I’ve got money on when the sun expands and consumes the earth.
2 Likes
The Comunity- shows concrete evidence of the challenger having better armour.
Gaijins rebuttal - (and I quote)-“nuh uh”
5 Likes
Before 1987, IDR were not associated with Janes, they were published by an independent company, Interavia SA. The name change came after Janes acquired Interavia SA in 1987.
This becomes clear if you read IDR magazine, the Publishing and Editorial Offices are located in Geneva. If Janes was responsible for the manuscript, it should have been mentioned separately that the Publishing and Editorial Offices are Interavia SA and Janes.
Before Janes acquired Interavia SA.
After Janes acquired Interavia SA.
Correct, the publishing and editorial offices are based in the city that the publisher is located in. It’s a journal though. Each article published in an edition of IDR is authored by someone - this becomes clear if you read the IDR journal. If you take the time to look through the authors of articles before and after the acquisition, you’ll see a lot of reoccurring names.
Mark Hewish, a linchpin of Flight International’s defence team in the 1970s, has died after battling a debilitating illness. He joined the magazine as sub-editor and moved to the embryonic defence desk, where he played a key role in taking the coverage more international and into emerging areas such as missiles and electronics, writes Charles Gilson . Hewish later joined Jane’s International Defense Review , where he was Washington DC-based technology editor until his death.
That’s just one example, but if you are dedicated enough to go stalking through LinkedIn, you can find dozens very easily.
A better question: Why does GJN think an article authored by the same person under a different publisher has less reliability? Considering many of the IDR articles were authored by people who remained publishing after the name change, seems like a completely unfounded belief for GJN to have, although that seems to be their standard these days.
Paradoxically, there is much less information about Interavia SA and their history than Jane’s Information Group, but GJN still believes their credibility is higher.
9 Likes
It just doesn’t make sense how arbitrarily, when it’s us who report it, and after x time in 1987, how suddenly the credibility of Jane’s drops off a cliff. As far as I know, plenty of academic sources still use the more modern and up to date versions in their works.
It just doesn’t make sense.
8 Likes
I was watching Warship: Life at Sea on channel five yesterday, and the Captain of HMS Northumberland literally mentioned Jane’s Fighting Warships by name, and then it panned to him using a hardcopy of it on the bridge to verify the ID of a Russian spy ship. This was filmed at some point in the last 4 years. It’s a good enough source for the Royal Navy, but not this Russian arcade/fantasy game apparently.
That was season 3 episode 3/4 if you’re curious. All seasons on demand atm.
Prior to the publishing change, IDR was more advertisements than actual content. To be fair that’s the type of hustle GJN respects.
edit:
It was episode 4 or 5.
6 Likes
Valid point
Speaking of which, I really should be watching that series.
Can you VID what edition it is?
2 Likes
Has the challenger 2s mantlet been fixed yet? Or is there still absolutely no reason to play one of the worst mbts in the game still?
It got worse, dont bother.
They are never, ever going to fix it.
They can’t even be bothered to sort the rotor pins, which shows the level of quality and attention to detail that went into it.
3 Likes
I can’t at the moment - watching the boat race - but will have a look when I get a chance. I think it was episode 4 or 5, not 3 or 4, by the way. It was late last night after a few tins I was watching haha.
1 Like
GOOD LAD haha
1 Like
Cambridge Rah Rah
1 Like
Even though article writers send in their manuscripts, the editorial team (in this case, Janes) is ultimately responsible for editing them.
The developers have decided not to use Janes due to the many errors in the Janes Yearbook and etc, so there will be no further discussion.
This also applies to other books of a similar kind. Books like encyclopedias are not considered valid secondary sources
You’re overlooking the fact that my time zone is different, it’s dawn here.
I was being annoying. sorry :)
As someone who regularly publishes scientific articles in journals… I can tell you that under no circumstances would the journal/editor be making changes/amendments to the manuscript and then publishing it without getting consent from the author. (I wish journal editors made any changes at all - I’m lucky if they send me back good reasoning for their suggestions). If that’s what Jane’s were doing, they would go out of business. Yet we know they continued publishing and growing for three decades, and are now the global leader. As I said previously…the same authors continued to write articles before and after the publisher change. Do you think if Jane’s was editing falsehoods into articles, that the authors would keep happily writing for them? Do you have any idea what kind of legal case would ensue?
Jane’s yearbook is one of Jane’s publications. Imagine writing off all of Penguin books because they published one bad one.
In 120 years of publishing, mistakes happen and some errors are unavoidable. I’d have thought a company like GJN would appreciate this, seeing as they are only a decade old and make blunders on a regular basis. The fact they feel brazen enough to throw libel at an international defence intelligence agency, whilst simultaneously having the track record/reputation that GJN have earned themselves, is pantomime levels of comedy.
Jane’s International Defence Review is not an encyclopaedia.
To be fair to @Freddie2706, GJN’s usual approach when they’ve dug themselves into an untenable position is to go silent and pretend it never happened. e.g: The MANPADS devblog and subsequent threads dispelling their claims.
Why is it that:
a) A publication good enough to be a general reference for Royal Navy ships in 2020 is not a good enough secondary source for GJN?
b) They think the credibility of IDR tanked overnight when Jane’s became the publisher, despite me showing that the same authors continued to write articles for them, in some cases for decades.
Personally, I would have thought the credibility of IDR would increase when they stopped filling most of the journal with adverts, but as mentioned - that’s the type of greedy savvy marketing that GJN loves. Fortunately we have the benefit of hindsight, and we know that Jane’s 30 years later is still one of, if not the most respected intelligence distributors in the world.
9 Likes
My childish yet tasteful post was hidden. not joking .lol
2 Likes
As with most eastern countries, they don’t like being told their wrong and refuse to go back on their word (Apart from when it conflicts with what they want to do, aka not having top tier premiums). It is a shame as reading through Jane’s it is filled with quite useful information they will flat out refuse to use because of a couple mistakes. Even if they don’t want to use some of their sources I think it’s a bit of a joke they refuse to use any of them for a couple mistakes on some foreign designs which, at the time, probably didn’t have many sources to go off.
2 Likes
as my grandad would say. “It’s like the pot calling the kettle black” (Basically gaijjin’s a hypocrite)
1 Like