Talk:Enrica Lexie case/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What are the Italians up to here on wikipedia ?

@All: Kindly refer to the TALK PAGE of the Italian-language version of this article [1] (translated here [2]) where LNCSRG, Robertiki and several other contributers are engaged in discussions on how to cooperatively transform the content on the english version here on Wikipedia.

• I am concerned about the talk of discussions involving a journalist. Can you use wikipedia to dialogue/coordinate on news content ?
• Is it really pure coincidence that we have an Italian admin who all of a sudden appeared on the talk page of this article ?
• Is it a coincidence that out of the blue this page is systematically edited by the same set of Italian origin IPs at approximately the same time ?
• Excerpt from Italian-language talk page of this article : "ask for international intervention on the "diplomatic front Wikipedian" as much as possible ... and say that I am limited to the succession of events without considering the merits of magheggi Indians of the days and months and years (it takes time and l ' ideal would be to redo the page, at least in their discussion page: but it is more work to be a team that men only) ... Thanks for your attention, every now and check it for any replies." This comment was made by an Italian user and the same day (24 February) you have an Italian admin who made a surprising comment, which could be perceived as a veiled threat, about WP:ARBIPA at 11:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC) on this talk page. The admin claimed [3] to be uninvolved but then can be seen giving advise to this same user on the NPOV noticeboard [4] and in dialogue with Robertiki on his talk page [5]. That was not exactly what I had in mind as being neutral.

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

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

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

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

Could you write my nick correctly? It is Robertiki. Writing it all caps is like shouting me deaf. You should know that typing messages in all caps is closely identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behavior, and is considered very rude. Writing all caps especially the other side name is still worse. --Robertiki (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I seek a wikipedia policy related clarification : I had expressed surprise a couple of days ago [6] about how an Italian contributor was in contact around the end of February 2014 with an Italian journalist called "Toni Capuozzo" regarding this Italian Marines case (translated here [7]) ? Well, it now appears that the journalist "Toni Capuozzo" published an article (reprinted in many places in the Italian media on 05 & 06 March 2014) and made a TV documentary along an editorial line that exonerates the marines drawing from many hypothetical lines that are disturbingly similar to the ones being discussed on wikipedia. Kindly search "Toni+Capuozzo +maro" on any search engine to see the articles and documentary (in Italian language).

My question is simple : Is it Ok to coordinate/collaborate with a journalist who then goes on to publish an article which is thereafter used as a 'jump-off point' to modify the related wikipedia articles in english and Italian languages ? What is your take on this ? What is the Wikipedia policy on lobbying and opinion shaping. Is this allowed ? It it OK for anyone to contact a prominent journalist from one of the involved countries (India or Italy) and thereafter when a suitable article is published use it as a 'credible source' in order to shape the text of wikipedia article accordingly ? I am disturbed by this. But, maybe I am mistaken to be concerned and that this is all part of the game and is perfectly acceptable. That is why I am asking for opinions from administrators/arbitrators with clear understanding of wikipedia policies and editorial guidelines.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Onlyfactnnofiction - Again please believe there is no Italian conspiracy here. I think you had been mislead by the bad google translation of the talk page of the article corresponding to this one. Google wrongly translated "conoscenza" with "acquaintance", while in this case it should have been "information"; btw "conoscenza" is a very generic Italian word with several meanings, the main of them being "knowledge".

However, facts are as follows: user Creatoreoccasionale tried to insert an English summary/translation about a TV report by Tony Capuozzo (who, by the way, is a well known journalist here in Italy) that had been aired some time ago on Italian TV Channel Canale 5 -- one among the most important in my country. You deleted it on the ground it is (?) POV and journalistic speculation, also against my efforts to reinstate it (incidentally, I still think it could and should be inserted, even if it is non-neutral and speculative, because we wikipedians are required to post all relevant views in a dispute, not to decide what is "the Truth" and post only what conforms to it).

Anyway, Creatoreoccasionale posted on the Italian talk page a message which basically reads (summarizing) "I tried to post on e.wiki corresponding article an English summary of Tony Capuozzo report, but some English-speaking Indian (he was later informed on that same talk page you actually are a Belgian resident ) immediately deleted it. The English wiki article is leaning a lot towards the Indian version of the facts, and some watchdog is tenaciously keeping it that way. I informed (messo a conoscenza) Tony Capuozzo of this fact".

Now, I do not know how "Creatoreoccasionale" informed Tony Capuozzo, but I would bet he just sent an e-mail to his blog, or something like that.

In any case, nothing allows us to infer that Creatoreoccasionale and Tony Capuozzo are friends, and/or working together. -- LNCSRG (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@LNCSRG : (1) Allow me to point out that there is nothing anti-Italian but only raising of genuine concerns of POV and OR here-in.

(2) Reversions of POV and OR text inclusions have been explained either in the history of edits or the talk page of this article based upon criterion contained in WP:DEL-REASON.

(3) Let it be clear, it is normal that eyebrows are raised considering use of media sources derived from journalistic speculation and hypothesis and self-styled experts for example "Luigi Di Stefano" the self-styled expert (who has pushed OR on the WTC 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York through his http://www.seeninside.net/911/ website) and who is now being used as a source of information by Italian media for disseminating 'technical facts' and 'expert opinion hypothesis' dealing with Enrica Lexie incident ‎(published on the same SEENINSIDE website here [8]).

(4) WP:RELIABLE, WP:ORSOURCE and WP:CONTROVERSY concerns expressed pertaining to the debatable nature of circumstantial hypothesis have never been adequately addressed. Please refer to wikipedia documents that pointedly cover controversies WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTS and make your justifications based upon the guidelines there-in instead of engaging in WP:BRDWRONG.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Onlyfactsnofiction, again I have the impression we read the same things, in this case the same Wikipedia policies, but we interpret them differently. F.i. you link to WP:RELIABLE where we can read "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).". In our specific case, Di Stefano and Capuozzo's alternate reconstructions, even if admittedly highly speculative and based on uncertain assumptions, had had enough resonance at least in Italy (Di Stefano was invited to speak at the Italian Parliament, Capuozzo report was aired on one of the main Italian TV channels) to be considered at least a "significant minority view", hence they deserve at least some mention on the Wiki article, of course without portraying them as "the truth" -- LNCSRG (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just 3 quick points regarding inclusion of WP:CONTROVERSIALFACTS within wikipedia :

(A) As you have yourself admitted, Di Stefano and Capuozzo's alternate reconstructions are "admittedly highly speculative and based on uncertain assumptions" and therefore there is reason to question the reliability reliable, published sources of such thesis even if this line of thought may have traction with a minority.

(B) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view deals with non-controversial inclusions and cannot be extended to cover journalistic speculation and hypothesis by experts of questionable pedigree. Therefore, it has to be read alongside WP:RELIABLE, WP:ORSOURCE and WP:DEL-REASON.

(C) Please acquaint yourself with WP:FLAT which makes good reading for contributors of controversial inclusions as per WP:CONTROVERSY.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reply makes me suspect I was not clear enough. I am not proposing to rewrite the article reflecting Di Stefano or Capuozzo's reconstructions and citing Di Stefano and Capuozzo's website as sources. I would rather post in the article a short --one line-- mention about the existence of such alternate narratives leaning to discharge the marines that have been widely discussed and created a lot of interest in Italy. This way we would inform the reader just about the existence of these reconstructions, without implying anything about their reliability. This IMHO would be fully in line with Wiki guidelines, since it would just describe the existence of those reconstruction, which is true, verificable and significant -- at least in Italy they had a lot more traction than the theory of Flat Earth. Finally, Di Stefano and Capuozzo are certainly strongly opinionated sources, yet they have relevance, since the former has a fame of a tribunal engineer whose expertise was functional to the issue of a sentence in a notorious international incident (Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870), the latter is the vice-director of TG5 [9], leading Italian TV News -- LNCSRG (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@LNCSRG (talk) : You will have my support if, as you have proposed, a very short (preferably single line) phrase going along the lines of alternate narratives leaning to discharge the marines and speculative hypothesis regularly receives attention of the media in Italy is inserted under the "Other Related Developments" sub-sections under a title such as "Alternate narratives". I would expect that the phrase will adequately signal that such narratives are (1) not endorsed by the Italian Government and (2) is not a majority opinion in Italy.

Could your make the suggestion for the phrase here in the talk page before inclusion into the article ?

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Onlyfactsnofiction, I agree with you except for implying that those alternate narratives are not a majority opinion. I actually do not know whether they are or not, and I even less have some source to cite confirming that (or the reverse). Do you? Does some other editor reading us here? When I wrote they are ("at least") a significant minority I implied a world-wide perspective. In Italy they could be majority, but again I do not know. ---LNCSRG (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Onlyfactsnofiction, you ask: "Is it Ok to coordinate/collaborate with a journalist who then goes on to publish an article which is thereafter used as a 'jump-off point' to modify the related wikipedia articles in english and Italian languages ?" Answer: yes. "neutral POV", and "No original research" are two of the three core content policies of Wikipedia. But this does not prohibit to write a work, publish an article, do original research in a book or a paper. And reference it. Other editors will verify reputability of your signed work and of the guest editor or guest pubblication. Writing under your name you take your responsibility and put your reputation in first line: this is the correct way to express your freedom of expression. Not how, someone understands the freedom of expression, under the anonymity of Wikipedia, puting Wikipedia under fire. --Robertiki (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Robertiki: Your insults are tiring, your insinuations are pathetic and I am not interested in your opinions because they were wrong in the past and they continue to be wrong at present. So, save your insults and your time for something more useful. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not referring to you. Open the italian WP and you will understand. --Robertiki (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Massive re-work of content to suit the Italian narrative

Why is it that the article is being over-hauled so extensively [10] without any discussion on the talk page ? Whilst some of the content could probably go because it is redundant, I am concerned by the deletions of content that was sourced and referenced adequately. Also, the template has been tweaked even though the information there-in was sourced from court documents cited in the article under the relevant sub-section. In light of the recent concerns that were made on this page regarding inclusions of Italian POV and speculations, would it not have been worth discussing such a overhaul/re-write/re-work of the article here on the talk page especially when removing sourced/referenced/cited text content ? Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Extensive discussions had already been made. We expected that, in all the places where you had unilaterally imposed upon, your unique point of view, you would correct your writings. You have not done it. After waiting some days, and commenting where corrections where needed, I would say that we have moved to WP:BOLD. In any case there is no abuse, you can offer your criticism and discussion is open in the talk page. --Robertiki (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Antonioptg : You made repeated redactions/reverts under the pretext "Removed POV insertion: if a source contains information that is not clear, should not be considered". Can you explain wghat is not clear ? Do you mean that court documents and statements by investigation agencies cannot be used as a source ?Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Onlyfactsnofiction, this is not your personal page where you put in what you want. Since no final decision has been taken by any court, (see decision of the Indian Supreme Court on January 18, 2013) every disputable content should be removed. Beginning with the place and time of the event because the version supported by the Italian authorities does not coincide with that of the Indian authorities. Court documents and statements by investigation agencies are to be used as statements of one of the involved parties--Antonioptg (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. If reliable sources differ on facts, we put all viewpoints in relation to their WP:WEIGHT in the article. So if several sources say it happened on date 1 and several others say date 2 we include both. If one date is predominately used, use that and say that other sources use a different date. If the difference is on nationalist lines AND a reliable source SPECIFICALLY notes that difference and that it is on nationalist lines, say that. You CANNOT say that without a RS that specifically notes that nationalist line. And honestly, that had better be in multiple, independant RS (see WP:REDFLAG). Do not, however, remove something because sources differ on it. Note the difference. Ravensfire (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So, do you really state that what is published by Indian authorities and media is more reliable and has more weight than what is published by Italian government and media? Based on what criteria? The difference in population number?--Antonioptg (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Robertiki & Antonioptg: I have reverted the latest changes made by Antonioptg and opened a notification on the ANI [11]. Please explain yourselves at the ANI noticeboard before edit-warring on content that was already sourced and validated. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Could I ask you why you have referred me for Antonioptg edits ? --Robertiki (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Link to WP:ANI referred incident [12] --Robertiki (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: please notice that in this case counting the sources can introduce a language-based bias, since there are more English-language sources coming from India than from Italy -- please consider English is one official language in India, not in Italy. I would say the only way to have a balanced article is to always describe both the Indian and the Italian POVs everywhere they do not coincide (i.e. in most of the cases) giving them approx. the same weight. -- LNCSRG (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

Breaking it down by section as I'll probably be tagging more sections

Location section

This section was one hit by the WP:POINT tagging by an anonymous editors. It did draw my attention that this section could really do with some cleanup. If you're going to act on any of my comments, please make it a substantial cleanup that genuinely improves the section. If it's just bulk removal, please don't bother. Specific suggestions would be to pull the two existing images as they aren't directly relevant to the article and don't offer information related to the article. In an article on maritime law in India, sure but not here. If someone can create a better image that better identifies where the incident happened, that would help greatly though. The section itself is called "Location", but it takes it a bit to actually get into the location. That needs to be upfront. If it's vague, then go with vague and THEN explain why. Explanations then details is weak writing. The existing cite needed tags need to be cleared with citations. I have zero doubt that the existing sources in the article do cover the information but it needs to be specifically cited in this section as well. The overly long quote from the Directorate General of Shipping should be reduced and summarized as well. Some editors have mentioned that there is a dispute about the time and/or location. If so, that should be added with relevant citations. Ravensfire (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Court proceedings

Needs to be rewritten in summary style. Blow-by-blow belongs in a newspaper or blog. Not on Wikipedia. Some of the minor stuff in there should be yanked out entirely. Example - the mention of Italian officials could be present only as silent observers. That's getting into WP:TRIVIA. Consider retitling as Court proceedings in India although a good rewrite would probably start with "Court proceedings in India began on ..." or something like that. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC Mediation by Vinod Sahai

While searching some newspaper articles, I came across articles in Italian newspapers [13] [14] [15] and some lesser known media outlets [16] [17] [18] about an alleged mediation between Indian and Italian Governments over the Italian marines case. The mediation was allegedly done by Vinod Sahai (who is said to be an entrepreneur, former board-member Fiat India, MD of a merchant bank, head of Indian business leaders in Italy, etc.,). The goal of the mediation was to arrive at some kind of settlement so that the marines could quickly return to Italy. The newspaper articles make reference to discussion with former Italian Defense Minister (Di Paola) and meetings with senior Indian officials. Now, I am unable to find any english language newspaper talking about this mediation process. So, is this a controversy ? I am surprised that Italian news-media have carried articles about this. I am unable to explain why english-language news-media are not carrying this 'story'. Is this a case of 'fantasy' journalism ? Therefore, I request RfC on whether this is something which should be mentioned (with appropriate weight/coefficient considering that it is just an allegation if the answer is yes) ? FYI, this Vinod Sahai is also mentioned in an article on Reuters Italy business section [19] Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"journalistic speculation and controversial hypothesis", using your words--Antonioptg (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, in fact there are no other mention of this alleged mediation except this gentleman own statements. The Italian and Indian authorities he talks about as far as I know never referred anything about that, not even to deny. Accordingly, I doubt this alleged mediationattempt be eligible to be reported on the wiki article. If it is, the mention should be short and clearly stating we just have unconfirmed self-alligations by this Mr. Sahai. -- LNCSRG (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Tags in the lead

I've removed the cite needed tags in the article lead as you generally do not put references in the lead unless it's particular controversial. Statements in the lead must be a summary of the article and only information that has been challenged or is a direct quote need references (see WP:CITELEAD. I created this talk page section because I left one of the tags in there as I think it's a question to consider. The statement is: "According to Italian Government the Italian Navy guards of "team Latorre" were not responsible for the deaths of two fishermen." From my brief reading, I think that was true at one point but the current position is a bit more nuanced than that. I don't know if that statement is an accurate summary of what's in the article anymore. Hence, I'll leave it in. As I mentioned a few sections above, the lead could use a complete rewrite though which may help. Ravensfire (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the article lead should be reduced to the essentials and contain only indubitable informations, something as this:

"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 approaching boat. Indian coastal police were alerted that two crew members of St-Antony, an Indian fishing trawler had been killed by gunfire from an oil-tanker. The shooting incident occurred off the coast of Kerala in southern India. Indian Coast Guard contacted by radio the Enrica Lexie which reversed course and returned to Kochi port. The Italian oil tanker was restrained and two days later two of the 6-member on the Nucleo Militare di Protezione (NPM) on board the Enrica Lexie, Chief Master Sergeant Massimiliano Latorre and Sergeant Salvatore Girone, belonging to the San Marco Regiment of the Italian Navy, were arrested and charged with murder of the two crew members of St-Antony. The maritime incident sparked a diplomatic row between the governments of India and Italy, stemming from a conflict of opinions over legal jurisdiction and functional immunity. The case is currently at a pre-trial stage before the Indian Supreme Court and is scheduled to be heard at a Special Court set-up to deal exclusively with this incident."

I also think that the anonymous POV, Unbalanced, Recentism tagginng must be retained, the first two until the dispute is not resolved, the third because the events are still in progress.--Antonioptg (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The proposal made by Antonioptg for the introduction of the article made seems to be a good start. This incident being maritime based, I would like to see there-in mention that the incident occurred in international waters within the Indian Contiguous Zone and reference to the official hydro-graphical name for the maritime area of that part of the Indian Ocean : Laccadive Sea because all marine charts have that marked on them. Also, the reference to the fact that incident area where the routes of Enrica Lexie and that of the fishing trawler would have intersected is located in a zone which is a fishing activities area.

I suggest not mention the word radio in the opening introduction (keep it for elsewhere) because it appears that the ship was contacted by satellite-phone and not a traditional VHF radio. The phrase can just say "contacted" and leave it at that.

Also, the word "returned" in the "returned to Kochi port" is not correct. The ship had not departed from Kochi. Last port of call was Galle in Sri Lanka and before that Singapore. FYI, hypothetically had the ship left port at Kochi, then the Indians would be in their legal right to actually order the ship back to port under UNCLOS. But, this is not the case. So, I would not include the word "returned" as it introduces a hypothesis with can become speculation or a controversy.

The entire incident, from shooting location in international waters within the (Indian) Contiguous Zone to interception point within the (Indian) EEZ occured when the Enrica Lexie was transiting off the coast of Kerala. The legal notions associated with the different types of maritime boundaries is key to understanding why India and Italy are jousting on the words. I think the graphic in the "Location" section should be retained for this reason. The use of International Hydrographic Organization definitions of marine areas and boundaries is key to the legal & diplomatic battle that is ongoing in India. The Indians are keen to use precise legal and hydro-graphic descriptors for the location of the shooting incident and the Italians remaining as vague as possible when speaking about the location.

I think that the article should be specific on internationally accepted maritime definitions and not be vague. Saying "Indian Ocean" can mean anything : anywhere from Cape Town to Perth or even Karachi or Muscat ! Relative to Kerala coast, all of them are off the coast of Kerala albeit at different distances.

Saying international waters within the Indian Contiguous Zone is without any bias to either side.

Please, don't accuse me of Indian bias because I cannot be held responsible for the fact that the incident occurred in a Contiguous Zone of a nation. That nation is India. Therefore, it is called Indian Contiguous Zone. Likewise for Indian EEZ.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the exact position of the ship at the time of the incident can not be mentioned in the article lead because in respect of it exists a dispute between the two States. According to the police of Kerala the location is 20.5 miles off the coast, while the official position of the Italian government is that the ship was 33 nautical miles off the coast and therefore out of the "contiguous zone". Mentioning the exact position of the ship at the time of the accident in the article lead means take position for one State against the other State, and this absolutely can not be accepted.--Antonioptg (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Since reference to Contiguous Zone is contentious, we can use EEZ which is not. 33nm which you mentioned is within the 200nm that is the extent of EEZ from a coastal countrys' baseline. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok--Antonioptg (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course in the article's relevant paragraph it is to be mentioned that Indian Authorities claim the incident happened within Indian Contiguous waters. By the way, the Italian authorities are not "vague" about the location, they just consistently claim that the incident happened in international waters, which is certain and accurate. Of course each side of the dispute stresses the aspects in favour of that side. -- LNCSRG (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This is an outrageously biased article written in favour of the Indian side of the dispute. I am neither Italian, nor Indian, but wiki needs to be objective and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.141.163 (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It begins with the title. I would suggest to change the title to: "2012 Laccadive Sea shooting incident". Some editors write as if everything was clearly defined, but I fear we will never know what happened, starting with the Olympic Flair report. --Robertiki (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Besides with the last rename, the talk archives have been uncoupled: "Archive 1" "Archive 2" and "Archive 3" --Robertiki (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole thing is so pejorative. It is far too long. And the title assumes everything was clearly defined. 131.111.141.163 (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Clean up and organisation

Dear all, could we please make an effort to clean up and organise this page and perhaps use separate pages. It is far too big and hard to follow. There is a lot of POV stuff not properly cited as such. We can do better than this. Please. 131.111.141.163 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Next Steps of *Consensus Based Rework* Rework

Title change is good. Brings it into line with maritime practice and makes it more assessable for those searching Google for information. It may be Enrica Lexie "Incident" is best. It's the most googled phrase and it is not pejorative to describe it as an Incident.

Next is to clean up the article, make structure more logical and reduce repetition without impacting POV. POV seems much better now, but there is so so much irrelevant information, or at least information without any relevance explained. Problem is if I take too much out it sets off alarm bells. But I think we can all form a consensus that the article is far too long by any standard.

Perhaps some parts should be on sub-pages. I mean section 11:

11 Other related developments 11.1 Italian football t-shirts for marines 11.2 Italian Navy flags display on Formula One cars 11.3 Link to Finmeccanica VIP helicopter bribery scandal 11.4 Impact on anti-piracy measures 11.5 Renaming of Enrica Lexie as Olympic Sky & Greek Reflagging

Is tangential at best. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But can we make a consensus judgment call and agree to get rid of some of it?

I think we need a structure that flows in a logical fashion. And for each section we should first cover all the uncontentious facts before moving to present the facts in contention and the facts cited by each side in the broader dispute in support of their argued position. This should allow us to rebuild the article based on consensus. And let's do that. No edit wars and warnings and disputes. We can do better than that. Please can we do this. At the moment the article is so badly written it hardly provides a good starting point for someone researching the incident. If I shouldn't bother just let me know. Thanks (LOTSScholar) 131.111.141.163 (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• OK - made a couple of structural changes and reduced the word count without changing the substance of the article. Don't be alarmed by the change in word count - merely cutting words whilst keeping the same meaning. Any corrections or ideas most welcome (LOTSScholar) 131.111.141.163 (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Enrica Lexie case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140408214749/http://www.asianage.com/india/case-rome-may-boomerang-marines-022 to http://www.asianage.com/india/case-rome-may-boomerang-marines-022

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)