Talk:Michael McFaul

This information has been reverted:

In July 2019, McFaul wrote that Communist Party of China's officials "champion the advantages of their system — an ability to undertake massive infrastructure projects, the capacity to manage income inequalities and a commitment to harmony in government and society. In contrast, polarized U.S. politics in the Trump era seem to impede any major initiative, be it infrastructure development or addressing income inequality."^[1]

I think it is relevant and should be included. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why? The best way to gauge relevance here is probably to look at whether or not anyone else covered the opinion - I don't see evidence of that. There's no real context for this quote, and people write editorials all the time. I'm not sure why we would choose to include this one. Nblund ^talk 19:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I also fail to understand why this should be included. Or why you chose to place this under "Career". McFaul is a Global Opinions Writer for the Washington Post so it's no surprise that he has publicly held views. I'm cursious as to why this passage, and only this one, belongs to this page. Pilaz (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This article needs a good section regarding McFaul's role as US ambassador during the 2013-14 Ukraine crisis. All the more important in light of his nearly ubiquitous presence on US television during the current Ukraine crisis. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree but I can't find any source on his role in that period, can you? He was sometimes mentioned in Ukraine news in passing for some tweet, and he made some statement after resigning, but I can't quickly find much more. Nemo 09:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I hope I provided enough links for this section to exist? Or are you not allowed to tell the truth here? 176.50.83.113 (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm seriously contesting the allegation that those are discriminatory statements: two tweets without context editorialized like this do not comply with WP:NPOV. Also, WP:ONUS: why should we add this? Pilaz (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the ban on Russians vacationing in Spain and using foreign goods not discrimination based on citizenship? Let's write apartheid. Are you afraid to write the truth?

Without context? He is in Spain and then he sees that they speak Russian and begins to be indignant, how dare the Russians come to Spain, let them rest in their own country! Is this not discrimination in his words? Not for dogs, blacks and Mexicans, it seems that this has not been welcomed for a long time? Or is this possible about Russians? Second tweet in the same vein.Do you want to write an encyclopedia or retouch politicians? 176.50.83.113 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE i think would apply unless its's part of a pattern, and it would also need enough secondary coverage. MartinezMD (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Can I write here that this gentleman participated in the sanctions, including the seizure of investments of Russian citizens in US companies? He's all so white and fluffy. he tries to work but it’s not reflected in his biography. $350 billion from 15 million Russian citizens, this is good work that should be reflected here

https://fsi9-prod.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2023-04/russia_sanctions_working_paper_1_sanctions_action_plan.pdf

or is that not convincing? that the Russian version, that the English one somehow started saying no no, we can’t publish this. Why? 176.50.83.113 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Cherry picked tweets are primary sources. Without good secondary coverage they have no due weight for mention here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY in the reliable source section of WP. MartinezMD (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of existing sentence (with sources):

Original text: “In 2003, McFaul supported regime change in Iraq.”

Proposed expanded text: McFaul supported the removal of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq but criticized the Bush administration’s unilateralism and its emphasis on military power without sufficient diplomacy, international legitimacy, or postwar planning (1, 2, 3). He argued that democratic consolidation should be an explicit postwar goal, unlike after the 1991 Gulf War (1).

Sources: (1) Michael McFaul, Carnegie op-ed, February 2003. URL: https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2003/02/reshaping-the-middle-east-winning-a-lasting-peace-in-iraq-will-take-more-than-tanks?lang=en "A war to disarm Hussein alone is not legitimate. Only a military conflict that brings about genuine political change in Iraq will leave the Iraqi people better off and the American people more secure.")

(2) Michael McFaul et al., Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy. October 2003. URL: https://www.mafhoum.com/press6/168P4.htm

(3) Michael McFaul, Washington Post op-ed, August 2003. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/08/24/wrong-time-to-stay-the-course/0d3715ad-075b-418f-ab5d-36fab79282b6/

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest and am requesting that an uninvolved editor review and add this text if appropriate. ~2025-41241-63 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Michael McFaul. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 480 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Following up on the above request (18 Dec, 2025)

Proposed expansion of existing sentence (with sources):

Original text: “In 2003, McFaul supported regime change in Iraq.”

Proposed expanded text: McFaul supported the removal of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq but criticized the Bush administration’s unilateralism and its emphasis on military power without sufficient diplomacy, international legitimacy, or postwar planning (1, 2, 3). He argued that democratic consolidation should be an explicit postwar goal, unlike after the 1991 Gulf War (1).

Sources: (1) Michael McFaul, Carnegie op-ed, February 2003. URL: https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2003/02/reshaping-the-middle-east-winning-a-lasting-peace-in-iraq-will-take-more-than-tanks?lang=en "A war to disarm Hussein alone is not legitimate. Only a military conflict that brings about genuine political change in Iraq will leave the Iraqi people better off and the American people more secure.")

(2) Michael McFaul et al., Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy. October 2003. URL: https://www.mafhoum.com/press6/168P4.htm

(3) Michael McFaul, Washington Post op-ed, August 2003. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/08/24/wrong-time-to-stay-the-course/0d3715ad-075b-418f-ab5d-36fab79282b6/

Disclosure: I have a conflict of interest and am requesting that an uninvolved editor review and add this text if appropriate. ~2026-20296-92 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Clarification of my above request to match required format:

Please change: “In 2003, McFaul supported regime change in Iraq.”

To: " McFaul supported the removal of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq but criticized the Bush administration’s unilateralism and its emphasis on military power without sufficient diplomacy, international legitimacy, or postwar planning. He argued that democratic consolidation should be an explicit postwar goal.

Please see previous request (above) for all relevant sources. Thank you. ~2026-20296-92 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)