Talk:Fiona Hill (presidential advisor)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Whoever wrote "In the 1960s, after the last of the local mines had closed, her father wanted to emigrated to find work in the mines..." made a grammar mistake. It is "emigrate", not "emigrated". Please change accordingly, thank you. Manwithamonocle (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Already done with this edit. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 03:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request November 21

Current text states:

While being questioned by the ranking Republican member on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, Hill stated her disapproval of Ambassador Sondland's involvement in the Ukraine matter, "Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged.

I believe she was being question by Counsel for the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee, Stephen Castor, prior to that response. See NBC News clip: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1197590851960094721 Sealave2455 (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. It was Castor, and has been changed. --Zefr (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Novelization?

The whole early life section is has such an "opening paras of a profile" tone to it but this section reads as particularly egregious and questionably encyclopedia to me. Thoughts on removal? Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

On the experience, in 2003, Hill wrote in The Siberian Curse, "I noticed that many aspects of British (and, by relation, American) culture were surprisingly, even unexpectedly similar, and that the Russians and the West had a good deal in common. Before long, other aspects of the Soviet and Russian [...] mentalities and cultures reared their heads, and these gaps seemed larger and more consuming than any novel or textbook could transmit". Continuing in another passage, she writes, "Whether or not these gaps can be effectively bridged or, at least, mitigated will remain the guiding question for this field of study for decades to come". Hill seemed to answer this question for herself in 2020, when she cowrote an op-ed in Politico Magazine, along with Jon Huntsman Jr, Robert Legvold, Rose Gottemoeller, and Thomas R. Pickering, wherein they state that, although Russia is and will likely remain greatly disharmonious with Western Europe and North America, it is in the security interests of the United States to seek cooperation where possible.

References

It could at least use a good rewrite. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee today, but I got a little dizzy reading it (lol). The quotations read like vague musings out of context. What similarities? What's the reference here? Fiona thinks Russia and the US have lots in common... ok, no quotation needed for that. And then near the end, when we would expect a clear statement of her position to be quoted from the Politico article, we just get a clunky paraphrase that doesn't really answer the question. I guess it's yes and no? Anyway, I agree with your assessment that this section needs to be redone. Early life should be a boring fact-after-fact sketch of her bio--a light resume in prose.73.103.82.247 (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

Add that Fiona Hill was the intermediary for the Clinton campaign to the debunked Steele Dossier used to besmirch President Trump in the first faux and failed impeachment, and that she is thus considered in retrospect a less than reputable source of testimony in the second impeachment, given her clear capacity for anti-Trump bias. 2600:8801:18D:AF00:9AE:E9A4:E92A:F34F (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 06:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References to Alexi Navalny

References to Alexi Navalny in her Career Section is outdated. He is spoken of as if Competing now, not imprisoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.4.13.176 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

CFR and Trilateral Commission

This problem exists in lots of biographical articles about prominent Americans, but membership in the Council on Foreign Relations or Trilateral Commission is not worthy of being mentioned in the lead, if at all.

There are thousands of CFR members, including basically everyone important in Washington, D.C., and there is very minimal commitment involved. It just means you are allowed to attend certain private events with senior officials and social gatherings hosted at the Council, and the people that attend regularly are usually the less important ones with more time on their hands. It really is not that meaningful, especially for someone like Fiona Hill who has been in more important spaces like the NSC.

I don't know as much about the Trilateral Commission but it seems like a similar deal, though with only one meeting a year that is more exclusive. I've been on the internet long enough to know that it's mostly conspiracy theorists who actively make a big deal out of these.

Can we start fixing this by not giving such memberships disproportionate prominence in biographical articles of important figures for whom it is likely an insignificant part of their lives? Tagging Acroterion to start the discussion. Thanks. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I had doubts about the lede too, and adjusted the sentence structure to distinguish between service in an institution and membership in an organization. I don't agree with the rationale that "it's not a job." Nobody said it was. The mention in the lede, if retained, should be backed up with inclusion in an appropriate portion of the article body per standard format with the reference there, in any case. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Acriterion, thanks for responding. I take your point that clarifying these are memberships rather than jobs adequately responds to my initial edit summary. However, it does not address the broader concerns I stated in my comment above. Thanks. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we fundamentally disagree. Do you have any suggestions about how to incorporate the memberships into the article body? No good place presents itself to me with the current structure. I don't think they should be ignored - while those memberships are de rigeur for a certain class of policy person in Washington, I think they're worth mentioning. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're right that it isn't obvious where it would go if we agreed to move it somewhere else. Maybe in the personal life section? I still think no inclusion makes more sense than inclusion in the lead, in any case. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ll have a try tomorrow. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversies section

A Controversies section should list affairs where Hill is the center of the controversy. Hill’s role in the three items listed is hardly controversial. More is needed to explain the controversial nature of her actions. Otherwise, the section should be renamed or removed.

Her involvement in the Steele Dossier is virtually none, having simply been the one to introduce two of the actors about six years prior.

During the impeachment testimony she made some striking comments *about* a presidential controversy, but her role in the affair was not the subject of the debate. Her position on the NSC allowed her to witness and perhaps advise *against* the controversial actions taken by the president and some of his appointees.

Hill’s comments to Politico during the first week of the Russian invasion of Ukrainian are alarming, but there’s no mention of these comments spurring a public debate. The invasion itself is the controversy, not her role in it. Cpetty-wiki (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

the Ukraine part of her career

It comes off as a bit strong doom-and-gloom.

Here's a recent interview where you might find a couple of tidbits to nuance the message:

Is Putin Winning In Ukraine? Fiona Hill Says, ‘He’s About To. And It’s on Us.’

CapnZapp (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Navalny is no longer "is".

The existing text reads, "Her views on Russia could be characterized by increasing pessimism on cooperation with the United States, as she expresses fear that even Russia's foremost oppositional politician, Alexei Navalny, employs populism and has a history of engaging nationalism. Hill believes that, in the context of Russia's resurgent international adventurism, Navalny's political potential does not augur well with the United States' national security interests."

An editor needs to fix this pronto. LarryWiki115 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)