Talk:AdvanFort

Hired vs. attracted

Two sources are bemoaning the fact the company offered so much more pay than the Estonian military that they depleted the country's navy. Hence "attracted". Yngvadottir (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

add that context into the article? the offer of extraordinary pay rates seems notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to me that that would be getting into POV territory, so I kept it brief. Have a look and if you think more should be said, add it. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC

Location of incident

The location of the incident is of utmost importance and not 'excessive'. The judicial outcome of the case can/will depend on where the ship was located. This news report can be considered authentic because it comes from coverage of the court proceedings where the information was presented to the judge by the public prosecutor of the Indian Govt. Also of interest is the fact that the distance quoted (approx. 4 to 5 nm from Nallathanni Theevu island) puts to rest the discussion about if the ship was in Indian waters or not. The deletion of this information from the article on the grounds that it is 'excessive' is dubious. Arccotangent (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

We should wait till the case is settled for that level of precision. We have the statement of where the intercept took place, and the note that the ship was near the reserve. Until the matter is legally settled, any more is "X said" and "Y said"; and we're giving the reader enough references to read up on the two sides' statements in more detail if they wish. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Going by the information regarding the location presented at the court by the Govt. representative, it would put the interception within the nature reserve. This is not a minor detail because (as you may know by reading the wikipedia article on the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park) there is a 10 kilometre buffer zone around the boundary of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve. Arccotangent (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

such details, if accurate would have an impact on the court case. However, as the source is the prosecutor who has an inherent conflict of interest and is not a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but more importantly in my view, it's not our job to minutely examine the legal position or even to record things that may be important in settling/adjudicating the case. But rather to present an overview as it relates to the company. So I deemed it important to note the 35 were denied bail, but for the rest I believe as an encyclopedia we should report the decision when it's reached, rather than all the arguments leading up to it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Removals by User:Williamhugheswatson

This newly registered user has twice removed referenced information about the company's president and board members. The board members information has the {{As of}} template, indicating it was correct at that time; of it has since changed, please find and add a reference for the updated information and change the info and template date accordingly. For the president, I find the same information still listed in directory information for that person, including his personal LinkedIn profile; however, the newly registered user's username is the same as the president's. If this is the person himself editing the article, please provide a reference; simply changing the sentence to something not supported by the reference cited will not do. If not, the user name needs to change since it constitutes impersonation. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Legal analysis

I removed the following paragraph added on February 7 as undue. I have added the author's name and corrected the date from the bottom of the web page (which is more authoritative than Twitter):

One of the most prominent law journals in the United States, Cornell International Law Journal (ILJ), carried a detailed legal analysis of the Seaman Guard Ohio incident centred on matters of sovereignty and jurisdiction in a report titled "Criminal Jurisdiction over Maritime Security in the Indian Ocean". According to the report, the "AdvanFort arrest is another assertion of Indian sovereignty over its coastal waters, and one that seeks to cover a previously untouched area of maritime security" and goes on to conclude that "India wants to press its maritime sovereignty to the limit through an intersection of UNCLOS grants and readings of its own statutes. India’s successful pursuit of the case against Italy (in the 2012 Enrica Lexie incident) bodes well for the ensuing AdvanFort litigation".

References

the basic idea is relevant "Advanfort/India issue is new maritime law/sovereignty rights frontier"- but the approach and focus and presentation ("One of the most prominent law journals") is all wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

(That was me unsigned above). I had a similar thought after I ran out to work, but also found "press its maritime sovereignty to the limit" to be POV. So I've summarized it on a very basic level. How does that work for people now? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

looks good!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to summarisation of the short text that I compiled from the 6-page ILJ report. However, I feel that the one-liner edited by Yngvadottir (talk) does not convey the sense of the report. A lay reader will understand the one-line text as meaning that the outcome of the case can 'potentially' have ramifications for India's maritime sovereignty. However, a reading of the report clearly states the following :

* India has chosen the perfect legal battle to press its political and legal claims in matters of maritime on matters of sovereignty and jurisdiction

* AdvanFort's legal and diplomatic offensive is faced with an uphill battle in view of the clear-cut legal provisions in international and national maritime laws that clearly favour the Indian stance.

* The ramifications of the outcome of the case don't just have India centric consequences. The manner in which India has already acted by intercepting and impounding the MV Seaman Guard Ohio is 'de-facto' a reality that PMSCs have to deal with if operating in EEZ and CZ areas without adequate permits/permissions from the littoral state(s).

* The report makes it clear that the stake-holders in the Advanfort litigation (Estonia, Ukraine, UK, Sierra Leone & USA) have not demonstrated major willingness to expend diplomatic or political capital to take Advanfort's side in its legal woes against India.

May I request that the new replacement text take these points into consideration and re-compile a better one- or two-liner ? Ad interim I am not going to revert to the text but hope that a new text can be agreed-to upon rapidly. 91.182.231.242 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, it's still one legal scholar's opinion; not enough for Wikipedia to endorse (or emphasize) the point. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is not about seeking 'endorsement' from Wikipedia. It is simply about reflecting/referring an independent as well as informed analysis of the legal and political-diplomatic basis and arguments at play. The author of the report has researched the subject based on real/sourced facts and not hypothesis. Therefore, there is room to reasonably argue that the points that I have made in my original text and which I have expanded upon here on the talk page are relevant. 91.182.231.242 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the statement "The case has potentially important legal ramifications for India's interpretation of its maritime sovereignty" is factually incorrect. Reason being that through the detention of the MV Seaman Guard Ohio, India has already taken policy steps (therefore interpreted) its understanding of maritime sovereignty viz international treaty obligations and with respect to domestic laws.

Also, at the initial set of court hearings judges have agreed that there are grounds for not throwing the case out of court either on procedural grounds or because of invalid legal basis for the detention.

The case cannot have "potential legal ramifications for India" because till now none of the other concerned countries with interests in this case have pursued challenges to India's detention of the ship and crew after it became clear that the vessel was operating without suitable/valid permit(s) and in a zone/area outside the ICC designated anti-piracy High-Risk Area.

India has already asserted limited extension of maritime jurisdiction to cover criminal actions by armed-guards within its CZ and EEZ by creating jurisprudence (reference the Enrica Lexie incident case where-in it detained armed maritime guards who were coincidently also Italian Navy Marines). Therefore, there is nothing to show that the MV Seaman Guard Ohio arrest/detention was unique and a historic first of sorts.

In my opinion, if at all anything, the case/incident has highlighted de-facto broad/narrow interpretation of UNCLOS maritime sovereignty by several littoral states (like India, USA, China, etc.,) to assert maritime jurisdiction within EEZ and CZ waters. So, the outcome of this case (as well as the case concerning the Italian Navy Marines) in India has ramifications for States who have unilaterally authorised armed-guards to operate within the EEZ and CZ of other countries.

In the light of the afore-mentioned points, kindly note that I have modified the text in keeping with the sense of the report but redacting the semantic error that it earlier contained (claiming that the outcome of the legal case had sovereignty implications for India).

If you are going to undo the change, then can you please clarify on how this case has "potential legal ramifications" for India ? Maybe I am missing out on something somewhere.

91.182.231.242 (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Potential ramifications because the case is not yet settled, initial ruling notwithstanding. Your formulation, with "highlighting", in fact says less - we know India is asserting a broader jurisdiction (quote from the article: "In this latest case, India wants to press its maritime sovereignty to the limit through an intersection of UNCLOS grants and readings of its own statutes"); the point of the article is that this case has the potential to affirm that (which the author considers likely - quote: "India’s successful pursuit of the case against Italy bodes well for the ensuing AdvanFort litigation." etc. - that's the opinion part) or to limit it. I considered keeping your specification: "[[Territorial_waters#Contiguous_zone|coastal zones]] adjacent to its territorial waters" - but felt that was undue legal analysis until the case is indeed settled one way or another (which can of course include the company making an out-of-court settlement). It's both undue and crystal-ballish, in my view, for us as an encyclopedia to either reproduce India's case and the legal situation behind it, or predict the outcome, as that author has every right to do. For those kinds of analyses, the reference is there for the reader. On the other hand, there is likely at least one article - probably the article and section you linked to - in which a brief note about India's claims of sovereignty, the previous case and this one as they relate to that, and possibly other littoral states if there are adequate sources to support broadening the point in that way, would have a place. Too much here until the case is settled and there are multiple secondary sources analyzing its effect on the legal situation. In my opinion at least. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Now I get a clearer understanding of your perspective. I feel that the article can make reference to the key issues at stake (see list below) without pre-judging the final judicial/political/diplomatic outcome. Maybe it is best to have others weigh-in and see/say how the article can be expanded/improved in the part which deals with the core (interlinked) issues as stake : management of anti-piracy efforts, littoral and/or flag-State maritime sovereignty claims, jurisdictional control of non-State actors (PCASP - privately contracted armed security personnel), etc.91.182.231.242 (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a legal review.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Information pending review & incorporation

Sand-box for news cites and sources for latest developments that are pending review and incorporation into article.

AdvanFort Begins Internal Restructuring [1] (Source: Marine Link / Source Type: Online magazine specializing in maritime domain)91.182.126.147 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• The good information to have would be when they finish that process and have a new president/COO in place, but in the interim I've added the name of the acting president (although the source contradicts itself as to his former title) and the fact restructuring is taking place. I'm not 100% sure either the latter or the financial rumors are encyclopedic. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid having to defend against WP:CONTROVERSY and therefore thought it better to throw that link here onto the talk page so that it can be used as a back-up source of info when a more useful and reliable source which is clear-cut under WP:VERIFICATION is found. (91.182.126.147 aka Onlyfactsnofiction) Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There is an article [2] in Maritime-Executive with says the following : "AdvanFort, a self-proclaimed private security company with American ties, had at least two recent publicly known incidents involving improperly registered weapons in foreign waters. The AdvanFort weapons-storage vessel is U.S.-flag, and the crew of that ship is now imprisoned in India and facing trial. AdvanFort has fired its American president and ostensibly abandoned its foreign crew in prison." They mention two recent publicly known incidents involving improperly registered weapons in foreign waters. One is in India and the other is where ?

Mention [3] of a "Petition to free Ashington pirate-hunter Nick Dunn to be handed into Downing Street" appeared in "Chronicle Live" (never heard of this newspaper).Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw that or a similar one for another British member of the crew. I judged them not significant enough to mention. As for the other incident, perhaps the one that led to the fine in the US? Without solid information, we obviously can't add anything. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that today's BBC article [4] "David Cameron urged to help British ex-soldiers jailed in India" about the arrested crew members and armed guards gives us some pertinent information that can be used to (1) highlight the kind of support being generated in UK for the crew & guards (2) talk about what the UK Govt is willing to do and is already doing, (3) what the families want the UK and Indian Govts. to do regarding the conditions of detention and finally (4) mention the état d'esprit of those detained in India.

The article gives a clear view of where the case stands at this point of time and how it is being dealt with. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir : Can you explain this revertion [5] that you made saying "Removed reaction statement, tweaked"?

* By comparing the differences, you can see that the changes made were : (1) changed the word "seek" to "sought" because the event is in the past, (2) said that the petition was by the families of the former UK soldiers, (3) inserted a quote made by a UK minister and (4) removed the small sentence about petitions because we have already spoken about the most important petition (the one with 136000 signatures [6]).

* Please explain why you consider a statement by the UK minister as a tweak which is not 'noteworthy' ? I inserted ”Ian Lavery, the British MP for Wansbeck, defended the British Government's handling of the case stating : “It’s been a very difficult time and I think they feel let down by the British Government, but it’s AdvanFort who have let the individuals down rather than the Government or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.” is especially important because it addresses claims made by the relatives of those detained in India that the 35 detained persons feel 'let down' by those who should be defending them. You deleted the Ian Lavery quotation but left the source citation link where-in the British MP's quote was taken from. Why do you have concerns with the quote from the article on Chronicle Live[7] ?

* BTW & FYI, reports (for example [8] [9] [10]) have stated that the contract of the UK legal team (Ince & Co) was terminated by Advanfort on 19 march - the day prior to the 20 march court hearing for their bail leaving just the Indian legal-team assisting those detained.

* There are also many articles (for example [11] [12] [13] [14]) about what the relatives think about the pace of the legal process and the help/attention that Govts are giving to this case. Citing/quoting relatives is the only way because those who are in jail in India are not currently free to access newspaper journalists and submit their version of events and impressions about their welfare [15] [16] [17] [18] during detention.

* Can you also tell me why you deleted my BBC article [19] as a citation source ?

* Several media publications [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] have published news articles about this case over the past week and therefore there is reason to update the page with a summarized version of these happenings. This is what I attempted to do in good-faith and without including any controversial claims or biased inclusions.

* If you wish to make-up any phrase to include these new events into the article in a condensed manner, do go ahead. But, kindly avoid redacting text which I included in good-faith with just cryptic explanations "Removed reaction statement, tweaked" whose logic I fail to comprehend.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's my response copied from my talk page:

I think you may have misread the diff: I removed the reaction statement by the minister and "tweaked" (condensed) the account of what the petition sought to have happen. I did not remove any sources.

We clearly disagree about the importance of these details in an article about the company. I had seen press coverage of the distress about the British members of the crew; and also coverage about the captain and others. There has also been a plethora of Indian coverage. All of this needs to be weighed as to its importance to an article on the company; I expect to reduce a lot of it after the incident is finally resolved. Frankly, I didn't think the petition rose to the level of importance in an article about the company that would justify inclusion; you disagreed and put it in once it had been submitted, but it should be kept as brief as possible, without reaction quotes. (Note that I previously trimmed reaction quotes from Indian political figures.)

Thanks for keeping on top of the story, but the article is not about the story; it's about the company, in an encyclopedia. We're skirting WP:UNDUE as it is. (Have you considered writing about the incident on WikiNews? It strikes me as just the kind of long-running, international story they have the potential to cover better than print.) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We do clearly differ on the scope and interpretation of WP:UNDUE.

You appear to act like you are the appointed guardian of this page saying I expect to reduce a lot of it after the incident is finally resolved.. Hello, who appointed you as the unique and/or authorised 'gate-keeper' of this page ? And, what gives you the right to claim that you have a right to do what you want but that others must accept your writ on this ?

If you feel that a quote is unnecessary, then make a suggestion instead of deleting a fully compliant good-faith text inclusion without a decent explanation on the talk page. Also, may I ask you to stop behaving like you own the article ? You don't. Neither do I. So, talk and explain yourself when you make an outright deletion instead of a cryptic "Removed reaction statement, tweaked".

You say that article is not about the story; it's about the company, in an encyclopedia so will you accept that the information about Advanfort terminating the contract of the UK legal team (Ince & Co) on 19 march just a day prior to an important court hearing is 'noteworthy' ?

I agree that the article needs to be kept tidy and short. But, that is no excuse for the omission of key details and recent happenings.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you found my edit summary cryptic; the space is a bit small, but I hope you now see that I did indeed remove only the reaction statement?

I don't think these updates rise to the level of needing to be incorporated, no. People in several countries are angry and worried about the people in prison, in addition to the Indians who are angry at what the company is accused of doing. There is an ongoing court case with lots of legal jockeying. In my view, the details are undue, not key.

There is no requirement to discuss edits in advance. You boldly added the petition being submitted; I tightened up what you had added. You responded by posting a question here. All this is the normal WP:BRD cycle. I remain unconvinced that we need a blow-by-blow account of the legal case. But I don't believe either of us is exhibiting ownership. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just as you are entitled to your views, do show understanding and accept that others too have their views. It has been frustrating to repeatedly have WP:GOODFAITH inclusions wiped-out just because of differing interpretations of WP:WEIGHT, WP:TRIVIA and WP:UNDUE. I insist that the information about Advanfort terminating the contract of the UK legal team (Ince & Co) on 19 march just a day prior to an important court hearing is contextual to the article besides also being 'noteworthy'. Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Then put it in. Where it will be subject to the same editing response options as anything anyone puts into an article. I did not remove the petition (may I politely point out that that is showing understanding and acceptance of differing views), but I do reserve the right to edit the article, and I do believe that once the end of the story is known, a lot of the interim steps will no longer be germane to the article. I for my part am not "insisting", but the article is about the company; let me repeat the suggestion that the kind of detailed blow-by-blow account of the incident and the court proceedings that you appear to envisage - with reactions from politicians - appears to me more suited to WikiNews, where if the incident does not already have an article, I believe you would do a service by creating one, while of course having the right to continue to update this one. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Agreed. I will update the article with special attention to be as concise as possible. We do concur that nobody should prevent anyone from making WP:CCPOL contributions. Therefore, feel free to improve upon my contribution. I am going to consider this discussion as constructive criticism and move forward. As a gesture of courtesy and in good-faith, I am asking if you have a suggestion on the wording/phrasing you would like for the points I highlighted ? If yes, then please make them either here or on the article directly and I'll pick-up where you left.

What about forking-off this incident section and making it into a separate article given that 6 months has passed since this incident occurred, that this topic reappears with regularity in both local/national and maritime security news, given that closure is nowhere in sight, etc., ? That way it is possible to focus attention on the incident instead of the ship or the company. I remember that this was an idea that was discussed a few months ago and at that time the opinion was that the incident was too recent to merit an article. Maybe this is now a good time to re-examine.

Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You could of course create a separate article, but it would be almost guaranteed to be taken to AfD: WP:NOTNEWS. The event is not over yet; it is impossible to tell whether it will have lasting impact. Your choice, but I reiterate that extended treatment of the event is more a WikiNews kind of thing than an encyclopedic kind of thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC Timeline or Events Chronology

There are some of the court appearance related dates and events which seem to be no longer really notable to necessitate inclusion in the article. What about a events chronology list type of presentation layout containing the most prominent happenings. Does this suggestion seem relevant ? Onlyfactsnofiction (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think prose is better and am hoping eventually to cut down the incident section, once the end of the story is known. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Info on Advanfort

For potential background, there is a useful BBC TV report on AdvanFort [27] and the broadcast [28] (accessible in the UK on BBC iPlayer until 7 Oct) but usefully made more widely available by a seamen's union [29] Davidships (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AdvanFort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017050107/http://www.newsx.com/national/nation/item/11942-arms-laden-us-ship-in-tuticorin-no-clear-answers-yet to http://www.newsx.com/national/nation/item/11942-arms-laden-us-ship-in-tuticorin-no-clear-answers-yet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)