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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Sabine Weyand from de.wikipedia. |
User:Oska cut the following from the lead of the article,
Her personal style has been characterised as being "very direct, very quick, no bullshit", with a rare ability to combine a feeling both for technical detail and broader political interplay, set off by a sharp sense of humour and a taste for sarcasm and irony. [1]
with the comment "Cutting this sentence as it is too much like puffery to be in the lede; can be resurrected elsewhere alongside contrasting views if someone wants to do that"
. (
diff)
I think this actually is quite useful content, giving an idea of what Weyland is actually like in discussion/negotiation and personally; and what her perceived strengths were, that led her to be chosen for the role.
It also fits with what's been written about her in other profiles, so I don't think it is just "puffery". E.g.:
I do think it would be useful if it could go back into the article at least somewhere. Jheald ( talk) 11:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Oska: I think it would be useful to see what some more editors think about this, so I've listed this at WP:3O requesting input. Feel free to edit the listing if you think there's anything in the summary that you would want presented differently. Jheald ( talk) 09:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
References
This article has been mainly created by Jheald and it is very unbalanced. They have created a whole section on Brexit which makes up half of the article. The section is a collection of quotes from Weland on her views on Brexit. In other words, it is completely made up of primary source quotes and no secondary or tertiary sources. It comes across very much as a platform to present Weyand's political views directly from her mouth. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and is an abuse of the concept of an encylopedia. I deleted the section in its entirety and Jheald reverted. It is very clear to me that the section is deeply problematical and I am removing it again. Oska ( talk) 11:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not big on quoting policy pages but Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources would be a relevant one here. To clarify what I said above, JHeald has used a secondary source (Guardian article) to source the quotes but really only lifted the quotes from it (the primary source) and the quotes make up the whole section (with brief introductory lead-ins). There are no third-party sources referenced in the problematic section. Oska ( talk) 11:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Jheald: The section simply regurgitates the Guardian article, which is itself simply a report on a speech Weyand made. People can just read the Guardian article (which is fine as a linked reference) or directly listen to the speech (also a relevant link). That information is freely available and wikipedia is not meant to act as a platform for simple regurgitation. It is meant to be a place for synthesis of information about a subject, presented in a neutral way.
Also, I am going to have to caution you on the language you are using about me here. I've let it go through to the keeper before but you continue to suggest motives to me, e.g. that I am trying to 'suppress' or 'bury information', that I am 'agitating', etc. And earlier you asked about my personal views on Weyand. My only motive is to maintain (and improve) the quality of articles on wikipedia and uphold the mission of the project. My personal opinions about any subject I edit an article on are irrelevant, and the same applies to all editors. All that counts is the quality of edits made. I have not opined on the subject of the article here and it was out of line for you to suggest I have a 'personal problem' with her. Please stop this kind of talk. Oska ( talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Suggest replacing the problematic Brexit section (see above) with this summary paragraph, which would appear directly under the current last paragraph of the Education and Career section:
This gives proper (and not undue) weight to the 13 minute speech and keeps the links to the speech and reporting on the speech in the article. I am open, of course, to edits or suggestions on how to improve the summary paragraph. Oska ( talk) 22:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
References
I have reworked and restructured the article to fix the problem of the older version being a Coatrack article (for Brexit). This quote from WP:Coatrack is relevant:
In my judgement the reworking is now a more balanced biography of this living person, in that it deals with Weyand's interactions with the Brexit process in one appropriate career section and does not let talk of Brexit dominate the lead of the article, nor the whole article itself as the previous version did. Oska ( talk) 20:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Perceived WP:Coatrack issue with this biography article. Comments requested on whether there was a coat-rack problem with the older version of the article and, if so, whether the newer, reworked version restores the focus onto the subject of the article and restores balance. RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted bby Cunard ( talk) at 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC). Oska ( talk) 22:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment from Oska (creator of reworked, newer version):
The older version of this biography article appeared to be working as a coat-rack for the Brexit issue. The lead was dominated by Weyand's role in Brexit negotiations and perceptions of her performance in this role. And there was a large section (comprising about half the article) simply titled 'Brexit' with extensive quoting from a 13 minute speech Weyand made on Brexit.
Actions taken in reworking article to create newer version:
Response: It's not surprising that the article strongly features Brexit. This is overwhelmingly why Weyand has been notable to an English-reading audience. We have few articles on EU civil servants at all, and at DG level very few (though perhaps we should). Weyand was not at DG level until this month; but it was her work on Brexit that made her notable. (Incidentally her promotion to DG Trade will continue this involvement, as she will now be the senior civil servant with responsibility for trade negotiations; in particular including any with the UK outside the EU.)
There is no coatrack issue here: per WP:WINAC, what we have here about Weyand's views in relation to the process that is the very reason for her notabilty relates directly to the core subject of the article.
User:Oska's "summary" fails to give any indication of Weyand's stated views. Our readers deserve better. Jheald ( talk) 23:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The charges of WP:COATRACK are hard to fathom, but there was argument about
the relative emphasis to be given to a series of true generally-admitted facts, which seems to be a slightly different take from the above, or from the anon's at least. So I would welcome any further thoughts on this point. Ed also generously offered that
If the parties want me to make suggestions on the talk page, I'm willing to do so, which I for one would welcome. But it does seem to me, as I said to Oska above, that any summarisation needs to try to present what the views that she expressed actually were. In response to the IP: I care what she thought, and believe the article should, too, because (a) this is significant in its own right, and (b) in the role she had, a huge part of what she 'did' was the positions she took; this helps tell us what some of them were, and/or the background to why she took them. Jheald ( talk) 12:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"there is no coatrack issue here". I take exception to the assertion:
"Who cares what she thinks, when more relevant to her page is what she has done?"I think we do care what she thinks. I think a person's ideas constitute material valid for inclusion in a biography. Bus stop ( talk) 13:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
1. Better organise Career section with two subsections for Weyand's major roles so far:
Oska ( talk) 08:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The original request for a third opinion was as follows:
From 3rd opinion page "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. At the time of the request, the discussion clearly had not reached a standstill. A request for comment was also made since the 3rd opinion request. Please use 3rd opinions once you have clearly presented your arguments and have both come to a standstill.
The above text is also very lengthy. Prior to making another 3rd opinion request (which you are free to do at the appropriate time), it would probably be wise to summarize your arguments and present the appropriate links to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays.
A few brief observations and thoughts of mine (not an 3rd opinion per se). Prose is preferred over bullets points. The words a negotiator says may or may not reflect their own personal opinion, but may represent the opinions of the group (spokesperson). It would be unusual to quote them on a personal page such as this. Unless the popular press quoted them over and over again, it would qualify as WP:UNDUE and original research. Not including some quotes is not "suppression" or presenting a non-neutral point of view. Similarly if some news agency says she is "the real engine room" of Brexit or that she has incredible people skills or that she looks like Edna from the Incredibles that probably shouldn't be included either. Dig deeper talk 02:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Sabine Weyand from de.wikipedia. |
User:Oska cut the following from the lead of the article,
Her personal style has been characterised as being "very direct, very quick, no bullshit", with a rare ability to combine a feeling both for technical detail and broader political interplay, set off by a sharp sense of humour and a taste for sarcasm and irony. [1]
with the comment "Cutting this sentence as it is too much like puffery to be in the lede; can be resurrected elsewhere alongside contrasting views if someone wants to do that"
. (
diff)
I think this actually is quite useful content, giving an idea of what Weyland is actually like in discussion/negotiation and personally; and what her perceived strengths were, that led her to be chosen for the role.
It also fits with what's been written about her in other profiles, so I don't think it is just "puffery". E.g.:
I do think it would be useful if it could go back into the article at least somewhere. Jheald ( talk) 11:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Oska: I think it would be useful to see what some more editors think about this, so I've listed this at WP:3O requesting input. Feel free to edit the listing if you think there's anything in the summary that you would want presented differently. Jheald ( talk) 09:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
References
This article has been mainly created by Jheald and it is very unbalanced. They have created a whole section on Brexit which makes up half of the article. The section is a collection of quotes from Weland on her views on Brexit. In other words, it is completely made up of primary source quotes and no secondary or tertiary sources. It comes across very much as a platform to present Weyand's political views directly from her mouth. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and is an abuse of the concept of an encylopedia. I deleted the section in its entirety and Jheald reverted. It is very clear to me that the section is deeply problematical and I am removing it again. Oska ( talk) 11:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not big on quoting policy pages but Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources would be a relevant one here. To clarify what I said above, JHeald has used a secondary source (Guardian article) to source the quotes but really only lifted the quotes from it (the primary source) and the quotes make up the whole section (with brief introductory lead-ins). There are no third-party sources referenced in the problematic section. Oska ( talk) 11:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Jheald: The section simply regurgitates the Guardian article, which is itself simply a report on a speech Weyand made. People can just read the Guardian article (which is fine as a linked reference) or directly listen to the speech (also a relevant link). That information is freely available and wikipedia is not meant to act as a platform for simple regurgitation. It is meant to be a place for synthesis of information about a subject, presented in a neutral way.
Also, I am going to have to caution you on the language you are using about me here. I've let it go through to the keeper before but you continue to suggest motives to me, e.g. that I am trying to 'suppress' or 'bury information', that I am 'agitating', etc. And earlier you asked about my personal views on Weyand. My only motive is to maintain (and improve) the quality of articles on wikipedia and uphold the mission of the project. My personal opinions about any subject I edit an article on are irrelevant, and the same applies to all editors. All that counts is the quality of edits made. I have not opined on the subject of the article here and it was out of line for you to suggest I have a 'personal problem' with her. Please stop this kind of talk. Oska ( talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Suggest replacing the problematic Brexit section (see above) with this summary paragraph, which would appear directly under the current last paragraph of the Education and Career section:
This gives proper (and not undue) weight to the 13 minute speech and keeps the links to the speech and reporting on the speech in the article. I am open, of course, to edits or suggestions on how to improve the summary paragraph. Oska ( talk) 22:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
References
I have reworked and restructured the article to fix the problem of the older version being a Coatrack article (for Brexit). This quote from WP:Coatrack is relevant:
In my judgement the reworking is now a more balanced biography of this living person, in that it deals with Weyand's interactions with the Brexit process in one appropriate career section and does not let talk of Brexit dominate the lead of the article, nor the whole article itself as the previous version did. Oska ( talk) 20:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Perceived WP:Coatrack issue with this biography article. Comments requested on whether there was a coat-rack problem with the older version of the article and, if so, whether the newer, reworked version restores the focus onto the subject of the article and restores balance. RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 00:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted bby Cunard ( talk) at 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC). Oska ( talk) 22:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment from Oska (creator of reworked, newer version):
The older version of this biography article appeared to be working as a coat-rack for the Brexit issue. The lead was dominated by Weyand's role in Brexit negotiations and perceptions of her performance in this role. And there was a large section (comprising about half the article) simply titled 'Brexit' with extensive quoting from a 13 minute speech Weyand made on Brexit.
Actions taken in reworking article to create newer version:
Response: It's not surprising that the article strongly features Brexit. This is overwhelmingly why Weyand has been notable to an English-reading audience. We have few articles on EU civil servants at all, and at DG level very few (though perhaps we should). Weyand was not at DG level until this month; but it was her work on Brexit that made her notable. (Incidentally her promotion to DG Trade will continue this involvement, as she will now be the senior civil servant with responsibility for trade negotiations; in particular including any with the UK outside the EU.)
There is no coatrack issue here: per WP:WINAC, what we have here about Weyand's views in relation to the process that is the very reason for her notabilty relates directly to the core subject of the article.
User:Oska's "summary" fails to give any indication of Weyand's stated views. Our readers deserve better. Jheald ( talk) 23:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The charges of WP:COATRACK are hard to fathom, but there was argument about
the relative emphasis to be given to a series of true generally-admitted facts, which seems to be a slightly different take from the above, or from the anon's at least. So I would welcome any further thoughts on this point. Ed also generously offered that
If the parties want me to make suggestions on the talk page, I'm willing to do so, which I for one would welcome. But it does seem to me, as I said to Oska above, that any summarisation needs to try to present what the views that she expressed actually were. In response to the IP: I care what she thought, and believe the article should, too, because (a) this is significant in its own right, and (b) in the role she had, a huge part of what she 'did' was the positions she took; this helps tell us what some of them were, and/or the background to why she took them. Jheald ( talk) 12:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"there is no coatrack issue here". I take exception to the assertion:
"Who cares what she thinks, when more relevant to her page is what she has done?"I think we do care what she thinks. I think a person's ideas constitute material valid for inclusion in a biography. Bus stop ( talk) 13:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
1. Better organise Career section with two subsections for Weyand's major roles so far:
Oska ( talk) 08:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The original request for a third opinion was as follows:
From 3rd opinion page "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. At the time of the request, the discussion clearly had not reached a standstill. A request for comment was also made since the 3rd opinion request. Please use 3rd opinions once you have clearly presented your arguments and have both come to a standstill.
The above text is also very lengthy. Prior to making another 3rd opinion request (which you are free to do at the appropriate time), it would probably be wise to summarize your arguments and present the appropriate links to Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays.
A few brief observations and thoughts of mine (not an 3rd opinion per se). Prose is preferred over bullets points. The words a negotiator says may or may not reflect their own personal opinion, but may represent the opinions of the group (spokesperson). It would be unusual to quote them on a personal page such as this. Unless the popular press quoted them over and over again, it would qualify as WP:UNDUE and original research. Not including some quotes is not "suppression" or presenting a non-neutral point of view. Similarly if some news agency says she is "the real engine room" of Brexit or that she has incredible people skills or that she looks like Edna from the Incredibles that probably shouldn't be included either. Dig deeper talk 02:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)