This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catherine Ashton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run 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. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Catherine Ashton was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 November 2009. |
I think the German article has been deleted...? doktorb words deeds 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Nothing is said in this article about her experience before being appointed to the Lords. – Kaihsu ( talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
More like an easily manipulatable pawn. No international experience, a non elected MP. Bah. Jezwales ( talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could we stop alternating back and forth? It's really a pain to fix the redirects. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 01:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | The ex-dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, an expert in Soviet penetration of the West, says: “the worldwide disarmament campaign in the early 1980s was covertly orchestrated from Moscow. To a substantial extent it was also funded by the Soviet bloc”. As CND’s treasurer, Ms Ashton argued publicly for the organisation to produce audited accounts, to counter allegations of covert Soviet support. That does not convince Mr Bukovsky. CND funding, and who knew what when, may merit further investigation. | ” |
“ | Documents obtained by UKIP show that the first audited accounts of CND, for 1982-83, found that 38 per cent of its annual income, or £176,197, could not be traced back to the original donors. | ” |
“ | “CND was notoriously secretive about its sources of funding and did not submit its accounts to independent audit; however, after public pressure they were audited for the first time in 1982-1983,” Gerard Batten, a Ukip MEP, wrote. “It was found that 38 per cent of their annual income (£176,197) could not be traced back to the original donors. The person responsible for this part of CND fund-raising, from anonymous donors. . . was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.” | ” |
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)
“ | “Statement by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton: "On my first day in office, I would like to recognise and pay tribute to the work of Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero-Waldner...” | ” |
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)
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)
"...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)
The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I note that EU websites describe her as plain Catherine Ashton. PatGallacher ( talk) 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please add the following: 76.192.40.247 ( talk) 03:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
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
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.
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) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Why would any weight be given to Ashton's husband?
74.104.159.130 (
talk) 15:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So +1 to Nandt1's suggestion. YellowFratello ( talk) 21:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!!!
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)
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 Sceptic1954 Sceptic1954 ( talk) 03:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
t •
e •
c) 16:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)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)
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)
Nobody? OK will post tomorrow. YellowFratello ( talk) 07:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://euconstitution-legal.org/rome40.htmWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/10/eu-and-south-korea-sign-trade-pact/66171.aspx{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20091119/tuk-uk-drops-blair-picks-ashton-for-eu-r-a7ad41d_1.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I think the article needs some mention of her work in relation to Libya. Firestar47 ( talk) 20:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catherine Ashton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run 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. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Catherine Ashton was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 November 2009. |
I think the German article has been deleted...? doktorb words deeds 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Nothing is said in this article about her experience before being appointed to the Lords. – Kaihsu ( talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
More like an easily manipulatable pawn. No international experience, a non elected MP. Bah. Jezwales ( talk) 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could we stop alternating back and forth? It's really a pain to fix the redirects. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 01:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | The ex-dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, an expert in Soviet penetration of the West, says: “the worldwide disarmament campaign in the early 1980s was covertly orchestrated from Moscow. To a substantial extent it was also funded by the Soviet bloc”. As CND’s treasurer, Ms Ashton argued publicly for the organisation to produce audited accounts, to counter allegations of covert Soviet support. That does not convince Mr Bukovsky. CND funding, and who knew what when, may merit further investigation. | ” |
“ | Documents obtained by UKIP show that the first audited accounts of CND, for 1982-83, found that 38 per cent of its annual income, or £176,197, could not be traced back to the original donors. | ” |
“ | “CND was notoriously secretive about its sources of funding and did not submit its accounts to independent audit; however, after public pressure they were audited for the first time in 1982-1983,” Gerard Batten, a Ukip MEP, wrote. “It was found that 38 per cent of their annual income (£176,197) could not be traced back to the original donors. The person responsible for this part of CND fund-raising, from anonymous donors. . . was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.” | ” |
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)
“ | “Statement by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton: "On my first day in office, I would like to recognise and pay tribute to the work of Javier Solana and Benita Ferrero-Waldner...” | ” |
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)
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)
"...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)
The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I note that EU websites describe her as plain Catherine Ashton. PatGallacher ( talk) 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please add the following: 76.192.40.247 ( talk) 03:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
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
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.
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) |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Why would any weight be given to Ashton's husband?
74.104.159.130 (
talk) 15:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So +1 to Nandt1's suggestion. YellowFratello ( talk) 21:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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!!!
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)
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 Sceptic1954 Sceptic1954 ( talk) 03:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
t •
e •
c) 16:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)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)
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)
Nobody? OK will post tomorrow. YellowFratello ( talk) 07:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://euconstitution-legal.org/rome40.htmWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/10/eu-and-south-korea-sign-trade-pact/66171.aspx{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20091119/tuk-uk-drops-blair-picks-ashton-for-eu-r-a7ad41d_1.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I think the article needs some mention of her work in relation to Libya. Firestar47 ( talk) 20:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)