Talk:Passengers on Air France Flight 447 sent text messages to family members before plane disappeared

Peer review

Revision 827453 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I looked at Google Translate's version of the pages. They seemed to collaborate the story. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 827453 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I looked at Google Translate's version of the pages. They seemed to collaborate the story. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Hoax?

That does not mean it was a hoax: http://www.snea.com.br/noticias/not136.htm It simply says that it may not be possible. No where does it say that it didn't happen. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The notice explicitly denies the claim made by the newspaper, which removes the sole source the cited articles were relying on to run the story. This in turn means the story now completely fails any claim to verifcation. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes no such claim. This information was raised by a reporter and discarded by the director of the Union, which considers almost impossible that such messages have been sent by conventional phones, except if there was a satellite link....there is nothing here that says it didn't happen. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The denial is emphatic. "SNEA nega informação sobre mensagens de passageiros". Further, in the translated quote you mention, they explicitly state that they were approached by the reporter, but dimissed the claim. The newspaper went on to attribute the claim to them, yet they disputed it. The one source being relied on here has denied they did anything more than dispute the possibility. -- Rob.au (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) I'm going to assume that like me, DF doesn't speak Portuguese but please forgive me if I'm wrong. As such, we are both relying on internet translation tools, my tool of choice being Google Translate. As is always the case, the resulting translating clearly isn't 100% accurate but my interpretation of it is that SNEA are denying that their technical director Ronaldo Jenkins has made the claims reported. Would it sound realistic to think the SNEA would publish a statement that their technical director is entirely wrong? I don't think so since that would make his position untenable. Whilst the translation is unclear I would suggest it is much more likely they are saying he didn't make the claims that the newspaper has reported. That is why I tagged it as a hoax and I maintain that it is appropriate based upon the available information.

(edit conflict) In response to DF's most recent comment, if we go by that translation and consider Ronaldo Jenkins to be the technical director of SNEA (a quick Google search seems to confirm this), then he himself, despite the paper reporting him as having made the claim, is denying it. Seems pretty conclusive. Adambro (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not about what we think they may or may not mean. It clearly states that its almost impossible which does not say its not possible. If we are going to sit here and try and think what they may or may not mean, then we may as well speculate to everything we write about anything. I read the statement several times and in None of the translations does it state that it did not happen, rather that its not likely. If you want to dispute that then write SNEA or find another source. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you speak Portuguese? Adambro (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No I don't, but I do speak and know a bit of Spanish, which is similar. But regardless if I can or not, or you can or not, the clear translation on any translating service states its "almost impossible." It does not say its false whatsoever. If we are going to use this source, then we are to use the correct wording and not make up a few words and place them in there to suit ones thinking. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be focussing on the second paragraph and not commenting on the first which according to Google Translate says "Unlike what was disclosed by a Portuguese publication, not part of the technical director of SNEA, Ronaldo Jenkins, the information that the passengers of flight AF 447 Air France have sent messages to the cell when the family noticed problems with the aircraft.". Now I hope you can appreciate this clearly isn't a 100% accurate translation but my interpretation is that it is saying that Ronaldo Jenkins, technical director of SNEA, did not make these comments despite the claims of the newspaper. You've not addressed my point that an organisation making a statement that what its technical director apparently said is almost impossible would make his position untenable and as such would seem unlikely to be the correct interpretation. Adambro (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot verify that to be true. The translation is what we have. End of story. I am not going to weasel words that are not there. Its as simple as that. If we can get a better translation or an English source, then by all means. But again, until then it still does not take away the fact that he said 'almost impossible'. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph is better translated as: "Contrary to what was stated in a Portuguese publication, the Director of the SNEA, Ronaldo Jenkins, did not say that cellular messages [SMS] had been sent by passengers on the flight AF447 to members of their families when they suspected [literal translation: perceived] problems with the aeroplane." Physchim62 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete

This article should be speedy deleted per the hoax tag and the speedy deletion criteria. The counter argument that since it has been published it should stay perhaps with some kind of retraction statement doesn't hold water. Once we can agree that it seems to be a hoax, which I hope we will soon, there is no benefit to continuing to host the article since even with a disclaimer, it would still be harmful to the credibility of Wikinews since we went ahead and published this dubious story based upon effectively a single, unverified claim in the first place. If we just go ahead and delete it then any future visitors won't end up with a poor impression of Wikinews and anyone visitors who have already seen it and find a dead link will realise we decided to withdraw the story. Adambro (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I will no agree its a hoax unless someone can find a source saying it is. I am growing tired of saying the same thing over and over...so read my comments above. It does NOT say its false or untrue. If you want to use weasel words to get around this, then really we have no business writing news. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You have made your point clear but you should note that I said that "once we can agree that it seems to be a hoax" ... "there is no benefit to continuing to host the article" so I am acknowledging that there isn't agreement on this yet so you don't need to restate your opinion. Adambro (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikinews article relies on two media sources. Both these media sources rely on one source - a member of the SNEA. The SNEA have come out and stated "SNEA nega informação sobre mensagens de passageiros" - I'd be interested in how you are interpreting this DragonFire1024... but regardless their statement content clearly denies being the source. They say the newspaper came to them with the theory and they dismissed it. Suddenly this story collapses in a heap as we now have NO verified source. That essentially makes it a hoax. Further the article as it is now is grossly misleading to Wikinews readers as the SNEA statement goes much further than simply saying the messages were improbable. The SNEA statement is not simply a third source to be weighed up against the other two - it is an official statement which makes it clear that they are not the source the other two articles are relying on. I won't bother with an edit war to fix the misleading article, as I think it is now fairly clear it satisfies the requirements for speedy deletion. -- Rob.au (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction notice

I have expanded the correction notice, blanked the article content, and linked to the previous non-disputed version of the story.

Note! Categories, {{date}}, and {{publish}} have all been left. This is to ensure the title is visible where it would have been previously. People should be able to find this to see the correction notice. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)