Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:08, 24 December 2004

In a radio programme here in Ireland, I heard this week that she gave up on piano at university in Denver after a contemporary played a piece on his first attempt that she had worked hard on for a year. Apparently she said "I can't be the best in the world at this, so I need to find something else" or something to that effect. Can anybody corroborate? If they can, I think its indicative of her character and worth including. Vdm 21:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe it was decided that the Chevron oil tanker would not be named after her. therefore, I have removed that reference. --Jiang

It was named after her in 1993, then renamed when she entered the government.

Surely these two facts are telling, whether they are permitted in the entry or must remain here, eh! Wetman 08:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some of that Rice

I just wanna say I think shes hot..I want a piece of her....rice!

Antonio Fireblaster Martin

Oh dear god. No. ;)

Meelar 15:15, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Was this post even necessary?

A Bit Useless

In the original version of Rice's biography I read, I found the article nothing but a list of accomplishments with the last paragraph contrasting and out of place. Is her testifying before the 9/11 commission really the highlight of her life? Right now, I'm working on fleshing out the article with more detail on her background, as well as the controversies surrounding her. No, I don't like her as a person, but as a resource, her article deserves better.

Single Black Female

Why do we need to know that Rice is "single and not married"? Would we make the same comments about a man in power? --ALC 22:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we would. For instance, the first paragraph of the article on President James Buchanan mentions that he was a bachelor. Unless you're the Pope, being never-married and in a position of power is historically unusual enough to mention. --Kevin Myers 08:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree, I find that "single and never married" sentence a little sexist myself. It's valid information, but there needs to be some context for it. (Zikzak23)

Maybe who wrote that heard the *rummors* that she has relationships with her female co-workers. I've heard that myself and of course just laugh because there would be no way of knowing. But anyway, it would be better to mention her parents and any siblings in a family section. Then it would make more sense to say she never married and doesn't have kids.

How do you pronounce her name? Does anybody want to add a pronunciation help? --Sonjaaa 09:48, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've always heard KON-doh-lee-sah (rhymes with pizza). However, her name is based on the Italian music term meaning "with sweetness," which I believe is pronounced similarly but stressed differently: kon-doh-LEE-sah. I may be wrong. Garrett Albright 14:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about adding the time she accidentally referred to the president as her husband? I know this sounds a bit inflamatory, but I'm being serious. This was mentioned extensively in the media after it happened. If the thing about Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford farting in front of the Queen was included in his article, I don't see a problem including this. Not including it seems a little biased. Anyone remember during what interview this happened?

Link

Is that hotseat link really necessary? It seems a little over-inflamitory to be a link for an encyclopaedia article... Soupfrog 17:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Umm... Colin Powell really isn't African American, he's Jamaican-American. How to resolve this? --Golbez 05:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

He's not a hyphen-American at all; being born in NYC, he's just an American. Same with Condi. :P Garrett Albright 06:13, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Quite true, quite true, but was just fitting with the feel of the article as it is. My primary issue was that calling him "African-American" is simply false. --Golbez 15:06, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, in U.S. common usage, he is considered African American. I would say we should have that in the article. Meelar 15:15, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

My objections are now in the history of both the article and the talk; do what thou wilt. Yes, most people erroneously equate "black" with "African American," but it's not our job to correct errors. ... oh, wait. ;) I don't mean this to be sarcastic or to attack you; I'm just saying, we should strive for complete accuracy. Fortunately, the press *might* know this, as I rarely (if ever, actually) have heard him referred to on television as an African American. Either way, what happens now is up to y'all. I won't start edit wars over this, as you are quite right, according to most people, he is African American, and his own page clarifies (though perhaps not strenuously enough) that his origins are Jamaican and American. --Golbez 17:58, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

African-American vs Jamaican-American

I won't turn this into an edit war, either, but I think this edit was totally an overreaction. First of all, I'm what I consider African-American, and I actually find the term "black" more offensive than "African-American." I'm not "black," my skin is brown. I know many people use "black" as a popular shorthand, but I disagree that it's less controversial than "African-American." Second of all, my parents are from Jamaica, but I've never heard the term "Jamaican-American," and won't expect anyone to use it. Third, Condoleeza Rice was born in the United States (Alabama specifically), so by those standards, she is literally an African-American and this didn't need to be changed. But consider this:

Entered in Google: +"Condoleezza Rice" +"African-American" = 18300 results; +"Condoleezza Rice" +"black" = 66400 results

By these statistics, "black" would be the most common term for Dr. Rice, so we'll let this go. Just don't change it to Alabama-American or you'll open a whole can of worms. -- zikzak23

To make things clear, I was not saying that Condoleezza Rice was not African American, nor that she should be termed only as black; my only objection was the labelling of Colin Powell as African American, which seems inaccurate. Your parents are Jamaican, yet you accept African-American as a description? True, it's become horribly generic in this PC age, but I was trying to just reinject a little reality into writing on race. Screw the third rail. ;) Either way, my point has been made, and, again, it pertains only to Colin, not Condoleezza.

That Google test is a bit unfair. The word "black" has many other meanings than race. Anyway, again, I emphasize that, being born in America, neither of them are (some place other than America)-Americans; they are merely Americans. And, yes, I realize that people use these phrases incorrectly to try to specify peoples' race... Am I just dreaming in hoping that that would be irrelevant? I know that I rarely feel the need to identify myself as a Portuguese-German-Welsh-English-Native-American... Garrett Albright 06:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Picture

Anyone else agree that the thumbnail picture looks a bit odd?

Acegikmo1 15:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, as bad as this is going to sound, I think it's just her. :-/ Mike H 22:54, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ack, that's harsh. Acutally, User:DO'Neil fixed it. Compare the current version with this one. IMO, she's moderately attractive for a fifty year old woman. She makes me think of that Cake song, "Short Shirt, Long Jacket". Anyway...

17:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Race

My change from African-American to black lasted 3 months 24 days. :) --Golbez 18:52, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Bwaha, and the legacy lives on! --Golbez 04:46, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

em dash question

Hey, with respect to "Federal Advisory Committee on Gender — Integrated Training", shouldn't that em-dash (—) be an n-dash (–) or even just a regular hyphen (-) instead? I'm pretty sure that an em-dash is only used to indicate a pause in a sentence, and a few other cases, which don't fit the bill here.

Please see "The correct use of em and en" in this article: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/emen/

-- Ultra megatron

Titles

Why is the honorific "Dr." being used throughout the article? The use of titles isn't conventional in Misplaced Pages articles, whether it's Mr, Ms, or Dr. (whether MD or Ph.D), including articles on people with considerably more intellectual or academic accomplishment. Here it seems essentially an attempt to introduce a subtly defensive POV claim about the article subject's intellect.

Unless someone can provide a good reason for retaining them, I'm going to remove most of the titles.

- toh 07:30, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Presidential ambitions?

Following Bush's reelection victory in 2004, speculation regarding Rice's future became a hot topic and included the following possibilities, (1) she would be reappointed National Security Advisor, (2) She would be appointed to the Cabinet as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, 3) she would return to private life, or (4) she would run for President or Vice-President of the United States.

Has there actually been any published speculation regarding her running in the future as President or VP? This is the first place I've seen it mentioned. --NeuronExMachina 02:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "published." I've been seeing speculation about this on various political blogs for a couple of years. Here's an example:

http://americanprowler.com/article.asp?art_id=2002_4_17_22_19_28

-- Pat Berry 19:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This came up over at U.S. presidential election, 2008 and we agreed to list her as a possible candidate. See rice2008.com for a very early fansite. Samaritan 02:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What kind of doctor?

What kind of doctor is Rice? Ph.D.? It is better style to follow her name at the beginning of the entry with her credentials, rather than adding the courtesty "Dr." to the front. For example: Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D.

Council on Foreign Relations fellow: 1986, not 1996

Hello. Small correction: according to the Membership Department at the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice had an International Affairs fellowship from them from July 1985 to June 1986 (not 1996).

The CFR ofc said courteously that they are not allowed to give the amount of the fellowship. Does anyone know or surmise how much it would have been, in 1985-86? I'd like to see how it compared to the avg salary teaching Pol Sci in universities that year. She was also a Hoover national fellow at the same time. Anyone know how much that would have paid?

Margie Burns margie.burns@verizon.net

Trivia?

Where did this come from: 'Seventeen-year-old Topeka High School student Rachel Buck is in line to succeed Rice as National Security Adviser for President Bush's second term.'

Question about Hate Speech

When I first loaded the "article" page for Condoleezza Rice, I was presented with only three words: "evil, slutty, ni**er". When I refreshed the page, the normal content reappeared. As a newbie to Misplaced Pages, I am unaware of the proper procedure to make the community aware of this and how to track down and ban the author from this portal.

Don't worry; someone obviously noticed it and has either warned or blocked the vandal. And if they haven't, I will. Thanks for mentioning it, though, just in case. :)

By the way, if you see this happen, click "History" at the top of the screen, and then click the timestamp (date and time) of the second entry on the list - it is most likely the unvandalized version. (The vandalized version, if it hasn't already been repaired, would be the top). Then after that loads, click "Edit". It will warn you that this is an out-of-date version of the page; that's what we want. Just click "Save" and it will fix the vandalism. It would be good to put something in the "Edit Summary" box that you are reverting vandalism. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. :) --Golbez 21:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see a little material on her books

Perhaps a paragraph or so should be included that looks at her publications, since part of her reputation is based on alleged scholarly accomplishments. We never hear what these are.

The article claims she speaks Russian, but I doubt this - I saw her on Russian TV attending a news conference on one of her visits here, and she had a translator next to her translating every phrase - it was clear she only understood what was being said after hearing the translator. So someone here must have been misinformed. Any objections if I delete that bit? Palefire 15:19, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea how an editor can simply just decide that he or she just "doubt{s}" something to make a edit??? That is simply inappropriate. You should refer to a citation other than just simply doubting and then deleting. It is a fact that Condi Rice has read every single page of War & Peace by Tolstoy twice. I just don't have the time to look it up right now. Keetoowah 20:28, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I took a few minutes to do a quick search of the Internet and I found five published biographies of the Condi Rice that verify that Dr. Rice speaks four languages and Russian is one of them. Just because she had a translator next to her does NOT mean that she does not speak Russian. When President George W. Bush makes joint appearances with President Fox of Mexico there are many translators at the two leaders beck and call to clear up any misunderstanding even though Bush speaks fluent Spanish. Now if review any press conference of Clinton you will see that Clinton had to have a transalator on site with Mexican leaders because he could not speak a second language. I believe that you are making this edit because you are jumping to conclusions and you did not do any research you merely were looking to back up your bias.

The biographies that back up the assertion that Dr. Rice speaks Russian include:

Condoleezza Rice: National Security Advisor (Great Life Stories) by Christin Ditchfield

Condi: The Condoleezza Rice Story by Antonia Felix

Condoleezza Rice: A Real-Life Reader Biography (Real-Life Reader Biography) by Linda R. Wade, Mitchell Lane Publishers

Condoleeza Rice: National Security Advisor and Musician (Ferguson Career Biographies) by Bernard Ryan Jr.

Condoleezza Rice: Being The Best by Mary Dodson Wade

Also, you can refer to a short article about Dr. Rice by Andrew Sullivan:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/people.php

I am going to put that back in the bio.Keetoowah 20:57, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Harper's Magazine, December 2004 Letters, p.4

I was concerned to learn that Philip Zelikow was the executive director of the 911 Commission and also a co-author with Condoleezza Rice of a book published some years ago. This sounds like a blatant conflict of interest situation to this writer.

 Well, you were "concerned"!!!  Why?  You offer you explaination on what your so-called "concern" is.  You don't even say who you are.  What is the "blatant conflict of interest" and how is it a problem?  What is the harm?  I find this comment to merely be a a cheap political slight of fine woman.  Keetoowah 21:07, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Iraq-9/11 Link

I'm getting real tired of this edit war. Just because this is a biography article about Condoleezza Rice, doesn't mean that its only function is to serve as a mouthpiece for Bush administration propaganda. I stress the principles of the Misplaced Pages NPOV policy: "The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." By censoring my statement you are claiming that Dr. Rice's belief on this subject is the only one valid and worth documenting. I agree that this is not the right place to debate the validity of a link between Iraq and terrorism like 9/11, but to not acknowledge another belief on this subject would be clearly unfair and biased. As founder Jimbo Wales states:

"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view."

I am not trying to show that Rice's belief is wrong, just that there are other beliefs that can be equally as true. --Howrealisreal 19:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I edited your sentence, focused it on Hussein (who is quite religious, he even put ALLAHU AKBAR on the flag) instead of the Baath Party, and linked to evidence on the wiki page. I understand your intention of wanting to offset Rice's belief of an Iraq-terrorism connection.

On a side note, as far as background info on Iraq and terrorism, this is some of the intelligence people generally agree is accurate and known at the time of the Iraq invasion: The 9-11 report says Osama himself met with an Iraqi official in Khartoum in the 1990's to establish terrorist camps in Iraq and get weapons. After bin Laden issued a 'fatwa' against the US/allies in 1998, al Qaeda was invited to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. Also in 1998, Iraqi officials met with the Taliban and bin Laden. Not to mention the U.N passed 14 resolutions and failed sanctions, foreign and US intelligence all relayed terrorism connections, Russian intelligence that informed us several times that Saddam was planning to terrorist attacks in the US and beyond, various known terrorists living in Iraq, an assasination plot against a US president, paying $25,000 to suicide bombers in the Middle East, Saddam and his sons' mass killings and WMD usage, invading his neighboring countries, Congress even passed a resolution in 1998 for regime change policy in Iraq, the Unit 999 of the Iraqi army was training foreign terrorists (including Mojahedin and al Qaeda) in Iraqi camps. Zarqawi who has direct ties to both al Qaeda and affiliated terror groups has been operating out of Iraq since May 2002, etc.... --RyanKnoll 00:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverted a little. But I think the status that it's at now is fair to both beliefs and allows readers to investigate additional articles, along with Rice's actual quote, to make up their mind for themselves. Good Compromise. --Howrealisreal 02:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, but why do you bring up the Baath Party in the sentence? Relevance to Condi's statement? Why not just say Islamic extremist and Sadaam, leaving out the mostly secular (which is not true about Sadaam) and Baath Party part? It's not a big deal, but seems like odd to suddenly talk about the Baath Party. --RyanKnoll 03:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added the link to the Baath party article because in that article it explains that Sadaam's government is based on a "mostly secular ideology often contrasts that of other Arab governments in the Middle East, which sometimes tend to have leanings towards Islamism and theocracy." This is important because the terrorism that targeted the United States is of that branch of Islamic extremism, an opposite to the regime of old Iraq. Now don't get me wrong, Sadaam is far from an angel, and no doubt did operate his government with hatred toward the U.S., but I think tying him into a unique brand of terrorism that attacked here in NYC and the Pentagon is not fact. The link to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article is fairly objective, and I commend adding it to provide additional reading on a subject briefly touched in the Rice article, but there is no harm to directing readers and writers to an article about what Sadaam's Baath government was all about.

On a side note, and this really doesn't have anything to do with our effective compromise in the article, I feel that just because "ALLAHU AKBAR" appeared on the Iraq flag does not undermine the founding principles of Sadaam's Bathist-style government. For example, we print "In God We Trust" on money, and even offer Christan services prior to business in Congress, but these ideals are thought of as symbolic, and we pride ourself in America as being secular. Anyway, I'm glad we took some time to discuss and reach an agreement instead of just going back and forth editing each other. --Howrealisreal 05:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An aside to your aside: Americans do not pride themselves (as a country) on "being secular", but rather on permitting the free excercise of religion. America is not, nor has ever been, a secular nation. France, by contrast, is a secular nation, where the government seeks to excise religious elements from public society. Jewbacca 05:20, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

That is fair. I admit I mispoke. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. --Howrealisreal 06:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Aunt Jemima

Someone deleted my Aunt Jemima mention a while back, so I'm going to post it again here:

A radio host in Wisconsin, John "Sly" Sylvester, compared Rice to Aunt Jemima, calling her a "black trophy" of the Bush administration. He also referred to former Secretary of State Colin Powell as Uncle Tom.

Reading this again, I noticed that I failed to give the comment fair context. Can someone help me with this? I know it's notable enough to mention in the article, but I'm at a loss as to how to articulate it correctly. Mike H 18:11, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)