Talk:Catherine Ashton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.de wikilink[edit]

I think the German article has been deleted...? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education requires clarification[edit]

"Ashton studied a broad degree in economics... graduating with a BSc in sociology in 1977". What on earth does this mean? A degree in sociology is a degree in sociology, a degree in economics is a degree in economics..... Nandt1 (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't the first person in her family to go to university. Her brother graduated before she did. 31.125.101.198 (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Experience before appointment to the Lords?[edit]

Nothing is said in this article about her experience before being appointed to the Lords. – Kaihsu (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She needed to belong to the same party as the PM, but also/maybe be disliked by him. Have it done before the Tories even get it, the fact that they have a favourite enemy. In she goes to the House of Lords, and none of us are any the wiser. Most importantly the Tories. In she goes to the EU, and only the Tories are even more clueless.(83.108.30.141 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The text is in desperate need of revision, as she most certainly did not found the Windsor Fellowship. That creation of Prince Phillip's was in existence long before she graduated: Prince Charles undertook a personalised advanced introduction to the whole of what makes Britain in the eight months between Graduation in June 1970 and joining the Royal Navy in March 1971, arranged through that body. My father, Phillip's frontline contact with the Mechanical Engineering profession, had him under his wing visiting factories and heaven only knows what for a fortnight. As I see there is no meme for it, I should also warn you that there is another Windsor Fellowship of St George: Prince Phillip's was entirely unofficial, and was designed to allow the Queen to be able to access every part of her Monarchy without having to pass it through the stultifying hand of the Palace Staff, to check for herself the actions of her Ministers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.238.195 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected status[edit]

This sentance:

It is a prominent aspect of Cathy Ashton's political career that she has been appointed to several senior ministerial appointments in the UK and EU governments, without ever actually being elected to to any public office. [1]

is original research (specifically synthesis); the source does not reach the conclusion that she has been appointed without ever being elected. it should be removed. ninety:one 20:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It's a fact.

I disagree. It is a fact, and I have tried to give references to support it (as you previously asked for). Daniel Hannan's cited article states "she was appointed to the House of Lords without ever having faced the voters", and the cited biography at dca.gov.uk confirms this, if only by omission. Admittedly, Hannan's article is only a blog, but he is an MEP writing in his professional capacity, so this should count as a reliable source. This is the same article that criticises Ashton's lack of trade experience, and I meant it to serve the purpose of supporting both points at once, but subsequent edits to the text have detached it from the "unelected" point.

I do agree that there is room for debate about how "significant" her unelected status is; so we could perhaps compromise with wording such as:

"During Cathy Ashton's political career she has been appointed to several senior ministerial appointments in the UK and EU governments, without ever actually being elected to to any public office."

79.79.71.5 (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Many of the occupants of the House of Lords have never been elected. It is an unelected house - people get there by heredity or by appointment. Ashton is not at all unusual. --Red King (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Most members of the House of Lords are not ministers. Many have been elected to office in the past. This woman has had an entirely non-democratic career, no electorate has ever been given the chance to reject her, and now she is supposedly the second most important person in a wannabe superstate which claims to be a democracy! Luwilt (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material above shows a crass ignorance and/or disingenuousness of both the Constitution of the United Kingdom and the Treaties of the European Union.

  • In UK law, every member of the Lords is appointed at the pleasure of the Sovereign. Such democracy as there is only extends to the fact that most members of the House have been nominated by duly elected members of the other place. Previous service in the lower House is incidental and many Peers have no such record.
  • In European Union law, the High Representative is elected by the national Prime Ministers [in France, the President]. This is the electorate. Their mandate in doing so is that they have been elected to their respective offices by their national governments.

The whole kafuffle is a complete red herring generated by UKIP and is entirely specious. The sentence challenged should certainly be removed because it is entirely irrelevant to the office. --Red King (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hysterical nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.97.111 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A blog comment of MEP Hannan was suggested above as source. This is not an article it is a comment and Mr. Hannan is known for being openly anti EU. While this is his good right, he can't be considered an objective source. It is safe to say his criticism is partisan in nature and my understanding of objectivity is that if you are mentioning partisan comments you have to present more than one side at least. I don't see the relevance of the sentence however anyway. How many national foreign ministers in the member states are elected? -- Guest_skydings 18:50, 31 March 2011 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.131.130 (talk)

This is a "when did you stop beating your wife"-style red herring. None of the Commissioners are directly elected: this is by policy of the member states, which don't want to see the Commission getting ideas above its station – that it is a secretariat writ large. The Commissions democratic mandate comes from the fact that its members are nominated by their respective national governments: the President of the Commission and the High Representative are subject to further democratic control in that they are chosen by the elected heads of government (in France, of state). UKIP are trying to make a big song and dance about this but would be the first to the barricades if there were any suggestion of an elected European Executive. [As an aside, many if not most of the cabinet of the President of the USA have never faced the ballot box. Nobody questions their legitimacy]. --Red King (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political views?[edit]

Interesting for Non-british : For what stands she? Is she a "real" socialdemocrat or a liberal like Mandelson? Is she part of any wing of the labour party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.38.42 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelson a 'liberal'? LOL.

More like an easily manipulatable pawn. No international experience, a non elected MP. Bah. Jezwales (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.

If she is unable or "unable" to do a good job, she claims that the EU is a male chauvenistic agency. I for one, was convinced that the EU were a bunch of PC dogoodies.(83.108.30.141 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If only. They are in fact a bunch of democracy-hating corrupt creeps.

'Foreign Minister' of the EU and we don't know a thing about her...[edit]

Which school did she go to. What did her parents do for a living. Where was she brought up. The PR stuff is fine but that doesn't tell me much about the person. Who is this person. What did her friends at university have to say about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mention her parents at all, a major omission for any biography. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only guess that both Blair and Brown were pleased to hear less of her. Speaking of what someone has not heard of, please dont tell her that Britain has voted in favour of replacing tridents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.30.141 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All we know is that she is a Loony Left anti-semite. What more do you need to know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.3.138 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.97.111 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Loony Left can, I suppose, be argued. But I see no evidence of anti-Semitism -- unless, of course, one takes the view that anyone criticized by Bibi must by definition be anti-Semitic. Nandt1 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. If it quacks like a duck ...

Languages[edit]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Languages, "Besides the 23 official languages, there are about 150 regional and minority languages, spoken by up to 50 million people." How many of these does the Foreign Minister master? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.17.105 (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoL: Linkfix to democraty needed by now[edit]

She must be drunk herself by now. Could anyone put some reasoning in here? After all, this is an encyclopediahaha. Linkfix democraty needed. -DePiep (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Could we stop alternating back and forth? It's really a pain to fix the redirects. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will take a side. This article should be at Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. It is ludicrous to say she is better known by her pre-title name. She wasn't really known at all before joining the House of Lords, and until recently was best known for having been Leader of the House of Lords. What's more, her title has been ubiquitous during the coverage of her elevation to High Representative. The "royalist" argument made in the last move's edit summary is silly in the extreme. -Rrius (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton is most well known for her position as the Foreign Minister of the EU rather than as a leader of the obscure House of Lords, and of course she is not a baroness of the EU, so including the royalist title is now unnecessary. --Tocino 03:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rrius is correct. Move back to original title. Google hits in the news confirms. Kittybrewster ☎ 06:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. "Catherine Ashton" = 11,000 hits [2] "Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland" = 190 hits [3]. Google hits is not a good barometor anyway. --Tocino 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In every single other language Wikipedia, "Baroness Ashton of Upholland" is NOT used in the article title. --Tocino 07:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remind you that other-language Wikipedias do not necessarily imply what we should do here. They may have different standards for naming articles or there may be circumstances that apply in English but not in other languages.
For example, the government of Belarus has stated that the name of their country is Belarus in all languages. English-language usage has followed, but German-language usage has not. The German name for Belarus is thus Weißrussland - literally "White Russia", a name formerly applied to Belarus in English as well. Both articles are in the appropriate places, even though one follows the Belarussian government's convention and the other does not.
As I'm sure you've noticed, I've filed an WP:RM below. I suggest that people make their arguments there and allow the closer to come to a conclusion. Pfainuk talk 09:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the back-and-forth moves[edit]

Whatever your view about the article title, please discuss it here rather than engage in a disruptive page-move war. I have listed this article at WP:RFPP, requesting move-protection, until this is sorted out. --RFBailey (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2009[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was keep page at Catherine Ashton. Arguments seem to weigh more heavily on keeping the article as it is. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Ashton → Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland — Procedural request.

Page is currently subject to an move war as to whether the page should be titled Catherine Ashton or Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland (currently protected to the Wrong Version). So far as I can tell, both versions are claimed to be the most common name per WP:COMMONNAME, and those who prefer the version with the name in place also cite Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#British_peerage (point two, as the subject is a life peer).

Note that for the purposes of determining the prior consensus, the first move was this one (see full history) and thus the last consensus version was at Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Pfainuk talk 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Added for clarity as there have been many edits to this article since I filed this and you may not want trawl through the history: move log of Catherine Ashton, move log of Catherine Ashton, Baroness of Upholland Pfainuk talk 18:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The naming conventions are clear: holders of British peerages normally include their peerage in the article name, save where they are overwhelmingly better known without it (typically where they have become notable before they were ennobled). Baroness Ashton's senior political career began only after she was elevated to the peerage. Peerage titles are not 'royalist' in any meaningful sense; Baroness Ashton received her peerage on a list of 'working peers' as the nominee of her political party. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Catherine Ashton seems to be overwhelmingly more common. The alternative title is obviously not a common name as it is two names, not one — Baroness Ashton would be more sensible as an alternative which is also in common usage. But, as her position in the British peerage is now secondary to her roles as EU trade minister and now foreign minister, it should not be given undue weight in the article's title. If you look at the other UK EU Commissioners, you can see that they are usually peers but that our article titles do not include their title. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response, I think it's worth going through them. The ones whose titles are excluded in their articles (excluding Ashton) are Jenkins, Brittan, Kinnock, Patton and Mandelson. All five were well known before joining the Commission (as high profile members of government or opposition) and all were Commissioners before they were ennobled - thus there's a good chance that all are better known without their titles. Of the remaining articles on British EU Commissioners, one former Commissioner is not a Lord, and the six other articles include the titles.
Ashton's case is a bit different. She was little known before her ennoblement (or indeed after it) and as Leader of the House of Lords she was more likely to be cited as Baroness Ashton than as Catherine Ashton - simply by convention. WP:PEERAGE seem to have decided to give peers in general double names - presumably for convenience when dealing with hereditary peers.
That's not to say that the article shouldn't be at Catherine Ashton IMO. I'm not that bothered either way (I opened the RM because I felt this article needed it from a procedural point of view). But I don't think we can reasonably call on out treatment of Kinnock and Jenkins as precedent for Ashton. Pfainuk talk
  • Oppose the Baroness title is not used in the EU context, and she will be seen only in the European context for years to come. - SSJ ☎ 14:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per Sam Blacketer. She is not generally known without the title. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What some expect she will be called over the next 2.5 years of her life is not relevant, nor are predictions an appropriate basis for naming articles in general. She was not notable until she was appointed to the House of Lords, so this article should always have been at the version with her title. -Rrius (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The High Representative is linked to the Commission and not the Council, though. Assuming she doesn't leave, she could be there for five years (longer if she gets reappointed). I don't have a particular viewpoint (I lean slightly toward support) I just want a fixed name. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And what does "frequently" mean? Google news search for the last 24 hours shows:
"catherine ashton" gives 9,671 hits
"baroness ashton" gives 933 hits
- SSJ ☎ 20:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and "Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland" gives just 2 hits
- Colonel Warden (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While 'frequently' is somewhat ambiguous, 'exclusively' is not. She's certainly not exclusively referred to as Catherine Ashton, per your own research. Anyanghaseyo (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Baroness Ashton of Upholland" is not commonly used outside of England and especially not within the EU context, which she is most well known for. --Tocino 20:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment sorry but that's not quite right: all three German newspapers I have seen today refer to her as Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland or mention her full name including the title somewhere in the text (for other examples see [5] or [6]). ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She is well known for her European work and as a result the majority of references are to her name and not her title. --Patrick (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The usage and style of her country of citizenship(UK) is Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Catherine Ashton is not her name anymore. If her peerage were removed it would revert. KomandorskiMaru 21 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KomandorskiMaru (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is also a citizen of the European Union, and Wikipedia is supposed to have a global point of view. In the EU context (which is overwhelmingly dominant in this case), the title is not used. And it's not just in Brussels she isn't referred to as baroness; the google news search results seen above speak for themselves. - SSJ ☎ 12:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, generally, but not for all of them. But even if everyone but Catherine Ashton had their titles in their article names, one wouldn't have a superior justification for placing Ashton's title into the name of this article, as styles are not regulated by Wikipedia policy. The normal way to do things would be to find out what she's most commonly called. The google news search results shown above put beyond doubt that "Catherine Ashton" is most common. And I suppose the baroness title will be even more forgotten when the media begin to know her and don't have to introduce her personal life and career in every news article. - SSJ ☎ 12:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doing the same thing with Google News restricting to exact word order (Order is the same as above): 9,973 results, 308 results, 951 results, 1 result and 4 results. Adding on, "The Baroness Ashton of Upholland" gets 1 result, "Baroness Ashton of Upholland" gets 339 results, "Lady Ashton of Upholland" gets 8 results and "The Lady Ashton of Upholland" gets 1 result. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The shorter version of her name appears by far the more commonly used in recent media coverage; much as with Margaret Thatcher who is cited in the guideline as an example for when not to use the full name and title.  Sandstein  08:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose'. Her claim to fame is that she is the EU High Representative: there are no EU grand titles. The fact that, in a narrow national context she holds a title is essentially a detail in the broad scheme of things. --Red King (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a valid argument; she would also be notable for her UK career and as House of Lords president (where I assume titles matter a lot). What matters under our guidelines is the version of the name most commonly used when referring to her.  Sandstein  16:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmmm. These articles prefer "Catherine Ashton" as opposed to "Baroness Ashton", let alone "Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland". Reuters [7], New York Times [8], RIA Novosti [9], Globe and Mail [10], Wall Street Journal [11], The Independent [12], The Irish Times [13], The Financial Times [14]. --Tocino 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every one of those articles uses both. I'm sure it wasn't your intent but it does clearly show that both forms are in use and generally that would mean WP:NCBRITPEER would apply. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every article linked predominately uses just "Catherine Ashton" as opposed to "Baroness Ashton of Upholland", with some of them briefly mentioning her formal title to give context, while others don't mention the title at all. The NYT even mostly refers to her as "Ms. Ashton". --Tocino 04:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The title is a longwinder distraction, and it doesn't convey biographical information, but is rather a formality applied to those working in the upper-house. Avaya1 (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

COMMENTARY: Someone should ask her- I would think she might have an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.52.201 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton CND activist[edit]

She joined the organisation at Communist

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230097/Revealed-The-CND-past-new-EU-Foreign-Minister-Baroness-Ashton.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.47.5.44 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's be precise in what we say here. What the above source actually conveys is that she represented CND at Communist Party meetings. Nandt1 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, no one really believes that the Soviet's didn't support the CND and other "peace" movements in western Europe. Of course Moscow did.
source->"Better red than dead?" The Economist, 26-11-09


source->"Questions over funds from Lady Ashton's past" The Times, 26-11-09


source->"Baroness Ashton questioned over CND and Soviet money", The Daily Telegraph, 25-11-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.72.209 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2009
So we have an amazing dicovery by an entirely non-neutral source (UKIP) that nobody has ever heard before. Conversely, we see that 'Reds under the bed"/"funs from Moscow' smear has been around before; the Tory Gov't put in MI5 moles who never found anything definite - Heseltine would certainly have publicised it if they had - so they were left with innuendo. Three million people turned out in CND and CND-like rallies all over Europe in the 80s - 300,000 of them in the UK. The most likely effect of the UKIP campaign is to assure Lady Ashton's tenure in office.--Red King (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still 'Designate'[edit]

Ashton is still "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Designate) until the Parliament approves her appointment (or not! they have rejected a candidate before). --Red King (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the European Council lists her as the current High Representative though: [15]. And she already published her first press releases as HR there. Furthermore, there is this document from December 1, 2009:
source->[16]
So, I dont know what the European Parliament says about this, but the European Council and Catherine Ashton herself seem to assume that she is in office since December 1. User:Der_Hans 11:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

The tone of this article seems to be very much against Ashton and her appointment, I would question the article's neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.131.146 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. It's very much pro this creature.
Well, with the amount of sentences starting "She was criticised" (in some form or the other) I'd call it unbalanced at least, not necessarily lacking neutrality. On second thought: with the section on her as High Representative filled with criticism but lacking information on her work as High Representative, I tend to agree. --Completefailure (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we think again about this? I have just added a link to the Wall Street Journal where US reps across the house are nominating her for the Nobel Prize. The naysayers are looking increasingly foolish. It would be a good article for someone to take a fresh look at. YellowFratello (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a few weeks ago, before you and I got to work on it, this was a highly unbalanced article heavily weighted against Ashton. I like to think that by now we have achieved a decent balance overall.
This said, I am not sure I understand the context of your comment. "Take a fresh look at" in what connection? What is the problem? Is it still tagged somewhere as having problems over neutrality?
In any case, Happy New Year! Nandt1 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...over time Ashton has demonstrated her effectiveness as a negotiator in difficult international situations. " This doesn't sound very neutral and I rather suspect many people would question in the light of her actions in Ukraine.109.173.79.58 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but loony lefties regard it as 'neutral' ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.97.111 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2010[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Ashton → Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland — There was a move request on this in December, but certain issues were not addressed. Most importantly, many argued that "Catherine Ashton" is the name she is most commonly known by, but WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. Rather, the appropriate naming convention is WP:NCROY, which says she should be listed as "First Last, Rank Title" unless she is exclusively known by some other name. WP:Article title, the source of COMMONNAME explicitly establishes these carve outs as exceptions to She does not fit that bill. What's more, even if COMMONNAME were still relevant to deciding whether she is better known with or without the title, the title still wins. "First Last, Rank Title" is a usage particular to Wikipedia meant to address problems probably unique to us. As a result, the proper search is not "Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland". Rather, to establish whether she is better known with or without the title, the proper search is 'ashton baroness OR lady', which yields 14 million results. The alternative, '"catherine ashton" -baroness -lady' yields 1 million. All but 50,000 of those are since Aston went to Brussels, but during the same time links to the version with her title outnumber those without by more than 2.3 to 1. Finally, the current title also creates the anomaly of a former Leader of the House of Lords not having a peerage noted in the article title. -Rrius (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing a search for every site, which has "baroness" or "lady" just anywhere along Ashton, to a search for the particular "Catherine Ashton", where neither baroness nor lady may appear on the same page is in my opinion misleading. To me the search results provided in the previous discussion establised clearly that "Catherine Ashton" is the more commonly used name. As whether WP:NCROY should beat WP:Article title (especially when her worldwide notability doesn't come from her UK but EU career), well that's a different matter. --Completefailure (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not correct. The previous searches, for one thing, grossly understated the number of articles. There are millions of hits involved, not thousands. For another, not excluding "baroness" and "lady" from the "catherine ashton" search inflates the "catherine ashton" results. There aren't a lot of reasons for "baroness" and "lady" to appear alongside "ashton" without referring to her title, so it is not clear why it would be a concern that it casts the net too wide.
Well, it includes any page where she is mainly called "Catherine Ashton" and which just states something like "oh, by the way, she is a baroness".--Completefailure (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I realise that I have sometimes criticised people for attempting to overturn naming conventions on a case-by-case basis. However I question the naming convention on this point, we have a number of British politicans with obscure titles, it would be better to refer to them by their ordinary name. I will raise this on WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why should this article be an exception, though? She is widely known as "Lady Ashton" or "Baroness Ashton", so it is clearly she is well-known with the title. As such, she should fall within NCROY, whatever NCROY happens to say at any given time. -Rrius (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the aim is here - if we want to move to a title by which she's better known, why not simply Baroness Ashton? The name+comma+title form is little known or used; nor is there even any compulsion for us to do so on the grounds of any naming convention (making ourselves slaves to our own imperfect conventions would be highly irrational in any case). We have Peter Mandelson, Margaret Thatcher and so on, without their titles in our titles.--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The aim is exactly what I said it is. She is well-known by her title, so she fall under NCROY. Margaret Thatcher and Peter Mandelson fall under an exception that Ashton doesn't: They are really only by their pre-peerage names. -Rrius (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one has to "fall under" any naming convention if it would be silly for them to do so. These conventions are guidelines (and NCROY is particularly well-known for its failings) that we can ignore where appropriate. Anyway, it's said that the Baroness title is falling out of use in EU circles, so there seems to be no need to rename the article at all. Oppose. --Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that EU websites describe her as plain Catherine Ashton. PatGallacher (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would we place the EU website above all others? "Catherine Ashton" would still redirect to the article, so it's not as though people who heard of her at the EU website would end up in the right place. -Rrius (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a frivolous point. Everybody accepts that we should have redirects from all sensible names which she might be known by. Official EU websites are a serious guide to how she is usually known in the EU. PatGallacher (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose: I'm not a fan of moving pages to include peerage titles unless the peer has a common name and would otherwise have their page name as something like First Last (politician) or First Last (UK).-[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - she doesn't use her title in Brussels, she is known known as Baroness as a hangover from her HoL days. Now the press are getting used to her new position, it is falling out of usage. And title is not relevant at all, it is just going to give the article an unnecessarily long winded and obscure title.- J.Logan`t: 09:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there are plenty of examples of politicians listed under name rather than title. Deb (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per JLogan. - SSJ t 12:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- As long as the present version "Catherine Ashton" is retained as a redirect, but I could live with the article being moved with a redirect from the standard WP form (the present target). There are precedents for this with hereditary peers and baronets who decline to use their title. As long as one form redirects to the other there is no difficulty. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:TITLE ; WP:COMMONNAME ; The suggested name contains excessive unnecessary disambiguation, that is neither concise, nor easy to find. Further it is not the form commonly used. Further, WP:NCROY is only a guideline, while the first two are policy. Policy trumps guidelines, per WP:POLICY. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Official EU websites are a serious guide to how she is usually known in the EU", How many British newspaper sources are going to refer to the "Official EU websites" to decide on how to name someone? If she is British then it fall under British English usage. How do UK source name her? -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; well, a bit of Googling reveals that Catherine A., Cathy A., Baroness A. and Lady A. are all common - this recent newspaper article uses three different forms. The proposed title, though, is hardly ever used, so if we think that our conventions forbid titles like "Baroness A.", then the only way to provide a recognizable name is to retain the present title, which is perfectly unobjectionable.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. — Kpalion(talk) 14:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose the suggested move, but strong oppose a move to any other name. The long version Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland would comply with our normal naming policy for British peers, although the full thing is never used in normal coverage. But some individuals are excepted where they are usually known without their title. In Ashton's case, she is now principally active across Europe not merely in the UK. In the EU generally, British titles are not used and she is simply known as Catherine Ashton. The other proposed renamings comply with no WP policy at all. 81.108.236.17 (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What she is known as in other European states other than Ireland is not pertinent to this discussion, as they do not use English. This comes under National varieties of English. Although you are free to comment you may not express a bold opinion in this survey. -- PBS (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you will find English is an official language of the European Union, and spoken by a majority (51%) of EU citizans as a second language. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) which has some bearing on the issues raised in the recent move discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unelected"[edit]

This article states three separate times that Baroness Ashton is unelected. Red King just remove what he called a 'rant' about it, and this was restored by an anon. I have reverted to Red King's version.

It has to be said: there has been some comment in the press about her being unelected, but I fear that we are pushing that line too hard. As has been pointed out elsewhere on the talk page, her being unelected is not particularly remarkable. One might make a general commentary about the House of Lords being unelected. One might make a general commentary about the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy being unelected. But as there are loads of unelected officials in the EU, and all of the House of Lords are unelected, it seems a bit odd that we fixate on this fact with respect to this one person.

I'm not arguing that this criticism of her not be included at all - it has clearly played some role in the press, whether it is remarkable in fact or not. Not up to us to decide. But solid editorial judgment would suggest that writing it 3 times is too many, much less including the 'rant' about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I can understand and appreciate your point. But in this case the comments related to a press article that Ashton herself wrote about a major event of historic importance, squarely within her remit as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs. She was very strongly criticised in a wide range of media for the perceived anomaly between her support for democracy in Egypt and her own unelected status. Two high-quality references were cited; many more could have been added - just Google "Ashton Egypt" to see some of them. In this specific context, there were also "loads" of unelected ministers and officials in the Egyptian government under Mubarak; the Egyptian people have shown what they think of that. Despite your accurate point about the UK House of Lords being unelected, this criticism in public debate seems almost uniquely associated with Ashton; Google "never stood for election to any public office" in an image search and only two politicians appear: Ashton and Colonel Gaddafi. So I hope you will agree that the paragraph was fair and factual comment and should be restored. 85.210.124.195 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am unpersuaded that this belongs in a biography. Unless this particular event can be shown to have some longterm impact, I don't see it. It's just something in and out of the news cycle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
If it can be so shown that this particular event (she wrote an article, some people disagreed and made ad hominem attacks on her for it, this must be true of every politician everywhere at all times) is important, then we should reduce the mentions of this in other parts of the article.
Finally, I do think that it may be true that Ashton is slightly more frequently criticized than other EU officials for being unelected - but unless some reliable source takes note of it, I don't see how we can include that without engaging in inappropriate synthesis.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your carefully written reply. I appreciate you took time and trouble to write that, so I won't go back and revert the article. But I disagree with you on several counts.
"Unless this particular event can be shown to have some longterm impact, I don't see it. It's just something in and out of the news cycle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper." Oh come on. The Middle Eastern Revolutions of 2011 will surely stand in history alongside the Eastern European Revolutions of 1989. So by definition this has long-term impact, it is not something that goes "in and out of the news cycle". A major commentary article by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs must be of significance.
"If it can be so shown that this particular event (she wrote an article, some people disagreed and made ad hominem attacks on her for it, this must be true of every politician everywhere at all times) is important, then we should reduce the mentions of this in other parts of the article." "An" article? "Some" people disagreed? I hoped I had made my point more clearly, that her artcle was about a major event of historic importance, squarely within her remit as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and attracted very strong criticism in a wide range of national and international media. I agree that if the emphasis is made in my text, then it should be correspondingly reduced in other parts of the entry.
"...it may be true that Ashton is slightly more frequently criticized than other EU officials for being unelected..." well I am a scientist by training and I work with statistics every day of my life. Look at the evidence. "may be true"? "slightly more frequently"? This politician attracts criticism (ad hominem or ex officio is open to debate) enormously more than any other, whether from the EU or anywhere else. I estimate the statistics as being something like 10 standard deviations away from the norm for this type of criticism. Look at the evidence I cited ; although you can quickly think of many other politicians and officials in the UK, EU, USA and elsewhere who are unelected, any internet search immediately shows that this criticism in public debate is almost uniquely associated with Ashton.85.210.124.195 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure that, as a statistician, you understand what a standard deviation is, and just how large 10 standard deviations would be. Clearly, the claim is false. Many EU officials have been criticized for being unelected. Many people in very high political office are appointed (US Supreme Court for one prominent example) and also advocate for democracy - the criticism is incoherent. Nevertheless, we mention it often enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she is completely unelected typifies the EU and the current extreme unrest with the EU. 78.149.214.161 (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links request[edit]

Please add the following: 76.192.40.247 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Profile at the Parliament of the United Kingdom
  • Contributions in Parliament at Hansard 1803–2005
  • Voting record at PublicWhip.org
  • Record in Parliament at TheyWorkForYou.com
  • Profile at BBC News Democracy Live
  • Articles authored at Journalisted
  • Appearances on C-SPAN
  • Catherine Ashton collected news and commentary at Al Jazeera English
  • "Catherine Ashton collected news and commentary". Bloomberg News.
  • Lady Ashton collected news and commentary at The Guardian
  • Catherine Ashton collected news and commentary at The Jerusalem Post
  • Catherine Ashton collected news and commentary at The New York Times

File:Ashton2.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ashton2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ashton2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 15 April 2012[edit]

In your article on her you quote her speech regarding Gaza and Toulouse in March 2012, and the criticism she attracted. However, much of the criticism was based on an inaccurate report of her speech. She specifically included in her speech reference to Sderot (an Israeli town that suffered a rocket attack); this important balancing item was wrongly omitted from the initial report - and, indeed, in your own quotation (though it is included in the test of her speech in your reference no. 39).

Subsequently, articles in both the Israeli and UK press made clear that the "row" over her speech had been stirred up by people relying on the original misquotation. At the very least, your article should reflect this point: as it stands it presents a biased and - in its distorted quotation - inaccurate account of what happened. My wife was NOT presenting a moral equivalence between Gaza and Toulouse (as her detractors tried to claim, and which you report) but drawing attention to the way children in all parts of the world could be innocent victims of violence (which perspective you do not report).

Could you kindly put this right?

Thank you

Peter Kellner Peter Kellner (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the paragraph to include the subsequent EU transcript amendment.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've set this to 'unanswered', as I think more tweaking can be done to be the paragraph to make it neutral. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've set it back to answered. If the requester wants more change, he can reopen it. Others are free to make changes without using the edit request template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really acceptable on a BLP. We have to ensure that these things are right all the time, not simply "wait until they complain again". I've fixed it myself. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Why would any weight be given to Ashton's husband?74.104.159.130 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No weight should be given. The reference to him being her husband should be removed. 78.149.214.161 (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight warning[edit]

I added the warning that "this article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters" because the article overwhelmingly focuses on criticism of her tenure as High Representative. Furthermore, the responses to criticisms of her appointment are from her "friends," implying a lack of neutrality. In order to be neutral/balanced, the article should include equal information regarding her accomplishments (not just a list of her duties) and the criticism section should have more neutral responses. I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to make these changes- could someone else do that?

Nadhika99 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that, Nadhika99, is to search out some Reliable Sources and to make the changes yourself. You can't expect other people to jump at your suggestion. Deleting your tag from the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to references to the Interveiew with Ashton in today's Observer. There is more there that could be added to this article for balance. Vernon White . . . Talk 20:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, when an article suffers as egregiously from Undue Weight as this one has -- at least until recently -- done, it strikes me as somewhat questionable just to delete the tag and tell the complainant to fix it himself or herself (particularly when they have been candid enough to register a lack of knowledge in the relevant field). If "you cannot expect other people to jump at your suggestion", why do we have the Undue Weight tag at all? Nandt1 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs coverage of Ashton's key role in Iran talks breakthrough[edit]

I'm surprised that there is little mention of Ashton's role in this historical series of talks , and no mention of the big breakthrough that has recently happened. Here's an example of a news report emphasizing her key role in making the breakthrough happen : [17]. I would add details myself but unfortunately this page is locked to editing by unregistered users. Hopefully such additions would help address this article's balance/undue weight problems further (see above) too 76.217.24.133 (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph drawing on the Financial Times article about CA's role in the negotiations. Nandt1 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting account of Toulouse incident[edit]

I've made a factual correction to this entry's coverage of the controversy over Ashton's speech referring to the attack on Jewish children in Toulouse. The text used to state that Ashton was criticized by "several newspapers". But after following the footnotes, it was clear that the FT was not itself editorializing against Ashton, but merely reporting the criticism coming from Israeli politicians. In the case of the Jerusalem Post, I followed the link provided and found a reference to Ashton only in the headline (quoted selectively in the Wikipedia footnote, by the way) -- there was no mention of Ashton in the main body of the article. I have therefore corrected the entry to clarify that the criticism referred to came from the politicians rather than the press. Nandt1 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another misleading critique?[edit]

Until just now, this article carried a report that a French journalist had criticized Ashton for (allegedly) being unable to speak any foreign languages. I have now cut this reference because the claim is itself directly contradicted by the account in The Guardian on Ashton's appointment (cited in the main text):

When her name emerged on Thursday night, the Élysée Palace telephoned senior European commission officials to check that she speaks "the language of Molière". A positive response was sent back to Paris, allowing her to clear the final hurdle.

Nandt1 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to avoid appearance of ad hominem attack on Rod Liddle[edit]

One of the more graphic and personal of the attacks on Ashton's appointment inserted by previous editors comes from one Rod Liddle, currently with The Spectator magazine. An earlier editor had added that Liddle was previously with the BBC, perhaps (?) with a view to enhancing Liddle's standing. The problem with the BBC reference is that Liddle was in fact required to resign from the Corporation. I thought of qualifying the BBC reference by pointing this out, but it comes across as if I am trying make an ad hominem attack. I therefore thought that, on balance, it is better just to drop the BBC reference -- we do not after all normally feel obliged to identify journalists by their previous affiliations.

Incidentally, anyone who is unaware of how problematic a "witness for the prosecution" Mr. Liddle is with regards to any woman in public life might wish to consult his biography elsewhere on this encyclopedia. I am not easily shocked, but the less one says about Mr. Liddle's history, the kinder one is to him. Nandt1 (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts on the Liddle quote. In editing the article on Liddle, user Philip Cross recently challenged the noteworthiness of Liddle's comment on Ashton, noting that it had received negligible pick-up by third party users. Living outside the UK, I must confess that I had never heard of Liddle until the past couple of days. I did not immediately realize that he is a figure who seems to function largely by making outrageous statements, whether about women politicians, blacks, Muslims or whoever. Why was a quote from such a sketchy source included in this article in the first place? Largely, I have come to believe, precisely because this article was allowed for a while to become a repository for any kind of criticism of Ashton, no matter how offensive in tone, factually ill-founded (see several examples above) or marginal the source. Anyone who looks over my edits over the past few days will see that, far from operating censorship here, I have left in the great bulk of the article's earlier critiques. But Mr. Liddell seems to have squeaked in, not for any noteworthiness or gravitas per se, but because he said the rudest things on record about the subject of the article. My view is that we should be applying tougher standards for inclusion, and I thus plan to cut Liddle's quote from this article. Nandt1 (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to have been a herd mentality when she was appointed which the page refelcted from people who had not thought through what actual qualities she might be able to bring to the job. Of course as the first person to hold the post we don't have any comparisons but overall she has been successful and won over some of her critics. I am thinking of putting this in from Peter Oborne where he says 'Well, let’s admit we were all completely wrong. It is now obvious that Catherine Ashton has been a success. In her unobtrusive but determined way, she can boast real achievement. Last year a peace deal was struck between Serbia and Kosovo. Nobody had thought it possible. It was a massive step towards healing ancient hatreds and building economic prosperity. It was brokered by Baroness Ashton."

So +1 to Nandt1's suggestion. YellowFratello (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That quotation is a revealing one that I had not seen. Nandt1 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I liked it so much I stole it from you and put it into the article. But the credit is all yours! Nandt1 (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll let you have it this time!! I've also added a couple more before you get ahead of me. YellowFratello (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CND finances[edit]

The discussion here of the questions raised about CND and whether it did or did not receive Soviet funding (particularly during CA's tenure) had been edited at some stage to highlight the statement that CA's office "refused to discuss CND's funding in detail". Camouflaged by that stage was the fact (discussed in earlier versions of the article) that Ashton had herself in fact been questioned on these matters by MEPs. I've dug back into the archives with a view to recapturing what she (and her spokesman) actually said at the time, which sounds reasonably categorical. I am no expert on CND, and I fear that this may be one of those subjects -- as with the JFK assassination -- that one can never quite put to bed, because as soon as you deal with one version of the story, another one pops up. I imagine someone could write an entire article on the larger CND-Moscow story. My own feeling is that this is not the place. Just how much discussion of this aspect here is "enough" is, however, obviously an issue that reasonable people could potentially disagree about..... Nandt1 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

On Ashton's bias against Israel. It should be mentioned that her husband has business interests with Israel's enemies. http://www.rightsmonitoring.org/israel-here-is-the-reason-for-the-anti-israeli-line-of-catherine-ashton-this-is-a-conflict-of-interests/74.104.159.130 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited looks as if it could be rather biased. This accusation has not been made on her husband's WP page, where it may be more effectively challenged or verified. Vernon White . . . Talk 23:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That would be Ashton's "alleged" bias against Israel, I think. I for one don't see it in the record so far produced. Nandt1 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Head of European Union Military Staff[edit]

it ought to be noted that Ashton is head of the European Union Military Staff 69.171.101.3 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor Sing 08:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a criticism to this page - specifically Nigel Farage's discourse which stated that Baroness Ashton is not in a legitimate role and is unable to be removed from her position. I am not in a contrary position to Ashton's role in the EU but believe that this information from an important source needs to be recognised on the website. I have not been a frequent user in the past on Wikipedia but wish to join the community and desire to be allowed to add this important information to this page. Best wishes, Dmitri

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor Sing 08:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not done: If you wish to request that a page is unprotected please apply at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Ashton → Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland – For sake of consistency (see [18]) -- almost all female life peers follow same format (see [19], [20]). Prior objection referenced former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who sui generis was far more than a life peer or backbencher, but she is the exception, not the rule, in this category. P.D. James and Ruth Rendell are better known as writers, so they might be better exempted as well, but Ashton's prime claim to fame is as a life peer. Quis separabit? 14:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, what about consistency? Quis separabit? 17:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of Wikipedia is OK with article titles not being consistent to the level that you want it to be. You linked to Category:Female_life_peers, but if you look at Category:Communes of Ain and Category:U2 songs, you can see that the article titles are inconsistent (some communes article titles have "Ain" while others don't, while some song article titles have "(song)" or "(U2 song)" while others don't). This is not a problem and is actually accepted practice in Wikipedia. —seav (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should delete all titles from lifepeers. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. She's commonly known simply as Catherine Ashton. And she's most commonly known for being the EU's top diplomat, not for being a lifepeer. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: We generally try to avoid including honorifics in Wikipedia article names. Please see WP:AT, WP:NCROY, WP:HONORIFIC. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The honorific is unnecessary disambiguation. —seav (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per above.-- Dewritech (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose puffery. She's a life peer, she doesn't hold a hereditary title, which means her title is because of her accomplishments, making her the same as a VC holder or knight, and we don't add "V.C." or "Sir/Dame" to article titles. She didn't found a hereditary title lineage. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this exact request has failed twice already, and consistency is an exceedingly weak argument to overturn two prior requested moves. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A number of contributors here seem unaware of WP:NCPEER, an agreed naming convention which says we should generally add the titles for peers, whether hereditary or life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then, with no disrespect intended, WP:NCPEER needs to change. WP:CONCISE wipes the floor with it. Red Slash 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The cited guideline also states it doesn't apply to "peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names." Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. Which is why I'm expressing no opinion on this article. However, some of the comments above showed that editors were unaware of the naming convention. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • NCPEER should not apply to lifepeers, they are known because of what they did to earn their peerage, it wasn't a gift at the whim of a monarch. It's the exact same situation as with modern knighthoods and the Victoria Cross. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should not does not equate to does not! If you don't like it, then you need to try to get it changed on the appropriate guideline page, not here. And hereditary peers were appointed in exactly the same way, incidentally. Their creation hasn't generally been at the whim of the monarch for well over a century, if not closer to two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality, again[edit]

I would say that this statement in the lead sets the tone for the article.

"Despite significant criticism at the time of her appointment and in the early stages of her term of office, over time Ashton has been praised as an effective negotiator in difficult international situations,"

It's always going from criticism to praise, and reads like a plea by a supporter for her to be given the Nobel Peace Prize. She is extremely unpopular in Russia for her encouragement of Euromaidan in Kiev, and unless comments pages of UK newpapers are trolled from the Kremlin a considerable body of British public opinion would criticise her for this, and we must assume that much Western European public opinion would be the same. The criticism to priase theme is chronological, and if that chronological structure is to be maintained it should be criticism to praise to criticism. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your own editing, I take it that your specific challenge to the article's neutrality concerned the fact that it did not include coverage of the controversy regarding the nature of the protests in Kiev -- peaceful or otherwise. Following edits by you and me, that controversy is now covered both In the lede and in the main body of the text. Needless to say, assertions over the nature of those protests are themselves apt to be controversial. My own editing of your edits seeks to be as factual and as close to the sources as possible -- rather than discussing Ashton's "encouragement" of the protests, which is a vague concept, I suggest we say that the Russian DM challenged Ashton's assertion that the protests were peaceful (and indicate the basis of his claim).
I must, though, also point out that the sources you have cited are themselves not the most "reliable" by Wikipedia's standards. RT, for example, makes no secret of the fact that its raison d'être is to convey the Kremlin's views. As such, I think it can probably be accepted as "reliable" on the question of what the Russian DM had to say (but not on broader issues of fact). Likewise the Express source is an opinion piece representing one writer's POV, rather than a piece of reporting. I have not changed your sources, but if you can come up with sources that meet WP's definition of reliable sources, that would be an improvement.
With the Kiev controversy now covered, I would suggest that the tag regarding neutrality should be ready for removal. If you think further work is needed on the article, please specify with some precision what further changes you believe are needed. Thank you. Nandt1 (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to Sceptic's view on the assessment "Despite...situations." The Guardian presents a partisan viewpoint. The lead is not a place for assessments. Partisan assessments best left for the 'commentary' section are best left for the commentary section.69.60.247.253 (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that I think that the article as a whole is still far too partisan. My specific interest is in her role re. the Maidan protests and I consider that by highlighting some of the adverse publicity she has gathered in Russia at least I restore some balance. I'm not disputing that Russia Today may be partisan but we are not disputing whether it is an accurate source of fact. what is significant is the view of one commentator on RT which is just as significant as all the laudatory views from Western media. However I might agree to the removal of the neutrality tag on the grounds that I don't want to rewrite the whole article and if some of the criticism of her over Ukraine is included it provides balance. However I agree with the previous commentator that the lead is not the place for assessments. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC) To add to this I think the article is too long with too many quotations. Quotations could be added in boxes in the notes. However I don't have time for this so I just add more quotes to give some balance. I don't think there should be assessments in the lead either. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best leave all priase and criticism out of the lead. Seems reasonable to mention Nobel nomination and that indicates praise. Does 69.60.247.253 agree? Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I try to respond in a reasonable way to others' critiques of WP articles if it seems there might be some substantive basis there. In the present case, for example, I've recast text that might be considered unduly judgmental in the lede, by removing the arguably POV word "effective" from the discussion of CA's work as a negotiator. This said, making progress on WP does need to be a two-way street. We cannot make up our own rules as we go along (e.g., on the status of RT as a source). Nor is it constructive to say "I regard this article as unbalanced or lacking in neutrality and want to retain the tag but I don't have time to go into specifics". We can't just bring progress on WP to a halt unilaterally. If we do not have specific objections in line with WP policy to specific parts of the article within a reasonable period, I shall be moving to remove the tag over neutrality. Nandt1 (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC). P.S. With the latest addition from a Moscow State U lecturer, this whole section seems to me to be in real danger of becoming unbalanced with one RT/Pravda piece after another. Comments from others not yet embroiled in this series of exchanges? Nandt1 (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sceptic's view on praise and partisanship here, and would prefer to have mention of the nobel and ref to guardian removed to 'history' section. If she wins the nobel, THEN by all means, move that up to the lead.69.60.247.253 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No personal offense, but I note this IP appears to have first been used to edit on WP some two days ago. Nandt1 (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have logged out in order to make this edit which will give my current IP address. I am currently in Russia. I will log in again immediately. 95.84.168.31 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I presume that Nandt knows how to identify IP locations, 69.60.247.253, is in Canada. The article contains so many laudatory comments about Ms Ashton as to appear as hagiography, writtn by an associate of Ms Ashton. I have gone some way towards addressing this, the article is becoming slightly less unbalanced but even more bloated. I have given some detail about why I think it is unbalanced I don't have time to rework the whole article, especially if there is no agreement. If Nandt can give a reliable source of someone priasing Ashton for her actions in Ukraine by all means add this. Sadly coverage of recent events in Ukraine has convinced me that Western Media are not much better that Russian sources. Sceptic1954 (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)I think that 'Serbia Kossovo' and 'Iran' should be subsections of praise as the material is so laudatory. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)I think that neutrality would demand a photo of Ashton on Maidan with the Svoboda leader, as well as all the others. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)I am making a start on removing what I see as the absurd amount of hype here, I'm surprised that nobody has challenged this before. It will take time though, and I would like to see responses. Perhaps we could request a 'NPOV reviewer. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)I think the majority of the article should concern what she has done. Praise and criticism and relevant, but not these endless quotes. Negative quotes are given but the whole thing is skewed to show her triumphing over her critics. I'm not suggesting removing any references, readers can go to them if they wish. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)As there are currently three editors interested in this I and 69.60.247.253 seems broadly to agree with me and is in Canada I suggest Nandt1 waits allows them time to respond before reverting any edits, that is assuming other editors don't become involved. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I am enthusiatically making edits in the hope that 69.60.247.253 will like them. I think a priase and criticism section would be very good but if we put it at the end and separate it from the more factual section then facts won't be obscured. I've no problem with the zeroine to heroine story at all, it's definietly sighnificant. Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Nandt1 I have now been through the main body of the article (minus the assessments section) and amended it so that I consider it neutral. Although I edit from Moscow and came to this article because of her role in the Maidan Protests I do not consider that I have edited this to give this undue prominence, but clearlyit has a place in her story. However I was shocked by the article as it stood, it was just one long advertisement for Ms Ashton containing the most unbelievable amount of hype. I have never seen anything so partial regarding a prominent public figure in my time editing Wikipedia.Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balance[edit]

I have just been through this article as it was prior to my editing it, and being accused of working for the Kremlin for my pains. I have taken every quotation which could be either favoiurable or critical of Ashton. Favourable quotes extend over 36 lines, critical over 4, that's 9 to 1.

Quotes favourable to subject

"cautious welcome... from international relations experts".[33] "I have seen Cathy in action. I have great respect for her. She is excellent at building good relations with people and a good negotiator "People underestimate Cathy at their peril. She is not a great big bruiser. She is a persuader and a charmer. That is the secret of her success."[5]"this accomplishment which is a result of her tireless engagement and commitment to the issue over the last four years".[2] "a lot of hot air" "she has an impossible job to do and she is doing it well. At the end of her time in office, people will be more positive about what she has done. She will leave a real legacy."[61]But now the 57-year-old baroness is suddenly at the center of world diplomacy. And whenever she is mentioned, she earns praise for her hard-nosed negotiating skills, her stamina and her diplomatic talents. "She is discrete and perceptive, but also tenacious. That makes her an ideal negotiator,"Well, let’s admit we were all completely wrong. It is now obvious that Catherine Ashton has been a success. In her unobtrusive but determined way, she can boast real achievement. Last year a peace deal was struck between Serbia and Kosovo. Nobody had thought it possible. It was a massive step towards healing ancient hatreds and building economic prosperity. It was brokered by Baroness Ashton.... I have never met Baroness Ashton but I guess that one of her secrets is that she keeps her head down, does not flaunt her ego, and allows others to take the credit. It takes little imagination to envisage how a male politician from any of the main parties would have exploited the Kosovo peace-deal, or the Morsi visit. She just kept her head down and quietly got on with her job.[64]Plaudits all round, then, in particular for Baroness Ashton, the much-derided EU foreign policy chief who personally brokered the sometimes tortuous negotiations. Nor is the pact only a promising move towards lasting peace. It is also a reminder of the considerable diplomatic force that the hope of EU membership can bring to bear – a reminder that is all the more welcome given the identity crisis provoked by the travails of the euro.[66]"no longer the diplomatic dilettante". "I tip my hat to her.... She truly played a decisive role". "now... wanted to deal only with Lady Ashton". "That the others agreed to this was significant. For China and Russia to be outside while she was in the room negotiating details was quite remarkable".[67] 'faced down the snootiness of French diplomats, and what she once called the "latent sexism" of Brussels, to become the unlikely peacemaker between America and Iran'. 'In particular, the work of the European Union High Representative Baroness Cathy Ashton has been fundamental. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement—a little late, I would argue—she was “indispensable” to ensuring that agreement was finally reached.' 'I am never lacking in effusion for the role of Baroness Ashton. She has handled things brilliantly, particularly in creating confidence between the Iranian negotiators and the E3 plus 3 team.'

Quotes critical of subject

"This may well be the most ridiculous appointment in EU history".[36] The Guardian quoted an anonymous Whitehall source as commenting "Cathy just got lucky...The appointment of her and Herman Van Rompuy [as European Council president] was a complete disgrace. They are no more than garden gnomes."[5]"leaving Britain without a voice"

How can this by any stretch of the imagination have been considered balanced? As a citizen of the UK and EU I got involved here to restore some NPOV not to promote any Kremlin line.Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again! Anyone who actually reads the article -- as it was then or is now -- will discover that the above represents a highly skewed "counting", because it only includes direct quotes. There are paragraphs and paragraphs of critical material about Ashton which just happen not to be in quotation remarks.
Examples from today's version of the text:
1. Paragraph conveying criticism of her CND past.
2. Paragraph conveying criticisms of (a) her failure to visit Haiti, (b) her failure to attend an EU defense summit, (c) rumor she switches off her phone early.
3. Paragraph covering her receiving the lowest rating of any EU Commissioner.
4. Paragraph covering criticism of her speech about Gaza.
5. Paragraph on Telegraph criticism of her attendance record........
Why weren't these included in the count above? Guess!
I should make it clear that I am not in any way convinced that one arrives at an appropriately "balanced" article by a mechanical counting process like this -- I don't, for example, imagine the professionals over at Britannica would stoop to anything of the kind. But if some of us insist on counting, we should count properly, not just make arbitrary distinctions between what we count and what we don't! Nandt1 (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to do a line count on quotes. If you want to do a count on all praise and criticism in indirect speech go ahead, don't just list the criticism in indirect speech there may for all I know be far more praise in indirect speech. And why should praise have a far greater tendency to be in direct speech than criticism. Even that would could be an indication of bias.

It's quite common for politicians speeches to be analysed for the frequency of certain keywords. Pinning down bias is can be subjective which is precisly why counting techniques can be useful, at least there's a measure of objectivity. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. No one suggested a lack of balance in this article until she fell foul of the Kremlin.
2. I don't accept counting as a valid technique for evaluating an article like this, but if one wants to count one should not impose arbitrary criteria on what one counts and what one doesn't. Nandt1 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody else was interested in editing this until she attracted some recent negative publicity. The criteria I chose is quick than arbitary. I don't see much point in discussing further, a third party is needed here, if you start to revert the article to the way it was a neutrality template will go up. Don't you agree that we should jointly request an third party? Sceptic1954 (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review by a genuinely neutral party from within the WP system seems appropriate. Do you want to make an initial proposal on how to obtain such a review? Nandt1 (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have five or six times as many edits as me so you are more likely to know where to start than me. We'd have to agree which version was to be reviewed and whether we would make additional submissions Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC) It seems that you as well as I have had some contact with SlimVirgin, I know she is very busy but maybe she wouldn't need to read the whole article. I have every confidence in her neutrality on BLPs. Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have done more editing at WP, I am bound to point out that very little of it indeed has aroused controversy -- as such, I have almost no real experience of WP dispute resolution. This said, and with no reflection on SlimVirgin per se, I would suggest that it would be more transparent all round to try to make use of one of WP's institutional mechanisms, rather than picking a specific named individual. As a possible place to start, I see there is a WP page named "Dispute Resolution Requests". Would you like to take a look and express any views on the options there? Nandt1 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One alternative thought. Surprising as it may seem, I've actually had very little time for this article lately. When I went through it today, I could see that the positive quotations did indeed go on rather more than I remembered. Not to speak ill of any other editor behind their back, but if you look at the actual editing record, our friend YelloFratello did get a little -- shall we say -- enthusiastic about adding quotes, and the cumulative effect was rather more quotes in that section than are needed to make the point. If you want to make one more effort at negotiating a consensus approach between us, I could certainly agree to prune the undue length in that part of the article significantly. What I would find much harder to go along with -- and where I would hope for some kind of advance agreement with you -- would be the idea of dropping entirely (either from the main text or the lede) the basic sense of the narrative that, after an appointment phase and early stage in office when she was widely derided, subsequently we entered a period in which her work, especially on Iran and Kosovo, brought her a considerable amount of increased respect. That seems to be both undeniable as a matter of fact, important to telling the story, and well-documented, and in my judgment it belongs in. Is it the end of the story? Not necessarily. Political careers have their downs as well as their ups. For all I know, in a year's time the Iranian deal may have fallen apart, or she may have fallen flat on her face over Ukraine or any number of other things. If that happens, I will be the first to say it should be recorded in this article. So anyway, the above is a sketch of the possibility of a negotiated way forward. Over to you! Nandt1 (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, I made a proposal here on how to address the dispute over balance in this article. As of now, that suggestion has not been picked up. I now need to announce that, for a combination of professional and personal reasons, I will not be available to edit on WP for the next three weeks or so. I hope to return around the end of April. Nandt1 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I missed this, I don't know how. If the excess of praise is cut back that would be great. The zeroine to heroine idea is one which certainly has a place, but her current unpopularity in Russia needs a mention too, to continue the story. As of today she is talking to Lavrov. I agree the article is a bit untidy as it stands, I had put it on a back burner whilst awaiting a response. Maybe I'll do some temporary tidying. Glad you no longer treat me as a Kremlin agent: President Putin's office have been helpful to me without me needing to mention my wiki editing. (Currently in London) Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very briefly for clarification, given my other commitments, and in view of your comment above: your relationship with the Kremlin -- whatever it may be -- is something I take and have taken no position on. Nandt1 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Abusive Editing Here[edit]

It has become clear recently that, as a subset of its propaganda activities over Ukraine, the Kremlin has decided to launch a campaign, using assets including but not limited to Pravda and the RT broadcasting system, to blacken the name of Catherine Ashton, who has been one of the leading European voices speaking up for the former opposition forces in Kiev.

I have no way of knowing the relationship -- if any -- of contributor Sceptic1954 to the Kremlin. Nor that of IP 69 60 247 253, brand new on WP, which echoes Skeptic's every comment in a manner that looks suspiciously like sock puppetry (and yes, I did already know the IP located to Canada -- so what?). From initially focusing on retailing Kremlin charges -- some keenly contested -- in the Ukraine section and the lede, these two have suddenly gone wild with ripping this article more generally to pieces under the pretext of neutrality issues.

Rather than just reverting, I would like at this stage to request a review of the recent editing of this article, which strikes this user as abusive and inspired (at least) by a coordinated state-driven propaganda campaign, aimed inter alia at the subject of this article. Nandt1 (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I currently live most of the time about half an hour's walk from the Kremlin. I am U.K. citizen. I am currently in correspondence with President Putin's office regarding a matter which affects the well-being of three Russian citizens of modest means but which has no connection with the subject of this article. I don't see how that can be a conflict of interest though. I am not otherwise involved in politics or journalism in Russia, other than commenting on U.K. newspapers' websites. I don't see any conflict of interest here. I have not been asked to do this editing by anyone in the Russian government nor have I mentioned this to anyone. Do you have any connection with the subject?

Would you like to point to one thing in the article as amended which is derogatory towards the subject, I consider I've merely removed a lot of hype, and haven't denigrated her in any way? In fact I've removed much of the critical material from the Ukraine section. Clearly if the subject is a diplomat and antagonises the government of a major country that deserves a mention. I don't see how I can be the same person as the IP address from Canada, I'll be very glad to be checked. I do also edit from London when I'm there.British people are allowed to visit Russia and have views which may be closer to those of the Russian government than their own.

I hope that if someone reviews this they will also review your previous version for POV. I am not motivated by pushing the Russian point of view on this but in ensuring neutrality in this article. In making wholesale changes I was 'being bold' responding to your request to highlight my perception of lack of neutrality and had the support of another editor who I know is not myself. Now I'm off to one of the excellent theatres here in Moscow. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


PS check out my editing record, especially Denis Avey and Horace Greasley. You see I'm passionate for neutrality. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no personal connection of any kind to Baroness Ashton. We have never met, spoken or corresponded in any way. I welcome any fair-minded review of my editing history. Nandt1 (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note with appreciation that, following my request for independent review, Sceptic 1954 has, for the moment at least, suddenly removed much of the Kremlin-sourced attack material he/she has recently been inserting into this article. I still consider a review would be appropriate -- inter alia because what is removed today may be reinstated tomorrow. In addition, the more general restructuring of the article by Sceptic 1954, including removing discussion of Ashton's record as EU Foreign Policy Chief from the lede, is arbitrary and reduces the relevance and usefulness of the article -- her main noteworthiness derives, after all, from her record in her present job. Why drop these references? Because, I would suggest, the Kremlin and its allies, sympathizers and fellow-travelers seek to diminish Ashton's credibility in any way they can. The fact that Ashton's reputation over her years in office has on the whole attracted growing respect, is a point that, if they cannot remove it altogether, they would at least prefer to bury as far down the story as possible.... So let's try to get some experienced eyes onto what has been going on here. Nandt1 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware your request for review when I removed Russian sourced quotes from the Ukraine section. As you will see I was working my way through the article moving most of the quotes of praise and criticism and was just coming to this. It would indeed have looked odd if I had left them there after everything else I'd removed. You might call me a Kremlin sympathiser on this particlar matter, anything wrong with that? There's certainly a case for putting her 'achievements' in the lead, but that can be construed as POV and where do you stop? I'd suggest that her main noteworthiness derives from her present job per se rather than her record in it. I'll go back and check how the lead was before. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I had a look and the way the lead was the editor was setting themself up as an arbiter of her reputation. I checked a couple of U.S. Presidents, Carter and Clinton, and in the lead there is mention of main events of the Presidency and popularity ratings, the latter is somewhat more objective than an editor selecting praise or criticism from the newspapers. So I agree that her role in Kossovo/Serbia and Iran may deserve mention. Let's see what our editor with the numbers from Ontario has to say on this. They certainly wanted to move praise out of the lead. By the way if the Kremlin were in on this they would have put a picture of her with the leader of Svoboda on wikimedia commons for me to upload, which would give some balance to all those pictures which I presume her office has contributed. Maybe I should ask 'Russia Today' if they have one!!![reply]

I'd like to see how the editor from Ontario thinks about having assessments at the end. I don't think I'd take issue with you putting a lot of the quotes there but then I'd want the 'ballet-dancer' and 'hypocrisy and double' standards would have to go in as well. As far as I'm aware RT is allowed as RS, I'd treat it with caution on assertions of fact, as I might many Western sources,but it's fine if it's expressing views of Russian officialdom and if praise and criticism are to be included those views have a place.

Can you please copy me into your request for independent review. Thanks Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the previous phrasing of the lede had survived for some time without anyone else finding it POV. One option would be to just restore it as it was -- maybe after I removed the mention of effectiveness and replaced it by a reference to "work" and without any material on Ukraine. Alternatively, I had edited the addition on Ukraine to try to make it NPOV. I could myself live with either of these alternatives.... Nandt1 (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not the only one. And of course there are now people coming to the article because of her involvement in the Ukraine who may cast a more critical eye on things. For the record, just so you've a better idea where I'm coming from, I think she may have been brilliant as a mediator in Kossovo and Iran, but the very qualities which made her a good mediator were disadvantages in Ukraine where she effectively was on one side in a conflict. So that's a personal position which may be behind my selection of 'facts'. I don't want to give Ukraine undue weight but I think you can argue that through her actions she has helped to bring about the current crisis. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are, of course, all entitled to our own point of view. The more practical issue is whether we can, in spite of our differences, agree on language for the lede. I have put two options on the table...... Nandt1 (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Where?Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC) By all means amend the lead, I may revert but won't complain of edit-warring. I hope our third editor will log in soon. I'd just say that because she is still serving her term it may be a bit early for assessments, so there's safety in leaving it out. However I can see that there may be a case for putting notable events in the lead.Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of editing etiquette, could I please encourage you to add substantive new comments sequentially. I now see that you have been inserting substantial additions into the middle of your own earlier comments on this page. This, of course, makes it difficult for later readers to follow the discussion as it actually unfolded and know what each editor was responding to. Nandt1 (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I merely corrected an error. Must be addled. Sorry. I just looked at the wiki entry for David Cameron. There's nothing in the lead beyond his accession to office. However the Barack Obama lead has a lot more. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Same contrast between Hollande and Merkel. I like concision. She's notable for her office regardless of her acheivements, that's why she has a huge template to top right of article. However I don't think it's going to make a blind bit of difference to the future of Ukraine whether the Kossovo deal is mentioned in the lead or not. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Change noted. I'll think about it and await any comments from Ontario. My biggest objection to the article was the amount of laudatory comments in the body of the article which obscured essential facts of her actions in office. Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edits yesterday were in response to Nandt1 encouraging me to amend the article so I would remove the POV tag. I don't think I removed a single reference and have no objection if Nadt want to put all the quotes in the main text into notes so that they appear in boxes. However if lots of praise gets into the main body of the article I'll put the neutrality tag back. I'll not change the lead back for now, but will see what Nandt does. I'd actually welcome a neutrality reviewer.95.84.168.31 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Preceding edit by Sceptic1954Sceptic1954 (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nandt1, Please go to [2] and look at the results of polls of UK voters by, amongst others, Catherine Ashton's husband's company YouGov. There was a TV debate prior to the coming European Elections and the candidate who saud he admire Putin won approx 70 to 30 % in the opinion poll. So just because I'm in Moscow pleasedon't think I hold views which are unusual for a U.K. citizen. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the most recent entries in the discussion on this article involving Sceptic1954 and me are located at the end of the section on Balance immediately above this present section. Nandt1 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

add details on conversation with Paet[edit]

The Polish Foreign Minister's wife maintains that the eavesdropping occurred while both parties were on land lines.[3]

Thanks for your help. 69.60.247.253 (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Applebaum isn't a Minister's wife only. She is a writer with a long list of texts. Questioning her integrity should be supported by reliable sources. Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better to use another source if possible. Might be an idea to find a source which shows that not every shares Applebaums view. Might be an even better idea not to give so much weight to this.Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595391/Clegg-turn-fire-dangerous-Farage-admiring-Putin-defending-Assad-chemical-weapons.html#comments
  3. ^ telegraph.co.uk: "Russia’s information warriors are on the march – we must respond" (Applebaum) 7 Mar 2014

Lead, 31st March[edit]

I would like to revert Nandt's edit to the lead on the grounds that I prefer a policy that if a politician is in office, especially for one term only, then the lead should be concerned with the fact of them being in office rather than what they might have done whilst in office. That's on a "too-soon-to-judge" principle. So if 69.60.247.253 agrees would they please revert this edit. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If 69.60.247.253 doesn't respond by 24.00 UT then it's reasonable to assume that they are not currently active on this page. 95.84.168.31 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Preceding edit by Sceptic1954, our cat must have logged me out by walking on the keyboard! Sceptic1954 (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from template above. "This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism." Because of the huge preponderance of pro- over anti-Ashton quotes above and the Nandt1's eagerness to see the Nobel Peace Prize nomination in the lead I think this should definitely not be in the lead to avoid any suggestion that this article is designed as 'campaign material' for the Nobel Peace Prize. I agree other commenter here, put it in the lead if she gets the prize. If Nandt doesn't agree please let's go for third party review. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to drop the reference to the Nobel from the lede if that will in any way contribute to progress here. But although this is described as the basis of Sceptic's edit in the log, the larger change is to delete any reference to Ashton's record in office. Why? Well according to Sceptic "I would prefer a policy...." But no such policy actually exists on WP, and It seems to me that individual users, however strong their personal feelings on a subject, are not at liberty to establish new rules on a unilateral basis. I hope you would recognize the validity of that statement as a general proposition, Sceptic?
On that basis, I am proposing to reinstate what was in the lede with the exception of the Nobel. Nandt1 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC). The lede now includes factual statements that she has been praised for her mediation work on Iran and Kosovo and criticized for the statements on Ukraine. I repeat that these are factual (and documented) statements. They are relevant to her record in public life, which is the only basis for her noteworthiness. To argue that a WP article's lede should stop at the moment that subject takes office is both arbitrary and -- as in the present case -- lends itself to the pursuit of a specific political agenda. Nandt1 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There may be no WP policy regarding this question, that's simply my personal preference. I'd suggest that the way to avoid suggestion of pursuit of an agenda is to confine the lead to the taking of office. In choosing which events during the period of office to highlight opens the suggestion of bias. So you think I have an anti-Ashton agenda for wishing to remove references to both praise and criticism? The fact of you implying this suggests that your agenda is pro-Ashton, which is consistent with there having been 36 lines of laudatory quotes to 4 lines of critical from the time when you were the sole active editor. And you lecture me on bias?. I'm the one who is risking impoverishing the lead through pursuit of neutrality.

Actually you may not be aware that in Western Europe my general declared position is common, and I rather suspect the perspective of most people. Check out the comments sections of U.K. newspapers. Of course you may suspect that these are trolled by the Kremlin and I haven't been in Britain for a few weeks but they correspond to what I'd expect people to think.

Assuming above unsigned entry is by Sceptic..... Glad you accept that there is no such policy on WP. I cannot agree that you have the right to invent such a non-existent policy and impose it here. As to suggestions that I am biased in favor of Ashton, I can assure you the woman means nothing to me personally. But I do have a preference for objectivity and fair play, and when I first read this piece it was dominated by personal attacks from the less savory elements of the British Right, one of whom, if I recall correctly, asserted that Ashton had all the charisma of a caravan holiday on the Isle of Sheppey. If my edits show a preponderance of rather more positive comments, that needs to be seen in the context of a grossly unbalanced article, unworthy of a serious encyclopedia, when I first came to the piece. My loyalty is to Wikipedia and its goal of serious, balanced and NPOV articles. If this article had not been such an egregious disgrace in the first place, I would never have bothered to edit it at all. Nandt1 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had this article not appeared so one-sided I wouldn't have bothered editing it. I can see where you are coming from and expect that I'd have shared your feelings about the article as it was before you edited it. But it came out looking like something written by Ms A's own publicity department. One way of assessing notability of events is to look at Wikipedia page view stats for various events, Iran got by far the biggest daily score. I may suggest an alternative lead in due course but we need to agree on the body of the article. The main thing for me was that there were far too many laudatory quotations. They would probably seem ridiculous to many readers who had got that far. I've no problem whatever in highlighting her work in Iran. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see entry above explaining why Sceptic's alleged count of favorable and unfavorable comment is misleading. Nandt1 (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All we get is a number list of examples of criticism in indirect speech without any comparative list of examples of praise in indirect speech.Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the latest entries in the discussion of this article are to be found at the end of section on Balance -- two sections up from here. Nandt1 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Bias[edit]

I wonder how many of the edits come from IP addresses located in Brussels and Strasbourg? Maybe this page should be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.84 (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is about one phrase[edit]

Would be good to know when Yanukovych resigned as president, as stated in an article about madam Ashton? We all know that Yanukovich should run from Ukraine to save his family and himself from armed insurgents, but I never heard or read about his resignition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubt it now (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening issue of Neutrality Tag for Assessments section[edit]

As I offered to do a little earlier (see above), I have now deleted a couple of paragraphs of laudatory material from the Assessments section in the interests of balance. I would like to suggest that we now revisit the neutrality tag on this section. If anyone believes this tag still needs to be retained, let's see some discussion of specific proposals -- otherwise, I think it can go. Nandt1 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In an exchange at his/her User Talk page, user Sceptic1954, who originally placed this tag, agreed to its removal. With his/her authorization, I will now take care of this. Nandt1 (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014[edit]

"Following the resignation of President Yanukovitch.." - this wording grossly contradicts the facts and makes the article biased, unobjective and not truthful. The passage should be replaced with:  "Following the ouster of President Yanukovitch..  93.154.228.2 (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 16:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit request[edit]

Before the section "==Titles and styles==" there's a "

" which should be changed to

. 195.75.72.179 (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing the end of the article[edit]

Just had a look at this page in view of the Iran negotiations finally (?) concluding and I think the end is not really balanced. It comes across as over negative and would like to add this from Adam Boulton who wrote this in the Sunday Times a year ago, when discussing who Britain’s new commissioner would be…

As the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Catherine Ashton still bestrides the international stage four years after Gordon Brown, the man who gave her the job, was expelled from the corridors of power. She was a surprise nominee to everyone including herself, and few would have expected then that her successor as Britain’s commissioner would struggle to match Baroness Ashton in calibre and clout.

Full reference: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/columns/adamboulton/article1433571.ece

YellowFratello (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody? OK will post tomorrow. YellowFratello (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Catherine Ashton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Catherine Ashton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Catherine Ashton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catherine Ashton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catherine Ashton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libya?[edit]

Hi, I think the article needs some mention of her work in relation to Libya. Firestar47 (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine_Ashton&oldid=1205405181"