A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 4, 2009. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
an italian film has been made in 2004 or 2003 with the Superga air disaster as the context. would anyone happen to know the name? i have watched the film and loved it but do not know the name. here's my contact id: monjimasinha@hotmail.com (Unsigned edit by 203.199.38.254, November 15, 2005)
With just a little rooting around I was able to find a lot of material on the disaster, but nothing that comes close to the diamonds story. A BBC item identified the cause as a thunderstorm, but had nothing to say about diamonds. Definitely needs a citation, especially given its sleazy nature. Wiggy! 04:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The described smuggling operation correlates for one with utterly normal procedures of those days - in my age group I can vouch for that, even more so as some relatives of mine were envolved themselves of varying smuggling operations. If you were close to the mountains in northern Italy even on worst weather days you had some family member or friend coming in from the cold with stuff in his rucksack which was brought from Austria. What was not needed for oneself was often sold to somebody who was waiting all afternoon. Bad weather was ideal, as eg. in fog you could not be seen as easily by the border patrols, which, secondly prefered to stay in themselves on such days. This scene only petered out in the late 1960s, early 1970s.
I myself travelled to Lisbon myself in the early 1980s, and remember that still then some old folks told me that this would be a good place for buying jewellry. However, times had changed long by then and the information was quite outdated. Anyway, Lisbon was worth it for its magic beauty, and my first encounter with orange cake. I also watched the cup final in the rotten Nacional Stadium, which Boavista won 1-0 against Sporting CP. Tickets were dirt cheap, obtainable on matchday, and it was not a sell-out crowd! Amazing!
Further to that, I have heard the story quite a few times, and there is also a report from gaborzinho, in real life a respected, ancient Hungarian journalist, on the web (on rsssf.com).
Thirdly, there was no reason for the plane being there in the time of the crash. The official reports offer mystery, but provide no answer.
I hope, that settles the issue. And we can leave it with that. Cheers, Oalexander-En 14:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added citations for both views and restored a more encyclopedic version of the text. Wiggy! 16:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
"Wiggy", what you think is more "encyclopedic" may in other eyes look differently. Please consider the wiki stalking policies. Other issues may apply! Oalexander-En 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article now presents a more balanced view respecting both sources with citations for both tales. Significant additional material has been added. Parts of the article that were directly lifted from other sources have been cleaned up (much-much?). The language of the piece has been cleaned up (much-much?). Between the lot of us the thing is much cleaner, accurate and presentable. I think its fair to describe that as a happier result. Wiggy! 17:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I am still worried that we are over-emphasise the smugglers drop theory. I personally find the claim made a plausible one and I can see that gaborzinho is held in high regard on rsssf. But is this enough for Wikipedia? Let me quote from the official policy page Wikipedia:Attribution
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
- surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
- surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media;
[…]
Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.
It seems to me that, in the absence of any corroboration of his account (or even discussion of it elsewhere on the Internet or other parts of the real world), we should relegate it to a footnote reading something like
The respected Hungarian journalist [insert real name here], who was personally aquainted with a number of the Torino players, suggested in 2002 on the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics newsgroup that […insert smuggling story here]
But first we need to get his real name—and preferably the papers he wrote for, and ideally write a little article on him which demonstrates his general reliability.
I hope I am not beng too much of a kill-joy!
Anyway, very aware of my limitations in this field, I have asked the people of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football to chime in and I hereby resign from the debate! — Ian Spackman 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You must be joking if you think a Usenet post counts as a reliable source for this claim. From the attribution policy:
A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking.
And Usenet clearly falls under this remit. Unless there's a more reliable source (there has been at least one book on the disaster, is it mentioned there?) the claim should be excised from the article. Qwghlm 16:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the diamond conspiracy (or whatever one should call it) needs more reliable sources than a post on a newsgroup from an unknown person (anyone of us could make up such a story, post it to the newsgroup under another name, and then use it as a source for a Wikipedia article). As posted above, WP:REDFLAG says that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". WP:SPS also says that "posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." As a sidenote, the {{ Cite newsgroup}} template states "Please do not apply this template to use a newsgroup post to verify content." I propose removing the paragraph unless at least one reliable source can be provided, and in such case, I propose moving the diamond conspiracy to a separate section to clearly show readers that this is not the "official" or best known or most likely story. It is an interresting theory, but we should not introduce such theories unless we have very good sources for it. – Elisson • T • C • 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
http://rsssf.com IS considered a reliable source. rsssf.com is an offshoot of the Usenet group. The post from "gaborzinho" is part of the, reasonably thin, "best of" section of the rsssf website, and has been there for many years. From this viewpoint it has certainly received an appreciable degree of peer-review. Some kind of editorial oversight can certainle be attributed to the rsssf - it is not so that the stuff has just been taken from the Usenet. It had been handled and considered in multiple ways, not the least by me, and I have acquired in a by now sufficiently long lifetime experiences as sufficient. However rarely, here I agree with "Wiggy!" and leve the final judgement to the audience, as a final proove shall probably remain elusive forever. Oalexander-En 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should make a distinction between RSSSF's excellent statistics section (which does often cite its references) and the "Best of rec.sport.soccer" section, which is just a series of copy & pastes from the newsgroup, and the contributors to each part differ widely (look deep enough and you'll find myself in there); there is no editorial policy stated (as far as I can see), nor any means of recourse. It is certainly not an exceptional enough source to support an exceptional claim. Qwghlm 11:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
For reasons outlined above, noting that this is a boring collaborative encyclopedia rather than a juicy personal homepage, I am moving the following here.
— Ian Spackman 11:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
References
"we do need to stress the emotional impact which the destruction of a legendary team had on Italian fans"
Can we do so without using the distinctly POV word 'legendary'?
Ilkali
22:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
References
Image:Superganewspaper.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Grande Torino commemorative stamps.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
See BBC Sport: The plane crash that killed Serie A's champions and their English coach. Onanoff ( talk) 13:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)