Talk:Patria case

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page from Patria affair to Patria case, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Patria affair → Patria case — I think it would make sense to rename the article to Patria case or something similar, per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Scandal, affair. I won't object the usage of the word affair if the allegiations are proven. However, using this word now seems excessively sensationalistic to me. Also, per Affair: "'Affair' may be used as a euphemism and in some cases to add glamour to an illicit liaison or it may be used to slander."

In addition, Patria case is the most common naming in English (though Patria affair in Slovene). Google finds 512 hits for "patria affair" and 892 hits for "patria case". Per WP:NC, Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. — Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• I don't oppose the move. However, both expressions are comparably represented in google hits so this shouldn't be the sole reason for moving. The question here is whether the word affair is neutral enough, considering the topic. --Tone 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that the word affair carries POV implications or not? According to Wikipedia:Words to avoid, it does. Per Wikipedia:Naming dispute#Descriptive names: "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications." --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends. One could claim that this is an affair because it happened a couple of weeks before the elections, regardless of the outcome. --Tone 09:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it just escalated at this time. This has been going on for much longer than the case was broadcasted by the YLE. The article doesn't cover this sufficiently yet. In Slovenia, the Cvikl's commission to investigate the claims of bribery was formed in March 2007. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, if the article will be expanded to cover the whole purchase of the AMV, I support the renaming. --Tone 11:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Compare Panama scandals, Marconi scandal. Please note that in both cases no politician was convicted of anything, and that in the Marconi scandal, at least, there is consensus that the facts were much less compromising than the scandalmongers made out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - this is clearly a criminal case, not just some random 'affair'. The allegations towards Patria employees are official criminal charges, and the case will also be brought to court. --Vuo (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

From User talk:Tone

Hi, I think it would make sense to rename the article to Patria case or something similar, per

Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Scandal, affair. It should also be revised for POV. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be, but most of the media refer to it as affair, what is in compliance with common name guideline (at least most of the people would look for it under that name). The guideline you quote recommends to use the word affair only in well established cases - this indeed is not historic case but will probably be in some time. So renaming now and renaming back in a couple of years? Hm... doesn't make much sense for me... Do we have any other alternative names we could use? And what part of the article do you think could contain POV? Perhaps it would make sense to ask someone who has yet not been involved in writing this article to check. --Tone 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

100k+ Google hits for Afera Patria would suggest that this name is widely used. Just a comment. --Tone 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't object the usage of the word affair if the allegiations are proven. However, using this word now seems pov to me. Per Affair: 'Affair' may be used as a euphemism and in some cases to add glamour to an illicit liaison or it may be used to slander. In addition to that, we're talking about the English not Slovenian (and sensationalistic) name. In English, we have 512 hits for "patria affair" and 892 hits for "patria case" using Google. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

True. I will move this discussion to the article's talkpage. Let's get some more opinions before further action. --Tone 20:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

European Union and Slovenia on arms trade

The Patria case of allegation of bribes in the procurement of weapons is not an isolated issue in the European and NATO problems with arms trade and offsets. The EU MP Ana Gomes recently (18.11.2010) stated in an interview with EU Observer: "What we don't see is political courage on the part of the EU institutions, notably the European Commission, to actually tackle this question of corruption that is at the root of the current crisis. Corruption in the management of banks, which were not properly regulated and supervised and corruption in the public sector in relation to defence procurements." With a similar submarine corruption probe involving the same German company (Man Ferrostaal) being investigated in relation to Greece, the first euro-area country that needed a bail-out, Ms Gomes said it is unacceptable that Brussels is not launchig an inquiry into "this European web of corruption." [1]. Slovenia and Finland (the protagonists of Patria case) are among the least corrupted EU countries. See: Transparency International: 2010 Table on Perceived Corruption Index.[2] and also List of sovereign states in Europe by Corruption Perceptions Index. The administrator Eleassar deleted the sentence "The only way to understand what happened or not happened in Slovenia, is to look beyond Slovenia and Finnish borders, and to inspect defense procurement practices of European Union member states.", that he considers an "original research."

I would modified in this way:

The only way to understand what happened or not happened in Slovenia, is to look beyond Slovenia and Finnish borders, and to inspect defense procurement practices of European Union member states; as Ms Gomes said, it is unacceptable that Brussels is not launchig an inquiry into "this European web of corruption."' (Note)

Ms. Gomes is an expert on the issue (mostly on small weapons). But many EU politicians and journalists could be quoted on this point.

Claudi8 (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All claims (e.g. "The only way to understand what happened or not happened in Slovenia, is to look beyond Slovenia and Finnish borders") must be attributed to a source. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jansa is innocent until proven guilty

We believe in the presumption of innocence and therefore Jansa is innocent until proven guilty. However, Eleassar's addition to Patria case that "On 11 September 2011, the Slovenian national broadcaster RTV Slovenia published a document disproving the claim about Janez Janša being implicated in the corruption" is too quick to declare that Jansa is not involved. The trial is ongoing. The idea that the bribe was for Jerkovic, and not for (J)ansa, makes me wonder what kind of power had Jerković in Slovenia. Can anyone believe that (J)erkovic had so much power to have the final word on the biggest military purchase in Slovenian history? Claudi8 (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A farse of Slovenian court

Taking into account that the Slovenian judiciary even after seven years, without any real proof, was unable to verdict in the case of Patria, after the unanimous verdict of the Constitutional Tribunal, that it had to made Patria case obsolete, I suggest that the article is renamed into "farce of slovenian court".

I also invite all those who had worked on that article, to improve and complete them according to wikipedia standards. Otherwise i'll have to propose for deletion. Sorry for bad grammer. Greetings JakobZ (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The case remains notable, regardless of the verdict(s). It cannot be deleted just because you don't like it. The Slovenian branch has been closed, because the Finnish prosecutor decided not to try to appeal the verdict of innocence. But, the Croatian branch is still live, and Turku Appeals Court will have the sessions about it in October-November 2015. --vuo (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. I agree about deletion. But I can't agree with the reason why slovenian court has decided as he did, certainly not because of finland trial. As I mentioned the slovenian Constitutional Tribunal has unanimously announced the trial should be rejected by Court because of violating the basic human rights, the Court didn't respect this decision, instead changed the Head of trial, who just retained the case until it has made obsolete, without clear explanation.

In any serious country in western world, i'm sure, you can not be judged on the basis of imaginary evidence and sentenced to jail because of that. It happened in Slovenia, without any consequences for participants who led the trial into a farse (yet).

Like it or not, article about slovenian part as from yesterday (Oct. 8th 2015) is far from what was actually happened and doesn't correspond to wikipedia standards. JakobZ (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)