Talk:Susan Rice

Fact vs. opinion

This article is riddled with alleged statements and opinions presented as fact, with weak sourcing. A sample below:

1. "Rice was not the first choice of Congressional Black Caucus leaders, who considered her a member of "Washington's assimilationist black elite"."

The article provides no evidence backing its sweeping claim that Rice was disliked by CBC leaders, and I have found no other sources that corroborate that. That Rice was considered a member of "Washington's assimilationist black elite" is the opinion of the author, backed by zero sources. Unless there is more than this one line from one source, there is no reason to highlight this rather inflammatory characterization.

2. "Rice supported the Rwandan, Ugandan, AFDL and Angolan invasion of Zaire (later known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo) from Rwanda in 1996 and overthrow of dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, saying privately that "Anything's better than Mobutu.""

Nowhere in the cited article or anywhere else does it say that Rice supported the invasion of Zaire, yet here it is presented as fact. Further, the "anything's better than Mobutu" quote is at the very best an alleged quote, with the cited article providing as a source: "Susan Rice told one acquaintance at the time." This article should not present as fact Rice's support for a bloody conflict or a hearsay quote from an acquaintance. If it must stay, a more accurate formulation would be: "In the context of the Rwandan, Ugandan, AFDL and Angolan invasion of Zaire (later known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo) from Rwanda in 1996 and overthrow of dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Rice is alleged to have said that "Anything's better than Mobutu.""

3. "In 2012, when serving as UN ambassador, Rice opposed efforts to publicly censure Rwandan President Paul Kagame for again supporting a Congolese rebel group..."

This is another statement, that, when reading through the cited article, is alleged. "Rice reportedly opposed efforts" would be correct in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc90 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Biased content?

I wanted to look up Susan Rice's background as a possible VP candidate, and was really surprised at how biased this biography is. I really don't know much about her, but much of the selected comments sounds slanted and negative, and in some places sexist.Dianahc6 (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Obv an article for wikipedia veterans to keep the fuck an eye on in the next few months. Thanks for all the work yall do.138.207.198.74 (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Brookings paragraph

There has been some discussion of the following paragraph:

Michael E. O'Hanlon and Ivo Daalder, two Brookings colleagues of Rice at the time, said that Rice consistently opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the run-up to the war. In 2012, columnist Peter Beinart reviewed a series of NPR interviews with Rice in late 2002 and early 2003 and concluded that Rice's position on war was equivocal; at some points, she expressed skepticism about U.S. military action, while at other points taking a more hawkish view. Beinart wrote that two of Rice's then-Brookings colleagues at the time were both unsure about her position on the war at the time. For example, in November 2002, Rice said, "many people who think that we haven't finished the war against al Qaeda and our ability to do these simultaneously is in doubt." In a December 2002 NPR interview, Rice said, "It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward, as we must, on the military side. ... The George W. Bush administration frankly owes the American public a much fuller and more honest assessment of what the costs will be of the actual conflict, as well as the aftermath, the post-conflict reconstruction. And the costs are going to be huge." Rice endorsed the long-standing U.S. policy toward Iraq of regime change, but not necessarily through military means; regarding Rice's allusion to military action, O'Hanlon notes that "For the Clinton administration, they were typically airstrikes or cruise missile strikes of limited duration and effect, not invasions." In a February 2003 NPR interview, Rice said she she believed Secretary of State Colin Powell "has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that," but also stated, "there are many who fear that going to war against Iraq may in fact in the short term make us less secure rather than more secure." In her memoir, Rice wrote, "From the start, I viewed that war of choice as a dangerous diversion from the main objective of defeating al-Qaida globally and in Afghanistan." In April 2003, after the war began, Rice said, "To maximize our likelihood of success, the US is going to have to remain committed to and focused on reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq for many years to come." Rice said that in the wake of chaos in Iraqi cities in the aftermath of the invasion, the U.S. should act urgently "to fill the security void" and then "transition as quickly as possible these law and order responsibilities to other competent international actors and, of course, ultimately to legitimate Iraqi authorities as quickly as possible."

References

I think the organization of this is OK. One IP editor broke up this text into two paragraphs to put the NPR interviews in the first paragraph and everything else in the second, on the idea that everything else is a "retrospective." I don't like that organization for a few reasons - first, I think topic sentences are necessary to summarize and establish the context up front, before delving into long quotations or specific statements, and second, O'Hanlon, Daalder, etc. are not really "retrospectives" because they are talking about Rice's view at the time.

By contrast, I think the length is less than ideal. Should we attempt to shorten this by shrinking the direct quotes and attempting to paraphrase more instead? I generally favor this, but (knowing that the devil is in the details on this sort of thing) I welcome others' views. Neutrality^talk 22:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Rice isn't currently a diplomat

and the rest of the sentence shows she was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Susan_Rice&diff=971575200&oldid=971574019 soibangla (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly understanding what you want changed. In the WP:LEDE, the reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established. Rice is notable for being a diplomat, even if she isn't one right now. KidAd (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, it's established at the end of the sentence that she was a diplomat, but to me a person's background should mention current position first. She works at American University now. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I still maintain that she is most known for her positions at State, but you could re-order the lede to say is an American academic, diplomat, Democratic policy advisor, and former public official. KidAd (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)