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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)