Jump to content

Talk:Josh Cahill/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contested deletion[edit]

1292simon, mind specifying how you find this so promotional that you nominated this for speedy? GeraldWL 07:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it's a moot point now, since you removed the tag before an impartial admin had a chance to look into it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (I don't understand why the article was nominated for speedy deletion as G11. I don't see the WP:PROMO issues here. It may contain content that's not encyclopedic and can be fixed with a slight effort.) --VirenRaval89 (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIVACY

[edit]

We need evidence that this article was written by a paid editor, otherwise the assertion is just drive-by tagging. WWGB (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, I did a bit of research but I couldn't find any evidence either hence removing the tag. SkyGeek123 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I had to put it out there, get it into the history. I have the email exchange from a paid editor who was offering to create a page for $850. I asked for examples of their past work (to potentially out them, not to consider hiring them). This is one of four articles they claim to have created. I have the email. It's not adequate proof, but it is a warning sign. The page creator's contribution history has made others think that person must be getting paid to create and/or edit articles. See the March 2021 section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VirenRaval89&oldid=1015255209 Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most Watched Flight Reviewer[edit]

Since this has been discussed, here is a source that put things into perspective. According to SocialBlade Cahill has reached over 10 Million viewers in the past 4 months (https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/joshcahill) - a lot more than other flight reviewers. Seems like a legit statement to me. Thoughts? SkyGeek123 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source says nothing about Cahill being "most watched". Report his number of views by all means, but you cannot make assertions without a reliable source. Where is the evidence of his views being "a lot more than other flight reviewers"? WWGB (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kam Air invited YouTube's most-watched aviation aficionado and flight reviewer, Josh Cahill, to experience the flight. Here is the right source: https://simpleflying.com/kam-air-all-female/ SkyGeek123 (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to chip in here too. Article says he is the most watched flight reviewer, hence your edit WWGB isn't valid since you mention yourself that it may not be true without giving a source. 77.242.124.204 (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be bothered arguing with you JC. Enjoy Surfshark. WWGB (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another assumption showing your bias and conflict of interest, most likely paid editing. 77.242.124.204 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about Sam Chui?[edit]

According to YouTube, airline reviewer Sam Chui has 742 million views, while Cahill has 93 million views. How can Cahill be most watched? 203.166.241.198 (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Sam Chui is a flight reviewer. He states on his website that he announces himself to the airline before flying with them and that he gets sponsored too. Sam only features aviation content but he doesn't review any airlines. Sam is an aviation influencer rather. 77.242.124.204 (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name and nationality[edit]

I believe it is reasonably well established that Josh Cahill is actually Aljoscha Wendholt, but I understand there is significant doubt about his claims to be Australian. Reliable sources either way would be good to add. Jpatokal (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single source suggesting any of these claims. Here for example is a photo of his boarding pass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCzLcxbrF_c (Time stamp: 02:44) suggesting clearly the name Josh Cahill. This smearing campaign has been going for months. It also falls under WP:PRIVACY. 181.212.14.193 (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIVACY is about doxxing editors, not public figures. Here's a source for you: TBC Asia [1] for the Cinnamon Travel Bloggers Conference
2022 in Colombo, Sri Lanka (where Josh lives) lists the presenter of gotravelyourway.com (Josh's blog) as "Aljoscha Wendholt", complete with a thumbnail of his face. Another: freiepresse.de featuring "Josh Cahill-Wendholt from Mildenau". Of course it's entirely possible that he is a dual and/or naturalized Australian citizen and legally changed his name. Jpatokal (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source freiepresse.de only features Josh Cahill and nothing containing Wendholt. The second source is a simple picture and you base this on if/maybe. Something major like a name change needs a proper references and not some speculations. I also work in aviation for 2 decades and follow trip reporters religiously and I never heard of your "well established" facts. Sorry to say but this doesn't reasonable at all especially citing references that don't contain the claims you made. 200.54.150.42 (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah, this is getting curiouser and curiouser: the live page indeed says "Josh Cahill", but the Google cache dated 9 Nov 2023 11:12:09 GMT says "Josh Cahill-Wendholt"! So somebody -- who could it possibly be? -- is going around scrubbing references off the Internet. Jpatokal (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get the logic here (apart that you added a source that doesn't support any of your claims and your so-called well established facts, that myself as an aviation veteran has never heard of). If I post a photo of Sam Chui on a website with 10 page views a day and put Noel Philips as caption, does it mean I can head over to his wikipedia page and use it a source? Maybe you should read this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources - to me it appears that you have an agenda or are paid to do this given the current Qatar controversy. HansoGalaxy (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An agenda to do what, exactly? You'll note from the page history I'm the one who first added mention of the Qatar controversy, and in terms apparently sufficiently neutral that nobody has changed them for the past week. Jpatokal (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be, but both sources provided don't include the name you suggested hence the confusion. It does seem like a planned campaign since it comes from the same anonymous IP. 181.118.69.203 (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please everyone here, stop edit-warring on the article page and claiming there is a consensus here, until the consensus is actually achieved. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Cahill is a brand name. His name is Aljoscha Wendholt:

Welt is a reliable source in Germany and it says he was born in Nordrhein-Westfalen and raised in Mildenau, the Erzgebirge region in Saxony. So he is not Australian. Here are videos of him speaking native German:

At one point he goes by the name "Josh Cahill-Wendholt":

Here is also a YouTube video of him when he changed to Josh Cahill and the presenter said that he is from the Erzgebirge:

There is a multiple videos that show his legal name "Josh Cahill" on his boarding pass:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCzLcxbrF_c&t=164s
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtzEu-r3-VY&t=29s
Videos of him speaking German don't suggest anything?
Also your suggest sources:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-mbCB9U_gtE
Presenter introduces him as Josh Cahill
- https://www.freiepresse.de/erzgebirge/annaberg/per-anhalter-geht-s-um-die-halbe-welt-artikel7479023
Name is only Josh Cahill in the article.
Your sources don't suggest anything really. 181.118.69.203 (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't you be Australian citizen if you speak native German? 50% of Australian are born overseas. This is quite a racist remark.
Also the TV host in your shows introduces him as Josh Cahill only, so according to your source, he is indeed Josh Cahill. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-mbCB9U_gtE)
The freie presse article only says Josh Cahill as well. https://www.freiepresse.de/erzgebirge/annaberg/per-anhalter-geht-s-um-die-halbe-welt-artikel7479023 - so once again your source doesn't provide any truth.
Is there any article that says Josh Cahill is Aljosha Wondholt? Please provide it otherwise its just rumours and speculations. HansoGalaxy (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That racism accusation is quite rich coming from an account only dedicated to edit and polish Josh Cahill's article. He speaks native German because he was born in Nordrhein-Westfalen and grew up in the Erzgebirge. A lot of the links I put already show Cahill himself as Aljoscha Wendholt, and there was even a proof of his "transition" as "Josh Cahill-Wendholt". What is the proof that he was born in Melbourne? Nothing, only his own claim in a podcast. If you really believe in 100% of his claims, then simply watch his videos where he flexed his German passport. Where is his Australian passport?
The TV show clearly says he is from the Erzgebirge, which further brings into doubt the veracity of the claim that he is Australian. So nice of you to omit that important detail.
The Freie Presse link clearly says this:
"Das heißt es ab Donnerstag für Josh Cahill-Wendholt und Harbir Parmar. Der eine stammt aus Mildenau, .."
Another important detail you omitted: the article says he is from Mildenau in the Erzgebirge! Nothing about Australia or Melbourne
At this point it seems that this user, who is dedicated only to polish Josh Cahill's page, is arguing in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.125.133.223 (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article only says Josh Cahill and not Wendholt.
None of your sources says he was born in Germany. Growing up doesn't mean you are born there. Also his boarding passes clearly show Josh Cahill so how do you explain this?
https://www.bild.de/reise/fluege/fluege/josh-cahill-will-qatar-airways-einen-airline-kritiker-zum-schweigen-bringen-86462166.bild.html
Also this article says he is Australian born by Europe's biggest news website.
Can you please explain the boarding passes? You can only check in on your legal name. Also the presenter only says Josh Cahill. You gotta provide proper evidence instead of your truth. HansoGalaxy (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.freiepresse.de/erzgebirge/annaberg/per-anhalter-geht-s-um-die-halbe-welt-artikel7479023
"Das heißt es ab Donnerstag für Josh Cahill und Harbir Parmar. Der eine stammt aus Mildenau, .." it doesn't mention Wendholt at all. What's your agenda? Seems like pure vandalism to me. 181.118.69.203 (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article's Google cache from Nov 9 says Cahill-Wendholt: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.freiepresse.de/erzgebirge/annaberg/per-anhalter-geht-s-um-die-halbe-welt-artikel7479023 Jpatokal (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly arguing in bad faith because you ignored all my links and simply tried to misrepresent them. The Welt source clearly says he is born in North Rhine-Westphalia, and grew up in Mildenau in Saxony. He might have changed his name to Josh Cahill, which explains the boarding pass, but that does not justify removing information about his birth name as Aljoscha Wendholt. The presenter on YouTube said Cahill but again you omitted the important piece that the presenter clearly said "that is a difficult name, although you are from the Erzgebirge". Nothing said or claimed about Australia!

The Bild source is very recent and is an example of a citogenesis; some shady people based on a claim by the guy himself wrote on Wikipedia that he is Australian, and hence the other articles are starting to parrot that claim. The other sources are more reliable because they were from before his clout. You also dodged my question: where is the proof that he is Australian other than a podcast? How about his videos flexing his German passport, where is his Australian passport.

At this point you are clearly engaging in obfuscation and arguing in bad faith, so there is no point in debating you further. But for those reading, take note of this: so the claim is that the mom somehow moved as a refugee from Czechoslovakia to Mildenau in East Germany (???) in the 1980s, and then within a very short span met Wendholt's father and moved to Melbourne to give birth to Aljoscha Wendholt? Even if she became a refugee on 1 January 1980, that is really a stretch. Occam's razor, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.125.133.223 (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted several sources which don't support your claims and you made false statement throughout this discussion which suggest clearly that you are being a paid editor. Not a single source states that the person in question is Josh Cahill. Also the claim regarding his family has no source at all and it's clearly made up by you as well, where does this even come from? So please provide a proper sources backing up your truth. 181.118.69.203 (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note for other people to judge: nobody here contests that he owns the travel blog gotravelyourway.com. Guess who is the official owner?

Registrant Name: Aljoscha Wendholt Registrant Organisation: Wendholt, Aljoscha

https://gotravelyourway.com.cutestat.com/

There's a small typo[edit]

Missing parenthesis in the first line, right before the date of birth! I would've edited it but the page got full protected (for the best, honestly). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be fixed, thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 12:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Incidents" section[edit]

Is it really necessary to list ALL kinds of "incidents", that in reality are just summaries of one or multiple of his videos and the conflict between him and an airline or other institution/person? Does not seem to be relevant enough. 2001:9E8:62CF:B00:8DB7:9BCF:5DE:E361 (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the incidents section should be removed since Wikipedia is not to be used as a News page. I don't think it's relevant. HansoGalaxy (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The incident section isn't relevant at all and should be removed. As stated above, Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a news ticker. 187.32.60.193 (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on inclusion of Josh Cahill as Australian or German[edit]

Question: Should Josh Cahill be listed as Australia or German?

The only source used to back up that he is an Australian born in Melbourne is a Spotify podcast, whereas on top there are already sources indicating he is born in Germany, grew up in the Erzgebirge and has a German passport. 114.125.135.64 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear he is German, and likely Czech as well given his Czech mother. The question is whether he is Australian as well, and if so, when he acquired his citizenship. Jpatokal (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking through the article history there are quite a few Freie Presse (from Saxony) stories about him that supposedly detail his origins in Germany. However, all the links are dead, and the archived ones are paywalled. If anyone has access to FP, please check for us!! Thanks RetroCosmos (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good observations, RetroCosmos. And I would add that ss WP editors, if we have trouble finding suitable sources for the claim, we should fall on the side of caution and remove the material until reliable sources can be found to support the material/claim. WP:BLPREMOVEWritethisway (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly unlikely that someone with parents from East Germany and Czechoslovakia was born in Australia in 1986 - and then moved back to Saxony as a small child.
In addition citizens of East Germany and Czechoslovakia were not normally granted exit visa to relocate to Australia. 185.124.195.46 (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This link from Welt clearly says that he is born in North Rhine-Westphalia and raised in Mildenau, Saxony: [2]. At the very least, it should be written that he is born in Germany instead of Melbourne/Australia. 114.125.132.8 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, he does not seem to be known for his citizenship. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one as well. All mentioned articles say he lived in certain regions but none specifically mentions that he was born there. Although I find this BILD article which say he is Australian born. 190.111.246.211 (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So isn't the encyclopedic thing to do to note that his place of birth has variously been listed as both Germany and Australia? Jpatokal (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire "early life" section should be removed too since there isn't a single source saying any of this stuff. 187.32.60.193 (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and early Life is absolutely unimportant in this case. He is not Michael Jackson or Tina Turner. 80.187.121.138 (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Neither. His nationality does not help us understand what he is notable for so it being in question I feel the best action is to omit it. Dobblesteintalk 21:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This video on Josh's official channel shows him clearly brandishing a German passport around 1:30, see frame grab. Combined with the previous sources, I think we have incontrovertible proof that he was (at least) a German citizen as of 2016. Jpatokal (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither There's not enough sourcing here to mention the citizenship. The article is better off without it for now. Nemov (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That falls under Wikipedia:No original research - also lots of proof from the same channel with Josh Cahill on the boarding passes. Yourself have stated previously that content from his channel can't be used as reference. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:FD03:A31D:4128:1CC8 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jpatokal & doc7austin2 - no neutral point of view[edit]

https://www.vielfliegertreff.de/forum/threads/josh-cahill-vs-qr.158264/page-14

You can witness an ongoing discussion by doc7austin2 in this forum who openly shares disapproval of Josh's content by calling it clickbait and fraud. He also posts: "Mit dem Wikipedia-Autor @Jpatokal stehe ich im Kontakt. Und Jpatokal hat schon viel "Handfestes" über unseren guten Aljoscha gesammelt." which says that he is in touch with the author to look for "evidence" to alter this page. Though doc7austin2 denies being part of this discussion in the forum, @Jpatokal admitted in an earlier post that he indeed is. Given how much he dislikes Josh, both aren't editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Both are constantly posting conspiracy theories about his name without any sources with absolute disregard to privacy. As stated: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.

Every attempt by other editors are dismissed that it is Josh himself editing the page (which I highly doubt).

All theories by @Jpatokal & doc7austin are based on Wikipedia:No original research without any reliable sources. On top of them both aren't neutral editors but biased and as they admit, organised.

This should be brought to the attention admins and probably a disclaimer should be posted that the page is currently controlled by biased editors.

As suggested by @Some1 and the ongoing privacy concerns, admins should look into this matter. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:2C6D:5CA1:DFDB:F1EF (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest German-speaking Sri Lankan anonymous IP, I admire your wholehearted commitment to Wikipedia's NPOV principles. Can you state your relation to Josh and where you have any kind of conflict of interest regarding this article? Jpatokal (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I've really suggested on this topic is that Josh Cahill create a Wikipedia account, verify that it's indeed his Wikipedia account, and post his request for removal [3]. I'll note that this comment by the 2402 IP [4] and the 2402 IP's geo-location are quite interesting. [5] Please declare any COI, thank you. Some1 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no interest of conflict, I just noticed the thread : https://www.vielfliegertreff.de/forum/threads/josh-cahill-vs-qr.158264/page-14 where Jpatokal is explicitly mentioned as COI editor. Any chance to have you comment on this? 2402:D000:8100:A97A:B09A:C5DD:7C1D:D559 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google Translate, that thread says "Jpatokal has already collected a lot of “tangible” information about our good Aljoscha." That's correct, you can find it all here on this talk page, so what exactly is the concern you're trying to raise here? And you keep dodging the question about your relation to Josh. Jpatokal (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AeroTime reliability[edit]

@PatrickChiao I’ve reverted your changes for a couple of reasons.

For starters, AeroTime is not a reliable source. It is a marketing company that does promotions and advertising in the form of advertorials. They straight up admit to this on their website as well as the service agreement they link to on that page.

“Drafted by a member of our editorial team or by you, placed advertorial articles can cover a variety of subjects. They can describe your company, products and services and their value, or examine the industry context in which you operate, for example.” Their “Aviation Achievement Award” is a Vanity award and has little meaning.

Specifically regarding Cahill, the sources in the article make it clear that he was hired by AeroTime to document and cover this. The behind the scenes video states in the description “In a special debrief exclusively for AeroTime, Josh walks us through the historic flight[…]” and in the behind the scenes article it says “In a special “Behind the Scenes” interview for AeroTime”. These are all properly cited as sources in the article. “For AeroTime” means that they commissioned him.

All of this was coordinated with a marketing campaign by a paid marketing company, see the diff on Kam Air done a few days later by a marketing company.

That in and of itself warrants excluding it from the article under WP:NOTPROMO.

Nevertheless, I kept it in, in a way appropriate for the article. The whole slew of minor details such as who exactly handed him the award and that it made “global headlines” with a reference to a couple of paragraphs to the Pashto edition of BBC is not suitable under WP:NOTDIARY and other sections of WP:NOT, it's just WP:PUFF

But I’m open to hearing your thoughts (and that of others) and see if we can reach consensus. ConcurrentState (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that the site really does advertise things, but is the article writing "for AeroTime" instead of "with AeroTime" really enough to suggest that Cahill really paid for the award, and that it is therefore vanity? The article does not explicitly say that Cahill is sponsored by them. I'm not entirely sure, and would like to hear more comments from other people. PatrickChiao (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your constructive attitude and your willingness to hear me out. To be clear, I don't think Cahill explicitly paid for the award, I think it's a vanity award in the sense that it has little to do with achievements, and AeroTime themselves state here and there that he was awarded for his involvement with the Kam Air story (which AeroTime indicates that they commissioned him for).
Still, I'm not so much against listing the award for those reasons, but more so because, to me, it doesn't really seem like a career-defining award worth mentioning in a separate section. Nevertheless, I'm open to having it listed despite my reservations if you (or others) feel it is in line with wiki policies and would improve the BLP article.
My general concerns are more that the article as a whole isn't in line with WP:BLP, especially in terms of tone, but there are also some WP:NPOV issues and WP:N concerns. I'm currently not WP:BOLD enough to make the necessary changes, but my edit w/r/t AeroTime and the award was an attempt at making a small improvement. ConcurrentState (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it's a vanity award" is not a source though and as @PatrickChiao mentions the article "does not explicitly" say that this was sponsored by them. Other sources such as Business Insider or BBC reported first on the flight and it is indeed an significant event for both Cahill and the crew involved. Why shouldn't it be listed especially since two senior editors (@Tanhasahu) tried to revert this edit already. I appreciate your efforts but your claim that this was promotional event is not fair and backed by any citation. SajidKhan1235 (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My revision doesn't state it's sponsored.
It says:
On 24 February 2021, Cahill collaborated with AeroTime Hub to document Afghanistan’s first all-female crew flight on Kam Air as part of a promotion. Cahill claimed he received threats by the Taliban and that they "issued attacks"
Which is as close to WP:BLPSTYLE as you're going to get:
"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement"
It then continues with: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects"
AeoroTime, being the ones who commissioned Cahill to document this promotional story, would be considered a primary source as per WP:PRIMARY, in particular, because they were directly involved with the event, but also because it's an advertorial which goes against WP:NOTPROMO.
The version you're trying to revert to is full of WP:CRUFT, MOS:PUFFERY, and other irrelevant information. I'm sure that the event was significant for the crew involved, put that stuff on the crew's articles. Same for who handed out the award, if that's a career defining experience for them, put it on their article. All of that is WP:TMI for a WP:BLP where the person is notable for being a YouTuber.
As an aside, WP:DAILYMAIL is a deprecated source. Meaning it's a no-go as a source, with very little exception.
As for seniority, that's not how it works on Wikipedia. Consensus is key, and especially with BLPs, neutral, dispassionate, and narrow fact-based information is also important.
But I'll put it on the BLP noticeboard to get more input.
Edit: Here's the noticeboard discussion ConcurrentState (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Business Insider, BBC, Daily Mail all are RS, and you can't just go and remove information as you want. The information is well citation and mentioned in the reliable newspapers.
If the Aerotime reliability in question then a better source can be provided.
Stop your distructive edits on Wikipedia. Tanhasahu (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source or evidence that says that this was a promotional flight and BBC, DW or Business Insider reported on this event long before AeroTime did and they are all reliable sources. SajidKhan1235 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAILYMAIL WP:BI aren't reliable DarmaniLink (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC & DW are reliable sources. Yet the current edit presents no evidence. SajidKhan1235 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBC Asia Travel Blogger Awards, "Best Channel" 2018[edit]

Is someone able to find a reliable source for this? While cleaning up the references and updating the url state, I noticed that one reference (the German newspaper) was dead and indicated to be an article 3 years after the fact (?) and the other just links to the TBC Asia website without a description about if Cahill won an award or for which category and when.

A reliable source that can confirm he won a TBC Asia Travel Blogger award in 2018 for "Best Channel" would be great so we can add that as a reference. For now I tagged it with a cn. ConcurrentState (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The TBCAsia website states that Josh won "Gold - Best Airline Blog" in 2018. Whether this award apparently operated by a Sri Lankan hotel chain is notable is another question. Jpatokal (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just looking for a good source to add to the parts about the award.
Not touching the inclusion of the award itself, I've ruffled enough feathers. ConcurrentState (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josh_Cahill/Archive_1&oldid=1225800582"