Talk:Condoleezza Rice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rklawton (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 5 July 2006 (→Foreign Languages: Primary sources would be great (college transcripts, etc), but they probably aren't available.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Resignation

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)[reply]

Trivia

This is regarding the trivia section. I have noticed the one line about her and her alleged failed relationship with an Iranian student during her college days was taken out due to the assumption that it was a rumor. However it is important to note that even though that might be a rumor it does not constitute a deletion. It is cited from reliable sources and the wordings specifically emphasize the fact that this is not believed by everyone. I think it is important for the readers to read it and come to their own conclusion about it. Klymen

No, it's is not from a credible source. It's third hand gossip -- an Australian news agency and a Persian student web site, each quoting a state-controlled Iranian news agency, which in turn attributes the gossip to a single Iranian legislator, without offering any evidence whatsoever -- not even the name of the alleged ex-boyfriend. I have therefore deleted it. Brandon39 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to judge what source is credible and what is not. The readers can judge for themselves. Even if it’s simply a rumor it has gotten enough press attention to be mentioned in the trivia section.Klymen
LOL. Okay. If you really want it in there, I've gone through and clarified this bit of gossip, so that the reader can judge for him or herself. I hope you like my editing!  :) Brandon39 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Klymen
I think it's rubbish, myself. [emphatically not your work or arguments Klymen, but the Iranian report]. I don't know if you've lived overseas, Klymen, but accusations made in foreign media outside Western Europe, Japan, US, Canada, Aus/NZ can be absolutely insane. My argument, and I've made it in recent days elsewhere on this page, is that why not point out all of Ed Klein's sourced accusations about Hillary Clinton on her page? Because, despite the sourcing, they're highly speculative gossip is my answer.
On the one hand we're deleting unsourced accusations that Rice is a lesbian, and on the other we're staring at accusations that this woman was hurt by an Iranian ex-boyfriend, and that explains her behavior because, as a woman you know, she's not capable of responding rationally 20-30 years later. I am going to remove the Persian UK students blog reference, because that's ludicrous. I'm also clarifying slightly more than Brandon did. I am tempted to remove the whole thing, as Brandon and a previous editor did, but I don't want to do so without discussing it with you. If there's no response to this, I probably will remove it in a day or two; if there is, I'll consider and respond. Holmwood 14:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I perfectly understand what you are saying. However as you can see, even one Australian news outlet has mentioned the story. I’m not here to debate weather she did have an Iranian boyfriend or not and I agree that the factuality of her relationship can be debated however nothing in what is said in the article is false; this is something that has been put in public about her, both in western and eastern media. Also what was on the Trivia section is something that has gone through some editing. It’s not something that was put there over night. I believe the final edit of what was there is a perfectly fine representation of facts. Klymen
If the criterion that it's been put in public about her in "eastern and western media" -- that being *one* obscure Australian source and Iranian state-controlled media, then we'd have to make some serious changes throughout this encyclopedia. The London Daily Telegraph -- a generally responsible non-tabloid (though right-leaning) made a series of serious accusations against Clinton in the '90's. The American Spectator -- wildly anti-Clinton, but arguably media -- did so as well. All kinds of bizarre things were said about Clinton in the Indian and Russian press.
Iranian state-controlled media has reported that Mohammad Khatami stated that "women should cover their head because their hair emanates a dangerous ray that drives men wild." (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/1162). This was picked up and printed widely as a quote in Western media, far more widely than the Condi Rice story. The particular source I cited is Canada's National Post, a major broadsheet newspaper in Canada.
So: where are the articles about the deadly hair-rays of women? Let's add them to the Wikipedia article on Women, as a theory. Where are the comments on Hillary Clinton's lesbianism, in the Hillary entry? On Bill Clinton's ordering a hit on Vince Foster because he was Hillary's lover? [yes those last two statements are deliberately logically inconsistent, just like the Rice is gay plus she was jilted by an Iranian) Or... let's recognize this is crazy, and not do it.
Those things all belong in articles on conspiracy theories and smears.
Back during the cold war, the USSR had a policy of planting ludicrously false (but nasty anti-US) stories in third world media in the hopes they'd drift into anti-US papers in Western countries and possibly the US itself. It worked well. It's the way the "USA/CIA invented AIDS to kill Africans" story got started. I just see this as more of the same, and don't think we in Wikipedia should be supporting it. Holmwood 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There so many fallacies in your argument I don’t even know where to start. (Improper appeal to practice, guilt by association and strawman to name a few). I said it before I say it again, I’m not here to debate the weather she did date an Iranian student or question the validty of the sources. I think you should look up Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia. By definition Trivias are intersting facts of no importance to the article. There is nothing fictional about the comment you keep editing out and I agree that since the sources are questionable it is not important enough to be mentioned in the article. Klymen
I repeat: there's far, far more evidence (and from more credible sources) to suggest Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. Put that in "trivia" in her section? That's about as analogous and exact an argument as you can get and one you've failed to respond to.
Indeed, I find it interesting your response is a refusal to engage with any argument I've made but simply hurl feeble generalized first-year logic class attacks. No strawmen, no improper appeal to practice, no guilt by association (quite the reverse). If trivia is of genuinely no importance it should be removed. If trivia is very likely false then it should be removed. I have not "kept editing out"; I have yet to remove it even once! (Check the history page; you'll see a series of mostly-anon users have been doing the removal; they've also, like you and I, been doing good and positive edits in addition to simply removing). I'm not one of them, I sign everything I do (and I welcome any who have access checking my IP addy against those anon users, including for geographic location).
Talk about straw men -- red herrings even. The inclusion of almost certainly false propaganda under the guise of it being trivia is the best argument you can come up with? And you actually argue that Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia supports you?
The reason I haven't yet removed it is I wanted to give your responses due consideration. I'd actually been leaning to simply leaving it (and let you battle it out with whoever's removing it). Given the response you've made to my arguments, and given that you falsely accused me of repeatedly editing the comment out, I've made my decision. It doesn't belong. It doesn't belong, and your arguments have convinced me of this. This will be my first removal of the paragraph in question. (if no one's beaten me to it) Holmwood 09:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry; it was hastily of me to accuse you for editing. However I still stand by my argument about the Iranian accusation. What is there is nothing but facts. You can not argue the factuality of what’s being editing out. It is true that some Iranian MP said Rice had a failed romance with an Iranian student. If you prove to me that is wrong then, by all means, I will step down from the argument. (Prove that no Iranian MP ever said Rice had a failed romance with an Iranian student.)
As for Hillary Clinton, I have no knowledge of what’s being said about her. As far as I know in that case you can prove what’s being said is false. Which would mean you’re “strawmaning.” I am also devastated to hear that you have decided to “adjust” your position on the topic due to that fact that I accused you of editing it out. I apologize for falsely accusing you and I know you’re insulted; however I think it’s beyond you to make a decision merely on being upset. Klymen
The rumours that Rice dated an Iranian student are just that a rumour. There is no place in Wikipedia for rumour. It violates Wikipedia policy concering verifiability. Please stop putting it in. Please edit in good faith and don't violate one of the three main pillars of Wikiapedia. Thank you. -----70.114.205.215 22:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)---[reply]
What you're saying is a rumour, but what was mentioned in the article was not a rumour. An Iranian MP did in fact say that Rice had a failed romance with an Iranian student. That is not a rumour. I suggest you read it again before you edit it out. Klymen

Quick question -- where is the empirical source that confirms this "rumor" about Dr. Rice? I'd like to view it myself. --Mhking 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that we can agree that the Iranian MP said such and such about Rice. The question is whether to include it. Personally, I don't think it is notable enough a fact to include, nor from a sufficiently reliable source (I recall the leader of Iran denying the Holocaust a few months back, for example). We are under no obligation to include every verifiable fact about a subject, and we should be very cautious about relaying statements of highly suspect origin. I think we should leave it out. — Matt Crypto 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, someone who understands my argument, I was getting tired of people using the rumor excuse to take it out. You are right Matt, at this point it depends on someone’s personal opinion and taste to whether include or exclude this fact. I believe including it would give the reader a more global sense of perspective about Dr. Rice. I believe they would find it interesting how she is being viewed outside of North America. I don’t believe in anyway including it will question the integrity of the article. I personally don’t believe in the allegations but I believe including facts like that is what makes Wikipedia articles intersting.Klymen
Let's go over this again. What we know and what we do not know. What we know: (1) the name of an Iranian MP who claims that she knows a secret about Rice, (2) the name of a Australian news organization. What we do NOT know: (1) the name of Rice's alleged boyfriend, (2) when this romance supposedly happened, (3) how we know for certain that this alleged romance has any effect on the current situation in Iraq, (4) where this person is today, (5) whether this relationship even happened, etc. So all we know for certain is that an Iranian MP has made an allegation about a rumour. There is a long-standing Wikipedia policy that requires that entries be VERIFIABLE. Please see: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Now that discusson makes it very clear that we as editors should and must decide if a source is credible. The wild allegation of a Iranian MP about the love life of Rice from 20, 25 or 30 years (man, we really don't know when this alleged romance took place, because it is after all a rumour) does NOT rise to the level of credible. There is no name, no date, no place. This allegation of a rumour does NOT even meet the bare requirements of what, when, where and how!!!! It does not meet these basic items. And that does not even deal with the sheer sexist aspect of it. The assumption put forth by this Iranian MP (who will not provide what, when, where or how) is that Rice, as a woman, can only response to rejection by starting a war. What an unbelievable sexist assumption! Now if this allegation of a rumour makes it through the process of Wikipedia then it will weaken the reputation of Wikipedia of course, but it will also make it easier to allow all sorts of allegations of rumours about a whole group of individuals. For example, if someone claims that Hillary Clinton is a big, ole, big, ole bull dyck then we need to place that allegation of rumour in the Hillary Clinton article because we will no longer be required to show 'how' we know Clinton is a big bull dyck and we will not be required to show 'where' we got that information, 'when' we learned that Clinton is a big, bull dyck. This is the exact type of thing that makes Wikipedia either a great source for research or a horrible source for research. If someone wants to shove their non-NPOV down someone else's throat or whether they want to play it neutral, which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, neutrality. If I was not concerned about neutrality then I would wander over to the H.Clinton page and attempt to shove my opinion about H.Clinton's sexual orientation down everyone's throats, but I will not because that would not be neutral. By attempting to shove this allegation of a rumour about Rice down our throats, not only is one pillar of Wikipedia being violated, verifiability, but another pillar of Wikipedia is being violated, neutrality. Please edit in good faith and stop this this crazy quest to get an allegation of a rumour placed in the article. -----72.177.223.95 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood

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) 68.46.142.66 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC) One thing I noticed that was omitted was social, does Dr. Rice have a social life? Inquiring minds do want to know.[reply]

Associated comment - relating to "Good Article" nomination. This article reads well and meets all the structural requirements of a good article. But, it sems very "one dimensional" to me. It is consructed around a career CV and says very litle about her as a person. For example, I believe that Condi made some progress in her early life as a figure skater. I do not see anything about that. Also, Condi is unmarried and I have seen it claimed in the press that she has never had a close romantic relationship. This seems curious and I wonder if some reference to this is required?. Condi is a fascinating character and I wonder if this article does her full justice?. I hope this helps. BScar23625 09:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academics

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Year of Affliation with Republican

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)[reply]

Condi Rice and Yo-Yo Ma

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)[reply]


Extraordinary rendition

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)[reply]

Name Derivation or Error?

It is highly improbable that someone said, "Let's change this particular 'c' into an 'e.' " However, it is highly probable that someone wrote the Italian phrase "con dolcezza" that was printed on sheet music for piano. Since the letter "c" is very similar to the letter "e," it is most likely that it was incorrectly read from the cursive handwriting. There would have been no reason for anyone to purposely change one particular letter in that foreign phrase.Lestrade 15:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]


I too noticed the use of "derivation" to describe it. At first I thought it odd, but then I decided it was best. My reasoning is that even if the spelling were an error, it came from the Italian, so it was thus [[1]]. Even though "derivation" may imply deliberate choice when compared to "error," the word itself does not mean that the spelling was intentional. Neither Wiktionary (linked above) nor Webster's indicates that something must be derived purposefully. It just means (neutrally) that "Condoleezza" didn't come out of thin air as a random name. Rather, it was based on "con dolcezza" (by whatever means). If the author had said something like "Rice's parents chose to adapt it from the Italian notation con dolcezza, THEN I would have called for a change.
My vote is to keep the current text, which I see as neutral, unless someone can append a reliable reference that the spelling for "Condoleezza" was or wasn't unintentional. Ckamaeleon 14:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FOLLOWUP: Actually, the article cited is less neutral. In talking about her mother, Angelena, the article states, "She crafted the name Condoleezza from the Italian musical notation “con dolcezza” (with sweetness). It rapidly became simply “Condi.” Since the article cited doesn't acknowledge any mistake on Angelena Rice's part (and based on the fact that she WAS a teacher), I see an argument against using language that implies that the name derivation was accidental. If anything, you might imply that it wasn't. But I still maintain 1) that neutral text is best regarding this and 2) that the current text satisfies neutrality with its passive construction and use of "derivation". Ckamaeleon 15:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of name

I've seen this person's name spelled with only one "z", e.g."Condoleeza". Is this correct? -- anonymous comment by 69.104.7.176

No. See the Department of State page. --TreyHarris 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5'8"?

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)[reply]

Umm look at the heels Jolie is wearing.... they are much higher Bachs 21:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Line of Succession

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)[reply]


Is This Relevant?

-"In an article for the New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, writes, "Birmingham had one notably rich black family, the Gastons, who were in the insurance business. Occupying the next rung down was the family of Alma Powell, wife of former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell; her father and her uncle were the principals of two black high schools in town. Rice's father, John Wesley Rice, Jr., worked for Alma Powell's uncle as a high-school guidance counselor, and was an ordained minister who preached on weekends; Rice's mother, Angelena, was a teacher."[2] In 1967, the family moved to Denver when her father accepted an administrative position at the University of Denver."


How can you prove Birmingham had "one rich black family?" And what does "occupying the nest rung down" even mean? This whole passage just seems forced.

I agree that this section reads awkwardly in the article. The relevance to her life (and consequently, to the article) is far outweighed by the strain in creating a flimsy link between Condi's father and the Powells.

Hey is it me or is this article a total plant by I Like Rice.org?

Hey is it me or is this article a total plant by I Like Rice.org?

If you think so tell me how to dispute its neutrality.

Thanks

If it is, I Like Rice.org needs to be more active on Wikipedia cause this is a pretty straightforward, even bland, article. Joe Friday, "just the facts, ma'am" style.

Vandalism

The gap in her teeth isn't the size of Mars. The moon, maybe. --Disavian 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who has a bigger gap - Condi or Letterman? Rklawton 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critisism?

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.

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)[reply]
It is a regular thing to have a Criticism section of a politician's wikipedia entry (c.f. George Galloway) however the criticism that you have cited here is not conmensurate with the type of criticism that has been put forward on other politician's pages. Any criticism section should focus on opposition to the views of the politician in question, usually citing comments made by other politicians and people in the media. Having said that, I am very surprised that there is no Criticism section listed here. Triangle e 11:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article does indeed have numerous shortcomings so I have added the NPOV tag. The article reads as though it has been written and edited by employees of the State Department as part of their day jobs. Condoleezza Rice, as the US's Secretary of State, is the representative of the Bush regime worldwide, so it cannot be denied that she faces criticism, even if she is comparatively well liked within the US (which I doubt). The discussion of criticism of the US occupation of Iraq makes no mention of the massive opposition Rice faces whenever she travels abroad and is merely confined to opinions of Republican politicians who believe the US could have fought the war better. An example of the type of opposition she encounters could be seen during her recent visit to North West England where she met with demonstrations in Blackburn and Liverpool - due entirely to her role in the Bush Administration. Neither is there any criticism of her often ham-fisted pronunciations on other countries' internal affairs. Her "Outposts of Tyranny" outburst is mentioned in the article, albeit in a neutral context, but this merely strengthened the opinions of people who already consider the USA to be imperialist. Surely her notorious "Chicken Kiev" speech which was written for and delivered by George HW Bush is worth a mention - this urged Ukrainians to remain in the USSR and avoid "suicidal nationalism". Finally some mention of Rice's rather extreme religious views would not go amiss - especially as the Bush regime supports denying women choice on abortion. 213.120.56.33 17:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I don't know if I've ever heard that argument before...You're disputing the neutrality of this entry because it DOESN'T have POV Criticisms of her and it only merely contains facts about her life. Interesting logic... Facts WITHOUT someone's criticisms is now considered POV?? Jeravicious 18:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far, from what I've read there is no substantive criticism of Rice from 213.120.56.33. There are just complaints about her politics and then a slap on of the NPOV sticker. There is no offers to fix the article. There are suggested changes--just a slapping on of the NPOV sticker. Unless there are some specific corrections and additions suggested, forthcoming, the NPOV sticker will be removed. Also, the last statement is just simple partisan ranting. Who even knows what Condi's so-called "extreme religious views" are? Much less if they are supposedly "extreme." So far there is no case made for the NPOV sticker. It just seems to be a drive-by NPOV sticker and no real substance. Also, the comment that Rice is "ugly little puppet" is clearly a racist comment.--72.177.223.95 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any POV issues with the article. If anyone has valid criticisms other than kookery like "she must be evil, she is part of Bush's New World Order", then by all means put them on. I'm going to remove the NPOV tag from the article. Oscar Arias 19:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, someone beat me to it. Must have been looking at a cached page. Oscar Arias 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I remember the most about Rice is her "mushroom cloud" statment in the run-up to war. It's one of the most famous things she said. Odd that it isn't mentioned here. To wit: "We don't want 'the smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12553823/site/newsweek/ 66.57.225.55 04:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)DEL[reply]

This is a valid point. That is a very well known quote of hers, and should be included. Criticism of the quote in that it may have added to unnecessary fear over Iraqi WMD programs would also be justified. Suggestions that she was lying would, IMO, not be. I'll take a stab at this... Holmwood 15:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added, with a citation to the original Wolf Blitzer interview. I would suggest care in modifying this. An anon user 70.114.... tweaked my entry superbly, deleting the word "disturbing" and replacing it with "questionable" for a more neutral POV. Thanks to 70.114. Holmwood 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theres a big debate on the Boston College campus this month concerning Rice's invitation to speak at the class of 2006 commencement. It appears that theres a chance she might not speak at all because of all the cricitism. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/03/invitation_to_rice_debated_at_bc_honorary_degree_draws_objections/ -5/8/2006

This article is ridiculous. There isn't even a mention of her appalling performance in front of Congress dismissively describing one of the most important warnings any president has ever gotten as a "historical document." --Tysto 06:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Commissioner

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) It seems like these people commenting on Condolezza rice know nothing about this woman, and are just speculating. For example, the statement of doubt about her speaking multiple languages. People who lack the facts tend to spit opinions as if they are factual information--they don't realize that all they are doing is spitting propaganda.[reply]

PhD

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)[reply]

Has Condoleezza ever been married or dated anyone?

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)[reply]

--70.114.205.215 16:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Condoleezza Rice in Pop Culture

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)[reply]

Trivia section?

What on earth? Why do we have a trivia section?!? All the information in that (except supporting, of all things, the Adelaide Crows AFL team! where's the source for this, btw?) should be shifted into the main body of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say because some of what's printed about her in even respectable papers is pretty trivial. The whole "Dr. Rice Enters the Matrix" line of Washington Style articles for example. A large number of people seem interested in fairly trivial details about her, in a way that they probably wouldn't be for an elderly male caucasian Secretary of State. Talking about her fashion sense, her like of football, to whom she become engaged... these do not seem to me to be anything other than Trivia. The Trivia section seems appropriate to me. One could delete it in its entirety, but significant numbers of people do find it interesting as witnessed by the fact that it keeps cropping up in the media. Holmwood 23:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Real trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Much of this article's "trivia" section is not trivia, though. I've trimmed it, and renamed it "Miscellaneous". Most, if not all, of it could (and should) be integrated into the main body. — Matt Crypto 00:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia is standard on wikipedia. Klymen
Not so. An encyclopedia article is a summary of a topic, and we give space to facts on a topic based on how important those facts are. Trivia is, by definition, unimportant, so it gets no space. See Wikipedia:Trivia#Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia. — Matt Crypto 06:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I’m getting this from what you showed me, it says that information that is interesting without being important should be mentioned in a trivia section. In my opinion some information here are important and do not deserve to be in a trivia section however the importance of things like She is a former competitive figure skater or In November 2004, Dr. Rice had surgery to remove a benign uterine fibroid can be debated, but I’m sure many would find it interesting. I guess what I’m trying to say is that when it comes down to it, it depends on someone POV what information is important and what is only interesting. So if you think there are parts of the trivia/ miscellaneous section that are too important to be in the trivia section then implement it in the article, don’t rename the trivia section and name it something ambiguous. There are many articles on wikipedia that have trivia sections, over time they have become a common practice and in my opinion changing it on this article would be confusing for regular wikipedia readers. Klymen
You've misread the essay. It's certainly not saying that "information that is interesting without being important should be mentioned in a trivia section". What it actually says is "even if a topic would be interesting, if it has no importance whatsoever, it is not included in Wikipedia". Encyclopedias summarise topics, and give space to information according to its importance. We can't include every fact in an article; so what do we exclude? Well, the most trivial facts, for a start. However, it is sometimes the case that information in "Trivia" sections are non-trivial. Therefore, it's better to rename it "Miscellaneous" and remove any genuine trivia, as a first step, then attempt to integrate the information into the main article body as prose (rather than an indiscriminate collection of bullet points). The fact that other articles have "Trivia" sections does not make it a de facto standard in the same way that the fact we have spelling mistakes in some articles does not make bad spelling acceptable. — Matt Crypto 11:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright , It’s just that Trivia has become a naming convention. However I got nothing against miscellaneous. Klymen

Full Title

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) No, I am not. I have just read the policy on this and, although I confess myself bewildered by it, I shall follow it. The Hon. Dr. is still more correct. Pelegius 01:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Languages

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)[reply]

--We have covered this ground before. She speaks four languages. Period. Since when did Wikipedians judge how well or not someone speaks a language. That would be inherently non-NPOV. -----70.114.205.215 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not passing judgement, it's just a request for sources. Why would a claim like this not require sources?KiwiDave 15:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In this speech she details her Russian fluency: [2] Rklawton 16:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State department comments on her lack of French fluency. [3] Rklawton 17:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks. And nice work, too. Rklawton 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The July 1 2006 edition of The Daily Telegraph clearly states that Rice's Russian is "poor." See website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/01/wruss01.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/01/ixnews.html

Also, Rklawton refers above to one of Rice's speeches. He claims that it details her fluency in Russian. She does not. She has never claimed to be fluent in Russian. In that particular speech she talks about studying it, writing it and speaking it: that's all. Juliet Bravo

JB has repeatedly removed the reference to Rice's Russian fluency - and has done so without sources. Now he's found a source that isn't about her fluency at all but about the U.S. Iraq policy. In this article, a reporter interprets Rice's Russian fluency as poor based on a fact that she conducted a particular lunch meeting with other English speakers present in English. He wants to use this has his entire justification for overlooking all other sources commenting on her fluency. It is my position that this one article does not justify removing reference to Rice's Russian fluency in the face of all the other sources commenting favorably upon it. Rklawton 15:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to renew the call for sources supporting Rice's fluency in non-English languages. I spent some time trying to find information about her supposed-fluency in Russian and had a surprisingly hard time finding any good sources whatsoever. I definitely didn't see anything in her official biographies about any foreign languages.

I don't think a request for sources supporting factual assertions is at unreasonable or combative. At this point, I'm genuinely curious as to why it has been so difficult to provide sources supporting these facts which so many seem to take for granted. --ElKevbo 15:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ElKevbo. Verifiability is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. That's also why I've repeatedly removed JB's edits - they simply lacked facts. Now to the point of sources. What would make a good source? I doubt her college transcripts or foreign language proficiency tests are publicly available. As a result, we're pretty much stuck with secondary sources. Here are a few regarding her abilities in Russian. Rklawton 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Prospects

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)[reply]

Lesbianism: Vandalism?

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)[reply]

It is a well known fact in most Wash D.C. gossip circles that she is having an affair with a certain female journalist/anchor at PBS. UNSIGNED EDIT made by 199.17.123.118 on 21:32, 9 May 2006

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Whoever screwed up the article about Condoleeza Rice should be banned!!!! Does anybody have some kind of a a backup of the article so it can be restored?

I managed to restore the article. Some jerk had altered the article by writing "i like to suck dick' and 'oh i forgot, i also like to kill innocent people and kids'. If possible, ban the IP of this person please.

Political Views

(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 [12]

As it stands, I'm deleting it. Please post here if you disagree. Thanks. Holmwood 07:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Condoleezza_Rice&oldid=62196670"