Talk:Victoria Nuland

Multiple versions of the F*** the EU recording

On 28 Feb, I added the following paragraph to the Victoria_Nuland page:

There are at least two versions of the audio recording of the Nuland-Pyatt conversation in circulation at YouTube and elsewhere, with quite different meanings. Accurate reexamination of the exact wording and syntax of one of them, that was published on 7 February 2014 by GlobalTVz, reveals that Nuland's expletive remark can be understood not as her insulting the EU, but rather her response to Pyatt's statement that the Russians will try to torpedo the process of increasing EU influence in Ukraine. In this version, she is agreeing with Pyatt, and her expletive expression is a paraphrase of the Russian position on EU influence in Ukraine. Other versions of the audio recording, for example that transcribed on the BBC website, are cut such that Nuland is portrayed as saying rudely that the EU can be ignored. The fact that various versions of this controversial recording are in circulation has not (as of 28 Feb 2014) been publicly addressed.

This paragraph was deleted (for the second time) by user NazariyKaminski, on the grounds that it was not adequately referenced. May I ask whether other WikiPedians consider this material adequately referenced, and worth adding to this page? Many thanks. DomLaguna (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

--- Can someone please explain her beef with the EU for the sake of context? I know the EU has back-stabbed the United States with the petroeuro but how deep does this mutual animosity run? - 67.7.203.155 (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that's the whole point: one public version of the phone recording shows that Nuland had no beef with the EU at all, and indeed is positive about their involvement. In that version She is saying that the Russians have a "f*** you" attitude to the EU. Which appears to be borne out by currently-evolving events. DomLaguna (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed this section. It lacked any references and made no sense. I don't know what was it was trying to say, but it was nonsensical. There cannot be different recorded 'versions' of the SAME conversation. If REPORTS of it differ then say that. 69.158.124.43 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous criticism above, from 69.158.124.43, that "It lacked any references and made no sense" is tendentious and factually incorrect. The section is indeed carefully referenced, and makes good sense. There are indeed different recorded versions of the same conversation. It is bizarre, which is why it is worth reporting in Wikipedia. If you chase down the recordings of the Nuland-Pyatt conversation on Youtube and elsewhere, you will find that there are two (and maybe more) quite different versions of the SAME phone conversation. Evidently, there has been some editing or splicing of an original recording so that the parts of the conversation appear in different sequences. We don't know which of the public versions is more original, or if both derive, through editing, from some unknown third version. It's not (only) the reports that differ. It's the actual recordings in circulation. I have documented the two different recordings in my text. Both are publicly available at Youtube. Also, one is on the BBC website and the other is at archive.org. I am now reinstating the text for the second time, because it is of high public interest. I am also contacting the Wikipedia authorities for advice on this dispute. 2001:62A:4:2600:7532:2F28:5BCC:8752 (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have researched the different-phonecall-versions issue sufficiently to know that the (so-called) GlobalTVz version is fake. In the correct version, Victoria's statement makes conversational sense, that if the UN can help glue it, then F the EU. That is, we don't need them. In the GlobalTVZ version, Victoria comes out of the blue after Pyatt's comment about the Russian possible attempt to torpedo it. It clearly doesn't fit. Moreover, Pyatt would not have said "No, exactly" at that point in that case. (The "no" is subdued, but everybody seems to agree it is "no".)
This shows how someone with basically nothing can use Wiki to promote their POV. The entire section about multiple versions should be eliminated, and a reference to GlobalTVZ's pitiful fraud should just be eliminated as well.
I personally won't do anything. I'll state my analysis, and leave it at that. (I neglected to log-in and my comment didn't show my sig. I edited it slightly after I did login.) Nehmo (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)2605:A601:250:8601:6D43:FA15:B560:40B4 (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nehmo, I agree with your observation that the flow of the conversation in the GlobalTVz version doesn't make sense. Obviously this is a tampered version of the original one. Because Nuland has apologized for her improper behaviour makes the fabricated interpretation of DomLaguna-Wujastyk no sense. Otto (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good points. I hadn't read this analysis earlier. A doctored version is a doctored version, and it doesn't matter who doctored it, but the illogical aspects of the "version B" are likely the reason that it hasn't been covered in RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nehmo. I have tried hard to find out who GlobalTVz is, and I can't. They are an identity on Yahoo, and there are no details elsewhere on the net that I can find. How did you find out anything? What is your evidence for saying that the GlobalTVz version is fake? In my view, probably both versions of the recording are fake in the sense that both may have been edited or doctored in different ways. It's impossible to know which is original, if either. Your critique of the flow of conversation is not correct. Both versions make quite good sense, actually. The point of reporting the existence of versions on Wikipedia is that it is informative and it undermines the main public narrative that Nuland insulted the EU. Probably she didn't. Or maybe she did. But certainly, she was in some way or other set up, first by the fact that the private call was recorded and publicly released, and secondly because the call was edited. The central point is that this was not the simple capture of of an unguarded comment; the whole thing is manufactured. DomLaguna (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reinstated the account of the two versions of the recording. I hope NazariyKaminski does not delete it again. I have satisfied his requirement for better referencing. Anyone else: please let me know if you think this paragraph needs improvement. DomLaguna (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The section is a Original Research mess. There are all kind of interpretations of what she said and what happened with very little sources, mostly just the tapes itself. I have tagged the article for original research and added multiple citations needed tags in the section itself. Iselilja (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Iselilja (17 May 2014). This is not "original research," but citing and commenting on the multiple public versions of the phone recording. I feel that your "Original Research" assertion is a rhetorical ploy aimed at suppressing this topic. The fact is, two (or more) versions of this recording are circulating in the public domain, and they have diametrically opposed meanings. One shows Nuland criticising the EU, the other shows her criticising Russia. That is an important point of fact that bears representation here on Wikipedia. DomLaguna (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"TheRedPenOfDoom" deleted my changes of yesterday without discussion and without justification. My edits were minimal, clear and well-referenced. I have reinstated my edits, pending a reasoned discussion here about the status of this text. TheRedPenOfDoom has a controversial track-record here at WikiPedia DomLaguna (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your personal analysis of the so-called "version B" is WP:OR. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, but even if your view is justified, you can't just revert all my edits. That's not WP policy. It is a matter of fact, and directly relevant to this issue, that not one but *two* recordings were leaked, and that these two recording can be interpreted differently. Therefore, you may edit my interpretative phrases, if there are any, but you should not -- according to WP rules -- simply delete everything you don't like. For that reason, I am undoing your deletions, and editing my evaluation of Version B to avoid any suggestion that it is WP:OR. DomLaguna (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the disputed version again. In the last edit, DomLauna/Wujastyk added the sentence " This may be understood as Nuland vulgarly echoing Pyatt's assertion that Russia is trying to torpedo an EU agreement", allegedly to falsify claim that their editing is OR. The problem however is that the sentence with its interpretation of Nuland's remark is unsourced, and interpretation without sourcing is exactly what we use to call original research. Iselilja (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You say that the sentence in unsourced, but it is an interpretation of a sourced statement, and that is not original research in the meaning of WP's policy.

As per Iselilja. Secondly, the so-called "version B" is in all likelihood a CIA doctored and released version aimed at spinning the import of Nuland's interference in Ukrainian affairs, even hoping that the UN would take over for the EU, probably because she thought that their regional interests would take precedence over the geopolitical concerns of her neocon agenda. And that is why I think there are no reliable sources that have published anything resembling the interpretation of the "version B" that you have put forth.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja, you have removed all reference to the existence of two recordings. You have done this on the assertion that there is consensus here in Talk, but that is not the case. There is no consensus. On the contrary, there is simply a history of this information being repeatedly deleted for reasons that remain opaque and unjustified, and that is approaching WP:EW edit-warring. The existence of multiple versions of this controversial recording is important and should be recorded here in Wikipedia. It is quite possible that Version B is doctored by the CIA, as you say. I don't know, and nor do you. I don't even really care. The point is to mention that there are multiple versions, released on the same day, and having quite different meanings. It is also of public interest that only Version A has been discussed in the media. That makes it all the more useful to mention the existence of Version B here in WP. If you do not like the way I express this information, please write your own account of these facts. I look forward to seeing your edits in the next day or two, expressing these facts and events in your own words and in a manner that you consider acceptable under WP policy. DomLaguna (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If there were sources discussing the so-called "version B", we would include them in relevant material. There don't appear to be any. Incidentally, if it were a CIA doctored version, then no one would be able to verify that. The article already mentions that Russian intelligence probably intercepted and released the original version. That makes the existence of a second version rather suspect, and that is borne out by the fact that there is almost no media coverage of it--at least from sources presented thus far.

Furthermore, there does appear to be consensus that the material doesn't belong in the article, because it is not widely cited or analyzed in RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The first release at YouTube I could find was on 4 February 2014 from Re Post. I added this 19 April in the article but it has been deleted. Since this is the earliest known publication of the phonecall I believe it is noteworthy. Otto (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

If it were in fact noteworthy, there would be reliable sources making note of the fact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Here you have it: The Guardian. Otto (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

where does that source mention anything about multiple versions of the recording? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Red Pen, you are changing the object of dispute. It makes no sense to continue this thread. Otto (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you attempting to make the case to include in the article then in the section titled "Multiple versions of the F*** the EU recording"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Friends, I have rewritten the account of these multiple phonecall versions in a manner that I believe takes into account the suggestions and discussions above, and that is brief, uncontroversional and to the point. It also follows WP guidelines and is referenced as necessary. I sincerely hope that we can now leave the matter here. If you disagree with the current version, kindly discuss it here before deleting it wholesale, and generate a consensus on your proposed new wording. DomLaguna (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja!!! How could you? You deleted my text within one minute of my post. This is a gross violation of WP policy. What is your motivation? Why do you not wish to discuss the matter here in Talk, rationally, and come to a balanced expression of these matters that you and the rest of us can agree upon? DomLaguna (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Wujastyk/DomLaguna; I did remove your new entry that yet again introduced a "second version" of the controversial conversation. I simply believe you don't fully grasp the WikipediA policiy that bans Original Research. You wrote yourself in the removed entry "This second version of the leaked call has not been discussed in the press". If it's not been discussed in the media or other reliable sources, then it shall not be covered on Wikipedia, cause that would be original research . Youtube videos posted from non-notable organizations or individuals are not reliable sources. (And there is indication that the original research done in this particular case may be factual wrong and possibly fraud) Iselilja (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iselilja When you immediately deleted my last post, you said "(Undid revision 617599171 by Wujastyk (talk) Removing WP:OR, that is introduction of video that has not been covered in reliable sources.)" The only video I referred to is that of GlobalTVz, which is on YouTube. This is a reliable source. There's no WP policy that one cannot refer to YouTube videos. Furthermore, you suggest with your WP:OR reference that this post can be deleted on the grounds that it is original research. This post reports the appearence of materials at YouTube and The Archive. It remains carefully noncommittal about the meaning and background of these materials, presenting no research on these matters. It links the existence of these versions to Nuland's public comment on 7 Feb about "tradecraft", which adds legitimation to the discussion of these matters. How do you respond to this? I have initiated a "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" complaint with WikiPedia because you have reverted my various rewritten and re-edited posts on this topic four times. DomLaguna (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

An option for you DomLaguna is to start a discussion about the GlobalTVz youtube importantsource at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see if those who attend that noticeboard consider GlobalTVz and their video a reliable source. Iselilja (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iselilja, you miss the point about what a source is. When we cite a source, we are not simultaneously making a judgement about the trustworthiness of that source. If you cite the Bible, you don't have to get into a big discussion about whether you believe God wrote it or not. You cite the Bible because everyone can find it and check the citation for themselves. What you believe about its origins and value is another subject, and one you may well choose to discuss. But it isn't necessary for the citation. If I wanted to cite a source for "quack", I could cite one of the Disney Donald Duck cartoons. If I want to cite a joke, I could cite the lavatory wall on which I saw it. I don't have to think the source is particularly authoritative. The point is to give a source that others can check, in order to find where you got your information. I completely agree with you that there may be something fishy about GlobalTVz. I think it is worth investigating, and writing about. Please go ahead - I don't have time or inclination. We can even say "GlobalTVz is fishy and bears further scrutiny". I think that would be a good idea (and I may already have said that in one of my many rewrites, no?). But whatever GlobalTVz may really be, it doesn't matter at all for our present purposes and the Nuland phonecall versions. All that matters is is that we state the facts and give references so that others may also check our sources. DomLaguna (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on "reliable sources". Apparently, it would seem that the term "reliable" is unclear to you, and it is a somewhat complex topic. See WP:IRS, for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, some of us are trying to have a serious conversation, and we've managed to get past using irony no each other. Please feel free to join in, but please assume the best of those you disagree with.

DomLaguna. I see at your userpage that you are a researcher in real life and I think your arguments above about sources are perfectly valid for research. But Wikipedia is different, we aren't real researchers and use a more indirect methodology. As Ubikwit's link says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. A lavatory wall, sadly, doesn't cut it, nor a youtube video, if it isn't posted by a reliable source like CNN. One of the reason for this is that many Wikipedia editors are anonymous and amateurs in the areas they write about. If we should accept various anonymous editors statements about what they have seen on a lavatory wall as source, we could get all kind of crap - so to speak - inserted into the encyclopedia. Writings on a lavatory wall can only be mentioned on Wikipedia if it has been cited by a journalist, social scientist or similar. Because we as Wikipedia editors don't have any credibility per ourselves, we need to cite sources that have credibility, like say BBC. I understand that this kind of copycat methodology can be frustrating for accomplished researchers like yourselves, which is probably one of the reason there aren't so many scientists or reseachers who write for Wikipedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Iselilja, you've laid out your view reasonably clearly. I still do not agree with you. In my view, you still conflate the issue of source-citation and reliability. And, while some WP contributors are amateurs and anonymous, many are expert and publicly identified. A great number of WP entries display the highest levels of professionalism and specialist knowledge. I don't think an argument based on the low abilities of WP contributors is going to help us here. (And a lavatory wall with a Banksey on it, say, would indeed be a citable source. It all depends.) To return to the present case, in which Nuland herself referred publicly to "impressive tradecraft", I consider it both valid and in the public interest that the existence of multiple versions of the controversial phone conversation should be recorded here in Wikipedia as a relevant aspect of the event. This can be sourced in reliable way. YouTube is not blacklisted as a WP source. And nobody has raised any objection to citing YouTube as the source of the better-known version of the recording. Remember, YouTube is the primary source for all this stuff. Even the BBC got the recording they reported from YouTube. The existence of the second version need not be subjected to original research here at WP. And the increasing role-call of different reasons being brought forward to oppose the mention of the second recording can unfortunately begin to look like Policy Shopping.

"Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgement and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."[1] In the present situation, it should not be beyond our combined wits to use our common sense to arrive at a formulation of this "second recording" information that neither upsets us, nor offends WP rules, nor suppresses public knowledge that has been published on YouTube, is relevant, interesting, and deserves mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wujastyk (talk • contribs)

DomLaguna. I understand you have strong opinions on this and that your trust for my judgement is a bit limited. I will repeat what I have suggested earlier; namely that you bring this case either to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or the Original Reserach Noticeboard. There you may get input from editors who haven't formerly commented on this case. You can just copy some of the arguments you are using above. I don't think we are getting any longer at this discussion page where I think there is a consensus to leave out the "alternative version" ; which means taking the issue to noticeboards is the logical next step for you. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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#Russian reaction 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: [2] 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 [3] 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. [4] 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)

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)

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 [5]. 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)

Controversial reference to the EU in recorded phone conversation
In February 2014, a recording of a phone call between Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked. The call is believed to have been intercepted and publicized by Russian agents.

Nuland can be heard making an obscene reference to the European Union, which caused a diplomatic scandal when one version of her January 28, 2014 telephone conversation with the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, was broadcast on YouTube.

According to Anne Gearan

[Nuland] was dismissively referring to slow-moving European efforts to address political paralysis and a looming fiscal crisis in Ukraine. But it was the blunt nature of her remarks, rather than U.S. diplomatic calculations, that seemed exceptional.
Nuland also assessed the political skills of Ukrainian opposition figures with unusual candor and, along with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, debated strategy for their cause, laying bare a deep degree of U.S. involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’s to resolve.

Subsequently, in one version of the call, Nuland stated that she preferred the United Nations as mediator, instead of the European Union, adding "Fuck the EU" and Pyatt responded, "Oh, exactly ...".

"She has been in contact with her EU counterparts, and of course has apologized", said State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who had also acknowledged the authenticity of the recording.

Initially, Catherine Ashton, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief, stated on the same day that the EU would not comment on a "leaked alleged" conversation. The next day a spokeswoman, Christiane Wirtz, stated that German Chancellor Angela Merkel termed Nuland's remark "absolutely unacceptable". Furthermore, the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, has also condemned the remark as "unacceptable".

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)

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)

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. [6]
   
5. video
   
6. first encounter with this site
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Photo

It is wikipedia policy to use up to date photos. The "Fuck-the-EU"-lady looks a bit different by now: [7] 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)