Talk:Victoria Nuland/Archive 1

Untitled
Is this not text directly copied from the main bio in the external links? SGGH 13:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, since it is a us.gov website, the contents of it are public domain. 210.229.27.85 05:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Poorly designed Career Section
This article has a strange "career" section. It seems to jump back and forth in time. Is there any reason why we can't order everything chronologically? Poyani (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Most of the article is nothing more than a copy-paste of one of the websites listed in the references.--Ragheb.araby (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Whitewash
There seems to be a whitewashing of the conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt. I recommend that instead of the phrase, "in [a] discussion about how to handle [the] crises in [the] Ukraine," I think that it would be better to word that statement, "in a discussion about how to apparently manipulate the crises in the Ukraine." I think that anybody who listens to the video can hear that there seems to be a direct meddling in Ukrainian affairs. I highly encourage a discussion here about the wording. If there is no opposition, then I will revise in about a week.  Lighthead  þ 00:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and this is why the article is now flagged. Where is the honest discussion of Victoria Nulands attempts on behalf of the US state department to foment a coup in the Ukraine - a coup which was successful and has led us to the current impasse? The article reads like propaganda. This woman is partially responsible for instigating a civil war, and helping depose a legitimately elected government. Lets try for some balance. 142.176.57.222 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"how to apparently manipulate the crises in the Ukraine." I do not think this is what you mean and I know that it is definitely not what you should mean. To apparently manipulate the crises in Ukraine in a certain way would be to appear to manipulate the crises in the Ukraine in a certain way, not necessarily to ACTUALLY manipulate them in that way. I think the passage should read:

"in a discussion apparently about how to manipulate the crises in Ukraine."

I am not judging the content of the passage --- only suggesting how to correct the syntax. ---Dagme (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I entirely concur with you. --IIIraute (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"the Ukraine" is not the (English) common name of Ukraine since December 1991. So the sentence "in a discussion about how to apparently manipulate the crises in the Ukraine" is not proper English. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  01:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * None of the sources speak of "Pyatt and Nuland apparently manipulate"; so Lighthead idea above is pure WP:ORIGINALSYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Besides source 7 in the article is a transcript of the conversation. Can you please let the readers of Wikipedia make up their own mind before feeding them with your conclusions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... not The O'Reilly Factor... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  01:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Include the text of the conversation in the article and THEN "let the readers of Wikipedia make up their own mind". To me, the whitewash is the failure to include what was actually said. What was said is far more damning than any comment or opinion about it could be. At a bare mnimum, the article should clearly state that Nuland said "Fuck the EU." It seems that you want to bring Wikipedia down to the level of the corporate media and the FCC, who insist on putting "BLEEP" for "Fuck", when the rest of the world tells it like it is, and when a government official on our dime and in our name says "Fuck the EU". ---Dagme (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * PS If Lighthead and IIIraute are interested in working on Wikipedia-articles about 3th countries "apparently manipulating the crises in Ukraine" I can recommend 17 December 2013 Ukrainian–Russian action plan and Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement for them... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  01:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the transcript you've read is faulty, but the whole conversation is obviously indicative of an administration manipulating heads of state to fall in line with their agenda. I also don't understand how you think that I represent The O'Reilly Factor. Why, because I'm American? Are you trying to insinuate that all Americans are so far right that they watch the O'Reilly Factor? It sounds like a personal attack. I demand that you explain your deriding me.  Lighthead  þ 02:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I do have a source backing up what I'm saying. It might not be as "leftist" as you would like. It's from the Christian Science Monitor. I hope I didn't make you pass out by wanting to use a reference of a news source with the word Christ in its title. Reason for strikethrough: Saw userpage.  Lighthead  þ 02:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the source in question: If you do not have a reasonable objection to this source (note: reasonable), then I will go forward and revise the article with said source. I think that you may have meant to link to this: WP:PLACE. And, besides, I didn't see that rule about the Ukraine anywhere in either link.  Lighthead  þ 03:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've listened to the tape several times (anyone can). I think the current description of the conversation — discussing the strategic plans about the roles of Ukrainian opposition leaders the country’s future government — is a  good summary of what's discussed.
 * Yes, it's possible to conclude or opine that they are discussing how to "manipulate" the crisis, but it's just as possible to view it as a consideration of the forces and personalities involved with an eye to encouraging a resolution. "Manipulation" is a value judgment that may or may not be valid.
 * The crux of this brouhaha is not the conversation itself, but Ms. Nuland's crudely cavalier use of the F-word with regard to the EU, which seems to reflect a jaundiced view of that organization. I view the current paragraph as a reasonable description of this episode. Sca (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll agree to your point. You make a good case. I'll just leave this conversation here as a record. Thanks!  Lighthead  þ 01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sca, are really indoctrinate like that? The conversation itself is the disgrace, they were plotting a coup d'état: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m68A_u-snKU, in 2009 US-President Obama made a major gesture of conciliation to Iran when he admitted US involvement in the 1953 coup which overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. The coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhand methods to get rid of a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests. The neo-con State Department functionary Nuland was playing Zbigniew Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard. Incidentally, Brzezinski was one of the attendees at the recent 50th Munich Security Conference (January 31st –February 2nd). Other guests included James Clapper, Henry Kissinger, the godfather of the neo-cons, and Tony Blair (what rogues gallery would be complete without him). One of the newcomers to this annual meeting was Vitali Klitschko, another was Arseniy Yatsenyuk:


 * https://www.securityconference.de/mediathek/single/video/panel-discussion-global-power-and-regional-stability-a-focus-on-central-and-eastern-europe-1/


 * And... flanked by street-sized poster adverts for Exxon Mobil and Chevron, Victoria Nuland spoke Dec 13th 2013 to the "US-Ukraine Foundation" calling on the Ukraine to accept what she described as the "necessary" IMF reforms (TINA):


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU


 * “The reforms that the IMF insists on are necessary for the long term economic health of the country. A new deal with the IMF would also send a positive signal to private markets, and would increase foreign direct investment that is so urgently needed in Ukraine. Signing the Association Agreement with the EU would also put the Ukraine on a path to strengthening the sort of stable and predictable business environment that investors require. There is no other path that would bring Ukraine back to long term political stability and economic growth.” [from 5 mins]


 * In other words, welcome to the club – and get in line behind Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy for a strong dose of IMF Austerity-therapy. Nuland also proudly announced that the United States had spent “over five billion dollars to assist” the country: "Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as the promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over five billion dollars to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine." [from 7:30 mins] --79.223.2.16 (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the "Notes" section
What is the Notes section for here? Most of them seem more argumentative than informative. 69.158.124.43 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeeeppppp.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP restart
As this is about a living person and our WP:BLP policy clearly states that WP:NPOV must be followed such as WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION and the clear concerns about WP:OR, i have blanked the section to start over. Gain consensus here on the talk page, THEN restore agreed upon content and presentation to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made a first pass . If that is not an acceptable starting point for further conversation, we can blank it again with someone else making a proposal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a process known as WP:BRD. You have reverted material sourced to multiple RS and made only vague claims with respect to policy violations. Either be more specific in addressing each problem you see, or stop trying to impede other editors that are following policy in creating content on this article.
 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE definitely applies to this article.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And there is a policy (not an essay, like BRD), known as WP:BLP. The main problem with that portion of the article though is not that it covers the incident, it should. Rather it's that the whole damn thing was a whole bunch of WP:OR which was written up in a way which was pretty much unfixable. Like RPoD says, write up a properly sourced version of that part, propose it here, and we can put it back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What in the section do you assert is WP:OR? I've looked at the sources, and the expose could easily be much more in depth and negative. The last version you reverted covered only the basics.


 * 1) Interception of call
 * 2) Allegation of reference
 * 3) Apology
 * 4) Reaction of European leaders
 * The section should probably cover the material cited in the Reuters article"The audio clip, which was posted on Tuesday but gained wide circulation on Thursday, appears to show the official, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, weighing in on the make-up of the next Ukrainian government. Nuland is heard telling U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt that she doesn't think Vitaly Klitschko, the boxer-turned-politician who is a main opposition leader, should be in a new government. 'So I don't think Klitsch (Klitschko) should go into the government,' she said in the recording, which appeared to describe events that occurred in late January. 'I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a good idea.'"
 * So, if you want to make an allegation that there is OR in the section, and use that as an excuse to blank it, you probably need to be specific about what you perceive to be OR, as section blanking in this case is tantamount to removing important information on probably the single incident in the subject of the articles life for which she is known and noted. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD Text of rewrite of section on the extremely well-known obscene remark made by Nuland
Generally speaking, blanking of sections that can be sourced to tens of reliable sources seems undesirable, and since the WP:BRD cycle has been interrupted by such a section blanking here, I'm posting the boldly rewritten and freshly posted text covering the material related to the issue at hand. Please use this section to address specific issues and post candidate revisions. Note that the "example text" tags are likely incorrectly formatted.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 22:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * in the cases of WP:BLP blanking is absolutely acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, if you say so. I've made one further slight ce (after yours) to better integrate the transition to the block quote.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 23:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Due Weight

 * 2014 Ukraine/EU conversation/"treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"

Per WP:BALASPS An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Why do you consider 1 swear word she once used so important that a few hours ago it made up 25% of the article? If this article would have been so long as the one on John Kerry the length would have made sense...

—  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.12.136 (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

69.158.124.43 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed comments that violated WP:Not a forum. is a 00:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Outdated Photo
It is wikipedia policy to use up to date photos. The "Fuck-the-EU"-lady looks a bit different by now: Are US PR managers managing this page? Galant Khan (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reaction of State Department and White House on leaked phone call
User Hertzen removed the mentioning of State Department spokesperson Jen Psakis saying that her name doesn't show up in the sources. The reference to the Guardian cites then White House spokesperson Jay Carney. The reference to Bloomberg cites Psakis. Both state that Rogozins assistant Dmitry Loskutov was the first to tweet about the telephone call. Otto (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dispute over sourcing of characterization of Nuland's husband as a "leading neo-conservative"
Since there have been repeated deletions of this material on supposed BLP grounds, I started a thread at the BLP noticeboard to get input about whether the deletions are justified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Victoria_Nuland_and_Robert_Kagan Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The account of has been confirmed by a Checkuser as a sock puppet of the banned editor  and has been blocked indefinitely. This apparently constructive contribution has been struck-through per policy. Dear0Dear 19:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversial reference to the EU in recorded phone conversation

 * I disagree with the "controversial reference to the EU" heading, because it is editorial commentary. The call was controversial for many reasons, and that choice of headings has the effect of instructing the reader to consider that reason above all others. I think the inclusion of the quote by Anne Gearan is very helpful. I don't think that it is particularly scandalous that Nuland used bad language when talking about the EU. Many people might use bad language when they have the expectation of privacy. It is far more scandalous that Nuland is revealing the extent to which the US was meddling in Ukrainian affairs, while taking a public stance of respecting national sovereignty. Joe Bodacious (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The account of has been confirmed by a Checkuser as a sock puppet of banned  and has been blocked indefinitely. This contribution has been struck-through per policy, which encourages editors to revert or remove such edits.

Dear0Dear 19:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, good point about placing too much focus on the obscenity in that heading.
 * What needs to be doe next is to include material on the bread passing out incident (with Senator McCain in tow). There are also numerous images of that, and I think we should find one to put into the article as it is also widely reported.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 21:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources?
Is there a prohibition on the use of Russian sources? The reason I ask is that Nuland's remarks about the US spending $5 billion to get the desired outcome in Ukraine, and the story about her passing out cookies to demonstrators at the Maidan, seem to be covered (in English) only in the Russian and Iranian press sources that are available online. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that these things happened, but the other English language press seem to be avoiding any discussion of them. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The account of has been confirmed by a Checkuser as a sock puppet of the banned . This contribution has been struck-through per policy, which encourages editors to revert or remove such edits.
 * Dear0Dear 19:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Russian sources tend to be POV by not giving all sides an equal voice.
 * Case in point:

A Ukrainian fighter aircraft delivered an airstrike said ITAR-TASS, Rebels said the blast was caused by an airstrike, but Ukrainian security officials said the separatists had fired a heat-seeking missile at a jet and inadvertently struck their own headquarters said The Washington Post. By leaving out the information by the Ukrainian security officials ITAR-TASS made a piece of propaganda, by including the information by the Ukrainian security officials The Washington Post made a genuine piece of journalism. Again here ITAR-TASS says People’s militia in the conflict-hit south-eastern Ukrainian city of Sloviansk downed a Su-25 fighter and "again forgets" to include Ukrainian authorities side of the story, The Washington Post does do that and the we find out: Rebels in the town said they had brought down a Su-25 attack aircraft, but this was denied by Ukrainian authorities. See this CNN article on how journalist should report about Ukraine (and how to report about any armed conflict).
 * So I would advice against using Russian sources only per WP:BLPSTYLE.


 * On another note: I think Ukraine is covered enough in this article and other parts of her career should be given more writing... The article in its current form is 20% about 1 phone call... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

PS Putin was willing to pay $15 billion to get the desired outcome in Ukraine and in the long run a lot more by lowering Ukraine's natural gas price by almost 50%. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE would appear to be the policy that takes precedence here, not WP:BLPSTYLE, which would appear to be secondary. Much more than 20% of Nuland's notability is associated with her role in the Ukraine debacle--I would guess 60-70%. When was the first time you heard of Nuland? in relation to the 2012 Benghazi attack?
 * The point raised about Russian sources being "POV" is itself "POV", and RS/N demonstrates that the sources are generally considered reliable when attributed. As with all sources, if they contain verifiably incorrect information, that is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
 * In a recent RS/N thread, I present the following sources in relation to the bread bag largess incident. No objections were raised against any of them, which include an article from Time Magazine and a piece by Thom Hartmann, and a preliminary assessment of US spending $5 billion in Ukraine, and I've added a video of Nuland speaking on that.RS/N thread
 * Corroborating sources (from RS/N thread):


 * 1) She made clear the United States supported the protesters’ fight "The insinuation that the United States incited the people of Ukraine to riot or rebel is patently false," said Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman.
 * 2) video of Nuland presentation
 * 3) Western Diplomats Are Going to Disappoint Ukraine’s Protesters, Time Magazine, Deceber 13, 2013"''The hand of U.S. diplomacy swept down over Ukraine this week with an odd bit of American largesse — a plastic bag of bread. Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, bore the bag on Wednesday into the crowd of protesters camped out in the middle of the capital, Kiev. As her circle of bodyguards parted, Nuland held it out to an elderly demonstrator in a big blue parka. “Good to see you!” the diplomat chirped. “We’re here from America. Would you like some bread?” Smiling politely, the woman demurred, took a step backward and waved the generosity away."
 * 4)
 * 5) video
 * 6) first encounter with this site -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

interwiki - links to articles in other languages
Why are links to articles about Nuland in other languages here missing? Compare Nuland articles on German and French wikipedia (de:Victoria Nuland, fr:Victoria Nuland). It seems something went wrong here.--91.61.127.221 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok! They are back again!--91.61.127.221 (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)