Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907/Criminal proceedings

Criminal proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My comments to your revertion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Babylon dictionary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't violate NPOV; I violate NPOV.

You are not the owner of this article.

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

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

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

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

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

"Correction: June 4, 2007"

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now I add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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