This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Can we get a translation from the Italian wiki on this topic? It appears to be much more in-depth and better presented Jddriessen (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Finmeccanica relationship with Syrian authorities
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
"Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories."
Edit 501097728 does not contain first-hand news reports - it refers to reports by The Daily Telegraph and Thomson Reuters, which judged the topic to be notable.
"Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."
"For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
Providing security-related equipment to a government that has been reported almost daily in Western mainstream media for human rights violations for the last 12 months is not something like an announcement or sports event or celebrity event. The Syria uprising is a major geopolitical event of 2011/2012.
"A diary"
This point clearly focuses on whether an event is trivial or not. The Daily Telegraph and Thomson Reuters do not see the Finmeccanica relation with Syria as trivial.
Neutral point of view is a key policy at Wikipedia. A major corporation that is heavily involved in the war/defence (according to POV) industry by selling to international clients is quite likely to be criticised by opponents of the governments which it supplies (and by governments in the case where it supplies opposition groups). In order to have an NPOV article, these criticisms should be present, in encyclopedic style, not in newspaper style.
Please explain why Finmeccanica's relation with the Syrian authorities should be excluded from this article. Boud (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED comes to mind. Just because information makes this company look bad does not mean it should be excluded from Wikipedia. This is a user-generated encyclopedia, not a PR firm. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Mention of the current scandal involving Finmecannica and the Syrian government should be allowed, as has been done with the company's previous historical events. However, the event shouldn't be given undue weight with respect to the article as a whole. I would say no more than a couple of sentences depending on the extant of the scandal. The company's historical section and the article as a whole need some major reorganizational work. Guest2625 (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I see no arguments in favour of excluding the issue. The content removed in edit (501097728) was only one (long) sentence. I have restored it. Boud (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Boud, i deleted your lines about Wikileaks because in my opinion they sound like too much “breaking news”, too much “newspaper style”. I think Notability criteria may be haven’t been respected here. Let me know what you think about that. Have a nice day,--Artemide81 (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Artemide81: Firstly, this is not a private issue between you and me. I appreciate your warning on my user page, but the place for presenting arguments and counterarguments is [[Talk:Finmeccanica]]. Please respect the other Wikipedians interested in the article. Secondly, a style issue is not a reason to remove sourced information: it only justifies removing WP:WEASEL words, changing to a more neutral or NPOV style, etc. As for notability, I think that Thomson Reuters, The Daily Telegraph and WikiLeaks are much more well-established sources of WP-notability than any Wikipedian, including the four of us participating in this discussion so far. Please respond to the concrete issues:
Please explain why the relation between one of the world's major arms-producing conglomerates and one of the geopolitical issues that has been considered major world headline news for the past year (i.e. not just "breaking news") should be excluded from this article.
Please explain the "newspaper style" wording which you feel is unencyclopedic in the material that you twice removed (in this edit (501097728)and this edit (502784639)). Let us try to come to consensus on a more encyclopedic style so that the material can be returned to the article.
It would also be good to respond to Kudzu1's point above.
Dear all, first of all, sorry for writing in the wrong space, It wasn’t meant to avoid the discussion, nore I want to erase something looking bad for this company.
I read everybody’s argumentations, I found them very interesting. I actually still think that Notability criteria is not only given by the authoritativeness of the source, but even by the objectivity and the reliability of what we write in the Wiki. I can quote Reuters and other sources providing different versions, for example that Finmeccanica Syrian technology sale was for civil use. As written now, instead, it seems that this company sale was made with a bad purpose.
What should we do? We should refer every single opinion (journalists talking bad, journalists talking good, pacifists, militarists), for every single topic, even if the topic is – for sure – of a relevance?
This is why I said “this is not a newspaper”. Not for a stylish matter, but for the stream of news we are putting in, that is actually controversial and unproved.
What do you think? I’d like to clarify this point with you. Thank you very much. Have a nice one.--Artemide81 (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
hi Artemide81. It seems to me that you are no longer claiming that Finmeccanica's relation with Syria authorities should be excluded from the article. Is this correct?
Instead you are concerned that the text "[makes] it [seem] that this company sale was made with a bad purpose." You also say "Not for a stylish matter, but for the stream of news we are putting in, that is actually controversial and unproved." You seem to be saying that you are not objecting to the style, but rather you object because the information is "controversial and unproved".
Have i understood you correctly?
These are very different issues to what you raised before - "breaking news", "newspaper style", are very different issues from the text "[making] it [seem] that this company sale was made with a bad purpose" and the information being "controversial and uproved".
Could you please confirm if i have understood your concerns now, i.e. that you are no longer objecting to the topic of Finmeccanica sales to Syrian authorities being part of the article, but you are instead objecting to this information "[making] it [seem] that this company sale was made with a bad purpose" and that the information is "controversial and uproved"?
Hi Boud. No matter about the style. “Newspaper” was meant to indicate that the news company/Syria looks more like a breaking news, as it talks about something relevant as a news, but also not proved. May be the better place to put this news is the Wiki news page, otherwise we have a Recentism. I recognize the relevance of this topic for a newspaper: you read the news of the day, then, next day, on the same newspaper, you read denials, comments, opinions, different versions of the same topic.
I think Wiki, as an encyclopedia, should be something different. This is why I firstly deleted the paragraph we are talking about, instead of adding a compendium or quoting, for example, the company denial. If we should write a paragraph for every potential news (including positive, negative and neutral comments about that) this would get to something endless and actually not encyclopedic. I suggest to move this into Wikinews. What do you think?
Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"! There are other wikis out there – Wikipedia is just one of them. hi Artemide81. I am trying to understand your arguments and clarify them both for myself and for others. You seem to have introduced a new topic - you said "Wiki news", but probably you meant Wikinews, which is a separate project to Wikipedia. You are welcome to propose an article at Wikinews (we could later on add a link once it's published), but that is independent of this Wikipedia article. Let's please try to focus on what editorial actions to take for this Wikipedia article.
Do you object to information on Finmeccanica's relation with Syrian authorities being part of the article?
If yes, then are your reasons for objecting the following:
the information makes "it [seem] that this company sale was made with a bad purpose"?
Hi Boud, I’m sorry but I have to say that it actually looks like a process, you make questions and you put me in the position to answer with “yes” or “not”. I already explained my opinion. I highlighted some potential criticalities and asked some questions, and actually no one helped me to clarify my doubts. I don’t want to “erase” nore to “approve”. Just want understand.
hi Artemide81. This discussion is not about you, it is about editing this article. I have tried to understand what your proposed action is and your reasons for that action, but you need to confirm if I am presenting your proposed editorial action and reasons correctly. People cannot agree or disagree or point you to guidelines to read if the proposed actions and arguments are too vague. Boud (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Boud. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. My considerations in the most synthetic way are as follows:
Talking about Wikileaks files is a Recentism.
While I’m reading that paragraph, I understand the occurrence is proved. Instead, it isn’t. There’s an official denied by the company, attested by Reuters, stating that the sale was for civil use, emergency responders and took place before the outbreak of conflict inside Syria.
So, in my opinion the paragraph should be removed.
If you think the paragraph has to remain, I suggest to complete it with the company statement too, mentioned by Reuters, that is as authoritative as Wikileaks.
hi Artemide81. Wikipedia doesn't make sociological statements with "proof". Instead, it uses sources and NPOV. The reader is expected to judge the truth for him/herself based on his/her judgment of the sources, and the compatibility or incompatibility of their claims. We don't remove information just because someone denies it. Instead, we NPOV it.
In this case, Finmeccanica does not deny any of the information in the WikiLeaks files - it provides complementary (additional) information. Sending engineers to Damascus in Feb 2012 is consistent with the sales of equipment finishing e.g. in Feb 2011. A contract to provide training is not a sale of equipment. The training might have been paid for earlier. The equipment delivered in May 2011 may have been paid for earlier, so that "the sale" finished e.g. in Feb 2011. The WikiLeaks emails do not say that the equipment is necessarily for military use. So it seems to me that it is incorrect to state that Reuters reports a denial by Finmeccanica.
However, it's certainly a good idea to add Finmeccanica's complementary information (which could be interpreted by some people as denial, but in any case, we leave the interpretation to the reader), which i'm about to do. Boud (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Restoring information deleted at 12:47, 24 June 2015: WP does not censor
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The company name is not and never has been Leonardo-Finmeccanica I suggest all instances are updated to Leonardo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.242.13 (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
already the name is Leonardo!.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Finmeccanica which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Leonardo S.p.A.. 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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Leonardo S.p.A.. 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.
.png)