Talk:Catherine Ashton

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Other talk page banners

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.

This page is about a 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. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union High‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

A news item involving Catherine Ashton was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 November 2009.

Wikipedia

Unelected status

This sentance:

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

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

Nonsense. It's a fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.97.111 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loony Left can, I suppose, be argued. But I see no evidence of anti-Semitism -- unless, of course, one takes the view that anyone criticized by Bibi must by definition be anti-Semitic. Nandt1 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. If it quacks like a duck ...

Neutrality

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

LOL. It's very much pro this creature.

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

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

I would agree that a few weeks ago, before you and I got to work on it, this was a highly unbalanced article heavily weighted against Ashton. I like to think that by now we have achieved a decent balance overall.

This said, I am not sure I understand the context of your comment. "Take a fresh look at" in what connection? What is the problem? Is it still tagged somewhere as having problems over neutrality?

In any case, Happy New Year! Nandt1 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

References

^ [1]

Libya?

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

[1] [1]

[1]