is indeed a Chinese phrase that means "Love overcomes".  Of course, it's not in the traditional characters and it doesn't have the pinyin marks, but trust me, it is.  It's not an "obscure phrase," it's a rather well-known saying--but you would know that because you're obviously an expert in Chinese, right?  I've tried to be patient with you, and please know that I don't hold a grudge against you, but YOU, sir, need to try a little of this thing called "loving your neighbor" instead of trying to judge someone that YOU'VE NEVER EVEN MET.  Would you like to see pictures of me?  Would you like me to get on a freaking webcam for you?  What the heck do you want from me to prove to you that I am who I say I am so you'll cut out these juvenile tactics and return to discussing the REAL ISSUES?  You know, just because I'm black doesn't mean I HAVE to conform to YOUR VIEW of what the so-called "Black POV" is.  You know, in my state, there's a conservative guy named Ken Blackwell who is black and (*gasp!*) is the Republican candidate for Governor.  What, are you going to disrespect him too?  And what about Lynn Swann, and Mike Steele, and Clarence Thomas, and Colin Powell?  And you know what?  Martin Luther King, Jr. was a conservative Republican too!!  And Condi Rice's father, John Wesley Rice, who you talk about, was also a conservative Republican who called the Democratic party a party of bigots and hypocrites and patronizers.  Did you KNOW, Mr. Peabody, that the Civil Rights Acts of the 60's were passed by CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS?  Did you KNOW, sir, that the first Affirmative Action legislation was passed by Richard Nixon?  Did you ever stop and think about the fact that Abraham Lincoln, the guy who passed the freakin' Emancipation Proclamation was a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN?  No, sir, it is YOUR ignorance and inability, NAY, UNWILLINGNESS, to see the truth that is the issue at hand here.  This has NOTHIN to do with the skin colors of the editors.  It has EVERYTHING to do with following Wikipedia's standards, and I think the fact that you can't handle the unbiased objective truth about Dr. Rice leads you to divert the attention away from the real issues and attack the race of the editors.  You sicken me, and no, I will not sit down and shut up just because you told me to.  I'm staying right here and contributing because I have every right to. --Ai.kefu 20:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: As funny as it would be to see you pretend to be some black kid using some randomly googled images from some yearbook cut and paste job, I would rather not watch this sink into that low mire.
You cite some ignorant crap. You say that Republican Conservatives blacks of yesterday in some way reflect the party today. If you read my entries far enough back, you would see that I have addressed this the first time some Republican tried to convince me of such a thing.
Do you not know that for about 300 years the Republican party was the party of the Blacks the way Democrats are now. That means "HATED" by whites. (By hate I mean, more guns, pitchforks and death.)History Snapshot for Ai. Please visit the link to my history snapshot to get a view of the "Democratic Party" of yesteryear and make the same stupid argument about the Republican's today reflecting the interests of black republicans from yesterday.
I know what Lincoln was. Dude you are like 12 years old going on 19 and you are trying to take me to task over history. You have not lived enough to argue the points you are trying but while I would give others an credit for trying, you are a liar, and a Condiphile!!!!
You still think I fell off the cabbage truck on its way into town and that you can fool me with your mystical Chinese Parable Obscura.
If you were Black, and copied some German kid sitting next to you in "Uni" whilst you both happened to be studying the nuances of Mandarin Chinese Love Poems, from behind the walls of the forbiddin city nestled comfortably within the Peoples Republic of Dayton, Ohio, then I suppose I would be, hmmm, hmmmm, hmmmmm, Steve-O perhaps?--Francespeabody 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You, my friend, are portraying yourself as incredibly ignorant.  You're not worth debating on here because you know that you're wrong when it comes to the Wikipedia-related issues and so you're trying to divert the attention to the personal lives and skin colors of the editors.  Yes, I DID take a class with him, he DID get me interested in the Draft Rice movement, and no, "Aikefu" is not an obscure parable.  It IS the Mandarin translation of one of the most beautiful passages in the Judeo-Christian Bible and it's a well-known phrase.  Stop talking about things you know nothing about and focus on the real issues at hand, instead.  Your personal attacks and diversions from the real issues are frankly quite annoying.  You have proven that you are not here on Wikipedia for real, professional scholarship, and that you are simply a troll.  This page is about discussing editorial changes on the "Condoleezza Rice" page.  If you want to talk to me one-on-one, I have offered you the chance to email me.  But since you chose not to do so, I think it shows that you are afraid of debating me, because you know that your spouting of ignorant liberal propaganda can only hold up so long.  You should be banned from this site, Frances, because you have consistently evidenced yourself to be an immature, hateful, racist troll with a blatant agenda.  Either shape up or ship out. --Ai.kefu 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Ai.Kefu (Master of Chinese Love Poems) Should be banned for still pretending to be black!!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: (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)

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

message: Event Trustees: "Elkevbo" and his new pet censor: "Getaway". 
Getaway asks "Seriously. . . how long do we have to read this crap from francespeabody..."
I don't recall anyone making you read the discussion. I was under the impression that this was a public site where all contributions were valid and you could excercise a choice in reading what you wanted, oh but wait, you mean not having to read "Things you don't want to see", kind of like how Fox News in the USA is preferred by the Republicans in office because it speaks not of the bad things they do. This is not Fox Getaway, it is a public resource and that means you do have to deal with things you do not like. Even Black people as in this case.
Getaway asks, "how long do we have to read...?" 
It is funny how disagreement with conservatives quickly elevates to book banning. I mean you burn books routinely for hinting at gay themes, sex, politically left topics so why not burn my written citations of black views in the US.
I will spell out your next steps.
As pulled from the FBI playbook on how to stifle free speech.
1: Dismiss the target as "Crazy". EX:(his random, wandering political BS opinions) 
2: Gather your lynch mob: (I've started a draft of the RFC here.  Please add to it or constructively modify as appropriate.  It will probably be a day or two before it's in good enough shape to lynch/file)
3: Go to the courts and seek support of my brother the judge. (Get my username banned for some offense you drum up)
4: Burn Cross on front lawn as final warning! (Burn Cross on front lawn as final warning)
5: Lynch 14 year old boy for whistling, writing, learning to read, holding a different POV,... just whatever you feel like. I'm sure you will feel better about it. (user is banned from topic)
6: Send nifty postcard to family and friends. (See photo above).
7: Democracy restored. Now that we have an neutral discussion at hand, lets get back to the business of the circle jerk we were engaged in prior to all of this nastiness! God Love America! Land of the Free, Home of the Brave!
--Francespeabody 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Here Ye, Here Ye! Public Lynching for francespeabody! Set for the last week of July in the year of our Lord 2006" 

message: I have been away and now upon my arrival I see things have just gotten more silly, and more oppressive. 
I have read through most of what is written here in the discussion but it seems like one guy against the "vast right wing". Not sure if it is worth commenting here until the open up the page for edits, but I think it is ok in its current form and that only new sections should be added or edited but that the rest should be locked from future edits. Just my 2cents.--216Cali 00:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect your opinion, but please remember that the protection policy is to use temporary protection to enforce a cool-down on an edit war. Permanent protection is reserved for things like the main page. Isopropyl 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Busy with little progress 

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

message: BballJones and the "Selective Informatin" technique! 
Here you say that the article I include and my comments entirely miss the point. You also suggest that Bush was applauded uncontrollably when he mentioned Condi's name. First of all the Bush regime refused to speak at the event period despite your claims that he was warmly received. Second, to suggest that blacks are so uncivil as to not applaud a visiting politician during a welcome is yet again another of your delicious racist tidbits. 
Bush, true to his uninformed reputation as the "decider" made jokes about his absence from the event or his many invites. Glad he can laugh about his actions but not all were laughing.
You did not mention the "Protesters" who were there and had to be escorted away. Thankfully, FoxNews reported this.
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also attended the event. She received applause as she took her seat shortly before the president spoke. Presidential adviser Karl Rove also joined the president.
Toward the end of Bush's speech, a number of protesters were led out of the hall after yelling out attacks on the president, including "Get rid of Dick Cheney! Can you spell Adolph Hitler?"
The president continued speaking uninterrupted.
Every president for the past several decades has spoken to the Baltimore-based group. Until now, Bush, who received 11 percent of the black vote in 2004, had been the exception. His appearance comes in a critical midterm election year, when Republicans fear losing control of Congress"''
But your typical "NPOV" categorized the overall event as disproving my thoughts while "CNN" reports and includes the voices of several Black Leaders in this video included on the website.
Watch as Bush gets a lukewarm reception during his speech -- 2:38 
You also mention Condi's name callout as a significant example of her love yet she did not speak at the event? Hmmm, why would that be? You say that this is an example of how Blacks love Condi yet the highest ranking Black in the US would not be invited to speak at a premiere Black event such as this? Do you not see that her not being asked to speak nor her direct involvement is in itself a view of her position? She shared the same stage and contribution to the event as "Karl Rove".
You chose to ignore a fact like "Bush, joined by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and his chief political adviser Karl Rove were Protested" but the point I was trying to make in including it was that this staged event was in and of itself proof the adminstrations awareness of discord with Blacks. If only 11 percent voted for him than 90% didn't and that is not a minor feat. If you are Black and represent that party (Condi) how many more polls do  you need to read before you get the idea to start doing something or speaking to your people?
Condi's Dad and the Lessons of War is an article written about her dad from a former white student of his. Her dad did more speaking about race in a year than she has collectively from her career.--Francespeabody 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give me an example of where one of the recent participants in this debate has doubted that the majority of African American's do not favor the Republican party. However, I've also seen polls that indicate she is currently the most popular high-ranking member of the current administration (though I couldn't find any very recent polls that broke those stats down by race). I'm not disputing that Condi is unpopular with a signficiant percentage, perhaps a majority of African Americans. Nonetheless, we have statements from African American voices on both sides of the issue represented here.  The "pro-Condi" quotes in "criticism/response" section certainly don't outnumber/outweight the "against-Condi" voices. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way I view it at all. Some guy gets a four line rebuttal at the end of the article and so on, meanwhile the negative comments from the African American community are left as brief soundbites - they are completely undermined and appear reactionary. There are simply no expanded negative arguments put forth from the black communtiy on the article as of yet. Yet these sentiments clearly exist as we have discovered from the various sources. --Zleitzen 23:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More of the same 

message: What is "Despite her early childhood experiences with segregation, Condoleezza Rice has faced opposition from some in the African American[1] community for her role in the Bush[2] administration and the Republican Party, which many[3] in the black community view as oppressive[4], globally out of touch[5], in many cases anti-black[6] and running contrary to civil rights.[7]" doing in the Introduction to the article? 
One would think that at worst the truncated "Despite her early childhood experiences with segregation, Condoleezza Rice has faced opposition from some in the African American[1] community." would be more than sufficient. Consider the introduction on Hitler, which merely summarizes: "By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the genocide of 11 million people, including about six million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust." 
Note that it does not continue "and was widely considered to be a monster, a lunatic, etc etc" and certainly doesn't incorporate 5 different citations right in the intro. Questions of NPOV etc aside (I have no idea what the black community actually feels about her, and don't claim to), it's simply not good form. And hopefully we can all agree that Condi didn't exactly kill six million blacks, no matter how racist (!?) her policies may be. Icewolf34 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: It appears that the disputed content all revolves around the question "What do African Americans think of Rice?". The first question is, in what context do we place this topic? Is it part of the introduction? Does it belong in a section on criticisms? A section on African-American views pro and con? Or applied piecemeal to other topics. Secondly, what type of information do we bring to bear? Do we report aggregate data on approval (the 2002 poll above is the only source for that I've found so far) or do we cite commentators who make reference to general views held about Rice by the Black community? Lastly, what do we do with opinions of individuals who are leaders in the African American community - do we cite them as individual opinions or do we use them as evidence of widely held views? These are all more or less reasonable ways to move forward, and I hope we can start making improvements and corrections to the article soon. --Dystopos 22:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions. 
*The material should not be in the opening section - that is not standard wikipedia biography practice. 
*The views should demonstrate arguments rather than mere soundbites. There are a couple of points from the articles provided that can be worked in here. Plus a quite interesting comment from Spike Lee that I spotted about this subject. Also it would be correct to cite the poll. I'm not entirely sure about the talkshow host business. Particuarily as the rebuttals and aftermath overshadow the actual details of the allegation.--Zleitzen 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really wish I could find a more recent poll, but a lot has happened since 2002...I think it's safe to say that a lot more people know about Rice now; there seem to be a lot more supporters (as evidenced by people who want her to run for president) and a lot more detractors (by those who think she is "out-of-touch" and object to her alignment with Republican administration, e.g. "The Devil's Handmaiden" ref). If the poll is cited, it should be made clear that it was conducted in 2002 (when she had been National Security Advisor for about a year). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: * The Tilove article, in particular, deals with the issue of Rice's (and Powell's) standing in the African American community in what seems to be a fairly comprehensive and balanced survey of available polls and significant opinions. He confirms that the 2002 Joint Center poll is the only hard data available, but also quotes a researcher there on his perception of changes since 2002. Perhaps we could summarize this 2004 article with more specific citations and updated information - using it as a guide for the scope and range of opinions unless someone uncovers a more authoritative source. --Dystopos 04:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that within that article, a non notable punter is quoted to have said about Belafonte's comments - "people are very frustrated," and Belafonte's words ring true. "He said what most people in the African-American community feel." And remember that this was before the major shifts of opinion following serious Iraq war difficulties and Hurricane Katrina. So although I am unable to verify Frances's central thesis - you have to agree that the largescale negative impression is certainly not a figment of his/her imagination. It would be helpful if the next few contributions from users were actually texts conveying how that section is going to read. --Zleitzen 13:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like original research if we start to devine what her supposed "real" popularity in the African American community is without quoting or citing other sources other than our gut reactions to what we perceive the truth to be.  ----Getaway 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: In nearly all articles featuring prominent "African Americans", race is a central or primary theme to the articles content and as Condi is both Black, and American, she finds herself in this same circumstance. Visit any other prominent black wiki and see for yourself where "Race" is a key issue in the content. David Dinkins, Spike Lee, Harry Belafonte, or even Bill Cosby has more negative wiki content about his "POLITICAL VIEWS" than does Condi and he is not a politician! How do you account for a comedian's exhaustive "Controversial wiki content" on the topic of his POLITICS? More than Condi and she is a politician!!! Good bad or indifferent, doesn't that just smell funny?
Here is an excerpt:
Bill Cosby's sociopolitical views, especially about the black community, are complex and have often been reduced to a simplistic representation. He has a long history of endeavors to advance African-Americans, which he sometimes tries to accomplish by being critical of African-Americans. He opposes Affirmative Action on the premise that it does the African American community more harm than good. 
The media was not very accepting of Cosby's Pound Cake Speech with Richard Leiby of the Washington Post saying "Bill Cosby was anything but politically correct in his remarks Monday night at a Constitution Hall bash commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision," (Leiby, Richard). 
He was the first bigtime entertainer to cancel an appearance in Cincinnati after a boycott was called in response to the 2001 Cincinnati Riots. His support of this cause encouraged other stars to follow. 
Cosby has been critical of African-Americans regarding those who hold low standards and allowing fatherless single parent households, high crime rates, and high illiteracy rates. He encouraged a more proactive effort from African-Americans to reduce those problems. He expanded upon his remarks in San Jose, California during an event to promote the Read-2-Lead Classic. The way his speeches were portrayed by popular media provoked a great deal of anger from some African-Americans. 
Cosby was the impetus for the formation of ARISE Detroit! when, in a January 13, 2005, speech at Wayne County Community College he challenged black Detroiters to stop blaming white people for problems they could solve themselves. "It's not what they're doing to us. It's what we're not doing," the entertainer told the audience of nearly 2,000 people. A little more than a year later, ARISE Detroit was formed to address this issue. [1] 
Yet you folks seem to suggest that not only should this "Black Politician" have Controversial issues listed at all, as was initially the case, but that if and when someone includes something Controversial, there should be one-for-one rebuttal to everything listed to counter just those things viewed politically unfriendly. 
Notice in the Cosby wiki data above, you don't see a 40/60 positve comment to negative comment split or a 50/50, 20/30/50, or any other division, what you see is a full "Controversy" section without the mathmeticians like Bball, and Elkevbo rushing to the defense with some bold testimony of their steadfast and truthful NPOV claiming good deed for the day! Why won't you guys do the right thing and help Cosby balance his controvery section out? A guy who has done more positive things for the USA than Condi could dream of doing in her lifetime should suffer a controversy section equal in length onlty to Condi's section on "Russian Tea Ceremonies of the late 14th century"? 
Bill gets invited to speak at black events and is quoted, he's a guy who when is asked about Black issues doesn't grab his piano and start singing "Russian" folks songs. Oh, wait he is not Republican. Right, right, right, I see now. It all makes sense. Oh well.--Francespeabody 04:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason for this level of antagonism on a discussion page. Criticism of Rice deserves to be aired on the entry page, but it will be easier to accomplish with a more civil and constructive approach.--Cberlet 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. I think there is some consensus to move forward here and present a more rounded balanced view in that section. Can we focus on the way this section is going to read and move on from the personal disputes? I'm still needing the unprotection so I can make my damn Cuba amendment. --Zleitzen 04:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Sorry to be out of form like this, but I cannot believe that 9/11 or Dr. Rice's preparations for and response to 9/11...
....is not even discussed...
....in this article!  Is that right??  No mention of 9/11 at all?  
Big big BIG whole right where all the criticism should be!  Why is that?  
Compared to her (completely documented) lack of serious preparations, failure to inform the President on any number of foreign intelligence warnings and subsequent cover up of her role in these lapses (remember "Well, I believe it was titled 'Bin Laden determined to...'"??), all this race talk sounds like acedemic nit picking to most people out there.  Sorry, but there it is.
Let me close my interrruption on your airy debate by saying I (and most people hungry for truth) would expect any article on the person who was the "National Security" chief during the biggest single failure of national security in the history of the United States to have some serious critical discussion of this dimension here (let alone a single sentence!!)  
NPOV indeed!  Now then...wish me to the cornfields...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.248.144 (talk • contribs) 11:07, July 23, 2006
:And your suggested additions and sources would be...?  --ElKevbo 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom line is that Rice is a highly controversial politican and there are many sources expressing sharp criticism out there. Many less controversial figures have whole pages of criticism, including controversies and responses. That this page had nothing until quite recently amazes me.--Zleitzen 16:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 

message: So, it seems like everyone has had a chance to air their views and, though we might not be in absolute agreement on every point, I think there's probably enough consensus on how to resolve disputes that we could try unprotecting the page and getting these major improvements underway. Fair enough? --Dystopos 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed--Zleitzen 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unprotection 

message: Here we go again. Dystopos, This is "Over Simplifying" censorship!!!!
Dystopos does not cite why he has censored the first paragraph or the "Entire Race Issue Section". No issues with the original citations, or content with the original paragraph he just "did what he felt like" without reason. This is the kind of crap that will get the article locked again because I will be reverting this section over and over again and I will continue to demand a point by point reason for each edit. 
A general "oh, i thought it might be simpler to pull all the negative stuff I don't like out and replace it with much softer polite wording" will not suffice! Stop trying to censor the Black View from the article or to otherwise diminish it with a clearly right winged POV. Once again, a term like "Simpler" is a racist way of saying "All that black talk was a bit much don't we all agree? How nice it would be to use a more common language that we all prefer, so I will take it upon myself to do this as my first grand act!" 
There needs to be either a full discussion on each of those issues you find fault with and an alternate citation to what was there if the citation source is the issue but to continue to delete and censor will bring this article back to its former miserable glory. 
As was pointed out, I will also be adding the very necessary fumbling of 9-11 when she held the defense position as some mention of her recent dismal response from this past few day's Israel visit. She is failing by the day in terms of policy and world view so this is going to be very easy to augment. The site had just a few negative comments originally and then the "Cleaners" come out and it makes the entire site that much more honest though negative overall. I started with one paragraph initially and now we are on our way to a full dedicated page of "truths about Condi"! You never learn! --Francespeabody 04:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to point out that francespeabody is engaging in personal attacks again, now that the page has been unprotected.  I also want to point out that it is clear now that he never had any intention to follow the Wikipedia rules when he stated earlier that he would.  It is just more of the same ole violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. --Getaway 14:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His user conduct RFC is still open; I would encourage you and anyone else to comment on and participate in the process.  --ElKevbo 15:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dystopos "simplifying the intro" or "Over Simplifying his Censorship" 

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

message: This article reads as if it were issued by Rice's paid biographer. There is not a stich of criticism in it. I would like to know if she really can speak Russian, and what why Stanford wanted her so badly so fast. What has she done on the academic front? I find the woman to be a lightweight and my impression is reinforced by this sort of arselicking tribute which can only have been dictated from the office of an admirer. 24.201.169.149 10:32, 26 July 2006
:Try reading the previous discussions first before throwing insults around. This has been debated many times, and you're certainly not adding anything useful or creative with your offensive tone. Remember to be civil and assume good faith. Isopropyl 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an encyclopedia, it is not our role to formulate criticisms, especially of living people. Where criticisms are justified, these are published in other works (books, journals, etc) and then can be referenced here. I agree that the current article borrows a bit heavily from administration sources, but this is something that is being worked on by more than one editor. Perhaps the progress is slow because recent changes to this page have been highly contentious (see above). That said, her academic credentials are described accurately and her fluency in Russian is affirmed in numerous publications. Perhaps one of those outlets would have the capability of performing an investigation for you. --Dystopos 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments of Anon User 

message: Well, we've at least come to a relatively peaceful compromise on this, the protection block has been lifted from the article, and there have been no major edit wars.  There are a few kinks here and there that are being worked out, but overall, I think the article will be fine.  I don't think the article's overall neutrality is disputed by a large number of people presently, and frankly, the Neutrality Dispute Tag (and most tags in general) are cumbersome and distracting.  I propose that we remove the tag and see how things go. --Ai.kefu 03:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this would be a bit premature.  Does anyone else have issues with the "Racial criticisms" section? --GHcool 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that this would be premature but for different reasons that those stated by Francespeabody.  My main objection is to the title of the section.  It's unnecessarily amigious and open to intepretation.  Are these criticisms of her race, criticisms of her because of her race, or criticisms of her by critics of a particular race?  Unless the answer is "yes" to all three of those questions, the title can be more specific and descriptive of the contents of this section.  --ElKevbo 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions? --Dystopos 00:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it down.  There has not been any discussion or substantive changes.  Just a status quo and the tag still remains. People are commenting that it should remain, but where are the suggested changes?? --Getaway 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Neutrality Dispute Tag? 

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

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