This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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".
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.
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)
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. [1] [2]
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. [3]
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. [4] [5] [6]
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. [7]
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. [8] [9] [10]
Please, justify the reversion. XX Sdruvss 13:43, 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)
See NPOV Noticeboard. XX Sdruvss 12:10, 1 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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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".
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.
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)
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. [1] [2]
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. [3]
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. [4] [5] [6]
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. [7]
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. [8] [9] [10]
Please, justify the reversion. XX Sdruvss 13:43, 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)
See NPOV Noticeboard. XX Sdruvss 12:10, 1 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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)