This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qatar Airways article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Airlines This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the airline project. Qatar Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Qatar-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.QatarWikipedia:WikiProject QatarTemplate:WikiProject QatarQatar Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

Article says owner is Government of Qatar.

however, in order to be more accurate this should say Qatar Investment Authority (100%).

In the past Qatar Airways used to be owner by the Ministry of Finance in Qatar. However the current owner is Qatar Investment Authority. Opp122 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should add the relevant news that Qatar Airways placed a large order with Boeing for 777 and 787 in May 2025 when Trump visited Doha. Opp122 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. @Jetstreamer I saw that you removed my contribution, commenting "Not a matter for the lead". I wanted to understand more regarding what is the standard for this determination. I assume you have far more experience than me on the norms for articles on airlines. I saw that the page has a template which says that the article reads as promotional content, and thought that this could help it be more neutral (as well as personally just thinking that these are important enough allegations for a second paragraph in the opening).

I would appreciate your patience and some detailed explanations, as I am relatively new to editing, and have mostly been interested in WikiProject Qatar thus far, and am not very familiar with the aviation world on this site.

Thank you and good tidings غوّاص العلم (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. That piece of information certainly does not belong in the lead, which is intended to provide a summary of the whole article. You are invited to re-add it anywhere in the article, but please note that the paragraph describes a particular situation or event. All the best.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. The information I added to the lead does already exist within the article, I just summarized the controversies section. It seems to me that the existing paragraph summarizes most other sections of the article, but this section is not summarized there. Do you think that the controversies section in general just should not be summarized in the lead? Or perhaps it should be summarized more succinctly than I did?

Thanks, غوّاص العلم (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, they should not even be mentioned in the lead. These are secondary details treated in the corresponding sections.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Quoting from its lead (underline added by me for emphasis):

"[...] The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. It gives the basics in a nutshell, introduces the article, and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. [...]"

Anther quote from the page:

"All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more."

The page does note not to "violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section", but I don't think that that means not including any controversies, and I do not think that the ones around which this discussion is being had are insignificant.

Would appreciate your thoughts given all this.

Thanks, غوّاص العلم (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I already made my position clear on this. You should request for comments from other editors. All I can say is that the information you are trying to include in the lead is secondary when compared with other stuff that is more relevant to an airline, e.g. the subsidiaries, and they are not included in the lead either.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I thought bringing in the MoS might lead to a more detailed and/or different position from you. Since you are the one who deleted the contribution, how do you suggest I request for comments from other editors? I'm pretty new to editing here, and unfamiliar with how this process works.

Thank you, غوّاص العلم (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFC.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look. غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:RFC, it seems to me like Wikipedia:Third opinion is more relevant. I think I will post the matter over there. غوّاص العلم (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you somehow edit this message after I replied to it? I recall it being different. غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@غوّاص العلم In my findings reading this article, summarizing the points to the lead section regarding the controversies was reasonable. The lead is quite brief for this article, given its overall size. The issue here is not that the controversies might be in the lead but that other sections should also be summarized more in the lead. However, I do not believe that it is necessarily your responsibility to fix what lacks in the article because of your additions.

The lead section is already written in promotional language that needs to be fixed. I would still state that controversies should be summarized without mentioning competitors (i.e. "with allegations of significantly lower pay than competitors"). I think your version needed paring down just to mentioning the accusations of bribery and poor working conditions. Ideally, it would read:

"The airline has faced controversies over employee pay and working conditions, as well as accusations of bribery to European politicians."

This is much shorter and fits in comparison to the rest of the lead. Other information not involving controversies believed to be relevant can be added to the lead section by other editors, or by you, if you choose to do so. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

cc: @Jetstreamer aaronneallucas (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving this your attention. This seems reasonable to me. غوّاص العلم (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding adding summaries of other sections to the article, I feel like since so much of the article is very technical and almost list-like, I wouldn't really know what more to add, not to mention I'm not much of an aviation-head, and (obviously) am coming to this article more from the perspective of WikiProject Qatar.

Also, regarding the matter of promotional language in the lead: I get what you're saying just in terms of the style of writing sounding like something you'd hear in an ad or playing on the plane entertainment system, but I'm kind of stumped as to how the info related to the lead could be preserved (and even added to as you noted should happen) without coming off that way. @Jetstreamer I guess you might be much better equipped to go for it, with your experience on the aviation side of wiki.

Thanks, غوّاص العلم (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@غوّاص العلم You don't need to worry about it so much, I think. Other editors will take care of it. aaronneallucas (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright haha. Thank you! غوّاص العلم (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@غوّاص العلم One other thing I would suggest is to pair back on the citations you used in the lead. Using to many citations can appear to clutter an article, especially in the lead section. See WP:OVERKILL. Consider going back and taking out some of the more extraneous citations in the lead and leave the ones that you think best prove the claims. Let me know if you have any more questions by pinging me. aaronneallucas (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the citations are not needed in the lead if the material is cited elsewhere in the article per WP:LEADCITE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aplucas0703 I understand, this makes sense. I pared back on the citations in the lead, lmk if you think it's now at an acceptable level in your opinion.

@Jetstreamer I understand what you're saying. However, given that the other facts in the lead are backed up by citations, I wouldn't want to create an impression of unreliability to the claims of controversy via them being the only ones which are uncited. If anything, WP:LEADCITE seems to suggest that more controversial and challenged parts of the lead are the ones most in need of citations. lmk if this rationale seems reasonable to you.

Thank you both and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]