Talk:Skytrax

Criticism?
This article lacks paragraphs with criticism. The history shows that those have been written, but some users reverted ALL. I would view such action as being vandalism. 134.247.251.245 (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Any criticism must be reliably sourced. Removing unsourced claims is not vandalism. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing ALL instances of criticism and leaving nothing, thus creating the illusion that there is no criticism IS vandalism. There IS criticism: https://onemileatatime.com/skytrax-credibility/ 134.247.251.245 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Ridiculous Games Airlines Play To Win Skytrax Awards, And Others… (godsavethepoints.com) 134.247.251.245 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

https://skift.com/2012/11/10/airline-review-site-gets-spanked-by-uk-advertising-industry/ 134.247.251.247 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/skytrax-research-a12-196416.html 134.247.251.247 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Removing things that aren't reliably sourced is not vandalising. Feel free to read what constitutes a reliable source and add anything that has been covered in one. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like you did not bother to even take a look at the many sources I provided. Is Skytrax itself a reliable source in your view? It is an official Skytrax statement that e.g. Lufthansa gained five star for a business class that was at that time three years into the future, which contradicts the offical Skytrax policy that a feature must be rolled out to 80% of the fleet. Does 0% match the 80% criterion?
 * Btw., other Wikipedias (other languages) do list a couple of critisims. 134.247.251.247 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * None of those are Reliable sources. Self-generated content like GSTP are generally not not RS. The criticisms need to be covered by reliable sources in order to be included. Here is a list: Reliable sources/Perennial sources The Lufthansa example is OR. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "None of those are Wikipedia:Reliable sources.". Wikipedia Germany obviously has a different view on this Skytrax https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skytrax#Einzelnachweise 6 ist a well renowned German newspaper (FAZ): Andreas Spaeth: Aus der Luft gegriffen? In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. 17. Dezember 2017, S. 68.134.247.251.245 (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, different Wikis do have different standards. They are all independent. As I said already, "Feel free to read what constitutes a reliable source and add anything that has been covered in one." Lard Almighty (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I HAVE read it. But I cannot see any violation. IMHO you are overinterpretring the rules that are defined there. As I said, I have once been an editor in a printed magazine myself, in a different time, where standards were MUCH higher than these. I am VERY familiar with this. And even in these HIGHER standards it would at any time be possible to write something in the line of "There exists criticism by X and Y, claiming Z". That is definitely feasible and well within ALL ethical and reliability and quotability standards! Quoting someone is ALWAYS permissible. You just can't say that it is a fact that the quoted person claimed. But you can ALWAYS quote. Otherwise, the press would not be able to write that e.g. Donald Trump said something that courts have proven to be a lie, i.e. that the last US presidential elections were allegedly rigged. You can't write they were rigged. But you CAN write "Donald Trump alleges they were rigged". Because THAT is a fact and can be easily proven.134.247.251.245 (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, IMHO, you could ask yourself some questions. E.g. why Zurich is listed as one of the best airports - but does NOT have a five star ranking? There are more (twice as many!) five star airports then best airports, and even in that light (20:10) Zurich is a 4 star... Sorry, I do not want to offend you, but to me you create an image of not being totally impartial here... 134.247.251.245 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Again any questions I might ask myself and answers I might give are WP:OR . Lard Almighty (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"Self-generated content like GSTP are generally not not RS.": https://www.godsavethepoints.com/airline-games-to-win-skytrax-awards/ is not self-generated, it's an article written by an editor (or regular contributor, known to the staff an pictured (Gilbert Ott). "Gilbert Ott is an ever curious traveler and one of the world's leading travel experts. His adventures take him all over the globe, often spanning over 200,000 miles a year and his travel exploits are regularly featured on Good Morning America, BBC, The Sunday Times, Travel & Leisure, CNN and other leading news outlets." 134.247.251.245 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Where is the editorial oversight? Anyone can write a blog/opinion piece. But who edited it? Who fact-checked it? It you would read Reliable sources you would see that these are important factors. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh. My. God. With such questions and super-strict demands you can put half of the regular printed press in the waste bin. Most newspapers and foremost, most TV stations either don't have that or outsourced that to some low-wage external people. I have been an editor myself in a printed magazine, decades ago. I have witnessed how the press outsourced or cancelled all of that.
 * But you were asking:
 * https://www.godsavethepoints.com/about-us/
 * Gilbert Ott is staff editor. In fact, he founded GSTP in the first place, so he is (legally) responsible for all of this.
 * But when you discard everthing that editors in chiefs and news media owners write, then... You won't find any "well-sourced" info.
 * Then you must discard e.g. everything Elon Musk writes on X about Tesla as a "reliable source", because Elon Musk is the owner of X (and Tesla), therefore it is "self generated". Really ?
 * 134.247.251.245 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the reputation of Individuals and organisations we have to be careful. What Ott has published is his opinion. It is hearsay. We need a reliable third-party source to back up his assertions, e.g. his conversation with the Qatar flight attendant about the champagne. Otherwise as I say, it's hearsay and we cannot use it. Please read the list of Perennial sources I posted above. You will see that a great deal of discussion has gone in to individual sources, and indeed many MSM sources are deprecated for the reasons you suggest. So yes, sourcing can be hard. It has to be to a high standard, especially as I say when dealing with the reputations of individuals and organisations. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like you did not bother to read it! Let me quote:
 * "Because Lufthansa promised to introduce a new business class seat in three years time. Not today, tomorrow, or for any day in the year for which the rankings count, but for an unknown, still yet to be scheduled date in the future. According to Skytrax themselves, Lufthansa’s current business class seat in a 2-2-2 layout is not of a five star standard, like the 1-2-1 seating layouts of every single other five star airline. Somehow, the wink and the nod of promises for years into the future equated to a 5 star rating today. Don’t take our word for it, the Skytrax CEO was quoted saying exactly that…"
 * Is a Skytrax CEO statement "hearsay"? It would call it a reliable source. 134.247.251.245 (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The quote from the Skytrax CEO that "Somehow, the wink and the nod of promises for years into the future equated to a 5 star rating today." needs to be reported in a reliable source, otherwise, yes it's hearsay. This is the only source I can find that uses those exact words and somehow I doubt the CEO of Skytrax ever said "exactly that". Another example of why this source is unreliable. I would want to see the actual quote with attribution in a RS. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. As I said, I do not want to offend you, but I have the impression that you are biased pro Skytrax. 134.247.251.245 (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Skytrax' own website a reliable source in your view?
 * Edward Plaisted, CEO of Skytrax, said: “The achievement of 5-Star Airline status by Lufthansa is not only a great accolade as the first European airline to reach this target, but is a clear recognition of the improvements they have made in recent years, particularly in all areas of the front line service delivery.”
 * https://skytraxratings.com/lufthansa-is-certified-as-a-5-star-airline
 * The improvement of the new business class was introduced three years after the got the 5 stars. That is a solid fact, and it contradicts the official ranking method. Btw, Lufthansa in the meantime has lost it's fifth star. 134.247.251.247 (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * GSTP is taking that quote and saying that it's something it's not, ie "Somehow, the wink and the nod of promises for years into the future equated to a 5 star rating today." That is not what the CEO said or even implied, so GSTP cannot be considered reliable. What you are proposing is WP:OR. To be included in Wikipedia, reliable sources would have to report that there was a departure from the official ranking method when LH got 5-star status.
 * BTW I have nothing to do with Skytrax and those sorts of insinuations to help your argument. Please Assume good faith. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am more than willing to assume good faith, but you must admit that almost all your action is only directed in one way: To defend Skytrax by creating the notion that there is no criticism, which is the opposite of the truth! German Wikipedia lists criticism explicitly, French also. They should all operate on the same standards. As I told you, I have been a professional journalist, so correct and reliable quoting has been my daily business. You can always quote unreliable sources by saying "This person said that". This is by ALL journalistic standards not only acceptable but daily news business. If you are unsure whether the person acutally said it, but someone wrote he/she did, then you can write "as XYZ wrote, this person said that". When Donald Trump says something, almost always it's a lie, but still you can quote it "Donald Trump alleged that the elections were rigged". If you are unsure, it is OKAY to write "according to XYZ, Trump alleged that the elections were rigged" Everybody knows they were not, but it is okay to quote Donald Trump in this way. I can seen no reason (other then your, IMHO over-interpretation) why Wikipedia would have standards far above those of journalism. I see no evidence for that in the WP rules you quoted! And since your over-interpreation leads to the elimination of all cricism being listed, as a matter of fact it produces a bias, sorry to say that. Possible you do not want to produce bias, I do assume good faith, but your actions result in bias. 134.247.251.245 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am "defending" English Wikipedia's policies. I'm perfectly happy for there to be criticism of Skytrax in the article. I have looked for reliable sources and can't find them. The bottom line is that assertions need to be supported by reliable sources. A blog opinion piece (which is clearly biased against Skytrax and which in fact misrepresents the quote from the CEO) is not a reliable source. It really is that simple.  Lard Almighty (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW, now that all the rankings etc. have been deleted, half the article is (well-sourced) criticism! Lard Almighty (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

https://australianaviation.com.au/2021/08/skytrax-defends-naming-qatar-airport-worlds-best-despite-strip-searches/ 134.247.251.245 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)