Jump to content

Talk:Ursula von der Leyen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

India Controversy Sources

lawblog.de: Complete quote in German: “Das oberste Ziel muss sein, die Täter stellen. Das ist Polizeiarbeit. Und das zweite entscheidende Ziel muss sein, die Quelle löschen auf dem Server, da wo sie sind. Aber da gerät man an seine Grenzen, wenn der Server z.B in Indien steht. Ein hochkompetentes Land, was Computertechniken angeht, aber ein Land, das keinerlei Form von Ächtung von Kinderpornografie hat. Da können sie nicht mehr löschen.”

Translation: “The primary goal must be to catch the perpetrators. That's a police task. And the second crucial goal must be to delete the source on the server, where they (sic) are. But this is where you hit a wall, if the server is in India, for example. A very competent country when it comes to technology, but it does not know any kind of ostracism when it comes to child pornography. There you can't delete.” She said that on public radio, the MDR show Sputnik to be precise.

Another time where she made the same claim about India was at the “Konferenz zum Schutz vor sexueller Gewalt gegen Kinder und Jugendliche mit Fokus auf neue Medien” (“conference for the protection of children and teenagers against sexual violence with focus on new media”), according to German computer news site heise.de.R.H. (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible presidential candidate

Financial Times describes her as "Präsidentschaftsanwärter"[1]. German media widely describes her as the favourite to succeed Horst Köhler as President[2] Josh Gorand (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The reports you are citing are media speculations based on unnamed government sources. I agree that when she indeed is announced as an official candidate, a section in the article such as the one that you inserted will be justified. But if another candidate is announced today (which is still quite possible, see e.g. the Focus article), such a section would mean a vast overemphasis of an ephemeral media phenomenon, not appropriate for an encyclopedia article that aims at summarizing information of long-lasting relevance about its subject.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not reinsert the section after you removed it again, since this matter will be clarified shortly anyway. The comment above was just for the record. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Languages spoken

I've previously seen sources referring to her language skills, but I don't think it's strictly necessary to have a source for the fact that a person who spent the vast part of her childhood in a Francophone country, and who both studied in London and lived for several years in the United States, speaks French and English. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Belgium has 3 languages, and the most widely spoken of the 3 is Dutch, so living in Belgium does not necessarily mean speaking French. I'm surprised she doesn't also speak Dutch. Bostoner (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just found an adequate source. Josh Gorand (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

>> Germany sees bigger military role in Africa (Lihaas (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)).

Family mix-up

"a family noted as silk industralists" is wrong. The silk family stems from Krefeld and has been ennobled way later than the family of Leyen's husband. These two Leyen families are _not_ related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4926:5F90:199D:3CB4:DB8A:1211 (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly more lies in her CV

This is still a developing story, but at least the mainstream press in Germany is reporting about a possible lie on her CV. She apparently claimed to have attended Stanford University as a "auditing guest", a concept that does not exist. Sources: [3] or [4]. --Llaanngg (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've put this and the other questions over her academic qualifications into a section of their own. FivePillarPurist (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

She is now minister of defence.

I know it's absurd, but that's what politics is. Please change it.--85.181.196.250 (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ursula von der Leyen. 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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Speculations about succeeding Merkel

Were removed although well sourced with the comment "as Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer will succeed Angela Merkel this is an entirely out of date passage". No, it is highly relevant to understand why she would be nominated in Europe. We also cannot see into the future. Kramp-Karrenbauer has already succeeded Merkel as leader of the party. If she will be candidate for chancellor and if so whether the next chancellor will be from the Christian Democrats remains to be seen. I reinserted the paragraph that helps to understand her role in the past and how things developed. Carabatx (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The prediction given as rationale for the removal is on very shaky grounds, and in any case these past assertions are relevant as historical information helping the reader to understand the trajectory of von der Leyen's career. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

While agreeing with the above, I don't understand why the sentences beginning While some other party officials were, like Merkel, also elected with scores over 90% ... was put back in the Defence Ministry section? Was there a particularly good and non-obvious reason to take it back out of the internal CDU party politics section? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention that she was mentioned as a possible Merkel successor, but this material was already included, in the appropriate sections. There is no reason to also include it in the defence ministry section, and it has nothing to do with the topic of that section. The wording "While some other party officials were, like Merkel ..." is biased and a form of WP:SYNTH; we should simply state the fact that she was elected with 70.5% of the votes. That the chair of the party and chancellor receives a somewhat higher percentage than a lesser cabinet minister isn't surprising. Germany is also known as a very misogynist country (at least by Western European standards) where women are often attacked in public debate, very often with condescending claims that they lack competence (something Merkel herself endured for years even after becoming party chair) or are the "weakest politician in the country" as a male ex-politician claimed, so the fact that a former minister for women and family affairs with a slightly more progressive image would be somewhat less popular in a conservative party isn't surprising either. The way it is contrasted in the first part of the sentence – "While some other" – the plain fact that she was elected to a party body with a perfectly normal percentage of 70.5% of the votes is suddenly primarily made into an attack on her (see, she is less popular than someone else). --Ana Stelline (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Election results are regularly compared in the media with those of others in the party. von der Leyen repeatedly received the weakest result, with her low last year at 57,47%.[5][6][7] If to you Germany is a misogynist country that does not matter here at all (and it contrasts with the much better percentages for Merkel, and Klöckner who received the second best result with 96,5% in 2014 and 86,5% in 2016, and third best with 86% in 2018). The weakest minister according also to the polls is currently, as was noted by fellow politicians and widely reported, male Scheuer. Von der Leyen is second weakest. Carabatx (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Receiving 70% or something in an internal CDU election does not equal being the "weakest" minister (or second "weakest"). Whether someone is a "weak" minister is not really decided by the bunch of fairly obscure CDU delegates who are sent to vote in these proceedings. These party political processes are not really about whether someone is "weak", but about CDU people fighting for their own beliefs, interests, regions, people and causes. Whether she is a "weak minister" is a matter of debate, and the assessment of von der Leyen internationally, as expressed by defence ministers of other countries and widely reported also by German media, is a more relevant reflection of her stature as a defence minister.[8] As recently as 2018 she was reported to be the favourite to succeed Merkel[9] --Ana Stelline (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It is entirely irrelevant if you view CDU delegates as obscure or foreigners more able than Germans to evaluate the work of a German minister. Fact is she is the one with the weakest election results and the minister second least favorably seen in the polls. You may also have noted that the CDU already decided about who follows Merkel as party leader, and von der Leyen was not even in the race between three politicians due to her problems in her ministry. Carabatx (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Stanford

The version seems to be outdated, Stanford seems to have withdrawn its allegations:

http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-dismisses-accusations-against-von-der-leyen/a-18777135 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:68A:2E00:39C3:80C4:E677:FEF8 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

http://www.spiegel.de/lebenundlernen/uni/stanford-aufenthalt-universitaet-nimmt-von-der-leyen-in-schutz-a-1057329.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:68A:2E00:39C3:80C4:E677:FEF8 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops, correct. Carabatx (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

A Slave To Politics

And so why are we ranting on about the fact that one of her distant ancestors owned slaves?

just sayin' 72.141.106.240 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

German or European politician?

Should von der Leyen be described in the lead as a "German politician" (as per her nationality) or as a "European politician" (as per the polity in which she now engages in politics)? The former is more conventional, but the latter seems more appropriate here, as "German politician" implies somebody who works in German national politics. Pinging JWHBerlin. Sandstein 10:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

At present we have "Jean-Claude Juncker (Luxembourgish: [ʒɑ̃ːkloːt ˈjuŋkɐ]; born 9 December 1954) is a Luxembourgish politician serving as President of the European Commission from 2014 to 2019." Giving the nationality of the President(s) is our current practice and a very good reason is needed to change it. I understand your motivation but, given that we are are a long way from a United States of Europe, consider it premature. I am also concerned less it play into the hands of the Fourth Reich conspiracy theorists that we are trying by sleight of hand to conceal their imagined[1] German hegemony. Opppose. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman and Sandstein: "German politician" is fine. In addition so far she has only served in public office in German polities (and that 's foreseeably going the be the case until Halloween). In any case, just for the record: there is also Martin Selmayr: "Martin Selmayr (born 5 December 1970) is a European civil servant who has been the Secretary-General of the European Commission since 1 March 2018". Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Selmayer being introduced as an "European civil servant" makes sense because it links to European Civil Service and thus is not a nationality but a job description. On the other hand, "German politician" includes both nationality and vocation. So I would leave it like that as well. Also, for many, especially in Germany, "finally having a German president again" was very important. Last but not least, she served basically all her political life in Germany, not at the EU, so "European politician" might imply a focus on European politics that in fact does not exist. Regards SoWhy 17:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Charlemagne : Wurst among equals : Contrary to popular belief, Germany does not in fact run the EU

Needs name & info on her American Mother

I found nothing about her mother in this article beyond her mother being American. Can someone more familiar with the sources add this? — Lentower (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Her mother was German and this article doesn't say otherwise. Heidi Adele geb. Stromeyer (31. Juli 1927 bis 6. Juli 2002) per German Wikipedia. Adele Stromeyer is also mentioned in the infobox here. Per the article, Ursula von der Leyen had an American great-grandmother, so the American ancestry is quite distant. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Her American ancestry is via her father's grandmother Mary, who was American and who died in 1960. She was still alive when v.d. Leyen was born, and v.d. Leyen later lived under Mary's maternal name Ladson in the 70s, so it certainly isn't "quite distant". --Ana Stelline (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'd say "quite", as she was "only" her great-grandmother after all. But not a matter of particular importance, it seems to me. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP violations

An editor is now edit-warring to include a highly speculative and biased allegation – that had been removed due to BLP concerns – against various people that they engaged in wrongdoing in connection with the investigation into her dissertation, without any form of credible evidence, refusing to accept the findings of the university's investigation (might I suggest writing letters to the editor in your home country instead). This now overblown paragraph not only violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but is also a serious violation of the WP:BLP policy. Previously the paragraph even included blatant BLP violations/insinuations of wrongdoing on the part of her husband without any form of evidence, based solely on the fact that he is a family member of hers and held a small adjunct position at the same school (that has thousands of employees; in reality such an adjunct professor has no real authority there). --Ana Stelline (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The allegations were (and are) highly notable and received a lot of coverage, so they need to be covered. The university has (mostly) exonerated her, which also received a lot of coverage and thus needs to be mentioned as well. Said decision was received by a lot of criticism for various reasons and logically needs inclusion as well. I have now rephrased the whole paragraph wrt WP:DUE and WP:NPOV and hopefully it addresses both you concerns and Carabatx'. Regards SoWhy 19:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your mediation, SoWhy. I don't understand why Ana writes that the criticism is "without any form of credible evidence" given that a law professor criticized the decision as lacking a legal basis, two high quality news sources cited him and discussed it in detail, the plagiarism is clearly documented and even the university committee accepted that there is plagiarism in the thesis. The word "only" referring to 20% (!) is biased and unnecessary in my eyes. Like "sloppiness" the 20% do not appear in the source. It is clearly documented that 43% of the 62 pages of the thesis contain plagiarism. They just claimed they could not "identify an intention to deceit", a conclusion that was unprecedented for such an extent of plagiarism and that was widely criticized. There was no need to write letters to editors as many newspapers criticized the decision not to withdraw the title on their own initiative and I provided high quality sources from leading outlets. It is now more than 3 years ago, so certainly no interest for letters to editors now - although I am certain that the plagiarism scandal came up in letters to editors during the discussion about the appropriateness to have her as candidate for the presidency of the European Commission. The source "Plagiatsaffäre: Von der Leyen darf Doktortitel behalten". Spiegel Online. 9 March 2016. Retrieved 30 July 2019. is identical to Greiner, Lena; Gebauer, Matthias; Töpper, Verena (9 March 2016). "Trotz Plagiaten: Darum darf von der Leyen ihren Doktor behalten". Spiegel Online (in German). Retrieved 30 July 2019 and used altogether 5 times. While it is a good source, there are many more high quality sources that should be used instead of repeating the same one over and over, for example (Süddeutsche Zeitung). 21:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not yet officially elected

According to Article 17 VII of the Treaty on European Union [10] she still needs to be confirmed along with the rest of the commission: "The President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority." Don't know when that is scheduled but it should be mentioned here. Carabatx (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Right of initiative

A Google search for von der Leyen initiative produces results stating that she supports a right of initiative for the European Parliament. However, I am reluctant to add this under Political views until I find a reference stating clearly that she supports a change in EU law giving the parliament that right, as opposed to simply promising that her commission would choose to initiate any legislation proposed by the parliament.—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

According to Democratic legitimacy of the European Union, Article 225 of the Lisbon Treaty says already that the Commission should consider legislative proposals from the EP (but may decline, giving reasons). So it would have to be something more, it seems. Either way, I agree. Until we have a WP:OR saying exactly what she said and when, best we wait and see. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading "Germanic" hatnote

An editor has twice added a bizarre hatnote that claims that "In this Germanic name, the family name is von der Leyen, not Leyen." That hatnote is both wrong, misleading and highly unnecessary.

For starters, it's unusual and strange to describe a contemporary person's name as a "Germanic" name. If you read the article it discusses the names of people who lived 1,000–2,000 years ago or so. Nowadays "Germanic" is only used as the name of a large language group comprising languages like English, Dutch, German and Swedish. Modern languages are usually referred to as English, Dutch, German and Swedish, not as "Germanic", in the same way that Spanish and Romanian are usually referred to as Spanish and Romanian, not as Romance, except when studying genetic linguistics (which is not the purpose of the hatnote or this article).

Secondly, there is nothing about "Germanic" name customs that mandates that she must be referred to as "von der Leyen", quite the contrary. In accordance with actual Germanic name customs she would never be correctly referred to only as "von der Leyen", but primarily by her given name. She would probably have a patronymic, but if "von der Leyen" were used at all in Germanic, it would only be together with her primary and most important name under Germanic name customs, her given name, as a secondary piece of information (like in "Ursula of Leyen", or perhaps "Ursula, of the Leyen family").

Thirdly, even in modern German (which is not the same as Germanic, but one of several languages within that family), there is nothing that mandates that she must be referred to as "von der Leyen" instead of "Leyen". Traditionally this is context-dependent. In fact, for people with a surname like "von [Something]" or "von der [Something]" it is both common and linguistically more correct to refer to them only as "[Something]" when using only the family name (without the given name); for example Otto von Bismarck is usually referred to either as "Otto von Bismarck" or simply as "Bismarck". While it is true that she is often referred to as "von der Leyen", this is simply an individual convention/practice in the media regarding her specific ally, that is not mandated by any rules as implied by the incorrect hatnote, and other people, like Bismarck, with "von (der)" names may have their "von (der)" omitted in other cases, which is equally or more correct in some contexts. It certainly has nothing to do with Germanic naming customs whatsoever. --Ana Stelline (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Worth mentioning is her role as minister of defence in the supposed corruption case, the so-called "Armed Forces Consultant Affair" https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen#Berater-Aff%C3%A4re_in_der_Bundeswehr which is still open and much discussed in the media https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-caught-in-scandal-of-payments-and-wiped-phones-38s8jg3c7 et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF38:7100:714D:7DCC:A62A:FE16 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism and undue weight

This person has a history of accusations/investigations into academic plagiarism, for a politician this is especially relevant. @Ana+Stelline has a history of editing german political figures...all from a single party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.20.189.95 (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

And you have no history of constructive contributions to Wikipedia at all. Your edits weren't helpful and were removed. In particular, your attempt to remove the name of the head of the school and to reintroduce a false "clarify" tag (for an issue that had already been clarified) is disruptive. The section on her professional career also shouldn't be dominated, per WP:WEIGHT, by the plagiarism issue; it's a fairly small incident in her long career, especially in light of how the investigation turned out, with only mild criticism. It's ok to mention it succinctly, but not to have the article dominated by it. Also, your personal attack above is baseless and false, I do indeed have a history of editing "German political figures", but not from "a single party" (unless you regard SPD, CDU, FDP as the same party). --Ana Stelline (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
The "mild criticism" came only from the committee, whose head was criticized for knowing her personally from work in the alumni association. There are numerous sources that are highly critical of more than 45% of pages containing plagiarism and many citations to sources that did not contain the claimed content. Carabatx (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ana Stelline, please refrain from making edits with a personal motive. If you want to remove well sourced sections of information please open up a talk page and gain a consensus from reputable editors. Politically motivated edits or edits from PR firms are not welcome here. Especially if you are going to do malicious edits to prevent reverts. TridentMkII (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks and false claims about people's motives. --Ana Stelline (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It is undue weight to lengthily cite from the report of the committee that decided not to withdraw her title but not from the widespread criticism of that decision in most of the leading media published in German. Carabatx (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I reworded the whole paragraph to hopefully address concerns from both sides while also cleaning up unnecessary quotations and machine translated sources. Regards SoWhy 18:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm coming from outside this discussion. I would say that the plagiarism claims are certainly relevant - it sure seems to have been a major controversy, and therefore of significance in such a detailed biographical page. Kyle MoJo (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

How can she be said to have written a "doctoral thesis" when she never even studied for a PhD? Her "doctorate" is a medical degree - even the wikipedia page for Doctor of Medicine#Germany states clearly that a German medical "doctorate" is not considered equivalent to a PhD.... therefore "doctoral thesis" is not an accurate translation. 95.149.126.14 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Election Results

CDU party section, ~70% was her weakest result? The 2018 one is worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotty1141 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

EU/UK spat over COVID-19 vaccines

Per WP:BRD, I reverted a newly added section about this dispute. My reason to do so is really because it is a detail in the wider picture of her management (or otherwise) of the EU's vaccine programme and of the Brexit fallout. The material was valid in itself but it had no context: it only makes sense when framed in a wider picture of that programme but at present the article lacks such a picture – which probably should never be in this article anyway. Remember that the article is primarily a biography, not a history of her Presidency of the Commission, which probably will deserve an article in itself. And, per wp:recentism, that would best wait until it is over and can be viewed with detachment of time. Others may disagree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hagiography/POV

This article reads like a hagiography. Praise for UvdL is given verbatim and credited to specific people (e.g., Michael Falon quote) whilst criticism of UvdL is generalised and covered in brief, when actually UvdL has some very open and prominent critics (e.g., Martin Schulz) whose criticism is on the record. Also, yes, the UK/AZ spat should be covered here as it is one of the things that UvdL is notable for in the English-speaking world. FOARP (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Rights.

Ursula von der Leyen. Governments do not, and cannot own our rights. Any government that own our rights can take our rights. Any government that can take our rights ,even our right to vote, is a potential dictatorship. Elections without equality. Theft and favoritism. People own governments, if governments own people, they are an illegal group of slavers. Our rights are taken, not given. The freedom of movement rights of British citizens case, recently held in the E.U. Court, seem to be owned by a dictatorship that can change our rights, which have nothing to do with the British or E.U. Governments, but just a desire to confuse. Are you happy to be part of such a dictatorship? Dictator laws do not apply to me. I am free. 2A01:CB08:840D:1D00:280E:3C59:C089:ED64 (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Mother

It’s breathtaking how in 2023 there is no mention of her mother. 2600:1008:A000:A5D6:885F:3286:249F:24D4 (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that we can use to rectify that omission? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Covid Controversy

User luxofluxo considers this edit as unencyclopedic. [11]

"von der Leyen took a personal role in negotiating the largest vaccine deal for the EU. If fully exercised, the deal is estimated to be worth around €35 billion and would cover the purchase of 900 million doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, with an additional 900 million doses available for purchase. Millions of COVID vaccines are currently unused and awaiting disposal in warehouses throughout the EU. Negotiators are trying to persuade Pfizer to make a compromise in order to halt or cancel some of those deliveries, with little success."

The info is written in a neutral tone, and is relevant because it shows the financial significance to the EU. Source uses modifiers like "desperately" and "apparently", but the edit excludes it to reflect a neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is there so much text devoted to discussion of her ancestors/relatives?

I understand why the trajectory of her life is influenced by her father's life. But of what influence is it on HER life that her father's father was the kind of psychoanalyst that he was? I think there can be a sentence saying that she used the last name "Ladson" for a time (to evade communist terrorist groups) because that was her father's father's mother's maiden name, but there's no relevance beyond that. Why is it pointed out that some of this German citizen's American ancestors were prominent governmental officials and another of them owned 200 slaves at one point? I mean, we ALL have ancestors. I KNEW my biological grandfathers, my biological mother's biological mother, and my biological father's step-mother. Knowing them affects who I am, but not because of their own impact on history. And I never knew any of THEIR ancestors, so they're meaningless on the trajectory of my life. If my ancestors weren't that PARTICULAR random set of people, they'd be some OTHER random set of people but it wouldn't change ME. The past doesn't extend infinitely into the future. Anyone who knows any history at all should know that. Civilizations, and the currents of thought they created, have been wiped out overnight by disease or conquest. If this woman's father's father hadn't been a psychoanalyst, perhaps he'd have been a college-professor, or a cleric, or a mayor, or a fire-chief, and what of it? She'd still be who SHE is. Instead of being COINCIDENTALLY related to that psychoanalyst, she'd be no less COINCIDENTALLY related to someone ELSE. And the discussion of her AMERICAN ancestors is quite beyond the pale. And who is to say that just because her father was an Albrecht that she is related to everyone in history with the surname "Albrecht"? And the interminable

'The Albrecht family was among the hübsche ("courtly" or "genteel") families of the Electorate and Kingdom of Hanover—a state that was in a personal union with the United Kingdom—and her ancestors had been doctors, jurists and civil servants since the 17th century. Her great-great-grandfather George Alexander Albrecht moved to Bremen in the 19th century, where he became a wealthy cotton merchant, part of the Hanseatic elite and the Austro-Hungarian Consul from 1895. He married Baroness Louise Dorothea Betty von Knoop (1844–1889), a daughter of Baron Johann Ludwig von Knoop, one of the most successful entrepreneurs of the 19th century Russian Empire'
simply has nothing to do with HER life and who SHE is. EVERYONE has wealthy and/or high-status ancestors, because we have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etcetera, while the further you go back in time the population of the Earth is smaller and smaller. Given that the count of your ancestors double going back each generation (unless you're something like a Spanish Habsburg or something), but the population of prominent people gets smaller, everyone is BOUND to hit someone, sooner or later, who has some Wikipedia article. My grandfather knew of a story of a man who bragged that he was a 23rd cousin, thrice removed, of George Washington. Someone else present congratulated him on that relative uniqueness, since the average U.S. citizen of predominantly northern-European ancestry at the time had overwhelming odds of being no further related to George Washington than 16th cousin, and to be so DISTANTLY related to George Washing was distinction indeed. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the genealogical computations there but you get my drift. [(Genealogy=Identity)=(Stuff-and-Nonsense that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia).]2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
It is fairly typical in countries ruled by elites that these families are considered the betters of ordinary citizens. Whoever wrote this article want us to be in no doubt that Ursula von der Leyen is really important in the Prussian fashion. She has the prefix "von der" which she uses in her name to let the rest of us know that she is a born leader. Her aristocratic status is in her Aryan blood and anyone who dares criticize her will soon be reminded to know their lower place. I did notice that those who expressed an unfavorable attitude toward Ursula von der Leyen in the article had their names discolored to let us know that they can no longer be found with an entry in Wikipedia. I also notice that the article will highlight her family going back to the 17th Century and continues until the Third Reich years when all mention of her family disappears between 1933 and 1945, as if this prominent family of Junkers just vanished with no trace of them and then picked up again after WWII. What happened with this family during the Third Reich, I wonder. I smell a rat. SanVitores (talk) 11:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Scandals

Should be mentioned also when in Sofia she suggested to “get around the rules..” and the scandal with Pfizer. 124.197.58.138 (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Do reliable sources talk about these scandals? Feel free to drop links. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Image

@83.137.6.164: Hi, could you explain why you think the 2020 portrait is an incorrect representation? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Consultants topic

It seems wrong for this to feature twice in a chronologically ordered list.

The 'chronological list' layout is also hard to follow when you have [Time Period][Political group she was in][random topics for events during that time related to that group]: I think it deserves a table of contents, and once that makes the organization easier to see, it might benefit from some re-organizing. Future Contributor (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is wrong to feature it twice. I propose merging both sections into the latter one, so that the affair features at the time it came to light, not at the time the events actually happened, since it was the coming to light that had impact on/was relevant to her life. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Pfizer-Scandal

The shadow negotiations of von der Leyen and Pfizer are classified documents of the Commission. This 35 Billion deal is the main scnadal of von der Leyen and in a national context, she had to had step back for this. This information should be content of the articel in an understandebal leaguage. --Sinomina2000 (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

But her biography is the wrong place for it unless she is prosecuted and found guilty of misfeasance. There must be an article somewhere about executive actions taken (or not taken) during the covid epidemic, which is where it should go. WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The policy WP:BLP governs what may be said about living people, so it is not permissible to allege or insinuate criminality. But it is entirely unsurprising that Pfizer would insist on contractual confidentiality, because central buying policies by European countries mean medication prices that are significantly lower that those in the USA. To reveal its terms would damage its negotiation position elsewhere. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

How to get elected by telling stories ...

My insertion was deleted with the reason "no encyclopedic tone". Please build your opinion because I happen to find the reasoning symptomatic:

In the early monrning of that day it was published that she would care for a right of the parliament to initiate statutes[1] which she never did after she was elected.[2] The unability of the EU-parliament to initiate statutes like a real parliament is considered as a grave and dangerous defect.[3]

Maybe one should add that she was suddenly, shortly before she was about getting elected, quoted saying that she would care for the right of the parliament. That is possibly easier to understand and 'more encyclopedic'.

Yours, Karl Valensin

-06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) 2001:16B8:C3C2:4D00:C4D1:D53:49F6:D5DA (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

and not, as one would expect, in a democracy by the EU-parliament is your personal opinion and violates WP:NPOV so I have reverted your edit. The second part of your edit has grammar problems and I am having trouble understanding it. What does it mean to care for a right? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
To add to what Novem Linguae wrote: the addition may be a legitimate one, you just have to change the way it is written. The part about the current system being a 'grave and dangerous' one for example is not about von der Leyen and therefore outside the scope of this article. (Also, was this reported primarily in German press, or? Because one of the articles you cite even says that the idea was an unpopular one in France.) JackTheSecond (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Michael Stabenow, Brüssel (2019-07-16), "Vor Wahl in Straßburg: So kämpft von der Leyen um Stimmen", FAZ.NET, ISSN 0174-4909, retrieved 2024-03-07
  2. ^ Markus Becker (2020-03-16), "Initativrecht: EU-Abgeordnete werfen von der Leyen Wortbruch vor", Der Spiegel, ISSN 2195-1349, retrieved 2024-03-07
  3. ^ Nicola Gundrum (2012-10-31), Ist die Gewaltenteilung in der Europäischen Union gewährleistet?, GRIN Verlag, ISBN 978-3-656-30021-2, retrieved 2023-07-28

Reliable source?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240528-european-commission-president-accused-of-complicity-in-israels-war-crimes-at-icc/; is this a reliable source? I found this information in Italian language by simply writing "Ursula von der Leyen" into Google, so not actively, and then I searched, and found, an English language source. I'm not against anyone, I'm just curious. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a hagiography?

According to Josep Borell, the EU foreign policy chief, von der Leyen's approach to Palestine is nakedly pro-Israel and has done damage to the EU's standing in the world. This he said to El País, arguably to the top newspaper in Spain which more than fits the bill for a reliable source on Wikipedia. However, users User:Luxofluxo and User:Nillurcheier are trying to remove mention of Borell's very noteworthy views on von der Leyen's pro-Israel activism, with barely a semblance of good reasons, with the result that only positive appraisals of her are left in the entry. Is this how this entry is supposed to be? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPOV. Then re-read your edit, and then make a detailed self-appraisal of that comment below based on WP:NPOV. Go through it line-by-line. Luxofluxo (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Funny how people here had no problem with such nakedly POV language as, "the indiscriminate attacks by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas", but think "Her refusal to criticize Israel's actions in Gaza" is too much, even though that's exactly how the press described the events at the time. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+1 to Luxofluxo, tone is the issue here JackTheSecond (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
You're removing a QUOTE directly out of Josep Borrell's mouth, that von der Leyen's position undermined the EU. This is an extremely notable position that deserves insertion here. Since the views are being ascribed to him, there's no violation in keeping the neutrality of Wikipedia's speaking voice. At no point this entry mentions Borrell's criticism of her either, and there's no reason why criticism of her pro-Israel activism should be limited to a single section in the entry, considering that her pro-Israel interventions are repeatedly (and uncritically) mentioned in more than one section. Meanwhile, you're insisting in re-inserting POV and weasal language about Hamas in this entry. Terms like terrorism and "indiscriminate attacks" don't belong in Wikipedia's voice. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
User:JackTheSecond is now engaging in edit warring to cleanse this entry of all criticism from this corrupt bureaucrat, even plenty of coverage of her consists exactly of that, criticism . And the reasons he's giving are not even good ones. It's not only not true that Borrell's sentiment about von der Leyen's visit to Israel changed with time (he was already calling for more balance approach back in October), but why should this supposed change make his criticism less notable? The feeling is notable, the person stating it was notable, and he stated to a notable source. The removal is just not based on policy. So now we're back at pretending Borrell never criticized von der Leyen's incompetent diplomacy. Am I supposed to pretend this is not POV-pushing?
For some reason he also sees fit to remove another edit of mine which was merely clarifying a vague sentence in the entry. Now the entry merely reads, "During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, she was criticised for supporting Israel and not calling for a ceasefire." All I did here was clarify the criticism was from diplomats and lawmakers, as stated by the source (namely, Politico), but that was apparently too much for Jason. Now tell me this is an editor that's truly invested in improving the entry and not just polishing this woman's image... Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Please focus on content, not contributors. User behavior should be discussed on user talk pages and WP:ANI, not on article talk pages. I agree with toning down things like "hamas terrorism" in wikivoice to help keep the tone of the article neutral. Careful of direct quotes - it is usually better to paraphrase. I agree with the idea of checking sources and trying to closely align with them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I suggest moving everything down to the section on Israel/Palestine, where the circumstances can be treated with in their proper context. As to the objective arguments above, they should be sourced. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I note that the section on her political views on Israel/Palestine now holds only her positive views of Israel and the criticism of her negative views on Palestine... and that the latest edit removed her views on Palestine from the section. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Peleio Aquiles: I agree. Wikipedia is neutral, so it's correct to also write about the negative sides of Israel; unfortunately we're focusing too much on Hamas. In a war no one is good and no one is bad; in a war everyone is on the same level. In conclusion, who is wrong? Hamas or Israel? BOTH. So it's right to also write about the negative sides of Israel; the same applies to Ukraine and Russia. Otherwise, Wikipedia risks losing credibility and going against its own policies. I'm neutral, I love the truth; I'm not on anyone's side and I'm not against anyone. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ursula_von_der_Leyen/Archive_1&oldid=1250472538"