Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

Gol 1907 victim list

It is not normal practice to list victims of accidents unless they are notable themselves (normally indicated by them having a wikipedia article) but this article has a full list of fatalities so I have removed it perNOTMEMORIAL. It could be replaced with a numerical list of victims by nationality as in other accident articles but would need a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your removal has been reverted. I'm in two minds myself, as the list was part of the article when it was awarded Featured Article status. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We often add the names of victims to accident articles, so this is no major exception. The problem here was that the list is long, and therefore could be distracting, but this was solved by having the section normally hidden, viewed by clicking 'show'. The question is: does the victim list add information? I believe it does, at two different levels. One, it allows the casual reader, by clicking 'show', to get a better sense of the extent of the tragedy, as opposed to just reading "154 died". Two, if someone reads about a specific victim elsewhere, they may google it and find our article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is intended to prevent making WP articles emotional in tone, similar to obituaries or memorials written by loved ones; a simple list of victims does not in any way violate that rule, while adding relevant information. In any case, this was reviewed in the FAC by many experienced editors who agreed this format meets featured article criteria. Crum375 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I just saw what was non-standard practice to not list victims of aircraft accidents if they were not notable. Just because it became a featured article does not mean that it is right. Non-listing of victims has been a feature of many high-profile accident articles recently. Most articles have a summary of the nationalities of the victims which appears to have been standard practice. A list of victims is available on the external link which ensured was in place. Sorry I feel a list of non-notable persons however sad the events are is just not notable and is a bit of a slippery slope. Even the high-profile 9/11 accidents dont have a list of casualties. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think having a list of victims hidden under a 'show' button for readers interested in that information violates any rule, and it does add information and perspective. This article, along with the victims list, received featured article status, after having been reviewed by many experienced editors, so there is clearly support for this approach. Crum375 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so much not breaking rules it is just not encyclopedic - no reason why viewers cant use an external link to the information, Because it passed a featured article review doesnt make it right as you only have a small subset of authors in those discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

External links are notoriously unstable and prone to breaking, and at best require extra waiting time and perhaps scrolling to view. This list appears instantly, in the blink of an eye, if you click "show". So those readers who are interested in seeing the names have them instantly, while those who are not, just don't click. I am not sure what you mean about "a small subset of authors in those discussion". Crum375 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I support removing the list - general consensus on accident articles is to only include victims who are notable enough to have a bio on Wikipedia (and not a bio solely for having been in the accident). The danger here is that these become memorial pages which is against policy, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL is when you add information about victims beyond just a name and age, as we do here. The intent of WP:NOTMEMORIAL is to prevent turning WP into the obituary pages of a newspaper, not to prevent readers from finding out victim names of a notable crash. And in our case, the list is normally hidden, so it's not distracting, and only interested readers click on the 'show' button to see the names. Crum375 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your interpretation of that policy, the list is still non-notable and does not comply with WP:NOTDIRECTORY either. - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The list appeared on many mainstream newspapers, so it's clearly notable. As far as being "my interpretation", this article was reviewed by numerous experienced editors as part of its FAC process, and they all accepted this format and promoted it to featured article status. Crum375 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Other accident articles also have full lists of victims, such as 2008 Farnborough plane crash and BOAC Flight 712. Granted, there were not hundreds of victims there, but all are mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and not news. Relevancy in the news is different of an encyclopedia, which concern should be restricted to describe the accident. List of victims should be excluded from other articles too. XX Sdruvss 18:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In each of the examples above, some of the victims are wikinotable, and there were five fatalities. All names are included for completeness, not as a memorial. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is not a single reasonable reason to list all 154 names. TAM Airlines Flight 3054, for instance, doesn’t list. XX Sdruvss 18:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

TAM 3054 is not a featured article, and we can always add the names using Gol 1907 as the example. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No one of the featured articles has a victim list. Including a controversial list, because the only article that has it is a FA, is certainly not a good example. Sdruvss (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a featured article. This has the list. This is the good example. Because this article is at a higher quality than TAM 3054, it means that I can add the victim list to TAM 3054 at my leisure. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a free encyclopedia. You can do anything at your leisure that not violates the rules. The point is not if you can do or not; you can. The issue is if it makes sense or not to be included. To me, and as I observe, to others, it doesn’t look encyclopedic. Sdruvss (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See also

I also see that my removal of some of the see also links has been reverted due to the fact that each see also item is relevant to this article, sorry i dont see it:

• VASP Flight 168 - already linked in main article but is not directly related to the accident.
• TAM Airlines Flight 3054 - already linked in main article but is not directly related to the accident.
• Varig Flight 254 - sorry cant see any connection with this accident
• 1996 Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision - not relevant just another mid-air with different types of aircraft in a different part of the world
• Tenerife airport disaster - sorry just cant see any relevance at all

So I would suggest that these links are removed or an explanation as to the relevance is provided, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:ALSO:

• Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question
• Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense

In our case, since the accident was a fatality record in Brazil when it occurred, we provide the one before and the one after for perspective, even though they are linked in the article. As additional perspective for accidents outside Brazil, we provide the deadliest midair anywhere, 10 years earlier, which remarkably had the exact same flight number as this accident, and also the deadliest collision overall. In addition, there is a link (with explanation of relevance) to another crash, in the same general area, which could have been avoided had its crew used the Cachimbo air base "jungle strip", as the Embraer jet pilots did in this case. There is a grand total of six "see also" items, only five if we exclude the list reference which is standard for every commercial accident. According to WP:ALSO the selected items should be "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". In this case, the "see also" section and its specific contents, along with their inclusion rationale, was reviewed by multiple experienced editors during the FA review and promotion process, and was supported as part of a featured article. Crum375 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it looks like links for the sake of it, generally we dont have links already existing in the article, an accident in the same area does not appear to have any relevance and all the Brazil accidents could be found in the category system. I would be really interested to know what a ground collision in Teneriffe has to do with a mid-air in Brazil. Just because a few editors decided it could be featured article does not overide subsequent comments. I presumed an invitation to look at the article in the aviation project indicated that more eyes familiar with aviation articles were needed! MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't generally include "see also" items when they are already linked on the page, unless there is a special reason for it. As WP:ALSO says, ultimately their inclusion should be based on common sense and editorial judgment. In this case the fatality record articles add perspective for the reader, and this rationale along with that for the other selected items has been accepted by the FAC reviewers, who promoted the article with this specific list to featured status. Crum375 (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion, looking at both sides of the argument here, a partial solution could be the creation of a template "Aviation accidents and incidents in Brazil" Accidents linked on that template wouldn't need to appear as "see also" articles. The explanation of why an entry is in the "See also" section is better that just a bare link. Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a template would help in this case, for the following reasons: First, the rationale here is not to provide random stats, or a full list of historical events in one country. The point is to put this specific accident in perspective for interested readers, per WP:ALSO. As I explained above, since this accident was a record fatality in its country, we include a link to the one before, and the one after, to provide context. Then, we go international: since this was a midair collision, we provide a link to the most fatal one, 10 years prior, which happened by remarkable coincidence to have the same 1907 flight number. We also provide the most fatal collision ever, which was on the ground. In addition, we provide a link to an interesting prior accident in the same area, which could have been avoided had the crew used the same "jungle landing strip" which was discovered and used by the Embraer's crew in this accident. A grand total of five links, plus the standard link to the commercial accident list which is included in every airline accident article. Second reason is that we already have the typical jungle of templates at the bottom the article, and having yet another one, even if it were more related, would get lost in the noise. In addition, templates have no place for specific rationale of relevancy for a given article, as does a "see also" list. In summary, of the six "see also" items only three are from Brazil, so a hypothetical Brazil template would not replace the simplicity and focused functionality of this short list with the provided rationale of relevancy. Crum375 (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I support MilborneOne reasoning. Following Crum375 reasoning, for each accident that occurs in a given country, the article should provide “the one before and the one after for perspective”. For each kind of accident, the article should provide “the deadliest ... anywhere”. It's not necessary and can lead to biased perspectives. Readers can build their perspectives by themselves. XX Sdruvss 18:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending corrections to Final Reports

NPOV violation

The article's editors selectively quote reference [46] omitting the two most important paragraphs, stressed by the most important newspapers (O Globo,O Estado de S. Paulo,Folha Online), grouping them "among others":

“The 277-page Brazilian air force report said Lepore and Paladino did not have sufficient knowledge of the aircraft's avionics, resulting in the inadvertent switching off of the plane's transponder and the collision-avoidance system” (third paragraph).

“The report also said the two American pilots were pressured by their five passengers as they rushed through preflight and take off procedures hastily, preventing them from studying the flight plan adequately" (sixty paragraph).

False statement and wrong reference

The article says “The U.S. NTSB issued its own report on the accident” using referece [2], but reference [2] lists “NTSB Comments to Draft Final Report”. So it is not possible to find the inexistent NTSB own report, only "NTSB Comments".

Affirmative not verifiable in the references

The article says “NTSB focuses on the controllers and the ATC system, concluding that both flight crews acted properly”. Not a single one of the cited references said that “both flight crews acted properly”. This is an editor own conclusion against the cited references.

Conspiracy theory

The article says “the Brazilian military operates that country's air traffic control system, conducted the investigation and authored the report." repeating Investigation topic that says “The accident was investigated by the Brazilian Air Force CENIPA”. There is no reason to repeat in the Final Report, unless there is another reason as, for instance, to arise a conspiracy theory. XX Sdruvss 11:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Revertion of Legal Action update

I've tried to update Legal Action with the text above, with a plenty of references:

On June 1st, 2007, the indictment in Brazil of the two pilots and four controllers made by the Federal Prosecutors' Office was accepted by the Court of Sinop city, state of Mato Grosso. They were charged under an article of Brazilian Criminal Code that foresees exposing to danger an embarkation or aircraft, one's own or another's, or practicing any act that tend to impede or hinder maritime, fluvial, or air navigation.

According to the charge, the first controller gave wrong instructions to the pilots, not telling them about Embraer's altitude changes. The second controller was responsible for monitoring the area in which the Embraer was flying, about one thousand feet above the altitude it should be. He was accused of not alerting the US pilots about their wrong altitude. Prosecutor said that second controller informed consciously and willfully the controller who took over from him that Embraer was at 36 thousand feet of altitude feet, when actually it was at 37 thousand feet. Therefore, on the wrong way, since the odd altitude is reserved for planes coming to Brasília and not going from Brasília as it was the case. The third controller who replaced second controller, was charged for taking too long to attempt a contact with the Legacy - about ten minutes after starting his shift - even though he was aware that Embraer's transponder wasn't working properly. The last air controller charged was third controller's assistant.

Pilots were charged mainly for their use of transponder and for not following the written flight plan. The prosecution says "For not knowing how to operate some items in the plane, they ended up deactivating by mistake the transponder. To this momentary active ineptitude followed a long omissive negligence."

On September 28, 2007, the judge of the 11th Military, in Brasilia, rejected the indictment by the Military Prosecutors' Office (MPM) against five air traffic controllers, among them the four indicted in Sinop, for involvement in the accident.

On December 8, 2008, the magistrate in Sinop, Mato Grosso, absolved the pilots from accusations of negligence not taking emergency steps for communications loss, ruling that nothing suggested an emergency situation. He also dropped charges against two of the air traffic controllers involved, accepting as normal the fact that they weren’t alarmed by another failure of an ATC system characterized by poor functioning, and by repeated defects. A third controller was partially absolved of accusations of negligence in establishing communications with Embraer, but continues to answer for the accusation of omission in configuring radio frequencies on the control console. Federal criminal charges remain against another controller, and judge has asked that charges be considered against a fifth. All five controllers, who are Air Force sergeants in Brazil’s military-controlled ATC system, continue to face parallel criminal charges in Brazil’s independent military court system.

On February 4, 2009, the Federal Prosecutors' Office appealed the decision of Federal judge of the Court of Sinop, in Mato Grosso, absolving the pilots. The Supreme Court in Brazil ruled that defendants can’t be jailed until all appeals are exhausted, a process that can take more than six years.

On January 11, 2010, the Regional Federal Tribunal (TRF) of the 1st Region, located in Brasilia, decided to cancel the decision of the judge of Sinop in Mato Grosso that determined the absolution of the pilots. However, the appeal judges of the TRF maintained the absolution of two controllers. A third controller continues to answer for incompetence. With the suspension of the absolution, the case returns to the trial court. The pilots' lawyers can still appeal to the Superior Tribunal of Justice to try to revert the decision.

Please, justify the reversion. XX Sdruvss 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplying references addresses just one requirement, WP:V. But WP requires articles to comply with other policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The material you added is too one sided, favoring one side in the litigation and thus violating NPOV, and too detailed, violating UNDUE. Because living persons are involved and there are criminal and other negative allegations, this also violates BLP. Crum375 (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Which side is being favorated? Please comment each paragraph. XX Sdruvss 14:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This case is currently in litigation in multiple jurisdictions. We need to wait for this ongoing litigation to play its course before commenting further on it, so we are not perceived to promote any side. We already mention that charges were filed, and civil suits were initiated. To go beyond that, while the cases are being prosecuted, would violate NPOV, UNDUE, and BLP. Crum375 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: The article just says “Prior to their scheduled departure to the United States, the crew were formally charged by Brazilian Federal Police with ‘endangering an aircraft’”. Federal Police just conducts the investigation, and must be accepted by Justice to become a suit. The charges made by Federal Police were accepted by Justice only on June 07, 2007. Saying that charges were filed does not mean that criminal suit was initiated. Article is incomplete. Sdruvss 14:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can’t say which side is being favorated, it doesn’t violate NPOV. If there is a lot of references, and, as you said, “appeared on many mainstream newspapers, so it's clearly notable”, it doesn’t violate UNDUE. All references of living people follow BLP rules (“Quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation”; “Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources”). We don’t need to wait for this ongoing litigation because we are not “commenting further on it”; we are just reporting publically know facts and events about legal actions. You don’t wait before, and we don’t "need" to wait now, and BLP rules don’t obligate to wait. Therefore, it doesn’t violate BLP. You can’t revert, alleging NPOV, UNDUE and BLP without saying how they violate them. XX Sdruvss 16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think WP is able to take a complex legal case and comment on it while it's in litigation in multiple jurisdictions. We can report on verdicts when they become available, because those are clear-cut, but not the various legal motions, statements by plaintiff attorneys, defense lawyers and prosecutors as the case is ongoing, because anything we say or unduly emphasize may promote one side or another, violating NPOV. In addition, focusing a large part of the article on the charges against the pilots of the Embraer violates UNDUE and BLP. The best way to handle these ongoing complex legal situations is to present the basic charges, which we have, and then wait for the verdicts. Crum375 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

“Anything we say or unduly emphasize may promote one side or another, violating NPOV” is absolutely not true. NPOV is selectively quoting the arguments of a reliable secondary source or selectively quoting reliable secondary sources. Reverting “anything” is censorship. Your argument is not sustainable. XX Sdruvss 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion. This article has achieved featured article status, which means its neutrality (along with all other aspects) was reviewed by many experienced editors before being promoted. It has also recently undergone a featured article review process, where again it was approved by even more editors. If you believe that changes are needed, you need to obtain talk page consensus for them, but using multiple sockpuppets is not a good way to achieve it. Crum375 (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the top of this page is written: “Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so”. Why don’t you let us update it? Why don’t you update it without violating NPOV? XX Sdruvss 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I normally try to focus on the message, not the messenger, and encourage others to do so. But in your case you have a tendency to flood pages with your words, without responding to the points made. A large number of experienced editors have decided the article meets our featured article requirements, which include neutrality and sourcing, so you need to gain talk page consensus if you feel otherwise. And this should not include your multiple confirmed sockpuppets. Fraud and deceit are not a good way to achieve results. Crum375 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Why don’t you let this article be updated without violating NPOV? Why don’t you update it anymore? There is a lot of information about this accident being published, don't let WP be outdated. XX Sdruvss 20:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you gain consensus for the changes, they can be added. Crum375 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Why don't you make a draft (or correct mine above) updating legal action? You will have my support. Do you think that is impossible to update legal action with NPOV? XX Sdruvss 23:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, we already mention in the article that there are criminal and civil suits in process. We don't provide a "play by play" of each case with all briefs, motions, and statements, because they vary by the day and are hard to put in context without violating NPOV, UNDUE and BLP. When the verdicts come in, we'll include them. Crum375 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you not able to update legal action without violating NPOV, UNDUE and BLP? Are you recognizing that are you unable to maintain this article updated? Why don't you let others edit it if you are not able? XX Sdruvss 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is consensus to make changes, which does not include your sockpuppets, I would support them. Crum375 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC):

Don't worry, sockpuppets are not so smart as you. They are very naive and juvenile. They didn't hurt anybody. XX Sdruvss 02:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See NPOV Noticeboard. XX Sdruvss 12:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Crum on this. While the information is relevant, there is minimal benefit for its inclusion at this time, while opening up a whole host of issues, the biggest of which in my view is BLP. Let alone the fact that we set a slippery slope for flooding this page with every little legal recourse that happens in this case. So my vote is not "no", but "not yet", which I think is consistent with Crum's.--Dali-Llama (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are in complete agreement. Crum375 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, I'd appreciate if people developed their reasoning and not just say "revert", "keep", "yes", "no", "I agree", "I not agree". Crum375 reverted saying that the text violate NPOV, UNDUE, BLP. I must remember that an article being FA as Crum remembers every time, doesn't mean it cannot be improved and updated. I remember again the sentence at the top of this page: "... if you can update or improve it, please do so". I also must remember Don't revert due to "no consensus", and I also must remember that WP is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit as far as one doesn't violate the rules, even someone doesn't like what is written. One can modify a text, or improve it, but may not delete it if it doesn't violate any rule. That is why I raise NPOV Noticeboard, because Crum375 doesn't explain what he calls NPOV "violations" in my text above. Since Dali raises WP:BLP issues, I repeat what I wrote there: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" (WP:BLP). The text above is very well sourced and exactly quoted. Reporting that a group of persons were charged, reporting the main reasons to be charged, and saying that indictment was accepted is not criticism. Saying someone is being suited is not criticism. "Criticism is the judgment (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual" (Criticism). I also must remember that this accident raised important issues about criminalization of aeronautical accidents. When Crum defended victim list names, he said "The list appeared on many mainstream newspapers, so it's clearly notable". Legal action, as Crum well said to victim list, it's clearly more notable then the victim list. I also must remember that I am the main contributor of Voo Gol Transportes Aéreos 1907 (Portuguese) where controllers live, where are the courts, and no one opposed my edition raising BLP issues. Sdruvss (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I understand your points as well as Crum's. I simply agree with Crum on issues of undue weight and BLP. I respect the fact that you are the main contributor to the PT wikipedia article, but the absence of discussion there does not preclude these issues from being raised here. I think appealing to authority is the wrong way to go about this. As I've said, I consider this an important issue, although ongoing. The benefits of including the legal minutiae as you've done in your revision, I believe, are outweighed by the issues mentioned by Crum, and I concur with him. --Dali-Llama (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dali, thank you for your time explaining your rationale and being bold. But allow me to repeat and to complete my reasoning: 1) Unquestionably the most import issue involved in this accident was crew detention and the criminalization of the accident. I think that everybody agree that this issue can't be left without. 2) "Legal action" section doesn't mention a single word of the Brazilian criminal legal action, but just American civil legal action, which is a very serious omission. 3) "Detention and charging of Embraer crew" says "...the crew were formally charged by Brazilian Federal Police", which is just the first condition to begin a legal action. Federal Police makes investigation and submits it to Justice. At this step, the criminal prosecution didn't start. After Prosecutors' office receiving Polices' investigation, he can indict the accused or nor, what he did, and Justice accepted only on June 1st, 2007, when the lawsuit begins. So, "Legal action" of this WP article omits the legal action. 4) The article does not have a single word about controllers being facing criminal charges. 5) I do agree that the benefits of including the legal minutiae (which I haven't done in my revision) would be outweighed. I've just included that there is a legal action going on in Brazil; in which step it is; who is being suited (pilots and controllers); that there is also a military legal action (controllers are military); which are the main allegations for someone being charged; and if there was verdicts (two controllers where absolved by Federal Justice but absolution of the crew of some charges was appealed and maintained; Military Justice didn't accept the charges against controllers, ...). Conclusion: the main issue of this article, or legal action, is being completely omitted. Therefore, UNDUE can't be a reason to revert my edition. Sdruvss (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should present a compromise edit here and we'll see where we go from there.--Dali-Llama (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Criminal proceedings

I started a new sub-section for this. I'd like to keep it as short, neutral and restrained as possible, focusing on the highlights only. What we need to do is collect high quality sources, and try to obtain definitive versions of the original indictment against the pilots in 2007, the partial acquittal in 2008, and the re-instatement of the charges in 2010. I think we should steer clear of excessive details, and focus on official court decisions. In the case of the controllers, their situation is more complex due to apparent parallel proceedings in military and federal courts, and the cases emanating from the post-accident work actions. I think there too we should keep the verbiage to a bare minimum. Once verdicts come in, or any significant court decisions, we can report on them. Crum375 (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made many corrections to Crum's text:

• Sinop is not a small city (115.000 inhabitants); it is not in Amazonas.
• Mendes is not a judge of Sinop city; he is a Federal Judge of Mato Grosso, subsection of Sinop, which includes 23 municipal districts.
• A judge accepts accusations made by a prosecutor, starting the criminal proceedings.

I expect that he doesn't revert. (More to come...) Sdruvss (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I revised much of your edit, for the following reasons:

1. Whether a town is considered "small" or not, or whether its size is relevant or not, is not for us as editors to decide, but for the reliable sources. If the New York Times introduces Sinop this way in its item about this particular event, we rely on the source, not on anonymous editors' opinion. And 100,000 inhabitants is small relative to 2.5-3.6 million for example in Brasilia, which is central to this accident in many ways.
2. The goal of this section is to remain tight and focused on the key events. Readers will get lost in legalistic language and excessive details, so we need to keep their attention by minimizing the clutter and extraneous words.
3. The language must remain good quality English. The writing in this article underwent several copy-edit passes by knowledgeable editors and close scrutiny by many others during the FA process, and we don't want to downgrade that quality.
4. We must adhere to the sources, focusing on the highest quality ones.

Crum375 (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My comments to your revertion:

• The federal court of Sinop has a coverage of an area bigger then the state of North Dakota (200.000 km2), and only the city of Sinop has the double of the population of Bismarck (60.000 hab.), NDs’ capital, and the region of Sinop, Mato Grosso the triple. If NYT calls Sinop a small city of Amazonas, how do they call Bismarck, ND?
• As all reliable sources say (besides NYT) that a judge accepts (or not) an accusation made by a prosecutor. A judge doesn’t indict anybody. Police authorities, thru an inquiry, indict a respondent (defendant) to a prosecutor. Reliable sources know it, as everybody knows it.

We must adhere to the sources, focusing on the highest quality ones, and not to some news made by some reporters of Sharkey’s publisher.

Note: Now, I am also the main contributor of Vuelo 1907 de Gol (Spanish). Sdruvss (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the reason why the NYT called Sinop small is that, relative to other cities, Sinop is small. For instance in some places a city of 100,000 may be "small" compared to other area cities. In other areas 30,000 may be relatively large. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

And I believe in Santa Claus. Sdruvss (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There really are cases where a city 100,000 can be considered "small." It's all relative, Sdruvss. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, if you want to participate in discussions, you need to remain civil. Offending your fellow editors, especially when they make sense, is not very productive. Crum375 (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WhisperToMe: I apologize if my comment seems offensive, it was clearly not my intention, but your comment seems to me naive. Sdruvss (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am stating, as a matter of fact, that whether a city is "small" or "large" is relative depending on which country it is and who is comparing it. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And what I am stating is that Crum intend of selectively quote NYT is to raise suspicion of Brazilian Justice, as if a federal judge of a small town bigger then North Dakota state was not able to judge this case. Sdruvss (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a reader could conclude that a federal judge of a small town would be different than a federal judge in a big town - after all both are judges from the federal system. If the language of the passage insinuated that a big city judge would decide differently, then it would be a problem. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the terminology of the judge "indicting" the defendants, we have two high quality sources using it: CBS News/Associated Press, and the New York Times, and I am sure more can be found. As I understand it, the process is that the prosecutor brings formal charges (the "indictment") against the accused, and the judge accepts or confirms the charges. A short way to describe this process is that the judge indicts the accused. This is shown in the CBS News/AP article (emphasis added):

A federal judge indicted two U.S. pilots and four Brazilian air traffic controllers Friday on charges equivalent to involuntary manslaughter in connection with Brazil's worst air disaster, court officials said. Judge Murilo Mendes accepted the charges filed by a prosecutor last week in a federal court in Sinop, a small city near the Amazon jungle site where a Boeing jetliner last year plunged...Prosecutors last week asked the judge to indict pilots Joseph Lepore and Jan Paul Paladino...

Also, these same high quality reliable sources use the adjective "small" for Sinop, so I have added it back into the article. I think the sources may be comparing it in size to the other cities relevant to this accident: Brasilia, pop. 2.5-3.6 million, Manaus, 1.7-2.0 million, or the São Paulo area, 1.5-7.9 million. (And if anyone has doubts Sinop is "small", see this.) Crum375 (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Justify the relevance of the size of the town where is the federal regional court of Sinop, bigger then many American states, very far from Amazon jungle (see the link), be called “small” by “reliable sources” to report criminal proceedings. Of course, this is a NPOV violation, false and offensive to readers. And Brazilian sources (Folha, Estado, Globo) are better sources to describe Brazilian legal procedures then some reporter of NYT and CBS, or the press secretary of many airlines Edvaldo Pereira Lima, author of AS article. Sdruvss (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an article of an outstanding juridical site in Brazil, reporting that a new prosecutor’s accusation against the pilots was accept by the judge. Police authority indicts, prosecutor accuses, and judge accepts or not accusation and then judge. Sdruvss (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, by now you should know our rules. We follow the highest quality and most reputable sources, not what anonymous editors say or think. In this case, we have Associated Press, CBS News, New York Times, and many others, telling us things, and we give these sources the top priority. The Brazil sources are fine, in principle, but they are not experts in English terminology, or see their country from the outside, from a broader perspective. So if the top sources say "small" and consider it relevant in this context, we trust them, not some anonymous person telling us "believe me, it's big!" And if they use the English terminology "the judge indicted", we trust their knowledge of the English language and legalistic terms more than our own. Otherwise, this would become an online forum, not a tertiary source. I suggest you read again WP:V and WP:NOR, and you'll see that we are concerned about what the best, most respected reputable sources say, not what our editors say or think is "true". Crum375 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ALL Brazilian reliable sources informed on june, 2007: Leia a decisão que acolheu denúncia no caso Gol (Conjur) - "Estando mais que comprovada a materialidade (154 pessoas morreram, uma aeronave caiu e a outra, seriamente danificada, a muito custo conseguiu pousar), sendo suficientes os indícios de autoria, havendo a existência, em tese, de crime capitulado no Código Penal e estando cumpridas as exigências do art. 41 do CPP, recebo a denúncia e determino a citação dos acusados". (emphasis added)

Babylon dictionary:

• citação: quotation, quote, citation, cross reference, mention, reference; adduction; monition; intimation; notification; subpoena (English)
• indictment: act of accusing; formal accusation presented by a grand jury (Law); accusation, criticism; state of being indicted (English)
• indictment: acusação; denúncia; sumário de culpa; processo (Portuguese)

"Citação" is definitively different of "Indictment". It seems that not a single of your "reliable sources" is able to correct translate Brazilian legal procedures. Maybe Andrew Downie, that signs NYT article, was distracted at Copacabana beach. Sdruvss (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum, Andrew Downie made this mistake because in USA "in a criminal case, the government generally brings charges in one of two ways: either by accusing a suspect directly in a "bill of information" or other similar document, or by bringing evidence before a grand jury to allow that body to determine whether the case should proceed. If there is, then the defendant is indicted" (Criminal procedure in the United States). In Brazil is very different. What may be called "indictment" only begins after judge hearing all witness and defendants and then issuing a sentence to proceed (not necessarily final). So, the indictment equivalent happened after june, 2007. But OK, it is not so much different. Sdruvss (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point again. When we have the New York Times and Associated Press/CBS News telling us (in English) "the judge indicted," that's what we write. The legal analysis or translations of anonymous Wikipedians carry zero weight in article space, per WP:V and WP:NOR. And as I also tried to explain, there is actually not much conflict, since in English, as you can see in the above quote, "the judge accepted the charges filed by the prosecution" is the long way of saying "the judge indicted." Crum375 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, OK, no big deal. It is a wrong translation of what happened in Brazil, because in USA a Grand Jury hears accusation and defense before accepting charges and indicting defendants. In Brazil, judge accepts charges without any kind of judgment, just reading charges. Then he will hear defense before indicting, he may even change charges, which was done. It's a little bit different, it takes more time, and that is why no one Brazilian source said they were indicted. But as I said: OK, if you want to use a bad translation and a wrong similarity of someone that don't know Brazilian Justice as Andrew Downie, OK. Sdruvss (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have Alfonso Serrano, a reporter for Associated Press, with his story published on CBS News. Mr Serrano of AP tells us "the judge indicted." He also implies that the judge's indictment of the accused is analogous to the longer version of, "the judge accepted the charges filed by the prosecution." But we also have Mr. Anonymous Wikipedian, who is telling us Mr Serrano is wrong, because Mr. Anonymous knows better, and it doesn't work that way, and only Anonymous knows the real facts, and we should listen to Anonymous because he has a nice photo of a girl in Copacabana. Now who do you think we should follow? Crum375 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss: Many foreign countries have established English language newspapers i.e. The Japan Times in Japan, etc. - and those papers should be at the level of those in native English speaking countries (i.e. they would be experts in English terminology, see the country from the outside, and see it from a broader perspective) - If there are any in Brazil that cover the accident and use different language to describe what is described in this article as an indictment, see if you can find any. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum: as I said above, if the correct translation of ALL Brazilian newspaper headlines and articles "Juiz aceita a denuncia..." is "Judge indicted...", I (an anonymous WP reader) do accept (...or I indict?). Sdruvss (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see in Serrano's AP article, he uses the short form "the judge indicted", and the long form "the judge accepted the charges..." Later he says, "Prosecutors ... asked the judge to indict pilots..." See p. 20, second paragraph here, and also here, for the term denúncia as used in Brazil. The bottom line is that the prosecutor files formal charges (the "indictment"), and if/when the judge accepts them, he is indicting the accused, in short. Crum375 (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you search in google for “judge indicted” in pages hosted in Brazil you will find just 21 results, most of them about Gol 1907, which means that judges don’t use to indict in Brazil, but the "reliable sources" NYT, CBS, AP think they do. Sdruvss (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So now CBS and AP (and USA Today, since it also published that) are all "Sharkey's papers" too? Why don't we just admit that this entire project, with its crazy sourcing rules, is actually SharkeyPedia? :) Crum375 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I’ve just said that those news, as a lot of news around the world, including Brazil, are made by journalists with shallow knowledge of local justice procedures, and they use wrong juridical terms and expressions. WP intend to be an encyclopedia and we must gather as much reliable sources as possible, and don’t repeat mistakes made by just a few of them. NYT, CBS, AP, Folha, Globo, Estado, all of them make huge mistakes, as saying that "judge indicts"; judge judges. We must not reapeat it. Sdruvss (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Our job here, as a tertiary source, is not to dig up "the real truth", but to report what reliable sources have written about a topic. So if the reliable sources, including NYT, CBS, AP, USA Today, all tell us the "judge indicted", that's what we say too. As I tried to explain to you, when the judge accepts the formal charges filed by the prosecution against an accused, the judge is "indicting" the accused, for short. It's really a linguistic issue, and I see no "mistake" here by any of these sources. Crum375 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as I said many times above, if you want to use “judge indicted”, as wrongly used by a few articles of NYT, CBS, AP and not “judged accepted” as correctly used by thousands of articles of Folha, Globo, Estado, there is nothing I can do because you would revert as the article owner, but don’t expect that I agree; I don’t. But don't mind, this is one of your minor mistakes; calling federal subsection of Sinop, with the size of North Dakota, of a small town is a bigger one. Sdruvss (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess my point is not getting across, despite many attempts. If the high quality sources write that Sinop is small, and consider its size relevant in this context, we say it too. Same for the high quality sources using the terminology "the judge indicted." The fundamental principle of this site is that we follow high quality reliable sources, not what anonymous Wikipedians think. Crum375 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You should say "we follow three high quality reliable sources we choose and discart thousands of others we don't like". Sdruvss (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" (Shakespeare). Sdruvss (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the bright side: you may be getting a sense that we need to cite things to reliable sources, and even the devil is not exempt, if he wants to edit here. :) Crum375 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I’ve never said that you can not write what you write; the problem is that you revert good contributions, grounded in Brazilian reliable sources, arising inexistent rules violation (as NPOV, UNDUE, BLP). Sdruvss (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You said: "If the high quality sources write that Sinop is small, and consider its size relevant in this context, we say it too". So, I believe you can explain the relevancy; explain me. Sdruvss (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to explain it, or justify it, since the sources are using it, but my personal guess is that the sources think that foreign readers may wonder why an important case of international implications is being tried in an unfamiliar place, and not in Brasilia, or some of the other large cities related to the accident. By saying it's small town or city near the crash site, they help explain the rationale. But this is just a guess, as I said. Crum375 (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is your real motivation you should agree that "...Murilo Mendes, a federal judge of Mato Grosso, state where aircraft crashed, subsection of Sinop, accepted the indictment made by the prosecution, ...." is a better text. Unless, you have other motivation, as we know you have.

You don't need to explain the relevancy; I have my edition reverted without a reasonable explanation.

All your three sources are reliable; all my dozens of sources are unreliable.

You selectively quote your sources; I can't quote your sources.

You don't violate NPOV; I violate NPOV.

You are not the owner of this article.

It's a fair game. Sdruvss (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not my "real motivation". My real motivation is to keep this featured article at a high level, and keep updating it for the most important new developments without adding clutter, or poor English. I believe that readers want to see a neutral, clearly presented overview of the highlights, with links to reliable sources. If a particular reader is interested in amplified details about one issue, they can click on the links and read all the minutiae. I believe the best way to achieve neutrality when presenting these issues is to stick to the best sources and keep the writing tight. You seem to think I have some hidden agenda, or ulterior motivation. If I have any such bias, I am not aware of it. But if you feel anything is not neutral, or improperly written, you can present your case and try to gain consensus for it. Crum375 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If it was true what you are saying you would agree that "...a federal judge of Mato Grosso, state where aircraft crashed, subsection of Sinop, accepted the indictment made by the prosecution, ...." is a better text. Your speech doesn't keep up a correspondence with your actions. Is this sentence false? Is this sentence not verifiable? No, it isn't. Even so, you've reverted it. Sdruvss (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your version is poor English and does not reflect the main sources. It also creates confusion about the indictment, since in this article we use the noun to mean the process where the judge accepts and approves the formal charges filed by the prosecution. As I noted above, the formally filed charges are also known as the indictment document. To conflate the process and the document would confuse the readers, and this is why we stick to the top level English language sources, since proper English terminology is crucial here. Crum375 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We may not discuss "good English" of "poor content". First, you’ve "forgotten" to say that your NYT reference signed by Andrew Downie starts with: "Correction Appended". At the bottom of the article we find:

"Correction: June 4, 2007"

"An article on Saturday about charges being brought in Brazil against two American pilots, whose corporate jet was involved in a mid-air collision last year over the Amazon with a Brazilian airliner that went down with 154 people aboard, misstated a Brazilian judge’s position on the case. He said in a statement issued in Portuguese on Friday that the two pilots, Joseph Lepore and Jan Paul Paladino, should be charged with exposing an aircraft to danger; he did not say they were guilty of having done so.”" (emphasis added).

This means, that Andrew Downie, as NYT declared, misunderstood Brazilian newspapers, and wrongly translated the judge decision to "good English" for NYT. Andrew Downie (correspondent in Brazil of many newspapers, not only NYT) didn’t understood, because although "judge indicts" is "good English", it doesn’t make any sense in Brazil, neither in US (grand jury indicts), and it also doesn’t make sense to translate Brazilian legal procedures to what he believe to be American procedures equivalent, since he is not a lawyer.

We need better sources to translante Brazilian news. "Good English" is not enough, WP needs good content. Sdruvss (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI: In Brazil, judges don’t approve charges, they accept them or not, and they don’t issue what you created as “indictment document”. Judges issues sentences (several forms of sentences that are published in “Diário Oficial”), and one can read it here: Leia a decisão que acolheu denúncia no caso Gol (Conjur). This is not what you are naming a “indictment document”. Sdruvss (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, it would be much better if you stop attacking people you disagree with, and focus on the message. In this particular case, nobody "forgot" anything. You are just misunderstanding that note, and how online newspapers work. First, that correction note is not tucked away to hide something, but on the contrary, it is placed at the very top of the article, so nobody would possibly miss it. And the main point you are missing is this: the article is correct as it stands. The note refers to a previous version, no longer online, which has been corrected in the current version. So the note is intended for anyone who had seen the previous version, to let them know that there has been a correction. The actual correction has nothing to do with the linguistic issues we are discussing here, but with a previous version which said or implied that the judge had already found the pilots guilty of having exposed an aircraft to danger.[1] Again, the current online version is correct as it stands, and already incorporates all changes. And of course we have more than just New York Times as our sources. Bottom line: please be more careful when you read sources, especially when accusing others of negligence or incompetence. Crum375 (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I’m not accusing anybody of negligence or incompetence.
• I’m not attacking anybody.
• I've said that the main of your references starts with: “Correction Appended” on June 4, 2007, that the article (this NYT article, published June 2, 2007) “misstated a Brazilian judge’s position on the case”. (emphasis added). There is not a previous version, correction was appended.
• I said earlier and I’ve presented references that David Downie is a Scotch freelancer correspondent in Brazil of many newspapers around the world, and his translations of Brazilian news are published in many of them. Many newspaper reproduce NYT news; it is not surprising that many newspapers “misstated a Brazilian judge’s position on the case”.

And now I add:

• How can WP readers have confidence in a source that recognizes that misstates judge position?
• How can WP readers have confidence in a source that is opposite of dozens of other reliable sources?
• How can WP readers have confidence in a source that changes the size of the subsection of Sinop, of the federal justice court of the state of Mato Grosso, bigger then the state of North Dakota into a “small town in Amazonas”?
• Why we cannot use other reliable sources as Folha Online, O Estado de São Paulo, O Globo, Consultor Jurídico, and many others reliable sources? Sdruvss (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, you don't seem to read what I write, so I may stop responding if this continues. I explained to you above that the correction note is about history, about an old version which no longer exists. You ask how can WP readers have confidence in a source (The New York Times) that "recognizes that misstates judge position." I think if you have a news source which continuously checks for inaccuracies, quickly corrects them, and clearly highlights those changes in the first sentence of a subsequent article about the topic, most rational readers would consider such a source more reliable than others who are not as careful to find, correct and report on their mistakes. Your tactic of attacking the messenger, either reporters of reputable publications you don't like or editors you disagree with, is not going to get you very far here. Please focus on the message and stop disparaging other people. Crum375 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum, you don't seem to read what I write. I say that we WP readers cannot have confidence in a solitary source that repeatedly make mistakes. I've edited using better sources, but you reverted. Your reference (“Investigation Turns Criminal), for instance, signed by Edvaldo Pereira Lima, press secretary of many airlines, in his two page article says “... federal judge Murilo Mendes pronounced his first verdicts in a parallel investigation by federal police that indicted the...” (emphasis added), confirming what I've said. In his two page article he uses the expression “federal judge”; he doesn’t say “judge indicted”, and he doesn’t have a single mention of Sinop, which means, he didn’t consider it relevant to describe legal proceedings in his two page article. I've said many times that you selectively quote your sources, violating NPOV. Sdruvss (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, in the sentence you quote, the subject is "the investigation". This is a short way of saying, "the investigators found evidence and the prosecutors wrote a charge sheet (also known as 'the indictment') which they filed with the court, and the judge accepted (or "confirmed") those charges, which is equivalent to saying "the judge indicted the accused". Given that this is the English Wikipedia, we rely on the most reliable mainstream English sources for the best terminology. In our case, we have The New York Times, CBS News and USA Today (the latter two reporting an Associated Press story), all using the form "the judge indicted", and that's what we use in the article. Crum375 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum, let it be, OK. Keep the text you want. Those who want a better level of information, without censoring and wrong translations from Portuguese to English of Brazilian sources, may read the Portuguese and Spanish versions of this article. You are welcome there to improve them, I won't revert your edition as you do to me. (PS: English good terminology doesn't necessarily means that content is correct, for instance, to accept indictment - or charges - is completely different of confirming charges. You won't find any legal text - only newspaper, blogs, etc... - saying "judge indicted". "Indict" in English means to accusate - search dictionary. Judges don't accusate, prosecutors and grand juries do. Judges don't. That is why Mendes was angry with NYT and ask them to retract.). Sdruvss (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, you say "That is why Mendes was angry with NYT and ask[ed] them to retract." Do you have a reliable source for that? Crum375 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Saturday, June 2, 2007, NYT wrote: "A Brazilian federal judge in Sinop, a small Amazon town, agreed with the results of a Brazilian Federal Police". If he had confirmed that he "agreed with results" he would be removed from the process. In Brazil it is prohibit to a judge expose an opinion about a process. Not a single Brazilian source has said "he agreed with the results". Two days after, June 4, 2007, NYT appended the correction to the article: "He said in a statement issued in Portuguese on Friday that the two pilots, Joseph Lepore and Jan Paul Paladino, should be charged with exposing an aircraft to danger". This is false, Judges don't say that defendants "should be charged", this is crazy, and as can be verified in Leia a decisão que acolheu denúncia no caso Gol (Conjur), he didn't say (write) what NYT said. He was clear there "... o juiz não pode antecipar o julgamento, cumprindo-lhe restringir-se a analisar as condições da ação e a existência, em tese, da infração penal. (...) sendo suficientes os indícios de autoria, havendo a existência, em tese, de crime capitulado no Código Penal e estando cumpridas as exigências do art. 41 do CPP, recebo a denúncia e determino a citação dos acusados”. So, he neither agreed nor said that defendants "should be charged". Then NYT adds "...he (Mendes) did not say they were guilty of having done so". Of course he did not say it. OK, I don't know if it was Mendes who asked them to retract, probably not, but was someone in his name. Almost all that NYT writes about Gol 1907 accident is false, not verifiable. Sdruvss (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, I am repeating my question, since I can't find a yes/no answer, or a source: you say "That is why Mendes was angry with NYT and ask[ed] them to retract." Do you have a reliable source for that? Crum375 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No I don't, I retract. But as you can see, NYT retracted. Crum, FYI, Longman dictionary: indictment - official written statement saying that someone has done something illegal. Quote in Leia a decisão que acolheu denúncia no caso Gol (Conjur) where Mendes says that defendants has done something illegal. Sdruvss (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You retract, meaning you made up a fictitious statement. Hopefully you can understand that making up fiction to try to justify your position, after you were caught creating multiple fake personalities on this page for the same purpose, is not going to increase your credibility here. Next time you say X, a reasonable person could assume you are just making it up again. As for the Longman definition above of the word "indictment", it fits perfectly with what I said above, that indictment can refer to the indictment document itself, or to the process whereby the judge accepts the charge sheet filed by the prosecution. The high quality English news sources we rely on consider the term to refer to the process, and therefore employ the short form "the judge indicted". Crum375 (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I retract, meaning I am not able to prove what I said, not that a made up a fictitious statement, and that is not a relevant issue to debate. When I said Mendes was angry with NYT, it means that it is expected he was, as it is expected that someone became angry when a newspaper publish false information about him, and usually they ask them to retract, as long we can see, that they retracted. This is a Talk Page, and I don't need to have a reliable sources for what I say here. This is not a quotation and references game, this is a reasoning debate. You all the time argues without a reliable source, and this is not a big deal to me, I don't require that you have a reliable source for all you say because I know you don't have it, as you are doing now. The debate is not going to be published in the article, and it doesn't matter to what we are debating. We are debating what NYT wrote in their article. We are debating if a WP may publish clearly false statements, as you defend as long as it is a reliable source. I don't. I defend not to publish clearly false information. Sdruvss (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Reliable source: "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors".
WP:Reliable source examples: "There are several legal structures for the creation, validation and enforcement of law and the resulting corpus of law is only valid in the jurisdiction of origin. The opinion of experts within the jurisdiction is therefore preferred, in general, to that of outside commentators. Legal material may also be divided into the legal statement itself, material to support or inform that legal statement and judgements of opinion when applying the law in practice. When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting". (emphasis added) Sdruvss (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, you made a statement just above, "that is why Mendes was angry with NYT and ask[ed] them to retract." You didn't say, "I, Sdruvss, think that the judge was angry, and I think he asked them to retract, and I think this is why he was angry." By making it sound like it's an actual statement you read in a reliable source, you were deceiving people reading this page, who'd assume you were being truthful. This site is based on reliable sources, and we don't make stuff up, even if we think it's "true". If everyone here made up fictitious statements as you do, and like you invented multiple sockpuppets to create an appearance of support for their view, we'd have a big mess, and not a high quality encyclopedia. If you want to participate here and to be taken seriously, you need to accept these rules, and not invent fictitious characters and statements. Crum375 (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Mendes was angry. I know, and I am sure that Mendes was angry, and anyone can read in your NYT reference that they retracted, but Mendes has not published his emotions in any "reliable source". As you say every time, we are anonymous wikipedian, and this is not a issue to be published here in WP, so it doesn’t matter if we have a reliable source to prove it or not, and I don’t need to, and it doesn’t matter if someone believe me or not. I reaffirm that Mendes was angry, and someone asked NYT to correct, and the fact that matters is that NYT partially corrected it. We are not here to debate what I think, what I say; we are not here to debate if Mendes was angry or not; we are here to debate what sources say, and if they are reliable sources, and not if I am a reliable source. We are here to debate the false information published in this WP article, as for instance, among others, that Mendes indicted the defendants, although this false information has been published by reliable sources. You build this WP article gathering false information published by “reliable source” and blocking the true information published by other reliable sources. This is the issue we are debating, and not me as reliable source. We are debating this new strategy of writing WP articles: how to build a false story thru reliable sources. Sdruvss (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sdruvss, if you think we should be allowed to base articles on personal knowledge, you should make changes to our core policies, such as WP:NOR and WP:V. But until you make those changes, we must follow what the sources tell us, and we can't make stuff up to support our point of view. Crum375 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are changing my words. I’m not proposing to “base articles on personal knowledge”. No, I have not said it, and we should not make changes to WP core policies. I repeat: this article was built with false information published by reliable sources, what is not wrong, because it can be verified, but what is wrong is that you are blocking to be published the true information provided by dozens of other reliable sources. You are changing the dictionary to ground the false information published by your reliable source; you are changing the debate focus to me, instead to focus the WP article. Sdruvss (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You write just above, "that is why Mendes was angry with NYT and ask[ed] them to retract", and you admit you made it up when confronted. You unleash a troupe of actors on this page to create an appearance of support for your views. As I have tried to tell you without success, this strategy won't work. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to stop making things up. Crum375 (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, focus in the debate. We are debating if Mendes indicted pilots and controller, or, according to dictionary, if Mendes wrote a statement saying that someone has done something illegal. According to all Brazilian reliable sources, he didn’t, and according to some newspaper's journalist, he did. We are debating the relevancy of the size of the city where Mendes lives against the size of the subsection of the federal court of Mato Grosso. Sdruvss (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already replied to all of this, at length and in detail, with links to sources, many times above. The problem is that you ignore what I say, and invent false information like "that is why Mendes was angry with NYT and ask[ed] them to retract" to support your own case. This makes it very hard, if not impossible, to work with you. Crum375 (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you already replied, you don't need to repeat. And it is true, I ignore what you say, because it doesn't make any sense to me. And I didn't invent false information, because Mendes was angry with NYT and asked them to retract, but he didn't publish his emotions in a reliable source, and this doesn't matter at all. And this affirmative was not to support my case, but just to show that NYT retracted his false information. And finally you don't need, neither any one is asking you to work with me, and I would appreciate if you don’t. Sdruvss (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum said: “As for the Longman definition above of the word indictment, it fits perfectly with what I said above, that indictment can refer to the indictment document itself, or to the process whereby the judge accepts the charge sheet filed by the prosecution. The high quality English news sources we rely on consider the term to refer to the process, and therefore employ the short form the judge indicted”. This doesn’t make any sense. “High quality English news sources” can’t build new meaning to the words. A newspaper can not build a “short form” of a legal term. If there is not this meaning of “indictment” in the dictionary, a newspaper may not create it. If they are creating "meanings" to the words, this is false information. Sdruvss (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Passenger and crew list section

Should the passenger and crew list be removed from or kept in this article? Does it violate any policies or guidelines by its presence? Would it be detrimental to the article if it were removed? MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant links

• Wikipedia:Victim Lists (essay)
• Talk section at the top of this page - "#Gol 1907 victim list"
• Feel free to add any others you know of

Discussion

• Preface: There is absolutely no valid reason that I can see for this section to be in the article. Past discussions have not been conclusive, despite what was claimed when I was reverted when trying to remove it earlier today [2], hence this Rfc. I've given my opening arguments below in the green box. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening arguments from me, as Rfc filer. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been claimed by the reverter that because the list was included in newspapers at the time, that it is therefore notable. This is false. Per the guideline, the presence or absence of notability does not govern article content, only article topics. Inclusion/exclusion of the list is purely an issue of consensus and other in-article content policies, such as WP:NOT. It's news value at the time is wholly irrelevant anyway - what was of value to newspapers then is not what is of value to an encyclopaedia now. This is a list of people not one of whom has their own Wikipedia article and played no relevant role in the event apart from the obvious, and therefore, per WP:Lists of people, their inclusion is not justifiable. It has also been claimed that inclusion of the names of the dead gives the article some sort of gravitas or extra human face. WP:MEMORIAL makes it quite clear that this is not Wikipedia's purpose, and we are not here to put a human face on tragedy beyond the facts, so again, it's not justifiable. (And with no actual discernable use, the simple factual list of people does not form part of the facts of the article as I define it there). It is said that the silence over its inclusion as the article passed FA shows it is acceptable. I say this is nonsense, but I would have no objection to anybody canvassing each and every FA contributor to obtain their specific views on it one way or the other. I note that in it's first failed attempt to become an FA, the issue of the list was brought up [3], and the answer is not in my opinion overly convincing. It is said that because this list is in a 'show' box, and because external links can be problematic, that it is justifiable keeping it in the article. These are red-herrings, they don't address the central issue of its appropriateness or usefulness at all. It is said that this list's inclusion somehow helps people who are seeing victim names in other places, and Google them, to find this article. I find this just bizarre. If, in the imho given their apparent lack of notability anyway, they are being mentioned in other sources, then it's going to be pretty obvious why - because they were involved in this crash, and this will be mentioned in the source. I see no conceivable situation where Googling the name and finding this list will be the only way they can find this article. I hesitate to go down the BLP route, I detest the BLP fearmongers who abuse that policy often to justify simple deletionism or worse, but not distressing people who might arrive here on a false positive on Googling an ancestor's name might come into this issue too, and BLP is pretty consistent in other areas in that including people's names needs to have real world justification from a standpoint of actual, real, usefulness and relevance, which does not resemble the defences I've seen so far. Finally, it will probably be suggested that 'it does no harm' including it. Well, I think it does. Having an entire section included for no discernible reason except 'we can' is probably one of the worst messages Wikipedia can send out. If you want, you can call it a violation of WP:UNDUE, by suggesting the names of the dead are more important to this topic than they actually appear to be. An even harsher way to look at it is to assert it is simply WP:TRIVIA. Collapsing it into a show/hide box is not the usual way trivia is dealt with. Plenty of people have said that it's simply not encyclopaedic, and while that can be seemingly countered by the common defence of 'it doesn't break any rules', that does not negate this rather obvious expression of simple common sense.

• I'll be spamming this Rfc to the content board, the aviation wikiproject, and Talk:WP:NOT, and to the Village Pump. I've no objection to anyone spamming it anywhere else, as long as they follow WP:CANVAS. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done [4][5][6][7] MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove. One example of a solution worked out by involved editors is to make a list of only notable passengers, ones who have an article written about them, which is what was done at TWA Flight 800. Such a list, however, is entirely replaceable by prose in the article body, with a short sentence or two about each notable person. All this article needs in the way of a complete passenger list is to link to the list in an external website. Readers who are interested can go to that page. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Linking to an external site has several problems:
    • It takes time to load, sometimes many additional seconds
    • It requires frequent monitoring for link rot
    • The external site may be (as in this case) in a foreign language, and the needed scrolling is not obvious and requires extra effort
    • Crew positions are not obvious in foreign sites
  • All of these drawbacks are instantly resolved with a show/hide list. It appears instantly, never moves, requires no scrolling and is in English. Those who are not interested, don't click on 'show'. Crum375 (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The names and ages of the victims is a valuable addition to the article, and is based on reliable sources. It has been reviewed, along with the rest of the article, during its featured article candidate review, and was found to be an acceptable part of the article, which was promoted to featured article with it. I see no reason to remove this useful information. If someone is not interested in seeing the names, they don't click on the "show" button. Crum375 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Remove all but notable persons per past precedent and WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Otherwise, any time there's a multi-victim "disaster", people would push to include all victims listed even if they number in the hundreds or thousands. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • All these names are notable in that there are multiple sources for them. This is not a memorial issue, because only their name is mentioned, not biography. And it's not a WP:BLP1E because they are all dead, and in any case this is not an article about them individually. Crum375 (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, that's not notable. If they have been listed in multiple sources simply because they were in the accident, that's a brief burst of news (despite the tragedy) and they would fail WP:NTEMP and WP:BLP1E. While we're not talking notability per a standalone article, it is important for BLP issues and also to avoid being indiscriminate. Again, the logic to "keep" this list means we should have a similar list for all the victims of the Haiti disaster, or the Sri Lanka tsunami, which is well beyond our purpose here. That doesn't mean something like Wikinews can accept that list, thought. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, actually, they are not all notable, per WP:BLP1E. No amount of references which include the person in a raw list will establish them as notable. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Again, dead persons are not living persons, so BLP1E does not apply. And the notability issue is for articles devoted to them, while this article isn't. The point is simple: if a reader is not interested in this information, he doesn't click on 'show', so I can't see any rationale to not give him that option. Crum375 (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
        • BLP1E is routinely applied to events involving dead people. If the person/subject/event wasn't notable while the person was alive, then the fact that s/he is now dead does not magically make him/her/it notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
          • BLP1E is for living persons, by definition. It specifically applies to when a living person is notable enough to have a WP article, not to just be mentioned in another article, per reliable source. And in this case, it doesn't apply for both reasons: these persons are dead, and they are not the article subjects. Crum375 (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
            • BLP1E is a common sense addition along with WP:NTEMP that one event does not necessarily infer notability on a person. Certainly not death in nearly all case; death is a natural part of human life, and the fact someone dies - however tragic the loss may be - rarely changes how we should handle that person from an encyclopedic standpoint. There are exceptional cases where death does create notability: victims of significant crimes (ala the Zodiac Killer), or possibly the first (recorded) person to die of a new strain of virus or something like. Otherwise, it's part of life even if it wasn't from natural causes. What this means here is that unless they were already notable before they got on the plane, every person was a indiscriminate data point, and just being one the unfortunate passengers in the crash does not make them notable for inclusion. That's the factor here - we are not an indiscriminate collection of information and the fact that such lists exist easily in spaces outside of WP (whether at Wikinews, Wikisource, or external references) means they should not be included here. A summary of age, nationality, etc. is fair, but not every point. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove except for notable people (convert to prose) and perhaps crew. Have you ever seen a complete list of passengers in any normal kind of encyclopedia for this (or similar events, e.g., the Titanic's sinking)? I haven't. It's not encyclopedic information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a special kind of encyclopedia, and we are forging new ground. In this case, what is the downside caused by allowing those readers who are interested to find out the names of the victims to click on the 'show' button? Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • That something is WP:HARMLESS does not make it encyclopedic. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an collection of harmless information.
      Also, I notice that you have replied with some argument to practically every editor who favors removal of the list. It's poor form to go around arguing with every RFC respondent who disagrees with you. It discourages participation and contributes to an unfriendly environment. This RFC exists to get feedback from the wider community, not to give you more people to argue with. If the community's consensus is different from your personal opinion, then please find a way to cope gracefully. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Remove, I don't see how the list of names is valuable or useful in any way, other than to the people who personally knew the victims. The names are an informational dead end. Because the passengers were not notable, learning their names cannot lead anyone to any further facts or better understanding of this or any other article topic. An entirely different assortment of 154 non-notable passengers could have been on that plane and nothing would have been different about the incident and this article other than the names. It's verifiable information, but it's just data, and it is only relevant and encyclopedic in the aggregate: as a numerical statistic of the fatalities. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Many of the passenger families are involved in ongoing lawsuits against various parties, and often their names are mentioned in related articles. If a person reading such an article wants to find out about a specific family's victim(s), they can go to Wikipedia and click 'show'. Other readers may be interested in the victims' age distribution, or last names (e.g. to learn about families with children). All readers who are interested in the names would click 'show', while those who are not won't. Having the victim list instantly available on demand is a service to the interested readers, without imposing it on other readers. Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Re: lawsuits, the most effective way to present that information is in a dedicated section, like we have at Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907#Legal action, summarizing the lawsuits rather than stating their case in full. If any of those lawsuits are individually notable, such that they would merit standalone articles, then it may be appropriate therein to give decedents' names, though typically the relationship of the plaintiff to the decedent(s) (mother, sister, etc.) would be enough given the legal claims of those lawsuits (except perhaps on the issue of calculating damages, if the suits get that far and the issue is covered in depth in reliable sources). But regardless, there is no way the lawsuit topic could justify a full data dump of all names in this article, given that the list of names cannot not tell you which passengers had surviving relatives and which ones of those sued.

      Was there anything unusual about the age distribution of the victims? If so, has a reliable source noted this? If so, then an appropriate sentence summarizing that conclusion would be far more effective, useful, and encyclopedic than a data dump of every individual age. postdlf (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

      • Many of the lawsuits have minor write-ups in the media about the various proceedings, and our goal is not to inundate the article with their minutiae. But if a reader happens to read such an article and wants to find out more, he can come to the WP article and verify the names relating to the litigants (I have done so myself on several occasions). The victims ages and names are not "unusual", they are just things that readers may be interested in. The point is that those readers who are not interested don't click on 'show', leaving it only to those who want to see the names, so it's win-win. Crum375 (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Your lawsuit argument is, frankly, nonsense, because at most you've only justified a list of the passengers relevant to the lawsuits, presented in connection with those lawsuits. A list of all passengers wouldn't be helpful or relevant to the lawsuits at all.

          Additionally, your hypothetical reader being blandly "interested" in seeing the names and ages is not anywhere near being a real argument. You have to do better than that to justify why that information should be in the article. That someone, somewhere, for some unknown purpose, may want to find it there is not good enough. postdlf (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

          • The lawsuit was an example where a reader might be interested in verifying the name for himself. The list of all passengers is vital in such a case, because a partial list won't allow verification. As I noted above, I myself have used the WP article with the list after reading about one case in a news article. If the WP list had been partial and the specific name did not appear in it, it would have told me nothing. Crum375 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I really have no idea what you're talking about here. It sounds like you're positing that someone will read about the lawsuit, want to verify that a passenger named in the lawsuit as a victim was actually a victim on the plane, and therefore should use a Wikipedia article to verify that fact. I hope I've misread you, because that's utter rubbish on many different levels. postdlf (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
              • That is exactly what I am saying. Someone reads a news story in some online site, and wants to read more about it on Wikipedia, and cross-check the facts. It's something people do every day. Could you explain why this is "rubbish"? Crum375 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • Odd that you would recommend against including minutiae yet promote the list of passengers each of which never earned a notable public presence. This list is exactly what external links are for: details considered too much for the article. I am loathe to establish this new beachhead in terms of article style—taken to its extreme, all sorts of diagrams, specifications, lists and so on could be appended to Wikipedia articles as long as they are hidden until the reader clicks 'show'. Bad precedent. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
          • You are missing the point. We want to avoid the legal minutiae in the legal section to avoid confusing or distracting the readers with excessive details. In the case of the names, all we are telling them is "here are the victim names, click to see them if you are interested." There is no possible confusion, or distraction, in such a case. Only information for those interested, and simply knowledge that it's there if needed for all others. Crum375 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Note that using "show/hide" boxes in the body of an article is discouraged anyway because of accessibility problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove WP:NOTMEMORIAL , WP:1E , WP:NOTNEWS - if the only reason these people are widely publicized is because they died in the crash, and had no material affect on the crash, they should not be listed, since it is just a memorial. Unless they had a material affect on the crash (like say a hijacker) or are independently notable (enough to have an article written on them) that they are notable without needing to have been a victim of the crash, then they should not be listed. A lawsuit does not necessarily make something notable either. WP:CRYSTAL affects using the lawsuit, since it has not yet had a major impact on tort or the aviation industry, and in any case, a list of victims has little to do with the impact of the lawsuit. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It does not violate WP:MEMORIAL, since only the names and ages are mentioned. It doesn't violate WP:BLP1E (or WP:1E), because they are dead, and in any case the article is not based on the names. It doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS, because the article is not based on the names, and of course the accident itself was notable. The names are clearly relevant and well sourced, so the only possible issue is distraction to readers who don't want all those details and just want the big picture. This is solved by making the list hidden except to those who are interested in seeing it. Crum375 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove - Does not contribute to the article. If this list was important the default view of it wouldn't be "hidden". NotMEMORIAL applies; name and age is the sort of thing you get on a memorial so just because it is brief information does not mean it isn't memorial type information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep As far as I can tell, none of the arguments based on policy are plausible. Notability is not an issue since we are not creating disitnct articles for each person. All that matters here is that WP is not paper. We are becoming a leading encyclopedia because of the vast diversity of information we provide. The names of victims of a disaster don't particularly interest me and they may not interest you, but they might interest someone who is doing research on a particular incident or part of the world. As long as the information comes from reliable sources, including it violates no policies. (Plus of course these attempts to argue from policy are always a bit amusing when WP:IGNORE is the first rule (well, technically one of the first two policies)). Since there is no cost to adding this reliably sourced information, asll these policies people are trying to pile up really add up to less than nothing. Any admin who reads these policies carefully will see that they provide no compelling basis for excluding properly sourced information from ...a repository of information. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note. Crum375 specifically solicited the input of Slrubenstein in this Rfc here. His justification is given here. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove - Does not contribute to the article or the understanding of the reader to this subject. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove. Only Wikinotable people should be mentioned. Otherwise, a simple table showing the nationalities of passengers and crew is all that needs to be shown. Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If what you say is true, where is the policy which tells us that? If the author of a notable accident article believes that the name of a victim, or any other reliably sourced piece of information related to the accident is relevant and of interest to at least some readers, what policy forbids him from adding that information? Crum375 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove as per all the points already raised particularly not memorial, general consenus in the past has been that only victims who are notable should be mentioned. Notability measured by already having a wikipedia article. Refer to proposed guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents) which says Passengers - Information about the number of passengers, fatalities, injuries and survivors. Information on the nationalities involved should be included. Optionally notable passengers may be recorded but should be limited to individuals with a Wikipedia article. Information including ethnic or religious backgrounds and school affliations should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposed guideline you mention presumably has as its rationale the need of many readers to quickly get to the important elements of the article, without being bogged down or distracted by details, which may be of interest to just a select few. This is why this list is collapsed by default: those who prefer to ignore it, just skip it like any other un-clicked link, while those interested click on "show". What is the downside to making that information instantly available to those readers who want it, even if it's only a few? Crum375 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Featured articles should not have hidden text; they do not mirror or print (see MOS). If the content is notable and worthy of inclusion, at minimum, it should not be hidden or collapsed. If it's lengthy, it could go in a daughter article, but it shouldn't be hidden. If deemed unnotable, it should be deleted. I have no opinion on the notability, not having looked at it, but if it stays, it should *not* be in a collapsed table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • SG, how is this collapsible list, an available detail viewed by only those who care to click on "show", any different than all the other collapsible horizontal nav-templates which accompany many articles nowadays? For example, for aviation, they include all the aviation accidents of that year. Is the annual accident list in different countries more important than the list of victims? Crum375 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The collapsed Nav boxes serve and claim to serve zero article content. They are strictly for, as the name so subtly implies, Navigation purposes to other articles. Non-notable victim lists can not even provide navigation aid to to a reader. Active Banana (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove. The passenger list provides no real information to further a reader's understanding of the topic - as someone mentioned above, the outcome would have been the same no matter who was on the plane. Consensus has long been that WP:Memorial applies to more than just an article about someone who is deceased - that is also means no lists of non-wikinotable victims in articles about a tragedy (this came up when I was working on Aggie Bonfire several years ago, and I've seen it more recently as well). If these individuals didn't meet the notability criteria before their deaths, then why do we need to list them? I also agree with Sandy's point that FAs should not have hidden text. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Are the reliably-sourced names and ages of the victims of a notable crime or accident prohibited from being mentioned in an article about the crime or accident? Can you be sure that no reader is interested? If so, why do the news media mention them? And regarding SG's point, as I replied above, why is the collapsible list of all the aviation accidents of that year around the world allowed, and the collapsible list of the victims of this specific accident not allowed? Crum375 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The aviation accidents are in a navigational template at the bottom of the page-- not article text-- within guidelines. See WP:MOS on collapsible lists in text. FAs should not have collapsible lists in text (nor should any other article). One quick way to solve this dilemma, while preserving the FA quality of the article, is to move the list to its own article and see if that article survives an AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't consider the names alone as individually wiki-notable, so a dedicated article about them wouldn't be justified in my view. I do see them as adding reliably-sourced, useful (to some) information about the accident itself, which is of course very notable. The collapsible victim list appears as a narrow bar across the page, near the bottom, after the main text, near the external links list and the other collapsible templates. I don't think it belongs at the very bottom, because it would look awkward there, and unlike the other templates, its information relates to this article, not to the general topic. As I see it, the collapsible name list is similar to an external link to the same essential information, with the differences I noted above:
        • It is much quicker to load (instantaneous vs. many seconds for a real EL to some archive)
        • It is immune to link rot
        • Being in a foreign language, it is easier to access because no scrolling is needed through a foreign page to get to the actual list
        • The crew positions and other minor details are clearer in English
      • So as bottom line, I see this as a service to some of our readers who are interested in this information, without penalizing those who are not. If there is some other way of achieving the same results, I am open to suggestions. Crum375 (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Most articles use an External link to a reliable source without any serious problems. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
          • A large fraction of our links suffer from rot, as I am sure you know. And even the ones which are still accessible, may take a long time to load. Plus in this case the article is in a foreign language, and requires scrolling to the right place. Also, it's our duty to make life easier for our readers, unless there is a good reason not to. Why not allow the readers who are interested an instant access rot-free click? What's the downside? Crum375 (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Linkrot can be countered with using archiveurl's and services like WebCite. Furthermore, our goal is verifyability, not verified - as long as there's a paper version that - despite the effort and time - is available, it is a useful resource. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Can the list be hosted by Wikisource? Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
          • It's really simple. You have the choice of giving the user a link to an external site, or a button to press to instantly see the information inside the same page. The external site is always going to take longer to access, and has no nice "hide" button to make it disappear/reappear instantly with a simple click. The external site may suffer from rot, or may be in a foreign language, and will take longer to load, sometimes many seconds. So we have the choice: simple click and get the data instantly, or click the external site link, pray and wait. Why not choose the easiest option for the reader? Crum375 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
            • You keep using the concept of "instantly", but the list of names, and the building of the show/hide box in the user's browser, adds a very small amount to the total loading time of the article. All readers are subject to this additional hit, even if they do not care to peruse the list. There is no "instantly" involved here; there is a tiny toll taken from each reader. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
              • No, the Internet doesn't work like that. The vast majority of the time is handshakes, and only a tiny fraction is actual transfer time. I believe that no reader would be able to feel the difference, assume there is any, between loading the article with and without the collapsed list. On the other hand, loading the external site, assuming it isn't broken, can take many seconds, and that's before you need to manually scroll to get to the list itself. Crum375 (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
                • What you ought to have replied was "yes, the Internet works like that", because it does, following which you could have explained about handshakes and the far greater wait for an external website. You can't deny that each reader pays a very small toll for the convenience of the few who want to look up a name, even if that toll is so short it cannot be sensed by humans. I argue that the few who need to find a name will have the patience to wait a few seconds for another link. Again, I see this show/hide box as a new beachhead in what we consider suitable for a Featured Article, and I do not want it. If accepted, many more things of ever greater size may be justified in show/hide boxes. I think that kind of accretion is bad for the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• remove such lists as inappropriate and generally non-encylopedic - in this instance it is particularly unencyclopedic to have an inclusion of the victims age as it has zero relevance to anything but heartstrings. Active Banana (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If the names and ages are zero relevance, why do the news media mention them along with their accident (or crime) reports? Crum375 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Probably because news media provide information relevant on the day to their readership, but note this is an encyclopedia not news media. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • We are not talking about creating articles about flash-in-the-pan news events, so that's not at issue. The point is that we are in agreement that a particular subject is notable, and agree that it deserves its own article. If it's about an infamous serial killer, for example, would we suppress the names of his victims after they were widely published in the media? Similarly for any detail which goes with the article topic: once reliable sources have decided that detail is important enough to mention, who decides that it's not relevant for the wiki article? Crum375 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
        • With serial killers the individual deaths and circumstances around them form a big part of the legal case against the serial killer, so they are inherently far more notable. With nearly all airline crashes, they're just random people that happened to be on the flight. Only if they're individually significant should they be mentioned.- Wolfkeeper 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
          • The news media, our reliable sources, make a decision to publish the names. That's because they think it's relevant. Why should we prevent that information from reaching our readers? And in any case, we would provide it anyway as an external link, so the only difference is that this method would make access easier for the reader. Why penalize him? Crum375 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Thats why newspapers are not called encyclopedias. Active Banana (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Remove encyclopedias are about summarising knowledge and linking to primary sources of information. These kinds of lists are in no way summaries, and should therefore not be included.- Wolfkeeper 18:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The summary is a choice of the article authors; they decide what is important and what is not, and how to present the material. In this case, having a collapsible bar instead of a slow external link seems like a good compromise. Why not allow the reader to get instant access? Crum375 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • On that basis, should we upload open source software like Firefox onto the site, because it saves people a few seconds clicking? No of course not.- Wolfkeeper 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • We're not here to save people fractions of a second clicking; we're here to provide summaries of knowledge, not lists of primary source data.- Wolfkeeper 20:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Many seconds is not "fractions". Sometimes external links take a very long time to load, and they are messier when they come up (e.g. require scrolling though a foreign webpage) than the collapsible list's simple show/hide mechanism. Our goal is to make the reader's access to our page and its content as easy and painless as possible. We cater to our readers, not editors. And what is the downside of having a quick show/hide for a collapsible list instead of a slow foreign external link? Crum375 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
        • • Adding a whole bunch of relatively useless information to a page slows page loads and rendering for everyone. It's still got to be loaded, and processed by the browser, even if it's invisible. I'm pretty sure that adding invisible lists like this is a net loss of time for the readers. And we're not actually here to make the readers life easy, we're here to write an encyclopedia. And we don't have lists like this for other disasters, there's no list of dead in the wikipedia for 9/11 for example (none that I can find anyway, which amounts to the same thing).- Wolfkeeper 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep There's no reason not to include such lists, really. The reason we can afford to keep such information is that Wikipedia is not paper. A sourced list of participants in any notable event is a great resource for the future--I don't think it hubristic to think that Wikipedia, because of its many mirrors, might outlast some of the secondary sources from whence we take such lists. The arguments about NOT#MEMORIAL and whatnot are essentially fighting over minutae, rather than focusing on the net benefit of retaining this info. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If anything the notability (small 'n') of the victims reduces over time; if you are a relative or friend of a person killed, then the news of their death is clearly important, but after a few years that's clearly far less important, everyone that needs to know, knows. For example, TWA flight 800 lists a few victims as being particularly notable; and this seems a very sensible thing, but it doesn't list all 230 that died. The general conventions people operate under seem very much against this idea, a complete list is a level of detail that the Wikipedia doesn't have for anything really, and probably wouldn't benefit from either.- Wolfkeeper 00:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• After plenty of thought, I'm leaning towards remove. In its current incarnation (name, age), this list—and others like it—is of negligible encyclopedic value. If giving the article a human dimension is the goal—a goal I feel is not incompatible with the larger purpose of Wikipedia, by the way—it's not enough. (It doesn't even distinguish passengers from crew, for instance. Who were these people? What did they do? How many families were on board? Were any of the children unaccompanied?) Conversely, this type of information would be simply too much for the type of source we aim to be—an encyclopedia—and would bring on a whole other sort of issues (notability, WP:MEMORIAL, what gives us the "right" to make this public, etc.), some of which have already been mentioned, more eloquently, by other editors above. In my very humble opinion, "there's no good reason not to include it", "there's no downside", "why not" et al. are not really valid arguments. Slrubenstein quite rightly notes that "[current policies] provide no compelling basis for excluding properly sourced information from ...a repository of information." But should we be a mere repository of mere information, or should we strive to be a repository of valuable information? If so, where do we draw the line? Yes, this is a perennial issue, and as such warrants no further discussion here. But I have yet to see a succinct, valid, and truly persuasive argument for keeping the list—and by the size of this RfC, that's saying something. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note. Crum375 specifically solicited the input of Fvasconcellos in this Rfc here. His justification is given here. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I thought the crew was separated out, but perhaps it was in another article. If the crew were separated, with their roles listed, would it make a difference, in your view? As far as families, I don't think there are sources for that, and I think no information (beyond the surname and ages, which does give some indication of families) is probably better than partial in that regard. As far as sourcing, this information is all provided in a reliable source, so we wouldn't be the ones publicizing it first, and they are all deceased which means it's not a BLP issue (although certainly sensitivity is warranted). I myself have used this list several times, to compare against other articles I read relating to lawsuits by family members, or other mentions of the victims elsewhere. I can see other readers doing the same, while others may just glance to get a feel for the age spread, last names, apparent families (per last name and ages), and perhaps national origin (per last name). My guess is that an average reader would be more likely to click "show" in this format, where the response is instantaneous, and "hide" can make the list immediately disappear again, vs. clicking on slow and notoriously unreliable external links, which often move him to another page. I see this collapsible list as a service to readers who are interested in the victims as individuals, without penalizing the ones who don't. It's something that can only be done with an online encyclopedia, and can make the reading experience quicker and more interesting. Crum375 (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There may be good reason for naming some of those on the flight if it is relevant to the article. Eg if a pilot's actions were described then referring to them by name would make the text more readable than repeatedly writing "the pilot did this, the pilot did that" and reduce confusion if there were two aircraft involved. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, the information is important to the collection of all information. I see the material as belonging in an appendix. I would expect any book on this subject to have the list of deceased in an appendix. This is not something we normally do. An appendix would probably correspond to a subpage of the article. The current situation, a collapsed section, serves like an appendix section online. Unfortunately, a collapsed section doesn't lend itself well to the printed format. Link rot is a very important issue here. Relying on an an off-site link for the safekeeping of information is contrary to the wider purpose of the project, unless we (the project) can archive the content of the link. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, but it's not only linkrot (which can potentially be solved with archive.org), but also speed and language. External sites, including archive.org, are notorious for having unpredictable and often long load times (and sometimes coming up with an error). A simple "show" button is more inviting with its instant response than an unpredictable experience with an external link. Also, the foreign language of the external site is an issue, esp. if it requires some scrolling to get to the names list. As far as accessibility, we still include the external link, so anyone who cannot access the list by pressing "show" can still get it by clicking the link, like any other EL. Crum375 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • In principle, archive.org is not a solution as it is not under the control of the project. Speed and language are important, but not necessary factors. I am concerned about the use of "show" buttons, because (1) in general they can enlarge the page size too much, and (2) because collapsed sections are removed entirely when making the PDF version. The collapsed section uncollapses in the printable version, which is undesirable (what prints shouldn't exceed what you expect to print, if you don't check the printable version), but I think we need to move in the direction of ensuring good PDF versions, as they, unlike the printable version, are copyright compliant with respect to the listing of contributors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I do like your concept of adding "appendices" to articles. It would be nice if there were a way to implement that. But if it's just loading another wiki page, it could take time to load, like any external link, and WP itself can sometimes take ages to load a page. Regarding copyright, as I noted below, a list of published victim names does not have creative content and is not copyrightable. Crum375 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
        • The "copyright" point is not about the list, but, as it seems to me, the "printable version" of wikipedia pages are not in strict copyright compliance. I believe that this is being addressed by the new "Download as PDF", and so I focus on this feature. When the page is downloaded as PDF, the collapsed sections disappear without trace. This is undesirable, although it may be the best we can do at this time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I expect that the list of deceased is uncopyrightable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment A rather late question is the copyright status of the list. If it is copyrighted, this Rfc becomes moot, but even if it isn't copyrighted, then maybe the list could be hosted on Wikisource instead, subject to their scope (which I'm no expert on). MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Copyright is not an issue when it's a published list of victim names, since there is no "creative content" in it. Crum375 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Remove - I haven't read all the comments above, but based on those that I have read, I believe it's better to remove all but notable people and merge those into prose. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia ia a big place. We live in the 21st century. I predict this discussion will seem idiotic in a few years when we talk to computers. Question: if the list had been included in this talk page, archived etc... does it not survive into eternity as well? In other words, are not all-and-every edits kept anyway? 85.197.19.228 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)