Talk:Enrica Lexie case

Court documents

ORIGINAL court documents relating to the MV Enrica Lexie incident

Kerala High Court

• 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2012, JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATH KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT WP(C) No.6083 OF 2012(I) [1]
  

• 3rd day of April 2012, Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & V. Chitambaresh, JJ. KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT W.A. No. 678 & 679 of 2012 - Doramma Vs. M.T. Enrica Lexie, (2) KLJ 398 : 2012 (2) KHC 265 [2]
  

• 2nd day of May 2012, Justice R.M. LODHA M.T. Civil Appeal No. 4167 of 2012 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11942 of 2012 Enrica Lexie & ANR. Vs. Doramma & Ors. [3][4]
  

• 29TH DAY OF MAY 2012 JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN, KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT WP(C).No. 4542 of 2012 (P) - Massimilano Latorre Vs. Union of India (2012) 252 KLR 794 [5]

Indian Supreme Court

• January 18, 2013 IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 135 OF 2012 : REPUBLIC OF ITALY THROUGH AMBASSADOR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. WITH SLP(C) NO. 20370 of 2012 [6] (Supreme Court judgement that State of Kerala as a Unit of the Federal Union of India does not have jurisdiction to try the case)
  

• February 22, 2013 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IA 4 OF 2013 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO. 20370 OF 2012 MASSIMILANO LATORRE AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s) [7] (Order of Supreme Court of India which had allowed the Italian Marines to go back and had required them to return)
  

• March 03, 2013 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IA 4 OF 2013 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)NO. 20370 OF 2012 MASSIMILANO LATORRE AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s) (From the judgement and order dated 29/05/2012 in WPC No.4542/2012 of The HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)[8] (Copy of Supreme Court’s order restraining Italian Ambassdor from leaving India. )
  

Indian Parliament

• 08 May 2013, question tabled in Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Indian Parliament) - [9]

81.240.166.234 (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Military investigation report by Admiral Alessandro Piroli

1. An Italian Official Reconstruction of the facts now (finally) exist. Unfortunately I just found an Italian language version, I will look later for translations: [10]

An important part is that it would seem that rifles allegedly found to be the ones that shoot were not those assiged toGirone and Latorre, but to other colleagues of them LNCSRG (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in reading the english translation of this official reconstruction of 'facts'. Please do upload it here or provide a link that can be viewed by readers for independent opinions & fact-checking verifications.

All of a sudden a whole lot of information is being revealed in the Italian media. Extracts from Admiral Alessandro Piroli's preliminary military report has hit the stands in Italy on 6 April. Also, Terzi has given several interviews saying that he was the one who did not want the Enrica Lexie to dock in India and also that he was by-passed by the Italian President who appointed Mistura as his Special Envoy to India (allegedly without Terzi being informed).

Can someone obtain the full version of the Admiral Alessandro Piroli investigation report mentioned in the Italian media ? From the extracts that are viewable on the LA REPUBBLICA website, it is clear that Italian manufactured NATO bore bullets shot from barrels of 2 guns assigned to the Enrica Lexie VPD team were in bodies of fishermen.

Many Italian newspapers are currently publishing extracts of Admiral Alessandro Piroli's report at this point of time

SOURCES (In Italian for the time being) = [11] [12] [13] [14]

Please use GOOGLE TRANSLATE tool to get an 'approximate' readable translation till someting better is printed in english.

81.240.143.138 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read this article (translated ofcourse with Google Translate) [15] & [16]

Ballistics investigation (as from Alessandro Piroli's report) categorically confirms that ENRICA LEXIE and the SAINT ANTHONY were indeed involved in the shooting incident. Reason: Fragments of NATO bore bullets & tracer ammunition that were fired from 2 rifles issued to VPDs on Enrica Lexie were found in the bodies of the fishermen) So, we can TOTALLY DISCARD the Greek tanker conspiracy theory. The report mentions striking similarities between photos taken by VPD team on Enrica Lexie and the media footage of the Saint Anthony fishing vessel.

The TIME and LOCATION of the incident also seems to confirm the Indian Coast Guard statements given to the Indian courts.

81.240.143.138 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ballistics investigation (as from Alessandro Piroli's report) categorically confirms ... what?

The Piroli report says: "If the results of the Indian tests are confirmed or if, as a consequence of further investigations acknowledged also by the Italian party, the authorities will prove that the bullets belong to the Italian marines, then the competent judiciary should find out if the fire was open with ... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.112.212 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Long and convoluted sentence in lead

The lead for this article is too long and needs to be shortened. The lead is supposed to summarize the key points. Paragraphs such as:

The Italian Government opined that the VPD "team Latorre" is protected by functional immunity for their actions and that they can only be tried in the flag-State country (Italy) since the shooting incident occurred in International Waters. India refused to accept Italy's claim that the VPD team were discharging sovereign functions for the Republic of Italy at the time of the incident because the armed guards were privately contracted for the protection of commercial interests of Naples-based Dolphin Tankers whose parent company is Fratelli D'Amato.

do not belong in the lead. The three of four key elements and their relationship should be summarized in the lead, the rest belongs in the text. Elements:

1. Italian oil tanker guards fired on Indian fishing vessel
2. Fisherman died
3. caused international and diplomatic incident
4. criminal trial in India

--Bejnar (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at the lead-text of the article by redacting it to leave just the when-what-who-where-why 81.240.140.169 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.170.66.151 (talk)

Fact-checkings, Speculative issues & Conspiracy theories

Olympic Flair, the Greek tanker

ICC Commercial Crimes Service register indicates that a ship reported an attempted pirate attack while docked 2.5 miles away from Kerala coast. However, the ICC report of this incident makes no mention of the name of the vessel involved.

On 21 February, the Hellenic Merchant Marine categorically stated said that no Greek ship was involved in a piracy attack off the coast of southern India in recent days.

Staffan de Mistura, the Italian Deputy Foreign Minister, has recognised that the death of the two fishermen was an "accidental killing" and an "unfortunate incident" which occured after the two marines used lethal force from onboard the Enrica Lexie.

In April 2013, La Repubblica released excerpts of the Italian Navy military investigative report by Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli which confirms that NATO bore bullets from 2 guns from Enrica Lexie were in bodies of fishermen. The Alessandro Piroli dossier which compiled the findings of the 5-member military investigation team sent to India and was submitted to the Italian government in May 2012. Furthermore, the report also concurs with the Indian Coast Guard's estimated time and location of the shooting. Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli's report details interviews with the VPD team members, civilian crew of Enrica Lexie, analysis of data recorded in the ship log-book of MV Enrica Lexie, photographs taken by the VPD team members during the incident and detailed forensic examination of the victims in addition to the ballistic investigation of the weapons and ammunition involved in the shooting.

Intervention by Catholic Cardinal of Kerala

According to Vatican-based Catholic news agency Agenzia Fides, the newly consecrated Cardinal of the Catholic Church, Mar George Alencherry from Kerala, has called for a "peaceful solution" to the issue. He has appealed to the Kerala government not to resort to "precipitate action" and warned the opposition against trying to exploit the situation. He said, "I am and will remain in close contact with the Catholic Ministers of Kerala and I hope that they will help to pacify the situation."
However, a spokesman of the Kerala-based Syro-Malabar Church said that the statement of Alancherry was "distorted" by media and he had not said anything that went against India's position on the issue.
The news report from the Vatican Insider quotes Alencherry as follows, "I learnt about the Catholic fishermen who were killed: it is very sad. I contacted Catholic ministers straight away, asking the government in Kerala not to act hastily. Errors of course were made during the incident, as fishermen were mistaken for pirates. The point, however, is that it seems the opposition party wants to take advantage of the situation and manipulate the case for electoral reasons, making reference to western powers and to America’s attempt to gain supremacy."
The Cardinal later issued a press statement which said, "The report of the Italian press agency is wrong. The agency removed the report and expressed their apology for the mistake. I have not tried to intervene in this matter, nor have I contacted any ministers regarding this. Two precious lives have been lost. Strong legal action should be taken against the guilty."

Link to Finmeccanica VIP helicopter bribery scandal

Clearly, my edits to provide a neutral point of view (also including the Government of India's version) has been vandalized by 81.240.136.254. Either take away the complete section, or please NPOV. This section is now simply rumors and speculations, especially since there has been only improvement in Indo-Italian relationship, after the return of the Marines. Dexter73 (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I second your stance. BTW NPOV has always been a problem for this article, since it is about ongoing event with two conflicting sides and very little in between. 89.97.208.106 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel that section should remain for the following reasons :

(1) the possibility of a 'link' is more than just a random hypothesis coming from a lone-wolf politician. The Indian media has relayed opinions from editorials by leading political commentators and more importantly politicians who have gone on record in the Indian Parliament raising the likely-hood of a link between the helicopter scandal related investigations in Italy and the Indian govt's handling of the Italian marines.

(2) you cannot wish away the fact that the Indian opposition parties have officially warned the UPA government in Parliament that they will not accept delays in the Finmeccanica kick-back investigation on the pretext of the diplomatic spat between Italy and India. So, this simple fact shows that the Indian Govt was pressured into not accepting the mofified 'status-quo' when Italy unilaterally decided not to return the marines

(3) no one can wish away the fact that media was awash with info on how the UPA govt was gong 'soft' on the marines right from the beginning of this incident in february 2012 and linked this all to the "Italian connection" through Ms.Sonia Gandhi.

(4) Considering that other 'hypothetical' happenings (supposed involvement of a Greek tanker, supposed intervention of a Catholic Cardinal, etc.,) have made it to the main page with sections of their own, it is fair that this supposed happening which has found extremely wide media coverage also warrant a section in it's own merit.

81.240.136.254 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 81.240.136.254 for your original research. But sorry, you fail to convince me. And I am not interested in the other sections, if you want you are free to correct them or put it under NPOV. Two wrongs does not make a right. I fail to understand why you should remove my edits which states the governments point of view. What is wrong in that? My links to the governments website on the CBI enquiry, the statements of the Defense minister, and newspaper articles on CBI raids on the scam, the receipt of documents from Italy on this issue: these are not worth mentioning for NPOV according to you? I don't get it! Why are you insisting that only one side of the story should appear in Wikipedia? Dexter73 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have included info to say that the Indian Defense Minister has said that the CBI is actively investigating the matter. 91.182.125.1 (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the arguments made by /81.240.136.254 and opine that the section on Finmeccanica VIP helicopter bribery scandal needs to stay. 82.236.51.211 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Postal Ballot

Italian consulate says that ANY Italian citizen who is in a foreign land (irrespective of the motives) can be registered onto their "AIRE" (AIRE = Registry of Italian citizens residing abroad) consular data-base provided they have a valid local residency document issued by the local Government. [17] Any Italian citizen has just to produce any type of 'leave to remain' (visa OR residence card OR any other document with address proof). Only 2 conditions need to be fulfilled to vote by postal ballot (1) be registered on the AIRE database and (2) apply for eligibility to vote at-least 10 days prior to the elections. For more info also read "General Elections 2013, voting by Italian citizens living abroad" [18] (Italian Ministry of Interior website) 91.182.125.1 (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

KINDLY REFRAIN FROM INCLUDING CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS

@ All contributors : There are many contributors who submit in good faith and strive to improve the quality of the article and keep it updated as and when new facts emerge. However, it is unfortunate that there are a few who resort to indiscriminate page vandalism based on past hypothesis that are no longer valid (in view of newly disclosed information from the courts or the news media). So, I appeal that good sense prevails. THANKS ALL !!!

 Onlyfactsnofiction  (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are Italian origin contributors bent upon VANDALIZING this article with OLD CONTROVERSIES ?

Please, consider the following point : yes, indeed the Italian parliament was briefed about many things by the Italian Government in 2012 and 2013. BUT THERE IS ONE CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT that has occurred over the past fortnight : the preliminary Italian investigation report compiled by Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli has been 'leaked' to the media in Italy.

Italian media have expressed surprise that such an important report (submitted in MAY 2012) has been kept away from public scrutiny and are questioning the intentions of the Italian Government in keeping this report secret in light of the numerous speculative controversies that have surrounded the shooting incident involving the VPD team of the Enrica Lexie.

For information on the preliminary Italian investigation report compiled by Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli please refer to links already provided on this TALK page under a separate section.

Italian readers can read (and also download in PDF format) the original print version of the La Repubblica article on the Italian Ministry of Defence website's media section here [19] 06/04/2013 - "LA REPUBBLICA", Pag. 19 I MARO' E I PESCATORI INDIANI QUEI 33 MINUTI DI TERRORE di: MAURA GUALCO and [20] 07/04/2013 - "LA REPUBBLICA", Pag. 17 "MARO', ECCO TUTTE LE COLPE DEL COMANDANTE DELLA LEXIE" di: MAURA GUALCO

81.240.166.234 (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Italian media has severely criticized the Italian Government for allowing controversies (about TIME, LOCATION and the actual details of the SHOOTING to pollute the general public's understanding of the happenings on-board the ENRICA LEXIE oil tanker) to continue DESPITE knowing from Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli's report that (quoting from the report) : "For the sake of completeness we summarize the results which would reach the Indian authorities (...) were analyzed four bullets, two found on the fishing boat and two bodies of the victims. Exhibits showed that the ammunition is of caliber 5.56 mm NATO made in Italy. The tracer extracted from the body of Valentine Jelestine were fired from the rifle with serial number assigned to First Corporal Andronico Massino. The bullet extracted from the body of Ajiesh Pink were fired from the rifle with serial number assigned to Sergeant Vogilano Renato."

From the report compiled by Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli we can see that many controversies are immediately extinguished. REASON: Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli states the fact that NATO bore bullets issued to marines and fired from guns issued to the VPD team on Enrica Lexie were found within the bodies of the dead fishermen

The new revelations from the Italian military investigation report of Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli immediately lifts the veil on many 'unknowns' namely :

(1) Greek oil tanker OLYMPIC FLAIR controversy

(2) TIME & LOCATION of the incident

(3) official Italian military opinion on whether the Enrica Lexie properly applied the IMO anti-piracy protocol on RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

(4) Italian military opinion on whether the Italian VPD team followed all steps of the gradual use of force in the event of piracy

(5) the report also comments in detail how lethal force was used against the fishing vessel

(6) the report also mentions that the Italian investigators have several photographs of the fishing vessel and that the photography appear to concur with the paint-scheme and physical aspect of the SAINT ANTHONY fishing vessel

(7) the report categorically states that the tanker should have taken steps to avoid the fishing vessel and that the fishing vessel had navigational right of way (8) according to Italian Navy Admiral Alessandro Piroli the tanker did not initate any steps to avoid the fishing vessel even though it had identified the fishing vessel on it's radar well before hand. The report is critical of the captain of the Enrica Lexie in stating that he initiated his manoeuvrings only when he was within 500 meters of the fishing vessel and the tanker started turning away when it was less than 100 meters from the fishing vessel

(8) The Alessandro Piroli report also takes care to detail why and how the Enrica Lexie was brought into the port of Kochi after interception by the Indian Coast Guard and Indian Navy.

Please (Italian readers and contributors) take note of the entire contents of the preliminary Italian investigation report compiled by Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli which has been released on the LA REPUBBLICA website [21] & [22] before re-starting a debate with old and outdated information.

81.240.166.234 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

VANDALISM BY ITALIAN ORIGIN IPs

Here we go once again ! We have page vandalism by Italian origin IPs ! 82.236.51.211 (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please help monitor this article as it is being repeatedly vandalised by IPs originating from ITALY !

82.236.51.211 (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think what you call vandalism is just Italians reporting things according to Italian official stance, that, we know very well, differs significantly from the Indian one.

BTW, half of this article deals with this problem of contrasting and irreconcilable versions of the facts, not to mention interpretations of the international law LNCSRG (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not to forget that even within the Italian stance there are conflicting opinions on what really took place. Former FM Terzi claiming that there was subterfuge by Indian police (only to be rebuffed by Indian authorities who dismissed his claims as allegations because Italy has NEVER taken any steps to show ANY proof that the Enrica Lexie was brought to port as a result of subterfuge by Indian police authorities).

On a different aspect of disagreement, Italian claim of piracy assault, it is pertinent to note that the deputy FM Mistura and also Italian PM Monti have publicly recognized in various statements that refer to the incident with words like 'accidental shooting', 'mistook the fishermen for pirates', etc., thereby seeming to accept that the Italian marines did err in their judgement and opened fire on the Saint Anthony thinking that it was a pirate skiff.

I for one would like to understand how/where/what happened by reading official documents from Italy investigation authorities (even if not in the minutest of details, just like what has been submitted to the Indian courts by Indian investigative authorities). To date, the Italian defense attorneys in India have submitted nothing at all as proof to substantiate any of their version of events (no photos, no VDR recordings, no radar tracks, no transcript of communications exchanged with Italian authorities in Rome, etc.,).

As things stand, it appears that there is more information about the chronology of events on board the Enrica Lexie from the Indian investigations which were submitted in court. The total black-out on what and where the Italian investigation has uncovered is unfortunate because it would be easy to confront the proof submitted by both sides.

My humble opinion is that India could disclose coastal surveillance data to establish who/what kind of boats were in the vicinity of the Enrica Lexie during the course of her voyage off the coast of India. Italy for it's part should disclose proof to substantiate it's claims of subterfuge and also about the piracy assault by a skiff.

81.240.143.138 (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

LA REPUBBLICA released excerptes of the minitary investigative report by Admiral Alessandro Piroli which confirms NATO bore bullets from 2 guns of enrica Lexie were in bodies of fishermen. Furthermore, the report also concurs with the Indian Coast Guard's estimated time of the shooting. Admiral Alessandro Piroli (senior most Italian investigator sent to India) came to this conclusion following interviews with the VPD team members, log report of Enrica Lexie, interview with civilian crew (Captain of Enrica Lexie) and also ballistic investigation. 81.240.143.138 (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

ARTICLE CLEAN-UP SUGGESTION

@contributors : May I suggest that the "2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea " article be cleaned-up by discarding old information in view of the recent developments in this case ?

The candidates for removal are all the CONSPIRACY THEORIES that have been fanned by fringe elements in the media and sustained by politicians.

We can quite safely assume that the official documents compiled and submitted by duly accredited government investigators to the courts and/or respective governments are genuine information sources.

Amongst those government documents which have made their way to the internet are :

• Indian court documents (including coast guard, navy and police investigation documents in addition to Italian affidavits)

• Italian military investigation (the Alessandro Piroli report)

I hesitate to add add official press releases from government ministries and agencies to this list because there have been cases where (for political reasons or otherwise) there have been press statements in both India and Italy which have been misleading. So, I would not venture to blindly trust press statements (especially from politicians) unless it is cross-verified independently with facts.

This is a suggestion that I submit here for comment. So, please feel free to add your constructive inputs.

 Onlyfactsnofiction  (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

While I concur on your general rationale, I think that, according to Wikipedia standards, those you call conspiracy theories should have a brief mention anyway, because Wikipedia exist to inform about relevant facts, even when they are eventually proved wrong.

Now, I see that, for example, the mention of the Olympic Flair has been completely removed from the article. I would rather leave there a short sentence stating that some Italian media speculated about that tanker involvement, yet it has been eventually discarded in the light of information that have been eventually made known. LNCSRG (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Brace yourselves folks, we have the controversy expert Luigi Di Stefano [23] once again back in action to show-case his expert investigations with a 'conference' road-show in Italy. We can expect an edit war once again with his 'incontrovertible facts' !

For those who don't remember Luigi Di Stefano and his "SeenInside" conspiracy website, this is the individual who fabricated evidence regarding the Olympic Flair conspiracy, bullet identification as AK-47 (or Sri Lankan coast-guard, or Chinese AK47, or vintage WW-II type) calibre theory, the zig-zag ballistics flight hypothesis, the forensics report forgeries conspiracy, etc., and which was subsequently picked up and reprinted as 'expert opinion' by the hawkish right-wing Italian newspapers.

See also the archives of this talk page dating from NOV 2012 titled "FAKE CONTENT ON OLYMPIC FLAIR SECTION" [24] and OCT 2012 [25].

Propaganda of Luigi Di Stefano on his "SeenInside" website did not stand scrutiny then in Nov 2012 and ESPECIALLY at present in the light of new info from the Alessandro Piroli report.

What to trust : The "Alessandro Piroli report" by a high-ranking, distinguished and serving Italian Navy Admiral or a conspiracy theory author self-portrayed as a 'court expert' (without proving his licence as a accredited technical expert recognised by Italian Justice Ministry) ?

91.182.207.229 (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Luigi Di Stefano is a buffoon and his "SeenInside" website is nothing short of biased propaganda ! 91.182.103.32 (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The conspiracy artist "Grifo" (another pseudonym of Luigi Di Stefano) has updated his website with technical info on WTC 9/11 conspiracy. Get an aspirin and visit http://www.seeninside.net/911/

Stefano Tronconi is another Italian 'fly by night' operator who pedals the propaganda from SEENINSIDE website of Luigi Di Stefano 81.240.144.112 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverts by User talk:I dream of horses

@User talk:I dream of horses: Most wikipedia contributors take time to contribute in improving articles in good faith.

Your revert action of my contributions took you just a few seconds but in the process destroyed work on the article which took me a few hours to compile & collate data, imagine text layout schemes, optimize texts (for display on desktop and mobile devices), etc.,

Looking at your talk page archives I see that you have a track-record of often resorting to deletions/reverts and then claim that it was a 'mistake'. This attitude is really not constructive.

I will however take time to explain the methodology of text editing in my contributions.

Specifically compare diffs [26] and understand that I have NOT DELETED any of the text contributed by user "Aries force" but simply REGROUPED the text it together with other text excerpts from the Alessandro Piroli report.

With your reference to my edit [27], do keep in mind that

• 1/ we are dealing with many quotes which are no more than partial sentences and which
• 2/ are not readily incorporable into article when translated with an online translation tool (see for yourself [28] & [29]) and
• 3/ therefore need to be completed with publicly available investigation data/info, like for example Indian/Italian court affidavits (which can be considered genuine since they were vetted and submitted under oath by State actors), so that a more intelligible translation of the text can be provided and
• 4/ be improved as and when new details emerge or become noticed

This is this methodology that I have used in recompiling the numerous extracts of the Alessandro Piroli report that were contained in various parts of the article (and also elsewhere on the internet) into one sub-section.

For all the above-stated reasons, kindly note that I have reverted your deletion of my contribution.

In view of your track-record of repeated reverts/deletions of contributions on Wikipedia, I have placed a EDIT WARNING on your talk page and will be obliged to escalate the matter if you continue to cause disruption to the article.

If you have any suggestions to improve this article, then please make it here instead of deleting contributions without offering any alternative solutions.

81.240.166.234 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@81.240.166.234: Good work of article clean-up and review. Keep it up !

91.182.207.229 (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:81.240.132.34 POV reverts on 2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea

I would underscore that I have nothing about his editing the opening paragraph of the article in order to enhance the current understanding of the incident. But, until all facts are granted with the trial closing, you should not write as there is certainity. Staffan de Mistura (a swedish diplomat naturalized italian) is heavily contested of operating against the italian reputation. So please, understand. Italian lawyers are ... lawyers, not judges. Also the payment to the damaged families is contested, as a too fast implicit declaration of fault, before trial and without any respect of the rights of the italian soldiers. In Italy there is a long list of unpleasant international incidents that have been given the wrong story or are still awaiting an answer, so please, forget "italian officials".--Robertiki (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

About "Edit war" I remark that you are doing it. The single word I inserted, no way could be seen as vandalizing. So before reverting you should have asked in the talk page. Anyway, explanations are given in the article talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Italian_shooting_in_the_Laccadive_Sea#User_81.240.132.34 where you could reply.--Robertiki (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Robertiki POV reverts on 2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea

@User talk:Robertiki: I have redacted/reverted your inclusion of the word "supposedly" in the article because it is POV.

Your POV inclusion of the word "supposedly" is incorrect and should not appear in the sentence (because this word changes the entire meaning of the sentence)

Furthermore, your claim that DR.STAFFAN DE MISTURA, the Italian Deputy Foreign Minister and also Italy's Special Envoy to India, cannot be trusted because he is a naturalised Italian citizen [I quote you "Staffan de Mistura (a swedish diplomat naturalized italian) is heavily contested of operating against the italian reputation."] carries hints of racism on your part besides being a controversial POV claim. Your earlier claim made on the EDIT page saying that "Italian officials lie too easily" is simply LUDICROUS !!!.

Some valid reasons (among a whole lot of others) on why it is generally accepted that the VPD team did infact shoot on a fishing boat/vessel :

1/ Italian Special Envoy and Deputy Foreign Minister Staffan de Mistura has publicly acknowledged that the Italian marine guards opened fire on a fishing boat. Please see YouTube for the interview.

2/ Italian lawyers have accepted in court that the Italian guards opened live-fire on a fishing boat.

3/ Italian Navy and Italian Defense Ministry have both issued statements saying that the armed guards of Nuclei Militari di Protezione (NPM) onboard the Enrica Lexie opened fire on 15 february 2012 at a fishing vessel.

Therefore, it is an uncontested FACT that the armed marine guards shot at a fishing-boat.

Hence, your inclusion of the word "SUPPOSED" is not just WRONG but also a CONTROVERSIAL and a POV HYPOTHESIS.

I have modified the opening paragraph to plainly state the facts using documentation that have been submitted to the Indian courts by the Indian investigators and separately to the Italian government by the Italian Military investigators. Instead of stating that the Italian marines fired and killed the fisherment on the fishing boat (which has become commonly accepted in international media as having occurred), I have split this into two phrases. First phrase, to say that the VPD team fired at a fishing boat (which is undisputed because the Italian Defence Ministry said so in a communiqué released immediately after the incident). And second, I have highlighted the fact that forensic and ballistic analysis has linked the shrapnel, found in the dead bodies of the slain Indian fishermen, to the ammunition and weapons belonging to the VPD marines onboard the Enrica Lexie (which also no one can dispute in light of the Alessandro Piroli report and Indian court documents.

Do read the text excerpts from the Alessandro Piroli report as well as the court documents which are freely available in the public domain on the internet and for which URLs have been provided here on the TALK page of the wiki.

All my reverts referred you to reasons which have been amply discussed and documented here on the talk page.

In view of your repeated reverts/deletions of contributions on Wikipedia, I have placed a EDIT WARNING on your talk page and will be obliged to escalate the matter if you continue to cause disruption to the article.

If you have any suggestions to improve this article, then please make it here instead of modifying contributions with your POV hypothesis.

81.240.132.34 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe nationalism, not racism (he is white). The controversy has escalated to a heavily nationalistic tone, so the fact that De Mistura has become italian only in the late years, is pertinent. And if you had lived in Italy at least a decade, you would agree about the difficult of italian officials to say the same thing all the time and all together. Anyway, is it or is it not the law, that you have to wait a verdict before guilty is declared ? "supposedly" is not wrong, but simply prudence. Be patient and wait the end of at least the Indian trail. I accept all your informations, and have also translated in the italian page a part that looks not good for the italian side. But you have already reached a verdict, and that is not acceptable. "supposedly" does not change the meaning of the sentence, buy only remembers that at this stage there are still some unresolved doubts. Please be patient.--Robertiki (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@User talk:Robertiki I am astonished and stunned by the reasons that you give for your so-called nationalism.

Your claim that Staffan De Mistura cannot be trusted is just too much for me to digest. May I remind you that he is an Italian citizen who has gained the trust of the elected parliamentary representatives of the people of Italy. His appointment as the Deputy FM of Italy has been endorsed by the Italian parliament. It is nonsense to contest the legitimacy of Staffan De Mistura who's biography states that he has been a senior minister in 2 successive cabinets in Italy, a former United Nations senior officer, the Italian Prime Minister's Special Envoy, etc.,

I am appalled by your statement (which I quote) "In Italy there is a long list of unpleasant international incidents that have been given the wrong story or are still awaiting an answer, so please, forget "italian officials".

Discrediting an Italian Government Minister as being unfaithful to Italy's interests is WRONG

Stating that the actions/words of Italian Government officials should be discarded is also WRONG

Since Italy is not an authoritarian State, I assume that Italy's Government and Italian officials can be trusted at-least in their international relationships with other countries.

Here on Wikipedia if you want to make assertions which introduce controversies, then there are rules to be followed to go beyond the stage of POV.

I am quite happy to stand my ground and feel confident that a third-party review will conclude that your opinions are entirely POV.

81.240.132.34 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

All right, I have my faults (this morning I was somewhat upset), and I will tone down, limiting to a dispute resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:2012_Italian_shooting_in_the_Laccadive_Sea#User_81.240.132.34 And for your information, Mr.De Mistura was never elected by the Italian people (I don't know if he ever partecipated). Was put in office by Mr.Monti which was not elected. And Mr.Monti was only fourth (10%) in the only election he tried (this year, before he was never elected, first time "appointed" in the European Commission - not elected - by Mr.Berlusconi and then by Mr.Napolitano as Prime Minister - not elected. So you see, 3 years of "democratic" expression of people's aspirations ... Besides, for your stunning: "nationalism" has no reasons and no justifications. --Robertiki (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@User talk:Robertiki From what you have written here and on the dispute resolution noticeboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:2012_Italian_shooting_in_the_Laccadive_Sea#User_81.240.132.34) it becomes apparent that you have no trust in Italian politicians and civil-servants.

Please refer to European Parliament & European Commission official statements if you can trust them instead of Italian media articles and official government reports.

If wikipedia is to exclude all the statements from Italian officials as being 'suspect', can you imagine the article ? It will only have Indian and international opinions and not present the official Italian perspective at all.

Kindly be reasonable.

81.240.132.34 (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You extremize my words, and not the first time. I never said to exclude all the statements from the italian side. I am trying to explain you that simply, you have to pick carefully which Italian official to read. The litmus tests are "plausibility" and "trasparency". And refering to the Catherine Ashton statement, she made a simple error, correcting it immediately with "detachments for the protection of ships". The italian marines are on the Italian government payroll. The are not payed directly by the ship owners (no mercenary). And it's normal for specific government services that you have to pay the State, despite the taxes paid. De Mistura has made ad awful confusion about that simple question. In english you would say "making simple things complicated" and the question lingers ... why is it doing that ? Wait a moment: are you writing from the European Commission Offices ? --Robertiki (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

About trust in Italian politicians and civil-servants http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2013/07/20/news/quel_cablo_da_astana_deportate_la_shalabayeva_l_ordine_arrivato_dal_kazakhstan_che_inchioda_alfano-63344076/

--Robertiki (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I endorse the decision by Howicus on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard [30] to reject the inclusion of the word "supposedly" in the lead text of the article. Official Italian and Indian court and investigation documents have discarded many of the hypothesis raised by Robertiki as either implausible or erroneous.

It apprears that Robertiki keeps repeatedly raising various stray hypothesis that are doing the rounds on conspiracy websites.

The wikipedia article as it stands today correctly reflects the current understanding of the chain of events of Italian and Indian investigators and courts. It also specifically states that the Enrica Lexie incident is still under investigation and that the trial will begin in a Special Court in India.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive content contributions

This sentence:

Forensic analysis by Italian military investigators and Indian police concluded that shrapnel extracted from the corpses of two Indian fishermen killed on the same day, when gunfire from an oil-tanker reached an Indian fishing trawler St-Antony, matched ammunition and the ballistic fingerprints of automatic rifles issued to Nuclei Militari di Protezione (NPM) "team Latorre" on board the Enrica Lexie.

is quite long and convoluted (twisty). It needs either to be broken up into two sentences or significantly shortened. Since it is in the lead, the full details can be explained and sourced in the text of the article, and do not need to be presented there. --Bejnar (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Bejnar The reason the lead text has become VERY long is because of repeated text vandalism by Italian IPs who kept including POVs. See article archives and even this TALK page. Each time the lead text was appended with additional info so as to prevent POVs from being inserted into the lead and/or sub-sections.

My preference would be to shorten the lead text BUT not without taking measures to prevent the page being vandalized yet again.

91.182.230.191 (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I will second the statement by Bejnar that the lead is far too long and complex currently. It desparately wants cutting down to less detail, making clear the elements that he has outlined. If no one else does, i dare say i shall have a shot at it in a bit.

As a second point, i will point out (as has been done previously, further up the page) that what you, IP 91.182... and others above, are calling vandalism isn't; that word has a very specific meaning here, and what you are complaining about does not fit that definition. I suggest you read WP:VANDAL, and realise the mistake you have made. Two clearly defined points of view frequently each see the other's actions as vandalism; a little good faith towards the collaborators, and the article improves. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Lindsay Despite a healthy TALK page wherein controversies have been addressed and authenticated case facts and documents have been shared, we have arbitrary edits of the main text with controversial POVs and ORs. How would you qualify the recurrent edits every few months to modify the article with ORs, POVs and Controversies by Italian IPs ? Is it "Disruptive editing or stubbornness" ?

81.240.140.169 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

How i would qualify ~ i think you mean "define" ~ such edits is irrelevant. The community does not define them as "vandalism". Again, i'll refer you to WP:VANDAL; notice the third paragraph: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. That's pretty clear, don't you think?

In addition, it is on the "healthy TALK page" that these false claims of vandalism have been made, and it is here that they need to not be made again.

Thirdly, i can find unhelpful edits made by editors apparently from both sides of the dispute, so neither side is alone in using disruptive editing.

And, finally, the point of this talk page is to improve the article. Bejnar made a point about the lead, which i repeated. That is what we should be focusing on, not arguments about who is being stubborn or POV or vandals. I notice that you have made a start at reducing the lead; thank you. It looks much better. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@Lindsay Frankly, I am not interested in getting into an argument here on the definition of 'vandalism' in the global sense and here on Wikipedia. As they say here, it's "Schmilblick" of wikipedia.

I've taken a shot at the lead-text to make it as neutral as possible and avoiding all controversies. The text in each sub-section merits to be revisited : fact can be replaced by opinions as and when light is shed on verified and authenticated info that comes out of Indian and Italian official documents.

81.240.140.169 (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@All: Whilst it is true that the EDIT HISTORY of the main article shows a recurrent pattern of disruptive text contributions mostly coming from Italy based IPs, it is important to keep in mind the nature of Italian news media : they promote speculations for better audience ratings. Italian contributors should be encouraged to cross-check their information with independant/external sources. Wikipedia guidelines for content submission is useful to avoid silly time wasting by raising unnecessary controversies and speculations.

85.170.66.151 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:90.42.41.219 revert on 2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea

IP user 90.42.41.219 writes: "Removed unsubstantiated statement/interview attributed to witness" about Vice-Captain Charles Noviello statement: "I'm sure the boat that came close was not the St.Antony. They do not match some details of the vessel I have seen and what I have been shown in the picture of the officials of the Indian Merchant Navy." In a telephone conversation to Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (ANSA), he added "I remember the cabin, where there was the helm, was of a different color from what I saw later in the picture." Noviello, who was present at the time when Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone opened fire, added that "none of the people on the boat fell to the ground". The officer said that "the boat was 40-50 meters from the tanker" when he reversed course. "I saw that there were 5 or 6 people on board, but I'm not sure if it was more." The source is RAI, Italy's national public broadcasting company, owned by the Ministry of Economy and Finance [31] . Now, what is meant by "unsubstantiated" ? a) RAI Online-Editors are liars ? b) The ANSA journalist who spoke with Noviello is a liar ? c) Noviello is a liar ? I would emphasize that the Italian RAI and free networks are giving a version of the events in stark contrast with what you read in this article. We should put a section with the title "Italian version". --Robertiki (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Message to Robertiki (talk): Are you not the person who has time and again repeated that Italian news media and officials cannot be trusted and lie too easily ? You even opened a dispute with another user and vehemently stated again and again that Italian politicians and officials should not be listened to.

90.42.252.79 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this your argument ? I repeat: what is meant by "unsubstantiated" ? a) RAI Online-Editors are liars ? b) The ANSA journalist who spoke with Noviello is a liar ? c) Noviello is a liar ? I want to understand what is "substantiated". --Robertiki (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Robertiki (talk): Your contribution history shows that you are a trouble maker. I am not going to get drawn into an argument with someone who is only interested in provoking disputes through disruptive actions.

90.42.252.79 (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

First: comment on the contributions not the contributor. You are not very nice and, like 81.240.143.138, all you went very personal. "hints of racism", "LUDICROUS", "propaganda coming out of a number of Italian 'right wing' neo-fascist", "is sole intention is to disrupt the Wiki article just because he dislikes Italian politicians", "raising various stray hypothesis that are doing the rounds on conspiracy websites", And about "racism", what is "text vandalism by Italian IPs", "disruptive text contributions mostly coming from Italy based IPs" ? One Editor has explained that what you are calling vandalism isn't, read WP:VANDAL. Have a little good faith towards the collaborators. I would simply say that you have shot at a lot of people that have done editing in good faith. And last, but non least, would you give some example of "my" disruptive actions, apart my unfortunate impatience of 14-15 July 2013 ? --Robertiki (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Robertiki (talk) : Go grind your axe elsewhere ! I never said anything about vandalism or racism. LIAR is not a nice word to use ! You are the one who not only insinuated but even had unfortunate words to say that Italians are not to be trusted. So, stop using words and phrases which you don't understand the meaning.

I only said that you are disruptive (and never had any racist words against you or said that Italy/Italians were or vandals).

You are creating a bad ambiance by repeated provocations and initiation of arguments.

90.42.252.79 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that liar is not a nice word. But that is what I got first (not from you) about my comment about some italian officials. But also you are extremizing my words. I never wrote that "all" ITALIANS are not to be trusted ! And you have just insulted me: "...stop using words and phrases which you don't understand the meaning". You are putting it too personally. Have I insulted you ? And I am still waiting your position of what is "substantiated", which is all of what I am interested. Instead you are attacking me. What is your problem ? And NOW, I also am personal. --Robertiki (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Robertiki (talk) : I am not interested in any personal attack. I am only responding to your aggressiveness by pointing out your contradictory and disruptive attitude.

Can you tell me where I said "ALL" Italians could not be trusted ? Never once did I say this. You are insulting me by attributing to me things that I never said. On the contrary, it is YOU who made some outrageous claims about Italy and Italians here on this talk page.

The TG1 claim about the Vice-Captain is an interview that no one knows where it came from. We don't have the transcripts of the statement given to NIA. As you yourself said many times that Italian media cannot be trusted, I am only asking for a counter-verification of these unauthenticated interviews prior to modifying the wikipedia article.

90.42.252.79 (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You write about you: "Can you tell me where I said "ALL" Italians could not be trusted ?" My answer: never. But you wrote about me: "You are the one who not only insinuated but even had unfortunate words to say that Italians are not to be trusted." You phrasing is a generalization of my opinion that some italians ARE liars. That is what you said that I said. Therefore I replicated: "I never wrote that "all" ITALIANS are not to be trusted." So you see, I never attributed things you never said, but simply clarified my position. I hope that my patience has clarified the misunderstanding. --Robertiki (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

DUH ! This discussion is going nowhere. What a waste of time, space and bandwidth ! 90.42.252.79 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:90.42.249.104 revert on 2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea

IP user 90.42.249.104 writes: "Erroneous location info inserted by disruptive contributor (ROBERTIKI) and also without any authenticated citations)". I will "forget" his unjustified personally offensive comment (disruptive ?) and simply remark that I have not inserted any location. I have simply calculated the given position declared in article, adding the name of the nearest town on the coast: "It should be noted that the vessel position 09 20N 075 52E, is 28.2 nautical miles off the south west coast of India, or about 30 nautical miles from Alappuzha." What is my source ? Simply the following words, near the head of the same paragraph: "The Indian Directorate General of Shipping stated: "It has been reported to this Directorate that the Italian flagged MV Enrica Lexie, resorted to firing on an Indian fishing vessel in position 09 20N 075 52E (heading 345 speed 14 kts) at 1700 Hrs on 15th February 2012." and the press information [32]. I have asked to talk before undoing, it is not very constructive to do otherwise. Now, I will revert, after having explained why. Please reply here before undoing a second time. --Robertiki (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:82.122.92.147 revert on 2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea

IP 82.122.92.147 writes: "Location: If you insert new coords for shooting location you have to provide your info source failing which it will be removed (without going to TALK page for discussions) Providing verifiable sources is contributing rule for Wiki !". I have not inserted any NEW location. I have simply taken the given position declared in article, adding the name of the nearest town on the coast: "It should be noted that the vessel position 09 20N 075 52E, is 28.2 nautical miles off the south west coast of India, or about 30 nautical miles from Alappuzha." What is my source ? Simply the following words, near the head of the same paragraph: "The Indian Directorate General of Shipping stated: "It has been reported to this Directorate that the Italian flagged MV Enrica Lexie, resorted to firing on an Indian fishing vessel in position 09 20N 075 52E (heading 345 speed 14 kts) at 1700 Hrs on 15th February 2012." and the press information [33]. I have asked to talk before undoing. If it ha been I would have explained your error. Now, I will revert, after having explained why. Please reply here before undoing a second time.--Robertiki (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to redact your inclusion because the location coords have ALREADY been given many times in the article and repeating the same info for an N-th time in an already LONG LONG LONG article is unnecessary ALLTHMORE after many other users have requested that the page be reduced in size/length.

Secondly, the official statements say that the shooting occurred 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala. Only this info is pertinent as it has legal/judicial bearing on the court case and investigations. By inserting other measuring units (miles/kilometers/etc.,) into the article it only adds to the confusion. So, best to avoid mixing up NAUTICAL MILES and STANDARD MILES in this article.

Thirdly, Providing the distance of the shooting to Alappuzha or any other town/city is of no use because persons can easily find the location on internet with all the online maps. The article already containg more than sufficient location info to give readers a precise notion on where the shooting occurred.

82.122.92.147 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, the phrase "It should be noted that the vessel position 09 20N 075 52E, is 28.2 nautical miles off the south west coast of India, or about 30 nautical miles from Alappuzha." was not "giving" che location coords but is "referencing" to the location coords given in the paragraph to explain from which point the distance is calculated (albeit with wrong unit).

Secondly, in the official statement given at the end of the paragraph, that is [34], the Italian Embassy claims "... international waters about 30 nautical miles of the south west coast of India". I would say there is no agreement. And both are official positions.

I recognize the confusion with the units of measurement. I will correct giving both units to highlight possible errors to the readers. I don't agree about your insistence that only the "indian" official documents is pertinent. There is a obvious discrepancy between the given position and the distance and that is pertinent: the article is not the press office of the Indian judicial system. Providing the name of a location helps anyone wanting to personally check neutral maps. Our simple dispute is sufficient evidence that the location is all but sure. I will insert: "It should be noted that the vessel position 09 20N 075 52E, is 24.5 nautical miles (28.2 Statute miles) off the south west coast of India, or about 26 nautical miles from Alappuzha."--Robertiki (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I will not agree with reasoning logic of Robertiki who is following pattern of a disruptive user and always creating confusion on this article. The Italian Govt has accepted trial court in India to hear the case. So, I think that it best to stick to authenticated documents and statements made before a court of law rather than keep on citing statements that are made (some of which have been erroneous) to the media-press journalists. Maybe some other users with more experience on dealing with disruption can comment.here.85.170.66.151 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

IP User talk:85.170.66.151 Reverted multiple revisions/deletions made by Robertiki

IP User talk:85.170.66.151 writes: "Reverted multiple revisions/deletions made by Robertiki to version of 09:02, 28 August 2013" without acknowledging the arguments given (apart for replacing "shrapnel" with "fragments").

Indian Coast Guard interception: "However, transcripts submitted to court authorities by the Indian Coast Guard showed that the Enrica Lexie initially refused to comply and only changed course after being forced by Indian naval authorities." has no source or reference therefore it is POV.

Stand-off: "Keeping in mind the wider economic consequences of any dispute with India, the European Union asked Italy in strong words to do the "right things" and send back the marines to India." The source [35] wording is: "But, European Union too was following the issue closely, and had asked Italy in strong words to do the "right things" and send back the marines to India." 1) "Keeping in mind the wider economic consequences" is not present in the source therefore it is POV. 2) "European Union" is generic: the poster "Maitreyee" gives no name, no source, and doesn't cite nothing of the wording of the "strong words" that could be used to do some searching. Sorry, but it is POV. Also your rewriting: "the European Union urged Italy and India to resolve the dispute within the framework of international laws" has no reference and anyway contradicts the source given, which uses "stronger" meanings. I am really interested to know who in the European Union organization asked Italy in "strong words" to send back the marines to India (no pun intended, no controversy). --Robertiki (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I can only say that this article must be checked and re-checked constantly for POVs and incorrect article sources. I rephrased one part to tone-down the rhetoric but apparently it is inconsistent with the article source (which I usually do but did not have time to consult on this specific occasion). The rechecking of the article is very time consuming and I wish that some-persons can team-up to do it collectively.

Robertiki: Your rude denigration of Italy in earlier posts and is an insult to Italy. Your incessant disruptive edits to the article time and again to introduce confusing text & controversial POVs portrays you in a poor light as an untrustworthy contributor.85.170.66.151 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It is true what you say about the many POVs and incorrect article sources and about the time consuming need to check fully the article (that looks very India-sided). The article is simply a disaster, I suppose because many italians don't know english or simply are not interested about what happens out their country. The few lines I have edited are "a drop in the ocean" of what would have to be done, and have costed me a lot of time on disputes.

About my supposedly denigration of Italy, should I understand that may edits pose Italy in a bad light ?

Who is opening one talk section's after the other to recheck and explain the reasons and reach a compromise ? It is more time consuming then simply reverting the works of others. May be we had a bad start, but now your's is simply prevention. --Robertiki (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Disputing news that the Indian Coast Guard intercepted and forced Enrica Lexie to Kochi port

All references about the Enrica Lexie being intercepted and *forced* to Kochi port will be deleted if there are no given sources. The most critical phrasing is "Only after interception in the area east of Kalpeni & Minicoy islands in the Lakshadweep archipelago and being forced to proceed to Kochi port by the Indian Coast Guard". I have found references only in blogs citing Wikipedia (self-referencing ?). --Robertiki (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No reaction ? All right, starting. --Robertiki (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a surprising allegation. Start by looking at the referenced court documents and also by getting yourself acquainted with geography. The interception happened EAST of those islands. Just take a look on any map and check the location of the incident (both shooting and the interception) and it is plain to conclude that the entire event occurred IN-BETWEEN the Indian mainland and the Kalpeni & Minicoy islands in the Lakshadweep archipelago of India.

Context of the 'interception' is adequately referenced in various prominent media articles [36].

91.182.250.155 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you give here the link to the specific source which describes the action of the Indian Coast Guard forcing Enrica Lexie to reverse its course by use of force? And what the heck does have the geography to do with the thesis of the Indian Coast Guard interception ? I don't see any logic. Please explain. --Robertiki (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Duh ! Do your homework. Check past archives of this talk page and also look through the court documents that are referenced on both the talk page and the main article itself. 91.182.250.155 (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked because I am can't find any. If you add information to an article, you should include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal. I am asking an inline citation so that other editors and readers can verify the information you add. Also, I ask that the source you use is trustworthy. If you have no citations, I will delete any reference about the Enrica Lexie being intercepted and *forced* to Kochi port. It may help you reading a tutorial like [37] --Robertiki (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You have not read the court documents thoroughly because within them it is stated that the Indian maritime authorities took steps to oblige the Enrica Lexie to head for Kochi port. These document references are provided within the main article as well as in this talk page.

On a side note, I have not made any claim on ownership of the text in the article. Looking at your past edit history I can see that you have been involved in several disruptions/manipulations of the text of this article. I will remain vigilant in trying to prevent disruption of the text which seems to be a recurrent pass-time from Italian origin IPs. 91.182.250.155 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This should settle the matter once and for all : [38] It is the resignation speech by former-FM Terzi at the Italian Parliament clearly states that Indian authorities obliged/forced/ordered the ship to (Indian) port by saying "On February 15th, 2012, at 3 pm Italian time, the Indian authorities asked Enrica Lexie‘s captain to invert his course, get out of international waters and head towards the Cochin Port".91.182.250.155 (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't insert new points out of order in the thread, it confuses me. About [39] I read: "Following the incident, the Indian coastguard sent two boats and an aircraft to intercept the ship" which says nothing about the timing of the encounter; was the Enrica Lexie almost at Kochi (as I understand) or the Indian boats "catched" the Enrica Lexie escaping away ? I don't read of the Indian boats "forcing" back the Italian ship. About the court documents, could you give me the document identification, page and a link ? About "several disruptions/manipulation": please be gentle; you are mistaking me for someone else, or you are not simply accepting different views. I'm not making wildly corrections, but rather discussing on the appropriate page to explain the reasons and find a compromise. About your "vigilancy", don't you think that your referencing it, is a bit 'intimidating ? About Italian origin IPs disruptions and manipulations, the problem could be with the news given locally: when there is a dispute that involves different countries it is possible that the citizens of each country receive different information. What is happening shows that an international court should judge. About [40] I read: "On February 15th, 2012, at 3 pm Italian time, the Indian authorities asked Enrica Lexie‘s captain to invert his course, get out of international waters and head towards the Cochin Port. They claimed some piracy suspects had been arrested and cooperation was needed in order to identify them." These are the events that made Mr. Terzi say that the Italians where lured to Kochi, NOT intercepted. Follows: "Then, armed policemen climbed on board and forced the marines to go ashore and submit to the local authorities." That event happened once the ship was docked at Kochi. I would highlight that if the Indian Coast Guard had really hunted ad intercepted the Enrica Lexie escaping away in international waters it would had been an ... act of piratery (pun intended :-). Instead the Indian police boarded the Enrica Lexie at Kochi, in Indian Territory, which, as unpleasant how it has been to the Italians, is a legitimate action from the Indian side. Until now, I did not realize that you changed the title, which is distorting the subject that I'm disputing. I'm disputing that there are reputable sources of information about an alleged interception and FORCING the ship to return to India, and not the "position". So respect the title I am giving to the section; this is the Talk page, not the Article page. --Robertiki (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

IP User talk:109.128.170.103 Reverted Olympic Flair mention

About the following sentence: "Our waters are not piracy waters, they are fishing waters. We have not witnessed any piracy incident in Indian waters for a long period" I feel that there should be a mention about the Olyimpic Flair incident in the same waters, the same day. I have simply sourced an official document [[41]] of the International Maritime Organization, here follows the sentence I added: The same day the Olympic Flair, reported a boarding attempt to the Kochi Port Authority, stating: "About 20 robbers in two boats approached the anchored tanker and attempted to board. The lookout crew noticed the robbers, raised the alarm and crew mustered. The robbers aborted the attack on seeing the crew's alertness and moved away. IP User talk:109.128.170.103 would explain why he feels to revert that editing ? Thanks. --Robertiki (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

We already had this discussion here on this very TALK page last year (refer back to this TALK page archives) and you were also a participant to the discussion if I remember correctly. It was concluded that the OLYMPIC FLAIR info is 'speculative' with reference to the ENRICA LEXIE incident because there is absolutely no reference to the ship name and also the Greek shipping syndicate/owners issued a press statement that there was ABSOLUTELY no piracy attack on any of their ships (including the Olympic Flair). 91.182.250.155 (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your answer has no reference to the new editing. Here we have a Indian Official that states bluntly: "We have not witnessed any piracy incident in Indian waters for a long period." Point. I therefore feel we must point out that on the same day there was a second vessel involved in what looks like a piracy attack. In this editing I did not put any implication that the two events are related. --Robertiki (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You said "I did not put any implication that the two events are related". Wikipedia rules state that 'info' which is not connected directly to an event/incident is irrelevant to the Wikipedia article. There is therefore no reason to include in the Wikipedia article a non-related piece of controversial hypothesis in the wikipedia article about the Enrica Lexie incident involving the Italian Navy marines of the San Marco brigade. 91.182.250.155 (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No mediation or compromise ? Is your last word ? Looks like we can't agree ? --Robertiki (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hint: if you two cannot find an agreement, you can always revert to Wikipedia dispute resolutions techniques. Since this dispute involves just two editors, I would suggest the Third opinion. 93.144.90.125 (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

HINT : Any attempt to re-include the Olympic Flair controversy will be met by a challenge using the same arguments that were made several times in the past on this talk page. So, any third opinion giver is advised to thoroughly familiarise himself/herself with the past issues that have been raised to this effect and also understand that this is a controversial line that is repeatedly peddled by Italian editors/contributors. 109.134.121.9 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of Baroness Ashton's February 14 statements.

Dear editor 109.134.121.228, I read your remarks on this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2012_Italian_Navy_Marines_shooting_incident_in_the_Laccadive_Sea&diff=595429540&oldid=595417865 unfortunately I am too busy at work now for a full reply/explanation. I therefore will provide it tomorrow or aft tomorrow. Regards 93.144.90.125 (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well 109.134.121.228, you put a request of citation such as follows:

Citation needed|reason=There is no proof anywhere to validate the ANSA journalist's claim that Baroness Ashton has endorsed the view that Italy equated as a terrorist State by India

referring to an ANSA journalist question such as:

Q: Secretary General, as you know, two Italian marines are held in India since two years. And they are prosecuted under the anti-piracy and anti-terrorism law, according to Lady Ashton and the Italian Foreign Minister Bonino, this implies that Italy is a terrorist state

On this regard we may observe that:

1. Lady Ashton words reportedly were: What's concerning me most is that the legislation that appears to be being used is about terrorism suggests somehow this is about terrorism. And this has enormous implications for Italy but also enormous implications for all countries engaged in activities that are antipiracy. In my understanding it equates to say that the application of that law may or may not imply that India considers Italy to be a terrorist state. However, just the same suspect it could be the case is a severe problem per se.
2. Mr. Rasmussen reportedly said I'm also concerned by the suggestion that they could be tried for terrorism offences.
   . Please notice that the Secretary General's wording echoes that of Lady Ashton rather than the journalist's ("suggests"/"suggestion")
   
3. Just to think that Mr. Rasmussen could have not known of the facts prima facie and could have been mislead by the journalist wording is naive at best. Rasmussen is a world class statesman, and for sure the Italian representatives at NATO had briefed (not to say pressured, or lobbied) him many times.
   
4. The journalist is just that, a journalist, so he/she acts as a journalist and tends to simplify statements for better understanding of large audiences, even at the risk of oversimplifying. He/she is not a lawier, nor a diplomat, nor a politician ... and not even a Wikipedia contributor, so he/she is not concerned with these latter categories rules, codes and practices.
   
5. ANSA is a large and renowned press agency, so it can certainly be considered a validated source in wikipedian terms. Indian sources frequently quote ANSA, by the way, e.g here [42] and here [43]
   
6. the Interpretation of Lady Ashton words as supportive of the Italian position is quite widespread. We can infer it by reading articles from Italian, Indian and other countries' news, such as:
   

-«"It means Italy would be seen as a terrorist state and this is unacceptable," said Catherine Ashton» [44]
-"EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton noted the EU's concern that the Indian government would try the marines under an antipiracy law, the officials said." [45]
-«The EU needs to send a "strong message" to India as the trial of two Italian marines for the killing of two Indian fishermen has "huge implications" for Europe's fight against piracy, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has said.»[46]
-"On Monday, the EU added its voice to concern about use of the marine security law to try the two." [47]

In conclusion, the a/m news citations could be the sources to cite to support the ANSA journalist affirming that Lady Ashton words have been largely interpretated that way; or, alternatively, the journalist question can be dropped from the article, leaving just Mr. Rasmussen reply.
Regards

93.144.65.119 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If no comment will be presented by tomorrow, I modify the article accordingly. Regards

93.144.92.227 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this what you call proof to back-up your claim that the EUHRVP (Catherine Ashton) has stated that India, by evoking SUA laws, has equated Italy a terrorist State ? Duh !

Before you start editing the article with text to this effect, you need to demonstrate (by means of verifiable official public statement by any one of the EC/EP principles (president of European Commission or president of European Parliament or the EUHRVP) which states that the EU believes that India has treated Italy as a terrorist state.

In fact, all that I can see is that the only things that the EU has systematically asked for with relation to the Italian marines shooting case is for the legal case to be resolved in India (1) rapidly (2) within international law & UNCLOS and (3) in a manner that is agreeable to both Indian & Italy.

The EU has expressed 'worry' that the Italian marines case might be prosecuted by India under SUA anti-piracy laws as in that case it it will have consequences for EU anti-piracy missions world-wide.

There is nothing to support any other 'hypothetical' and 'controversial' claims as are being made/circulated in Italian media. The Italian media has no credibility because what they claim is false. We can see that the Italian media claims are untrue by simply checking the original transcripts of EUHRVP statements made to the EU Foreign Affairs Council and also at the press conference. FYI, you can find the transcripts of ALL utterances of the EUHRVP on the EEAS website.

Therefore, I endorse the reason provided in the citation required (ie: "There is no proof anywhere to validate the ANSA journalist's claim that Baroness Ashton has endorsed the view that Italy equated as a terrorist State by India") and hold that there is no reason to believe that the concerns have been settled.

109.134.121.9 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ehm, I am not sure about what your both are debating, but Europeonline Magazine states "Rome has protested that pressing piracy charges would amount to treating Italy as a "terrorist state." EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen have expressed similar concerns." You may hardly define europeonline as "Italian media". And Wall Street Journal states: "EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton noted the EU's concern that the Indian government would try the marines under an antipiracy law, the officials said. Baroness Ashton said she had raised the issue with Indian authorities "many, many times," most recently less than two weeks ago. "What's concerning me most is that the legislation that appears to be being used is about terrorism suggests somehow this is about terrorism. And this has enormous implications for Italy but also enormous implications for all countries engaged in activities that are antipiracy." And what are the implications, if not that is paramount of defining Italy under a terrorist law ? And more: "She said colleagues "need to now be very concerned because it changes the nature of things." Which nature of things changes ? --Robertiki (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

what Robertiki says, plus reference to real Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Quoting:

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone; although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.

As a consequence, stances the likes of: "The Italian media has no credibility because what they claim is false." have no space on Wikipedia. Moreover, since this incident and its interpretation are deeply polarized, both the Italian and the Indian perspectives must be present in the article, avoiding loaded language to promote one position over another. 93.144.92.227 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that you don't comprehend simple logic or are being stubborn in refusing to comprehend the simple facts which are as follows (1) Irrespective of the claims by any media, the fundamental and only relevant fact remains that there is no proof whatsoever of the EUHRVP having uttered any statement at any-time wherein she has said that India has equated Italy to a terrorist State. (2) Since any and all utterances made by any of the 'principals' of the EU/EC/EEAS are documented and transcripts provided on the relevant EUROPA.EU websites, only that can be considered irrefutable proof and that too from an authenticated source. (3) Other alleged utterances and statements, especially if it cannot be cross-verified or which induce controversy, can only raise doubt and therefore be questioned and require further clarification and proof for the citation.

Personal interpretations of A+B=C type of conclusions are irrelevant on Wikipedia. Because, personal interpretations (of either journalists and/or others) remain as interpretations of what Catherine Ashton is supposed to have uttered. These interpretations cannot be considered as equivalent to a statement of opinion expressed by Catherine Ashton.

To conclude, I reiterate that Catherine Ashton said that she 'is starting be become concerned' because the Indian laws that 'appear to have been evoked' might make this incident appear to be something that relates to 'terrorism'. This is very very far from the spin that the ANSA journalist introduced (during the Rasmussen interview at NATO) by claiming that the EUHRVP Catherine Ashton said that India has equated Italy to a terrorist State.

This episode has demonstrated the total lack of professionalism by Italian journalists and good-faith by Italian politicians and diplomats. It is really not surprising that the journalists and bureaucracy act in the same intimidating manner as the public who had only recently sent a live bullet to the Indian Embassy in Rome. This speaks a lot for itself ! Only in a mafia State does one receive bullets in the mail.

109.134.121.9 (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It can be as you say; anyway the ANSA journalist is not required to apply wikimedia policies. We are. So I again propose to remove all useless re ferences to the ANSA Journalist and live Rasmussen statements only. 93.144.92.227 (talk) 10:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely No ! You cannot simply allow the Rasmussen statement to remain without context in which his statement was made. Rasmussen was lead to believe that Catherine Ashton endorsed Italy's claim that India had equated Italy to a terrorist State. Therefore, it is only fair to leave both the question of the ANSA journalist and the answer made by Rasmussen (who may either by simple ignorance of the reality of what Catherine Ashton had said, or by a simple and pure error) gave his 'personal' opinion on the matter. The ANSA journalist's low standards of professionalism can be seen by simple cross-verification against all the transcripts that are already in the public domain and freely available on EEAS and EC/EP websites.

How not to consider this a calculated 'trick' on the part of the ANSA journalist when you can see from the transcripts that the journalist was 'called out' by name to ask her question which NATO website transcripts show that there was only a single question and that too out of context that was allowed to be asked that day in the course of the joint press-conference with a head of State who was visiting NATO ? (See NATO website for details)

God bless European freedom of information and transparency rules in place here in Europe. It allows the common citizen verify the context and actual utterances made by politicians & bureaucrats and holds them all accountable. Viva Europa.eu and Nato.int websites.

109.134.121.9 (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Rasmussen was lead to believe that Catherine Ashton endorsed Italy's claim that India had equated Italy to a terrorist State"?!? I already answered to that line of thought (self-quotation):

• Mr. Rasmussen reportedly said I'm also concerned by the suggestion that they could be tried for terrorism offences.
  . Please notice that the Secretary General's wording echoes that of Lady Ashton rather than the journalist's ("suggests"/"suggestion")
  
• Just to think that Mr. Rasmussen could have not known of the facts prima facie and could have been mislead by the journalist wording is naive at best. Rasmussen is a world class statesman, and for sure the Italian representatives at NATO had briefed (not to say pressured, or lobbied) him many times.
  

However I see now we are not likely to resolve this dispute by ourselves, so I am going to try some of the Wikipedia controversy resolution techniques.93.144.92.227 (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

<br\>

Done,here :The Italian marines incident or how to correctly apply NPOV police in an article about a per se controversial fact -- LNCSRG (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I invite all persons who intervene in this matter to take time to view the history of the repeated attempts (by the usual users with IPs originating in Italy : LNCSRG, Robertiki, etc,.) to include controversial issues and hypothesis to the wikipedia article regarding the Italian marines. These users have a history of repeated edit wars on this article. Please consult the archives of this page for further proof and a back-ground of their past unsuccessful attempts to tweak the article and include hypothesis that are controversial and not even backed up by the Italian government during their submissions to the court in India.

I also invite the users to check for themselves (on the websites of the press-office of NATO and EEAS) about the statements made by Catherine Ashton and also the question-answer at NATO which lead Rasmussen to be mislead into providing a personsal opinion based on a calculated/erroneous allegation made by an Italian journalist.

It is best to leave the entire Rasmussen Q&A in the article (with the note to point out that Rasmussen was presented a 'trick' question which included a totally wrong 'fact') to demonstrate the type of intimidation and propaganda that the Italian journalists have been resorting to over the past 2 years in relation to this incident.

I am not 'defending' India. I am just appalled by the lies that Italian journalists have been publishing for domestic consumption under the guise of journalism. A simple glance of the edit history of the article shows how Italy-based contributors are regularly trying to include controversies into the article even though one of these controversies are defended in a court of law by even the Italian Government. Italian media is totally discredited as a consequence of the misquotations and for publishing controversies that even their own Government and legal team in India is not buying !

My request to Italian contributors is to stop their intimidation which only shows poorly on their country and which can have the unwanted consequence of dragging entire Europe into an unnecessary dispute with India because of controversial/hypothetical reporting. It is evident that in Europe (with exception of Italy) the general public there is no appetite for a dispute with India nor sympathy for the Italian marines who (lest one forget) at the very least failed to follow Italian military guidelines on the dispersal and use of fire-arms according to the little that the Italian investigators have made public.

If you want to go on with controversial hypothesis, please create your own blogs and publish whatever propaganda that you want. Here on Wikipedia all that interests us is the 'facts' and not in lending credence to tricks played by journalists, bureaucrats and politicians (both in India and in Italy) in an effort to manipulate public opinion.

91.182.119.236 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Intimidation"?!? What are you talking about? I cannot see any contributor here trying to intimidate anybody. For sure I have no "intimidation" in my mind. Perish the thought. And how could wikipedia contributors drag "entire Europe into a dispute with India"?! Please cool down, we are just trying to add a small contribution to an on-line encyclopedia. LNCSRG (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

'Intimidation' in Italy appears to start only when bullets appear in the mail-box. Sorry, we here in Northern Europe are more easily fluttered.

Repetitive attempts to include controversies, and thereafter wasting everyone's time by going to dispute resolution, is nothing short of recurrent intimidation. As can be seen in the archives of this talk page, on many occasions discussions/disputes were initiated by users going by the handle "LNCSRG", "Robertiki", "I dream of horses", etc.,

For the record, let me highlight that every single previous attempt by Italian contributors to include speculative content into this article has been rejected at the dispute resolution level after review by wikipedia arbitrators/administrators.

Kindly stop wasting our time and energy for the N-th time because the outcome is going to fail in the same manner as the past attempts : controversies and speculative hypothesis will not find/gain traction.

91.182.119.236 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is not intimidation, what you call controversies are on all news here in Italy -- which does not mean they are necessarily true, but I think they would deserve some mention. If you could read Italian you would see that this same article on the Italian language wikipedia is mostly based upon them. In fact I (and I guess the other Italian contributors) are quite puzzled when seeing a completely different narrative here and in our language wiki.

As to previous "attempt by Italian contributors to include speculative content into this article has been rejected at the dispute resolution level after review by wikipedia arbitrators/administrators", I honestly am not aware of a single case that went this way.

If you are so confident, please wait with calm and we will see, OK? have a good night 93.144.92.227 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC) PS I am the same person as LNCSRG, no trick, it's just I am at a different PC now and I do not remember my password. Bye again

2nd PS -- of course I do not condone menacing letters and such. Keep your blood cool, Northerner. 93.144.92.227 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It will save us time if you could kindly make yourself aware of the past arbitration decisions regarding controversies and speculations by checking the archives of this talk page. Thank you. 91.182.119.236 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, ArbCom has never heard a case (or even case request) concerning the events described in this article, although it's entirely possible arbitrators may have decided to get involved in their capacity as editors or administrators. That said, discretionary sanctions have been authorised for all articles about India, cf. WP:ARBIPA. If, on the other hand, you're using the term "arbitration" to refer to other methods of dispute resolution, then I can only point to consensus can change. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio : Just thought that I'd share a few comments regarding your posting :

1/ FYI ArbCom falls under dispute resolution procedures. This article has undergone dispute resolution cycles and just to take a couple of examples (I am not going to list all of them and waste time & bandwidth), please refer to this ROBERTIKI's contrib history [48] and you will see therein submissions made by this user at dispute resolution noticeboard. I am sure you can search and find other instances and other users who have resorted to disruptive edits and misuse of dispute resolution procedures as per WP:BRDWRONG.

2/ On your user-page you define yourself as "editor, an administrator and, currently, an arbitrator here on Wikipedia". You should therefore know that your suggestion of discretionary sanctions have been authorised for all articles about India, Pakistan & Afghanistan, cf. WP:ARBIPA is patently misleading because it is a half-truth. Kindly refer to the recommendations and rules defining discretionary sanctions detailing the context, circumstances and procedures under which they are supposed to be used. You will notice that these discretionary sanctions were discussed and agreed-upon as a means to end edit-wars for India-Pakistan disputes. Kindly make yourself well aware of the guidance for the use of the unilateral discretionary sanctions viz India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries at WP:AC/DS.

3/ Being Italian yourself, has it occurred to you that you expose yourself to scrutiny for these comments that can be perceived as being biased & and even bordering intimidation (since you are speaking/suggesting an escalation with unilateral sanctions so early-on in an on-discussion) against regular recommendations of dispute resolution & WP:AE ?

81.240.144.24 (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

81.240.144.24, quite frankly, there are users editing this article who are exhibiting what I consider signs of POV-pushing and, so, the use of WP:DR is, in my opinion, a good thing which should be encouraged. And that's also the reason why I thought it necessary to make editors here aware of WP:ARBIPA – which, by the way, you're construing in a wrong manner. The remedy in question textually states Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed; as you can see, no mention is made of any conflict between Pakistan and India, but rather to all pages related to one of the tree countries. I used it once to sanction an editor who was disrupting articles about castes, for instance, and nobody found a reason to complain. Not that I like argumenta ex auctoritate, but, since you yourself have mentioned my being an arbitrator, I can guarantee you that discretionary sanctions do indeed apply to this article.

Finally, I have never expressed any opinion concerning this incident and am, technically speaking, uninvolved. The argument that I may be biased merely as a result of my nationality is an argument which has not flown in the past (some editors raised the very same argument wrt another administrator at the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, for instance) and is not likely to fly now. Finally, concerning the possible intimidatory effect, don't worry: if you don't make disruptive edits, you have nothing to fear. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@All: Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has clearly spelt guidelines and safeguards to be followed by all administrators/arbitrators in the event of Discretionary sanctions. Strict compliance by administrators to a codified set of rules must be adhered to.

Administrators using [49] on the discretionary sanctions page are informed that : the contents of this page and other relevant sources constitute authoritative guidance to administrators on the use of discretionary sanctions. Of particular importance are Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions. and an appeals process Notices of imposed sanctions should specify the misconduct for which they have been imposed as well as the appeal process wherein Discretionary sanctions have an established and clearly defined appeal process, which must be adhered to

I am very curious to see if this "Baroness Ashton 14-Feb statement" and/or the "Jaideep A. Prabhu" text revert inclusions (which by the way have been explained all along) could warrant such an extreme step. The very severe step of an unilateral Discretionary sanctions is usually reserved for vandalisation/disruption edit-wars of a much much greater seriousness.

@Salvio: My compliments for that nice collection of ribbons and medals on your profile page. You can give pompously decked Soviet Generalissimo a decent run for their money hi hi hi. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I echo the observation made by "Luke Warmwater101" on the The Italian marines incident or how to correctly apply NPOV police in an article about a per se controversial fact page : this entire discussion centred on the possibility of anti-piracy laws of SUA being evoked is stale because India has stated that the marines will not be charged under 'piracy' legislation of SUA.

As rightly pointed out on the The Italian marines incident or how to correctly apply NPOV police in an article about a per se controversial fact page by both "Luke Warmwater101" and "Ravensfire", the article is already 'cumbersome'. Therefore, there is no point in including repeats of info.

I fully agree with both "Luke Warmwater101" and "Ravensfire" that the article can be cropped in many sections where information has gone into a level of detail that is disorienting at times. The level of detail is alike a 'blow by blow' newspaper style coverage.

Looking at the archives, it is clear that the reason why the primary sources (court documents) were placed in the article : This was because of biased, controversial and patently false facts being included into the article. Therefore, by providing links to the original and authenticated sources of court proceedings (to which both the Indian and Italian Governments are participating and where their statements and positions are clearly recorded), there has been less scope for getting into needless controversies.

Archives show that this article has been the object of repeated discussions to try to gain traction to include controversial hypothesis (Greek ship, Soviet ballistics, etc.,).

The article has undergone dispute resolution procedures/challenges and has survived repeated edit-wars and vandalism to only reflect facts that have been authenticated and submitted within the investigative and court/legal proceedings in India and Italy.

Blatant misuse of dispute resolution procedures is time-wasting and does not do justice to the efforts made by contributors to keep the article as neutral as possible and inline with stated perspectives of the legal representatives of Italian and Indian authorities who are facing-off at the Indian Courts.

81.240.144.24 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

1. I too agree about the need to reduce the article size, and in particular the proposal to "significantly prune" the court proceeding paragraph and move the primary sources links to the bottom under "External Links". Would you like to do so, or would you prefer me to do it?
2. please notice this part of Luke Warmwater101 reply:

As for eliminating sources because of the belief that the journalists are not credible, that is POV and is unacceptable. The only relevant issue is whether the source is reliable, as per WP:NOR and if there are doubts about ANSA as a source, a posting should be made to the RS noticeboard. :In general keep in mind that per WP:NONENG English language sources should be given preference over non English ones. The editor's personal belief that the journalists should not be trusted is not relevant.

1. What misuse are you talking about? With all due respect, it is obvious that you and me have different opinions about this incident. Since it is very difficult for me to convince you and for you to convince me, recommended practice on Wikipedia is to attract other contributor attention in order to obtain their "fresh" opinion and resolve the deadlock.

Ciao LNCSRG (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for the removal of Jaideep A. Prabhu remarks in public opinion section

• 1/ The text cites an essay that is written by a "doctoral student in History at Vanderbilt University" as per the author's own bio which is included at the end of the article. A student's essay which is taken-up by news wires is hardly a 'expert-level' opinionated piece which can be cited as an authoritative work from a domain specialist.
• 2/ The UPA Govt has drawn severe criticism within India from political and civil society for it's handling of the Italian Marines case. This has already been mentioned in the article elsewhere at several places. Therefore, the redaction of a repeat/redundant text submitted by "LNCSRG".
• 3/ Robertiki and LNCSRG participated in a discussion on The Italian marines incident or how to correctly apply NPOV police in an article about a per se controversial fact page where-in they were made aware by both "Luke Warmwater101" and "Ravensfire" that the article is already 'cumbersome' and that the level of detail probably needed to be trimmed/curtailed. As a consequence, there is no point in making edits relating to a topic/issue that is already been covered in the article.

81.240.144.24 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

1. well this student "also holds an undergraduate degree in Engineering from the same university and a Master’s from the George Washington University." and he "was a member of the SHAFR Governing Council from 2008-2011 and has also written for several periodicals such as Daily News & Analysis, the Economic Times, Fair Observer, First Post, Rediff, and Tehelka. He has also appeared on Indian national television on matters concerning nuclear and foreign policy."[50] However, if you think you can find better sources expressing similar views, you are welcome.
2. yes, however criticism is not only toward UPA (an Indian political parties coalition) but towards all Indian management of this incident, including diplomacy, judiciary etc.. May you please show me where this is already mentioned in the article?
3. yes, the article needs to be reduced and made more fluent, I agree. However this is to be donewhile maintaining the balance between the two sides of the dispute. You cannot delete only criticism to India while leaving whole paragraphs where Italy is criticized, like the one beginning with:
   "Italy

In Italy, the humiliating volte-face was perceived as a distressing foreign policy mess leading to an embarrassing climbdown...."

Regards - LNCSRG (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@LNCSRG (see also [51]) : Jaideep A.Prabhu is currently a doctoral student in History at Vanderbilt University. Whereas, the subject matter of this article deals with the fields of maritime law and international relations where-in academic credentials and expertise of Jaideep A.Prabhu in are neither noteworthy nor significant. Jaideep A.Prabhu qualifications as an engineer are not relevant to this article because this article does not deal with an engineering subject matter.

Bear in mind that it is incumbent on contributors of text submissions to make a case and defend a text in the event of a challenge.

In this instance, there are two reasons given for the deletion : (A) that the information is not noteworthy of inclusion (B) that the cited source albeit reproduced by news-media, is an essay by a doctoral student in history without domain expertise in the subject matter. Either of these reasons has merit, independently, to warrant deletion of the text until the stated concerns are addressed/defended adequately in line with Wikipedia rules for content contributions.

Viz your comment regarding the phrase "In Italy, the humiliating volte-face was perceived as a distressing foreign policy mess leading to an embarrassing climbdown....". After checking the source citation of this phrase, it is evident that the sentence has been compiled from a Wall Street Journal [52] article written by Italian journalist Margherita Stancati who captured Italian public sentiment of the time by drawing from editorials from prominent Italian newspapers. The article is neither controversial nor from a questionable newspaper media agency. It conforms to WP:VERIFY, WP:NONENG, WP:NOR & WP:USEPRIMARY. Also, most of the wording used is exactly the same as the ones which appeared in the cited Italian-language news articles. Hence, the phrase has the merit to remain on the article and bears no relation to the text inclusion by LNCSRG of an opinionated essay by the doctoral student Jaideep A.Prabhu.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with Stancati's article, it is good one and what she reports is true. My point is about NPOV and hence balance at reporting all the significant viewpoints. This means that also critics towards India are to be reported. I agree that Mr. Prabhu engineering degree is immaterial here, but you seem to have missed he "was a member of the SHAFR Governing Council from 2008-2011 and has also written for several periodicals such as Daily News & Analysis, the Economic Times, Fair Observer, First Post, Rediff, and Tehelka. He has also appeared on Indian national television on matters concerning nuclear and foreign policy."
However no problem, there are plenty of other sources criticizing India about this incident. Here the few I found with a 10 minutes google research, while purposely excluding the Italian ones:

• '"Justice delayed is justice denied. The Indian government should act fast. Still, we have not decided on what charges should we book them. This is why Italy is criticising us, acting tough and putting pressure on us through global bodies," T. P. Sreenivasan, a former diplomat, who was posted thrice in the US, told Times of Oman.'[53]
  
• "Indian courts are legendary for delays. Legal cases drag for years. Sometimes, the petitioners die before a case is decided. Sometimes, the suspects. So, it comes as no surprise that the two Italian marines, Massimiliano Latorre and Salvatore Girone — who were arrested off the Kerala coast two years ago after they had shot dead two poor fishermen – are still under detention in India, with their cases progressing very very slowly." "Italy’s new Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, has said that the marines’ case will be his priority. But with India and its political parties tied down to the upcoming elections, the case may not be decided so quickly." and, quoting Prabhu without mentioning his name:
  

"As one writer boldly put it, the Indian legal system has been made to look like a clown on an international stage."[54]

• "If you want to know how to win a minor skirmish and then lose the war, especially a perception war, the case of the Italian marines who shot two fishermen off Keralas coast in February 2012 should be Exhibit A.P Chidambaram may deny any policy paralysis, but the legal organs of the Indian state have exhibited extreme cases of paralysis in deciding the simple issue of framing charges against the two marines - Massimilliano Lattore and Salvatore Girone who are being charged under the anti-piracy law." "it is now difficult to deny Italian Foreign Minister Emma Boninos charge that the Indian authorities and the judiciary have exhibited a manifest inability to handle the case sensibly.The two Italian marines have been charged under a stringent anti-piracy law when it should have been obvious to anyone that the marines cant be called pirates. At best, we can accuse them of careless shooting resulting in murder, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The reason why the case in being tried here is because our fishermen were involved close to our waters - and India is the closest place to try the marines.Why cant we get a simple open-and-shut case to trial and closure within two years?So, when the Indian ambassador in Rome is called by their foreign ministry and given a dressing down for the inordinate delay in the trial, which shows an Indian desire to draw out the affair beyond all limits, one can only hang our heads in shame. " 'The London-based International Arbitration Tribunal (IAT) ordered India to pay the Australian company, White Industries, around Rs 50 crore, but, as we noted at that time, the harshest indictment by the tribunal relates not to the dispute itself but the Indian legal system.The tribunal flayed "the Indian judicial system's inability to deal with the issue in over nine years and the Supreme Court's inability to hear the appeal for over five years" and concluded that this "amounts to undue delay and constitutes a breach of India's obligation" under the Indo-Australia Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).If the government of India and the Supreme Court do not get their act together, India is setting itself up for another embarrassing put-down at some international forum shortly.'

[55]

Finally my favorite, from The Hindu:

• "It is just as well that India has dropped a plan to prosecute two Italian marines accused of killing two Indian fishermen under a tough anti-piracy law. Better late than never. But the Indian government needlessly put everyone, including itself, through the wringer, botching up ties with Italy, if not the European Union. Italy last week withdrew its Ambassador as a result of the recent turn of events. That was perhaps the wake-up call." and " Italy wanted to try them under their laws, but India insisted on holding their trial here, and seems keen to prosecute them under – believe it or not-- our terror law. Now, this is just an accident. The marines mistook them for pirates, probably Somalian, and took their lives. The Italian government paid a compensation of Rs 1 crore to the families of the fishermen. Still, we insist on going over the top. This sort of jingoism does our world stature no good at all.

And, what’s more, such accidents are nothing out of the ordinary. A fortnight after the killing of the two fishermen, a Singapore flag-bearing ship owned by an NRI group rammed a fishing boat in the same waters, killing five fishermen. The incident was quietly buried and it's not known if, and to what extent, the victims' families were compensated. A few years earlier, a Chinese trawler involved in a similar incident off the Kerala coast was let off after payment of Rs 5 lakh as compensation. Then why this special treatment to the Italians? Even if we do not read too much politics into it, what is obvious is that the bureaucracies at the Ministries of Home, Defence and External Affairs have not worked in tandem and thought through the implications of their actions. But, such obduracy in international matters does the country no good. India was vociferous about the ill-treatment of one of its diplomats in the US recently, risking its ties even here. We must act with more restraint." [56]

LNCSRG (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@LNCSRG (talk) : You really need to calm down. Through your comments you come across as very excitable with fiercely nationalist bias about the contents of this article.

Let me calmly tell you that I am neither concerned by India or Italy. I do know that the Italian language wikipedia article is very hypothesis and controversy oriented. I can even to a certain point understand that this is the result of nationalist sentiments linked to unhappiness of Italians about the poor performance of the constantly changing political class in their country.

That said, here on the english language version of the wikipedia article, a great deal has been done (through repeated discussions here on the talk page) to present genuine and authentic facts which follow global wikipedia guidelines for editors and contributions.

Earlier, regarding the Jaideep A. Prabhu related text reverts, we were dealing with a text submission where-in the author did not appear to have domain expertise. The fact that he appears on a TV or radio or newspaper is irrelevant and appearance in the media does not give anyone authority as a domain expert.

If you have something new that is non-controversial, which that can be verified as genuine and which is also a new development not already appearing in this very lengthy and complex article (which needs a serious dose of slim-fast on minute and non-essential details), then there is scope for inclusion.

Keep in mind that we are not in any contest game with winners or loosers.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Italian marines must enjoy presumption of innocence as everybody else

I strongly object to this diff [57],this other one [58] and other similar as well. According to WP:BLPCRIME (as well as common sense and legal common practice) Italian marines are always to be referred as alleged perpetrators or similar. Doing otherwise would expose Wikipedia and its editors to possible legal consequences. LNCSRG (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed IP User talk:81.240.144.24 has not given any reason why the wording of an indian newspaper [59] is not accetable. Original text from "The Times of India": "The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court that it would not invoke anti-piracy law SUA, which attracts mandatory death penalty, against two Italian marines and said their trial would now be under normal criminal laws for the 'alleged' murder of two fishermen off the Kerala coast in February 2012" and "Having extricated its naval officers, who had 'allegedly' fired at and killed the fishermen while 'on anti-piracy duty' aboard merchant vessel Enrica Lexie, Italy immediately requested the court to close the case against the marines." As suggested, I will follow WP:BRD and, in the event of disruption, file an WP:AE request. I am testing the procedure, so if I am wrong, explain and I will auto-revert. To IP User talk:81.240.144.24, remember that consensus may change, and I am open to any discussion from your POV, but, please, on the specific topic raised here. Thank you. --Robertiki (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your repeated attempts to tweak the opening paragraph of the article. As you can see, the introductory paragraph only states/stated the circumstances under which the incident occurred.

The fact that the two Italian marines are held in India under their alleged involvement is repeatedly and exhaustively covered in the later part of the article within various sections. Therefore, to any reader, there is no absolutely no question of ambiguity about the fact that the marines remain "innocence until proven guilty" and so also to the status of the investigation process.

Both of you, ROBERTIKI and LNCSRG, have repeatedly been involved in dispute resolution procedures, always for reasons entered around inclusions of hypothetical and controversial texts, as evident from your past involvement on the talk page of this article which can also be matched with your edit/contributions history. I will not repeat and re-copy the reasons given by various content contributors who have been in the past in discussion (with ROBERTIKI and/or LNCSRG) about why controversial topics and hypothesis cannot/should not be included in the article. So, please don't keep on repeatedly ask the same questions and raise the same issues all the time. Maybe if so many persons are telling you the same thing, it does mean that you are not understanding something.

By all means you are free to test the wikipedia system by, to quote your comment : "I will follow WP:BRD and, in the event of disruption, file an WP:AE request. I am testing the procedure". This in itself clearly shows your approach to this article and calculated mind-set.

It appears to me that you, both ROBERTIKI and LNCSRG, are just repeatedly trying to game the system till you succeed.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The circumstances are not yet all clarified and it is important to point out in the introduction that the Marines were on anti-piracy duty. This means that their imputation could be of excessive force use, but not of murder. I would also like to highlight that my wording choice is taken from an indian newspaper: The Times of India. What is your comment about them ? Only one off topic comment: being involved in dispute resolution procedures is not a fault, nor bad; you write it as if it were an accusation. --Robertiki (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are parroting the same thing over and over again. Although I have been guided by good faith to explain repeatedly in detail why this involves WP:CONTROVERSY issues, I am unwilling to continue repeating myself because of WP:FILIBUSTERS concerns.

I have already written in an earlier post that when new, independently verifiable and significant developments occur and they are not already in the article then there should be no reason why anyone will prevent that information from appearing in the article.

For lack of time and because of the repetitive nature of proceedings on this discussion page, I will refrain from providing posting comments/replies to already answered questions or when similar or identical issues that have been already covered. So, before posting questions, please check if the question has already been covered/answered in this talk page.Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCRIME. We should be using "alleged" and "accused", especially when talking in Wikipedia's voice until they have been convicted by a court of law, not a court of public opinion. Ravensfire (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Robertiki made repeated attempts to tweak the opening paragraph which I am re-copying here so as to explain my WP:CONTROVERSY concerns.

The Enrica Lexie Incident occurred on 15 February 2012 when Italian Navy marines, on-board a privately owned Italian-flagged Aframax oil-tanker MT Enrica Lexie, opened fire on a fishing trawler. Indian coastal police were alerted that two crew members of St-Antony, an Indian fishing trawler engaged in commercial fishing related activities had been killed by gunfire from an oil-tanker. The shooting incident occurred within the Indian Contiguous zone at approximately 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala in southern India near traditional Indian fishing grounds in the Laccadive Sea.

* The statement made in the first line The Enrica Lexie Incident occurred on 15 February 2012 when Italian Navy marines, on-board a privately owned Italian-flagged Aframax oil-tanker MT Enrica Lexie, opened fire on a fishing trawler. has been acknowledged by the Italian Defense Ministry, the Italian Prime Minister, the Italian Special Envoy to India, the lawyers for the Italian Government in India, the Military investigators (Rear Admiral Alessandro Piroli investigation report), etc.,.

* The statement made in the second line Indian coastal police were alerted that two crew members of St-Antony, an Indian fishing trawler engaged in commercial fishing related activities had been killed by gunfire from an oil-tanker. is similarly fully backed-up by official communiques by various Ministries of the Govt of India, and also in legal affidavits submitted in the Indian courts .

* The shooting incident occurred within the Indian Contiguous zone at approximately 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala in southern India near traditional Indian fishing grounds in the Laccadive Sea. Here there is nothing to accuse/allege/fix-responsibilities on either India or Italy. The location has been confirmed by both Italian and Indian investigators and is backed up by hydro-graphic and maritime charts which are in the public domain especially those of the United Nations' International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO).

* Ofcourse, the word allegation I agree can and should appear everywhere elsewhere in the article. BUT, the repeated inclusions of ROBERTIKI wanted the inclusion of the word alleged in the first paragraph. I object because the Italian Government and its authorised representatives have systematically accepted that (1) a firing incident occured on the Enrica Lexie (2) that the Italian Marines initiated the firing incident, (3) the firing was in the direction of a fishing trawler/skiff/vessel and (4) the location of the incident

* The shooting incident itself is covered in great detail in a section dedicated to it. There is nothing in the opening paragraph containing 3 sentences which is either an allegation or a accusation. Repeated attempts to tweak the opening paragraph through the introduction of the word allegation into events that have been accepted universally as having occurred by the respective parties is nothing short of disruption.

81.240.144.24 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you bother to read WP:BLPCRIME? That first sentence is in Wikipedia's voice and MUST follow BLPCRIME. The soldiers in question have not been convicted in a court of law and therefore have a presumption of innocence. I understand your point, but the article needs to follow Wikipedia policies. There has to be a compromise. Maybe change the opening statement to say "...accused of opening fire on a fishing trawler and killing two men.", then adding something stating that the Italian government has confirmed the shooting. Ravensfire (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is fully complied with in the first paragraph containing three phrases because it contains no named allegations.

* The Italian Govt (through its legal, defence, diplomatic ministries) and crew of Enrica lexie have clarified that the Enrica Lexie was involved in a firing incident and that the firing incident was initiated by the VPD team stationed onboard the vessel. Period. If you need verification of these facts, please refer to the testimony by the Italian Prime-Minister to the Senate and Parliament.

* The allegation part is covered elsewhere. So, why insert it in the opening paragraph where there is even no mention of any accusation ? It just says that (un-named) Italian Marines fired in the direction of a (un-named) fishing vessel. This sentence makes no mention of any crime whatsoever. So, no crime equals no allegation or accusation.

* The previous sentence makes no link WHATSOEVER with the next where-in it states the deaths on board the (named) St ANTHONY fishing boat which (independently) reported deaths in a shooting that came from a (un-named) tanker. This second sentence only states that a deaths of two (un-named) fishermen due to shooting from (unidentified) tanker as reported to Indian coastal police. Here too there is no accusation or allegation either with regard to the Enrica Lexie or the Italian Marine VPD team.

Request to all : Please read the three phrases carefully several times. You will see no connection made in this paragraph between the firing on tanker ENRICA LEXIE and the deaths on fishing vessel ST-ANTONY. The third sentence simply states that both the incidents occurred in the Indian Contiguous Zone and refrains from any allusion or accusation or allegations regarding responsibilities.

* Only later elsewhere are the events shown to probably have a link, and therefore always use the word allegation especially in the sections relating to the shooting incident section, investigation section, court case, etc., to be in compliance with WP:BLPCRIME

* I hope to have clearly explained the reasons why I reverted the inclusion of the word alleged before the word shooting in the opening paragraph. It misleads the reader into believing that the shooting did not occur onboard the MT Enrica Lexie. Similarly, by inserting the word alleged before Italian Marines, it can mislead a reader into thinking that the maybe the Italian Marines did not actually fire at all. Both these, are patently contrary to authenticated statements made by the crew and Italian Govt representatives. The Italian Govt does not entertain any suggestions to the contrary and has never been drawn into disputing the location of the incident and also the use/mis-use of weapons by the Italian Marines onboard the Enrica Lexie.

* If you keep in mind the clear-cut concerns and explanations provided here-in, there is compliance to WP:BLPCRIME because no one is identified or named on the one hand, and on the other hand also no allegations and accusations of fixing of responsibilities on any involved parties made in the 3 sentences which constitute the paragraph.

* Whilst I don't see why the opening paragraph needs tweaking to include the word ALLEGATION, if you believe that the word ALLEGATION must appear, please clearly explain the basis for this so that I can follow your logic in addition to referring me to a set of links to the relevant WIKI rule pages. I do intend to continue to participate in a positive manner in this dialogue.

* BTW, this entire series of discussions on this talk-page appears to conform to WP:BRDWRONG especially WP:FILIBUSTERS and with knowledge from DRN archives of a dispute opened in JULY 2013, a virtual twin of this discussion, but playing on the word SUPPOSEDLY. [60].

Any improvement is always welcome provided it does not introduce controversies and does not become open to a new bout of challenges and disputes.

81.240.144.24 (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

81.240.144.24 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include the any one of the words "allege" or "supposed" or "accused" in the opening paragraph of this wikipedia article (which contains 3 fully authenticated statements) ? I have made the case against usage of such words and explained in detail why. However, I do want to get comments from preferably uninvolved contributors on what they think in an effort to stop endless discussions regard the inclusion of controversies and speculative hypothesis introduced by several Italy based editors. Persons with experience in dealing with WP:FILIBUSTERS & WP:CONTROVERSY concerns are sincerely sollicited. Thank you.81.240.144.24 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

While I blast editor 81.240.144.24 (aka Onlyfactsnofiction aka etc.) obvious anti-Italian bias and unsupported accuses, I concur we need fresh eyes to try and resolve this stalemate. Please give us your precious contribution LNCSRG (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to worry about multiple IPs. From my writing style it should be clear that I am the same user. Since I am using fixed computer which is personal I can at times sign-in but on my portable tablet device or work computers I am not at liberty to customise and make personal log-in identifications (due to work-place policy).81.240.144.24 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In order to avoid the appearance of WP:SOCK I would suggest you disclose all IPs you edit from then. Simonm223 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. For convenience sake because I don't have a history of all my past IPs changes and cannot predict and don't really know when & why it changes. So, how about considering that at this point of time all IPs originating from Belgium in this TALK page are most probably me. I will try to whenever possible sign my inclusions with user-name as I have done in the past. 81.240.144.24 (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say to LNCSRG & ROBERTIKI, atleast for the moment, apart from requesting that they STOP GAMING WIKIPEDIA with their Italian collaborators. 81.240.144.24 (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What are the Italians up to here on wikipedia ?

@All: Kindly refer to the TALK PAGE of the Italian-language version of this article [61] (translated here [62]) where LNCSRG, ROBERTIKI and several other contributers are engaged in discussions on how to cooperatively transform the content on the english version here on Wikipedia.

• I am concerned about the talk of discussions involving a journalist. Can you use wikipedia to dialogue/coordinate on news content ?
• Is it really pure coincidence that we have an Italian admin who all of a sudden appeared on the talk page of this article ?
• Is it a coincidence that out of the blue this page is systematically edited by the same set of Italian origin IPs at approximately the same time ?
• Excerpt from Italian-language talk page of this article : "ask for international intervention on the "diplomatic front Wikipedian" as much as possible ... and say that I am limited to the succession of events without considering the merits of magheggi Indians of the days and months and years (it takes time and l ' ideal would be to redo the page, at least in their discussion page: but it is more work to be a team that men only) ... Thanks for your attention, every now and check it for any replies." This comment was made by an Italian user and the same day (24 February) you have an Italian admin who made a surprising comment, which could be perceived as a veiled threat, about WP:ARBIPA at 11:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC) on this talk page. The admin claimed to be uninvolved but then can be seen in dialogue with ROBERTIKI on his talk page. That was not exactly what I had in mind as being neutral.

I am a bit concerned and worried about this kind of collaborative participation for opinion shaping. Something does not look or sound ok here. But I am not going to carelessly throw any accusation. So, can non-involved Wikipedia admins view and check what exactly is going on both here on the english-language and Italian-language wikipedia pages of this article ? 81.240.139.149 (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The translation is really bad, some words are blatantly wrong or do not capture the subtleties of the debate, missing what are the true meanings of each position. For example, I have written: "Also I'm not sure that those who write against Italy are Indians. The IP are almost all based in Brussels and would not be out of any grace to discover that they are European diplomats, even Italians. Compare to the above translation. So you could see that I'm not biting the fascist anti-Indian rhetoric. --Robertiki (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We get a lot of Chinese editors up on 2014 Kunming attack too. You know, because they're interested in issues that affect them. I'll be putting this page on my watchlist as an uninvolved and disinterested editor. But not because of the presence of people from Italy. I think some forum shopping is going on here. Simonm223 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

For the community's common good and to avoid too much build-up of steam on this talk page, I am going to stay calm and I will stand back while others can weigh in on the originally occurred differences of opinions which I adequately explained point-by-point. Nothing more to add. Kindly bear with my changing IP. (81.240.139.149 aka 91.182.126.147 (talk) 08:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC))