Talk:Jeff Smisek

Coverage of 2014

I have reverted Lauraface32's edits to our coverage of the 2014 events for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there was no need whatsoever to remove the dates. Secondly, that HuffPo piece is an opinion piece by someone with no personal or professional experience in either the airline industry, in economics in general, or in journalism. He's a musician blogger. If anything, that piece should be de-emphasized further in favor of more reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to chronicle every time someone said something bad about Smisek. Thirdly, I looked for a source explaining why, exactly, the performance-based pay was reduced, and personally I think it's likely that the $600m of quarterly losses were at least partly responsible, but I couldn't find a source saying so. Stating that that was the reason without a reference to back it up is not acceptable. Finally, The source for "regaining the analysts' trust" was not just one analyst's or commentator's personal opinion, but a report on the general sentiment towards Smisek and United. In fact, that piece is entitled, "United's Smisek back in analysts' good graces". It's entirely appropriate to summarize that source in Wikipedia's voice; unlike the HuffPo piece it's not just a blog post, but a news report. Huon (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with these changes. The HuffPost source may not actually be a blog (I think that's just a link to the blog section at the top), but it's not a news report. This is evidenced by the author's profile here, where his "posts" are listed. It's clear he's not a reporter, business analyst, or the like. I also agree that the Crain source suggests multiple analysts have regained trust in Smisek. It's clear it's not the opinion of "one commentator". I just feel like we shouldn't go out of our way to disparage the subject. Why do we need to say that some musician claimed the might be (not that he is) the worst CEO in the airline industry? Let's stick to the better sources and try to maintain neutrality. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you all for your contributions and hard work. The Huffpo piece was carried and picked up by several news sources. It is a serious critique and was treated as such by many legitimate outlets. I am fine with re-inserting the dates. But IMHO it is inappropriate to write it up so as to imply that regaining the trust of Wall Street analysts is in any way a resolution of the concerns over employee and customer service dissatisfaction discussed in the other sources. These are unrelated, and thus belong in separate paragraphs. I do not mean to disparage anyone either. That is certainly not my intention, and I do not believe the piece is written that way. We cannot assume that an article written by one person truly reflects the "general sentiment" of all analysts. Rather, we should treat it as the other article -- one commentator's analysis. Lauraface32 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Crain article is not an opinion piece by someone lacking all professional qualifications. It's a news report published in a reliable publication. See WP:RS/AC for comparison: We're not just summarizing a couple of analysts who say they trust Smisek, we cite a source that explicitly discusses the prevailing stance among analysts' opinions of Smisek. Fagin's HuffPo piece, in contrast, is a blog post (see here for an example of non-blog business coverage at HuffPo; the "blog" header on the Fagin piece is not merely a link elsewhere but a heading), not a reliable source at all. Some unqualified blogger should not dominate our coverage of criticism of Smisek. If many legitimate outlets treated it as a serious critique, maybe we can use some of those? For now I have reverted Lauraface32' changes per WP:WEIGHT, which would in fact justify de-emphasizing Fagin even further. Huon (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

And since it apparently was ignored the first time around, I'll also repeat that the "which resulted in a reduction of the performance-based part of Smisek's pay" claim is not supported by any sources I'm aware of. We should not make such claims on our own. Huon (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon. I am happy to dialogue about these things here. But please seek consensus before deleting the work of others. That is Wikipedia policy. Joe Cahill does not name a single wall street analyst in his piece who says he or she supports Smisek. I am not doubting Cahill's claim per se. We just don't have any evidence for it. The only analyst he quotes is referring to Anderson, not Smisek. Again, many other people disagree with you as concerns the credibility of the HuffPo article. Its was cited and linked by many, many, MANY other sources. Just because he is a music blogger doesn't mean he is not also someone qualified to speak about corporate governance. If others didn't respect the piece, it wouldn't have been cited and linked so repeatedly. I cited some of the places it has been cited and linked to in my original write-up, but another editor consolidated it into a single citation (probably for the best -- it makes for cleaner copy). As far as I'm concerned, you should feel free to tweak the "resulted in" part of the paragraph. But until there is consensus, you should not feel free to delete the entire paragraph. Let's keep this civil and friendly and follow Wikipedia policy here. I appreciate your contributions. Lauraface32 (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

consensus on Wikipedia isn't just editors agreeing with each other, but it's an agreement based on arguments founded on policy. Policy such as WP:BLP, which states that unreliably sourced content about living persons should be removed on sight. If those many, many, MANY other sources cited Fagin, please provide some of them; if those are more reliable, maybe we can use those instead of Fagin. I just checked the page history and didn't see any sources citing Fagin, but I may have missed them. Also, given that User:MusikAnimal explicitly endorsed my changes and agreed that the Fagin piece is not a good source, I'd say if any version of that section enjoys consensus, it's the one I wrote. (Also note the inaccuracy MusikAnimal pointed out which you have reinstated multiple times by now.) Huon (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Again, Huon. The Wikipedia article as currently written does not make any of its own claims. It does not disparage Smisek. MusikAnimal agrees that the HuffPo piece is not a blog -- as you have falsely claimed. It was MusikAnimal who removed the supposedly repetitive references that also said United was dead last, and narrowed it down to just the HuffPo piece. But you can find some of them here and here. Unless you want to complain about the legitimacy of Fortune.com or 247wallst.com, I suggest you drop this and move on. As per your request, I re-inserted the deleted sources to the main article. You can find the other sources that were linked quite easily if you try a bit harder. And these sources are not confined to "early" 2014, so I changed that part too. The Wikipedia article as currently constructed is balanced. If you have a specific concern about some of the material, feel free to raise it. But the HuffPo article is 100% legitimate. In order to remove it, you need to first obtain consensus. And you have not done that yet. Lauraface32 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. I have been following this for a while now. If this were the radio world, I would say that I am "long time listener, first time caller." I should say that I used to work as a corporate officer of a US airline. But I am retired now, and have never met Mr. Smisek. I don't think that should matter, but I thought I would disclose it anyway just to be safe.

Here are my two cents: I like how the page currently covers both the criticism and the rebuttal. I think it is probably best to keep these things in separate paragraphs.

I think the Huffington Post piece is well done. As a former corporate officer in the airline industry, I can tell you that just because someone knows a lot about music does not not mean that she can't hit a home run when it comes to criticizing a CEO. I do find it a little strange that we of all people would question his qualifications. Are any of us professionally trained to be encyclopedia authors and editors?

That being said, it is certainly an opinion piece. It is merely one person's well-reasoned analysis. But all financial reporting of corporate performance essentially boils down to mere opinion. For whatever it is worth, I like the way the current author represents it as coming from "one commentator." From my perspective, that is the best way to go. Topdog76 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

These new sources Lauraface32 added (of which I was well aware before they were brought up again) do not mention any of Fagin, HuffPo, or Smisek. They're neither among the "many" reliable sources citing Fagin, nor are they of any relevance to this article's topic. To take a source that does not mention Smisek and use it to insinuate something about him is original synthesis and has no place on Wikipedia. Regarding the HuffPo piece and the Crain's piece, I have started a discussion here. Huon (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

They do not insinuate anything about him. They merely rank the company that he happens to be the CEO of. This is by no means original synthesis. Every single sentence and clause in that entire paragraph is supported by an external source. Nothing is synthesized. If anything, you synthesized in your paragraph of Crains' piece. But I don't have any problem with it. We shouldn't delete either. Together, they both reveal different take's on his leadership. It isn't for us to decide which one is right and which one is wrong. Lauraface32 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So if those sources don't insinuate anything about Smisek and don't mention him, how are they relevant to an article about Smisek? Huon (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

They mention the performance of the major company he runs. Lauraface32 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And that's relevant to Smisek because...? They don't say the problems they report on are Smisek's fault, do they? I assume you want to say that the performance of the company Smisek runs reflects on Smisek, but that is precisely the original synthesis. It was even more obvious in the "Under Smisek's leadership..." version you wrote before. You are the one making the connection between Smisek and the low customer satisfaction at United, not those sources. Huon (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Huon. Your assumption is wrong. Dead wrong. I am just trying to show what others are saying. If I was trying to create my own [negative] narrative, I would have challenged Crains' write-up. These rankings did take place under his leadership. He was CEO when this happened. That is a chronological fact. But I do not mean to imply that he is directly responsible. That is all in your mind. Lauraface32 (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat: This is relevant to Smisek because...? What do those sources say about him? Huon (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

They are further proof that United was judged to have poor customer service. This happened under his leadership. This is a chronological fact. I am not implying any causality here. Though the CNBC piece does make that link.Lauraface32 (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to trust the process, Huon. At this point, you are alone in claiming LauraFarce engaged in original synthesis. You need to build consensus before making changes like these. She has worked with you. She has implemented your suggestions when there was agreement. But you do not own this Wikipedia entry any more than she or I do. If there is disagreement, work with her to build consensus. Just my two cents.Topdog76 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I also think that Huon is making the synthesis, not LauraFarce. By insisting that the criticism came in "early 2014," despite the fact that LauraFarce has provided many links showing it also occurred in 2013 and at various points in 2014, Huon is trying to synthesize a narrative. He is trying to assert that everything was all settled by the end of 2014, based on one article he found. This is original synthesis, as far as I can tell. Topdog76 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry!?!?! Really, Huon?!?!?!?! You have not challenged a single aspect of Fagin's argument. Instead, you have only attacked him as a person. And since two people disagree with you, you accuse them of being the same person? I have bent over backwards, making several of the very good changes that you suggested. I have also thanked you for inserting the Crains paragraph. But we have a fundamental disagreement over the relevancy of articles and the definition of synthesis. I have been, and will continue to be, happy to work with you on these things. But you must prove your position first. You must build consensus. Falsely alleging sockpuppetry is not a good way to do it. Grow up. Lauraface32 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The Huffington Post piece is fine. I really can't see the problem with it. It occupies such a small part of this article that I find it hard to see how anyone could want it "deemphasized." The Fortune and 247Wallstreet articles are not synthesis.Adamduker (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Nader's letter

Ralph Nader's letter provides no information whatsoever on Smisek. We also do not have third-party sources indicating this is a notable criticism of Smisek's management style. Rather, this could at best be considered an opinion piece by an activist. That's not an appropriate source for the biography of a living person. See also WP:BLPPRIMARY. Huon (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ralph Nader's letter certainly applies more information on Smisek, after all, it was written to him. While you may consider it opinionated, so are most of the other citations. Why shouldn't it be mentioned? It's certainly newsworthy, and it's been cited by the Huffington Post and more.§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pc72orf (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Then what does the letter say about Smisek? It's not a news article, and calling it "opinionated" is putting it mildly: It's a piece of advocacy for Nader's agenda. Nader's letter hasn't been subject to any editorial oversight; it's not a reliable source for biographical content. If by "cited by the Huffington Post" you mean this page, look more closely: Nader is allso a HuffPo contributor and uses all channels available to him to spread his advocacy. The only third-party source I found that covered this letter was a travel blog, not quite a reliable source. Huon (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)