Talk:Death of Carlo Giuliani

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

NPOV and RS[edit]

Note: I have been forced to make major changes to this article in an attempt to bring it up to standard in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:RS

WP:RS Violations: I have been forced to remove the vast majority of the links from the article, as well as several sentences which cited their sources from the same links. They are in blatant violation of WP:RS. Read it if you don't believe me. A memorial page created by Giuliani's supporters is NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE!!! I don't know how else to say this... Likewise, neither is a German anarchist/counter-culture blog. Or a dead link to nowhere, both of which were also present. There was one legitimate source I kept, an article from an Italian daily newspaper. I attempted to fill it in as best I could with articles from The Guardian, CNN, and the BBC, since they were pretty much the only reputable sources I had access to at the time. This article could benefit from much more legitimate sourcework, but as paltry as the current sources are, they are cited, referenced, and completely in adherence to WP:RS. If you want to delete/add new ones, make certain they meet the standard!

WP:NPOV Violations: In concert with the above RS violations, the entire thing was clearly written with a pro-Giuliani pro-Anarchist slant, at the expense of the factual impartiality of the article. For example: I replaced all of the instances referring to rioters as "demonstrators". A demonstration or protest, by their usual definitions, specifically refer to a non-violent gathering. Once a demonstration or protest becomes violent (including vandalism, theft, rock-throwing, car-flipping, etc), it ceases to be demonstration or protest and becomes a riot, composed of rioters. To insinuate otherwise is to both violate NPOV and the dictionary. I also carefully distinguished between the "protesters" and "demonstrators" of the nonviolent Genoa marches and the "rioters" of the violent fringe groups.

If you have issue with the article, please bring it up here so we can discuss if before further changes are made. I have a bad feeling about this one...but I'm not one to allow an article so badly in need of Wikification to go undealt with.

Bullzeye 07:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down boy. Were you there? Anti-globalization sites made by direct witnesses are not legimate sources, while CNN is one? Wasn't CNN the one to compare protests in Paris in 2005 to the Tianamen massacre? COme on!... Avoid massive rewrite, and if you have any POV problem, put a template, discuss the matter, but don't delete sources. Thanks. Giuliani was not a "violent rioter". I doubt you would find any "proof" backing that up... Tazmaniacs 17:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vrbova4grana

"The Guardian, CNN, and the BBC" ... Why do you think those are reputable and unbiased? I see it more like choosing idea of "i have to believe someone", than the real understanding of the situation. Those media are mainstream media, they're part of bad-side-globalisation - the thing that protesters in Genova (and many other places!) protested against! They, as just because of that, especially in this topic cannot be considered unbiased.vrbova4grana —Preceding comment was added at 01:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Gianfranco, you write "no demonstrators charged with homicide - No firebombings in the square ever"; but the demonstrators who came forward to testify about his death have in fact been charged with attempted homicide, and the Piazza Alimonda have been firebombed twice. See http://www.italy.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/142458.php for the firebombing; and http://www.italy.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/124937_comment.php#128409 for the statement on the Genoa Legal Forum about the demonstrators charged with attempted homicide. Doctors were not forbidden to help him, but the confusion and chaos that surrounded the situation and the continuing clash did prevent doctors from being able to immediately tend to him.

Well, I'm not going to discuss the eventual prestige of indimedia. For what we have to consider here, it's not a neutral source. It gives meaning to the otherwise theoretical "right of speech" and "freedom of expression". But it self-defines as "revolutionary".
Unless you are going to enrich my knowledge, it is the only source for this news.
After this point, let me please note that in Italy we have an increasing attention (already a deep general interest) for no-global movements and their ideas. This means that the general opinion and feeling is not against them, as the wide popular support for the last peaceful meeting in Florence showed. And the "anti-no-global" Oriana Fallaci, who is often indicated as a "serious" commenter, remained quite alone and in practice lost most of her reputation with her last disconcerting comments.
Given all what above, and adding that we have several national newspapers and TV-news openly supporting no-global campaigns, I can actually see no danger of censorship (or false covering) on these themes, and I can see instead that some no-global themes are starting to be unexpectedly shared with extreme-right and governmental politicians too.
In all this, I never read - anywhere, and I read a lot - of those firebombings. I have read instead many stories about what single "Genovesi" had to suffer after the incredible G8 days. For instance, let's consider how are now living those many little shop-keepers or artisans that lost their principal familiar patrimony, set on fire or otherwise vandalised during the guerrilla. This too deserves a mention, I believe. But not one word has been spent on this.
Then, my friend, let's balance the whole: please add more neutral sources for your contribution, and we'll all have the common interest to add them to the article. On my side, I'll check them very easily and I'll be glad to verify their correctness.
On a more general reflection, I can't tell if it's really fair, for the same memory and basic respect of himself, to make a martyr of Giuliani, who died in a situation of which he clearly wouldn't today be proud of, if the story had another ending. There is moral sufference on all sides, let's not forget that a young boy too, was forced to have his life forever conditioned by that damned afternoon. I clearly remember the "net's voice", in the following evening, that I hope you can check on Google's usenet archives.
This is why I'm sure we won't use tendencial arguments here in the Wiki, using instead our usual objective style. --G

When someone picks up a fireextinquisher to throw it at a police officer, they aren't doing it because they under some kind of control or whatever you think must have been picking it up. HE did this because he, and everyone there, believed in what they were doing. Carlos is dead now, so you cannot possibly say what he'd feel about those events later. However, since you aren't a part of the same cause I'm in, I doubt I can ever make you understand.--FionMacCumhail 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which happened first ?[edit]

It says here in the article that "Carlo Giuliani picked up a fire extinguisher and, apparently intending to throw it at the officers inside the police jeep, was shot in the face by one of the officers."

This suggests that he was shot as a consequence of his intention to throw the fire extinguisher, but the video documentation presented here http://www.piazzacarlogiuliani.org/carlo/iter/dvd/Quale_verita_per_Piazza_Alimonda_en.mp4 proves that it was the other way around. Apparently the officer inside the car flipped and was pointing his gun and yelling "I'll kill you all, communist bastards" afew seconds before Carlo picked up the fire extinguisher, in order to remove the threat...

so i'm not very happy with the current phrasing.

In that second picture you can see the gun pointed directly at him... so at least the claim the bullet was deflected in mid-air is probably wrong (BIG surprise).

The website you cite as "proof" is precisely the sort of utterly biased source-material Wikipedia prohibits. They don't even make the barest attempt at NPOV. If you have objective source material (from a non-biased, reliable source) to back up your material, then by all means post it and cite it. That's what we're all about. But in the mean time, I suggest you take a serious look at WP:RS and WP:NPOV before you make further edits on this topic. Bullzeye 05:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dear Big Surprise,
1) you source isn't neutrally at all, i think we can't use this source for this article
2) the cop wasn't yelling "i'll kill you all" or so, but he said: "go away or i'll shot" he said that for 2 time then shot 2 times on the sky (police's ordinary proceeding in this situations of civil war), but happen that he was injured and poisoned by cop's smoke (that is the reason why he was on the car, they was driving him to the nearly hospital when crowd assalt them), and his shot wasn't' direct on the sky but on front of himself: one bullet on Giuliani's face, the 2nd in the top of palace in their front (and this is the evidence that he don't shoot for kill)
3) quote "apparently intending to throw it at the officers": apparently? sure? just apparently?
4) i'm italian and i couldn't never understand how people can defende Carlo Giuliani, when all videos and picture show that he die when he was assalting a car with injured people. cops on the car wasn't assalting them.

--SaveTheWorldFromWar (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"murdered anarchists"[edit]

I have removed the category "murdered anarchists", as Giuliani was NOT murdered. It's for a court to decide if someone was murdered, not for Wikipedia. And as there was no court hearing... Something Wicked 11:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo was shot and killed without a reason, he was murdered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PunkSkaOi (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WITHOUT A REASON??? He was assalting together with dozens of other people a police car carrying injured cops to the hospital. The definition "killed withot areason and hence muredered" it's only yours, hand has no correspondance with any technical definition. You may not agree with the reason, but you cannot say thatre was NO reason. I'm sorry but you cannot use a technical term in this way. -Emilio-

Anarchist?????[edit]

On what grounds the article says that he was an anarchist???--Pokipsy76 10:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't find any links to back up my statement, Carlo was a self-proclaimed anarchist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PunkSkaOi (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Giuliani-Fire Extinguisher.jpg[edit]

Image:Giuliani-Fire Extinguisher.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Giuliani-Jeep Attack.jpg[edit]

Image:Giuliani-Jeep Attack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist?[edit]

An anonimous user has replaced "anti-globalization supporter" by "anarchist". I don't know of any source describing him as an anarchist and I would suggest to undo this edit. Do you think it is ok?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"anti-globalization supporter" makes no sense, it is a term used by media only. 18:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.199.196 (talk)

he was a boy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.19.76.45 (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC) He was 23-years-old. I think anarchist or autonomist are good choices.[reply]

ok, he wasn't a boy, but he wasn't an anarchist as well. an activist? 79.10.34.188 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Just because there's no sources directly stating it, doesn't mean he wasn't an anarchist. Even if he wasn't an anarchist, he was participating in a black bloc, using tactics which have been popularized, and are generally used by anarchists. All that really needs to be stated was that he was anti-capitalist, because that was most certainly a factor in his murder. It has been generally said within the anti-globalization movement, and sometimes the media (independent, and mass), that he was an anarchist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.239.78 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And back to the Article[edit]

Hello... I think we all need to dispense with the personal in this discussion if we want to revise this article this into the biography that Carlo deserves, along the guidelines specified by the wikipedia project. I'm going to work on it this week, but in case you beat me to it, here are my thoughts....

One simple rule to live by when making factual statements or value judgments (here or in the real world) - don't make 'em if you can't back 'em up. Cite your sources and make sure the sources are accredited (not personal websites, indymedia, etc). I think we all are aware that there is bias in the mainstream media, but not all accredited media is capitalist/right wing. A little bit of digging and google-ing is all it takes (fair.org, zmag.org, mediatransparency.org and commondreams.org come to mind as good clearing houses for alternative news in the U.S.) If Carlo was "an anarchist", find a reference that says he was a member of such and such anarchist group.

And, abstract semantic arguments aside, we all perceive words differently, especially across cultures, so neutral definitions are best found in the dictionary. The words "demonstrator" (One that demonstrates, such as a participant in a public display of opinion) and "protester" (an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid) are not specifically violent or non-violent, they can be either and prefaced as such. "Rioter" is not neutral because it applies a judgment about the circumstance when people may have been simply reacting to immediate circumstances. The use of the words "violence" or "violent" is also problematic. Can violence be committed against inanimate objects (e.g. property) or only against animate objects (humans, animals)? Long argument. Can/should acting in self-defense (even against the police/military/state) be labeled as violence instead of self-defense? Many people in the anti-globalisation movement, and elsewhere, define themselves as non-violent but believe that acting in self-defense does not invalidate this.

Last point, and again relating to word usage/neutrality in this discussion, that could confuse our understanding of the circumstances of this incident. Here are some user quotes and my response:

"Apparently the officer inside the car flipped and was pointing his gun and yelling "I'll kill you all, communist bastards"

- Without citation this is meaningless. Also, being Communist in Italy does not carry the same prejudice in say Britain or the U.S. Much of Northern Italy (where Genoa is) is fiercely communist and has been since at least WWII when they formed the bulk of the partisan resistance movement. The Communists are a legitimate political party in Italy and play an active role in local, state and federal government. The article even states that Carlo's mother was a former communist senator. Anarchists on the other hand do have a bad reputation in Italy amongst communists, fascists and the public in general.

"he [the cop] was injured and poisoned by cop's smoke (that is the reason why he was on the car, they was driving him to the nearly hospital when crowd assalt them... i'm italian and i couldn't never understand how people can defende Carlo Giuliani, when all videos and picture show that he die when he was assalting a car with injured people. cops on the car wasn't assalting them." (I'm assuming by "smoke" you mean tear gas)

- I have seen videos of the protests (most notable "Bella Ciao", which made broadcast TV in Italy) and there were numerous civilians injured by tear gas and police beatings who were not receiving medical attention. Tear gas is incidentally not fatal and police are trained/paid to handle it's use and effects. The police vehicle was an armoured land rover with bullet proof windows. The amount of damage that could have been inflicted on it by one youth armed with a fire extinguisher is minimal. None of this makes the fatal, point-blank shooting of an unarmed youth, justified.

If I had to guess about what happened, it would be that in a chaotic situation, the police vehicle got cornered by protesters and the occupants panicked. Molotovs had been used at the protests and prominently discovered in the possession of protesters staying at the Diaz School during a raid a few days earlier (later found in court to have been planted by police to justify their excessive use of force), so it is reasonable for the occupants of the police vehicle to assume this as a possibility against them and act accordingly... but that is not really relevant to fixing this article Limes (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Serious omission[edit]

It isn't a very long article, so getting something like the continuity right isn't a very big ask!

Here we have a statement in the section headed Trial:

The conclusion of Judge Daloiso, which had already been subjected to strong criticism, was challenged by the press, as was the decision not to charge the driver of the Land Rover for running over Giuliani on the basis that he was already dead. Medics tending to Giuliani after he was run over testified that his heart was still beating,[1] and this was confirmed by professor Salvi during the trial in Genoa.

The fact that Giuliani was run over has not been mentioned, until this point, even though it could have been mentioned in the intro and should have been mentioned in the report of the Incident.

OK, Wiki editors!

  • Tell your readers, in the section called Incident that Carlo Giuliani was run over, after being shot.
  • Tell your readers, within the section called Incident, what the vehicle was that ran over him. I do not know, from reading this, whether the "Land Rover" that is referred to was the Carabiniere vehicle or some other vehicle.

Telling your readers that there was a decision not to charge the driver that ran over someone (alive or dead) is not the same thing as stating, within the report of the incident, that the body (be it alive or dead) was in fact run over.

Amandajm (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Piazza Carlo Giuliani


Category bias[edit]

By no reasonable or objective standard was this man a "victim of police brutality." There is a picture clearly showing he was about to throw a heavy metal object (fire extinguisher) at an injured individual in a police vehicle. He was shot while attempting to inflict serious harm (possibly even death) upon another individual. His killing appears to be an open/shut case of self-defense. Only a biased person suffering a serious ideologically driven disconnect with reality could declare that he was a victim of police brutality. He was not standing on a street corner holding a sign when some insane power-tripping cop shot him in the face. He was attempting to assault the police and he lost his life in the attempt because his victims were armed and fought back. Communists and anarchists need to get over themselves and stop making this criminal thug into some martyr.

21 September 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to make this more personal than you already made it, but mental object versus a shot point blank... doesn't seem quite logic to me. they feared for their lives? Use a taser gun and use it wisely, don't shoot someone point blank on the face and THEn run the over with a vehicle... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.173.59.88 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Not all police are issued tasers, not to mention that they require certain conditions to work, such as both prongs penetrating the clothing/skin and hitting the target, if only one prong hits then it doesn't work. A firearm is the most reliable way to instantly stop somebody who is threatening to use lethal force. If somebody were about to throw a 20-30 pound metal cylinder/tube at you, unless you look forward to possibly being killed or put into a coma, you would probably shoot them if you had a firearm available. The police did what they had to do and there is no evidence that he was alive when he was run over. 26 September 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.85.63 (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Carlo Giuliani. 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, 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: 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) 09:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death of Carlo Giuliani. 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: 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) 12:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Legacy section[edit]

Extended content

Carlo Giuliani has become a symbol of leftist civil unrest during the G8 summit in Genoa. Various musical groups have paid tribute to Carlo Giuliani through songs or dedications, e.g., the English group Chumbawamba dedicated their version of the traditional World War II anti-fascist Italian partisans song "Bella Ciao" to Giuliani, during their 2001 tour, Propagandhi dedicated their song, "Resisting Tyrannical Government" to Giuliani, the anarcho-punk band Conflict released a song in his memory, titled "Carlo Giuliani", and the Spanish band Ska-P also has a song about Carlo, titled "Solamente por pensar". In other examples the Italian singer-songwriter Francesco Guccini in 2004 wrote a song about Carlo Giuliani and the G8 summit incidents, named "Piazza Alimonda"; Giuliani is also mentioned in a song by Italian rapper Nesli, and "Zeta Reticoli" by the alternative rock band Meganoidi was dedicated to him. The Shizit dedicated their entire album Soundtrack for the Revolution to his memory. Giuliani was also mentioned in the valencian band Orxata Sound System song "VIOLÈNCIA". The Irish band Lankum (formerly known as Lynched) have also dedicated a song in his name. In 2001, the Italian composer Luca Francesconi wrote "Let me Bleed", Requiem for Carlo Giuliani for mixt choir on text by Attilio Bertolucci. The North American Outspoken Word Troupe of political poets published a piece entitled "A Tale of Two Giulianis" contrasting Carlo to former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Piazza Alimonda, the plaza where Giuliani was killed, was unofficially renamed "Piazza Carlo Giuliani" by activists, who erected a memorial there for mementos, photographs, writings and flowers. This memorial has since been set on fire twice. Another memorial, instituted at the expense of his parents, features simply the words "Carlo Giuliani, boy." In 2007, the Communist Refoundation Party renamed its Presidential Office in the Italian Parliament after Carlo Giuliani. Giuliani's mother, Haidi, was elected Senator for the party in the 2006 election specifically to begin a parliamentary inquiry into Carlo's death. After the exit from the parliament of PRC by the result of 2008 election, the name was changed.

The 2005 film Dot.Kill directed by John Irvin described the Giuliani slaying as causing violent anti-globalist splinter groups to proliferate, as a possible motive for the online slayings of CEOs portrayed in the film.

Moved the Legacy section's unsourced text to this talk page so that it can be restored if accompanied by reliable, secondary sources. czar 03:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Carlo_Giuliani&oldid=1210833503"