Jump to content

Talk:Rescue of Giuliana Sgrena

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 09:00, 20 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Duped

[edit]

All of this discussion is pointless because the vehicle was stupidly targeted by U.S. forces on purpose because Al-Qaeda tricked them into it. Al-Qaeda used the fearfulness and trigger-happy qualities of the soldiers against them by reporting that her vehicle had an ied in it, the U.S. took the bait. They were scared to admit being duped and voila, conspiracy theories abound but alas it is the simple answer [[1]]. If the car were going 1kph or 100 mph it was up against a soldier's fears which have no limits or reasonability! BTW Pier, you nailed it on all three! Pier said-->> Pier Scolari said "I hope the Italian government does something because either this was an ambush, as I think, or we are dealing with imbeciles or terrorized kids who shoot at anyone". unsigned comment added by |talk]]) 06:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Overlap?

[edit]

I think there is too large overlapping in the pages of Giuliana Sgrena, Nicola Calipari and Mario Lozano about the incident. I think a specific article is in order, to integrate all the information in one place (and possibly orderly so). Information in those three articles would then be transfered here, leaving a link and possibly a short resume in the original pages, specific to the role of each character. Any thoughts? --Orzetto 21:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And how would that be better than merely recording those element you see as shared in a short article with a name similar to that you propose, leaving the existing articles as-is? Sgrena has a career other than being a hostage. Calipari had a distinguished career outside of being a possible murder victim.
Among the drawbacks to your suggestion is the awkward, non-obvious name you propose for the article. While it is obvious that material on Nicola Calipari should be in an article entitled Nicola Calipari, your name is not obvious. The name of your proposed article could, as easily, be "the shooting of Sgrena and Calipari". The main info shouldn't be in an article with a non-obvious name. That is an invitation for chaos. -- Geo Swan 02:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please chill. I'm not inviting to chaos, I'm trying to gather all the information in one place. Right now we have different accounts of the story, and maintaining them may be difficult. It's pretty much like the whole account of the Battle of Waterloo not being present in the articles about Napoleon I of France, the Duke of Wellington and Gebhard von Blücher, where it is referenced.
The solution I propose would be better in that only one account will need to be maintained. I think the roles played by the single person in the incident should be briefly summarised in each article, along with a {{mainarticle}} template.
As for the name of the main article, I'm open to suggestions. It only must be a clearly NPOV name. In case of alternative names, someone invented redirects and the search box on the left of the screen. --Orzetto 06:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authority for Orzetto's changes ?

[edit]

I see that this suggestion is being implemented. I don't see where it was discussed, and consensus reached that it was a good idea. -- Geo Swan 14:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No authority, this is a Wiki. First, I consider your suggestion fundamentally incorrect, and I chose to ignore it. Three pages with the same information are a waste of space, a maintainance nightmare and simply a bad idea.
The facts of March 4 do not need to be retold thrice, but should be in their own article. Furthermore, the account present in Calipari's article was clearly shorter, even if it contained some bits of information not present in Sgrena's (which have now been integrated).
I'm also proceeding to reorganize the text, since it was a bit chaotic (it reported twice Fini's statement at the Italian Parliament, for instance). Furthermore, notes and links need reordering.
I am open to suggestions for the article name, but I will not recede on the principle of having only one article. This article is not only about Sgrena, or only Calipari or anyone else. It is documentation of one event.--Orzetto 17:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a wiki" -- so are you saying that, because this is a wiki, you don't feel you are under any obligation to take the views of other contributors into account? Didn't you put up a discussion notice? Presumably that was a commitment, on your part, to seek, and take into account, other contributors views. -- Geo Swan 18:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --Orzetto 15:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The American report

[edit]

The article currently says that the Americans, manning the roadblock, had successfully turned away two other vehicles before the arrival of the Italian's car. I read the report myself. What's going on? I read that they had turned back dozens of vehicles. I read that they had to fire warning shots in order to get half a dozen of those vehicles to stop. I read that several of those other vehicles had to screech their brakes, and leave skid marks, to stop in time.

The article does not make clear that the gunner was also tasked with aiming the hand-held floodlight -- a recipe for disaster.

The article says that Americans "followed procedure". Doesn't the American report say that the Americans had to receive on the job training from the previous unit, because the procedure for manning these roadblock was inadequately documented? I'd like to suggest that to say the Americans "followed procedure" gives the misleading impression that the procedure was adequately documented.

Didn't the American report have a list of suggestions as to how to prevent this kind of incident?

From reading the article, as it stands, a reader could walk away with the impression that the American report found nothing to fault. I'd like to suggest that this would be a highly misleading impression. -- Geo Swan 18:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They had turned away 2 vehicles that night. They had turned away "15-30" vehicles in their time in Iraq. (See wikisource link)
Paragraphs 2,3,4: feel free to add. Well, except the "recipe for disaster" part that would be NPOV. Again, since the disaster happened, it pretty much tells itself.
The American report found that some things may be improved, but did not indicate a violation of procedure. The Italian report indicates that, for instance, distances were too short (e.g. 130 instead of 200-400 metres for the Alert line, if I recall correcly). --Orzetto 15:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reconcile the idea that they turned away just two other vehicles with the discussion in the report of how many rounds the shooter fired? The report said that the gunner fired something like 60 rounds that night. Eleven rounds were in the Italian's vehicle. Some of the missing rounds had, the Americans claimed, been fired as warning shots, when the Italian vehicle approached. The other missing rounds had been fired at six or seven (I'll check) other vehicles that had required warning shots. -- Geo Swan 14:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The report said, in section # 4.7.5 5. (U) Number of Rounds, that 58 bullets had been fired from the shooter's weapon.
The report said, in section 4.8 H. (U) Findings that 15-30 vehicles had been turned away. -- Geo Swan 14:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, my bad. They were indeed 15-30 cars to be turned away, the black car and the white one were BOLOs (i.e. warnings) of possible car bombs, that they had actually not seen. About the rounds, the report specifies the weapon had been used seven times before, but in other occasions (not the same mission), and the Italian report actually criticises the Americans for not counting their ammunition properly. --Orzetto 19:11, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian report

[edit]

The section on the Italian report attributes to the Italian report aspects of the incident which were also acknowledged in the American report, giving the misleading impression that those aspects were in dispute, when they were not. -- Geo Swan 18:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tank and 400 rounds

[edit]

Hi, user TDC has edited out a part I had written about the 400 round and tank issue. I do follow the Italian media and I am sure I never came across any mentioning of tanks in the incident.

A google search confirms that most articles with both Sgrena's name and carro armato are not about the issue (a notable exception is an Indymedia article, a apparently translation of an article in English by Jeremy Scahill. I personally would expect this misunderstanding to be originated by an Italian who mistranslated the English armoured vehicle into carro armato, which actually means tank (yes, I know HMMWVs are technically not armoured vehicles, but it's not what you are thinking at when it's shooting at you).

A google search with Sgrena's full name and blindato (the Italian word for armoured vehicle) turns up many more relevant articles in Italian. Really, this tank thing is mostly limited to English-speaking press.

About the 400 figure, I highly doubt Sgrena 1) was counting them 2) could keep pace with the gun 3) could count all the way to 400 in three seconds. The 400 figure was given by Pier Scolari on TV, just after talking to Sgrena on the phone, visibly and comprehensibly upset. Journalists, present there, propagated the figure because they did not know any better. I know it's a long shot, but he maybe uncounsciously connected with the Italian title of a movie by François Truffaut, Quattrocento colpi, which used to be popular among his generation. --Orzetto 16:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that there was no mention of "tanks" in Italian press or in Sgrena's interviews and that the 300-400 figure was given only by Scolari, a few minutes after the event. GhePeU 17:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you confirmed it, then it must be true. TDC 23:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm an Italian who reads 2 or 3 newspapers every day and watches regularly television news, and probably I am more qualified than a POV warrior like you when we talk about what Italian people told in Italian to Italian journalist working in the Italian press. GhePeU 15:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me of a quote from Benjamin Franklin: Why is it that the man who reads nothing at all is often better informed and less ignorant than those who read many newpapers a day? TDC 15:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
When the news published on the newspapers are the subject of the controversy, the man who reads many newspapers a day is always better informed and less ignorant than the one who doesn't read the newspapers. With all my respects for Benjamin Franklin. GhePeU 16:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TDC, the burden of proof is on you. Have you found any firsthand material by Sgrena (interview, article) that talks about 400 rounds or a tank? --Orzetto 07:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance that you might trace back the original articile where this appeared ? Or is there anyone making a critical analysis about how these memes propagated ? Rama 17:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Original articles for the 400 rounds issue: from Repubblica and from Corriere della Sera --Orzetto 19:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Reserved Road" -> Sgrena -> Klien -> Goodman

[edit]

The article says that someone who interviewed someone who interviewed Sgrena, said that they were shot on the reserved road that connected the Green Zone to the airport. So, this is a quote at three removes. It is a misinterpretation. There is an expressway connecting downtown to the airport, it isn't normally reserved. 23 hours a day, most days, it is open for ordinary civilian use. The US military shuts it down, once or twice a day, at unpredictable times, to devote it exclusively to convoys navigating from the "Green Zone" to BIAP. They shut it down by setting up temporary "blocking points", like the one where Calipari was killed, at all the on-ramps, so no civilians can enter the highway. Manning these blocking points is dangerous. The GIs are exposed to sniper fire, and are visible to artillery spotters from multistory apartment buildings that are near the highway. So the blocking points are only supposed to be staffed for just fifteen minutes or so -- just long enough to clear the road and let the convoy proceed. The third hand assertion that Sgrena already believed they were on the secured route was incorrect. Either Sgrena, or Klien, or Goodman misunderstood. Fair enough. But should it be repeated in the article, if we know it is untrue -- even if Sgrena may have been the one who believed it? -- Geo Swan 14:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orzetto's map

[edit]

Beautiful map. Orzetto, how did you determine which on-ramp was "route vernon"? Are you sure the blocking point was place at the bottom of the on-ramp, not at the entrance? I'll re-read the US report. But my recollection was that blocking points were at the entrances to the on-ramps.

Placing the blocking points at the entrances makes a whole lot more sense. On ramps are one way. If the blocking points were at the end of the on-ramp, all the stopped vehicles would have to reverse back up the ramp to get back on route vernon -- a recipe for disaster if there are further civilian vehicles wanting to use the expressway.

FWIW the photos the map is based on predates the invasion. Pre-invasion the airport express was tree-lined, with lots of nice green trees planted in the median. The US removed all the trees. -- Geo Swan 14:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reports indicate that the position of the BP was in fact that one, and it's one of the main points of criticism in the Italian report. Somewhere in there it is clearly written that the placement of the BP was at the end of the turn and forced cars to turn back on an one-way lane. The reason for placing the BP there was (I think this is in the US report) that placing it at the entrance would have exposed the troops to attacks—I think I read in the report there were instances when US troops had been attacked with molotovs when stationing too close to that bridge.


Satellite photo?

[edit]
  • The article currently says that CBS reported that satellite photos established the speed of the Italian's car.
  • The article currently says that the Italians were skeptical about the reports of satellite surveillance, because of bad weather.

FWIW, Negroponte would, normally, have traveled to the airport by helicopter. He didn't, that night, because weather conditions precluded the use of the helicopter.

Negroponte only made a brief visit to the airport. By the time he was ready to return the weather conditions had improved enough for Negroponte to fly back. But no one told the soldiers who were holding Route Irish open for him. The rules were that the soldiers who were guarding Route Irish were only supposed to be on station for fifteen minutes. High-rise buildings, where snipers and artillery spotters had a good view, overlook the expressway. Fifteen minutes is supposed to be long enough for the soldier's roadblocks to empty the expressway of civilian traffic, so it is empty for the convoy, and for the convoy to travel the 12 km to the airport. But, it was thought to be brief enough that rebel artillery spotters couldn't organize a barrage, unless they and their batteries were on watch 24x7.

The soldiers guarding the roadblocks that night had been left in clear view of potential snipers and artillery spotters for over an hour and a half when the Italian's car came into view.

Anyhow, about the visibility:

  • Weather clear enough for helicopter flight was not necessarily clear enough for satellite surviellance. How likely is it that the weather could go from too wild for helicopter flight to clear enough for satellite photos in an hour and a a half?
  • Isn't part of the downside of satellite surveillance that the satellites orbits takes them over any particular spot on a fixed schedule, and they are only over the spot you are interested in a very limited part of the time?
  • How often is satellite surviellance done in the form of a movie? Why would it be necessary to make a movie? Isn't satellite surveillance usually in the form of still photos? If a movie was worthwhile how often would an exposure be necessary?

I raise this merely so we can keep an eye out for authoritative, verifiable sources that would allow confirming or denying these reports.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory suggestion

[edit]

A contrib was made at the top of this page, w/o a heading, by 68.163.182.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at 14:55, 30 October 2007. A minute later, they removed the accurate sig they had initially placed there.
Instead of simply moving it from that improper position, i am suppressing the full text from this page, pursuant to the terms of Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article space and in light of the extreme language, the lack of either a stated proposal about the accompanying page's content or any relevance to it under WP's policies, and the apparent acting in concert with another IP in expressing similarly BLP-relevant statements. I substitute for it here a mixture of plain-text verbatim excerpts with my italicized paraphrases of the removed material:

This is just one US checkpoint killing that happened to get media attention cuz the victims were an Italian journalist and police agents. Imagine how many Iraqis may be killed by U.S. forces at checkpoints, and we never hear anything. Such acts could be easily concealed: burn the bodies and steal the cars or push them into a ditch.

--06:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

The image Image:Nicola Calipari.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rescue of Giuliana Sgrena. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rescue of Giuliana Sgrena. 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:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rescue_of_Giuliana_Sgrena&oldid=1209101421"