Talk:Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen

Leader of parliament's Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs criticism being removed
I disagree with removing the following: "Irregular handling of incoming emails from soldiers opposed to proposed merger of special forces: In 2013 nine emails from tillitsvalgte (soldiers elected to represent their cohorts) of Marinejegerkommandoen were not logged into the record of incoming mail at the ministry of defence. On 10 June 2013 she was criticised by then leader of parliament's Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs for events that happened in her area of responsibility: "It is disgusting to see that emails in an uncomfortable matter are being held away from the log of incoming mail" [at the ministry of defence]. On 11 June 2013 the Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs sent her six questions about her handling of the emails. On 12 June 2013 media said that she still had not answered (the media) if the emails had been deleted at some point. A 12 June 2013 editorial in Verdens Gang said that the emails "evidently were recovered from the trash pail on the minister's phone, tablet computer or computer". On June 17 her latest set of answers to the committee, were published. The latest set of answers quotes her saying "There is no connection between record keeping lacking, and that the senders of the emails were critical to the process surrounding the chief of defence's fagmilitære advice." On 10 June 2013 NRK said that the minister has been "strongly criticized for not having taken seriously allegations in regards to lies, manipulation and threats of phone tapping by the highest echelons of Norway's military, related to the proposal of moving Marinejegerkommandoen from Ramsund and Bergen to Rena". (On 5 June 2013 Bergens Tidende said that Karl Egil Hanevik, chief of Norwegian Special Operation Command has been accused of threatening soldiers in regards to future wire tapping of their phone conversations. )"


 * I agree that a mention of this case seems warranted. However, it's important to avoid undue weight; a Biography of a Living Person must be balanced at all times. "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." Since the article is fairly short, there shouldn't be more than a brief mention of the case. Alternatively there must be a general expansion of the article covering several sides of her career, which would give room for more coverage also of the e-mail case. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)