Talk:Ursula von der Leyen

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)
 * 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)

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)

McKinsey controversy
Apparently, VDL was involved in a scandal with McKinsey:

https://www.politico.eu/article/von-der-leyen-admits-mistakes-in-contracting-scandal-but-stands-her-ground/

https://www.politico.eu/article/ursula-von-der-leyen-biography-career-inconvenient-truth/

https://www.politico.eu/article/mckinsey-steers-munich-security-conference-german-government-mcleyen-berlin-von-der-leyen-suder-wolfgang-ischinger-joe-biden-nato/

https://www.politico.eu/article/the-scandal-hanging-over-ursula-von-der-leyen/

https://taz.de/Berateraffaere-Verteidigungsministerium/!5579453/

Also slightly related but not reported is that her son took a job there: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-von-der-leyen-b34a2778/

Will create a section but I'd prefer if someone more knowledgeable volunteers instead Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's in the article twice already. If you're currently reading on it you might take the opportunity to merge the two sections Controversy and investigation over award of contracts by German defence ministry and "Consultants affair". JackTheSecond (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tbh I only did a ctrl+f for "mckinsey" which wasn't mentioned anywhere in the page. It seems to me that McKinsey has had a major part in this and should be explicitly named in the section heading Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

fluent English
@K1812 I see you made your point through editing. I agree that a German newspaper writing to a German audience will not have the evaluation of "excellent" English that a wiki article needs.

Do you mind explaining why you felt that "fluent" was overstating things? Mind that fluent does not mean perfect, or accent-free or anything. Do you think additional sources are needed? Like these: Vogue, BBC - both make "fluent" explicit. JackTheSecond (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @JackTheSecond Mrs. von der Leyen lacks basic understanding of English pronunciation. As i didn't think it a good idea to write "von der Leyen speaks poor English fluently", i left out her ability to speak English entirely and wrote "von der Leyen understands English". K1812 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @K1812 ... So the article was entirely factual in the first place, and you inserted your own views into it? JackTheSecond (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't insert my own views, a removed a misleading statement. K1812 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That sounds like original research. Sources for "fluent in English and French":, . Do you have a source for "lacks basic understanding of English pronunciation"? —Kusma (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need sources for obvious facts. But if you haven't noticed that she lacks a basic understanding of English pronunciation, just listen to how she pronounces the word "of" in
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ33MImV4-s at 1:30 to 1:37. K1812 (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * > We don't need sources for obvious facts.
 * It is not an obvious fact that someone speaks English poorly. It is something that you have decided based on primary source material. That is the definition of original research. It's a pretty core principal on wikipedia. Future Contributor (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am a fluent english speaker from scotland. Von der leyen speaks fluent english with a german accent, which does not impact on her fluency. By your criteria,with my scottish accent, I am not a fluent speaker. Why are you so bothered by this in any case? I also speak fluent french with a scottish accent, so what is your point other than to demonstrate your complete ignorance concerning the concept of language fluency? 109.210.107.21 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)