Wikipedia

Talk:Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane/Archive 1

< Talk:Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Robertiki in topic Viareggio train derailment
Archive 1
Archive 1

Lack of sources

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I think it's an issue that the article don't describe the actual quality of service of Italian Ferrovie, that is very poor (you need just a quick google search to check it but I can report here the sources). Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides the quality of the article, the reference improve template is 7 years old and I think the unreferenced parts has to be verified or removed. Any help is welcome. Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to add references and improve the existing ones. Just a note related to your recent edit: financial statements and similar can be sourced from primary sources (the only source available). --Ita140188 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I follow Wikipedia rules; if whole paragraphs are unreferenced they will be likely challenged or eliminated, even if you don't like that. Best regards. And yes the infobox is okay, no problems found. Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:CITENEED#When not to use this tag and Wikipedia:Tag bombing. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

And you can read this in the meantime: Content_removal. I have already said in the upper message that the infobox is okay. The problem are the unsourced section of the article as I said in the first post. Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Unsourced or poor sourced sections in the main article since years as stated with a 2011 template, can't remove the sections or tag them because 1 user edit reverse backups behaviour. I can improve the article adding material and independent reliable sources and any help to edit is welcome. Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Your request for a Third Opinion has been declined, as the precise question you wish a third opinion on is unclear, and it is not apparent from this Talk page what the first two opinions are. Nonetheless, I'll see what I can do; what specific question is it that you would like an answer to? (And, of course, if you can add sources to the article, then please do so). Anaxial (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, okay I'll start to add sources and to expand the article with new information and reliable independent sources, thanks. :) Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know what's the next step to do; whole parts of the article are unreferenced (due the practical difficulty to find reliable souces) but a user keep reverting the edits if the text is documented with sources or if it is removed following the wikipedia content removal policies of unreferenced or poor referenced parts of the article and he won't add the sources by himself so the text has to keep containing parts with no references at all and not that notable too. I think more options have to be covered, the article lacks quality of relevant information like: the company financial status (debt status, high services costs, quality of service, deadly accidents and a proper company directors and chairmen section. Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lawtheagoraphobic: I'm not sure who you are referring to that "keep reverting the edits if the text is documented with sources or if it is removed". You edited this article only 3 times and you didn't delete any unreferenced text in these edits. I am the only one that reverted your edits (once, see [1]) on this article, and it was to revert your excessive tagging which is against Wikipedia policy, as mentioned above. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I don't think it would be difficult to find reliable sources for the article. The whole text seems quite uncontroversial and easy to substantiate. It just needs some time (which I don't have now). --Ita140188 (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)== Debt Level ==

The user Ita140188 is keeping deleting important info about the company. I'm gonna edit it again, please explain if you want to remove content or you will be reported. 79.40.124.217 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Debt level is generally not encyclopedic (it is not an option in Template:Infobox Company, for example). If you want to add the debt level it should be explained why is it relevant (example: it is much higher than other rail companies, etc), otherwise this would be in violation of WP:NPOV. Also, there are many links to financial statements from 2016. I don't understand why you need to take a number from 2013. Please check the financial statements for the latest year [2] and provide a reference to justify why this debt should be mentioned in the lead.--Ita140188 (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane. 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) 04:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Figures in infobox

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I am responding to a post at WP:NPOVN. Kiwirigi is adding a figure to the infobox] and Ita140188 objects, saying that debt should not be noted in the income field and that the source is not good enough.

I agree that for other companies, information about debt is not put in the infobox, so I side with Ita140188's argument.

I cannot read the newspaper cited because I do not know Italian, but assuming that the newspaper is respectable, then I would side with Kiwirigi in putting this information somewhere in the article, probably in the text of the body. The only restriction to this is the quality of the source cited. If the source is doubtful but good enough, then instead of saying "The debt is..." then say "The newspaper says the debt is..."

Please continue to try to find a compromise and talk here on the talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody, there is no description lines for debt in the infobox company because it's obvious that a debt for a company doesn't have to exist at all or has to be so low that it's not relevant for the infobox. 4 billion € debt for a company that has a revenue in order of millions € IS relevant in my opinion; and would be nice if it would be descripted in the infobox. Kiwirigi (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If there is no place to put the debt level in the infobox, it doesn't mean you can just put it wherever you like. If you want to cite this number, please move it inside the main text. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The 8 billion debt is descripted near the profit just in this company article because it completes the information. Kiwirigi (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Kiwirigi Ita140188 proposed a compromise in which you include the information in the body of the text but leave it out of the infobox. It seems to me that this would be more in line with how things usually work on Wikipedia and also the information you have would still be shared. To what extent would this work for you? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WRONG LOGO!!!!

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The logo that appears on the page is from Trenitalia, the right logo should be the Ferrovie dello Stato one. www.ferroviedellostato.it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.206.6 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane. 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) 16:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Viareggio train derailment

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone, while reading the paragraph regarding the Viareggio train derailment I noticed an inaccuracy. Here below is the paragraph about it:

"Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane has been sentenced by the Italian authorities for the 29 June 2009 accident in Viareggio, Italy, where 32 passengers died."


The text mentions "sentenced", but in reality the company has never been sentenced, not even to the first degree, as is also evident from the source currently present (http://www.inmarcia.it/home/28-ultimora/743-strage-di-viareggio-la-sentenza-integrale) and from these other articles listed below:

Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane's acquittal was then also confirmed on appeal in 2019 and not appealed in January 2021, thus becoming definitive, as indicated by the following articles:


If we want to report the information correctly, we could replace the expression "sentenced" with "invicted" in the paragraph within the Controversies section and present below how the sentence was also confirmed in the two subsequent levels of judgment. I think we could also replace “passengers” with “people”, as it comes to a freight train and the victims are resident of Viareggio. Find below in bold the content I would add or replace:


Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane has been sentenced invicted, by the Italian authorities for the 29 June 2009 accident in Viareggio, Italy, where 32 passengers people died.[1][2] In the process, the company was acquitted of administrative responsibility for the event, both by the first instance judges and by the Court of Appeal.[3][4][5] This acquittal was not challenged before the Supreme Court, thus becoming definitive.[6]

References

  1. ^ "Strage di Viareggio, pubblicate le motivazioni della sentenza". inmarcia.it. Retrieved 21 August 2018.
  2. ^ "Strage di Viareggio: le condanne in primo grado" (in Italian). Retrieved 24 May 2021.
  3. ^ "Strage di Viareggio, Moretti ed Elia colpevoli: 7 anni a ex amministratori delegati di Rfi" (in Italian). Retrieved 24 May 2021.
  4. ^ "Strage Viareggio, Mauro Moretti condannato a 7 anni in appello" (in Italian). Retrieved 24 May 2021.
  5. ^ "Moretti get 7 yrs for Viareggio disaster". Retrieved 24 May 2021.
  6. ^ "Viareggio manslaughter convictions quashed". Retrieved 24 May 2021.


What do you think about this? Thank you very much for your help :) Claudia Frattini (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Trenitalia Spa fined €700,000, Rfi Spa fined €700,000. Moretti Mauro, FS Spa CEO, 7 years. --Robertiki (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Robertiki: I see your point of view.
As a matter of fact, however, upon the outcome of the third degree of judgment, all the Companies of the FS Group are definitively acquitted: FS Italiane spa (the parent company) and FS Logistica were already acquitted by the Court of Lucca in 2017 and by the Court of Appeal of Florence in 2019 (it is said here), then RFI and Trenitalia were definitively acquitted by the Court of Cassation in January 2021, with the revocation of financial penalties (it is said here and here).
Based on what already in the article, if you also were to agree, it could be possible to:
  • Include the convicted companies and then specify that they were eventually acquitted, e.g., "FS Italiane and 3 other group companies (Fs Logistica, RFI, and Trenitalia) were first... then...".
  • Indicate that, with the sentence of the Court of Cassation of January 2021, all the companies of the Group are definitively acquitted.
What do you think? --Claudia Frattini (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand it as a acquittal: the starting point is that there has been a time limit dropped indictability. That is, the Italian State has exhausted its interest in carrying out the punitive claim in relation to a specific crime. Long time honored practice of a vicious judicial system that takes decades to a conclusion, punishing the innocent and freeing the faulty. I would prefer not to explain that in the article. --Robertiki (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Robertiki:, while I understand your position of not wanting to elaborate on the sentence on the Court of Cassation in the article, it is my intention to report information according to a NPOV. To date, no Group companies have any convictions, unlike as indicated in the article. The sentence that should be changed is: "Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane has been sentenced by the Italian authorities for the 29 June 2009 accident in Viareggio, Italy, where 32 passengers died.”
Also the convictions in relation to RFI and Trenitalia were annulled, without committing a new trial, as shown by the operative part of the judgment (here).
We could therefore:
  • Consider, as indicated in my first message, only FS Italiane as the company to which the article is dedicated, which is free from convictions already from the first instance of judgement. For example: "Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane was invicted by the Italian authorities for the 29 June 2009 accident in Viareggio, Italy, where 32 people died. In the process, the company was acquitted of administrative responsibility for the event, both by the first instance judges and by the Court of Appeal.”
  • Alternatively, we could list all of the companies of the Group involved, both those already acquitted in the first instance (FS Italiane and FS Logistica) and those for which the conviction was subsequently annulled (RFI and Trenitalia).
What do you think? --Claudia Frattini (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
All or nothing. If you insist, then it will be explained how the acquittal was obtainded, with a couple of historical examples of how it works, so the readers makes their own mind about. --Robertiki (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ferrovie_dello_Stato_Italiane/Archive_1&oldid=1050545685"