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 is how you re-write history. Shameful. Victoria Nudelman said "Fuck the EU". You want to leave it out, fine,  but don't make stuff up 84.104.41.19 (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

lol much ado about nothing, attributing/debating the intentions of genocidal murderers and criminals aka vile us state dept operatives... very funny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.57.237 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Panama Papers

From the recent book by Isikoff and Corn:

“We wanted to raise the cost in a manner Putin recognized,” Nuland recalled.

Knowing that Putin was notoriously protective of any information about his family, Wallander suggested targeting Putin himself. She proposed leaking snippets of classified intelligence to reveal the secret bank accounts in Latvia held for Putin’s daughters—a direct poke at the Russian president that would be sure to infuriate him. Wallander also brainstormed ideas with Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European affairs and a fellow hard-liner. They drafted other proposals: to dump dirt on Russian websites about Putin’s money, about the girlfriends of top Russian officials, about corruption in Putin’s United Russia party—essentially to give Putin a taste of his own medicine.

So, is this what caused russia to kick our asses?

Putin sure did recognize it when Nuland et al raised his costs.

if the above is correct, then should a new section be added concerning who authorized the Panama Papers hack?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwd1 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Query

Re: "stated on the that the EU" should there be a word between the two bolded ones? ϢereSpielChequers 22:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump administration

It's a small thing, but it feels misleading to frame her departure from a political appointment requiring senate confirmation to say it was "amid the departure of many career officials who left in the early days of the Trump administration." It doesn't make a significant difference, like with many executive branch positions, the Trump administration was slow to replace her, and it's arguable she would have been left in the position instead of appointing someone in an acting capacity, but it doesn't really feel like it should be grouped with the resignations of apolitical state department officials or framed like it was particularly unusual. 99.237.222.68 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

What was Nuland up to between 1983 and 1993?

The article says that Nuland graduated with a B.A. degree in 1983.

Then, in 1993, she became chief of staff to the deputy secretary of state - a pretty serious position, which implies that, by that point, she had earned the trust of the political establishment and gotten herself on "the inside" of US politics. How'd she manage that?

What was she up to for the decade after she graduated from college? That would give important insight as to why she was elevated into such important positions.

I'm going to look for sources that discuss what she was doing between 1983-1993. I think it would be great if other editors did the same. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

here is one source. It says that Nuland joined the Foreign Service in 1984, and it mentions that she was "working at the China desk at the State Department". It also says that Nuland worked as "a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Russia from 1991 to 1993". That's a start. Philomathes2357 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

here's another source - the US State Department archive.

"From 1991-1993, she covered Russian internal politics at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow focusing on Boris Yeltsin and his government. She has also served on the Soviet Desk (1988-90), in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia where she helped open the first U.S. Embassy (1988), in the State Department’s Bureaus of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (1987) and in Guangzhou, China (1985-86)" Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: the above sources are more than enough to fill out Nuland's biography for the years 1983-1993.

This is useful information for understanding Nuland's political trajectory, and merits inclusion in the article. Unfortunately, I really don't care about Victoria Nuland, and can't muster the willpower to do the work myself. I'll get to it, one day, eventually. In the meantime, if anyone else would like to, I strongly encourage it and would appreciate it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Should be Soviet Union not Russian Empire

Her father was born in 1930 according to Wikipedia. That is the Soviet Union not Russian Empire. 2601:195:C382:DD0:F454:D3C8:7362:ED21 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. I'm trying to understand why the article says "Russian Empire". Maybe when Sherwin B. Nuland's parents immigrated from Bessarabia, it was still the Russian Empire? Either way, the sentence is poorly written and should be modified. Perhaps I will do so one day soon, if time allows. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)