Talk:Condução coercitiva

Article title and English name
The title chosen for this article is the same as the title of the Portuguese article, Condução coercitiva. In making this choice, I've relied upon this passage from Article title policy:"In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader."

Checking sources, I find no sources in English on the web, in books, academic journals, or in news media:

Since there is no exact equivalent in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence of the legal concept of condução coercitiva, any translation into a brief expression in English is impossible; or rather, such brief translations are cryptic and give no sense of what the term actually means. They would provide little understanding, and great loss of accuracy. As far as the article title is concerned, it's clear to me that the title should not be translated. (And thus, per MOS:ITALICS, it must be italicized.)

On the other hand, an English-speaking reader will expect some kind of brief translation of the expression into English to get a sense of it, even if it doesn't provide the full sense of the term, and even if it has "great loss of accuracy" and doesn't mean much without a longer explanation in the rest of the article. Accordingly, I've added a parenthetical expression to the first sentence right after the title, with coerced conveyance as a brief, fairly literal translation that attempts to hit the right notes about the sense of the original term. I considered many possibilities, and rejected to the more literal "conduct", "conducted", "conduction", and "coercive", and alternatives such as "compulsory", "obligatory" and others for various reasons, which I can go into if desired. I'm open to other possibilities if they are an improvement. A more informative two-word expression imho would be coerced appearance which gives a better sense of what's going on, and if we had to create a WP:NDESC title in English for this article, it might be something like Coerced appearance warrant. Note that "Compulsory appearance warrant" wouldn't be strong enough; Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence already has subpoenas which are compulsory, but this is different. So, for a title, "Coerced appearance" might work, but for a parenthetical translation of condução coercitiva it doesn't work, because the original clearly is talking about the conveyance, and not the appearance. So, we're kind of stuck with the more cryptic, coerced conveyance, unless someone comes up with a better expression for the attempt at quasi-literal translation in the parenthetical comment.

Because no brief translation is perfect and all have some disadvantage, I considered not providing one at all, but decided we had to. If we didn't, then readers might resort to machine translation which provides laughably inaccurate renderings, such as "Coercive driving", which would only confuse the reader even more and lead them astray. So, weighing everything, I thought having a brief rendering in English, even if only a rough translation, was better than not having one.

Clearly, a two-word expression like coerced conveyance cannot give a complete sense of the original. In order to mitigate that, I included an explanatory note to provide additional detail, as seen in Note a, here.

As a final note: it's important to keep in mind that the English term is a translation from Portuguese that is there to help the reader, just like the rest of the article is a translation. The English expression does not have its own attestation in reliable sources in English, and so, for example, should not be bolded as a synonym per MOS:BOLDSYN, nor added as a redirect (unless there is evidence of users searching for that expression). Mathglot (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)