Talk:Condoleezza Rice/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Image Saturation

We know, she's not a he and she does indeed look more like a she than some female politicians, but the page doesn't need an image for nearly every section. I'd trim it down myself, but someone would invariably warn me/revert me for it. 74.75.233.150 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be quite a few but they are usually spaced well and often smaller than most so for an article of this length it is not unsightly. Maybe in places where there are two stacked atop each other (3 instances or so) but again many add rather than detract so I'm fairly neutral. Mikebar (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction?

This is a bit trivial, but I don't think the "in addition to English, she speaks Russian, German, French, and Spanish" information is appropriate for the introduction. In fact, it may not be appropriate for anywhere in the article, because it's a trivia fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.180.7 (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As the US Secretary of State, the languages she speaks are certainly relevant. Zoomwsu (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

She knows Czech too. I suppose she picked up Czech while doing her doctoral work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.56.195 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Engaged to Rick Upchurch once?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Upchurch

says that Condi Rice was engaged to Rick Upchurch at one point in time. I find it extremely strange that there is not a single mention of it in here. IMHO, for such a 'long' article, you would expect the simplest details to be included. ;) Cheers! Julyda4th (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, so I have just added that fact to the newly created family and personal life section. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of how well she speaks foreign languages?

What is the evidence that she speaks all these languages? The link given as a citation doesn't mention languages at all.

I have heard that her spoken Russian is rather ropey - there are accounts of only one interview done partly in Russian, where she couldn't understand questions, and confused vocabulary when she spoke herself - and then switched to English. There are some reports that when she has spoken Russian, the Russians have subtitled it because it is not comprehensible. (It is possible to do degrees in Russian studies without having to speak it; the degrees are not evidence.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the link given as a citation doesn't mention the referenced information. I've just removed it. This statement shouldn't be there unless it can be properly cited.KiwiDave (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

The wording of Palestine which is not a recognised country should be changed to the Palestinian teratories in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainbugsa (talk • contribs) 13:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

__________

I second this. "Palestine" is a geographic region (see Wikipedia entry) that includes Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. The phrasing "Hamas captured a popular majority in Palestine" in the current Condoleezza Rice article should be replaced with "Hamas captured a popular majority in the West Bank and Gaza." WilliamSpencer (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Could Someone please change the wording of the phrase Palestone in "Rice pushed for peaceful, democratic elections in Palestine following the death of Yasser Arafat." for above mentioned geographical considerations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainbugsa (talk • contribs) 09:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

record on Torture?

I think this page needs some updating due to recent developments in the news media and statements the Rice has admitted to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.111.217 (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Everything I read on the criticisms section looks POV to me (but I might have that definition wrong). There isn't a single shred of proof for anything said: its all, "I believe this..." and the statement is some form of opinion based upon nothing. Colonel Marksman (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to Intro

I am leaving an explanation here for the change I made to the intro. The statement that "Her policies and strong diplomatic style gained her recognition as a powerful leader by mainstream media" was marked as unsourced, and for good reason. She has come under a great deal of attack for her diplomatic style, while she has also received praise from some sources. The statement makes it look like the introduction was written by a State Dept intern. Thucydides411 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As of Sunday, April 6, 2008, an announcement was made on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" that Condoleezza Rice was actively seeking the position of Vice President, running on the same Republican ticket with John McCain. The Internet was suddently filled with articles stating that Dr. Rice was a lesbian - that she and her partmer of a number of years owned and shared a home together in California. Does anyone have documentation that this allegation is true?

One blogger stated that Dr. Rice would be the perfect candidate for a Democratic ticket as she was (1) Black, (2) a woman, and (3) a lesbian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Stearns. Why would you quote Barbara Boxer (who got totally embarrassed by Miss Rice), and Harry Belafonte (an insane person and confirmed racist)? Is there no attempt at being fair on this? Not even a subtle little try to not show your bias? I'm very disappointed when people from any side try to inject their personal views into what should be an open, fair forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.1.94 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we add "Succeded by" Hillary Clinton See: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/live-blog-presenting-the-national-security-team/?hp

Not until Clinton is sworn in as her successor. 70.252.3.148 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory statement on Chevron

Under section 2 (Academic Career), in the third paragraph, it is explained why Chevron named a supertanker after her. But then in section 4 (Private Sector), it states that Chevron named a tanker after her "for unspecified reasons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredite74 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel sorry for CONDOLIZEE RICE, In this world she looks like a monkey, she acts like a beast killing millions of iraqi and hunderds of thousands of palestinian, to make it worst, how would she face God in the hereafter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.56.174 (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not related, this isn't a forum. Vileplume drugs (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

She is still secretary of state

Until Hillary is sworn in, Condi is still the SoS, so we should change it back to "is secretary of state". I also found this little piece explaining how she was president for one minute today. Vileplume drugs (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal ? of tag[s] in the "Notes" section of the article

The "== Notes ==" section of the article, still has 2 tags: [displayed here using ()s instead of {}s]
((Cleanup-link rot|date=October 2008))
((citation style|date=November 2008))
The "October 2008" one complains about the use of "bare URLs for citations, which are susceptible to link rot." I think the "bare URLs" are mostly [maybe all?] gone now, and at least one dead link (which was footnote number [1] -- at least, at the time it was fixed) is now OK.

So, what is the procedure for removing one (or both) of those tags? I am in favor of removing at least the "October 2008" one, ...unless I hear some specific um, "lack of consensus" here.

Also, I think it is possible that progress has been made, in regard to the "citation style" (mentioned in the "November 2008" tag). I am not sure whether that progress is enough to remove that tag. I will leave that up to, whomever knows what the problem was with the "citation style". --Mike Schwartz (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"April fool"?

I removed a section titled 'April fool' which contained the following:

As an April fool story in 2006, The British 'Independent' broadsheet newspaper reported that the University of Birmingham’s twinned status with its Alabama namesake led to a liaison between the comedian Jasper Carrott and Condoleezza Rice, whom he described as "a ferocious kisser" [60]The story was subsequently featured as a University Challenge bonus round question on spoof news items.

I'm at a loss as to why this would be considered notable in the biography of an important political figure. Kelly ^hi! 15:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Politicians are portrayed in satirical sketches and wider popular culture. They are not special cases and don't have special immunity from such sections detailing significant portrayals. Users and political staff should stop tinkering with articles - they're not resumés or sanitized promotionals. --maxrspct ping me 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

political staff? please assume good faith about your fellow editors. yes, politicians are portrayed satirically frequently. so frequently, that it is not at all notable. why is this one obscure april fools day mention notable? it's not even satirical of ms rice in particular - no jabs at her policy positions, her professional relationship with gwb, etc - it's just a random, not particularly funny jab, at the bottom of a minor april fools joke column nearly three years ago.Anastrophe (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit more subtle than that. Satire does not neccessarily fall into staid categories. This particular piece is notable. --maxrspct ping me 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At best it's an odd detail or anecdote that adds nothing to the understanding of the subject. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.78.66 (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear this section should of been removed, some time ago. I will remove it, there is no justification for this section.Mantion (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed this pointless section which was added again by Max rspct. --XRK ^t/_c 20:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointless? This article is not a contrived publicity piece. Other world leaders etc etc ad infinitum have these sections.

Tony Blair#Portrayals and cameo appearances

Cultural depictions of Emiliano Zapata

Houtman Abrolhos#Cultural references

Cultural references to Pope John Paul II

Nicolas Sarkozy#Public_image

--maxrspct ping me 20:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Iran-contra 2.0.

Rose, David (2008-04). "The Gaza Bombshell". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 2009-01-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Catergory:African American Secretaries of State

I need help on your life.PS.please write back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.142.245 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Patriot act

Looking at when she was national security advisor, it seems Dr. Rice should have had some input on the patriot act, but I don't see anything about it in this article, or in the articles about the act and its history. Could someone add a comment about her involvement or non-involvement? Orthografer (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Chi Omega sorority

Condoleezza was initiated into the Alpha Chi Omega sorority while she attended the Univ. of Denver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanlutz (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: She is still secretary of state

Impossible, she could not have been president. The United States Constitution states that at exactly 12:00 P.M. EST on the day of inauguration, the President-Elect becomes President of the United States, even if he did not take the official oath of office. So your quote saying that Condeleezza Rice was President is incorrect. -Sbblakey777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbblakey777 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleged fluency in Russian

Although Wikipedians have so far avoided mentioning Dr Rice's "fluency in Russian", the complimentary tag is so extensively seen in other writing about her that it has been taken for granted by the public.

The usual primary focus of language study for M.A. and PhD candidates is on acquiring some proficiency in understanding the written language (for practical textual study and exegesis). Comprehension of spoken language is regarded as more useful (and easier) than fluency in the spoken foreign language.

Condoleezza Rice achieved fame as a Soviet expert, therefore her graduate studies must have included Russian language, but at what level and in which facets of the language? The commonly used phrase "fluent in language X" is usually taken to indicate, above all, fluent spoken ability, but documented proof of this is noticeably absent from journalistic and biographical references to Rice.

As a preliminary step in checking the accuracy of this linguistic accolade, it would be useful if someone could add, under the Studies section of this article, the details of the Russian courses she completed on her undergraduate and graduate studies. Ombudswiki (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I already got the reference to her fluency in Russian removed from the article a while ago (check the archives). The evidence is patchy - her attempts to speak Russian on Russian media appear to have been limited to one (or possible two) times and needed to be subtitled as she was so incomprehensible.

It's not actually true that proficiency in the language was required for Soviet Studies (you could probably get away without much Russian even now); there were a lot of translated materials (notably Current Digest of the Soviet Press), and at that time speaking Russian wouldn't have yielded a great deal of interesting information unless you were very adept, as most Russian sources were heavily controlled. She didn't do much in Soviet Studies in any case - one published book that no-one read and no articles I could ever find when I was a Russia researcher myself. She's a cold war hawk more than a specialist; her senior university positions were all administrative rather than academic.

Certainly, any references to her being fluent in Russian should be removed, as all the evidence points the other way.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Politics?

I know this is probably an abuse of the WP discussion but does anyone know about her politics? Every time someone asks me why I think Condi shud be prez I'd like to come up w/ a different answer than the fact that she is a black female and it's be cool to have an ethnic female president of the USA. So does anyone wanna leave what she thinks about gun control, abortion, same-sex marriage, the whole shabang on my talk page for my user page @ The Texas Drama King

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Working for Him (talk • contribs) 05:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

For some reason when I loaded this page, ----deleted inappropriate comments of a Wikipedian----- I see no picture or anything else. But when I went to edit the page, everything seemed fine?

Edit: Okay never mind. It seems to have been fixed...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.24.114 (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

This looks out of place in a serious article. Strike it? Rp (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, such sections appear in many, many WP articles especially biographies. Why strike only this one? Thanks, Jgui (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a grammatical error.

In the Section titled National Security Advisor (2001-2005), there is a paragraph called Weapons of Mass Destruction. The first sentence contains a grammatical error. The original text; "Rice made headlines by stating regarding Iraqi WMD", should be replaced with "Rice made headlines for statements regarding Iraqi WMD".

That is all.

75.67.90.242 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ph.D thesis

Does anyone know the title of here doctoral thesis, or even what aspect of political science she studied? A little more detail here would improve the early life section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.71.242 (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Which one? She failed the first two! "At Notre Dame, her academic papers were assessed as follows by her adviser, George A. Brinkley, a Soviet scholar and chairman of the Government and International Studies Department:

they lacked depth and attention to different interpretations and points of view ... her evident skills and potential were not developed into more mature scholarship.

At Notre Dame, Rice received a "terminal M.A." (a degree not leading to a Ph.D.). She then returned to the University of Denver, where she wrote another M.A. thesis, titled "Music and Politics in the Soviet Union." Her adviser, Alan Gilbert, a recipient of a doctorate in political science from Harvard, remarked that her study was "not a fantastic piece" in terms of its scholarship. In 1981, Rice received her Ph.D. Her dissertation was published in 1984 by Princeton University Press under the title, Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army, 1948-1963. While the book saw the light of day thanks to a prestigious institution of higher learning, it is rather striking for the current irrelevance of its subject matter. (Neither the Soviet Union nor Czechoslovak army exists now) "Source <http://www.prwatch.org/node/7327> TWLofthouse (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)drloTWLofthouse (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Picking another person apart is never much of an accomplishment. Getting a few bad grades in College doesn't say much either. She went on to become a Dean at Stanford. It's not likely that her overall scholarship was so poor for her to reach such heights.

A better point of discussion (and even a possible Wikipedia article) might be about "pettiness"-- how even some intelligent people will go out of their way to character-assassinate another person just because they hold beliefs different than their own.

69.171.160.50 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd sentance of the 1st paragraph- needs edit

"She served as the 66th United States Secretary of State, and the second in the administration of President George W. Bush to hold the office."

I am not sure what this comment is attempting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.131.0.194 (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a prozeugma that leaves the second half of the sentence ambiguous. A simple fix would be:

"She served as the 66th United States Secretary of State, and was the second in the administration of President George W. Bush to hold that office." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoggles (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not tell it like it is?

An editor changed a section name from "Torture" to "Enhanced interrogation techniques". Will this editor please see the WP page for Waterboarding, where the first sentence of the lede paragraph is: "Waterboarding is a form of torture[1][2]". Can this editor please justify their change, or it will be changed back? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That statement in the Waterboarding article is problematic. The first footnote is unsourced and the second uses but a single source. The jury is still out on whether waterboarding is now generally accepted to be a form of torture. Several major news media sources, such as the Washington Post, are still taking a middle-of-the-road approach and using terms like "enhanced" or "aggressive" interrogation techniques, while noting some consider torture to be the right word. Until a consensus agrees that waterboarding is torture, we have to stay neutral on it. I changed the wording to "controversial" because that is an even more neutral term. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is POV pushing. The only "authoritative" people who dispute that waterboarding is torture are those who were responsible for allowing it. The US government considers it torture. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is clearly a propagandistic euphemism, and should be rejected on POV grounds.VsevolodKrolikov 01:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not just label the section "Waterboarding" and then push that issue over to the article on that subject? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. VsevolodKrolikov 04:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VsevolodKrolikov (talk • contribs)

Cla68: But it wasn't only waterboarding that was being approved - it was "waterboarding and other methods including week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity and the use of stress positions" so renaming the section to "Waterboarding" is not telling the full story. The details of what was approved and the US and international laws regarding these methods make it clear that it is torture - which is why the Waterboarding lede sentence is not considered "problematic" as you claim. And contrary to the first footnote being unsourced, as you claim, it is in fact sourced to over 30 RS's including media, human rights organizations, etc. (please check that out). VsevolodKrolikov is correct - the ones claiming that waterboarding is not torture are the ones doing or supporting the torturing - and this has ALWAYS been the case throughout history (the Nazi's thought their torture was fine too). How about renaming the section to "Torture (enhanced interrogation techniques)" if you wish to include the POV of the torture-apologists? Jgui (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Condoleezza Rice. It is not about claims that waterboarding, or any other interrogation technique, are torture, according to anti-US NGOs. As it is, the better articles quoted in the article do not describe the interrogation techniques Dr. Rice may or may not have been involved in conveying the authorization for as "torture". So why are you trying to push claims about "torture" into the article? Nevard (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevard, this article is about Condi Rice, and her contributions to the US and the world. Her approximate job description as NSA is to "assist the President on national security and foreign policies, and coordinates these policies among various government agencies". Part of her contributions as National Security Advisor were to represent and explicate the Bush administration policies to other groups, including the CIA. Her contributions in this behalf to the "War on Terror" following 9/11 were a centerpiece of her role. Contrary to your claims, there is no question that Rice was involved in conveying these authorizations to the CIA - that was her job and there is unassailable documentation that she has been so involved as cited to RS.

As to your allegation of my "trying to push claims", I find that completely unfair. I am trying to include the facts as they are known and presented in Reliable Sources, and not just the "better sources" that you think you are somehow able to ascertain. I recommend you read up on RS and POV pushing before you unfairly accuse another editor of POV pushing. If you have a valid reason to object to this change, and you may well have, then please make it and do not resort to unfairly attacking another editor. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry. The reliable sources referenced in the article do not refer to the interrogation techniques Rice may have had some indirect involvement in passing approval on for as torture. An opinion article by a liberal NYT correspondant is not a reliable source for factual information. Nevard (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevard, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your use of the word 'dishonest' was intended towards Maureen Dowd and not me. However, this is certainly unclear to a reader reviewing the change history, and could quite easily be taken as directed towards my good faith sourcing. I cited Dowd's column's direct quote of a public figure, not some "dishonest" component of her opinion. Opinion piece or not, it is hardly unreasonable of me to presume that the NY Times legal and editorial staff has policies in place against blatant slander. While I concede that your source, since it contains the original video, is an improvement, the addition of a bracket around the word "by" neither changes the meaning nor the context of the quote in question. Please watch your use of language in the future. -Wormcast (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote by Dowd puts words which Rice uttered in a different context. This is dishonesty by her, whatever the magnitude of the changes, not by you. For the future, here's a quote for you; "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Nevard (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression of an agenda here, Nevard. The Senate report claims that Rice gave her personal approval; reporting in reputable (both on the right and left) newspapers notes that this is more than Rice herself admitted. Is the Senate just another dishonest bunch of slanderers? There's nothing in the way the quote was presented that runs counter to the facts as they seem to be.VsevolodKrolikov 15:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If she "personally conveyed the Bush administration's approval for waterboarding of Zubaydah to George Tenet", I'm not sure where you're getting 'personal approval' from. You know, I myself would find it difficult to get anything other than 'personal conveyance' from that. Nevard (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Both "Torture Techniques" and "Enhanced interrogation techniques" are POV and insipid. The section should be called "Role in the use of Waterboarding." Unlike the others it is 100% accurate, avoids POV nonsense and should cut down on the back and forth foolishness that goes on here between people trying to hide their political agendas. Telling it like it is means using the term "waterboarding." --74.248.36.204 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevard, you can't have it both ways: first you complain about the quality of the sources on the grounds that they don't explicitly define waterboarding as torture (e.g. "Well, I'm sorry. The reliable sources referenced in the article do not refer to the interrogation techniques Rice may have had some indirect involvement in passing approval on for as torture. An opinion article by a liberal NYT correspondant is not a reliable source for factual information.") and then promptly delete the sources I add that establish exactly that link, dismissing them as "unrelated content". Look, if you think that torturing people suspected of terrorism was the right thing for the U.S. to do at that time (a position sadly held by many people), then why not go spend your efforts trying to make that argument? Why are you instead wasting your time and intellectual credibility trying to pretend that this is not what happened? -- Wormcast (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, are you suggesting that the problem I have with the article is that I believe it should have references to torture in it but that you have failed to provide references to torture? That seems an odd argument. The problem I have, is for a start that the article should be written with reference to sources that discuss Condolezza Rice.. and in a neutral point of view.. and following biographies of living persons policy. What you have apparently done is copy and paste a bunch of references from the waterboarding article. Only one even mentions Rice, with reference to a underling, and not even in the context of any approval she may have passed on. In fact, most of them are partisan blog sources of the type that shouldn't be in the waterboarding article anyway. Nevard (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, that is not the argument that I am making. I suggest that you re-read my last comment. And I find it odd that you seem to think that it is inappropriate for people editing an article in Wikipedia to look to sources in other, closely related Wikipedia articles for support.

There are several central issues involved in this section, and it is simply unreasonable and unnecessary to require that every source must relate to all of them simultaneously. Issue #1 is the assertion that Rice played some role in the authorization of waterboarding; Issue #2 is the assertion that waterboarding is widely considered by the bodies and organizations that make such judgments to be torture. The first of these issues is a controversial, sensitive, and still unfolding event, and I applaud your care to ensure that the currently known facts of the matter are not overstated or distorted - particularly as this is a biography of a living person. I am personally agnostic at this point as to whether she pushed for this, authorized it herself in some capacity, or simply conveyed an authorization on behalf of Bush The second is simply an established fact, and not a very counterintuitive one at that. It is highly relevant to the section in question because without this fact, issue #1 would be rather un-noteworthy, and with it, issue #1 is extremely noteworthy. With respect to your claim that some of the sources I offered in support of issue #2 are untrustworthy - well, I enthusiastically encourage you to impartially research the issue and find more substantial ones! I am sure they are out there. -- Wormcast (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've undone Nevard's edit. He knows full well that editors are in dispute, so it is therefore inappropriate to edit just how he wants without achieving (or actually making any effort to achieve) consensus. His edit is based on challenging a newspaper of record (The Times). That sort of thing should be thrashed out here. At the moment his edits seem focussed entirely on protecting the name of Rice, rather than seeing what reliable sources can tell us about her.VsevolodKrolikov 04:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, in defense of Nevard, the quote that he deleted was not contained in the cited source. Perhaps somewhere along the line the correct citation got replaced? The quote, however, is factual, as a 10 second search revealed. I updated the citation information accordingly (Nevard, perhaps you could have done this, instead of simply deleting content that clashed with what really does come off as a personal agenda to shield Rice's reputation from her own actions...) -- Wormcast (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha. That explains why I couldn't find the citation in the article! It's been chopped up so much. This is what happens in guerilla editing. VsevolodKrolikov 23:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Was any kind of consensus reached here? I was just reading this article and was dismayed to see the use of the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the table of contents. The phrase is, in my opinion, doublespeak; and I think it should be avoided considering that there are other, less politicized, phrases that might be used. I like the suggestion above to retitle the section "Role in authorizing waterboarding". I understand the criticism that waterboarding wasn't the only thing authorized, but "waterboarding" seems emblematic of the section and I don't think readers will feel mislead by such a title.

Also, twenty citations for a single sentence stating that many people believe that waterboarding is torture seems excessive, especially for an article that isn't principally about waterboarding. Indeed, a similar sentence in the lead of the waterboarding article itself doesn't even feature as many citations. I checked several similar articles including George Tenet, Dick Cheney, and George W Bush to see how they handled this. Neither of the first two articles try to define waterboarding in any way, but what do people think about how this is handled in the Bush article (section titled "Treatment of terrorist detainees")? Soldarnal (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that there was only one editor supporting the use of the term "enhanced interrogation techniques", which does seem to me to be a POV euphemism. However, the section is not only about waterboarding; waterboarding is just the currently most talked about of the forms of torture approved. "Role in authorising use of torture techniques" is actually not POV in my opinion, as legal judgements have been passed and legal opinions given establishing that what much of what was authorised was torture. However, I would fear for that as a target of vandalism for those outside the reality-based community.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, Soldarnal. The euphemistic section title was the stale-mate result of persistent opposition to a more frank description by a particular editor. This person was essentially opposed to any linking of the word 'waterboarding' with the article. The excessive footnooting (my edit, actually) was made in defensive response to said user's POV denialism. I just deleted several of the least needed of these, and am fine with further reduction so long as this does not invite additional censorship. -- Wormcast (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Birmingham Bombings

Rice actually knows some of the victims of the Birmingham Bombings by white supremacist groups. She mentioned this in her most recent interview with Jay Leno. I think it's noteworthy. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting, but (a) it needs to be verified (does she know them because of where she's from, or has she met them as a politician?) and (b) it needs to be fitted into other sections. It doesn't justify a section by itself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Rice was 8 years old when her 11-year-old schoolmate Denise McNair was killed in the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church. There were no casualties from terrorist bombings in Birmingham after the church bombing (until Eric Robert Rudolph bombed an abortion clinic in 1998) McNair is often described as a classmate and friend, though sometimes people exaggerate their nearness to important people and events. --Dystopos (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Rumours around Rice's sexuality

I'm slightly puzzled by this edit, as the material removed was linked to a reliable source (The Sunday Times) and did not misrepresent the source in any way. There certainly were rumours flying around at the time; the Sunday Times brings this fact into the realm of reliably sourced material. I'd like to put it back in. Any objections? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I was just about to add a section to complain that the item's inclusion is unnecessary. The Times isn't even relying on reliable sources for its assertions; it's mostly repeating gossip from the National Enquirer, which is definitely not a reliable source in the U.S. ("High journalistic standards sometimes miss the point," concludes the Times...heh.) As it reads now, the Wikipedia article implies that Rice was not chosen because she is a rumored lesbian, which is entirely unfair. Moreover, I don't see the point; baseless rumors might meet journalistic standards in the U.K., but not in the United States. I don't think it was ever even reported outside the Enquirer in this country. SchutteGod (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this "material". Unless there is clear/overwhelming consensus for inclusion, keep it out per BLP. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Times article isn't just passing along National Enquirer gossip. It cites a bio by Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler that has hard information on this issue. Condi owns a house and has a joint line of credit with her "closest female friend," former Bill Moyers producer Randy Bean. Kauffner (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the total of the Kessler cite: In a recent biography of Rice, Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post’s diplomatic correspondent, noted that Bean, described as a “liberal progressive”, was her “closest female friend”. It was Kessler who discovered from a search of property records that Rice and Bean owned a house together. Underwhelming stuff. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we quote Bean's denial: "Condi and I have been friends for 25 years. We co-own an investment property in Palo Alto. We do not share a home...The insult to my integrity is not that I'm gay but that I'm closeted. For the record, I'm straight."[1] This rumor is very widespread and should certainly be mentioned. Kauffner (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Potentially defamatory nickname

Following the guidance of WP:Prune and WP:BLP I have removed a potentially defamatory nickname from this talk page that quoted no sources. Please see diff if you need to examine the text removed.—Ash (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Politician?

Would you consider her a politician as a category here suggests, she has never held elective office or sought it. Just my opinion but I think we should remove this category.--Levineps (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree - but what category ? In the entire time at the Whitehouse, she didn' t seem to have any definitive 'function' - civil servant?TWLofthouse (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)drLTWLofthouse (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Figure skeeting?

Under Early Education, is it really supposed to be figure skeeting, or is it just a typo of "figure skating?" I don't know Alabama, so maybe figure skeeting is a sport. If so, I'd love to see a Wiki article on it!

71.135.60.223 (talk)Karen Lee Hogoboom 04-JAN-2010 —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

Mozart Concerto

I've seen rumors that the piece she performed with the Denver Symphony was the Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20 in D minor (K 466). Can anyone confirm this with a concert program or other archived information? In any case, Mozart should be linked to his page, and the concerto should be linked to its page when confrimed. Also, she was only 15 at the time, so was this part of a youth competition? Additionally, in the Music heading, I think the word intended is "complementary" instead of "complimentary." Scoggles (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And since the Denver Symphony has since been succeeded by the Colorado Symphony, their article should be linked as well. Scoggles (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bush

condoleezza rice thing relly is important becuse she waz the first black women to be presadent bushes advior of national sururaty⅔♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.59.232 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cite error

At the bottom of the page, I saw this:

Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a references tag.

There was already a functioning ref section, so this didn't make any sense. I put in the references tag to see what would happen, and the error still displays at the bottom of the page. WTF? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed that with this edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms from Senator Barbara Boxer

Is the article improved in any way by including this section? It seems unusual and a bit odd. Worse, it could appear to arise from animus toward the article's subject. Sen Boxer is a colorful and interesting character in American politics, who is known for her pointed observations on a rather broad range of topics and persons, so presumably Wikipedia could (but doesn't) include a "Criticisms from Senator Barbara Boxer" section in many biographies of American public figures. The value of doing so here seems really questionable. For one thing, the section seems to be more about Sen Boxer (and in fact largely echos the Wikipedia article on the Senator) with only the very last part quoting Secy Rice, and out of context at that (her remarks taken as a whole were characteristically meant to diminish the importance of the flap, not to amplify Snow's and Limbaugh's clumsy attempts to turn the incident around in their favor). If, in the view of the editor, the incident with Sen Boxer has enough importance to be included, then perhaps one might think of reworking the whole section as an "Incident with Senator Barbara Boxer" or the like, providing both the Senate Committee context of the initial exchange and Secy Rice's expanded comments. Otherwise, I would suggest deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EMaddog (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is just one of a series of criticism sections in this article. We get it. The left hates her. This section and the others should be combined into one "Criticism" section, then deleted IAW Wikipedia rules to discourage such things (except for against conservatives, apparently). 138.162.128.53 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Special Interests"?

The following is a comment I added to the discussion page in December of 2007; I've recently come back to this page and found out that it was ignored for some time, and then deleted by "MiszaBot" early in 2009. I still think it's relevant. All I'd suggest now instead is that the section title should read "Affirmative Action and Attempted Consolidation of Ethnic Centers." I'd do it myself, but the article's under lockdown. Here's the original comment:

"Special Interest Issues" (or something close to that) is the heading title for the passage of the article describing the controversy over Rice's stance on affirmative action and the ethnic studies programs at Stanford. Could we change this to something less prejudicial, like (maybe) "Race Issues," instead? Use of the term "special interest" biases the question from the get-go: supporters of affirmative action and ethnic studies programs claim that society as a whole has a vested interest in policies that they believe will help create more equitable social participation on the part of minorities and women. I.e., supporters of affirmative action believe that an interest in things like affirmative action and ethnic studies program isn't "special" but precisely society-wide. So "Race Issues" would be more NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.225.179 (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi all,

Just to let a editors know that the infobox is out of date. It is the one for a serving politician, thus the words "In office" appear just below the subject's portrait. best, Ktlynch (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is for politicians whether currently serving or not. It says 'In office', followed by the start and end dates of her term. Jim Michael (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Views within the black community

section is hopelessly one-sided. long paragraph of quotes from those critical of her. perfunctory final paragraph with merely a list of names of those who defend her. i'm inclined to trim out all the quotes against her and make it merely a list of those critical of her, to match the bare list of those defending her. Anastrophe (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

FYI, there is currently a discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard regarding whether or not the Palin articles should mention a particular film that includes pornographic portrayals of both Palin and Rice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversy over Palestinians

I deleted the section because the only reference was a link to a story about a link to a link to another story about a "leaked" document where Rice says that Chile and Argentina might build houses for Palestinians. The original story comes from the Guardian's Palestine Paper. Rice says (per the link) "Maybe we will be able to find countries that can contribute in kind. Chile, Argentina, etc." This is in the context of a discussion of housing for Palestinian refugees. The original document is explicitly not verbatim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordalus (talk • contribs) 05:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit requested

Please remove the hyphen in the line "Her emphasis on supporting democratically-elected governments faced challenges" in the lede. Thanks! 68.35.40.154 (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: War criminal criticism

I think it is worthy to note and add, under [perception and criticisms], that she has been accused numerous times on multiple separate public occasions as being a war criminal for initiating the war on Iraq, by CODEPINK & other non-members. Links to the incidents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXFfGV2dKwY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uVDytkDReY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va7zZbUQZG0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2azCtcfvlAc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.44.110.34 (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This belongs on the Code Pink page. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct spelling

If you are interested in finding and correcting instances in the rest of Wikipedia where her name is spelled wrong, I made this:

Name spelled correctly	Name not spelled correctly	Comments
Condoleezza Rice	Condoleeza Condoleza Condolezza Condaleezza Condaleeza Condalezza Condaleza	Prof. Rice spells her name with a double "Z" and a double "E."

KConWiki (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Views within the Black Community???

This section is racist and should be deleted. Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpetersen46321 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Waterboarding Not Torture

Can someone clarify her statements that this technique is NOT a method of torture? 80.42.237.251 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.237.251 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lesbian rumors

I'm quite surprised that this isn't on the page considering I thought they were well known. Condoleezza Rice has been followed by rumors that she is a lesbian for many years. A biography of her uncovered that she owned a house and had a line of credit with a woman who has been described as her closest female friend on some occasions. Though they are just rumors they have caused a stir in the past and have caused some ruffles with conservatives.

Article from the Times about the rumors Ayzmo (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not People or The Sun. In this place we do not post rumors, especially about living people. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indented line

Speculation about a person's sexual orientation on Wikipedia is common for living people as far as I'm aware. The articles for Queen Latifah, Anderson Cooper, and Oprah, to name just a few notables, all mention the gay rumors about them whether or not it has been something the person has spoken about. When she was being discussed as a possible candidate in 2008 I can certainly recall it being talked about as a reason against her. Ayzmo (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a gossip site. Just because a rumor is in one article does not mean that a) it is correct that the information is there, and b) that it must be followed in all articles. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the Times article in question. It references an article in the The National Enquirer. "She had been dragged into a National Enquirer article headlined “Who’s Gay and Who’s Not”." I think Wikipedia needs a more reliable source of speculation than the National Enquirer. Richrakh (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New book

There needs to be something in here about her new memoir for obvious reasons. J390 (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Current member of the CFR

Condoleezza is a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I really didn't see a way to add that in with the current comment... In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

She is included in Category:Council on Foreign Relations, so I feel it should be listed on her page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizarDave (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit request

In section Family and personal life, it says:

American football player Rick Upchurch dated and was briefly engaged to Condoleezza Rice in the 1970s.

Imho, this should be reformulated to:

Condoleezza Rice dated and was briefly engaged to American football player Rick Upchurch in the 1970s.

It seems more than a bit awkward that in the article about her, her former partner would be (grammatically) made the active subject and she the passive object. --78.35.237.98 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --87.78.23.247 (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Thank you for your suggestion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential Romney VP

Are there any odds on this in the public domain yet? Perhaps worth looking at Intrade odds?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.181.66 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2012

On July 12, 2012, the Drudge Report reported that Condoleezza Rice was near the top of Mitt Romney's list of potential Vice Presidential candidates. (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcm.htm)

Xian101 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done:. Wikipedia is not the place for rumors. We only add future events to an article if the event "is certain to take place". WP:CRYSTALBALL RudolfRed (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Her dad had become provost of the U of Denver by the time she got her doctorate acc to Felix Denis book. Unusual for any USA family, she is 3rd generation college crad.

Her dad had become provost of the U of Denver by the time she got her doctorate acc to Felix Denis book. Unusual for any USA family, she is 3rd generation college crad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.2.54.7 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2012

On the “Family and personal life” section of Condoleeza Rice, could you please add who Susan Rice is: “She is not related to Susan Rice, the current United States Ambassador to the United Nations.”

2.30.105.47 (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not sure why this is important considering that although Rice is probably not one of the most common surnames in the U.S., it is not a rare one, either. I might be amenable to adding this information if there is significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that there is confusion over whether Susan and Condoleezza are related. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2013

The article does not give an accurate shapshot of C. Rice's father life and accomplishments:

In Wiki: "In July 1989, Condoleezza's father, John Wesley Rice, married Clara Bailey,[136] to whom he remained married until his death, in December 2000, aged 77.[137] He was a football and basketball coach throughout his life.[138]"

RE: Father, from an obituary in the NY Times -- "Dr. Rice was born in Baton Rouge, La. He worked as a Presbyterian minister, teacher and coach at a high school in Birmingham, Ala., before becoming dean of students at Stillman College in Tuscaloosa. In 1969, he became a professor and assistant vice chancellor of the University of Denver."

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/29/us/john-wesley-rice-jr-77-father-of-bush-adviser.html

76.64.231.19 (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also please note that this article is about Condoleezza Rice, not her father. Yes certain aspects of his life merit mention here but not with undue weight. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

Would someone please undo the screwed up edit of 22 December 2013‎? It broke the footnotes for Condoleeza Rice. Thank you. JN 69.225.1.43 (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I've got it. There was some bad syntax in there that was apparently just good enough until the bot tried to fix it. Please reopen the request if there's anything else that needs correcting. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 05:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

Hello! I've found an article with information on her grandparents; I don't know if Wikipedia normally includes information on someone's grandparents, but if so then here's the link http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/11/condoleezza_rices_book_tells_a.html --Sofffie7 (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

N Not done; we don't normally include info on grandparents unless they're notable. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2014

It seems to me that the sentence:

Rice was the first female African-American secretary of state, as well as the second African American (after Colin Powell), and the second woman (after Madeleine Albright).

implies that Condoleezza Rice was the second African American [in the world] as well as the second woman [in the world]!

Perhaps it would be advisable to change this sentence—which is located in the introductory paragraph—to avoid ambiguity, as in this sentence:

Rice was the first female African-American secretary of state, as well as the second African American secretary of state (after Colin Powell), and the second woman secretary of state (after Madeleine Albright).

Thank you. 88.104.104.164 (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. 88.104.107.107 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You are awesome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.103.199.216 (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Term "Toture Techniques" Violates Neutral POV

The term "toture techniques"  in the heading "Role in approving

toture techniques" should be changed to "Role in approving enhanced interrogation techniques" as the former term violates the Wiki protocol on neutral POV. While "some" critics consider the technique of waterboarding as toture, others do not. In fact, every US Navy SEAL undergos waterboarding as part of training. Does anyone really beleive that the US Navy totures its own sailors? If you do not like my suggestion for a new heading how about "Controversy over approval of "enhanced interrogation techniques"?

70.246.236.121 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, but I think most of the world would consider it torture and there are some valued references for that. Let us compromise and go with "controversial" techniques since that's pretty much what you said it was and the article says the same. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 06:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I wanted to add that yes, Nave Seals are waterboarded as part of training, because they will likely experience it if they're caught. IMO, it's still torture, but it's permissive since they don't have to accept it. Just saying MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 06:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide controversy MISSING

Rice's stance as a genocide denier and how she irked the American Armenian community by undermining genocide resolutions and bragging about it in her book should also be included here. The relevant articles can be found here... http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/11/04/condi-rice/ and http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2011-11-14-genocide-denier-condoleezza-rice-unworthy-to-teach-at-stanford- and http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/armenian-groups-go-after-condoleezza-rice-as-genocide-denier/248350/ as well as other articles available on the internet. 99.7.123.116 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, the Armenian Weekly would clearly be a biased article and not a valued reference; so that one is out. The Reporter.am is also an Armenian biased article, that too is out. The Atlantic is a good article but is of such short duration, it is not enough. There is no mention in this of Rice's "bragging" as you so put it. At best, a single sentence would sum it up. That being that Armenians are angry at her for not acknowledging genocide. One sentence is not enough, in my opinion, to qualify as a true controversy. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 06:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, first off, BIGOT, take your lousy racist drivel someplace else. Are you also suggesting that ALL articles in Wikipedia on Jewish issues, and Jewish SOURCES are also invalid? Americans with Armenian heritage are Americans no different than any other Americans, unless of course you believe they are "biased" when YOU ARE A RACIST. Furthermore, since the policy of Wikipedia is to affirm the Armenian Genocide rather than deny it, that makes Armenian sources every bit as valid as any other credible source, and again, unless you are a parasitic Genocide denying Turk, or their agent. If you care about "biased" sources go clean up all the Turkish lies that exist on Wikipedia. You don't fool me with your fake concerns. 99.7.123.116 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

After protests at Rutgers University, she will not speak at commencement or receive an honorary degree as was originally planned in Spring 2014.

"A substantial majority of faculty who responded to our AAUP-AFT poll said no to Condoleezza Rice being our commencement speaker and being awarded an honorary degree. More than 375 faculty members signed a strongly worded petition urging the Board of Governors to rescind its invitation to Dr. Rice. The New Brunswick Faculty Council and the Newark Faculty of Arts and Sciences passed resolutions demanding the same thing; the Camden College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Senate issued a statement opposing the Board's decision as well. In sum, faculty opposition was expressed in the best tradition of shared governance, in sharp contrast to the undemocratic and secretive manner in which Dr. Rice was invited.

Students have also been active and very much involved in this debate, conducting their own polls, meetings, and discussions. This past week, students drawing on the legacy of student and other social justice movements staged a sit-in at Old Queens. Later in the week, they attended in large numbers the University Senate meeting and challenged President Barchi on Rice’s record related to the Iraq war and the Bush torture regime. For the students who participated in this protest, as for the faculty members who signed the petition, Rice’s record condoning torture is antithetical to the values that Rutgers holds. Dr. Rice, having heard our objections, decided that she would not tarnish our commencement and withdrew from the event. This process and outcome is what free speech looks like. A secret decision was made, faculty and students raised their collective voices, and Dr. Rice chose to withdraw from the event." - Lisa Klein, President, Rutgers AAUP-AFT 192.12.88.43 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This is not an absolute "no" answer, but you need to have specific text you want to add, remove, or edit in order to use the {{edit semi-protected}} request. Your request needs to state "change X to Y", "add X before/after Y", or "delete X". —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Censorship Advocacy Violates Neutral POV

After observing how other Wikipedia pages regarding other notables persons previously engaged int he "Ban Bossy" campaign, I realized a discrepancy between their mentions regarding the campaign and the mention on this page. For one, no other pages regarding celebrities participating in the campaign regarded it so disparagingly as to describe it as an act of "censorship advocacy," a phrase that wields highly negative connotations, especially on the Internet. Thus, I conclude this term was inserted and given a visible subsection so as to slander Condoleeza Rice, not to enrich and spread information, the goal of this site. Instead, I find this term to be a violation of the fair standards Wikipedia preaches, so I am right to edit the term [censorship advocacy] and replace it with the more consistent (with regards to other Wikipedia pages), neutral, and informative subsection title: Ban Bossy. I was told to bring my concerns to the talk page by someone who reverted my edit. Anyone care to an offer an opinion on this matter? La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The word "Censorship" is defined as:

“ The suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body. ”

Rice clearly, openly and plainly campaigned in a video spot to ban a word from the English language because she considers it objectionable. Regardless of merit, "censorship advocacy" is a clear and plain-spoken way of describing what she did. "Slander" would infer wilful mis-characterization of her actions, but that is not the case here. You are asking for a change because "censor" is not a nice sounding word which fails WP:Sanitize. Lexlex (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the fence with this regarding NPOV/POV. Do any sources support that Rice was censoring? "Ban bossy" is a really poor section header for an encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "censorship advocacy" is a loaded term and should be supported by RS to be used here. We can't just go by our own interpretations of dictionary definitions. I also agree that "Ban bossy" is not a great choice as section title. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We've got a wealthy internet executive who is still upset about being teased in elementary school, and a former high-level federal government official has no problem jumping on the campaign to ban the word which caused the tears. This is censorship advocacy in a crystal clear form: they want to ban a word. Rice's involvement in the campaign is a window into her judgement. To call it anything other than censorship advocacy serves what purpose exactly? Merely that it's a "loaded" term—but isn't it true? Interpretation—she didn't want to ban a word? Consider that the act itself was loaded. Rice made the decision to do this on her own. Right or wrong, it speaks highly of her values, susceptibility to influence, and approach to solving problems. The logic or motivation behind the editors who wish to use a less specific or blatantly misleading term is not clear to me. Would one of these editors please be kind enough to explain the actual rationale for not wishing to use the word? What is incorrect? Lexlex (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Get off your soapbox. She's not advocating censorship because she's not arguing the government should ban the word. It's that simple. Calidum T|C 14:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Listing reasons to support a point is not soapboxing, though I can be more concise. Censorship is not exclusive to government, as shown above. Encouraging self-censorship is just that. With that in mind, what is incorrect? Lexlex (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Small Change Proposal to Support Neutral Point of View

In the third paragraph on Rice's political views the article currently states: "In January 2005, during Bush's second inaugural ceremonies, Rice first used the term "outposts of tyranny" to refer to countries felt to threaten world peace and human rights."

I suggest to change this to "In January 2005, during Bush's second inaugural ceremonies, Rice first used the term "outposts of tyranny" to refer to countries Rice thought to threaten world peace and human rights."

The current phrasing is not neutral in its basis. Even if the notion is widespread in the western world, by definition this is a political thought and thus disputed. Either attribute the thought directly to Rice or generally to the western world.

Do you disagree that Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, Belarus, Iran, and North Korea are tyrannical (or at least were tyrannical at the time of Bush's second inauguration)? The notion is widespread in the Western world, but not limited to the Western world. Calling "a spade a spade" is not a neutrality issue. If you have reliable sources that say these six are model countries for peace, justice, and liberty, we can assign due weight to that viewpoint. Abierma3 (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the named countries were tyrannical or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the phrasing is in a neutral point of view. Furthermore, this article is about Condoleezza Rice and not about the phrase. Also whether the countries are a model for peace, justice and liberty is in question, but whether they are (or were) a threat. Last but not least, as Rice is the one that coined the term she is deservant of credit in this case. אגם רפאלי (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you for finding this and helping improve the articles' NPOV. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 22:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to Drew Houston

In the paragraph about Rice's appointment to the Dropbox board, Drew Houston's name isn't a link. I suggest to add that link. אגם רפאלי (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Condoleezza Rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090105062019/http://www.amnestyusa.org:80/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141015214503/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131016/condoleezza-rice-college-football-playoff/index.html to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20131016/condoleezza-rice-college-football-playoff/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090530112838/http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/58232.htm to http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/58232.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

Honorary Degrees

State	Date	School	Degree

204.184.29.215 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Condoleezza Rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050315113245/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rice15mar15,0,7449545.story?coll=la-home-headlines to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rice15mar15,0,7449545.story?coll=la-home-headlines
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051205052745/http://www.harpercollins.com/imprints.asp?imprint=ReganBooks to http://www.harpercollins.com/imprints.asp?imprint=ReganBooks
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041230105522/http://www.factsonfile.com:80/ to http://www.factsonfile.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041214052611/http://www.lernerbooks.com:80/ to http://www.lernerbooks.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre-September 11th events: degrees of tone.

These paragraphs are a bit more strident in tone than the versions that appear here in this article:

In July 2001, J. Cofer Black, CIA's couterterrorism chief and George Tenet, CIA's director, met with Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, to inform her about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response.

On August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike: "FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack." Rice responded to the claims about the briefing in a statement before the 9/11 Commission stating the brief was "not prompted by any specific threat information" and "did not raise the possibility that terrorists might use airplanes as missiles."

• Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice". The Washington Post. May 19, 2004. Retrieved September 26, 2013.
• Blanton, Thomas S. (April 12, 2004). "The President's Daily Brief". National Security Archive. Retrieved September 26, 2013.
• "Transcript of Rice's 9/11 commission statement". CNN. May 19, 2004. Retrieved September 26, 2013.

In contrast, Rice glides through the events as they are presented here. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This Washington Post article claims, "Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off."

However, the New York Times states:

"But both current and former officials took issue with Mr. Woodward’s account that Mr. Tenet and his aides left the meeting in frustration, feeling as if Ms. Rice had ignored them.

Mr. Tenet told members of the Sept. 11 commission about the July 10 meeting when they interviewed him in early 2004, but committee members said the former C.I.A. director never indicated he had left the White House with the impression that he had been ignored.

'Tenet never told us that he was brushed off,' said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission. 'We certainly would have followed that up.'

Mr. McCormack said the records showed that, far from ignoring Mr. Tenet’s warnings, Ms. Rice acted on the intelligence and requested that Mr. Tenet make the same presentation to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Atttorney General John Ashcroft." Abierma3 (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016

Honorary Degrees

In the Honorary Degrees table, the word "Country" should be changed to "State". 63.92.248.121 (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Darwin

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Condoleezza Rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007123902/http://www.businessweek.com:80/bschools/blogs/mba_admissions/archives/2010/08/condoleezza_rice_to_join_stanford_gsb_faculty_in_september.html to http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/blogs/mba_admissions/archives/2010/08/condoleezza_rice_to_join_stanford_gsb_faculty_in_september.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211065013/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/archives/news/2004/04/04/2004-04-04_20_things_you_probably_didn_.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/04/04/2004-04-04_20_things_you_probably_didn_.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211062357/http://archive.salon.com:80/politics2000/feature/2000/03/20/rice/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/20/rice/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025050414/http://dir.salon.com:80/story/opinion/feature/2004/04/13/rice/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/04/13/rice/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211070234/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/morris07272005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/morris07272005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220210424/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202070251/http://crooksandliars.com:80/2007/11/03/retired-jags-send-letter-to-leahy-waterboarding-is-inhumane-it-is-torture-and-it-is-illegal to http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/03/retired-jags-send-letter-to-leahy-waterboarding-is-inhumane-it-is-torture-and-it-is-illegal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511081726/http://www.barbaraboxer.com/diary?id=0012 to http://www.barbaraboxer.com/diary?id=0012
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/03/102757.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326212451/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/04/07/rice_still_not_running_for_vp.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/04/07/rice_still_not_running_for_vp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Seconds

Since Dr. Rice is not either the first Black or the first lady Secretary of State, do we need this alphabet soup/diarrhea of second this and second that? This is 2016 at this writing and no one cares about that firsts and certainly not seconds anymore. The article should get right to the meat and potatoes of Dr. Rice's tenure. --68.118.202.199 (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Award

There's no obvious place to put this, so I'll leave it here.

• In 1989 she received a Candace Award from the National Coalition of 100 Black Women.

MopTop (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Condoleezza Rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419205554/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/366040/georgia-and-the-american-cowboy/claudia-rosett to http://article.nationalreview.com/366040/georgia-and-the-american-cowboy/claudia-rosett
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150725033011/http://www.jcsu.edu:80/honorary-degrees to http://www.jcsu.edu/honorary-degrees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Condoleezza Rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429223043/http://www.hoover.org/bios/rice.html to http://www.hoover.org/bios/rice.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wqxr.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=855740&lang=eng_news
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060134/http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/060626_en.asp to http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/060626_en.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413144013/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/uk-commons-report-casts-doubt-on-us.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/07/uk-commons-report-casts-doubt-on-us.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120521050920/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/24/120740.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/24/120740.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016213750/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_20_29/ai_n16114579 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_20_29/ai_n16114579
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/366040/georgia-and-the-american-cowboy/claudia-rosett
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200508%5CSPE20050808a.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200501%5CPOL20050126d.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jcsu.edu/honorary-degrees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040405005515/http://slate.msn.com/id/82463/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/82463/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rice15mar15%2C0%2C7449545.story?coll=la-home-headlines
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100316181126/http://www.childsworld.com/ to http://www.childsworld.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040204172223/http://dir.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/20/rice/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/20/rice/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429223043/http://www.hoover.org/bios/rice.html to http://www.hoover.org/bios/rice.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017. P

Add to Honorary Degrees: College of William and Mary, Virginia May 2015 Honorary Doctor of Public Service

Source: http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2015/commencement2015.php 2600:8805:2300:683:1978:DE65:FAC6:B348 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. I cited a slightly different source to provide verification that the degree was actually awarded. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Condoleezza Rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019142849/http://college-football.si.com/2013/10/16/college-football-playoff-committee/?sct=cf_t2_a9 to http://college-football.si.com/2013/10/16/college-football-playoff-committee/?sct=cf_t2_a9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request

This sentence from the second introductory paragraph is incorrect: On December 17, 2000, she left her position and joined the Bush administration as National Security Council as the Soviet and Eastern Europe Affairs Advisor to President George H. W. Bush during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification. The italicized portion refers to her time with the elder Bush in the late 80s/early 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.165.130 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

ADD LINK TO George W. Breslauer

Change Rice was hired by Stanford University as an assistant professor of political science (1981–1987). She was promoted to associate professor in 1987, a post she held until 1993. She was a specialist on the Soviet Union and gave lectures on the subject for the Berkeley-Stanford joint program led by UC Berkeley Professor George Breslauer in the mid-1980s.

to

Rice was hired by Stanford University as an assistant professor of political science (1981–1987). She was promoted to associate professor in 1987, a post she held until 1993. She was a specialist on the Soviet Union and gave lectures on the subject for the Berkeley-Stanford joint program led by UC Berkeley Professor George W. Breslauer in the mid-1980s. Davidnb (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 02:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Role in Nuclear Strategy Section

This section is kind of a mess. Some of the headings aren't headings, and most of it is about her time at Stanford Univiersity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4700:1f3e:78b4:ba8f:1e73:604b (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Typo

Under "Conservative criticism," the last sentence uses the phrase "Russia policy" which should probably be "Russian policy," no?

In the second paragraph from the top it says she joined president H.W. Bush’s administration on dec 17, 2000, which should probably be dec 17, 1989. George H.W. Bush left office in 1993. Mans 3 (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Picture of Stillman College?

I am wondering if we should add this picture to her "early life" section, as she grew up on the Stillman College campus?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Dissolution of the USSR and German reunification...?

What is this supposed to mean?

"On December 17, 2000, she left her position and joined the Bush administration as National Security Council as the Soviet and Eastern Europe Affairs Advisor to President George H. W. Bush during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification."

Both events preceded 2000 by a decade, and the Bush administration began in 2001, so this makes no sense to me. Kayvlim (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed here --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

Lindsey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.254.20 (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Second-most traveled SoS

The opening paragraphs mention that "She has logged more miles traveling than any other Secretary of State"; this was true up until John Kerry's tenure. It should be edited as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.143.18 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

WP style is to not have controversy/criticism sections. All these criticisms should be merged into the history section or an appropriate section. Ashmoo (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Who says that?

I have seen many articles with a controversy/criticism section.

This should be mentioned not to make this a pure cv or promotion.

I want to discus HERE whether this should be inserted into the article:

April 2014 Condoleezza Rice appointment to board of directors ==

In April 2014, Dropbox announced that Condoleezza Rice would be joining :their board of directors, prompting criticism :from some users who were concerned about her appointment due to her history as :United States Secretary of State and revelations of "widespread wiretapping on US citizens during her time in office".:- Hank Artels

WP:STRUCTURE.Wikipedia policy and WP:CSECTION..essay about it..--Moxy 🍁 07:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Will put in my two cents here. I like the policy of controversies being listed within the text rather than in its own section. It makes reading confusing when jumping all over in time with a subject. It's simply, bad writing. That said, I want to add that when writing about controversies, it needs to remain a neutral viewpoint. Responses on both sides of the issue need to be addressed, otherwise it is not neutral. A good rule of thumb is to use two sources, one for and one against. For example, the criticism of Ms. Rice by Rumsfeld originally only had a single quote (by Rice) whose context is unclear in response to Rumsfeld's actions. She said he didn't know what he was talking about which makes it sound like she simply dismissed it and she did not. Therefore, I added a quote from her book for her view of what their problem was. It isn't a checkmate, it is simply her view of why she personally believes what he says and does. It adds dimension to the article, which I feel is important. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

REMINDER about references!

A user has been posting references incorrectly. I applaud the use of references and the efforts made by the user(s) to do so. It is just that the standard way to post references is to remove extra space when you are finished with the reference template. Leaving all that space in makes editing very difficult. I am about to go through and remove the extra spaces for future editors. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

She's an author too.

Shouldn't she be listed as an author as well? I wonder why there isn't a list of works? How does Wikipedia handle things like that? I feel it's important to tell her story in full and allow users to see her bibliography. She has written several books, according to the book I have which is No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington. It says she has also written Extraordinary, Ordinary People: A Memoir of Family (mentioned briefly in the article), Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army, The Gorbachev Era (with Alexander Dallin), Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft (with Philip Zelikow). Since I am not sure what the policy is (searched but cannot find it) I am unsure how to go about adding it. Anyone who knows, will you add this? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 18:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE. Apparently I am blind. Very clearly there is a section on her Published works, which include other books as well. My apologies. I suppose I am off to make an appointment with my optometrist now. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No longer the record holder

In the introduction section, 3rd paragraph second to last sentence, it says that "She has logged more miles traveling than any other Secretary of State." According to this CNN article this is no longer true. Kerry has traveled at least 1,000 more miles than Rice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbrellis (talk • contribs) 02:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019

Remove the sentence "She has logged more miles traveling than any other Secretary of State." in the introduction, 3rd paragraph, second to last sentence. According to this CNN article (https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/07/politics/john-kerry-travel-record/index.html) this is no longer true. Kerry has traveled at least 1,000 more miles than Rice. Danbrellis (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Feels weird to state it to begin with, at least in lead. Gaioa (T C L) 08:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

RiceHadleyGates, LLC

Rice is a Principal, along with Stephen Hadley , Dr. Robert Gates, and former diplomat Anja Manuel, in RiceHadleyGates LLC, an international strategic consulting firm. Founded in 2009 and based in Silicon Valley and Washington, DC, the firm helps U.S. companies navigate international markets and help companies expand in major emerging markets, including Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas. Additionally, they assist companies in dealing with national security and foreign policy challenges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjamanuel (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

ARTICLE STATES:

She was promoted to associate professor in 1987,

AND

he appointed her as Stanford's Provost, the chief budget and academic officer of the university in 1993[29] and she also was granted tenure and became full professor.

THE SECOND LINE IS NOT ACCURATE ACCORDING TO HER BIOGRAPHY. SEE PAGE 37 OF Condoleezza Rice: A Biography By Jacqueline Edmondson AT

https://books.google.com/books?id=YWcX0F0o88cC&q=ASSOCIATE+PROFESSOR#v=snippet&q=ASSOCIATE%20PROFESSOR&f=false

SHE OBTAINED BOTH associate professorship AND TENURE IN 1987 ACCORDING TO THE BOOK. PLEASE ALSO READ THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 36 AS IT PROVIDES MORE CONTEXT.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ACCEPTED MY EDIT.

73.24.140.6 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Interstellarity (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Rice was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up while the South was racially segregated. She obtained her bachelor's degree from the University of Denver and her master's degree in political science from the University of Notre Dame. In 1981 she received a PhD from the School of International Studies at the University of Denver.[1][2] She worked at the State Department under the Carter administration and pursued an academic fellowship at Stanford University, where she later served as provost from 1993 to 1999. Rice served on the National Security Council as the Soviet and Eastern Europe Affairs Advisor to President George H. W. Bush during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification from 1989 to 1991. On December 17, 2000, she left her position and joined the Bush administration as National Security Advisor. In Bush's second term, she became Secretary of State.

to

Rice was born in Birmingham, Alabama, and grew up while the South was racially segregated. She obtained her bachelor's degree from the University of Denver and her master's degree in political science from the University of Notre Dame. In 1981 she received a PhD from the School of International Studies at the University of Denver.[1][2] She worked at the State Department under the Carter administration and served on the National Security Council as the Soviet and Eastern Europe Affairs Advisor to President George H. W. Bush during the dissolution of the Soviet Union and German reunification from 1989 to 1991. Rice later pursued an academic fellowship at Stanford University, where she later served as provost from 1993 to 1999. On December 17, 2000, she joined the Bush administration as National Security Advisor. In Bush's second term, she became Secretary of State. Augustus Octavianus (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done MDDevice ^talk 19:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Main image in infobox

Colin Powell, the Secretary of State before Condoleezza Rice, has a more recent image in his infobox, while Rice still has her 2005 official portrait. What should be done here? It looks rather odd to have this set-up without any clear consensus, whether Powell's image should revert to his old portrait, or if Rice should get a new main picture. Josharaujo1115 (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Formerly highest-ranking black woman in U.S. government

Until yesterday, with the swearing-in of Kamala Harris as VP, Rice was the highest ranking black woman ever in U.S. government, was she not? SecretName101 (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2021

Can the 'education' section of Rice's infobox be removed in favour of a module like the one on the right, which better sums up her academic career

Condoleezza Rice
Academic background
Alma mater	University of Denver (BA, 1974; PhD, 1981) University of Notre Dame (MA, 1975)
Academic work
Institutions	Stanford University
Main interests	Political science

81.158.80.250 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The infobox is already pretty huge without adding a submodule to expand the education section. I think the coverage as-is is more than sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Condoleezza Rice has served on the board of directors of C3AI, a defense contractor, since December 2009. She is also a founding member of Rice, Hadley, Gates & Manuel LLC, an international strategic consulting firm. Falconwing88 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kylie.Steiner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Legacy" ?

She's still alive. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:64BA:27BF:362C:BA24 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Education-Graduate School Name Change and Relevant Context

The graduate school of international studies at the University of Denver is now called the Josef Korbel School of International Studies and has been for some time. There's no link to that school in the article either. She's probably their most famous alum and the school was founded by Josef Korbel, Madeline Albright's father, who I believe was still teaching while she was still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.46.124 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"Raised in the segregated South"?|

She was born in 1954. She was only 10 when segregation was outlawed. Our schools were well on the way to full integration before she entered high school. 108.227.225.226 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

_"My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did."_ Odd, because voter registration was never controlled by any political party. Like most states, that would have been done at the County Couthouse Board of Registrars. All you needed was a birth certificate and proof of residence. 108.227.225.226 (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Democrats" mentioned were probably Dixiecrats of affiliates, who wanted to maintain the Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era. There is no reason to register someone who will never have the right to vote. The Alabama Democratic Party had "disenfranchised almost all black voters and even most poor whites", in an effort to discourage populist challenges to its monopoly in political power. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

b

add 157.185.67.2 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)