Talk:Susan Rice/Archive 1

Misplaced citation
I'm transferring a misplaced citation that I found in the Awards section of the article -- unclear what it was doing there:

Perhaps somebody can figure out what (if anything) should be done with this. Cgingold (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Source for Birthday
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/politics/06rice.htm However, with that NY Times article a bunch of references in the article could and should) be consolidated into one. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move
I've moved this page from "Susan E. Rice" on the basis of the guideline's preference for getting rid of middle initials. I found only slightly more google hits (700k versus 500k) for the middle initial version and about equal news coverage, so I moved it.--chaser - t 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Osama bin Ladin assertion
Removing the below portion here for discussion:


 * In a 2002 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, former Ambassador to Sudan Timothy Carney and news contributor Mansoor Ijaz implicated Rice and counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke in missing an opportunity to neutralize Osama bin Laden while he was still in Sudan. They write that Sudan and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright were ready to cooperate on intelligence potentially leading to bin Laden, but that Rice and Clarke persuaded National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to overrule Albright. Similar allegations have been made by Vanity Fair contributing editor David Rose and Richard Miniter, author of Losing bin Laden, in a November 2003 interview with World.

While the above op-ed was posted in the Washington Post, it should be worth noting that Ijaz also claimed that Sudan offered to turn over bin Ladin to the U.S., a claim which was found to be not true by the 9/11 commission. So is this person a reliable source for his opinion to be included here? Lestatdelc (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. This wasn't that impressive to begin with in terms of strength of argument. The 9/11 Commission's finding should obviously be included if we include this particular criticism of Rice.--chaser - t 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that those crticisms really were made, and that they appeared in the criticism section and that the sources were noted and links provided I find it unusual that somehpone has decided, yet again to remove them entirely.


 * It IS the crticism section afterall, and these crticisms really were made. Is the some reason we must pretend they were not mad.  Must we pretend they were not made?


 * I don't believe the things written in the Book of Mormon but that does not mean we must expunge all quotations from it until it proves itself. There are many things Ben Stein says that I do not believe, but I feel no reason to pretend he did not say those things.


 * I will the criticisms to the page together with a note on the 9-11 commissions findings.
 * ~Bob Hyneman Dec 1. 11:00 pm


 * Because discredited "criticisms" presenting flat-out false clams were made, does not mean they are legitimate points to be included in a bio. There are rafts of bunk claims and criticisms leveled for members of the Clinton administration, from Vince Foster "murders" to refusing to take bin Ladin when offered. They are bullshit claims that are not true and adding them to the article gives POV and undue weight to the claims which have zero validity. Lestatdelc (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Third African Amercan
" She is also (...) the third African-American person to do so (after Andrew Young and Donald McHenry)"

This is factually wrong. What about Amb. Edward J. Perkins who served as the US Ambassador to the UN in 1992-93? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.167.236 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Image
The current image is very poor. Would this be more suitable? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Official portrait added. Gage (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Quote
The section on the Rwanda genocide features the same quote twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggggggggggggy (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the point?
The article is stating:
 * In September 2001 Samantha Power wrote in an Atlantic Monthly piece that while working at the national Security Council, Rice asked, during an interagency teleconference, “If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?" However, in the same article Power also notices that Rice acknowledges the mistakes made and "feels that she has a debt to repay."

It might be because of I am an Europe-based contributor – but where is the point? Why this tidbit is notable to mention here? I think this should be removed. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Rice served on the staff of the National Security Council and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during President Bill Clinton's second term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.11.190 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And? Why is it important? --Matthiasb (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd to include this citation sans any note of the action on Darfur advocacy group Power and Rice formed. 69.211.59.228 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Email address
Hello,

My name is Willard Metcalfe and I am a student at the Springfield College of Social Work in Springfield, Massachusetts. For my final semester I am working on a group project regarding Homelessness, and a social action project, and our group was just hoping to fax, or email a letter to Susan Rice. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. I can be reached at wmetcalf@hcrs.org.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.124.26 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Abiola death
I deleted the statement that Rice has been accused of murdering Abiola. The only source cited for that is an unsourced speculative piece, and even that article does not come out and assert that she did so. If an assertion of that magnitude is to be included, there should be at least some source to show more than simple fabrication, or a self-authenticating "it has been alleged that..." allegation. Bassomatic (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

spelling -- "emmigrated" should be "emigrated"
"emmigrated" is mis-spelled. Try "emigrated"

Viagra
Susan Rice told other members of the UN that the Khaddafi forces where given viagra to rape women as a weapon of war but it was later proven to be false.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42824884/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.166.104 (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Role in 2nd Congo War
The book "Africa's World War" by Gerard Prunier paints a picture of the Clinton administration generally, and Susan Rice specifically, as totally willing to overlook the crimes of Kagame of Rwanda because, it is suggested, guilt over the 1994 Genocide, vis-a-vis the 2nd Congo War and the enforcement of the Lusaka Peace Accords. Some mention of her role in this, the biggest war since WWII, should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Parents Names
Susan's father's name is NOT Egg Fried Rice, it is Emmett J. Rice. Seriously, how did that get past the censors here? www.biography.com/people/susan-e-rice-391616 Bgansel9 (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Lying about rape in Libya
Susan Rice was recently found to have lied during her claim government forces were being issued viagra to assist in civilian rape in Libya. This is a very serious matter, and it should definately be addresed in this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.99.5 (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There were reports about Viagra being found on Libyan soldiers, and a doctor from Ajdabiya had previously attested that soldiers had been issued with condoms and Viagra by the government. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iLwUJvihpEco3JY9pN7tS_TSVD3w?docId=CNG.884a11613242c5f5776f856c69831f72.10b1. Not to mention her comments were in a closed-door meeting with diplomats. What was Rice lying about?Ninahexan (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 16 statements
I have replaced the summary of the summary of what CNN claims Rice said on CBS with a direct quote, in context, footnoted to the actual CBS transcript and supported by a link to the actual ABC transcript of similar statements made in another interview that day. We report facts as accurately as possible. When a transcript is available, that is our first choice. No reason for us to add to the spin, on purpose or inadvertently. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of spin, this text needs to be changed unless it is supported by citation: "Rice came under scrutiny for allegedly misleading the American public regarding the assault on U.S. facilities in her statements five days after the attack on the Sunday talk shows." The linked article says nothing about Rice being "under scrutiny" or of "allegedly misleading" anyone. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * CNN is a reliable source and we use reliable sources as opposed to original research. Do you seriously contend that there were neither allegations, substantiated or not, nor scrutiny?  The reader is entitled to know both why there is a controversy here and any "rebuttal" to the allegations.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Rice's claims were based on information from United States intelligence services"
There's various problems with this sentence: 1) To remove the qualifier "many" from the claims is to contend that keeping "many" would inaccurately downplay the level of support for the totality of Rice's remarks. Yet Rice made a number of claims that are not clearly supported by the "talking points," such as "we've decimated al-Qaeda".  I was asked for "references" here but the obligation to provide references is on the party insisting on the less conservative phrasing.  If more is claimed, that incremental amount of additional claim needs additional sourcing. 2) "based on information from United States intelligence services" is not consistent with the sources. This source dated to September 14 says "American officials believe the attack was planned" and CNN reported on September 12, just the day after the attack, that "U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity say they believe the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi was planned before the protests and was not prompted by the film..." The bottom line here is that the claim that the talking points were supported by the "intelligence services" is not substantiated. What IS substantiated is that the heads of the agencies, such as the Obama appointee James R. Clapper, signed off on "talking points" that were provided to Rice. The non-partisan, civil servant level of the intelligence services is still part of the intelligence services. If one is going to insist there be no specification that the talking points were a top level construction or at least top level approved, an additional sentence would be needed noting what was being said by anonymous or lower level officials. 3) The consistent with the talking points line is being advanced by critics of the GOP House letter. If "critics" is to be removed, evidence should be provided that "critics" would inappropriately narrow where this observation is coming from.  Including "critics" gives the impression that there is a back-and-forth here.  Is that misleading?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, Rice went with the finally approved version of intelligence reports. How is this an attempt to mislead? Even the Al Qaeda bit, while off topic, reflects the widely known fact that Al Qaeda is down, if not out, and it would be strange if the Pentagon was unaware of the fact. The Pentagon is officially aware of it. See above for the reference.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to removed a reference to the House letter, that can certainly be considered. But evidently it's being included to suggest that a false charge of being "misleading" was leveled by House Republicans.  We've already got a strong rebuttal to that, in the form of the support from the talking points.  The issue here is simply whether Wikipedia should imply that that rebuttal is so strong it renders the GOP charge as completely baseless.  Critics say, with good reason, Rice was not "misleading."  Having Wikipedia say that is more neutral than phrasing along the lines of "Rice was not, in fact, misleading [and the other criticisms in the letter are equally baseless]."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

US intelligence and AL Queda
US intelligence reports did say that Al Queda is down, if not out. See U.S. Sees Al Qaeda as Incapable of Hitting Homeland TargetsJimmuldrow (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At issue here is whether there was anything political in her September 16 remarks. Her "we've decimated al Qaeda" claim is preceded by the following:
 * ''Q: The Romney campaign continues to criticize the administration....
 * ''SUSAN RICE: ...the American people expect in times of challenge overseas for our leaders to be unified and to come together and to be steadfast and steady and calm and responsible and that certainly what President Obama has been. With respect to what I think is a very empty and baseless charge of weakness, let's be plain, I think American people know the record very well. President Obama said when he was running for President that he would refocus our efforts and attentions on al Qaeda. We've decimated al Qaeda.
 * Is US intelligence of the view that the "Romney campaign" made "a very empty and baseless charge of weakness" and that "President Obama" has been "steadfast and steady and calm and responsible"? I don't think it is clear that "US intelligence" was "certainly" convinced of this.  I suggest the intelligence services would not agree with such a politically partisan conclusion, at least below the political appointee level.  Yes it is worth noting that there was support for much of what Rice said in the security agencies.  But it is another thing to have Wikipedia imply that the GOP complaint that Rice engaged in some political spin as well is completely baseless.  Wikipedia should note the support provided by the talking points.  Her Full Ginsburg wasn't all or just political spin.  But Wikipedia should be restrained with respect to whether the existence of the talking points eliminates any controversy.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's tough for anyone to have every statement come from an approved intelligence report, but the relevant statements were, basically.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Books and Publications
This section requires more work, unless publications can not be assigned 100% authorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.48.18 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Rice withdraws name for Secretary of State candidacy
NPR article with letter

The Letter Itself

Narrenburg (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Benghazi is almost ignored?
The benghazi attacks and Rice's controversial handling of the info need to be inserted and given the relevant attention as they are a big part of her wp:notability. The page right now reads like a sanitized bio or press release, not exactly wp:npov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.192.205 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue is mentioned in detail towards the end. Most of the controversy is from Republicans describing a Democrat.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Keystone XL pipeline investment (conflict of interest) and personal wealth"
I'm not sure what the appropriate context would be for this in a Wikipedia biography, but according to Open Secrets, Rice is the wealthiest member of the Executive Branch. I found this after reading an article in The Hill about her $300,000-$600,000 investment in one of the companies associated with the Keystone XL pipeline. I came to Wikipedia to find out where her personal fortune--estimated to be between $23,521,177 and $43,543,009 in 2009--had come from but found nothing. I can only assume that it is mostly inherited from her parents but I'd rather know for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.183.194 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, actually this information was in here before, but someone has removed it... Either way, you are absolutely correct that this information belongs in this article.Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is the Keystone XL Pipeline Info?
How come there is no information about Susan Rice's personal wealth or her investments in the Keystone XL Pipeline? This information use to be included in the article. What happened to it? Who took it out? Intentionally and deliberately withholding or deleting this information is akin to suppressing it, is it not? As the National Security Advisor, isn't there a very direct conflict of interest with her personal gain of wealth and her strategic advisement to the President? Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Black

 *  If confirmed, Rice will become United States' third woman ambassador to the UN, following Madeleine Albright and Jeane Kirkpatrick. She will also be the first black woman to hold the position 

What about # of African-Americans? Is she 4th or something? 76.66.198.171 (talk) Condelezza Rice. - Might be a good idea to add a sentence confirming no relation to Condelezza Rice. I have not searched to confirm this but expect if there was any relationship it would already be listed. Wfoj2 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 20:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Why will no one say the obvious truth, she obtained the job as NS Advisor because she is black, she is not remotely qualified for the position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.20.241 (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticism
Here's an opinion piece by Richard Grenell that is critical of Rice's tenure at the UN. Grenell states that Rice failed to attend emergency sessions on the Arab Spring and Gaza flotilla, "was absent from the Haiti crisis meeting and was a no-show for the last open meeting scheduled before the planned UN vote to recognize Palestinian statehood," and passed only one resolution on Iran (compared to five under President Bush's UN team). He further opines that Russia and China vetoed a US resolution on Syria an "unprecedented three times" despite Rice's attempts to mend relations with the global community. BLPs usually incorporate criticism; consider this a critical source that could potentially be used. I'm not sure how much weight it deserves, or how many other potential sources there might be. Just drawing attention to the fact that criticism is out there.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already added a few instances that have been criticized or considered controversial. (Especially) if the specific criticisms here were seconded by another party, it would be appropriate to include by condensing the instances into a single point of contention, such as "Rice's attendance record with respect to UN emergency sessions has been criticized" with a citation to the critics.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I came to this article specifically to see why she is considered a controversial figure. Would be nice to see a separate section if possible. I know political articles can be especially contentious but since it is an undeniable fact that she has become a controversial figure, I think it is worth devoting a few lines at least. 173.61.81.230 (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a policy Criticism that says "Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." You'll find that there are several instances in the article where the discussion takes a measured but critical perspective.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would call it "less than critical". I do not believe this article takes a wholly unbiased approach to Ms. Rice involvement in certain events.  There are plenty of articles with "Controversy" sections (in fact, there are whole articles about individuals' controversies).  Susan Rice has earned her status as a controversial figure.  That should be reflected here.71.123.162.9 (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Source for author of email?
Regarding the following text:
 * During a house hearing on May 8, 2013, an email was read aloud by Representative Trey Gowdy, which was never classified, that was sent on September 12, 2012 to Susan Rice, as well as many other members of the State Department. The email stated clearly that the attacks were committed by Islamic terrorists, no mention of an "angry mob" or protestors was contained in the email. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/05/benghazi-hearing.html

I was trying to find out who sent the email, but when I checked the cited reference, which turned out to be titled "Hearing: Jets Might Have Prevented Mortar Attack on Benghazi Compound", I could find no mention of the email at all. Can someone more familiar with this than I am please fix the citation so that it points to the right place, and perhaps add the identity of the source of the email to the main article? Thanks. (George Fergus (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC))
 * There are Utube vidios about the email, but not in the reference mentioned. You may remove the above if you wish.Jimmuldrow (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the context for the email should be strengthened if it is to remain here. Here's what I found: the email was "sent by Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary for Middle Eastern affairs at the State Department, to Hicks and other top U.S. officials." I found it here.--Shorbowman (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Susan Rice involvement in Obama's alleged wiretapping of Trump
More and more sources (today the Washington Post) are confirming Ms Rice's involvement in requesting the unmasking of electronic surveillance of Trump and his team. Mr. Paul last night stated that she needs to be called to testify about it before Congress or the Senate. Since the Obama wiretapping scandal is likely to blow up very big, I suggest mentioning this in the article. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I came to Susan Rice's page on Wikipedia to hopefully read something factual about these events. Unfortunately I found only a locked page. MusselParty (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this subject heading is why we need to add an explanation because the reporting is that Rice was involved in unmasking individuals, which was well within her authority. Unmasking individuals does not provide any proof for the still unproven accusation that President Obama wiretapped Trump. I will begin to gather reliable sources. Knope7 (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Susan Rice, Ex-National Security Adviser, Now in Spotlight in Surveillance Debate, New York Times
 * Susan Rice Speaks Out on ‘Unmasking’ Accusations: ‘I Leaked Nothing to Nobody’, NBC News
 * Did Susan Rice Do Anything Wrong By Asking to 'Unmask' Trump Officials?, The Atlantic
 * Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel, Bloomberg Knope7 (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have modified the heading to conform to BLP. --Neil N  talk to me 00:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's some background needed here; there appears to be an ongoing attempt to tie Rice's unmasking of transcripts of conversations between transition team officials and foreign nationals (after the election) to allegations of direct surveillance of Trump himself (before the election), because they sort of sound close enough for political purposes. The Business Insider article below quotes Robert Deitz ("former senior counselor to the CIA director and former general counsel at the National Security Agency"), Michael Hayden, Steve Slick ("former CIA operations officer and NSC official who now heads the Intelligence Studies Project at the University of Texas at Austin") and Paul Pillar all saying that no, this is not the same as surveillance. Also, via tweets, concurrence from senior fellows at the Brookings Institute and at the Foreign Policy Research Institute saying the same thing.
 * We now have a better idea who's behind 'unmasking' Trump officials' contact with foreign agents — and why, Business Insider grendel&#124;khan 16:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree more detail is needed, particularly about the whole Nunes situation. There are plenty of reliable sources out there that have written about this. If you would like to give it a try that would be great. I'm not sure when I would get to it. Knope7 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Washington Post. By the way, Knope7, President Trump later said he meant by "wiretapping" any kind of general surveillance over him or his people.  So, this revelation about Rice does prove Trump right.  I notice that since this weekend the Old Media is no longer accusing him of a falsehood over it. 152.130.15.14 (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please check the New York Times article and Bloomberg article originally cited. Both articles say that Trump has not provided any evidence that Trump Towers was wiretapped. We deal in facts from reliable sources here and reliable sources say Rice unmasking is not evidence of Trump Tower being wiretapped by Obama. Again, this is why I support a more full explanation of Rice's involvement in unmasking. Unmasking is not wiretapping and it is not spying.

Knope7 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wiretapping" is my understanding is not an obsolete term. No literal wire tapping is done with any frequency anymore and legally wiretapping has included surveillance of internet and telecommunications since 2001.  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wiretapping    So Trump's usage of the 1950s term wiretapping in quotes, which he did, is perfectly appropriate to capture electronic surveillance ETC.  Language is like that.  Terms broaden and change as technology and time progresses. If anyone else said that they were wiretapped, they would not think that wires were connected to their phone in a literal sense.  The NSA wiretaps every foreign-connected telephone call.  They accomplish the wiretap without telephones, since cell phone aren't telephones, they do so without a connection since it is done by copying packets and rerouting them, and the do so without a "call" since they "listen" when "phones" are "off".  If silly people want to wrap around the axle on the term "wiretap" which Trump put in quotes, then you must also review, telephone, phone, call, listen, tap, suveille, telephone surveillance, communication surveillance, etc etc.  Wiretapping is well understood to encompass a broad array of surveillance media and mediums and serves as a concise term, even according to US law circa 2001.  Above, NeilN quotes the NYT that Susan Rice was in a "SPOTLIGHT" when she was certainly not illuminated by a confined-focus light source on a stage.  Critics must not be motivated by their hatred of Trump and nit-pick him to the point of making themselves absurd and torturing language into this rigid computer variable form.  Collins dictionary uses "telephone etc" and "information" in it's definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C381:1C4C:C822:2C62:BD8D:6E89 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please look at the editor signature placement carefully. That was not me. --Neil N  talk to me 13:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, the the editor with the IP address, the issue is not the word "wiretapping." Even the most charitable interpretation of that term still leaves the tweet wholly unsupported by evidence. The Bloomberg article that first reported Rice unmasked officials, and which I already linked in this discussion, said the following, "Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.". What we need to focus on is how to cover this topic as it relates to Rice in the article based on what is reported by reliable sources. This isn't about our broader opinions about politicians or the media. We're trying to write an accurate article about Susan Rice. Knope7 (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I offer my thanks to everyone working on sorting out this issue. MusselParty (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Condoleeza And Susan: Same Last Name=Same Owners?
The article says they are of no direct relation, but considering they are both African-American and probably descendents of slaves, what if they both have the same last name because of shared slave owners in their ancestors' past or even just slave owners who were related to each other? I want to know, so someone please start researching to either confirm or deny this.75.133.90.126 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, on so many levels. Not all blacks in the US are descendants of slaves, see Barack Obama. Many emancipated slaves took the surnames of their former owners (see the Jefferson family) or made them up in fashion similar to names you may be familiar with in Europeans. "Fletcher" may have been fletchers. "Rice" may have farmed rice, etc. Not all Smiths, Adams, Moores, et al are related in any tangible way. Unless you have some actual indication that they're related I see no reason why you'd conclude that such a common name is an indication of any real relation. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Until a few days ago I'd never heard of Susan Rice, and when I did hear about her my first thought was, is she related to Condoleezza Rice, given that she even looks a bit like her, maybe sisters or something? So I came here and found this article confirmed they aren't related, until some jerk removed the fact stating that "all back people ar not related". Really? I'd never have guessed! Anyway, I've put back the information; it's useful. 86.23.119.204 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of fluffy stuff on the web denies any relationship but offers no proof of that assertion. However there was a family named Rice in the South that is antebellum Jewish and wealthy enough to have had servants of some quantity. This article is light on biographical info, but seems to be the sort where a choice has to be made between a good article and freedom from restrictions. I think given the subject's notoriety and her likeliness to remain so that it would be a good idea to have full biographical info and make it a heavily restricted article.John5Russell3Finley (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any connection between Susan Rice and Condoleezza Rice would need to be supported by reliable sources. BBC says they are not related. Attempts to trace their ancestry would likely run afoul of WP:orginal research and WP:Synth. There are a lot of famous people named Rice and made good points in the comment above. I don't think this path is likely to lead to information suited for this article. Knope7 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

significant
The table at right under photo details position history. Under President Obama, shows Rice succeeded by Flynn:

President	Barack Obama Deputy	Avril Haines Preceded by	Tom Donilon Succeeded by	Michael T. Flynn"

This may be standard format throughout Wiki, but shouldn't "Succeeded by" say something like "Trump presidency NSA" with source link to Flynn page? The way it is displayed, it seems to indicate Flynn succeeded her during Obama administration.Rainpanda (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome! The format you mentioned is the way it is done across Wikipedia and I don't think there's a compelling reason to treat this page differently. Personally I don't think "Successor by" implies the office holder was appointed by the same President. If someone would like to learn about Flynn and see who appointed him, they can follow the link to his page. As a side note, we usually start new sections at the bottom of a page. Knope7 (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Susan Rice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210145131/http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/jarrett_podesta_rouse_to_lead.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/jarrett_podesta_rouse_to_lead.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201182614/http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/key_members_of_obama_biden_national_security_team_announced/ to http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/key_members_of_obama_biden_national_security_team_announced/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205165303/http://www.startribune.com/nation/35326694.html?elr=KArks%3ADCiUMEaPc%3AUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUU to http://www.startribune.com/nation/35326694.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516092852/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21999/FSI_AR07_FINAL.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/21999/FSI_AR07_FINAL.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625114206/http://www.internews.org/about/ar2003/annual_report_2003.pdf to http://www.internews.org/about/ar2003/annual_report_2003.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612100614/http://www.internews.org/dirs/default.shtm to http://www.internews.org/dirs/default.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102084205/http://www3.brookings.edu/media/NewsReleases/2002/20020913rice.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/media/NewsReleases/2002/20020913rice.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060412001950/http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/ to http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115214705/http://www.brookings.edu/scholars/srice.htm to http://www.brookings.edu/scholars/srice.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)