Talk:Victoria Nuland

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

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)

Can't see a manipulative attitude here, that could qualify for the formula "framing". Basically, reducing the State Department IMHO was very well politically motivated, which has no irritating aspect for a new administration. What is remarkable in Nuland's career is the time she served, combined with the political influence as the (/second) highest US diplomat. Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Bessarabia, now Moldova, was part of Romania in 1930. But we don't know when they left Bessarabia, so I just removed "Soviet Union". Rsk6400 (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

My addition about a comment on Nuland's long office period from a "Rising" show by "The Hill" was reverted here by user LordCollobaration, argueing:
"Rising (which should be mentioned) is not nonpartisan, as our article describes it, it is populist left/right. The source is still messed up. Examples: This is not a news article, so should not use the news template and the author is not "Soave Greenwald". And you have not explained why an opinion web series suspended for misinformation is due here - Undid revision 1330628541"

First, "Soave Greenwald" was not meant to be one name but the names of two authors - yes I got that wrong. And the correct ref-template - we will find.
Second, "nonpartisan" is taken simply from: The Hill (newspaper). If you consider "populist left/right" a better formula, I propose to edit/discuss the change there.
What is worth discussing here is the assessment that a web series was "suspended for misinformation". Could you name a definition of misinformation, that applies here to the (IMHO actually nonpartisan) citation?:
It is a powerful example of the tremendous continuity in american foreign policy regardless of who gets voted into office.

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Second, "nonpartisan" is taken simply from: The Hill (newspaper). If you consider "populist left/right" a better formula, I propose to edit/discuss the change there.

The news part of The Hill is described as nonpartisan. Rising is not described as nonpartisan. We describe it as "focused on attacking "establishment Democrats such as Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg"" and a "synthesis of populist left and populist right viewpoints".

At WP:THEHILL we only discuss written stuff, but I think it is pretty clear this would fall under the same standard as contributor pieces, which we say, "receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources." (Unless if you have evidence they receive significant editorial oversight?)

Could you name a definition of misinformation, that applies here to the (IMHO actually nonpartisan) citation?

I didn't say that particular quote was misinformation (although it's certainly at odds with the vast majority of reliable sources), I said that Rising has spread misinformation, as noted in our article on them, and is not a reliable source. This is further evidence that they should be treated as equivalent to a self-published source.

Nor is that quote nonpartisan; it is a clearly partisan view extremely common among the populist left/right that the "elites" of both parties are the same. I think it's overwhelmingly clear the video is partisan, as the title itself ("Victoria Nuland RESIGNS, Glenn Greenwald EVISCERATES Leading Neocon") makes clear. LordCollaboration (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That part "The show focused on attacking "establishment Democrats such as Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg."" is from a chapter about 2018, and it has a "citation needed" warning attached. Are you seriously concluding from this that a content published six years later disqualifies as a source on WP?

Then, could you please name the WP rule that any media (presumably) not getting much editorial oversight "should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources" - and thus not suitable as a source in WP at all? What I read here sounds quite different: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs

Please, once again, name a place on WP (or elsewhere?) where "misinformation" is clearly defined, so that it is possible to clarify what content falls under this attribute.

"Nor is that quote nonpartisan" - which party is it that you name "populist left/right" ( I never heard that phrase before)? I thought "partisan" is about the two US parties, the Republicans and Democrats. You seem to apply a different scheme here, introducing new partie/s. Are there any sources for this scheme?

The citation "tremendous continuity" does not mention or imply anything about "elites". How do you come to this connection?

Your arguments look like pure WP:OR to me, but I'm willing to learn.

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

OR is forbidden in articles, but not in discussions. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, and conclusions from OR in WP-discussions may easily be applied to the WP article?

https://tinyl.co/4Ahj

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought "partisan" is about the two US parties, the Republicans and Democrats.

Partisan: "a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person"

Then, could you please name the WP rule that any media (presumably) not getting much editorial oversight "should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources"

I gave you the link to the consensus on The Hill.

and thus not suitable as a source in WP at all?

I did not say this was not suitable at all. You need to properly attribute it (which it clearly was not before, as you conceded), you cannot do original research (like saying that it came from a nonpartisan source), and it needs to be WP:DUE (does any reliable source bring up these comments, for example?). There are many reliable sources that commented on Nuland's departure, I don't see why we should be including an opinion from Rising, particularly on a BLP.

See also WP:ONUS.

Are you seriously concluding from this that a content published six years later disqualifies as a source on WP?

If you think that Rising has improved since then and that this video is reliable, feel free to bring it up at the Reliable sources noticeboard. I do not think a source where they claim "[Nuland] was plotting... over exactly which people she wanted to take which positions... once this elected president was removed" is reliable at all on the subject of Victoria Nuland, as this is yet more misinformation. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Bizarre. And still waiting for a source on your "populist left/right" party.

By the way, how reliable would you consider this source, saying?:

"Toria’s tenure caps three and a half decades of remarkable public service under six Presidents and ten Secretaries of State."

Looks to me quite like the same message, including the wording "remarkable". Alas, it is not really nonpartisan.

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That entirely depends what it is being used for. I would not consider it DUE to include the opinion that she had "remarkable public service" with just that source (which, as it happens, is not included in the article). I would consider it reliable to use it for the claims that she goes by Toria and that it was announced that she was going to retire, which is all that source is actually used for. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Aehm, so would you agree to include the cited words of Blinken in the article? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

About the "claim "[Nuland] was plotting... over exactly which people she wanted to take which positions."" would be "yet more misinformation".

Then, how would you call the efforts documented here?: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

"Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea."

"I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside."

Looks to me precisely like someone plotting over which people one wanted to take which positions [in the new Ukrainian government].

--Bernd.Brincken (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That is regarding the offer of cabinet positions Yanukovych offered on January 25 to the opposition, as we make clear in the article, is overwhelmingly supported by the vast majority of reliable sources, and is clear from the details and timing of the call. It has nothing to do with "once this elected president was removed", as was falsely claimed, and this shows that they have no idea what they are talking about on this topic. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The (/second) highest US diplomat made precise proposals who should be in a government, in a country 7.500 km from Washington. Which goes to show that none of your claimed "misinformation" was in play here in the discussion.

Where in this thread has someone claimed the Nuland transcript has any connection to "once this elected president was removed"?

Who is "they" in your last sentence?

You are playing a shadow fencing match. Please distance yourself from stories that only play in your own head.

- Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Nobody in this thread claimed that, your source did (the "they"), which is what we were discussing. We are not discussing your or my beliefs, nor is that relevant here. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The "Nuland call" is a staple item of Russian disinformation. Timothy Snyder said about it that if the Russians weren't able to come up with something better, it shows that they don't have any convincing evidence for their "Revolution-of-Dignity-was-a-coup" theory (quoted from memory). Bernd.Brincken, sorry to say, but discussing this is a total waste of time. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

RU sirius? Why did the british BBC publish the call? Why did dozens of other media or newspapers - that WP considers reliable sources - report about it? Where they all brainwashed by Russia? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The disinformation is not that the call exists, it is that it was about a post-Yanukovych government, which is what your source falsely claims. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Then why do you write "The "Nuland call" is a staple item of Russian disinformation"?

_You_ are obviously on the side of misinformation spreading.

Including your claim about that call not being about a post-Yanuk. government. As Kyiv post wrote (see source above): "The leaked phone call appears to have been made following President Viktor Yanukovych’s Jan. 25 offer to opposition leader Arseniy Yatseniuk to be prime minister and Klitschko to be deputy prime minister..."

Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

1) I didn't write that, but I think the other editor was clearly saying how the Nuland call is utilized, not the existence of the call, as the quote they used supported.

2) Please explain how that quote supports their view that it was about a post-Yanukovych government, as it seems to me to suggest the exact opposite.

3) Please remain civil. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

You accuse with exaggerated language like "populism" and "misinformation" - and then you tell me to "remain civil"? Funny.

WP is about facts and reports about them - how someone out there may "utilize" a historic event to make a point - not worth discussing here. Why do you care?

About 2), the article in Kyiv Post descibes the events quite well. Two weeks after that phone call "Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition signed an agreement to bring about an interim unity government including the opposition," and after that fled the city (Viktor_Yanukovych#Removal_from_presidency). Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

1) I called Rising populist, because that is how we described them in their article, and I accused them of misinformation (also supported in the article), not you. Comment on content, not the person. As for "utilizing", that is what your source does, so it is absolutely relevant here. If they just said that there was a leaked call, I wouldn't have brought it up; instead, they parroted disinformation.

2) Yes, Kyiv Post describes it well. I am asking you how it possibly supports the claim that it was about a post-Yanukovych government when it gives a completely different explanation, that it was about the 25 January offer. Kyiv Post does not mention Yanukovych fleeing (which would not happen until weeks after that article was even published), so that part is WP:SYNTH. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, this sub-thread is not about the content of this article, but about your wide-spread use of "misinformation" claims. Yanukovych _did_ flee, as we read in another WP article, and he gave over the power to the opposition before. So the discussion between Nuland and her colleagues about the people they send into the new government would likely have a strong influence on the future politics of Ukraine - and it did.

"The "Nuland call" is a staple item of Russian disinformation." That is misinformation. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, this sub-thread is not about the content of this article, but about your wide-spread use of "misinformation" claims.

This talk page is about the article. If you want to discuss my use of the word "misinformation", take it to ANI or another proper location. I think I have sufficiently supported my original statement. I am happy to discuss content here, not conduct issues.

So the discussion between Nuland and her colleagues about the people they send into the new government would likely have a strong influence on the future politics of Ukraine - and it did.

This is entirely speculation and original research, and is contradicted by academics such as Timothy Snyder.

"The "Nuland call" is a staple item of Russian disinformation." That is misinformation

I didn't say that, and I already explained what Rsk almost certainly meant by that. You are arguing with me over whether a different editor spread misinformation on a talk page that isn't even relevant for this discussion. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

LordCollaboration, well explained ! @Bernd.Brincken: Since from your user's page I understand that you know German, I'd like to suggest to you one of the best books I read lately, Andreas Kappeler, Kleine Geschichte der Ukraine. Kappeler is Swiss, his last professorship was in Austria, both non-NATO states. The 8th edition covers the Revolution of Dignity in some breadth. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I may have mixed up the authorship of these words. Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a reliability problem here. Sources can be biased and include clickbait headlines without affecting its reliability. The applicable reliability is WP:RSOPINION: as summarized by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 379#Leaked Paul Mason - Amil Khan correspondence, "treated as any other cable talk show".

That means I do see a WP:Due weight problem. Robby Soave's opinion is Robby Soave's. TL;DR: I don't see why a single opinion from The Hill should take that much prominence in the lede when, I'm assuming, many other news organizations have many opinions on Nuland's tenure. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The point regarding bias was about including "nonpartisan", not about reliability (although the bigger problem with that is that it was original research). Reliability was discussed separately in the above discussion regarding their use of disinformation, including in this episode and specifically on the BLP. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that "nonpartisan" shouldn't be included. It's a challengeable claim that was not cited by its associated citation, as Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material explains. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

My question above was if a comment by a certain Anthony Blinken, with the same message as Robby Soave, including "remarkable" would be fine as a source here. What do you think? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I would say everything I mentioned applies to that equally. To prevent editor subjectivity of "I personally think this opinion is more notable than that one", it's how much sources cover the opinion that determines how much Wikipedia should cover it. These are reliable sources for Robby Soave's and Anthony Blinken's opinions, but without enough media coverage, they shouldn't be placed in the lede, a very prominent place. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Recent edit to the Maidan section was reverted by User:LordCollaboration on the grounds that an "allegations" framing is inappropriate for a BLP when the underlying claims are characterized as propaganda. I disagree on the merits and want to lay out why before any further editing.

The pre-edit version was not neutral, it just took a different side.

Naming a section "Russian propaganda efforts" puts a characterization of the claims in Wikipedia's own voice, before the body of the section establishes it. Per WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE, characterizations like "propaganda" need to be attributed to sources, not asserted by the encyclopedia. The same BLP-protective logic that argues against an "allegations" framing also argues against a "Russian propaganda" framing. You can't invoke BLP for one direction of imbalance and not the other.

The framing as exclusively Russian propaganda is factually wrong.

Significant academic discussion of Western involvement in post-Soviet political transitions exists in peer-reviewed Western scholarship, not just Russian state media. William C. Wohlforth (Professor at Dartmouth, expert in Russia international relations) and Jill Kastner, in their 2025 Oxford University Press book A Measure Short of War, discuss post-Cold War western involvement in the context of great-power subversion and explicitly name the 2004 Ukrainian Orange Revolution. John Mearsheimer's "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault" in Foreign Affairs (2014) directly states "it is clear that Washington backed the coup." You can disagree with them, but they are not Russian propaganda; they are mainstream Western academic publishing in top venues, and the section's framing as if all such discussion reduces to Russian state media is inaccurate.

I'll note that the Wohlforth/Kastner book discusses post-Cold War democracy promotion broadly with reference to Ukraine 2004, not only about the 2014 Maidan or Nuland. The previous edit's wording could be tightened to make that clearer, but that's is a refinement, not a reason to revert the entire balance-restoring edit.

Proposal

1. Restore the section with the more neutral header "Allegations of U.S. involvement" or similar
2. Keep the mainstream-rejection sentence (which concedes the dominant view)
3. Keep the Wohlforth/Kastner academic context, with wording tightened to make clear it concerns post-Cold War democracy promotion broadly rather than 2014 specifically
4. Keep Nuland's own on-record response (the 2019 Harvard Gazette quote, which is directly about her)
5. Keep Snyder's framing

If the BLP concern is genuinely that the section reads as making allegations against Nuland, the answer is to tighten the wording, not to revert to a version that takes the opposite side in Wikipedia's voice. Happy to discuss specific text.

~~~~ ScottDNelson (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this written with AI? Naming a section anything puts a characterization in Wikipedia's own voice before the body of the section establishes it. Establishing it in the body is fine. And if Wohlforth and Kastner don't discuss Nuland, then this is original research and should not be on the page at all. LordCollaboration (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)