Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 21:04, 29 March 2010 [1].

Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Toolbox
Notified: Crum375, LeadSongDog, WhisperToMe, AntiUser, KillerChihuahua, Spike Wilbury, WikiProject Airlines articles, WikiProject Aviation articles

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it no longer meets the featured article criteria. The main reason is that most of its content was written before accident investigation was concluded at December, 2008. It omits major findings gathered during investigations. Thus it doesn't meet criteria 1.b, it is not comprehensible. Since most of findings involve information about living persons, all findings and conclusions of Final Report cannot be described in the article without raising Biographies of living persons issues. The editors turned the subject of the article from the Accident to Accident Final Reports. If we have a perspective of the accident, Final Reports are secondary source as we can verify in Original research and Secondary source. But as the editors turned the subject to Accident Reports, the Final Report itself becomes a primary source. The editors don't allow us to cite Final Report findings, because it raises BLP issues, which turns de accident not understandable. All the findings that are human errors cannot be included in the article, even if they were reported in the investigation. The article should return having as subject the accident, allowing us to describe the accident including the findings of the investigation. If the investigation is the subject by itself, it should be transformed in a new article. E.g. it is the same as in a car accident article we could not write that the driver crossed a red light. We would be criticizing a living person and raising BLP issues.

The article doesn't meet criteria 1.c; it is not well-researched. It discarded the most relevant literature on the topic, which is the Final Report of the Accident. Turning Final Report into a primary source, as described above, we are not allowed to cite it or quote it without referencing what would be a secondary source. The article is full of newspaper and magazines articles as references, that although may be considered reliable sources to public facts and events, and even that they may be considered specialized magazines and well-known newspaper, they cannot be considered comprehensibles sources to describe a accident as the Final Report produced by aeronautical accident researchers and submitted to a kind of peer review of governmental authorities before publishing would be.

The article doesn't meet criteria 1.d; it is clearly not neutral. The article makes large use of articles of magazines and newspaper of the same publisher that hires Joe Sharkey, a journalist that runs a blog in defense of the crew, and also articles whose author Sharkey calls "my correspondent in Sao Paulo". The accident involves human failures of Brazilian ATC (Air Traffic Control) and an American aircraft crew. The editors using a reasoning that an entire organization doesn't fall under BLP unless specific individuals are targeted, criticize Brazilian ATC, making what one could call an inverted Hasty Generalization which is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population. The editors criticize indirectly the individuals, criticizing generically the organization. E.g. "Many have poor English skills, limiting their ability to communicate with foreign pilots, which played a role in crash of Flight 1907". Since we are not allowed to mention any fact or event mentioned in Final Report that could be considered criticism to the crew because it would be raising BLP issues, the article becomes clearly not neutral and biased against ATC. Although there are a lot of Brazilian sources that summarizes the accident causes, the editors discarded them all.

XX Sdruvss 01:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The main reason is that most of its content was written before accident investigation was concluded at December, 2008": Almost half this article (by edits) was written after the final report had been published (December 9, 2008),[2] and the article cites the CENIPA and NTSB primary final reports directly over 30 times. In addition, there are ten secondary sources in the article which summarize and interpret the final reports.
As was said, they are selectively quoted to advance a position, and the main findings of CENIPA report are not cited. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main findings of CENIPA are summarized in the CENIPA final report section. We provide a reference to the primary CENIPA report itself, as well as to high quality secondary sources which summarize the findings. We say that CENIPA found fault with both ATC and the Embraer crew, and say about the latter: "CENIPA concluded that the Embraer pilots also contributed to the accident with, among others, their failure to recognize that their transponder was inadvertently switched off, thereby disabling the collision avoidance system on both aircraft, as well as their overall insufficient training and preparation." What is selective here, and what position is it advancing? Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It discarded the most relevant literature on the topic, which is the Final Report": Per above, the primary final reports are cited in the article directly over 30 times, and there are also ten secondary sources which help interpret or summarize the final reports.
Yes, but selectively cited, just to criticize Brazilian ATC, and this is the point: partisans "secondary sources" to summarize an accident final report. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are quoted above as saying we "discarded" the Final report. It is linked to 30 times. We make extensive use of it, along with high quality secondary sources to help interpret it. If you believe there is lack of neutrality, you need to gain consensus for that view on the talk page. Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It omits major findings gathered during investigations": Please specify a single "major finding" which is omitted, per a high quality secondary source.
Crew was distracted with a notebook in the cockpit for almost one hour; failure to carry out an appropriate flight planning; hurry to take off and pressure of the passengers of the Legacy, preventing sufficient knowledge of the flight plan for pilots; inadvertent shutdown of the transponder, possibly by the limited experience; lack of communication between pilots and controllers.XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is your own personal analysis. On WP we use high quality secondary sources to help summarize long and detailed primary sources such as the CENIPA report. If you think the current summary or weighting is incorrect, you need to point out a high quality secondary source which weights the findings differently. Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is clearly not neutral": The fact that Joe Sharkey (a surviving passenger on the business jet) wrote some articles for The New York Times does not make the NYT a non-neutral or unacceptable source. In fact, sources are always non-neutral; neutrality is achieved by properly weighting all top level secondary sources and mainstream views. Please show a top level mainstream publication which contradicts any of the statements (or their relative weighting) in the article.
A newspaper that hires a journalist that runs a blog in crew defense are not a reliable source to analyze, interpret and summarize a final report, what its not needed. We should not "interpret" it. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many journalists have blogs nowadays, and we don't make use of any blog in the article. That a journalist working for the NYT has a blog does not taint the NYT as an unacceptable or unreliable source. And in case someone is interested, here is what I posted a year ago on the article's talk page regarding that journalist. Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many [Air Traffic Controllers] have poor English skills": This is based on a high quality mainstream source, and is also supported by the CENIPA report (which is primary). There is no known high level source in conflict with this. It does not criticize any specific individual but an entire organization, and is not a BLP violation by any standard I am aware of.
I keep the point. It is generalization to avoid BLP issues. And, as I said, all ATC faults were not forgotten. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean. If you agree we are avoiding BLP issues, there is no BLP issue. And note again that we are allowed to criticize anybody, including groups, as long as we rely on high quality mainstream secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although there are a lot of Brazilian sources that summarizes the accident causes, the editors discarded them all": Please check the references section. There are currently 26 (my count) Brazilian sources out of a total of 66. The main primary source is Brazilian (CENIPA) and the article makes 28 references to it, and these sources in Portuguese give a typical summary. Unfortunately, this case is highly politicized, and it's hard to find a high-quality Brazilian source summarizing the U.S. NTSB report, which was the only final report which included a 'probable cause' statement, and disagreed with the CENIPA report about key issues. The top level English secondary sources (e.g. [3][4]) do summarize both the Brazilian CENIPA report and the U.S. NTSB report.
This is not true, there are many indicated sources that summarizes the reports. Instead, they are selectively quoted. The citations are biased. And the statement "it's hard to find a high-quality Brazilian source summarizing the U.S. NTSB report" is offensive. It's is because all Brazilians sources don't believe that CENIPA and NTSB disagree about findings. NTSB just highlights ATC faults pointed in CENIPA report and that crew acted according what the rules prescribe. One of the most reliable sources that summarizes very well the reports is not cited: FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the statement "it's hard to find a high-quality Brazilian source summarizing the U.S. NTSB report" is offensive": Can you please provide us a list of high quality mainstream Brazilian sources which summarize the NTSB report? Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, there is ongoing discussion in the talk page about these issues, but there is no consensus at this point that any change is needed. If such consensus is reached, modifications will be made as required. Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems impossible to reach a consensus. XX Sdruvss 11:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are high quality mainstream secondary sources to support a statement, it will be included. Consensus will be easy to find in such a case. Crum375 (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian news that summarize final reports XX Sdruvss 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As near as I can make out, this is a content dispute that should not be the basis of a FAR. Eubulides (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Contrary to the notice at the top of this page, I was not notified of this FAR. So, I'm not sure who else may not have been notified. I have not been involved in editing this article; rather, I was trying to sort out a BLP issue related to it. Sdruvss has a personal/professional/academic interest in the subject and has been debating the article content for quite some time. I believe Sdruvss's concerns are in good faith, however his unfamiliarity with Wikipedia processes has caused him to take some misguided actions. This is one of them. He has failed to build consensus for the changes he wants, and I don't think this FAR is with merit. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have personal/professional interest in the accident. I clearly said that I have professional technical knowledge that allows me to understand most of the issues involved in the accident as the radar system. Besides that, I've deeply researched it, and I am writing an academic paper about it, as case study. "Personal/professional interest" is not a good expression to describe my interest. This knowledge allows me to conclude that this article doesn't meet the featured article criteria (1.b, 1.c, 1.d) and it will be impossible to reach a consensus, because editors there refuse strongly to summarize accident causes following Brazilian reliable sources. XX Sdruvss 11:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "editors there refuse strongly to summarize accident causes following Brazilian reliable sources": As I noted above, of the 66 total sources in the article, 26 are Brazilian. The most heavily used source is Brazilian (CENIPA report), linked to and referenced 28 times in the article. We would welcome any additional top level secondary source, in any language and from any country, to help us interpret and compare the two final reports (CENIPA and NTSB). Crum375 (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relatório do Cenipa aponta erros de pilotos e militares
Aeronáutica culpa pilotos e controladores por acidente da Gol
FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle (In my humble opinion, this is the best)
Pilotos desligaram transponder inadvertidamente, diz Cenipa
Cenipa apresenta relatório final do acidente aéreo da Gol; leia o relatório
Relatório sobre acidente da Gol aponta erros dos controladores e pilotos do Legacy
Relatório aponta erro de operação em acidente de avião da Gol
Deficiências no preparo dos controladores e dos pilotos do Legacy contribuíram para o acidente da Gol, diz relatório do Cenipa
There is more if you need. There aren't two final reports. There is just one, "CENIPA Final Report" (266 pages), NTSB Appendix 1 to CENIPA final report ("U.S. Summary Comments on the Draft Final Report", 4 pages) and NTSB Appendix 2 to CENIPA final report ("U.S. Detailed Comments on Draft Final Report", 10 pages), which means that NTSB made comments to the CENIPA draft final report and not another final report. XX Sdruvss 15:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There aren't two final reports": The New York Times calls the NTSB report, which was published separately by the U.S. government,[5] "a dissenting report".[6] That report, which was also appended into the CENIPA report by the NTSB, is the only one to include a 'probable cause' statement (which is the bottom line summary of an aviation accident). Sdruvss, if one of your above sources analyzes or interprets the NTSB report, or the 'probable cause' statement, it would be most useful. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, all of them do it, but the best (my humble opinion) is: FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle. It doesn't say "probable cause", but "causes". Is that why you don't want to use it?:

CAUSES

  • 1. Failure to carry out an appropriate flight planning by Legacy's pilots.
  • 2. Hurry to take off and pressure of the passengers of the Legacy, preventing sufficient knowledge of the flight plan for pilots.
  • 3. Inadvertent shutdown of the transponder, possibly by the limited experience of the [Legacy's] pilots.
  • 4. Lack of communication between pilots and controllers.
  • 5. Lack of integration between the Legacy pilots and little experience in piloting this type of aircraft.
  • 6. The air traffic control in Sao Jose dos Campos, Brasilia and Manaus, although providing surveillance radar, did not correct the flight level of the Legacy or conducted procedures for certification of altitude when they started not to receive information from the transponder.
  • 7. The controllers did not transfer correctly traffic from Brasilia to Manaus.
  • 8. Flight controllers did not provide the predicted frequency for the Legacy to communicate adequately in the Amazon region.
  • 9. The lack of involvement of supervisors of controllers, letting that decisions and actions over the Legacy flight were taken individually, without monitoring, advice and guidance provided for the air traffic control.

XX Sdruvss 16:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that New York Times calls the NTSB report a dissenting report proves they are wrong because there is only "Comments on Draft Report". The fact that it was published before Final Report disclosure is because it was done on a draft report basis as they say in the title. We do not even know what happened between Draft Report and Final report disclosure. Final report could even had included NTSB comments.XX Sdruvss 16:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sdruvss, major accident investigation reports typically have many findings, but a 'probable cause statement' is a brief "bottom line" summary of the most critical and immediate reasons for the accident. Virtually all accident reports have them, and they are typically cited in their entirety by the press, because they are a concise summary of the causes. In the case of this accident, CENIPA itself does not provide a 'probable cause' statement, only a section called 'Conclusions', in which it lists 40 different "facts" (typically called "findings"), some of which are contributory and some not (e.g. "The recovery of the N600XL airplane was considered economically viable."). CENIPA then has section 5.2.1.1.2 in which it has a long dissertation explaining the various ways it believes the Embraer pilots contributed to the accident, but without any prioritization.[7] CENIPA also has another section, 5.2.1.1.3, where there is another long essay-type description of contributory ATC errors. There is no brief prioritized summary by CENIPA of the key causes of the accident, under any name. On the other hand, the appended NTSB report conforms to the standard aviation accident report format.[8] It lists 16 "findings", followed by the brief and concise 'probable cause' statement. Since the entire NTSB report was included verbatim by CENIPA inside their own report as "Appendix 1", one could say that the NTSB 'probable cause' statement is the only one available (from an investigative agency) for that accident. The list of "causes" you quote above, was (as far as I know) written by a Brazilian newspaper reporter, and is not the official one by the Brazilian Air Force or government, or any other investigative agency. Again, if any of your above sources interpret the NTSB report, or compare and contrast it to the CENIPA report, please point it out and it would be most helpful. Crum375 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? That CENIPA report (266 pages) is not good enough to we know the causes of the accident? You think that all Brazilian mainstream newspaper are not able to summarize them as well as Sharkey's publisher? Do you think that because CENIPA doesn't point a "probable cause" it can't be summarized by Estado? Do you think that Pedicine is a better researcher then all these Brazilian newspaper? XX Sdruvss 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Brigadier Jorge Kersul Filho, CENIPA’s chief, "An accident does not occur only by a factor. They are several factors combined". Do you think that Sharkey’s publishers are more reliable then Kersul? Do you believe that CENIPA report is not neutral because CENIPA is a military organization? Do you believe that there is a compíracy theory that explains CENIPA report? XX Sdruvss 21:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained all this above and on the talk page, but I'll try again. On WP, esp. in contentious BLP cases, we need high quality secondary sources to help us analyze, interpret and summarize primary sources, such as the detailed investigative reports in this case. We have two separate primary investigative reports, one by CENIPA and one by the NTSB, which have been characterized by The New York Times and Aviation Week to be "dissenting" and "sparring" with each other. Normally, for the actual summary of an aviation accident report, if there is an official 'probable cause' statement, we can quote it, since it is short and self contained. But as I noted above, the CENIPA report has no 'probable cause' statement, or any short top-level prioritized summary of the causes, only long lists of individual findings and long essay-like sections discussing the various contributory issues, without any prioritization. For this reason, and because the CENIPA report is in conflict with the NTSB one, we need high level mainstream secondary sources to interpret both reports and put them into perspective for us. If there is any such source we have missed, please let us know. Crum375 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is cesoring. The quotes can be verified, and they come from the most reliable sources one can find. XX Sdruvss 21:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to quotes pulled from primary sources, it's not an issue of "censoring". The point is that if a detailed investigative report has a large amount of material (266 pages for CENIPA report in our case), we are not allowed to pick and choose pieces from it, because it can easily be used to promote a specific point of view. The best way to interpret such sources, esp. when they are in conflict with each other, is to find the most reputable mainstream secondary sources, which have the highest top level perspective, and use them. In our specific case here, since the NTSB and CENIPA reports are in disagreement about their conclusions, we need high quality secondary sources to help us put the conflict between these sources into perspective, by comparing them to each other. Crum375 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to quotes pulled from secondary sources (sic): Estado, Folha, Globo. Do you mean that Estado, Folha and Globo are not reputable mainstream secondary sources (sic), which have the highest top level perspective? Are you saying that only Sharkey's publisher is? XX Sdruvss 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't know, Sdruvss refers to The New York Times as "Sharkey's publisher", because Joe Sharkey has a private blog (which we don't use in the article). To answer Sdruvss's question, we do use Brazilian sources extensively in the article, 26 out of the 66 total. In the "CENIPA" section, which describes the final CENIPA report, we use as sources the raw CENIPA report, along with three secondary sources to help interpret it, two of which are Brazilians. In other words, in that section, out of a total of 4 sources, only one is non-Brazilian, and the NYT is not used there at all. In the "NTSB" and "Conflicting CENIPA and NTSB conclusions" sections, we do rely on the original Brazilian CENIPA report, but we have yet to find Brazilian secondary sources which analyze the NTSB report, or compare and contrast it to the CENIPA report. If anyone can find such sources, it would be very helpful. Crum375 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I concur with Eubulides and Spike Wilbury that FAR is not the most appropriate venue for what does boil down to a content dispute (and not a very broad one at that, though it affects the entire article and should certainly be addressed), particularly as there is ongoing, productive, multi-party discussion at the Talk page. If the article fails to meet the FA criteria after a compromise has been reached and the necessary changes have been implemented, then it should be brought to FAR. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As may be noted in the Talk Page of the article, I have fulfilled all Crum375 requirements. I've found many high levels "secondary sources" (sic) that summarize accident causes. The most important is O Estado de São Paulo (FAB expõe falhas de pilotos e do controle), one of the most reliable Brazilian newspaper with the exact content required by Crum375. I would like that people who speak Portuguese read this newspaper article and WP article and compare them and note how different they are. I'm unsuccessfully trying to correct citations not verifiable, as that Sharkey's publisher said that "crew acted properly", whereas Sharkey's publisher said "was not in violation of any regulations", which has a completely different meaning. He insist that there are a NTSB dissenting report because Sharkey's publisher said so, whereas NTSB made "Comments on the Draft Report" which were appended to CENIPA Final Report, and it is part of Final Report as Appendix 1 (4 pages) and 2 (10 pages) in accordance of ICAO Annex 13, and most of their content is about CENIPA recommendations. Concluding, he doesn't admit to include in the Final Report topic the most import subject of the article: readers want to know accident causes according to CENIPA Final Report. That is why I confirm what I said that it doesn't meet the featured article criteria because this article is biased, partisan, and full of not verifiable citations. XX Sdruvss 13:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: and using the same deeply reasoning and reasons of the editors: I think so. XX Sdruvss 13:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sdruvss, you are saying or implying that somehow we discriminate against Brazilian sources. As I noted several times above and elsewhere, we use 26 Brazilian sources (out of 66 total) in the article, and refer and link to the original Brazilian CENIPA final report 28 times (more by far than any other source). In the "Final reports" section, under "CENIPA" subsection, we rely on a total of four sources, three of which are Brazilian. To conform to WP's content policies, improvements to the "Final reports" section need to be based on a top level view by high quality secondary sources, which interpret and contrast the conflicting primary source reports (CENIPA and NTSB) which we have in this case. Crum375 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you use to say as reasoning: I think so. You practice selectively quoting to make your point, and don't allow others to correct your "mistakes". XX Sdruvss 22:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sdruvss, Wikipedia works by consensus. I have no more editorial power here than you or anyone else. If you can gain consensus to use different quotes, or summarize things differently, or anything else, it will be accepted. Also, if you can find more high quality sources comparing the final NTSB and CENIPA reports, it would be very helpful. Crum375 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I? I have read the Estadão story (I may even have read it when it was originally published, though I usually read Folha) and fail to see "how different" it is from the Wikipedia article. If you like, I can do a point-by-point comparison.
  • You don't need going too far. WP article don't have a word about many causes pointed by CENIPA (lack of pre-flight preparation, insufficient knowledge of the flight plan, inadvertent shutdown of the transponder, possibly by the limited experience, lack of communication between pilots and controllers, Lack of integration between the Legacy pilots and little experience in piloting this type of aircraft). We find in WP article only ATC faults. XX Sdruvss 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did note a flagrant inconsistency within the Estadão article: immediately after stating "O órgão da Aeronáutica concluiu que os pilotos 'desligaram o transponder, inadvertidamente, durante familiarização ou operação da RMU'", it states "No processo de conclusão, o Cenipa descartou várias hipóteses. Uma delas é a de que não houve intenção de desligá-lo..." So, CENIPA concluded that the Legacy crew switched off the transponder (1) inadvertently and (2) intentionally? That's impossible. I haven't read the report, but something's off there. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that here is not the place of this debate, and to say that a source is "wrong" or "right", as Crum says, but CENIPA and news clearly say that crew turned transponder to standby. Since there is not any indication of intentionality in CVR, they assume it was inadvertently turned to standby. XX Sdruvss 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that the consensus between editors doesn't meet the featured article criteria. Although I assume editors good faith, there is a not neutral consensus. I have the right to do it, right? XX Sdruvss 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? On August 3, 2009, the community consensus was that this article met all of the featured article criteria. There have been no substantial changes to the article since then. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that I (Sdruvss) feel that the consensus between editors doesn't meet the featured article criteria 1.b, 1.c, 1.d. XX Sdruvss 01:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor sentence deserves to be copied here: "The New York Times and Aviation Week tell us the CENIPA and NTSB reports are in conflict with each other. Are you aware of any secondary source, in any language, from any country, which tells us NTSB and CENIPA are not in conflict with each other? If so, please provide that source" (Crum375). NYT and AW are Joe Sharkey's publishers. This is the reason that ALL Brazilian sources that summarize the accident causes are obstructed: ALL sources don't say that NTSB disagrees! He accepts only sources that mention NTSB and ALL Brazilians sources don't mention NTSB. XX Sdruvss 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have two high quality secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, telling us that the NTSB and CENIPA reports are in conflict with each other. We have no secondary sources, in any language, from any country, telling us they have compared these two reports and found them in substantial agreement. Therefore, we need to assume the two reports are in conflict with each other, and present them as such, with high quality secondary sources analyzing, comparing and contrasting them. Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: the above explanations is why ALL Brazilian sources that summarize the accident causes are obstructed. ALL sources don't say that NTSB disagrees! The New York Times = Sharkey's publisher, Aviation Week = Sharkey's publisher. If "we have no secondary sources, in any language, from any country, telling us they have compared these two reports and found them in substantial agreement", is not a strong reason that they essentially do not disagree with each other? This is a nonsense debate. XX Sdruvss 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have two high quality reliable sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, telling us they consider the NTSB and CENIPA reports to be in conflict with each other, and no reliable secondary sources telling us they have compared the two reports and found them to be in substantial agreement. That you, Sdruvss, don't like the high quality sources we use, doesn't render them unacceptable or unreliable. I do agree that this is a "nonsense debate". Crum375 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "we have no secondary sources, in any language, from any country, telling us they have compared these two reports and found them in substantial agreement", is not a strong reason that they essentially do not disagree with each other? This is a nonsense debate, but I assume your good faith. I recommend to those who want to know accident causes and don't speak Portuguese, use Google translation and access directly Brazilian news that summarize final reports. XX Sdruvss 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we have two high quality secondary sources, The New York Times and Aviation Week, which tell us something, and there are no sources to contradict it, then we can accept it as an assertion, cited to these sources. Crum375 (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend avoiding Sharkey's publishers. XX Sdruvss 14:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "there are no sources to contradict it" a sound argument to obstruct ALL other sources that summarize CENIPA's final report? XX Sdruvss 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now, editor is removing other refereces (he had included in the past) that summarize CENIPA report. Reason: "moved ref to cenipa, since it does not mention ntsb". XX Sdruvss 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm all I wrote.
There is consensus there to hide CENIPA Final Report."The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" (Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice). XX Sdruvss 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredible that an accident that has happened in Brazil, has had a huge impact in Brazilian politics, has originated a Parliament Investigation Committee, and is being reported by newspapers as Folha. which has 604 articles about it, Estadao which has 255 articles, Globo which has 732 articles, has as only reliable sources to summarize final report one article of Aviation Week and one article of New York Times written by a freelancer journalist, correspondent in Brazil. XX Sdruvss 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material is written in a manner that NTSB comments overwhelm the article and appear to take crew side; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. It gives disproportionate space to the particular NTSB's viewpoint, omitting CENIPA findings, facts, and evidences. Care should be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability. If there is only one Final Report, the section title couldn't be "Final Reports". The space of "Comments on Draft Final Report" (10 pages) couldn't be longer than the "Final Report" (266 pages) and couldn't entirely obstruct Final Report findings. Even if the source is reliable, but what they say is easily verified to by false, they should be discarded. Many sources use extracts of NTSB comments to build new meaning. People reading WP article want to know what happened and judge by themselves. They don't want that facts, evidences be omitted. They can make up their minds, they don't need someone else conducting their conclusions. The editors of this article end the Final Report section saying: "Aviation Week adds that the Brazilian military operates that country's air traffic control system, conducted the investigation and authored the report", inducing readers that CENIPA report is not neutral and raising a "conspiracy theory". XX Sdruvss 17:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission is to present information based on reliable and verifiable sources in a neutral fashion. Neutrality, as well the relative quality of sources, is decided on WP by consensus. It's interesting that Sdruvss mentions Shakespeare above, because as a single purpose account he came to this article's talk page and unleashed a troupe of actors, or sockpuppets, of various "personalities", to create an impression of multiple editors addressing these issues. This was a clear attempt to subvert the process of finding a proper consensus for the relevant issues, by attempting to create a fictitious majority for his personal views. I normally try (and tell editors) to focus on the message, not the messenger, but in this case, Sdruvss has abused our good will and good faith by resorting to fraud and deceit, and by wasting precious time and energy of volunteers, such as myself. I spent many hours, and wrote countless words, in response to him and his socks, yet he tends to ignore my responses, and repeat his allegations, which focus on his perceived lack of neutrality. Unfortunately, this behavior, while resorting to fraud and deceit, is no way to find neutrality, or consensus for the correct balance of sources and information. Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NYT reference (Brazil Lays Some Blame on U.S. Pilots in Collision) is an article signed by Andrew Downie and Matthew L. Wald. Andrew Downie is a Scotch freelancer journalist that wrote this article from Sao Paulo reading Brazilian news. He writes about any issue that happens in Brazil. He writes about carnival, soccer, and wines until politics, economy, and business. He lived first in Mexico, where he became a journalist. Sent to Haiti by the Reuters news agency, worked with Larry Rohter. [reference]. Rohter published an known article in New York Times titled "Brazilian Leader's Tippling Becomes National Concern", insinuating the Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had a drinking problem that affected his presidency. The article's only quoted source for Lula's alcoholism was Leonel Brizola, a sworn political enemy of Mr. da Silva. The article caused consternation in the Brazilian press. Rohter's visa was temporarily revoked (and quickly reinstated) by Brazil's government, an event which overshadowed much criticism of Rohter's reporting. [reference]. Joe Sharkey is also a columnist for the New York Times. NYT is the single one and only source saying "dissenting report". As Crum well said, "on WP we need better sources than some reporter copying things from a press conference". XX Sdruvss 11:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A truth weakens when one tries to hide a lie and a lie is more powerful the more one tries to hide truth" (Inacio Dantas). XX Sdruvss 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see more information in A possible comprimise. XX Sdruvss 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After intense debate, (admin) editors of this article rebuff correcting their mistakes:

  • Section 7 Final Reports leads readers to error, making then believe that NTSB made a "dissenting" Final Report. There is one and only source that uses the expression "dissenting report", that is New York Times, but even NYT doesn't say "dissenting final report". There is only one Final Report made by CENIPA, as can be proved searching NTSB site for "GOL 1907 Final Report". NTSB is clear saying "The U.S. accredited representative provided detailed comments on November 18, 2008 to CENIPA's draft report, which have been appended to the final version of the CENIPA investigative report".
  • NTSB comments on draft final report overwhelms CENIPA findings and conclusions in WP article. There is more space to NTSB comments then to CENIPA findings and conclusions. NTSB comments are about what they don't agree, but what they agree on most basic facts and findings are intentionally omitted in the WP article. NTSB is clear saying "The flight crew of N600XL, although not in violation of any regulations, was not aware of the loss of transponder and collision avoidance functionality, lack of ATC communication, and the flight's progress reference altitude convention. The team agrees that safety lessons in these areas can be determined to better prepare flight crews for international operations".
  • WP article says "that both flight crews acted properly". No one of the references says that. This affirmative is not verifiable.
  • The article hides in a footnote the functional relation between transponder and secondary radar. Transponder provides readout of aircraft altitude, heading, speed, and allows its identification on radar screen. As written in the article, it leads readers to believe that transponder is only necessary to the collision avoidance system functionality. XX Sdruvss 21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very curious that nobody made any comments after my analyses of Crum’s reliable sources. XX Sdruvss 19:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be proved by this edition reverted by Crum375, there is a clear intention to cover the evidences gathered in accident final report and build a false story of two final reports to WP readers. This article clearly has never meet the featured article criteria. XX Sdruvss 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover-up: “Cover-ups do not necessarily require the active manipulation of facts or circumstances. Arguably the most common form of cover-up is one of non-action. It is the conscious failure to release incriminating information by a third party. This "passive cover-up" is often justified by the motive of not wanting to embarrass the culprit or expose them to criminal prosecution or even the belief that the cover-up is justified by protecting the greater community from scandal. Yet, because of the passive cover-up, the misdeed often goes undiscovered and results in harm to others ensuing from its failure to be discovered”. XX Sdruvss 14:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeeping: "In human communication, in particular, in journalism, gatekeeping is the process through which ideas and information are filtered for publication. The internal decision making process of relaying or withholding information from the media to the masses. The theory was first instituted by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1947 and is still one of the most important theories studied by students of mass communication and journalism. Gatekeeping occurs at all levels of the media structure - from a reporter deciding which sources are chosen to include in a story to editors deciding which stories are printed, or even covered". XX Sdruvss 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This WP article is clearly being edited by some press secretary of one or more companies involved in the accident, and blocking all information that could make WP readers better understand the accident. But I assume their good faith. XX Sdruvss 18:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern are comprehensiveness and neutrality YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 05:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only editor who has criticized neutrality is an WP:SPA confirmed sockmaster of multiple sockpuppet accounts, who ignores replies, considers the New York Times and Aviation Week corrupt and unreliable, and tends to drown out rational discussion with endless missives. Do you have specific neutrality or comprehensiveness issues you'd like to address? Crum375 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider NYT and AW corrupt and unreliable. In References used in "Final Reports" there is a long explanation of the sources used in this article. XX Sdruvss 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crum, just FYI, YellowMonkey just lists any concerns which were brought up in the FAR, regardless of who listed them or how valid they are. Simply protocol, and in no way stating that he has an opinion on whether they are actually concerns. Hope this helps! Dana boomer (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Crum375 (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The New York Times most certainly is a reliable source on the reporting of news. The wall of text approach by the nominator along with the sock investigation result does not inspire any confidence in me concerning anything that user says. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t expect to inspire confidence; I expect that people read what sources (including NYT) say and check that what is written in this WP article is not verifiable in any of the references. There are not two accident final reports; there is only one final report from Cenipa and Comments on Draft Report from NTSB (anyone can check it). WP article hides Cenipa findings and conclusions. XX Sdruvss 19:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arsenikk (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Main accusations seem to be POV, and if anything this article is too deferential to the Brazilian report which has every reason to have a Conflict of Interest. SnowFire (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no valid reason brought up to delist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907/archive1&oldid=1090412388"