Talk:Enrica Lexie case

Italian marines must enjoy presumption of innocence as everybody else

I strongly object to this diff [1],this other one [2] and other similar as well. According to WP:BLPCRIME (as well as common sense and legal common practice) Italian marines are always to be referred as alleged perpetrators or similar. Doing otherwise would expose Wikipedia and its editors to possible legal consequences. LNCSRG (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed IP User talk:81.240.144.24 has not given any reason why the wording of an indian newspaper [3] is not accetable. Original text from "The Times of India": "The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court that it would not invoke anti-piracy law SUA, which attracts mandatory death penalty, against two Italian marines and said their trial would now be under normal criminal laws for the 'alleged' murder of two fishermen off the Kerala coast in February 2012" and "Having extricated its naval officers, who had 'allegedly' fired at and killed the fishermen while 'on anti-piracy duty' aboard merchant vessel Enrica Lexie, Italy immediately requested the court to close the case against the marines." As suggested, I will follow WP:BRD and, in the event of disruption, file an WP:AE request. I am testing the procedure, so if I am wrong, explain and I will auto-revert. To IP User talk:81.240.144.24, remember that consensus may change, and I am open to any discussion from your POV, but, please, on the specific topic raised here. Thank you. --Robertiki (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* BTW, this entire series of discussions on this talk-page appears to conform to WP:BRDWRONG especially WP:FILIBUSTERS and with knowledge from DRN archives of a dispute opened in JULY 2013, a virtual twin of this discussion, but playing on the word SUPPOSEDLY. [4].

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

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

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

With reference to repeated allegations of anti-Italian bias by LNCSRG and Robertiki, should I highlight that even in Italy there are voices raised questioning why so much political capital is being expended (at the risk of disturbing friendly relations with a non-European country) in an incident case were-in even Italian ministers and military investigators have divulged that errors have been committed by the military armed-guards of the VPD team and also the civilian navigational crew of Enrica Lexie. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

81.240.144.24 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Is it necessary to include the any one of the words "allege" or "supposed" or "accused" in the opening paragraph of this wikipedia article (which contains 3 fully authenticated statements) ? I have made the case against usage of such words and explained in detail why. However, I do want to get comments from preferably uninvolved contributors on what they think in an effort to stop endless discussions regard the inclusion of controversies and speculative hypothesis introduced by several Italy based editors. Persons with experience in dealing with WP:FILIBUSTERS & WP:CONTROVERSY concerns are sincerely sollicited. Thank you.81.240.144.24 (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

After reading the long explanation and having read about the old similar dispute, I see editor Onlyfactsnofiction point according to which the first sentence is an (extremely shortened) summary of Italian narrative, and the second is an (again extremely shortened) summary of the Indian position, so that the addition of a "supposed" or "alleged" would not be correct.

However, I object that the article opening, as it is, can be confusing at a first (and even a second) glance. In fact not only myself, but also other editors had the impression that initial sentence would it would have required the word "alleged" to be added in order to respect WP:BLPCRIME.

A misleading article head is a problem, since the head is meant to give a first basic idea of the article subject, after which the reader can decide whether to go on and read everything or be content with what (s)he already red.

Therefore I think the head should be modified in order to use less ambiguous wording. In particular, I guess it should be immediately stated that two different narratives of this incident do exist, and present both of them. LNCSRG (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Onlyfactsnofiction -- since the lead is now effectively undergoing rewriting out of consensus, I would consider this matter closed. Would you like to remove the RfC template asper procedure? Thank you in advance. LNCSRG (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a problem with simple attribution in this case? I.E., "was convicted by" or "was accused by?" Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: you know, this is such a legal and diplomatic mess that to date, i.e 2 years after the facts, the two marines had not been formally incriminated yet. LNCSRG (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• In response to this RfC, allegations are allegations, which means use the word "allege".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

it seems to me that the attempt to introduce the presumption of innocence has failed, if the entry states at the beginning: "two Indian fishermen were killed off the coast of Kerala, India, aboard the St. Antony AFTER THEY WERE FIRED UPON BY ITALIAN MARINES"... I'm sorry because for the rest the rework is very good. --PippoBers (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

International Arbitration

according to these sources: https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/italy-takes-india-international-arbitration-over-marines-172507596.html http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Italy-Launches-International-Arbitration-Against-India-on-Marines-Case/2015/06/27/article2888002.ece http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/asks-for-international-arbitration-cant-resolve-marines-case-in-india-says-italy/ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/italy-launches-international-arbitration-in-marines-case/articleshow/47834921.cms ...Italy had effectively started the procedure for international arbitration. I think this should be reported ij the article, but in what section? Opinions? 93.144.89.134 (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

On 21 July Italy sought provisional measures at ITLOS. (On 26 June 2015 Italy submitted the dispute to arbitration.)

https://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_232_EN.pdf

--89.15.239.91 (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I just added a paragraph in the article. 93.144.69.217 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

...yes, but ITLOS is not the so called Annex VII Tribunal. Compare Arctic Sunrise: provisional measures at ITLOS https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-22/ and arbitration http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage2a83.html?pag_id=1556 or ARA Libertad provisional measures at ITLOS https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-20/ and arbitration http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpagefc8a.html?pag_id=1526

BTW here is the “Enrica Lexie” Incident (Italy v. India) case https://www.itlos.org/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-24/ --89.204.139.187 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Article is looking really good. Much more concise and balanced. Well done all. 131.111.141.163 (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It may look good but it mixes up ITLOS and the Annex VII Tribunal (arbitration). --89.204.137.118 (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Corrected. --89.204.137.118 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Corrections are spot on131.111.128.45 (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Details about the international arbitration can be found here: http://www.pcacases.com/web/view/117
The Annex VII Tribunal already prescribed provisional measures: http://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1707 --89.15.239.231 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

We are making this article much more readable and NPOV, please don't go backwards

I have removed two recently added tags to the top of the page both in essence accusing the entire article of being POV, and that of Italian being responsible. I'm neither Italian, nor Indian, and this is a very important issue to many people, and it is our duty to follow Wiki norms and present the issue in a way that acknowedges the nuances of both POVs, as they are relevant to the issue and the synthesis between them. The warning left said that it was pro Italian because it didn't sufficient;y focus on an aspect of the ITLOS provision measures hearing (which I have watched and written about). It has to do with legal significance and relevance to the article at hand.

We are going so well. I was so disheartened that once again POV insults are being throw around. Let's do this properly and keep this article good. i would request that al least some talk occur before those tags be put back up. I can elaborate on the nature of the ITLOS PM reasoning, and other issues

But yes. I love Italy and I love India. I'm Australia law of the sea student in the UK. I am very interested in this issue, but I'm not on any team. But I do think this needs to be readable and cogent, and that can occur even if everyone not agree on the context. 131.111.128.45 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 06:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)