Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/Archive 6

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)