Talk:Enrica Lexie case/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1].

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 [2] --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 : [3] 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 [4] 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 [5] 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 [[6]] 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/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 [7] and here [8]
   
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» [9]
-"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." [10]
-«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.»[11]
-"On Monday, the EU added its voice to concern about use of the marine security law to try the two." [12]

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 [13] 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 [14] 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."[15] 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 [16]) : 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 [17] 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.'[18]
  
• "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."[19]

• "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.'

[20]

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." [21]

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)

@Onlyfactsnofiction: sorry, I was focused on the other discussions on this page and I lost this one. There is no intimidation and also no competition -- and I certainly am absolutely calm as always; maybe the way I listed all these citations from several articles was misleading. My intention was to show that Prabhu's arguments are not a single and isolate case, but just one among many criticisms appearing on Indian and international (non-italian) media.

So, in my opinion, if Prabhu's article has not weight enough per se to be cited, all the several articles in this sense contribute to form a consistent mass of media criticizing the Indian management of the incident. Accordingly, I propose to insert a line such as:

"(Also) Indian management of the crisis has been prone to criticism by domestic and international media and opinion makers", followed by the citation of all a/m articles. --- LNCSRG (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@LNCSRG (talk) : I support your suggestion but express a need to balance the statement which can be equally applied to both countries.

I suggest to add a line to this effect but using sources that conform to WP:RELIABLE & verifiability and which clearly state that both India and Italy have drawn criticism.

My suggestion would go along the lines : "The management of the crisis, by both Italian and Indian authorities, has been prone to criticism by domestic and international media and opinion makers in the field of international diplomacy". This kind of line needs to be backed-up by suitable and relevant media sources (which are quite easy to find in the public domain). Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I did as you suggested, with a minor rewording which helped me to logically position the citations. --LNCSRG (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to delete the SUA Convention paragraph

The paragraph as per subject was added to describe an international convention/treaty, and to describe how the Italian-Indian dispute about jurisdiction should be addressed in view of this treaty. However, its application to this case has been eventually ruled off, after strong pressure from the Italian side. Therefore, this paragraph is now immaterial to the case. Since this article is rather long and would benefit by being shortened, I propose to delete this paragraph, after having placed elsewhere (possibly at first occurrence in the article) the wikilink to Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and checked for notes and citation that could possibly be used elsewhere on the article.
Regards LNCSRG (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that SUA is not completely off the table. NIA has been told by the Indian Government not to indict the marines under anti-piracy related sections of SUA laws. At present, NIA is still entrusted with the investigation albeit media reported [22] that the Italian legal team has petitioned the Supreme Court on 07 March 2014 saying that NIA should not be allowed to investigate the case because the NIA is a federal investigation agency that is tasked with anti-terror investigations. Concurrent to the Italian petition, the NIA has informed the Supreme Court that it wants the court to hear its arguments on why NIA should be allowed to continue its involvement in the case and also on reasons for delays that made the investigation process protracted.

The Supreme Court has stated that it will initially address the 50-page Italian petition regarding NIA's investigation jurisdiction. Once NIA's investigation jurisdiction matter is settled, thereafter it will open the way for the Italian team to question court jurisdiction based on whether IPC or SUA laws are followed.

There are several references available in the public domain wherein the two-fold strategy of the official Italian legal-team has been made clear : (A) challenge jurisdiction of investigation agency and (B) challenge jurisdiction of special court to hear the case in India.

As a casual observer, I tend to refrain from speculations and prefer to wait and see how things turn out in the scheduled court proceedings. There is nothing to show from official court documents that the SUA is totally off the table. I suggest patience with the aim of obtaining clarity which will arrive when the Supreme Court's makes it's response to the Italian petition.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, no problem, let's wait some time -- LNCSRG (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For those who are interested in anti-piracy/coastal security issues and maritime jurisdiction/legislation, a comparative of the MT Enrica Lexie incident and the MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident was published in the Cornell International Law Journal (ILJ) in the United States. Titled "Criminal Jurisdiction over Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean", it is an essay by a student in law which highlights the incidents from the perspective of sovereignty and jurisdiction. Both the incidents occurred within the Laccadive Sea.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)