Talk:Rete Ferroviaria Italiana

Viareggio train derailment - UPDATE

Hi all, as you can see at the top of this talk page, I am a connected contributor since I work for the holding that RFI is part of (Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane). For this reason, I am refraining from directly editing content, especially if it is particularly controversial.

Recently, however, the following lines regarding the Viareggio train derailment have been added to the article:

RFI was subjected to considerable scrutiny following the 2009 Viareggio train derailment, in which 29 people were killed. As a result of the investigation, former RFI CEOs Mauro Moretti and Michele Mario Ella, were convicted for their roles in causing the accident.

I think this might be the right place to discuss this matter together with all of you.
The lines quoted above were added to the page on 18 January 2021. The Supreme Court, however, after the first two levels of judgment, with a sentence dated 8 January 2021, annulled the sentence of the appeal judge, referring the positions of the former CEOs of RFI (Mauro Moretti and Michele Mario Elia) to the Florence Court of Appeal for a new judgment (the sentence can be consulted here: https://www.cortedicassazione.it/corte-di-cassazione/it/dett_cst.page?contentId=CST24806 - in Italian only). The Supreme Court, also, absolved RFI from the accused responsibility.

This is actually new information compared to what has currently been written. I wonder if you could somehow add this information in order for the article to remain true to the facts. Thanks in advance for any advice you may want to share. --Claudia Frattini (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, as discussed with @Ita140188: (here), to whom I am very grateful for his help and advice, I have drafted two paragraphs as an update to the information on the Viareggio train derailment currently within the article.

I have started with the existing sentence in the entry and revised it in order to provide context as well as make it exhaustive. I have been very careful to write in a neutral way, still aware that I obviously need your proofreading :)

Furthermore, I noticed something I would like to share with you style-wise. While drafting my proposal I noticed the expression "following the 2009 Viareggio train derailment, in which 29 people were killed", and I thought it could be made a little more neutral. In addition, I would also like to take this opportunity to update the number of victims from 29 to 32. We could for instance either go for:

• "following the 2009 Viareggio train derailment, which caused the death of 32 people" or
• "following the 2009 Viareggio train derailment, in which 32 people died" or maybe
• "following the 2009 Viareggio train derailment, which caused 32 casualties"

I am aware I am a newbie, so I rely on your advice to ensure the utmost neutrality :)

Here below is my draft, with the changes I made to the existing text in bold. What do you think?

Claudia Frattini (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

----------------------------------------

RFI was subject to considerable scrutiny Following the 2009 Viareggio train derailment, which caused the death of 32 people, in which 29 people were killed. As a result of the investigation, a criminal proceeding was initiated, which also involved the former RFI CEOs Mauro Moretti and Michele Mario Elia and the Company for administrative responsibility. were convicted for their roles in causing the accident.

After the first two levels of judgment, with a sentence dated 8th January 2021, the Supreme Court annulled the sentence of the appeal judge, referring the positions of the CEOs to the Florence Court of Appeal for a new judgment. The Supreme Court also pronounced a definitive sentence of acquittal of RFI from the accused responsibility.

References

@Claudia Frattini: Thank you for your edit suggestion and for disclosing your COI. I updated the article with the new information. However, I left the previous information about the conviction: the CEOs were convicted in the appeal. We should probably also note that (as far as I can tell) the convictions were annulled by the supreme court due to statute of limitations. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ita140188: Grazie mille per l'aiuto.

Actually, the convictions were annulled because the Court of Cassation deemed it necessary for the defendants to undergo a new judgment to assess responsibility, to be conducted by the Court of Appeal. If the annulment had been enacted on the basis of a statute of limitations for all alleged offenses, there would have been no referral for a new judgment, but the trial against the former CEOs would have ended with a ruling by the Court of Cassation for annulment of the convictions, without sending back the trial to the appeal judge. --Claudia Frattini (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)