Talk:US military investigation clears soldiers in shooting of Nicola Calipari

Ping

Italian machine translation (by babelfish)

Un'indagine militare continua degli Stati Uniti sulla morte dell'agente italiano Nicola Calipari di intelligenza ha eliminato i soldati degli Stati Uniti caricati. Un funzionario degli Stati Uniti che parla anonimo dichiarato "i soldati era tutto che si conforma ai modi di utilizzazione standard per quei punti di controllo e quindi non era culpable di dereliction del dovere dopo nelle loro procedure". Il governo italiano ha rifiutato i risultati delle corti. Il rapporto è stato fatto ritardare in modo che le dispute potessero essere risolte fra i due governi. Queste dispute hanno incluso i disaccordi su quanto velocemente l'automobile stava andando mentre si è avvicinato al punto di controllo e se fosse stato comunicato mai ai soldati degli Stati Uniti che l'automobile ed i passeggeri stavano attraversando quel giorno.

Dori's translation

La militare indagine dagli Stati Uniti sulla morte dell'agente d'intelligenza italiano Nicola Calipari ha concluso che i soldati degli Stati Uniti non sono colpevolli. Un funzionario degli Stati Uniti che parla anonimo ha dechiarato che "i soldati hanno rispettato alla lettera le procedure standard assegnate ai militari di guardia a un checkpoint, dunque non sono colpevoli." Il governo italiano ha rifiutato i risultati della corte. Il rapporto si è tenuto

coperto in modo che si potessero risolte le differenze fra i due governi. I disputi erano la velocita che l'automobile stava andando quando si è avvicinata al punto di controllo e se si c'e stato della comunicazione fra i soldati degli Stati Uniti e i passeggeri del'automobile.

potessero risolvere

Italian Translation

I made it. Better: I corrected it on the italian Wikinews. Thanks for contribution... ^__^ --Gatto Nero 08:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gosh! Four time repeated! Record? --Gatto Nero 08:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Please change the title to indicate the court was a US controlled court; e.g. "US court clears US soldiers".The way it is now it gives the impression the shooters are innocent.Paulrevere2005 11:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul, for all accounts and purposes, the shooters have been declared innocent. Lyellin 11:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By whom? I believe there is still an ongoing Italian investigation. All I'm saying is the title should indicate it was a US controlled review/court that cleared them.Maybe "Pentagon clears US Soldiers in shooting of Nicola Calipari" or "US military investigation clears soldiers in shooting of Nicola Calipari"

If you feel comfortable with that, just change the title and remove the dispute tag.I have to go out for awhile. Overall, a very good article imo. Paulrevere2005 13:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there an ongoing Italian investigation? If so, that should be added to the article. The only reason I'd say it's not nessecary is that the first line does specify it is a US court. *shrugs* I also think it's a bit heavy to put the dispute tag on it, but that's alright. I really have no problem moving it. Any other editor opinions? Lyellin 14:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm with PaulRevere2005 on this one. In general, a government clearing their own soldiers of wrongdoing carries less weight than, say, the and international court or the government of a hostile nation clearing the same soldiers of wrongdoing. I think "US military investigation clears soldiers in shooting of Nicola Calipari," as suggested by PaulRevere2005 is pretty good. Pingswept 16:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page moved. :) Hopefully that helps with the one tag, but I'll let paul remove it. Lyellin

• Thanks Lyellin; I was going to remove my tag but see Dan100 has already removed it. Paulrevere2005 19:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This story is a coverup of a coverup and needs to be completely rewritten. There was no court--as others have said--but that is only the tip of the iceberg. Leave the flag on until this gets rewritten. I may try to do it later today if no one else does. Forgot to sign... --HiFlyer 16:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you be more specific Alan? I see nothing misleading in the article, nor does it contravene NPOV. Dan100 (Talk) 17:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing tags

I'm removing the tags for the following reasons:

• The article is not non-NPOV - both sides are fairly represented.
• The article is not misleading - it is simple fact that the US have cleared their own soldiers. That's what the article is about.

Publishing now. Dan100 (Talk) 17:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone may, however, want to write an article about the Italian reaction to the news. Dan100 (Talk) 17:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dan, I'm sorry I had to leave right after tagging it and I knew it would be taken care of. Everyone knows what was wrong with that story, and even though it is no longer in the throes of NPOV, it is a world headline and we have devoted a few very "newbie" graphs to it, which changed my center of gravity for a few minutes.

I will add some sources etc to it and move along. Thanks... --HiFlyer 21:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)