Talk:High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy


 * See Talk:High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy

Jurgen Trumpf
I am not sure that Jurgen Trumpf has ever been a High Representative for the CFSP. Look at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:248:0033:0033:EN:PDF - Council Decision appointing Havier Solana for Secretary-General, High Representative, in which Mr. Trumpf is called only Secretary-General. It seems that Havier Solana is the first High Representative for the CFSP. I couldn't find anywhere in Internet documents supporting the idea that Jurgen Trumpf had been High Representative even for a month.


 * I'm quite sure he became it by defult just for those few months. The post was created while he was SG and it was decided the SG would also be the HR, although he was not intended to be before. As it was only a few months, no one knows much. Will try to find more info.-  J Logan t/c: 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I suggest as they are both small articles, we treaty the merged HR as a continuation of the existing HR. Both would even be Solana and now the names are very simmilar reflecting it. To me it looks like just extending the HR into the Commissioners domain with a service behind them. Now the same I know but I think we can put them in the same article, it is very small. -  J Logan t/c: 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And when merge, merge into the latest one – High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy? wiki-vr 05:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, it is not that yet. We should stick to the current name, the new name isn't even in a treaty yet, in is a proposal in a proposal for a proposed treaty. The article name would only be changed when the new post comes into force. As for the Commissioner, I think that is very separate right now and ought to be kept. Although we could reassess when when the new post comes into effect. Especially if we go with the old name it makes no sense to combine the two, currently separate, posts under the HR name. -  J Logan t/c: 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Union" is (in the Treaty of Lisbon) the abbreviation for "European Union". The German Wikipedia has got an article for the new job: de:Hoher Vertreter der EU für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy). --Kolja21 (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Article title
Is this really the job title - grammatically flawed ? Suggest moving to 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union' or 'High Representative of Common Foreign and Security Policy'. L&there4;V 15:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * yes it is and it is fine, even if it weren't then we still have to stick to the official title.- J.Logan`t : 18:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Article 15(2) of the Treaty on European Union: ‘The European Council shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, together with its President and the President of the Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall take part in its work.’ – Kaihsu (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not in force yet.
 * But when it will be, I suggest the short title: High Representative. No one says it in full and it is used far more than the Bosnian one.- J.Logan`t : 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the title of High Representative. - SSJ ☎ 20:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do we have a new article? THere is continuity here between these tiny articles, merge back please?- J.Logan`t : 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For instance, Ashton said in the press conference the following "[...]I'm pleased to be the first woman high representative of Europe". - SSJ ☎ 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's rename this article on 1 December. - SSJ ☎ 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed on 1 December, but does everyone agree on "High Representative" over the long form, and if so we should get ready to put in an admin request so we can move over the top of the current page there.- J.Logan`t : 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest renaming article to High Representative now, as this isn't treaty dependent and will save work on the day. Any admins around here who can mvoe it over the current High Rep page or do we actually have to go make a request?- J.Logan`t : 21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No point in jumping the gun: let's wait until 1 December 2009. Vandagard (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC) (PS. see below - who doesn't know how to spell separate ?)
 * Actually there is, if we have to take it through another admin it takes time to put up the request and get a response. If we are changing it to High Representative then that title applies now and after 1 December so I put it to you that there is no point in waiting. (and we all make typos, I find it is best not point them out or someone will start pointing out yours)- J.Logan`t : 22:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's put up a request. - SSJ ☎ 23:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, was hoping we'd have one on our staff so to speak but maybe I'm being too hopeful.- J.Logan`t : 23:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And on the Union or European Union, the Council's own website confirms that its formal name is just Union. .- J.Logan`t : 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Move request
High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy → High Representative — High Representative is a name commonly used for the new post. Solana (holder of the soon-scrapped CFSP High Representative) is our main precedent, and he was often called High Representative. The long and cumbersome formal title is used by few, and is likely to be even more forgotten when the post doesn't have to be introduced in every single news article. - SSJ ☎ 23:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(oh and this post is far more important and well known than the other one listed on High Representative disambig. Hardly anyone knows the other one exists so it is safe to move the disambig off High Representative.- J.Logan`t : 23:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Support - We have already discussed this a bit, and I think it is a good idea. - SSJ ☎ 23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - as above.- J.Logan`t : 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The full title should be used for the duration. High Representative can simply be a re-direct. Vandagard (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - You're lets wait but now oppose? And why do we need the full title. WP policy is that when common titles are used and recognised far more than the long form we use them as article titles. Who on earth spells out even the current title? It is practically unknown in the media unless they want to stress that it is a long name.- J.Logan`t : 23:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * oOnly 35 results in the news, even EU foreign minister gets more.- J.Logan`t : 23:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. High Representative is too generic a term to adequately distinguish this particular political appointment from others with similar names. Tevildo (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - We are talking about one specific title - High Representative. Wikipedia has only two articles about posts whose names include HR; in this group of two, the EU HR is overwhelmingly dominant. Few people know about the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Disambig trouble should not be an issue here. - SSJ ☎ 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - and indeed the Bosnian High Rep is fading out and will eventually be wound up. You are really suggesting that people are going to confuse it with that single post? That is like saying the United States article should be a disambig because people want the United States of Central America or the various other minor historical states that have used the name. If We can have United States of America as United States, then we can definatly have High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy as High Representative.- J.Logan`t : 11:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, the proposed title is a very common, valid shorthand expression for the far less commonly used official title. True that it is a bit generic though, and people would not immediately identify the article's title with its suject. But to this end we have the first sentence of the lede defining the title, thereby specifying the context (EU) and the official nomenclature. Also, people seldom come to an article randomly. Rather they type in a term, or follow a link, that they want to know about. This term will (I guess everybody agrees hon this) more often be High Representative than the official term. T om ea s y T C 13:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Several publications including The Guardian abbreviate the title to EU High Representative. That might be a better solution. Vandagard (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why? What on earth will it be confused with? A US High Representative. The Chinese High Representative? The only other High Representative we have on wikipedia is also appointed by the EU so that won't help at all. Plus, in titles acronyms are best avoided.- J.Logan`t : 16:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK smartypants: what do you suggest? Vandagard (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - JLogan clearly argued that we shouldn't add EU in front of "High Representative". I agree with him. Why are you being sarcastic? - SSJ ☎ 22:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes I do believe I suggested "High Representative", as we have just been discussing. You seem to keep saying it would be confused with something, but we're yet to learn what this other thing is. If there is something as notable as this High Representative, why do we only have an article for the obscure Bosnian chap?- J.Logan`t : 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, to the admin seeing this move. All the above do not argue with the need for a move, the current title is out of date. I think we have a majority to move to the short title, and indeed there isn't much of a response to the counter points made to those arguing for the long title (and there is disagreement as to what a long titler actually is). Could this article please be moved to the short title so the article is at least up to date and then we can have a debate on whether it should be a long title after that.- J.Logan`t : 18:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, when there's a majority in favour of the move, and neither of the two people against the move respond to counter points, I guess we can say that there is a consensus in favour of renaming the article. - SSJ ☎ 18:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Feck it, last edits split the article even though we decided to keep together for now so I've put it back together again on the new title. At least it is up to date.- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 17:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Seperate article for posts according to Amsterdam and Lisbon
I create a new section for this issue, raised in the previous section, because I think these discussions are independent.

I think that SSJ's point is very valid to have a seperate article for the new post. However, it would complicate things, perhaps more than necessary though. Not sure yet where I stand. T om ea s y T C 10:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't remember advocating a separate article. - SSJ ☎ 17:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I misunderstood this quote "[...]I'm pleased to be the first woman high representative of Europe". As a woman, she is of course the first either way. I understood this quote as insinuating that the position she is going to take is new.
 * Well the, drop it if nobody else bothers. T om ea s y T C 18:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think given the continuity in the title, method of appointment and in the role it should be the same article. The High Rep has simply annexed the Commissioner's role to add to his (sorry, her now) duties and to give her financial and staff backing. Given both are so short, we can stick them together and make clear int he text there is a degree of non-continuity as well but I think there is very little to divide on this. Perhaps int he future, as the article develops and expands, we could split?- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 23:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. T om ea s y T C 09:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Secretary-General of the Council after Lisbon?
I am still not clear, after reading the amended Treaties, whether the Secretary-General of the Council and the High Rep can be/has to be the same person the Treaties are amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. – Kaihsu (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the High Representative for CFSP will no longer be necessarily the same person as the Secretary-General of the Council, as was the case before the Treaty of Lisbon came into force (when both posts were held by Solana most recently). See the following link for the press release yesterday: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/111343.pdf archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5lPbkuQFL – Kaihsu (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The media I've read have referred to the SG post being discussed as a third figure to appoint at the summit, but who are they appointing? Any press releases on this?- <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family:Zapfino, sans-serif">J.Logan`t : 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A SG has been appointed in the meantime. I have started a new article here. Not sure about the title yet. Perhaps you want to add information there. T om ea s y T C 09:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooups. I just found out that the article already existed under this name here. So, I am going to delete the article I created, provided I found out how. T om ea s y T C 10:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)