Talk:Sabine Weyand

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.:

• "known for her fierce intelligence, sense of humour and infectious laughter" (Times, 18 July 2017 ).
• "“Germans DO have a sense of humour,” she’s tweeted, which might explain why she’s the only senior official in the Commission known to say “bollocks” to describe things she disagrees with." (Bloomberg, 3 May 2018 ).
• "She doesn’t just have a technocratic eye for facts and rules in trade negotiations but “also had an understanding of the politics.”" (idem)
• "She says of herself that she hates fluffy language... “She will detect any mistake in your thinking immediately.”... [but] “she is respected more than feared,” “She is laughing all the time, out loud laughing.” (Politico, 23 April 2018 ).

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)

@Jheald: My response is to ask you whether you are actively trying to maintain a NPOV about the subject. Because, respectfully, it doesn't look that way to me. Everything you are quoting about Weyand is positive; not a single negative appraisal. And, naturally, for someone in her position handling a very controversial matter, there have been more critical and negative evaluations.

I don't see the need to put either positive or negative personal appraisals in the article. But if you're set on doing so it must be done with balance. And that's very hard to achieve. Oska (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: It's not necessarily that it's positive or negative, it's information about what she's like. In fact I would say that saying that somebody has a sharp sense of humour and a taste for sarcasm may or may not be a positive.

If there have been "more critical and negative evaluations" then certainly we should be noting that and referencing them. If you could bring some forward that would be very useful. But I haven't found so many profiles written about Weyland; the ones I have found, as quoted above, seem fairly consistent in what they've said about what she's like. Jheald (talk)

It's my position that the article does not need to include appraisals of Weyand's character, as such evaluations are subjective. So it's not my job to find critical evaluations to balance up the rather gushing ones you have already found. If you want to persist, a good place to look would be media that take a general eurosceptic line. There are many such resources but you're going to have to be careful with what you quote as this is a BLP. Which again, supports my position that we would be venturing into an area that is unnecessary and difficult to do well. Oska (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: Not so much character, as how she goes about things. And yes I think it is very relevant -- to any of our articles. And yes such assessments may be subjective, that's not the point. Even if we cannot be sure we're reporting absolute truth, we can (and should) report what's been said about her, and how she has been described in reliable sources. That's the aim set by WP:Verifiability

I did a fairly extensive Google search for her, and those were the profiles it returned. I'm sorry if you would like to see something trashing her character or her competence or saying she was a nightmare to work with, but I didn't find it. What I did find, I have quoted above. That's how WP:RSs describe her; which I believe is relevant data that the article should include. Jheald (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent me. I'm not interested in seeing something that 'trashes her character'. But I'm also not interested in seeing fawning commentary injected into an encyclopedic article. Oska (talk) 00:56, 18 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)

Thanks for letting me know Jheald. Yes, a third opinion would be good. Oska (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: We shouldn't have anything in the lead which isn't in the body. Establish content in the body first, and if it isn't challenged after a while then consider whether it has enough weight to be summarized in the lead. We should also avoid direct quotes in the lead. The lead is a summary of a summary, and should be the most neutral and encyclopedic part of the article. Using a quotation to give a singular viewpoint in the lead generally isn't compatible with that. As for whether this should be in the article at all, we do tend to focus more on a person's accomplishments than their personality in biography articles. I tend to be overcautious with biographies of living persons. Is the information relevant to a disinterested article about the subject? I would also be a little sensitive that this isn't somehow condescending, having "personality" or "style" in a woman's biography that we wouldn't ordinarily have in a man's biography. I looked through a number of biographies from one of the categories this article belongs to, and none of them went into the person's work style or personality (though perhaps it wasn't as notable as in this case). Overall, I don't feel this is lead-worthy, and I'd recommend a very cautious approach if working it into the body (ie: multiple sources, tight summary, neutral language, in-text attribution). This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

For the record, I didn't create the section on Brexit. But I absolutely think it is appropriate for it to be here.

A reader comes to an article like this looking for information about Ms Weyand : who she is, what she thinks, how she works. This is the information that is in the public record about her. It is absolutely what we should be showing to our readers. Complaining that we should be preferring some remote third-party statement of what her views are over a direct summary by a WP:RS of her own verbatim on-the-record statements is bizarre. Seeking to utterly suppress this information is even more strange. This is absolutely what an article like this should be presenting.

@Oska: I have to ask, do have a personal problem with Ms Weyand? Why is it that you seem to want to bury any information about what she thinks, what she has said, or how she works? I am restoring the content, because her stated views are absolutely relevant to an article about her. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you take it to WP:3O. Jheald (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging @Tomotley2:, who created the section. Jheald (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jheald: Firstly sorry, I assumed you created that section as you have done most of the work on the article. I see you're correct and it was created by another user (with a poor edit note).

Having an article on a person with a section that consists only of a regurgitation of quotes from a speech she made on a political subject and which makes up half the article is not good encylopedic practice. It is very poor practice. Furthermore, as I have said before, it looks like the wikipedia article is being used to directly push the political views of that person. It is fine that she has political views of course, but they should be presented in context and with commentary and analysis from third-party sources. This article is very far from that. Did you look at the policy page I linked? You seem to not understand what wikipedia's position is here.

I will not be reverting again today. I see your suggestion of getting a third opinion again. That was a good suggestion last time but I don't think it will work here as I see the section as an abuse of wikipedia which needs to be removed and you appear determined to stop me from removing it. Oska (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: We have to go with the material that is out there. I would love for the article to be bigger, with additional sourced discussion about Weyand if people can find it, but at present this is what there is.

I absolutely reject that this is an "abuse of Wikipedia". Wikipedia exists to answer people's questions, and pull together the available information for them about the subjects they want to know about. Ms Weyand's public statements and views are 100% relevant for an article about Ms Weyand -- they are exactly what we should be reporting. And we should be reporting on any reaction or criticism they may have provoked, where that is available. But the first is not contingent on the second. We should report on Ms Weyand's publicly given views, because they are a matter directly relevant to a knowledge of her, the subject of the article. It is not required for us to critique or contextualise the correctness or not of those views, if that has not been a feature of the coverage in external sources. It is enough for us to state this is what she has said, and let the reader judge for themselves. "Let the facts speak for themselves", per WP:MORALIZE. This is primarily an article about Ms Weyand, after all: who she is, what she has done, what she has said, what the public record records about her. To the extent that it forms part of our wider coverage of Brexit, there are many views expressed about Brexit in the totality of that coverage. There is no reason to suppress Ms Weyand's views on the subject.

Is the coverage WP:UNDUE ? I don't think so. Her involvement with Brexit is the reason why we have an article on her, why she is WP:N, and why most people will click to read about her. What she has to say on her views about the process, her attitudes towards it, and how it has unfolded are therefore very relevant information, bearing directly on her most public role and the reason for her significant profile. I would be delighted if they were just part of a larger article, but it was you who agitated eg for content on her personal style and perceived professional strengths to be removed. Ultimately we are limited by what has been reported and is in the public record about her. The best we can do is to reflect that; equally there is no reason to shy away from trying to do so. Jheald (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: I have filed a request for assistance at WP:3O, but in view of your comment above I will also copy it to WP:NPOVN. Jheald (talk) 14:25, 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)

I see WP's job as collating information and succinctly presenting all the most relevant points in an organised manner, so that the article gives a solid presentation of what is in the public record about the subject. I reject the idea that because material is available on the internet, we shouldn't present it here. If that was our attitude, we might as well fold our tents and say 'our articles are redundant, just search out the subject on Google'. On the contrary, in my view where there is information relevant to the subject, we should collate it, précis it, and present it. This information is relevant to our subject; it's only you that seems to have a problem with it; it's entirely appropriate to present it. The original remarks, in the C4 video posted to YouTube, run to 13 minutes. The Guardian piece runs to 1060 words. Our own text gives her views in seven major areas in 460. To me that looks like us doing our job.

Reply to unsigned comment by Jheald directly above: You want literally half of an article about a person to be extensive quoting of remarks she made on a panel discussion about one subject? That is unbalanced and, again, appears to be making this article about Brexit (see how section was titled 'Brexit') rather than about the person herself. The 13 minute speech deserves only a summary paragraph, no more. Even a paragraph is generous; my own feeling is that it should merit only a sentence in a more broadly contextual paragraph but I am trying to compromise. Oska (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

They summarise her take on seven key questions about the process on which her notablity rests, that through her closeness to the process she is uniquely qualified to comment on, and where her role gave her outlook on the process material political importance. Damn right they belong in the article. Jheald (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

They might belong in one of the various articles about Brexit, where they can be contrasted with other opinions and appear in context with direct treatment of the subject. They don't deserve extensive quoting in an article about the person of Sabine Weyand. I wonder how Weyand would feel about her biography being so dominated by unscripted comments she made during an appearance on a panel discussion. Oska (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

She's a canny operator, with a reputation for directness and preciseness. I am quite sure she knew exactly what she was saying, even if the remarks were unscripted. Jheald (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Jheald, your views and opinions about the subject (e.g. her being 'canny') are irrelevant, so too your subjective interpretations of her motives behind her actions. Yes, even on a talk page. Furthermore, they can be seen as betraying prejudice, which undermines your contributions here. We are here to write a neutral treatment of the subject and we should take care to be neutral in all our comments about the subject on the talk page. Oska (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Better organise Career section with two subsections for Weyand's major roles so far:

• EU Deputy Chief Negotiator for the Brexit process
• EU Director-General for Trade

Oska (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The original request for a third opinion was as follows:

1. Talk:Sabine Weyand#Issues with Brexit section which is not about the subject of the article but a collection of her quotes on Brexit Does WP:INDY require that a subject's publicly stated and reported views should only be given if there is context and commentary and analysis from third-party sources? If the views have been considered significant enough to report, but have not attracted commentary or analysis, should they be suppressed? Otherwise is there a danger that WP appears to be giving a non-neutral endorsement of these views in a biased way?   14:46, 7 June 2019‎ (UTC)

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)

What about when The Times says it?  ? As for Edna, I don't think it was something we were mentioning in the article, or any of the news citations we gave (perhaps I missed one somewhere?); but it was actually Weyand who most prominently made the comparison . Jheald (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that while she is in this role, it is very difficult to separate the person from the spokesperson role. Regardless of who is quoting her, as the spokesperson/negotiator of a very public proceeding it is probably best to assume she is currently speaking for the group she represents. Once she is no longer in this role and negotiations are complete, then her public comments may be viewed as having no weight or influence and would perhaps be appropriate to include at that time. My opinion.Dig _deeper ^talk 19:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dig deeper: The flip-side of that assessment is to consider that these comments may bear some quoting because it was part of Weyand's role to frame how Brussels internally understands and externally presents the issues, and because they carried some political weight. That said, the view of the Brussels-based press corps seemed to be that the comments were simply setting out some basic realities about the process; if there was surprise it may have been that she was so direct and unreserved; but then she does have a reputation for summarising things very directly. Jheald (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC) -- eg "a series of truth bombs" (BBC) ... "In Brussels, Sabine Weyand is known for her cheerful bluntness. Now the public have seen it too." (idem) Jheald (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jheald: As I have said to you before, quoting Weyand's comments on Brexit makes a lot more sense in articles on Brexit. Your comments directly above make a good case for them being quoted there; they do not make a good case for them being quoted here. This article is meant to be about Weyand, not Brexit. The role she held in Brexit negotiations is relevant here; her statements on Brexit much less so, especially because, as Dig deeper points out, it is hard to distinguish between her personal views and the views she was putting forward as an official, bureaucratic representative. Oska (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The counter-point is: she was the one who decided what that official, bureaucratic representative position was, and how to pitch it. Jheald (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You are factually wrong here. The European Commission decided the official position (under direction from the European Council). Weyand is a bureaucrat who serves the European Commission; she is not a politician with executive power. Moreover, she was deputy to Barnier, the chief negotiator, so she would have been reporting to him (and he to the Commission). Oska (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oska: If you look a bit further into the process you will find that is not quite true, or how the EU works. Responsibility for the policy analysis, development, and negotiation execution has been devolved to the Brexit taskforce headed by Barnier and Weyand, which has considerable direct autonomy and authority. The overall detailed negotiating mandate, having been prepared by the taskforce, was then agreed and signed off by the member states. RTE's Tony Connelly has written at some length about this early process, how effectively the Brexit team got its ducks in line, and how easy the member states then found it to unanimously sign off on the team's proposals. It helps that the EU trade team are very practised and have a real reputation in Brussels for competence; also that it has kept the member states very much in the loop, the responsibility of Stéphanie Riso and Georg Riekeles on the negotiating team side and Didier Seeuws on the Council side, which has maintained a high level of trust by the member states in the team. The member states are also well aware that the power of the EU in trade negotiations rests heavily on it being the EU that a counter-party negotiates with, not the member states. That power is lost if negotiating partners think they can get round the EU position, by talking directly with the member states and peeling them away from the EU line. This is an assumption some in the UK debate seem to have repeatedly made, but where the EU states have so far shown very tight discipline, which the organisational arrangements are designed to reinforce. Some questions do get referred up to the political level, to be decided by the member states -- eg on what line to take re the UK extension. But once the member states have signed off on a particular political position, then it is the negotiating team that has day-to-day (indeed month-to-month) operational independence to execute it. The member states find it difficult to come to political agreements, so so long as the negotiating team has been able to retain trust and its reputation for competence (which it has), it has basically been left to get on with it, run the process, and do the thing, executing the agreed political mandate which it has been given. Nominally the taskforce is answerable to the Commission, but the member states weren't going to have that, which is why the liaison arrangements above were put in place, and it's been the member states that have been directly acting as its customers -- one reason that Martin Selmayr was so pissed off when the structures were announced and Didier Seeuws was appointed. As for the balance within the team, Barnier has the reputation for being a very very good political front-man, but relying on his staff to do the real hard work.(eg ) Weyand, effectively his chief-of-staff, has been seen on the EU side as his ideal complement -- with a real focus for detail, political, procedural, legal, and economic, to co-drive the show -- assisted by what Politico called a 'dream team' of staffers with detailed backgrounds across all the policy areas. Barnier has been particularly busy to try to smooth things at a politician-to-politician level, and again to keep EU capitals in the loop. But this is why, when reports talk of Weyand as having been "the real force behind the EU’s Brexit negotiations" (Times), or her 1-to-1 talks with Ollie Robbins as having been "the real engine room" of the Brexit process (Politico), or her as having been "the power behind the throne" (Times again), this should not be taken as journalistic hyperbole. It is a very accurate statement of her role, and the level of individual responsibility vested in her. To say 'she has not had executive power' seriously understates this. Jheald (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)