Talk:Susan Rice/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Rice isn't currently a diplomat

and the rest of the sentence shows she was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

I think diplomat is redundant to "the 27th United States ambassador to the United Nations from 2009 to 2013 and as the 24th United States national security advisor from 2013 to 2017" which is why I took it out a few minutes ago. soibangla (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)