Talk:Antony Blinken/Archive 1

Suggesting corrections and improvements to this article
My name is Brian Gluckman and I work at The Glover Park Group. A colleague has asked me to help make some corrections to the article about Antony “Tony” Blinken who was just confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State. I have made some edits throughout the piece and posted a revised version on my user page User:Bgluckman/Tony_Blinken. Would you mind reviewing it and if you agree, make some additional changes to the article?

Here are the specific changes I am requesting:

Antony John 'Tony' Blinken (born April 16, 1962) served as Assistant to the President of the United States and Deputy National Security Adviser for President Barack Obama, from January 2013 through December 2014. On December 16, 2014 the U.S. Senate confirmed Blinken as Deputy Secretary of State by a vote of 55 to 38. From 2009 to 2013 Blinken served as Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President. From 2002 to 2008 he served as the Democratic Staff Director for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. From 2001 to 2002 Blinken was a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During the Clinton Administration, Blinken served in the State Department and in senior positions on the National Security Council Staff.
 * 1) Further updating the article lead to reflect Mr. Blinken’s current position. My suggested edit:
 * 2) Expanding the second paragraph to include a more accurate summary of Mr. Blinken’s career. My suggested edit:


 * (Note: the source for this is the Washington Post Jason Horowitz article)

The Horowitz piece contains the following sentences: “Judith was then married to Donald Blinken, the son of an influential Yonkers lawyer, and had given birth to Antony in 1962. Judith managed Merce Cunningham’s dance company and socialized with Arturo Toscanini and Bernstein at the couple’s Park Avenue home.”
 * 3) Correcting Mr. Blinken’s place of birth. He was born in New York City, not Yonkers. The source for this fact is also likely the source of confusion.
 * (Note: Donald Blinken was born in Yonkers – not Antony. Antony’s parents lived on Park Avenue in NYC.)

He attended Harvard University, where he edited the daily student newspaper and co-edited the weekly arts magazine, "What Is To Be Done?". After earning his Bachelors degree, Blinken reported for The New Republic. He then earned his J.D. at Columbia Law School. After graduation, he practiced law in New York and Paris. Blinken became active in Democratic politics, helping his father fundraise for Michael Dukakis’ 1988 presidential campaign.
 * 4) Under “Early Life” I’d recommend editing the paragraph for clarity to read:
 * (Note: I’d also suggest striking the sentence: “All the while – during his academic pursuits and political activities – he played guitar in a band and organized film festivals.” It is not sourced and it is irrelevant to his career.)

Blinken began his government service at the State Department where, from 1993 to 1994, he served as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs.
 * 5) Based on the Horowitz article, I’d recommend the following edits to the “Career” section (again making edits for clarity and putting things in chronological order):

Blinken was a member of President Clinton’s National Security Council staff at the White House from 1994 to 2001. From 1999 to 2001, he was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs – President Clinton’s principal advisor for relations with the countries of Europe, the European Union and NATO. From 1994 through 1998, Blinken was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Speechwriting and then Strategic Planning, overseeing foreign policy planning, communications and speechwriting and serving as President Clinton's chief foreign policy speechwriter.

After leaving the Clinton Administration, he held the position of Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies between 2001 and 2002. From 2002 to 2008 he served Democratic Staff Director for U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In 2008, Blinken worked for the presidential campaign of Senator Joseph Biden, and was a member of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition team.

From 2009 to 2013 he served as Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President. In this position he also helped craft U.S. policy on Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Iranian nuclear program.

He is the author of ‘’Ally Versus Ally: America, Europe and the Siberian Pipeline Crisis’’ (Praeger, 1987).

Lastly, Mr. Blinken was not married at Georgetown University, as his wedding announcement clearly notes. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/03/style/weddings-evan-ryan-antony-blinken.html I recommend editing the sentence to read he was “married in Washington, D.C.”
 * 6) Marriage location

Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. Once again, you can see them all in place on my user page User:Bgluckman/Tony_Blinken. Bgluckman (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't read the first five, but fixed the sixth. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * # 3 I've changed partially: I removed the Yonkers bit, since I can see that you're right about it, but I didn't see anything in it about him being from New York City. Of course I'll happily put in NYC if you supply another source, or if you can demonstrate that I overlooked something.  As far as I can tell, the Park Avenue bit simply says that they lived there at some point without being solid evidence of them living there when Tony was born.  Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * # 1 partly done. The problem is that part of the information wasn't in the source to start with — a boston.com article from 2008 was being used as a source for what Blinken was doing in Obama's second term.  This meant that I couldn't exactly implement everything you wanted, since someone else had mangled things.  Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * # 4 done, including trimming the band. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * # 2 done, including using the source you suggested. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * #5 not done, since there are a bunch of things you extrapolate from the article, e.g. him leaving Foreign Relations in 2008 (the article doesn't say he continued all through 2008), 1999 to 2001 he was... (again, dates not in the article), and I don't see the title "Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs" (or even the word "Special", aside from a "special act of Congress") in the source. Of course, I understand that you're working with him, so I trust that you're correct on these things; I'm opposed to copying over your text because we can't say what our sources don't.  Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional suggestions for the Career section of this article
Hello--I've finally had a chance to go back and look again at the Career section of this page and develop a much better annotated version than my previous one for consideration. As I still have the conflict of interest, I will ask that another person review and decide if these changes can/will be made. Thanks so much to everyone. (Bgluckman (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC))

Blinken has held senior foreign policy positions in two administrations over two decades. He served on the United States National Security Council staff at the White House from 1994 to 2001. From 1994 through 1998 Blinken was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Strategic Planning and NSC Senior Director for Speechwriting. From 1999 to 2001 he was Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Canadian Affairs.
 * Career

In 2002 Blinken was appointed Staff Director for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a position he served in until 2008. He was also a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2008, Blinken worked for the presidential campaign of Senator Joseph Biden, and was a member of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition team.

From 2009 to 2013 he served as Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to the Vice President. In this position he also helped craft U.S. policy on Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Iranian nuclear program. He is the author of ‘’Ally Versus Ally: America, Europe and the Siberian Pipeline Crisis’’ (Praeger, 1987).


 * I've updated the above to remove the Jewish Virtual Library source and add some more sourcing. (Bgluckman (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC))


 * Thanks to user Nyttend, these issues have been resolved. (Bgluckman (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC))

Addressing citation needed tags
Brian Gluckman again, with new suggestions for replacing the tags on the article’s introduction and Early life sections. I'll already posted a new draft for the Career section to address the tags for that section. As always, thanks for the consideration on this, and the help everyone has given me in this process!

1.) The 'citation needed' tag on the introduction The Horowitz article from The Washington Post already cited in the article supports Blinken's roles as:
 * deputy national security adviser to President Obama
 * senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
 * staff director to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Here is the full citation:

Additionally, this CNN article supports his current role as United States Deputy Secretary of State and his role on the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition team: 2.) The "citation needed" tag for "Pisar, who had survived both the Auschwitz and Dachau, strongly influenced his views." Again, the Horowitz Washington Post article can be cited. 3.) The "citation needed" tag for "Blinken became active in Democratic politics, helping his father fundraise for Michael Dukakis’ 1988 presidential campaign." This again can be supported by the Horowitz article.

(Bgluckman (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
 * I'm just going to remove the citation needed tag in the intro. See WP:LEADCITE.  Basically, the introduction is supposed to be a summary of what's in the rest of the article, and when something's solidly sourced elsewhere in the article, we don't need to provide an additional citation for the same thing in the intro.  Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read the Horowitz article several times, and while most of that paragraph is in there, I'm not seeing what I'd consider necessary for "Pisar strongly influenced his views". I've added the citation to the rest of the paragraph, but I've left the citation needed in place.  Did I miss something in the article?  Does another source say this unambiguously?  Is this critical for the article?  Personally, I don't see it as critical — anyone can infer that Blinken was influenced by his stepfather's action of taking him and his mother to France.  Of course, if you think it ought to be there, and if you can find another source or show me where I've missed it in Horowitz, I'll not object.  Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Point three. This isn't just supported — it's copied!  I'll rewrite it and add the Horowitz citation.  Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks to user Nyttend, these issues have been resolved. (Bgluckman (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC))

Proposed move
I suggest moving to "Antony Blinken". NYT uses Antony, as does FT. "Antony Blinken" gets ~20,000+ more ghits than "Tony Blinken". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Speculation on appointment as Secretary of State under Biden Administration
Just as a point of information - The Hill includes some speculation that Blnken will be named Secretary of State/ It's pretty common that there is lots of speculation about cabinet-vevel appointments, and I don't think this rises to the level that it should be included in the Wikipedia article, yet. We might however keep an eye out for less speculative statements, as well as to clean up the article before it becomes front page news. On a brief view of the article, the only thing I noticed is the sentence, "During the 1988 presidential campaign, Blinken worked with his father in fundraisers for Michael Dukakis.[3]" This might refer to either his biological father Donald M. Blinken or his step-father Samuel Pisar, so should be checked and rewritten. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked out the long article referenced for the Dukakis sentence. It's an amazingly detailed article and I suggest people go over it if they have questions on Tony Blinken's background. It mentions, and interweaves his history with both his father Donald Blinken, and his his step-father Samuel Pisar.  The father sentence probably refers to Donald Blinken, but just says "father". I'll rewrite the sentence "During the 1988 presidential campaign, Blinken worked with his father Donald in fundraisers for Michael Dukakis.[3]" Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we move to change the article so that it states Blinken as the Nominee for Secretary of State. This is no longer speculation, many credible sources have said that Blinken is expected to be named Secretary of State by Biden. --JG4236 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Date/incumbent in infobox
I tried sorting out the infobox to tidy it up a bit, but I'm not sure why it shows his status as incumbent (I've put his start date as January 2021). I know he might not be confirmed until February, so January is just a provisional date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GibbNotGibbs (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not state anywhere in the article—including in the infobox—that he is Secretary of State until he is confirmed. See WP:CRYSTAL. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not even if he is Secretary of State-designate? (Blinken is already listen as the nominated successor on the Mike Pompeo page). --GibbNotGibbs (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Is Secretary of State–designate a legal term used in reliable sources? AFAIK, Blinken can either be: (1) the nominee to be Secretary of State (which I don't think he can be yet, since Biden isn't yet president, and hence does not have the power to nominate); or (2) or the Secretary of State (which, of course, he can't be until the Senate confirms him, which is not guaranteed). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

CIA
So Blinken went to Dalton School, where Epstein taught & Bill Barr's father was principal and CIA and then Bill Barr and Blinken's father both went to Horace Mann School In NYC (albeit at different times).--87.170.193.89 (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, many people have attended both of those schools. WP:NOTFORUM. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Iraq in article
Blinken was Biden's FOREIGN POLICY advisor when Biden voted for the Iraq war. Now Biden wants him for Secretary of State. Why is there no mention of this superb advising that Blinken did in the article? 46.109.77.155 (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Blinken appears to have been a staff director for the Foreign Relations Committee during the AUMF vote and not a foreign policy advisor for Biden personally. If you want to take issue with his "superb advising", perhaps here is not the place to do it.
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * After I posted the original comment, someone finally mentioned Iraq in a sentence in the article. Good that this minor peripheral foreign affairs issue of the past 20 years finally is slightly mentioned in the article on the man who will be the Secretary of State and was intimately involved in Iraq-related decisions.46.109.77.155 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to create an account and add whatever reliably sourced information you like to this article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Political positions section
Here's a reference for the last line re: stronger ties with Taiwan. NotARealCowboy (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, but I removed that reference earlier because I was not convinced that Taiwan News is a reliable source. I will post at WP:RSN for some clarity. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just added a cite to the WSJ instead. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Passage on Turkey
I'm a little wary of the following passage:
 * Blinken described Erdoğan's Turkey as a NATO ally with which the United States will have to "find ways to work more effectively together". He said the U.S. should support Turkey in its fight against the PKK, a Kurdish separatist movement deemed a terrorist organisation by Turkey.

I'm wary because it is cited to TRT World. A 2019 RfC described the reliability of this source as follows:
 * Consensus exists that TRT World is reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest. For other miscellaneous cases, it shall be assumed to be reliable enough.

I think this passage is something about which the Turkish government could have a COI. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * While I am not familiar with TRT World, I'll defer to the RfC. The first half of the quote seems accurate, as it is supported by a transcript of an interview in July. A 2017 opinion piece authored by Blinken in The New York Times seems to support the second half of the quote. I would advise replacing the TRT World source with those two and removing the "deemed a terrorist organisation by Turkey" part so there isn't a conflict of interest.
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! I've replaced the old sourcing with those refs. Since it's primary, I tagged the NYT piece with Third-party inline; would be good to have an independent source that corroborates Blinken's view. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That seems fine by me. I've removed Erdoğan from the text because Blinken seems to be talking about Turkey in general rather than Erdoğan's Turkey. I would say that in this instance, the opinion piece is fine as a source since we are using it to describe his points of view (WP:NIS).
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

, regarding this edit Blinken wrote in the opinion piece that the P.K.K. is a terrorist group that has plagued Turkey for decades and Mr. Trump should double down on support for Turkey’s fight against the P.K.K., including helping find the group’s leadership holed up in Iraq’s Qandil Mountains. The text of the page regarding how the U.S. should support Turkey in its fight against the P.K.K. seems pretty accurate when compared to what Blinken wrote in the opinion piece. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's true. However, I'm reluctant to put it back in, and here's why. That op-ed is structured around five separate points related to US support for Turkey in the context of military operations against Isil. It looks like WP:OR to me to highlight that one point to the exclusion of others (and also risks taking it out of context—it's not clear from that short quote wheter Blinken means that US anti-PKK operations should be ongoing, or just in the context of anti-Isil operations, for instance). The reason we require independent, secondary sources is precisely to avoid editors WP:CHERRYPICKING quotes that they like to the exclusion of others. (Not accusing you of doing that, of course—just making the general point.) Accordingly, I'd be inclined to excise the whole paragraph, since it's just selective quotes from public statements Blinken has made. We should either find a third-party description of his views on Turkey or wait until one arrives. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I understand your caution using the source. Of course using quotes from speeches or articles like this risks taking it out of context. But that's a risk that we take with *any* source and we should not refrain from using the sources solely due to that fear. It seems pretty clear from the opinion piece that the point Blinken made about the PKK stands as a distinct conclusion from the six he draws in his peroration and does not require further qualification.
 * WP:ORIGINAL is not being violated, as there is no analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. WP:CHERRYPICKING is not being violated either by using that quote, as selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says does not occur.
 * WP:RSEDITORIAL states that Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. and WP:RSOPINION states that Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable.
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm still reluctant to include this without third-party confirmation because the portion I removed essentially stated that Blinken supports using US military (? or perhaps intelligence-gathering? unclear) force against the Kurdistan Workers' Party without qualification. That may be a fair representation of his views (as you point out, the op-ed—although it is in the context of anti-Isil operations—does state as much), but it is an extraordinary claim about an incoming Secretary of State and I would like a third-party RS to put it in context for us. I'd be inclined to wait and see what others think. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I think WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:RSOPINION are pretty clear. Attributing what he wrote in that opinion piece to him should not be problematic because, well, he said what he said. Whether it was an extraordinary claim should not matter in this instance as they were statements as to their author's opinion, not statements asserted as fact (WP:RSOPINION). Thinking back to extraordinary claims made in opinion pieces, I am reminded of Sen. Cotton's piece on using the Insurrection Act. Just because it is extraordinary does not mean that it should not be attributed to the author. As for further opinions, I will ping and  on this matter, as they are far more experienced and qualified than I.
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pinging me. But I don't understand what the problem lies.  As you state, WP policies are pretty clear on this.  —GoldRingChip 20:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for getting back to me. Just wanted to make sure that my interpretation of WP:RS was sound!
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Obama administration section
I can't find this quote anywhere in the article source or in the Brookings Institution speech transcript it references.

"demonstrate to the Russian people that there is a very hefty fine for supporting international criminals like [Putin]."

Article: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2014/06/06/antony-blinken-for-russia-bloom-will-come-off-crimean-rose/ Transcript: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2014/06/06/antony-blinken-for-russia-bloom-will-come-off-crimean-rose/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmbco87 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the actual transcript and couldn't find any reference to that passage and after doing a Google search for that phrase, have found only sources from the 'World Socialist Web Site' and 'WikiBio'. It's unclear whether they used Wikipedia as a source for their articles and are not exactly reputable sources. Good spot! I've found the edit that caused this and the IP editor seems to have a history of adding unsourced information. I'll remove the passage.
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like the change to remove that made-up quote was picked up in the press here!
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well done, and ! Wikipedia, clamping down on misinformation one edit at a time.™ AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! The credit should go to for spotting it in the first place! Sdrqaz (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

First interaction on Wikipedia and it makes it to the news, weird! Dmbco87 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Encouraging! Hopefully this bodes well for the future edits. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
PLEASE, if you're going to delete or hide Secretary of State nominee from this article's infobox? Then do the same for the other Biden nominee bios infoboxes. Stop making this 'one' article stick out like a sore thumb. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Any Foreign Policy subscribers out there?
The following source looks good, but I can't access it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I don't subscribe to Foreign Policy, but I can access it via Incognito mode on my browser. Try it out and if that doesn't work, let me know! Sdrqaz (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Woah, good trick! Works for me now :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's slightly unethical (given how magazines and newspapers are going out of business). I'm okay with paying for a physical copy, but still have trouble with buying online subscriptions. Anyways, no judgement here :) Sdrqaz (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Why is he listed as "Presumptive nominee"?
For every other nomination that Biden has made, we list them as "Nominee", not "Presumptive nominee". "Presumptive" implies that while it's not official, you can say that it's going to be them with damn-near certainty, such as when Biden was the Democrat's presumptive nominee for President (i.e. after Bernie dropped out, but before the convention). So, it should say "Nominee", not "Presumptive nominee".BazingaFountain42 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an RfC at WP:BLPN regarding this issue. "Presumptive" is there because the nomination is not official yet. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is an RFC occurring at WP:BLPN. But that's not an excuse for you to repeatedly ignore 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But the nomination IS official. It's been official for a while. Biden formally nominated him during a press conference in Wilmington, the fact that Biden nominated him has been on the transition website for a while now. The nomination is official.BazingaFountain42 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This has become pathetic, now. Ever since Blinken's nomination, has been persistently reverting anyone, who places Nominee into the infobox. Yet, he hasn't been doing the same, at the other related bios. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What annoys me the most? The apparent apathy of the community-at-large. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

BTW: The BLPN RFC-in-question was archived 'today', with no decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a clear consensus in the RfC against "nominee", with everyone but you preferring either "presumptive nominee" (or similar language) or waiting on the infobox until the nominations are made official after the inauguration. Your hostile attitude towards others both here and at the RfC is not helpful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've stop editing this article days ago, out of frustration with your constant reverting. It wouldn't be frustrating, if you would impose what you're arguing, on all the Biden cabinet nominee bios. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This is related to breaking news. Are there any recent sources which discuss this becoming official? Are there any which dispute this? Are there any sources which indicate that this distinction is encyclopedically important? Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Either "Presumptive Secretary" or "Nominee" would be sensible, although "Secretary-designate" is how their colleagues address them in congressional and diplomatic correspondence. "Presumptive Nominee" applies prior to the person's nomination or designation, as has stated. should apply common sense and awareness of the subject matter prior to assuming managerial responsibility. Assume good faith, but not necessarily competence until demonstrated. Thanks for your help, there is alot of work to do on this article, let's focus and not get distracted or apathetic. Jaredscribe (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary Sources in this article, and WP policy
"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." WP:No_original_research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredscribe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , My point is precisely that the points you have added are largely not "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts"—they are, rather, Blinken's own interpretations of his life and role. See also WP:UNDUE, which counsels against loading an article up with material related to the subject that has not been given prominence by secondary sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to argue the details of this case, but I hope you'll reconsider on the matter of primary sources in general, especially when they are for notable public servants, in notable public hearings, testifying (reliably) about their own experiences and policies, and are matter of published congressional record. These primary sources are significantly different than, say, the private diaries and correspondance of a literary or public figure, which should be handled by a biographer.  That there exist WP:Citation templates for video games, movies, tv episodes and other NON-NOTABLE and NOT-RELIABLE primary sources for the trivial fictions of pop culture, is, I suppose evidence that your unnecessarily over-zealous interpretation of this cautionary guideline is not universally applied even within wikipedia itself.  That there does not (yet) exist citatation templates for RELIABLE and NOTABLE sources such as cite congressional-hearing or cite congressional-sworn-statement, points to profound problems in WP:Sourcing and prima facie evidence of WP:Systemic Bias toward the (sadly typical), white north American and European preference for unreality, mythology, and self-deception.  Since I'm unable to solve this problem myself, I humbly ask you to consider non-participation in your own oppression (and mine, and indeed all of ours) under this regime, and to please go make the templates yourself or forward this complaint to appropriate administrators while I go enjoy my Sabbath weekend.  Other than that, its been nice editing with you. Thanks for improving the citations given. This will reoccur.Jaredscribe (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not oppressing myself or anyone by hewing to the requirement that we use secondary sources to interpret the statements of public figures. WP:OR is a fundamental policy, which requires editors to refrain from selective quotation of primary sources they might be familiar with. Without using secondary sources to filter through the primary sources for us, we would essentially be writing WP:ESSAYs selecting information individual editors take to be important. The question, fundamentally, is not reliability. Of course a sworn statement in Congress is a reliable indication of what Blinken says or thinks. The issue is selective quotation, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:OR, and the avoidance of WP:ESSAY-like content. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Becomes Secy of State when he's sworn in. Not at the moment of confirmation by the US Senate.
Cabinet members don't take office upon confirmation by the US Senate. They take office upon being sworn in. But of course, trying to hammer that into the heads of so many, is like nailing jello to a wall :( GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Swearing in is a formality that is rarely covered explicitly by the news media. There's really no reason to police the article so heavily to enforce the confirmation/swearing in distinction. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I read in a media source that Blinken is to be sworn in Wednesday, January 27 by Vice President Harris. NPguy (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He was actually sworn in today—see File:Secretary Blinken is Sworn in as Secretary of State (50878397918).jpg. Same thing happened with Lloyd Austin: sworn in administratively on the day of Senate confirmation, then sworn in ceremonially by the VP a few days later. Not sure why they're doing it that way … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also this: . I suspect that tomorrow's event is the ceremonial swearing in, not the official legal one. NPguy (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Early Life and Education
His wife, Evan Ryan, is Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs. He views his "family tradition of public service as a "sacred duty", and as "payment on the debt to the country that gave so many of my relatives refuge and extraordinary opportunities across the generations." Jaredscribe (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 1 day prior

American Leadership and Exceptionalism
"American leadership matters; the world doesn't organize itself" when America does not lead, one of two things happens: "another country tries to take our place, but not in a manner likely to advance our values and interests", or else "maybe almost as bad, no one does, in which case there is chaos." Jaredscribe (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 1 day prior

Uyghur genocide, Western Sahara, Nord Stream II
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Undo. Doesn't seem necessary to add, i.e. upholding ex-admin policy or defending another policy shift, which quite a lot has been covered in this section". I think it is relevant and should be included.

"He also accused the Chinese government of committing genocide against ethnic Uyghurs. ... Blinken said that the Biden administration would not reverse Trump's recognition of Morocco's sovereignty over the disputed territory of Western Sahara, which was annexed by Morocco in 1975. ... Blinken defended Biden's decision to waive CAATSA sanctions on the company behind Russia's Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany."

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Tobby72, it seems to me that the inclusion of these foreign policy responses or shifts made by Blinken/U.S. Administration in one-sentence statements should be minimized and used sparingly in this section. Or at least sections should have continuity in the flow of text (e.g. dates/months in chronology) Are they news-worthy statements? Perhaps. But should every single one of them be listed? I doubt we have to. I'm not outright against adding it, but more on the way it's added. It reads more like a headline or a tweet. Perhaps that can me remedied. We should probably aim at fixing citation parameters (or lack thereof) when adding content as this article significantly expands during Blinken's tenure. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Tobby72, I agree with Pseud 14 that including these day-to-day ephemera of Blinken's work as Secretary of State is out of place. This article should not aim to be a catalog of his official pronouncements on the various topics of the day.  There need to be thresholds of significance and relevance to his personal role and career.  I am inclined to revert the latest edits as not meeting any of those thresholds, but wanted to discuss first. NPguy (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NPguy, agreed – while I don't find the above addition glaring infractions, I think a threshold is appropriate knowing full well that the subject is at the onset of his tenure and there is no possibility of this being adequately stable — the content of the article is certainly likely to undergo significant change. I did a minor overhaul on what was added, if you're satisfied with how it appears, I am ok with keeping it, and we abide by relevance/significance for thresholds moving forward. Thoughts? I think a good model would be Hillary Clinton's section as secretary of state. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging Tobby72 again for a reaction. I'm going to leave this alone for now.  I looked up policy on biographies of living people, ephemera, and notability, and didn't find any basis for deleting this information.  My concerns are not just with those issues but with the coherence and utility of the article.  If it becomes just a catalog of newspaper headlines over time, it will become harder to read.  I suggest adopting a thematic approach to these new entries, organizing around human rights or policies toward Russia, for example.  That's hard to do and risks veering into original research, so I'm not going to try it now. NPguy (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin in Geneva, 16 June 2021 (01).jpg

"majored in social studies"
does harvard rly have a dept of SOCIAL STUDIES?!

social studies in the US is a little kiddie version of civics or history. i've never heard the term used past around grade 5.

wouldn't harvard's be called sociology or the like? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's an interdisciplinary major. NPguy (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * wow, i'm really surprised by that. i wonder if they have "homerooms" and "lavatories" as well? 2601:19C:5280:5BA7:A58D:A9B9:8013:6F85 (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Time gap
[Just a note in case anyone cares to address]

There is no info re Blinken between '88 and '94. Humanengr (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not one critique articulated??
This reads like a state department approved press release. Aside from obliquely referencing calls for him to resign for the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation’s history (not that this article would give you any hint of that), there’s no criticism of any sort referenced in relation to this clown.

Surely at least a little is warranted for a guy who gives John Kerry a run for his money on the fecklessness front. No? 136.36.136.5 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Typo
The Early Life section of the article begins "Blinken was born on April 16, 1962, in Yonkers, New York, to a Jewish parents, Judith (Frehm) and Donald H. Blinken, who later served as U.S. Ambassador to Canada."

Seems particularly egregious for a locked article to have such an obvious grammatical error, where someone needs permission to correct a two-character mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:2:4030:68D4:DCA5:D922:CE75 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2023
Please insert a "the" between plays and guitar under personal life: "plays the guitar" to correct grammar. SopiELT (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, though I think "plays guitar" was also fine. I tend to implement edit requests on which I'm just neutral, but if anyone wants me to self-revert, I will. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Correction: Grandfather and Great-grandfather
Tony Blinken’s paternal grandfather was Maurice Goobatron, not Meir Blinken. (https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/15/obituaries/maurice-blinken-86-early-backer-of-israel.html)

Tony’s great-grandfather on paternal side was Meir Blinken (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meir_Blinken).

I know because my grandfather was Maurice Blinken’s brother. 2605:59C8:6182:1210:D170:DB32:8239:C01C (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)