Talk:Josh Cahill

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


Request for comment on inclusion of "Aljoscha Wendholt" as name[edit]

Question: Should "Aljoscha Wendholt" be in this article? RetroCosmos (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment From what I can see in the sources that accompany the "Aljoscha Wendholt" name, the "Josh" mentioned isn't explicitly clarified to be Josh Cahill. It sure enough looks like him in the pictures, but the sources (again, from what I can see – correct me if I'm wrong) don't use the name "Cahill" and they don't mention his YouTube channel. Therefore, I don't think we can be certain it is the same chap. Consequently, I'm going to say better sourcing is needed. — Czello (music) 16:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This Google cached copy of the Freie Press article uses the name "Josh Cahill-Wendholt", which makes it clear they're the same person. This Cinnamon Travel Blogger Awards 2016 interview also calls him "Josh Cahill-Wendholt". Finally, Josh's bio from the abortive Shanghai Walk project also uses the name Aljoscha Wendholt and provides a wealth of biodata that matches in every respect, except the curious lack of any mention of Australia. Jpatokal (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I must have missed that. If these sources are considered reliable I won't oppose inclusion of his name. — Czello (music) 00:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that better sourcing is needed. Probably the press has changed it cause it was perhaps a wrong name? As long as we don't have a clear source that states that he is the person in question I wouldn't include it. Also as individuals have commented before, his boarding passes only say Josh Cahill in his video. Without a proper source I think it wouldn't be right to include it. 190.111.246.211 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this also. It wouldn’t be right to include it. 82.6.98.226 (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No Support - everything just seems assumption based with no proper source that literally states this fact. Also the effort to have the name included by a handful of individuals makes me question the motive instead of improving the subject with a lot of nasty comments attached to it. I also see a lot of cherry picking here. This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-mbCB9U_gtE) was stated as a source when it comes to his origins, but the fact that he was introduced as Josh Cahill prior is being ignored and not accepted, which again makes me question the motivation of all this. The name that dominates is Josh Cahill which is also supported by plenty of articles including his boarding passes which require a legal name which without a doubt is Josh Cahill. Ahadzuk (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: The only Wikipedia contributions made by Ahadzuk and the two previous IP users are edits to Josh Cahill and this talk page.
In any case, nobody is proposing that we rename the article, it's clear "Josh Cahill" is the most common/current name. Jpatokal (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Observation regarding Jpatkal: He is the only who lobbies so intensively to have the name included without accurate sources but based on speculation. Doing a reverse search people can see that he heavily advertises his agenda in forums outside wikipedia. He seems to have an agenda and isn't unbiased. I wouldn't include a name based on speculation and why can't no members have an opinion? You seem overly obsessed with this. If some papers have adjusted the name can it perhaps be that they have made a mistake? Why do we have so many versions of it? 190.111.246.211 (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing Wikipedia for 20+ years on all sorts of random subjects that tickle my fancy. So pray tell, what exactly is my agenda, and where am I "heavily advertising" it? Jpatokal (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On face value Jpatokal's edits do not strike me as single-purpose. RetroCosmos (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this attention seeking guy is all over the news I'm not surprised that many people have something to say who usually don't edit on wikipedia. 187.32.60.193 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
German federal law doesn't permit changes to your name yet in his videos it says Josh Cahill on his boarding pass. This needs a lot more sources and might even be a case of identity theft. In doubt and without a clear explanation it's not right to include the name… no support. Also why does this guy need a wiki page? Most YouTubers with more views and influence don't have one. 64.88.226.29 (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Support - Given that this claim is based on an archived blog from 10 years ago and nothing solid that says anything accurate there is a lot left to be desired. News sites don't just change names because somebody asked nicely, so they either know something we don't or there is a legal case going... do we know the answer? Certainly not! just a lot of guessing and speculating at this point. Obviously the lad is making global headlines at the moment around the Qatar controversy which comes with a lot of attentuon but something as important as a name change requires a lot more references... especially on here. 187.32.60.193 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Strong support There appears to be enough sourcing supporting its inclusion, though it strikes me that someone is trying to scrub mentions of the old name off the internet. I find it nearly certain that Aljoscha Wendholt and Josh Cahill are the same person. This article directly states that they are the same person. This, in conjunction with the fact that Josh Cahill's website is registered to Aljoscha Wendholt leads me to dismiss any idea that they could be different people. RetroCosmos (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After 1 minute you can see the name Josh Cahill on his boarding pass (no airline in the world prints fake or fantasy names on boarding passes). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NXNi-h3697k 2003:FF:F0A:8120:B6A5:5DE8:B251:241A (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that in a Youtube video of Noel Philips a part of his passport is shown.
"I flew to Asia's Least Visited Country: Here's what Happened"
Screenshots have been saved.
It is clearly visible that his artist name (Künstlername) is "Josh Cahill".
This leads to 2 conclusions:
He is a German citizen and has been using his German passport on his recent trip to East Timor.
His real legal name is not Josh Cahill.
Regarding the ongoing discussion I'd prefer to stay neutral. 188.212.135.206 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of discussion: we have three tenured Wikipedians (myself, Czello, and RetroCosmos) in favor, and one named account (Ahadzuk) whose only contribution was two edits to this edit page plus a set of rotating IP addresses against. Jpatokal (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means every other voices needs to be ignored, that not how Wikipedia works? There are many valid points in this discussion regarding his boarding passes which only state Cahill as his legal name. Someone also mentioned that German federal law doesn't permit name changes and not a single source says that the individual in question is Josh Cahill. As many say, it's only speculation without clear evidence. How do you explain all these valid points? 80.155.39.221 (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the 3 IPs and one account involved have zero discussion outside this topic, there are some whose minds may jump to certain conclusions. Regardless, we use consensus and not voting. so that an opinion appears to be nominally popular is not directly relevant RetroCosmos (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it looks like a sock and quacks like a sock... and speaking of boarding passes, here's the smoking gun: a video on Josh's official YouTube channel dated Dec 7, 2016 that clearly shows his boarding pass with the name "WENDHOLT/ALJ[...]". You may need to single-step frames (press "."), but here's a frame grab to make it a little easier to see. Dear anons, how do you explain this? Perhaps Cathay misprinted his boarding pass? Jpatokal (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking like we have a slight consensus to include the names, judging by all this. — Czello (music) 10:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From what I can see in the sources that accompany the "Aljoscha Wendholt" name, the "Josh" mentioned isn't explicitly clarified to be Josh Cahill. It sure enough looks like him in the pictures, but the sources (again, from what I can see – correct me if I'm wrong) don't use the name "Cahill" and they don't mention his YouTube channel. Therefore, I don't think we can be certain it is the same chap. Consequently, I'm going to say better sourcing is needed.
As quoted above and agreed by many others, better sourcing is needed. No better sourcing has been provided yet at all. 80.155.39.221 (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you quoted my initial comment but ignored my later one where I retracted this. — Czello (music) 11:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources exactly provides any proof of the changes implemented. None of the sources says Cahill is Wendholt. Can you please clarify? HansoGalaxy (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems clearly manipulated/photoshopped to me since the link you posted doesn't exist as many more error links you have provided. Also a Jimdo blog with 1 page view a month isn't a reliable source. Educate yourself here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources - why aren't you able to provide a clear source which says that the person you claim him to be is really the person in question? 80.155.39.221 (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now we have confirmation the mysterious IPs are either Josh himself, or have admin rights to his YouTube channel! Unfortunately you neglected to delete the copy of you posted on Facebook, and don't worry, I've downloaded a copy for safekeeping. :) Jpatokal (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an official account of Josh Cahill and your motivation is clear from online forums that this is an organised attack on this account. Yet you fail to provide clear evidence and you dodge every references that challenges your claims. It's obvious that you have personal issues with the individual and that your edits are biased. HansoGalaxy (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HansoGalaxy, https://www.youtube.com/@JoshCahill is the official account, correct? Can you explain how the copy of the video entitled "Cathay Dragon Review from Beijing to Hong Kong Business Class" captured by archive.org earlier this year also contains the "WENDHOLT/ALJOSCHA" boarding pass? Also, would you like to declare any conflicts of interest? Jpatokal (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://web.archive.org/web/20210205111921/https://www.freiepresse.de/mildenauer-gewinnt-blogger-award-artikel10359877
RetroCosmos (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Josh Cahill, der mit bürgerlichen Namen Aljoscha Wendholt heißt, sein."
"Josh Cahill, whose real name is Aljoscha Wendholt". You heard it here folks. Published in the Saxony Free Press on 10 November 2018.
RetroCosmos (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fairly conclusive. — Czello (music) 10:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An archived article which has been changed isn't a proper wikipedia source, can you also explain how his boarding passes show JOSH CAHILL? It can't be a "professional known as" name since you legally require to have this name on your passport. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:8913:999C:76C:AEFF (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How has it "been changed"? It's an archived news article. — Czello (music) 09:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original article doesn't contain the name "Aljoscha Wendholt" but more importantly how can you book a flight on "Josh Cahill" if its not your legal name but just a "professional known name"? This needs to be discussed here and is completely ignored. Also this source: https://avgeekery.com/airline-fires-crew-bans-youtuber-over-critical-flight-review/ says Czech-Australian and this one https://www.bild.de/reise/fluege/fluege/josh-cahill-will-qatar-airways-einen-airline-kritiker-zum-schweigen-bringen-86462166.bild.html says Australian born, how come they aren't accepted as sources? 2402:D000:8100:A97A:8913:999C:76C:AEFF (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove the original article doesn't contain that name? The rest of what you said is WP:OR. — Czello (music) 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting so this article: https://www.welt.de/welt_print/article2976469/15-Millionen-Schritte-bis-nach-Shanghai.html would also fall under WP:OR because it doesn't mention Josh Cahill at all or anything related. Yet they are used to "justify" Aljoscha Wendholt as name. Can you explain please?
These sources clearly state "Czech-Australian" & "Australian" born
https://avgeekery.com/airline-fires-crew-bans-youtuber-over-critical-flight-review/
https://www.bild.de/reise/fluege/fluege/josh-cahill-will-qatar-airways-einen-airline-kritiker-zum-schweigen-bringen-86462166.bild.html
How come they aren't accepted as sources? 2402:D000:8100:A97A:8913:999C:76C:AEFF (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new sources you mentioned are a clear example of a citogenesis. They looked at Wikipedia, it says Australian, so they put it in their article, and now our dear friend Josh is using these sources for his own benefit.
The sources used in the article are much more reliable because they are based on an interview of Josh/Aljoscha himself.
If you want to use YouTube grab as an argument, then do not ignore why a video from 2016 clearly shows his German passport with the boarding pass saying Aljoscha Wendholt. 2A02:A020:40:DFF1:3DA7:F479:82F5:16C6 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that they looked at Wikipedia and used it as a source? Also your argument with the screen grab probably shows that he changed his legal name or how can you travel on a name you don't have on your passport? 2402:D000:8100:A97A:8913:999C:76C:AEFF (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly if unsurprisingly, the "smoking gun" Saxony Free Press article from 10 November 2018 has now been removed from archive.org. Of course, this does not invalidate the facts contained in it, so I'd suggest we change the cite to point to the original printed newspaper article. Jpatokal (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see it's an archived article which has been changed ever since because the statement wasn't accurate and not a proper source. Is there a proper a source other than a deleted news article?
A lot of evidence was presented regarding the boarding passes on which is legal name Josh Cahill appears. You can't book a flight on a "professional known as" name. Can you please explain how this is possible backed up by a proper source? 2402:D000:8100:A97A:8913:999C:76C:AEFF (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which online forums are you talking about? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Our friend Josh seems to be insisting Josh Cahill is a legal name, so should we change the lead to "Josh Cahill (born Aljoscha Wendholt)"? The "known professionally" wording seems to be typically used for clearly artistic names like Meat Loaf. Jpatokal (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem to just say it's his "real name". Unless there's another source saying he's legally changed his name I don't think that wording would work. — Czello (music) 09:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What we know from reliable sources is that Josh Cahill is the most common name and Aljoscha Wendholt was his name at birth. We're not making any assertions either way about what his current legal name is. Jpatokal (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: this Talk page edit by a Sri Lankan IP (hmm...) suggests that Josh's preferred form would be "Cahill, a Czech-Australian based in Colombo, Sri Lanka". While changing your name in Germany is quite hard, it's much easier in Czechia, and we know his mother is Czech, so perhaps he has changed his legal name there? All WP:OR, of course, but it would neatly explain the newer boarding passes. Jpatokal (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that I'm Josh shows poor form to be honest and isn't constructive at all. Do you have a personal relation with him or has he been in touch with you?
I don't have any relation with him other than following his vlogs. Just gathering all information from this topic suggest that this is a coordinated effort by three users to only accept your truth while disregarding other sources. But if it's not his legal name how can he travel on this name? According to everything I see "Josh Cahill (born Aljoscha Wendholt)" is much more accurate. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:8913:999C:76C:AEFF (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain the fact that whenever someone brought a source that shows he is Aljoscha, the information mysteriously disappears?
First there is the Cinnamon link that says Aljoscha Wendholt, suddenly it got renamed.
The same with the Freie Presse that used to say "Cahill-Wendholt".
Even the information from cutestat that was posted here suddenly got censored.
But the most damning is the YouTube video that shows his German passport with the name Aljoscha Wendholt on the boarding pass, the video was suddenly taken down, implying the user arguing here is either Josh himself or someone with access to his channel.
I believe someone should start a sockpuppet investigation of HansoGalaxy, Ahadzuk and all the other accounts used here to censor information about Aljoscha and his German origin.
Sorry that I have to stay anonymous because this person is notorious for online bullying, he often sends his army to attack people he does not like or an institution that offended him. 2A02:A020:40:DFF1:3DA7:F479:82F5:16C6 (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because of doxing/privacy reasons or cuz he has legally changed his name? All I see here is an organised online bullying campaign against an individual and I'm sure if he is such a bully he would have asked his army to be here too. I'm sure this is a organised campaign in retaliation to the Qatar issue. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:8913:999C:76C:AEFF (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The effort to censor Aljoscha name is already way before the Qatar scandal. Check the revision history, it all started with SkyGeek123, which is why I am suggesting a sockpuppet investigation since all these mysterious IPs and accounts act and speak the same.
Also you just said "he has legally changed his name", assuming that is right, then you accept that his original name was Aljoscha Wendholt?!? So what is the problem of writing his original name and his German origin? Wikipedia is not censored, even if you try to scrub the information from the public. 2A02:A020:40:DFF1:8840:2A14:747C:E6F5 (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already started a sockpuppet investigation. It was only about an hour ago so it might be some time until there's a response. — Czello (music) 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise surprise, the three old videos from Shanghai Walk where he spoke native German got mysteriously removed. To fellow editors, make sure to keep an archive of everything, there is a clear systematic attempt of censorship here. 2A02:A020:D0:C4BF:3C35:81FF:8865:9F05 (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no skin in the game, I am a completely unrelated individual who read this entire thing and can only say that those against including his birth name sound completely unhinged. The Welt article mentions Aljoscha is also called Josh and links him to the website shanghaiwalk.com. A quick Google search came up with this Flickr account (https://www.flickr.com/people/shanghaiwalk/) with the same name, linking to the same website, and the pictures feature none other than Josh Cahill. Obviously I don't think this is some smoking gun (it seems there's been a decision already to keep the name) or if it's even an acceptable source by Wikipedia standards, but as an outsider, this discussion read more as a censorship campaign to scrub the mention of his birth name. I don't know his connection to Australia, but what prompted me to even search him was just the fact that it's clear he's not a native English speaker. I wanted to know whether Josh Cahill was his real name, and where he's originally from. Not out of malicious intent, just to give myself some context on him. Why invest any effort to hide information that doesn't ultimately change anything? 2A01:C23:6159:3E00:84D4:C8AE:283A:9D86 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the first time I've heard of the guy, but reading through the discussion above, I support including his birth name (Aljoscha Wendholt) in the article per the reliable sources given by Jpatokal above. Any doubt that that is his birth name is basically cleared up by the YouTube video (from Cahill's official channel) showing his boarding pass with the name Wendholt/Aljoscha on it. Some1 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the one (2A01:599:409:8334:CDD6:CF37:BCB8:B92D) who added his name in the first place on Dec 17.
    Sorry for "sleeping" since then. I have just found out that a discussion has been brought up.
    I might be able to give you a good theory on how it it's possible, that his real name is Aljoscha Wendholt but some boarding passes are issued for "Josh Cahill".
    Under German law, it is allowed to add a "Religious name or pseudonym" to your passport. It will be displayed on the second page. Aljoscha/Josh most likely did that. He would by then be legally allowed to use both names.
    On Dec 17, I have received a forwarded message from a Aero Dili employee. To be precise, it was the head representative for Indonesias operations. Maybe some of you remember his video about the airline (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ4DpePtaXI). There were issues at checkin.
    This is a part from the forwarded message:
    Why is his check-in taking so long?
    1. He wants to use the name Josh Cahill while the system is reading (baca) the passport. His name is actually Aljoscha Wendholt, as written on the first page of his passport.
    2. Our staff sent the information to airport immigration to request approval for him to use the name on the second page, but immigration rejected it and we had to change his ticket to his real name. When I arrived at the airport and received the report from the station manager, I issued a manual boarding pass for him to enter while waiting for his name change in the system.
    Of course, you have to take that source with a grain of salt. Even for me, it is not verifiable. Thats why I have not included it in the first place on my edit. Instead, if have searched for other reliable sources and found news articles with pictures of him and the name "Aljoscha". That supported the theory, so I made the changes to the Wikipedia article.
    I hope this helps you a bit. I am not that often editing or discussing Wikipedia articles, so I just wanted to help out a little bit by adding Josh's real civil name. HejBjarne (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a forwarded message but a post on facebook which I saw as well. Which falls under Wikipedia:No original research. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:FD03:A31D:4128:1CC8 (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are absolutely not close to reliable sources. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 08:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure.That is not a reliable source, as I have explained. I am just wondering why you are guessing (without a source for that), that his name changed. More likely would be the pseudonym name. It's pretty hard to change names in Germany for fun. HejBjarne (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://web.archive.org/web/20210205111921/https://www.freiepresse.de/mildenauer-gewinnt-blogger-award-artikel10359877 - This is a error link and cited as reference for the name change - everything else here is based Wikipedia:No original research and doesn't explain or give a valid reason. Claiming that Josh Cahill is only a professional name and not a legal one is definitely an inaccurate statement.
    Also consensus was reached on not include nationality but it does get ignored too. Lots of biased opinions here with any factual sources. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:FD03:A31D:4128:1CC8 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note: If Josh Cahill doesn't want his birth name to be included in the article, I suggest that he creates a Wikipedia account, verifies that the account does indeed belong to him, and posts a request on this talk page asking that the article removes his birth name. I believe Wikipedia will honor his request, similar to how they did with CGP Grey's birth name. [1] Some1 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an ongoing issue by organised users (from Singapore mainly) which resulted in Identity theft and border arrests as stated by Josh Cahill in a recent statement on his channel. It shouldn't be included as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names but attacks are ongoing and solely created to harm the individual. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:FD03:A31D:4128:1CC8 (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    where's that statement on his channel? a sidebar: I clearly have to step out in outreaching to other Singapore based editors... Didn't know there are so many more around. – robertsky (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPNAME mainly applies to individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event, living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic or family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. Cahill doesn't fit in any of those categories. He is free to create a Wikipedia account and request that this article removes his birth name. Some1 (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation regarding efforts to frustrate process: Subject is going through lengths to get any source that's mentioned in this discussion deleted in an effort to sabotage and leave us without good sources.
It's like a game of whack-a-mole that's being played.
Every time a reliable source is presented that supports his legal name being "Aljoscha Wendholt", it either miraculously disappears or has been changed, often within hours of the source being presented here. In some cases this is done so blatantly, that there are instances in which a "random editor" will then show up immediately after, only to gaslight the person who provided the source by acting all surprised about the link being dead or the name having disappeared.
To add insult to injury, when the person who found the source then presents a personal archive they've made, they're being accused of photoshopping.
Some examples of this are:
Luckily there are still a few sources untouched:
That said, at this we will run out of suitable sources. As for what currently his legal name is: it's Wendolt.
In his latest video about Aero Dili he shows a screenshot that conveniently cuts out the beginning of a post. That beginning is the part that mentions his name as is being discussed elsewhere on this talk page.
The person working for the airline Wendolt is talking about was trying to explain in the screenshotted Facebook post why Wendolt experienced difficulties with his boarding pass (as he discussed in his "review" of the airline where he made it seem it was incompetence by the airline), namely because the name on his booking not matching his legal name.
This is why, if you pay attention to the screenshot that Wendolt shows in his video of the "airline punishing him by posting his passport", there's a green circle drawn on the second page of his passport.
The second page in German passports, is where religious names and pseudonyms, or rather the equivalent of a stage name are listed. The German wiki page is a little more in-depth on this (it's the 14th data point). The German wiki on these stage names (i.e. Künstlernamen) goes even further into this.
An example of what that looks like can be seen on the German wiki for religious names or if you look at the German government's webpage that shows an example passport with specifications.
For the record, these are not legal name changes. The legal name is listed on the biographical page as per the ICAO 9303 Document for machine-readable passports.
This also answers the often-asked question here about "Josh Cahill" being on his boarding passes. Some airlines might respect this piece of additional information in the German passport or they allow for printing of boarding passes without a passport inspection (not uncommon in the Schengen area). Wendolt's reaction when airlines don't play ball, as well as the frequency with which he has trouble with customs & immigration when entering countries as shown in his videos, seems to confirm this.
None of this makes for a great source of course and the ones that would, are actively destroyed.
Between these active efforts by the subject to prevent us from listing factual information backed by proper sources and the fact that the article was created by someone who got an indefinite block last September for being a paid editor (after long being suspected of this on numerous occasions) I wonder what the best course of action is here (and I just realize that I haven't even touched on the "Australian" thing).
We could do a CGP Grey-style thing as has been suggested elsewhere but then subject needs to explicitly request this and the article would still have to clarify that "Josh Cahill" is a stage name.
Personally I'm in favor of listing Wendolt's legal name if such a request isn't made, if not outright nominating the article for deletion. But I also think a sockpuppet investigation needs to be done and perhaps some intervention from admins for the purposeful sabotage. ConcurrentState (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice opinion piece but NOT based on any factual evidence and your personal theory, especially in regards to the stage name. As it states here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names
"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."
There are over 200+ articles on him and Wentholt is not widely published. In fact it's 3 articles from 10 years ago. He has every right to protect himself from doxxing and identify theft and seeing the efforts here (from the same individuals) and the discussion in flyer forums shows that this isn't about the name but to harm the individual. The majority of YouTubers have stage names including Sam Chui for example, you don't see the same discussion on his page, who's page btw was created by the same "paid" editor.
To keep it short, there no factual evidence on Josh Cahill being a stage name or not. It's all just guessing. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:61E7:A233:4915:8E6 (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just too funny. ConcurrentState posts a long, long list of reliable sources and how mysterious IPs always pop up to claim they're not "factual" because the URLs equally mysteriously stop resolving, and right afterwards, a mysterious IP who's geolocated in Sri Lanka but updates Bundesliga articles pops up to claim that the sources are not "factual" and should be ignored. If you're trying to prove their point, you're doing a great job! Jpatokal (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in playing your games.
Sam Chui adheres to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ZHNAME, down to including his name in Chinese and pinyin as per WP:UEIA so I don't care much about your WP:WAX. But you are, of course, welcome to bring up your arguments regarding that article on its talk page.
Other than that, I suggest you cease your attempts at WP:GAMING by purposefully causing link rot. For one, there are still plenty of available sources that you haven't destroyed, and two, it doesn't matter because most editors discussing this matter have seen the information already, so it won't lead to removing the name and it's a wasted effort.
Furthermore, I suggest you stop playing games and put on your big-boy pants. Create an account, disclose your WP:COI as per WP:DISCLOSE, and if you'd like your name to not be on the article, simply request it.
What you definitely should stop doing is making edits or comments on the talk page during your travels while logged out like you've been doing all over this talk page.
Not only is that sockpuppetry and more attempts at WP:GAMING by making it seem there's consensus by multiple people.
On the plus side, creating an account keeps your IP private and makes it easy for you to work together with the community within the boundaries of the policies.
Whereas now, without an account, everyone can easily check the WHOIS information and geolocation of the IP, which not only makes it extremely obvious that you're Josh but also makes it extremely easy to link the activity of each of the IPs you've used on this talk page to the travels you've published about.
Especially because some of your sockpuppetry was done at the hotel you were staying at.
The jig is up, so it's best just to do the right thing. ConcurrentState (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also interesting to follow this thread here: https://www.vielfliegertreff.de/forum/threads/josh-cahill-vs-qr.158264/page-14
Which proves that User:Jpatokal is indeed engaged in an organised effort to alter this debate. Also surprisingly doc7austin2 IP matches with a lot of edits on this page. He admits in this post that they are in contact to influence this debate. Shouldn't this be reported to an admin? 2402:D000:8100:A97A:61E7:A233:4915:8E6 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't speak German or frequent VFF, but I think you just spelled out what's happening: doc42austin2 also contributes to this Talk page. Not exactly a conspiracy.
Switching gears though, Josh, it's a documented fact that your birth and legal name is Aljoscha. Why does this bother you so much? What's the reason it "hurts" you to have this documented here? We're not the ones causing your checking/immigration troubles, that's happening because you yourself are trying to use a different name on your own boarding passes. Jpatokal (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I'm not Josh and I don't speak on behalf of him... maybe you should reach out to him for a statement... but if you translate the forum posts doc2austin clearly states that his mission is to harm him and that you two are in touch to support this mission. He also says he doesn't contribute to this page but now you have debunked this myth - thanks for that. It is very obvious what your intensions are and that this is indeed an organised campaign. 2402:D000:8100:A97A:2C6D:5CA1:DFDB:F1EF (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASPERSIONS, but I'll humor you: what are my "very obvious" intentions? Please spell them out. Jpatokal (talk) 09:06, 21 February 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 [2]. I'll note that this comment by the 2402 IP [3] and the 2402 IP's geo-location are quite interesting. [4] 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]

article notability[edit]

I typically tend to lean extremely inclusionist but this article was made by a paid editor and is plagued by sockpuppetry. What is he even notable for? The "incidents" are just him complaining about airlines and seem routine coverage at best and yellow journalism at worst. The sources aren't even about him, they're about the airlines first and their conflict with him AFAICT, save for videos posted himself or unreliable sources. The COI and the sources being about the airlines rather than him makes me wonder if it would be appropriate to prod this, or at minimum WP:TNT. You know they aren't about him as well, because most of them refer to him as a "travel vlogger" rather than by name, like articles about notable youtubers do.DarmaniLink (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you bring up some good points in favor of PROD/AfD/TNT. Kind of ironic that back when speedy deletion was discussed here and here it wasn't known that VirenRaval89 was a paid editor.
Going over all the unresolved disputes related to this article, and the state of the article in general, I'm thinking of "upgrading" from WP:BLPN to a WP:RFC and try to roll all the outstanding issues into that RfC and place a pointer to the RfC on the BLPN discussion. It seems that the other two RfCs on this talk page never actually made it to any RfC list. Hopefully, that will generate consensus on at least one point.
Would you mind it if I'd roll your point into that RfC as well? ConcurrentState (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, go on ahead. :) DarmaniLink (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two RfCs were included in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All list (which was how I found out about this article); the RfC tags expired a month ago [5][6]. Some1 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were? Oh, my bad. When I searched the archive nothing showed up. ConcurrentState (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs/socks might remove the WP:PROD tag, making the process futile. Before starting any new RfCs, etc., let's WP:TNT the article first by re-writing it from scratch. If the bio barely includes any content after a massive overhaul, then the article should probably be taken to WP:AfD. Some1 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wanna make a draft for it, or just blow it up and FFA it DarmaniLink (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I'd go even a further and say that unless the sock/meat puppetry has been dealt with, it'll keep becoming an issue.
Never done TNT, do you just write an article from scratch to the best of your ability, then replace the current revision with the new draft and hope it doesn't end up in a revert war?
ConcurrentState (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pretty much, yeah
Or you AfD it and create a new article on top so the old version is in the archives and has to be retrieved, lowering the chance a sock tries to call the old version "last stable". Even if we recreate it, it's probably going to run into the same issues as before for a person with questionable notability. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't hurt to wait until the SPI concludes before taking it to AfD, so that other editors can view and investigate the article's history if needed. In the meantime, we could do basic cleanup such as removing unverifable content/content sourced to unreliable sources, etc. Once the SPI concludes, maybe then the article could be taken to AfD, so Josh Cahill's notability could be judged. Some1 (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you and @Some1 have done a great job at getting rid of the cruft.
FYI: the SPI seems to have been concluded with a rather surprising outcome, at least to me. On a related note, the article is under extended protection, so I won't be able to make (direct) contributions for the foreseeable future.
I can't say I'm sad about it; I was looking forward to putting my focus elsewhere.
Still, it seems more and more that this would be a good AfD candidate, if I'm honest, even though I tend to lean towards inclusionism as well. ConcurrentState (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to see if there will be a behavioral investigation. Once that's over, this goes to the chopping block. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask for every kind of investigation but my friend you will not find anything against me as I'm not connected to any of the editors you're suspecting in this case. So, you're only wasting your time. SPI result indicated the same. You can also ask for other single investigation to clear your doubts. But, if the editors who made only a few thousands edits and got a few rights and treat yourself as expert then Wikipedia will not a be a trusted source of information anymore. Wikipedia is an open source platform for everyone but some editors using it as their own property to vandalise other persons/companies to defame them. And if any new editor ask them questions they harrass them and threat them with investigations and blocks. But, my friend it will not last long. Good luck to you and your partner editors. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a long-time viewer of Josh. I would also like to add to the above anonymous comment that I saw he posted an Instagram story a few days ago asking his followers to "help" by making edits to his Wikipedia page. Considering he's watching the article and there's a pattern of behaviour from suspected paid editors, it's easy to conclude that there's a systematic attempt here to create this article in the subject's favour.
Side note, I suppose deleting the article will have the side effect of helping Josh keep his legal name private. 111.220.197.160 (talk) 07:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE archive the post in question on archive.is right now DarmaniLink (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't think you can create a web archive of an Instagram story, and it came and went a few days ago. He might've deleted it early as I checked back and it was gone. 111.220.197.160 (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good to know regardless. Hopefully there's something that can be done, and thanks. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not also add his "incidents" with Qatar Airways and Vistara? There are big news companies covering his incidents with these airways.

Sorry that I have to stay anonymous, the person concerned loves to send his army to attack people/institutions he does not like. For example, once someone wrote an angry comment to his Air Peace review on Instagram, and then he called on his followers to bully the person and make a meme with the guy's picture. In the recent Aero Dili incident, he also mobilised his army to spam the Singaporean Minister of Transport to block Aero Dili from flying there. Not to mention his tactic on this talk page is to make sources offline and then attack you based on that. I salute all the brave Wikipedians here for taking care of his advertising and branding effort on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.229.26.175 (talk • contribs)

Inappropriate closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill[edit]

I've noted my concerns on the closing statement at User talk:Comintell#Inappropriate closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill and requested to revert their closure so that an appropriate closure can be done [preferably by an admin] — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've WP:BOLDly reverted the closure as I think these are valid reasons. I'll note that 1) I'm not an admin, 2) I have not participated in the AfD and have no horse in this race. To maintain neutrality I will continue to abstain from the AfD. — Czello (music) 09:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josh_Cahill&oldid=1221531199"