Talk:Andria–Corato train collision

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andria–Corato train collision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 days

A news item involving Andria–Corato train collision was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 July 2016.

Wikipedia

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Death B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Italy C‑class Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Operations C‑class Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Images

The media are using images attributed to "Italian Fire Service", Is it possible that these are under an open licence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Corpo dei Vigili del Fuoco" (National Fire-watchers' Corp) is part of the italian Minister of Interior, that on its legal notes says that all data, texts and media have creative commons licenses CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 IT (no commercial). So, I guess it's not possible to upload them on wikipedia. --Holapaco77 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we could use an image, but it would need to be under a fair-use rationale. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on using it:File:Incidente ferroviario Andria-Corato (Vigili del Fuoco).jpg under a non-free fair use rationale? Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Resolved

We will need to merge the article 2016 Andria train crash into this one (this one was created first + it has a clearer title), so I am creating merge tags now and starting this discussion, as invited by Mjroots2.

Support obviously, although I mildly prefer the other title the most important aspect is to get one article. Renamings can happen later if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, not only because it's the first article and I created it, but also the title fits better (more clarity) and we've already moved a bunch of the information missing. Skycycle (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I honestly don't mind. It it would have been possible I'd have done it myself. It doesn't really matter who created the article first. What matters is that we collectively create a quality article. Mjroots (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, well said and well done for a quick merger! :) Skycycle (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Based on some other disasters and whatnot I had the impression that article titles on this topic were supposed to include the year that the event occurred as a general rule (cf. 2001 Gujarat earthquake, 2001 Kunlun earthquake, 2005_Jilin_chemical_plant_explosions, etc.)

Should this article be renamed the "2016 Andria train collision"? GSMR (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the inclusion of a year is compulsory where there is no need to disambiguate. Let's worry about improving the article for now and leave the name for later. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no other notable train accident in the same area, there is no need to add a year in this case. Skycycle (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLPSOURCES

Please, no tabloid speculations here. Also, could we possibly avoid having a meaningless "condolences" collection here? --John (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The official report of Minister of Infrastructure and Transport Graziano Delrio is on-line: "Informativa del Governo alla Camera dei Deputati sull'incidente ferroviario in Puglia" [Statement of the Government's report to the Chamber of Deputies about the train accident in Apulia] (in Italian).. --Holapaco77 (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cause?

If I am reading this correctly, the train from Corato was an extra (untimetabled?) train and the station master at Andria was unaware it was running when he gave the train from Andria permission to proceed. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you read correctly, the same thing was reported unofficially since two days ago in Italian media, and today it seems to have been confirmed by investigative sources. It's not still clear, anyway, if the third train was an unscheduled one or a regular train travelling late (maybe ET1016, scheduled at Corato at 10:48 and at Andria at 10:59?). Also, some survivors said they were forced to a train change in Andria station, where a train was left stopped and the other one (the one involved in the crash) departed to Corato. Investigators said they had no former informations about that train change and they will verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.70.208.192 (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. There are two theories about the trains involved. One theory is ET1016 and ET1021, another is ET1018 and ET1023. We may have to wait until a reliable source describing this matter is available .―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really should be ET 1016 and ET 1021. Also the times in the article are wrong, the accident was at 11:06. I've been following Italian newspaper articles and there (at first) there were also confusion (about the times). I've written the following in the talk page of the german Wikipedia (I'm a swiss in Italy): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Eisenbahnunfall_von_Andria#Opfer-Zahl_und_Zeiten_falsch . I don't want to write everything again in English. Hope things will get sorted out with time. 80.181.166.166 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are still unresolved details, It is certain that the trains involved are ET1016 and ET1021 (and ET1642). I corrected the article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, from the later, more detailed newspaper reports it definitely seems that the earlier time for the accident (thus 11:06, not 11:38) is correct, and (accordingly) also these other train numbers. Don't know where this (wrong) 11:38 comes from, maybe from an early press release of the Italian transport minister (reference 9 in the article). I will now also change the accident time in the article (I hope that's ok), but for the time being also mention the other time in parenthesis to make clear what's going on. I'll also add the two more recent Italian newspaper articles as references. (There rather detailed actual times of departure and arrival are given in the lead up to the accident (the trains were late). If this should be included into the article, maybe I could help with that.) P.S. I haven't heard of these 3 missing persons, only of the 23 dead. 80.181.166.166 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer

A couple of days ago, the article reported that a farmer, working adjacent to the crash site, was killed by flying debris. That is no longer in the article. Why was it removed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was Fake news. Is this reported by a RS? Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Holapaco77: In what way was this "fake"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Giuseppe Acquaviva was not a farmer, but he was travelling on board with his sister Mrs. Serafina Acquaviva. I guess that his dead body was found on a olive tree, so media invented the story of the farmer who was working there. (Source: click here). It's not the only fake news: they say that rescue team founded the dead bodies of a mother embracing her daughter. But there isn't any young girl or baby in the list of victims. --Holapaco77 (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per train victim statistics requested.

Can you please include the detail about how many persons were traveling on the "Alstom Coradia" and the "Stadler FLIRT" trainsets respectively and how many of them died, injured or survived, during the Andria–Corato railway collision of 12 July 2016?

I'm currently unable to source that information, because the ANSA, RAI.it and the "Vigili di Fuoco" services all quote a lump total number of 23 deceased victims and 50+ injured persons in the disaster, but those numbers include both the Alstom and the Stadler made trainsets. It is important to study the statistics individually, because available photos suggest the degree of material destruction was vastly different between the two rail vehicles, thereby survival rates may have been very unequal in them. Thanks in advance! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the four missing people?

The article's current lead says: "At least 23 people were killed and 54 injured. Four people are unaccounted for and missing." I've not heard any more about the missing and the death toll doesn't seem to have been raised in any source that I've seen. What happened with the missing four? Prioryman (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can be sure the death toll was 23, not 27. Mjroots (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. In the later newspaper reports there were always 23 dead and no mentioning of missing people. 80.181.166.166 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the collision, 27 souls perished. Three of them were train crew, 20 were passengers (those paying for tickets and those legally travelling for free due to old age or disability). The remaining 4 souls were "evasionists" who were onboard against the rules, riding without paying. They are not counted in the official toll and their names cannot be provided, because they were not there legally and their families are not entitled to any kind of compensation. (Fare evasion is a serious problem in italian railways, forcing FS to restrict ticket use to the same day only, starting from August 2016). 82.131.234.124 (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]