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)