Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
JAS (as it is best known in Sweden) has been marred by controversy since the 1980s. Several of the crashes have been widely publicized, particularly the 1993 crash at the Stockholm Water Festival. It is by most Swedes considered an iconic event of the 1990s. Since then, there have been bribery scandals involving Saab and JAS sales to other countries that have made major headlines. Most recently, there have been considerable journalistic coverage of the indictment of Austrian lobbyist Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly who escaped conviction by the skin of his teeth.
The article is pretty much devoid of any information about any of the political aspects of the project focuses almost entirely on technical aspects. I don't see that the article fulfills the criteria regarding either neutrality or coverage at the moment.
Peter Isotalo 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply by reviewer If you're worried about my neutrality, why not actually do some research yourself? I'm going by how this has actually been reported, not by what I believe in personally. Mensdorff-Pouilly was acquitted of bribery formally, but was at the same times openly chastised by the presiding judge who said "This is not a clean bill of health. The whole thing stinks, but not enough [to convict]." [1] [2] [3] [4] And he was actually convicted for falsifying evidence. That's not a normal acquittal and it hasn't been reported as one.
The article still doesn't contain an accurate summary of how the project came about. For example, it fails to note that the entire left wing, including the Social Democrats, of the Riksdag voted against the project. The project was pushed through the Riksdag with a tiny five-vote marginal. During the floor debate, Olof Palme described it as something that "smacks of a coup, and is a serious democratic setback". There's nothing about the controversial and unrealistic fixed price contract, nor the cost overruns. The €1.84 billion for R&D stated in the current version of the article doesn't even come close to the estimated 132 billion kronor in total expenses (minus weapons) reported in Swedish media. [5] I don't know the cost issues in detail, but I've heard of even higher estimates, some of them even running up to 200 billion kronor.
In essence, highly significant, notable and influential political controversies in Sweden are absent and the entire development phase is presented as fairly uneventful, despite being anything but. Neither 3(a) nor 4 are fulfilled in my view.
Peter Isotalo 16:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
JAS (as it is best known in Sweden) has been marred by controversy since the 1980s. Several of the crashes have been widely publicized, particularly the 1993 crash at the Stockholm Water Festival. It is by most Swedes considered an iconic event of the 1990s. Since then, there have been bribery scandals involving Saab and JAS sales to other countries that have made major headlines. Most recently, there have been considerable journalistic coverage of the indictment of Austrian lobbyist Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly who escaped conviction by the skin of his teeth.
The article is pretty much devoid of any information about any of the political aspects of the project focuses almost entirely on technical aspects. I don't see that the article fulfills the criteria regarding either neutrality or coverage at the moment.
Peter Isotalo 16:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply by reviewer If you're worried about my neutrality, why not actually do some research yourself? I'm going by how this has actually been reported, not by what I believe in personally. Mensdorff-Pouilly was acquitted of bribery formally, but was at the same times openly chastised by the presiding judge who said "This is not a clean bill of health. The whole thing stinks, but not enough [to convict]." [1] [2] [3] [4] And he was actually convicted for falsifying evidence. That's not a normal acquittal and it hasn't been reported as one.
The article still doesn't contain an accurate summary of how the project came about. For example, it fails to note that the entire left wing, including the Social Democrats, of the Riksdag voted against the project. The project was pushed through the Riksdag with a tiny five-vote marginal. During the floor debate, Olof Palme described it as something that "smacks of a coup, and is a serious democratic setback". There's nothing about the controversial and unrealistic fixed price contract, nor the cost overruns. The €1.84 billion for R&D stated in the current version of the article doesn't even come close to the estimated 132 billion kronor in total expenses (minus weapons) reported in Swedish media. [5] I don't know the cost issues in detail, but I've heard of even higher estimates, some of them even running up to 200 billion kronor.
In essence, highly significant, notable and influential political controversies in Sweden are absent and the entire development phase is presented as fairly uneventful, despite being anything but. Neither 3(a) nor 4 are fulfilled in my view.
Peter Isotalo 16:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)