This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[2] 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."[2] 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."[2][1][3] 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."[1] 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,"[4] 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."[2] 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."[5]: 212 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."[6] 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."[6]
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. Neutralitytalk22:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there an entire section parsing whether or not this NPR interview indicates support for a war that Susan Rice had absolutely no involvement in? It's clear people keep adding sentences to make their opinion on the matter seem valid, which is extremely misleading. The Chicago Tribune article from July 2020 looked directly into this issue and put it to bed, she opposed the war. Propose reversion to the below:
Rice opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She told National Public Radio in December 2002: "The 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."[7]
Rice is a public figure. This paragraph should feature her contemporaneous public statements. Neutral point of view should be a balance of both her more supportive and more cautionary statements. Her private statements to colleagues are less relevant (and harder to verify). Least important of all are the conclusions drawn by columnists (Beinart or Chapman) who have the same statements that we are summarizing in the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwhoff (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This term makes little sense in the English-speaking world outside the USA. Attempts to google "three letter varsity athlete" are likely to confuse non-US readers further. 203.109.196.81 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg)
