This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as SkyWay Group, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Владимир Малафей (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SkyWay business management and marketing practices
The SkyWay group article needs another section after the introduction which discusses in a little more detail the actual techniques used by the SkyWay companies to fund their projects. There are already lots of descriptions of them in the references we have now, particularly the Lithuanian and Italian article which is mentioned above and the complete translation of which can found at the user:Zaxander talk page..
[1] negotiation and planning - where MoU are signed; no technology has been actually built anwhere
[2] Crowdfunding - sales made usually through selling shares via the internet.
[3] Other forms of marketing - stocks are sold by getting a groups of enthusiastic everyday people to buy empty assets which they are promised to get lofty returns sometime in the future. In fact in a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme they can only get money if they find other investors, which seems to be clearly the way SkyWay companies works. It is certainly the business model they adopt.
[4]
Many of these questions can be answered with the verifiable references we already have. But we are left with a couple of unresolved questions which could be described in a conclusion. For example: Where does the money actually go? They haven't built anything yet. Do they actually ever intend to build anything? All or most of the money is used to pay management and then pay the investors (if they manage to find other investors). Sometimes they say the intention is to use the money on the EcoTechPark in Belarus but we need verifiable references to prove this. From the Indian and Lithuanian example, corruption has taken place where government officials are paid to start negotiations (which perhaps are never intended to take place). If they make it appear like they are making arrangements, clients would more easily part with their money. It seems from the Lithuanian example that they paid out bribes to get the governments of different to start negotiating with them. I don't actually think it matters – as long as it appears they are doing something.
Of course at the moment these are all suppositions based on what it appears from the information we already have. Now we just need to collect what we have together and find new references which can help us describe this aspect of the SkyWay group.
Include any ideas or links below to verifiable references
IntroductionNegotiation and financial managementCrowdfundingMarketing techniquesConclusion
Include any references you can find or ideas about changing these titles or including different ones.
These comments were made when we didn't know much about the EcoTechnoPark (because there are very few published verifiable sources) but we were trying to collect information on the marketing techniques adopted by this group of companies. Although these comments are outdated by recent discussions, most of the things being claimed are still true. The only moving models are still the prototypes in Belarusian fields. The 'ikbesteedhetbeter' reference is a self-published, self-referencing, self-aggrandizing SkyWay site. The instances of the company exhibiting itself at trade fairs are of static, immobile models of the vehicles and nothing has been built to this day at the Sharjah site in the United Arab Emirates. Claims about SkyWay offering empty assets are unfortunately true for the people who went to the trouble of investing money in SkyWay. In no country have they legally applied for the required prospectus to sell shares. I fear that SkyWay shares are actually worth less than the paper they are printed on: nothing. Who knows: maybe if you believe hard enough in unicorns they will start spontaneously existing? I may doubt it, but I can hardly stop your from believing in them.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be clear: the talk page is designed to check claims for credibility, verifiability notability and neutral point of view. Things can be checked here before they become part of the article. None of the included links, however, are verifiable and all of the claims do not actually question anything that has not been verifiably claimed in the article.
Please why are you insisting on “empty assets” and some other “true” statements without any link to reliable proven fact giving? Wikipedia is not of a place of “fears”, “warning” , “doubts” and “believes”. WP:COPO include WP:NPOV and WP:V, The only moving models are still the prototypes in Belarusian fields only because the stretch of string rail has been still built in Maryiva Gorka for the moment. How do you imagine the models to be shown in move anywhere else? As for share selling – the company officially declares to use convertible loan without selling smth. And finally: there are many other coverages pointing to active project development in UAE 1234 and others.. George Marshal (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent reaction is just confirming non-substantiation of your a priori negative statements as well as of the article in question and is important reason for its deletion. The approach demonstrates initially disreputable intention of the article author together with a couple of ready-to-attack “commentators” who began just from finding few doubter (in the absence of evidentiary) sources and from inflating the suspicions till a kind of “voice of truth” without having looked into things. This suggests a work of a group of committed people completing their adverse publicity mission. If I was involved with SkyWay project I’d sue these “truth-seekers” for company image endamagement.
Having no more arguments you’re trying to ground your critics just on blaming the company for self publicity and on your own assumptionPVO777 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
No sorry; this talk page and the article itself contains multiple secondary sources of actual instances of the fraudulent practices of this company. These are not opinions. They are documented facts. Warnings have been released about these practices by the regulatory agencies of a large number of countries. Yunitskiy was kicked out of Lithuania and he was unsuccessful at suing the Lithuanian government for lost money. His company has been unsuccessful in suing other people such as the Onliner.by journalists. The company is documented employing people with a history in internet marketing to post false claims about project in India and Mogiliev (Belarus). Please stop posting information to this talk page that you cannot support with verifiable references. I checked all of the ones you did include, and they were either self-published, involved promotional events or made outright false claims about the company. It's important to backup claims you make with verifiable sources. You haven't provided us with any.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse warnings with proven facts. I saw none of the last. All the “criticism” is built on few warnings and multiple repeated “scam”, “ponzi” and “fraud” troll like claims. Btw several independent articles in favor of project have been cited above. PVO777 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An extended amount of documented articles exist discussing legal action brought by or against the SkyWay Group [1], dishonest pyramid marketing techniques in the Belarusian central location [2] and questionable funding tactics adopted in international operations [3]. These are just a few of the documented articles containing evidence actually used in the article. These exist in addition to the warnings from financial regulatory agencies which are far too numerous to list. The 'ikbesteedhetbeter' link is to a self-published SkyWay promotional site in Dutch [4]. The second [5] and third [6] sites are press releases documenting the InnoTrans exhibition to which the SkyWay group presented static models of their technology. Press releases don't document anything about the technology and the event itself was a static marketing exercise. These links are neither independent nor do they contain any useful verifiable information that is not self-promotional.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But even the most negative ones confirm the existing of transport models and cannot cite any proof of the technology inefficiency. Only doubts related to investment procedure bureaucracy and fears of partnership program. That cannot be a ground for WP article blaming the project to be fraud. There is none fraud evidence. George Marshal (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SPA George Marshal who didn't exist until today and has made only two directed attacks at this webpage has not supported any of his flowery accusations with verifiable references to support them. Please stop posting at inappropriate old discussions that are no longer extent unverified information which doesn't mean anything. Please participate in current discussions that actually mean something and become a registered user so asministrators can check if you of PVO777 is a sock puppet.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zaxander , composer, artist and writer, whose education, occupation, interests and competences were far cry from transport technologies and technologies at all as well from economics, finance, investments, whose account since the last year suddenly began to be very actively used to troll SkyWay project 1 , judging by number and frequency of SkyWay related “contributions” seeming to have become your new full time job started from User_talk:Zaxander#The_Italian_SkyWay_scandal_article_-_a_comprehensive_translation Scandal article translation, please stop to Hoax and let other people to add their contributions based on obvious facts. --George Marshal (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually started contributing by requesting that scientific experts question the content which at the time only referenced the SkyWay promotion sites with unsupported self-referencing pseudo-science; all of my concerns are included in the discussion below. People have been making claims and accusations since then that they cannot support. These need to be checked to ensure that pseudo-science isn't returned to the article presented as fact. Anyone is obviously welcome to improve the article by providing facts that can be checked with verifiable references; but baseless accusations don't really help anyone. Actual references and ideas for improvement do. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attention has to be paid to the fact that SkyWay have a staff of at least four dedicated network marketers working for their company at the central Belarusian offices in Minsk who have a history of posting misleading claims. You can read about them here: [7]. The interests of legitimate contributors to this page serve the purpose of representing verified published sources on given subjects. I have no reason to believe that anyone who is willing to identify themselves and who posts here is doing otherwise. But people who make groundless attacks without actually providing valid counter-claims or in fact any references that are not to self-published sources are bound to look suspicious. Anyone would be willing to consider legitimate research on the SkyWay company or the technology. I can only repeat requests for valid information. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You’re even contradicting to yourself by mentioning that baseless accusations don't really help anyone and I agree absolutely with you at this point. But unfornutately the recent edition of the article as well as all your contributions are powdered by such baseless accusations being far from a kind of so called self promoting attenuation being obvious WP:G10 Btw your “7” link remaining not opening brings to a wordpress blog that is in direct contradiction with WP:NOR--George Marshal (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So which accusations are made in the article that are baseless? You still haven't provided any actual links to backup your claims. Just copying Wikipedia accusations and imagining that by showing you know what they are will actually make them mean something without actually providing any arguments or links so we can check them is to put it lightly unhelpful. Maybe you should read the whole talk page and contribute to a more recent discussion by checking and reading all the existing references.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The link is also to a German translation of a verified published article in a popular and well-known Belarusian newsfeed article 'Oliner.by' dated 11 September 2017 entitled "I leech from pyramid schemes". A summary is included of its contents below in the sub-heading on the ONLINER.BY articles: claims and controversies and links are included to both the article and the translation, You can see the original article here:[8]. The Belarusian scientific commentary has been verified by multiple sources and the article has been translated into German and English. You can inform yourself about them by actually reading the contents of this talk page. Please stop making uninformed claims without checking the references you are commenting on. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any accusations made in such articles are baseless because first of all accusations are the responsibility of investigative authorities and courts and can be made on the grounds of proven facts only. They can in no way be made by a priori negatively lighted puff pieces in online yellow publications whose editors release them contrary to principles of journalism. Presumption of innocence in view I find inappropriate to require any excusable articles citing to “satisfy” this hoax. --George Marshal (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality
This article was probably created by the inventor of technology or somebody related to it. There are almost no criticism, a lot of self sources. Technology is only in the development state for now. The way of fund raising for developing this system uses controversial MLM (pyramid selling) marketing strategy and has some attributes of frauding (unrealistic promises, high company capitalization etc.) Russian article was deleted and I believe that at least the neutrality and criticism sections have to be added to this article. Dron007 (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"There are almost no criticism, a lot of self sources"
But this is not a reason to turn it to pure blatant Hoax and WP:G10 that is strong argument for WP:SD
Posted yesterday, unverified user George Marshal is argumenting against a concern made about the page in October 2016 (with no actual references to backup these claims). This user is completely uninformed about recent discussions and appears to be posting from the top of the page without checking the dates or the content being questioned. Please stop posting unverified and inappropriate claims which are irrelevant to far more recent discussions. The actual 'SkyWay Group' article also includes no single accusations of SkyWay being a 'Ponzi sceheme' or a 'fraud'. This is a talk page where accusations like this are checked for verifiability anyway. Please don't copy WP:policy if you can't tell the difference between the talk page and the actual article and you can't read essential information like dates of posting. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User George Marshal is argumenting just against the current WP:SYNTH and hoax version of the contribution as well as against its WP:ADVOCACY by proponents of SkyWay project defamation, authoritatively operating by “accusations”, “do’s” and “don’t’s”--George Marshal (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there is almost no links to SkyWay sites and self-published materials. Is it time to remove Self-published template message? Dron007 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However the last version is criticism only, linking just to warnings without any neutral descriptive analysis. Investment raising is really using MLM component but as an optional additional income way for impatient investors. Rapid development of the technology shows this fundraising trick be effective.
Herewith the company actively grapples with any promises like huge income, “becoming billionaire” claims etc. that are side-effect of over zealous referral program participants.
If it's true that MLM is used as an 'optional addition', it still doesn't explain, elucidate or excuse why they use this practice at all. Impatient investors? And you don't provide us with any actual documentation supporting this claim anyway. Please backup such claims with verifiable references and sign your conbributions to this talk page. Otherwise it is difficult to justify including them. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC]
For clarity: the user PVO77 is claiming that MLM practices being used to fund SkyWay projects is caused by "overzealous referral program participants" as an "optional addition for impatient investors".
Very sorry, but it looks like trolling deterioration rather than clarifying. User PVO77 meant that “(unrealistic promises, high company capitalization etc.)” groundlessly estimated as “some attributes of frauding “ were just overzealous referral program participants tricks that are strictly suppressed by company : https://skywayinvestgroup.com/en/news/imidzh-investorov-imidzh-skyway (sorry, such rules could be founded in self-published source only) PVO777 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PVO777 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that claims from unverifiable self-promoting sources cannot be considered. It has been documented in the past that Yunitskiy has attempted to distance himself from these practices. Yet documented references attest to a dedicated staff of network marketers employed at the company located in Belarus who post misleading information. See this verified link for detailed information about this aspect of company marketing: [9]. Self-published claims to the contrary by a self-promoting site are meaningless. Dishonest marketing practices are adopted by a dedicated staff of network marketers employed to disseminate misinformation. They are more than "overzealous referral program participants" but are staff members of the company. Verified counter-claims, however, would be welcome. But please stop posting this information if you can't verify it with reliable sources. It would help as well if you these contributions were signed. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2019 (U
""See this verified link for detailed information about this aspect of company marketing: [10]. ""
Any user is welcome to post new valid published references which question the content of the article; such contributions are helpful and welcome. Questioning valid references, however, without stating what it is you disagree with in the article and how you can support your objections with new verifiable references, is unhelpful.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SkyWay & Investment
Please note the name of this heading was changed to better reflect it's content. It was called 'deletion' but no actual deletion request was made and the discussion turned to matters involved with SkyWay and investment opportunities (and questions about the verifiability of claims SkyWay makes about the value of these shares). -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how to delete this article following all the rules of Wikipedia, but String Transport aka SkyWay is a scam. That's why this article published only in english version of Wikipedia - it has very dubious reputation in Russia, Belarus and many other countries (in some countries SkyWay is illegal). All references are made to self-published sources, there is no critics at all. This company is using Ponzi scheme to 'crowdfund' or 'crowdinvest' the 'future transportaion system'. There is no MVP, there is no business plan, but SkyWay evaluates its intellectual property at 500 billion (!) dollars. Etc.
46.53.178.222 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again accusation without any justifications or links to reliable sources that the group of hyperactive opponents of SkyWay so insistently requires its supporters. Obviously there was about some older version of the article before its turning to the current project demonization. Following WP:G10 the article as currently drafted should be submitted for speedy deletion. PVO777 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The unidentified user PVO77 is posting inconsequential flowery accusations without any verifiable references as a reaction to discussions which are no longer extant. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Global Transport Investment & First SkyWay Invest Group self-published disclaimers
With all due respect sir the main website rws-systems.com does in fact contain a disclosure stating:
Redactions were done by User:Zaxander
Please summarise these lengthy quotations of policy from the SkyWay promotional site and provide a link to the SkyWay website between square brackets but make clear that this is SkyWay policy you are summarizing; also explain better why so much material was used to argument a request for deletion. Better still, move it to a new heading below that better addresses these issues. There is no doubt a good reason to discuss what SkyWay disclaims any liability for risky investments. But it has to be properly addressed to a discussion that could influence the contents of the article. Help make this content useful.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These materials have been prepared by Global Transport Investments Inc. (the “Company”). These materials are strictly confidential to the recipient, may not be distributed to the press or any other person, and may not be reproduced in any form, in whole or in part.
The Company has included its own estimates, assessments, adjustments and judgments in preparing certain market information herein, which have not been verified by an independent third party. Market information included herein is, therefore, unless otherwise attributed exclusively to a third party source, to a certain degree subjective. While the Company believes that its own estimates, assessments, adjustments and judgments are reasonable and that the market information prepared by the Company appropriately reflects the industry and the markets in which it operates, there is no assurance that the Company’s own estimates, assessments, adjustments and judgments are the most appropriate for making determinations relating to market information.
One of the partners[11] of Global Transport Investments Inc. also provides a disclosure (list of documents):
Disclaimer
These materials are prepared by FIRST SKYWAY INVEST GROUP LIMITED (hereinafter - the "Company"). This is strictly confidential and intended solely for the recipient, and may not be spread through the press or transferred to third parties, as well as reproduced in any form, in whole or in part.
Some marketing information included in this material has been prepared by the Company based on their own estimates, assumptions, adjustments and judgments that have not been verified by independent third parties. Thus, information included in this marketing material is to some extent subjective, the material has been compiled by the Company reflecting personal opinions, adjustments and decisions, that have not been verified by third parties. The Company believes that the assessments, adjustments and decisions provided in this material, are reasonable, and the provided marketing information reflects the situation of the industry and the markets in which it operates; at the same time there is no assurance that the assessments, adjustments and decisions made by the Company are the most appropriate basis for drawing conclusions in respect of the marketing information.
SkyWay Capital - Warning about Risks from self-published policy
Warning about Risks
In order to help you understand the risks of investing in stocks, you are requested to carefully read the information below. Please diversify your investments. The necessity of diversification when investing. Diversification involves the distribution of your investments among different types of investments with different risks in order to reduce the overall risk. However it does not reduce all types of risks. Diversification is an integral part of investing. Investors should invest only a portion of their available funds and the balance of its investment in safer, more liquid assets. The risks of investing in equity. Investment in shares (also known as share capital) does not involve a regular investment income, unlike mini-bonds, which offer regularly paid interest. Please consider the following specific risks of investing in stocks: Loss of Investment. Most businesses initially fail or do not expand as planned, therefore investment in this kind of business can be associated with significant risk. You might lose all or part of your investment. You need to invest only the amount you are willing to lose, and gather a diversified portfolio to spread the risk and increase the likelihood of the total income from the investment of capital. If the business in which you invest, fails, the company will not return your investment. Rare payment of dividends. Dividends are payments made by businesses to its shareholders from the profits of the company. This means that you are unlikely to experience the profitability of the investments until you can sell your shares. Profits tend to be reinvested in the business to drive growth and increase the value of the shares. Split or reduction of the nominal value. Any investment in shares may be subject to reduction of nominal value in the future. Split occurs when the company issues new shares. The split affects all existing shareholders who do not purchase newly issued shares. As a result, the stake of existing shareholders reduces proportionally, or "is split", - it has an impact on a number of things, including voting, dividend rate and cost.
Investors are obliged to fulfill their own tax obligations, guided by the legislation of their country of residence. Investors should determine and take into account the possible restrictions on the investment by the jurisdiction that applies to them.
I've been optimistic about similar project (SkyTran) but of course time takes time.[12] What is possible may be allowed to happen.[13] Buyer beware is a fact of the market in general, even in the cases where the company is not the fault.[14]
The general public (the 99%) is often advised by their financial advisors (if they have one) not to get overly involved in high risk ventures. These may include Kickstarter, Indiegogo, biotechs, cryptocurrencies, private R&D firms, Robinhood, real estate crowfunding like RealtyShares, Fundrise, etc.. This is expressed notably clearly in the case the different rights of accredited investors (~ the 1%) vs. the middle and lower classes. However, as we are in the information age and we can be more efficiently informed (or misinformed), the middle classes and lower classes of countries now have greater ability than before to be informed about higher risk - higher potential gain/loss opportunities that some regulators wish were restricted only the very financial elites (whether their intentions may be good [protection of the lower and middle class from bankruptcy] or bad [restrict class mobility]).
I for one believe that any investor should employ common sense, and those who do not employ common sense to difficult information as needed are certainly not entitled to the privilege that a successful investment should provide. Sincerely, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Their "Minimum Viable Product" is more evident now in 2017 than it was a couple years ago back when their construction in Maryina Gorka had not started. Surely apprehension and risk is greater at the times when there lacks a functioning prototype. Now it is different, with anchors and track have been laid and rolling stock has been attached, not to mention the extremely transparent footage revealing construction operations, engineers, and networking with officials in power to affect implementation of transportation services on public coffers. Communication of such intimate information involving company operations and interactions with officials, produced and uploaded almost every other day, not to mention the publicly available engineering documents [15][16] should also be considered in addition to the overall risky (and sometimes sketchy) nature of venture capitalism in general. Of course, one must be careful in adding too much "positive" information in the article, per the rules of WP:NPOV. Duly-supported positive alarmism is unfortunately not usually appropriate for a general reference encyclopedia. But it is what it is. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 06:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the article on Ponzi scheme:
Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒn.zi/; also a Ponzi game)[1] is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate investments or business activities.
The difference between a Ponzi scheme and referral commissions is that referral commissions can be a percentage of the "revenue/investment" acquired less than 100%. In contrast, for Ponzi scheme to work, the amount promised to be paid in "returns" (which are really promised "commissions") exceeds the "revenue/investment", which of course is unsustainable without any real business to support it.
Now the only way to really know for sure how funds are allocated would be to do an internal audit of the company. It is irresponsible to insinuate fraud without concrete evidence. With concrete evidence is of course an entirely different matter.
This more recent site on the business potential of SkyWay is viewable here: [17] This is an old discussion, but it should be mentioned here that this technical information about the claims that the company makes about the value of its shares are meaningless. I'm surprised no one has removed this blatant and lengthy reference to SkyWay policy. The SkyWay company has not attempted to officially register itself anywhere and it is therefore not permitted to sell shares to anyone. They have over-inflated the value of their company to 400 billion. They promises they make to 'investors' are entirely fanciful. You cannot prove that this is not true because of what they say about themselves. Check the more recent investment warning for a more balanced and recent discussion of the 'investment opportunity' of SkyWay. Whether or not its a 'pyramid scheme' or a 'Ponzi scheme' is irrelevant. But we do have verifiable references that discuss in great deal how they use MLM techniques to attract investors. And it is entirely illegal for them to sell shares anywhere. The only value you have is the value that they apply to the shares themselves which means they are worthless; they are not legally obliged to give you anything if they go bankrupt. See the 'Onliner.by' articles for detailed discussion of this, in particular the Borrenblog translation of the article "The SkyWay Project: the Fantasyland..." from 3 January 2018: [18]. A summary is included in the discussion below. If you want to present justifications of SkyWay investment please don't use SkyWay promotional material to do this.
The article is based on accusations against SkyWay Group. There is no actual information on the operation of the company. The article consists only of accusations, it seems suspicious. There is a lot of information on the technology company developed in previous version, now it became an “attack page”Eva Grun (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct Eva. The media has a bias aligned with the need to attract readers. Good news can do this, bad news more so. So good news is often filtered out by the media. Furthermore, Wikipedia has standards in some cases that are quite assymetric. Accusations usually don't require much official validation from competent authorities or formal communcations from the scientific academia. However when it comes to the technological merits of new transport the media cannot credibly confirm or deny since they lack in-house ability to judge claims on technological merit. When the media reports about doubt about a technology, they do so without showing engineering calculations demonstrating the level of feasibility of new technology. Also, critics of SkyWay who do have an engineering background clearly do not make it their job to find out how string transport can work. Rules of thumb and first impressions are generally employed by them, since when dealing with known technology it is not usually necessary to question fundamental intuitions of what works. As such, we do not see scientific works published by critics arguing against string transport. Instead, we have only "conclusions" from experts who, unlike school children in math courses, do not disclose their derivation. Furthermore, they make no requisite effort to solve the engineering challenges associated with innovative technology, nor do they have any attempts to manufacture an accurate physical model of SkyWay to support their criticism. Combine that with the basic need of innovative companies to protect intellectual property and trade secrets in respect to the specific innovations and you have a situation where the Wiki article on SkyWay Group has become completely negative-sided just as what occured for the article on Brilliant Light Power. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eva_Grun,Most part of the information added to the article is backed by 3rd party sources. We cannot use self-promoted materials from Skyway sites in this article. If you think some information should be added and have reliable sources just add it. But as we have a war of changes now it is better to reach consensus here first.Dron007 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After the article was changed is based on accusations against a non-existent company. Some of the accusations against existing companies, that are not actually in SkyWay Group, are outdated and refuted (Lithuania). The article is about non-existent company, there is no information on what the company produces. The accusations against it are obviously ambiguous. --Владимир Малафей (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war from newly-created account is not constructive. If you think we need to provide more sources for the connection of Anatoly Yunitskiy with Skyway group of companies let's discuss it. See separate section(s)Dron007 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it’s evident that the edit war had been started by 2 SkyWay haters Dron007 and Zachar Laskewicz who, for some reason, actively and insistently continue to defame the project by repeatedly referring to the same blogs that seems to be a SEO or/and troll job. However if you look closer into things you’ll see that "The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on." 111 --George Marshal (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Marshal (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which blogs do you mean? There are no blogs used in the article as verifiable references; only published reliable sources. The link you included is to an unverified opinion about SkyWay. If there are blogs or opinions used in the article then you should list them as they should be checked and replaced with verifiable references.–Zachar (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this third-party analysis of the actual potential value of the shares of SkyWay Group companies. You can view it here:[19]. It is based on real research and is certainly more valuable than the SkyWay self-published opinions and the unreferenced opinion here of banned sock puppets like Eva Grun:
Skyway is not currently listed on any public exchange, so you simply buy only fictitious (if you want – virtual) shares. To put it more accurately, you will get a sheet of paper called a certificate in which the company confirms that you are booking and they reserve for you some stocks... According to SkyWay’s official videos, if you invest $ 4,000 (you will receive a million of “stocks” for the amount invested), you will earn a million US dollars because once the company enters the stock market, you will be able to sell one share for $ 1 (million shares = million USD)... If SkyWay ever enters the stock market, which I doubt, the value of one share will indeed not be 1 USD. The exchange rate determines demand and supply. Easily could happen that if they enter the stock market and people want to sell their shares and earn extra money, no one will be interested in them. At that moment their real value will be shown. What is more interesting, however, and what attracts people in that amount is that SkyWay guarantees the redemption of your certificates for $ 1. So if they enter the stock market and it shows that the real value of their shares is big fat zero, SkyWay guarantees to buy them from you.
These are really great promises, but unreal. They will never enter the stock market, and if they do, they will undoubtedly fail to fulfill their obligations.
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SkyWay is not currently listed on any publish exchange because IPO didn’t take place yet. There are no “papers” or “stocks” to “buy” as you’re trying to state above. Nor any promises about future prices of shares. Otherwise please provide any official reliable verifiable source confirming your claims different from self SEO promoting blogs. Also please ask to provide such sources the bloggers whose “coverages” you’re referering here to. SkyWay is using convertible loan 112113 for investment raising. It’s too soon to speak about stocks in their full sense as the project is being on its development stages 114
Thank you for these references. The first link ([20]) is advertising that makes elaborate and misleading claims. An enthusiastic investor's report includes statements like "I would not forgive myself if I would miss it as the ROI can easily be more than 10 000% So at the beginning of September 2017 I added SkyWay to my portfolio." It ends with a list of fabricated lies about the company's achievements, such as the places pre-orders have been made. The equity net link([21]) doesn't even contain investment advice, just flowery claims about SkyWay like "Efficient and environmentally friendly SkyWay - Transport of new generation that meets the standards of the 21st century and able to take up to 50% of the world market of transport, to improve the quality of life and make our world a better place." It doesn't provide any scientific support for these exaggerated claims let alone sound economic advice about investment products. The third link ([22]) may sound like a reputable discussion of financial terms. But unfortunately its contents has nothing to do with the products SkyWay investmen is offering to the public. This is not informed information that can be seen as anything but advertising, propaganda and misdirection. User Kmarinas86 is right in that you have to show caution before investing money. Inform yourself before you invest: this company is offering to sell you products that it has not applied permission anywhere to sell to you. It absolves itself in its own paperwork from any liability and guarantees as you can read in the disclaimers above. It sells worthless pieces of paper that mean little more than what they tell you themselves about them. Convertible loans? Pre-IPO shares? In terms of SkyWay Investment terms like this are meaningless buzz words used to tempt inexperienced investors who don't know any better that are entirely inapplicable to what SkyWay is allowed to sell to you: nothing. Good luck with any investments you make but I advise you personally to not choose anything SkyWay is offering as you will lose your money. Zachar (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Zaxander, who and/or what authorized you to groundlessly blame as well SkyWay project as third party sources and opinions on it by self-emotionally negatively colored epithets like “misleading” , “fabricated lies”, “flowery claims”, “propaganda and misdirection”, “worthless pieces of paper”, “meaningless buzz words” and others? Do you have any proof of your words? Or definitive promise like “you will lose your money” is given by you in what capacity? As prophetic? Or are you having reputable sources links to? And again: nothing is being sold by company at the moment, the convertible loan using for investment of the technology being on stage of its creation is officially stated and used by crowdfunding foundations of the Group. --George Marshal (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the author of that "third-party analysis"? Here is the citation from that page: "Hi, my name is George and I currently work from the comfort of my home. I work for PR agency as the seller of ad. Besides that, I do on-line marketing for eshop, but I also make this website. I like to search for legal opportunities to make money online, and then I publish them at this website. It is my hobby..." He is not even a financial analyst or an employee of an investment company. I don't think that this "third-party analysis" is a reliable source, so we cannot use this text in the article. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, this George H. - the author of the "third-party review" - did not even indicate his surname, so this article is anonymous and cannot be considered as a reliable source. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking this. Yes I agree we cannot use this material in the article - but this wasn't actually the intention, but to provide a balance to the SkyWay promotional material. It would be great if you could provide a better resource on the topic of SkyWay investment because it's obviously important to this article. But new references have to be better supported than the reams of direct postings from the SkyWay website which is still posted above. It would, however, be great to have more articles by economists on how the SkyWay Group works. Please post links here concerning the investment opportunity or even better create a new topic below specifically addressing this topic. But please don't include paragraphs directly copied from the SkyWay website. You can even create a summary of the SkyWay content with a link to the SkyWay site if you think it's significant. But hundreds of words copied from a promotional website is misleading. If you contextualize it and provide a link, no problem. But paragraphs of SkyWay promotion is hardly necessary here.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Problem of distinguishing the science as opposed to the scam
STRING THEORY is a set of theoretical ideas connected to a complex financial scam. The fact that it has not received anything more than proposals from questionable scam-based funding outside of Russia should ring warning bells. They have never received more than cursory application outside of Russia. If people want to learn about this questionable theory a link could be included to the sites that reference it but warnings have to be made about both the questionability of its actual realization and the fact that these theoretical ideas have been rejected as impractical and dangerous. The current links to fake YouTube films and the SkyWay website still present are both laughable and frightening.
PLEASE NOTE: Individual citizens are told that their money will be invested in lofty engineering projects. As a part of pyramid scheme-like meetings, everyday people who would never be required to fund a national transportation project are encouraged to invest their hard-earned money in complex tax-free financial schemes for a business which has little more than a postal address in London. The following website demonstrates this danger but it is only one of many warnings about scams connected to this concept:
https://www.fsma.be/en/warnings/first-skyway-invest-group-limited-skyway-capitalhttps://www.fsma.be/nl/warnings/first-skyway-invest-group-limited-skyway-capital
Unfortunately a cursory search for 'Skyway' and 'String Theory' in the Google search engine presents a lot of sites with questionable links that attempt to confuse the matter, some posted by users who have already invested money and are still convinced that if they find other investors that they will receive real returns. Some are undoubtedly planted as either ambiguous distractors to the real financial dangers of investment or are outright lies.
Cursory reading of the ambiguous language style of the English article could suggest that this engineering is more than a proposal that has received application and anyone taking a cursory examination (or non English-speakers who find this site) could easily get the wrong idea about the complex ideas connected to projects that they are ruthlessly encouraged to waste their money on. To make it clear: apart from two unsuccessful testing projects in the Russian federation and Belarus, there have been no realisations of any type of public transport system that vaguely resembles the project suggested in the Skyway 'String Theory' scam.
Unfortunately the most confusing aspect is the separation of the theory created by Yunitsky the engineer from the scam itself which supposedly funds it. I mean, Yunitsky seems to be a real engineer who has made a real theory that appears to be ecofriendly and scientifically valid. But even if the theory in and of itself has validity, the engineer should be doing his best to distance his name from the scam. The first references you find on a google search should include detailed information distancing his STRING TRANSPORT project from its extremely dubious funding attempts or at least explaining how they are connected. I can only find references to sites demonstrating how much money you can make from it. Who knows: maybe Yunitsky himself is a victim of the scam? But the awful fact that you can't find any denials or explanations suggests that he is either indifferent to or actually profiting from the abuse.
I really encourage valid contributors to Wikipedia with a scientific background to peruse this article and provide real scientific references supporting the science and to help differentiate it from the dangerous scam.
In conclusion this article should not be removed. There has to be some objective source so that people can see what they are actually investing their money in; at the same time if it is a good idea that deserves further development then that has to be clearly distinguished from the complete falsity of the scam and the separation of real people from their hard-earned money. Even with the changes I made it's still painfully ambiguous. Not being a scientist or an engineer I'm hardly in a position to validly question the dubious science.
Please help.
Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander
The RSW Systems website lists Yunitsky as "President of SkyWay Group of Companies" and his personal website puts a strong emphasis on the "public funding" model of the company. The connection is clear: The Skyway technology, the Skyway company and Yunitsky are one.
There is practically no independent coverage of the technology itself, which seems to have gone through a radical transformation over the years from a gondola lift to a monorail. Most of the sources cover the alleged scam or presentations at trade shows, so our article content should reflect that. I favor removing anything that is sourced solely to the Skyway company or those connected with it. –dlthewave☎17:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Connection between the engineer Yunitsky and the SkyWay company group
Here is some information from a Russian source on the real connection between Yunitsky, the SkyWay group of companies and the different forms of theory used to defend the financing techniques they use. I found it on a site discussing the way this crowdfunding works. It concludes that it is a pyramid scheme. The problem is, however, that it appears that there are some companies that are not directed by Yunitsky himself such as 'SkyWay Capital' and this is confusing. There are users who are suggesting that the SkyWay finding has nothing to do with the scientific theory which is valid in an of itself and is deserving of ... more funding. This is a link to the page which includes a description of the financial techniques and a complex discussion by economists of the problematic and illegal nature of the way these companies attempt to get funding:
https://behindmlm.com/mlm-reviews/skyway-capital-review-russian-transport-funding-22-daily-rois/
On this page I found a source who describes the complex history of Yunitsky and his schemes which date back more than fourty years. Some of it is anecdotal but links to real sources are included:
"Sorry for my English just want to share info from Russian Internet collected by many people in forum topic having hundreds of pages: mmgp.ru/showthread.php?t=247224&page=108. Maybe you don’t have access to many materials about Yunitsky and his company, maybe they are not translated to English but there a lot of them in Russian. I have to say that it would be very risky to have business with this company. Here are some facts. Yunitsky works on this idea almost 40 years and still don’t have working prototype (only slow and unstable one). They gather money for this project using MLM system which looks like Ponzi scheme: while company doesn’t earn money there are people who already raise money on it inviting other people. That’s why there is so much spam and lie about potential profit of this company. Yunitsky had some conflict with his previous partners and there are some judicial proceedings related to it. Skyway company tried to work with Lithuanian government but they interrupted it suspecting Yunitsky in fraud. Here you can read about it: http://bnn-news.com/genuine-investment-project-boondoggle-scheme-lithuania-national-security-threat-119828. There were testing area in Ozerki several years ago but there was also some conflict and the work was terminated. Yunitsky is known to ask money for his projects from governments, municipalities, politics but he still doesn’t show working system ready for usage. At the same time in one of his business plans he set his salary as about 12 thousands dollars per month (not bad!). He now gathers money from people promising them taking part in his intellectual property which was valued in 400 billions dollars. I can continue, there are many facts of lie, many doubtful engeneering ideas, but it is hard for me to explain it in English. I have to say that I am pretty sure that his project is unrealistic, unprofitable and maybe even danger for potential passengers. There is no certification for this transport, there were no tests in real life. They are just looking for places where they will be able to test this project. Hope you would think carefully before having any contracts with this man and his company. Here you can read investor’s memorandum and see offshore scheme: files.z-domansky.eu/200000342-1e6161f5d8/Memorandum EN.pdf
So Anatoly is not just guilty by association. He directs these companies that use crowdfunding and other dubious sources of funding. Any additional companies that do not use his name but profit from the same technology are the ones guilty by association, but we have no proof these companies are not involved with Yunitsky as well.
Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 16:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)
Recent changes have resulted in the total removal of Yunitskiy's name from the opening paragraph. ANATOLY YUNITSKIY, however, is mentioned in almost every verifiable source. He attends all SkyWay events. He invented the technology. According to verifiable sources he is the business-man who founded the company and owns the shares. He is pictured in all international photos which involved the signing of contracts. If a verifiable source does not mention him personally, it doesn't mention anyone else either. It seems fairly unambiguous to assume that Yunitskiy is very much involved in some way with all SkyWay projects. Furthermore, it is misleading to not include his name in any description of either his companies or his technology. I suggest the opening paragraph begin with the words "The SkyWay Group refers to a group of companies associated with the inventor Anatoly Yunitskiy". If you disagree, please explain why below. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that, unless sources clearly discuss the association. What we know is that the "Skyway Group is promoting a technology by Anatoly Yunitskiy".--DreamLinker (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yunitskiy writes that he is a president of Skyway group of compantie on his personal sites [25][26] and it is written in official site of RSW Systems[27], there is his signature on such-called "certificate of shares".Dron007 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look here[28]. It is said about "company and its shareholders Anatoly Yunicky and Nadezhda Kosareva", and referring to the Bank of Lithuania: "Rail Skyway Systems had distributed shares of Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd., a UK-registered firm headed and owned by Yunicky". So he (with his wife) is definitely the owner of the company, not just an engineer.Dron007 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source: [29]. "Junicki’s commercial schemes, according to several Lithuanian prominent analysts, like Swedbank economist Nerijus Mačiulis, are simply elaborate scams dazzling possible investors with supposedly lucrative profit from holding stake in an array of London-based, ostensibly large-scale asset companies. «Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ldt.», «American Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.», « African Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. », «Australian&Oceanic Rail Skyway Systems Ltd » and, set purposely to Lithuania, «Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.» are a few to be mentioned. All these companies’ declared capital reportedly stands at a whopping 235.1 billion British pounds, which would put Junicki, holding a 10-percent stake, on the Forbes’ 10 world richest men list."Dron007 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every single verifiable resource already mentioned specifically refers to Yunitskiy. If they don't mention him they don't mention anyone else either. In most references, Yunitskiy is mentioned in every paragraph. I've checked all the references. It is misleading to not include him in the first paragraph. I've included this as a separate heading below. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 16 February 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The request to rename this article to SkyWay Group has been carried out.
String transport → SkyWay Group – This article is primarily about the company, not the technology. Reliable sources discuss the company, its investment schemes and overall transport system proposals with practically no coverage given to the "string theory" or "string transport" prestressed rail technology concept. The outfit operates under a number of different names so "RSW Systems", "SkyWay Capital" "SkyWay Group of Companies" or simply "SkyWay" would also be good candidates. –dlthewave☎18:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThanks for these changes and the great observation that the only reliable articles concern not the technology but the extremely difficult to pin-down company. Removal of the obviously questionable scientific information is a really good step in the right direction.Zachar Alexander Laskewicz 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs)
Support Thank you so much. Actually I was thinking of starting a rename request myself. I spend some times looking through google scholar and I cannot find any high quality peer reviewed works about "String transport". It is obvious that the article is about Skyway group and their project, so it is perfectly fine to rename it.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree it is a good idea. There is no such technology as String Transport (just prototypes/concepts). It is related to Yunitsky only who is not just an engineer with dounbtful reputation but is mainly a businessman, owner of Unisky corp (Seychelles) which itself owns ERSS holdings (Virgin Islands), GTI company (Virgin Islands), Belorussian company, etc. and protects Unitsky's interests. Now information about MoU with UAE is widely spread and people will look for explanations with "Skyway" and "Skyway Greentech Company" terms, not a "string transport". It is even doubtful that strings (prestressed rails and cables) are used in their prototypes and they have other types of structures where simple, not prestressed cables are used instead without rails. So it is more about business and the ways of raising money, not a specific technology. Dron007 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Correct English transliteration of Russian names like Yunitskiy
To clear up any ambiguities in the spelling of the Russian name used in this article. The original Cyrillic letters are as follows:
Анатолий Эдуардович Юницкий
So that there is no ambiguity in the article, according to Wikipedia the best transliteration would by Anatoly Eduardovich Yunitskiy. Althouh 'ий' is present in both names, the contrasting spelling can be explained by the fact that -y is used for proper nouns of Russian origin, whereas 'iy' is used for names which don't originate from Russian. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request for verifiable sources on EcoTechno Park, Belarus
REQUEST FOR VERIFIABLE SOURCE on the Belarusian EcoTechno Park which demonstrates the technology. Please only included sources which are published by a third party. Photos, YouTube films, brochures, contracts are interesting but cannot be used.
I think that information about their demonstration center - Ecotechno Park - should be added to the article. This is a real physical place in Belarus with many tracks and prototypes of their vehicles.
This place is even indicated on Google maps, and it has 1000+ photos and 100+ reviews:
Yes I think it should be mentioned too and I appreciate you bringing it up here before changing the article. Unfortunately there is no verifiable source currently referenced that actually discusses it in more than an anecdotal way. Believe me, we would like to mention it. It has been talked about in the past but we were forced to remove it not because we didn't want to but because the references were really, really bad. Thanks for the google link but we actually can't use it even if we find a verifiable link. it has to be a reference to a reliable source which actually talks about it. I understand your frustration. The second problem is that the verifiable references cannot simply say that 'someone claims to have invented this place'. It has to actually be a personal documentation of someone who has visited it and provides objective commentary on it; better still that they have performed academically verifiable tests. First or third-party witness accounts, no matter how objective they sound, are not in themselves useable. Posting links maps, photos, brochures and articles from sources who praise it (and are not published in academically recognized sources or by government institutions) in the article is against Wikipedia rules and I appreciate you not doing it. Thanks again –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be sections about 1) the essense of the proposed technology and 2) current results. Otherwise the article is quite meaningless. The phrase "the companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors" doesn't look neutral. They raise money for some work, having some ideas. They have some results (models, techno park). Let's provide enough sources for reader to judge if the results meet the expectations. But simply removing both will confuse readers. Dron007 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
To show what I mean, here are articles in Onliner, popular Belorussian resource (unfortunately they are in Russian only):[reply]
Onliner is very sceptical about the technology. Yunitsky even had initiated court process against it after one of the previous articles (there is a link in the latest one). But still you can find short description of the technology as Yunitsky sees it and current state of affairs in techno park in Maryina Gorka visited by journalists. So some information could be taken from these articles after proper translation. Dron007 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 - Excellent work. I'll check them, translate them when I can. I'll post the results on my talk page and included a summary here. I changed the name of this section to Request for verifiable sources on the 'EcoTechnoPark' in Belarus because the other articles changes have been addressed since the name change. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 Now that I think about it, the article is actually now about the companies and not the technology; you'd have to be able to explain the financial connections with the SkyWay group of companies. And there is even less clear (verifiable) information about this. So actually you have to ask if the meaning of the article makes more or less sense with information about the EcoTechnoPark. Maybe we'd have to consider creating a separate article about the EcoTechnoPark. But I don't think that'd be really worth the trouble. Remember - you can set up a carnival attraction that travels faster and further on a monorail in a couple of days. There are already people who can design and implement things like this. Just go to Disneyland or in fact any attraction park to see very impressive examples of small scale transportation systems that in any case look more impressive than what you see with the slow-moving possibly passengerless vehicles that could only fit a few people in them. It's interesting however how these people have been able to construct a large-scale international business around it which is still getting people interested in investing money. You can't help admiring them even if you don't agree with what they're doing.
@Dron007 I think the sentence "they make lofty claims..." is more problematic than "they make money by promoting the sale of shares". But both sentences are completely backed up in the translated verifiable articles. I was very careful about this. But I will double-check them both with the references and try to make sure it sounds more neutral. And it seems not a problem to suggest that a company makes money by promoting and selling shares! Don't most companies do this? The problem that needs to be emphasized (and is still not mentioned but is backed up in the references) is that they sell shares DESPITE not having permission to do so in many countries. Thanks for your advice. I appreciate you bringing these issues up here. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the company but this company managed to interest investors and officials of some countries so it is easy to predict the questions of any reader: Why? What does this company "invented"? Any results? And there is nothing about it in the article. I also think that if the company which is declared as innovative already has a product (even as a concept) it worth adding its photo to the article even self-promoted one in case it looks the same as photos provided by mass-media. I don't think that EcoTechnoPark (or techno park in Shara) demands a separate article at this moment: not enough materials and probably low importance. But it worth mentioning. Comparing this transport with Disneyland we are making our own investigations and conclusions and we risk getting too deep into the technical details. As it was mentioned once here, Wiki is not a forum. Let's just provide sources of the required information and allow people to make their own judgements.Dron007 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the phrase "they make money by promoting the sale of shares" is that it creates illusion that it is the only thing that this company does. Especially with the fact we skipping any information about the products. I cannot agree that "most companies makes money by promoting and selling shares". They usually use money from selling shares as investments to create a product selling which they will make money. So in my opinion phrase above implies "it is a scam" but we don't have such facts yet. Yes, it needs to mention the absense of permissions to sell shares in some countries. We also could mention that some Skyway companies evade this limitation selling "educational services/courses" instead but it is harder to find good sources for that.Dron007 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one more source on EcoTechnoPark in Maryina Horka:
It is another popular belorussian site. The journalist visited techno park. The article looks quite neutral. We can use short description of "technology" from there and maybe the fact that there are moving vehicles in EcoTechnoPark.Dron007 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 - Thank you for the links and you valid comments about the writing. It's important to only include verifiable statements that do not suggest partisanship. And it's only with someone else helping you that you can create something reliable. I didn't mean to offend with my comment about the comparison with an amusement park; I just wanted to point out that this technology in the context of a short-length monorail-type transport system is not really very remarkable which probably explains why there is so little actual critical commentary on it. Needless to say I will triple-check the sentence on the sale of shares and make it sound more neutral (if someone hasn't already changed it). You will notice that the title of the first section has changed from "Safety & evaluation" to "Evaluation of the SkyWay technology". Because it doesn't specifically mention 'safety' anymore we could probably introduce a sub-heading for the EcoTechnoPark. After all, if this park is useful for anything, it's evaluation of this technology. All we need is some actual research. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 - I checked my reference and I changed my sentence accordingly. I described my change at the end of the next section on 'fact-checking'. The new sentence sounds even more critical but it does more accurately represent what the reference actually says. My intention was not to suggest that this was the only thing the company did to make money. But you are right to suggest that the sentence I wrote gave this impression and I'm grateful you shared your opinion with me. I hope the change is more fair to the material and you don't consider it misleading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 The pleasure is mine. It really helps to know that someone is listening to you and it actually means a lot more if you have confirmation for what you do. I translated the 'TYT.BY' article. It's really very interesting and has lots of photos. Because it's not scientific research - and it's an anecdotal description - it's hard to use it on its own. But it is fascinating to read nonetheless and I agree that enough convincing, third-party commentary has to be worth considering. I will publish the translation after I've improved it on my Talk Page and invite some other people to read it. It makes me curious to read the 'Onliner' articles and I hope that with these articles we can do something with this material. I'm afraid that you have to ask yourself: among all these everyday people who are convinced to part with their money, why are there no scientists who provide critical commentary? It seems that the scientific world remains breathtakingly silent on a subject which has received so much (questionable) financing. What do you think? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have translated 3 links from well known Belarusian online feeds concerning the EcoTechnoPark about 70km from Minsk. It will take me a while to clean these translations up so that they make sense. They contain a lot of colloquialisms and spoken language. The are filled with unverifiable photos and opinions. So they are very interesting and are filled with facts but, as you'd expect, no reference to scientific research or in fact informed commentary. Still, I will include them on my the user:Zaxander talk page when I've finished. In the meantime I suggest a subheading be created in 'Evaluation of the SkyWay technoloy' section and that we use the following text which reflects the current verifiable material on this park:
"In the EcoTechnoPark about 70km from Minsk, the SkyWay Group has constructed a site where ‘SkyWay’ technology is demonstrated. There is unfortunately still no verifiable scientific evaluation of this site."
It is good for start. On some Onliner's articles there were references to scientific evaluations (e.g. video of prof. Vladimir Zylev) but there is contradictory information. Professors of the same Institute of Transport give opposite conclusions. Dron007 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Information we need as soon as possible: when was this park actually established? The 'Belarus feed' article suggests that 'last year' they started working on it. It was published two years ago. There must already be at least one reliable source that clearly states when they started working on this site? Others say they are still working on it. Others that it is rusty and falling apart. But there must be some consensus on when it actually started. It seems pretty flimsy to introduce an idea without being able to give a definite idea of when it was started. But I did it anyway because there is so much material on this place. It's just hard to find clear information. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to their site the work was started in August 2015 [30]. More of less independant 3rd party sources (local news site) are dated by October 2015 [31]. They created different types of roads, built guest house, pond, fishing places, garden, even place to grow watermelons. So there is no moment when it was finished, they still build new constructions there. It is said in Tut.By article dated June 2017 [32] that they are "finishing building the test site". By the way it is another good article which has a lot of useful information from sceptical/neutral journalist. Dron007 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 Thank you. It's great to have a date and a reference we can use. I've added this to the description and changed it so that it confirms the fact that they started working on it at this time rather than 'have constructed' it because it seems from many sources that they have not finished it yet. I will check out the 'TUT.BY' reference. I think there are at least 3 'ONLINER.BY' articles (but I have only translated 2). I love the watermelon patch! –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 The ONLINER.BY article "Is it an April Fools Day joke?" from August 2018 is really interesting. I will clean up the translation and post this one on my talk page eventually. It attempts to answer many of the questions I pose below about how the company actually works - the promotion of profits above technology but also the unwavering belief of many people who do work for the company (and are not necessarily scientists). Thanks again for this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:Oh - My three translations of ONLINER.BY and TUT.BY articles were absolutely awful. Google translate is unfortunately not good at translating anecdotal Russian sources (and my Russian is far worse than Google). Sorry about making this promise to publish these translations but they're just not good enough. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. For our purpose we need only basic understanding of the article and translation of quotes if we are going to use them.Dron007 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:There are many photos of the technology at EcoTechnoPark but I can't find one in a really good source. Some of them are really good photos in the 'ONLINER.BY' and 'TUT.BY' articles but it would be better to use one in a more verifiable source. If we are to include an image, I think it should be one from this park because it shows actual moving vehicles. There's no point in illustrating stationary vehicles at a fair, university or a governmental summit. The Ozery site has also been deconstructed and I can't find any verifiable links to it anyway. Can you find a good, clear photo in a reliable source? If you can I think we should include it as soon as possible. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander:The first event came to my mind that was covered by many reliable sources with photos is an incident with unibus: [33][34][35][36][37]. Of course that wouldn't be right to use such photos. Unfortunately most photos of good quality are from press releases and other promoted materials or advertisements of the company like these: [38][39].Dron007 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:You came to the same conclusion I did: we can't use an image just yet - we'll just have to keep an eye out. Any image which shows moving vehicle without observers taking photos or accidents would probably do.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:One of the ONLINER.BY articles on SkyWay and the EcoTechnoPark has been translated into German and shared on the Burrenblog, a recognized German access point for collecting legal information on questionable business ventures: [40] This makes it a secondary source that means no one can doubt that it is simply anecdotal. There's also an article there on the crypto-currency. Thanks for the new Italian reference! –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quote from the Borrenblog German translation of the Russian Onliner.by text: "EcoTechnoPark is far removed from real-world conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds or safety parameters... Finally, EcoTechnoPark is ... nothing more than a small recreational park for Skyway disciples with experience."–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quote from a translation of the tut.by article you can view here: [41] "There are only three tracks here - one for heavy transport unibuses with a maximum capacity of 48 people, the second, the fastest, for 14-seater unibuses (“minibuses”), another one — the highest with sagging spans — for 6-seater unicars." -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Below is the proposal for an extension to the text on the EcoTechnoPark based on the two references listed above:
Testing
In October 2015 the SkyWay Group started constructing a test site to demonstrate 'SkyWay' technology. It is situated in Marjina Horka (about 70km from Minsk) and is called the EcoTechnoPark.[MH province reference]. In August 2018 there were three tracks demonstrating prototypes at this site. One is for heavy transport vehicles a vehicle with a maximum capacity of 48 people. The second track is for 14-seater vehicles and the third, 6-seater vehicles.[tut.by reference] Critics of the EcoTechnoPark have commented on the factUnfortunatelyCurrently it is still impossible to draw scientific conclusions about the maximum speed or safety parameters from these prototypes because "it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds".[onliner.by reference].
adjusments made to improve the EcoTechnoPark text extension –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Any suggestions or advice on this text appreciated. The length of this text as it is now obviously has to be extended. A single image can also be included. But I suggest that copious descriptions of the technology is misleading because surprisingly little has been published since they started developing this site in 2015.
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander:Looks good for me but this is Yunitskiy's phrase (probably not exact quote but the meaning is the same): "it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds". So "critics of the EcoTechnoPark have commented on the fact" part is not required. Not sure about the number of tracks as it could be obsolete information. But that is good for start. Dron007 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: 1)"There are three tracks currently in use at this site". This information can be inaccurate since the process of the construction is ongoing and they may have built more tracks since that publication. So I propose to replace "three" with "several" in this sentence. 2) They do not have "heavy transport vehicles". The correct name is "unibus" or a "multi-seat urban vehicle" (but not "heavy"). 3) In the last sentence, it is propably better to use "...on the fact that it is impossible to estimate the maximum speed of these prototypes because tracks are not long enough to achieve high speeds". Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in August 2018 when tut.by attended the EcoTechnoFair there were 3 tracks and this is what the reference says. If a newer reference states that there are new tracks that have been built maybe we should replace this with new information. But if they haven't, you could safely say in "in August 2018 there were 3 tracks in operation". -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is "Currently, it is impossible to estimate the maximum speed of these prototypes because tracks are not long enough to achieve high speeds" (without any "unfortunately", "however" and similar emotional words). Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Current proposed EcoTechnoPark text:
In October 2015 the SkyWay Group started constructing a test site to demonstrate 'SkyWay' technology. It is situated in Marjina Horka (about 70km from Minsk) and is called the EcoTechnoPark.["Возле Марьиной Горки строят испытательный центр транспорта будущего — Пухавiцкiя навiны. Пуховичские новости. Марьина Горка. Новости Марьиной Горки".] In August 2018 there were three tracks demonstrating prototypes at this site. One is for a vehicle with a maximum capacity of 48 people. The second track is for 14-seater vehicles and the third, 6-seater vehicles.[42] Currently it is still impossible to draw scientific conclusions about the maximum speed or safety parameters from these prototypes because "it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds".[43]
We need to be accurate in quoting. There is no "it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds" quote in the original source [44]. It has the following phrase instead: «By Yunitskiy, due to a negative attitude from Belorussian scientists and government they still haven't got 21-km plot to carry out speed tests even though they "got 16 permissions"». So we cannot make our own synthesis insisting that it is a fact. It is just an opinion of the inventor which may be criticized. There is also another context of mentioning safety measurements. It is in another source [45] and it is given as Yunitskiy's qoute: "At the moment there is no any Skyway element which was certified, which doesn't allow us make even any preliminary assessment of safety". Saying honestly I doubt that Yunitskiy said exactly that but that is what we have in the article and we have to avoid synthesis. This article is quite old (2017) and there were some certifications after that. It is a separate big issue as there was a lot of criticism about what exactly was certified and whether it proofs anything. Dron007 (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:Thanks for your advice; that's probably what you get for using the translation of a translation! For the moment we can include the information we do know about the three tracks described from the EcoTechnoFest in August 2018 at tut.by. In the meantime, if anyone has any suggestions about additional information based on the verifiable references of EcoTechnoPark, post it here. I'll make the translations I have accessible as well.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Translation of ONLINER.BY article from 5 September 2016
A translation from the popular Belarusian newsfeed 'Onliner.by' can now be viewed at the @Zaxander: talk page. It is the first article on SkyWay that later resulted in legal action by Yunitskiy and his associates for libel. These legal proceedings were unsuccessful. Since this original article, at least three more publications on SkyWay have followed. The most recent publication has recently been translated into German. This article doesn't have a lot of information about the EcoTechnoPark (it was still quite new when this article was published; they'd only started working on it a year before) - but it was published while they were still building it and is largely in reaction to their return to Belarus after the unsuccessful projects in Australia and Lithuania. But the more recent articles make more sense if you read this one first. Two of the other Onliner.by articles appear to be transcriptions of actual interviews some of which were made for this article. You can view the original here: [46]
Илон Маск — чушь собачья, несите деньги мне. Белорус основал «компанию на $400 млрд» и строит под Минском «сверхскоростной» Sky Way
5 September 2016
Elon Musk is nonsense – give me the money instead. A Belarusian founded “a company worth $400 billion” and is building a “superfast” SkyWay near Minsk
The recent Italian article viewable here: [47] suggests that the EcoTechnoPark is "just a theme park ('un parco tematico')" and the German translation of the Onliner.by article viewable here [48] suggests that the EcoTechnoPark "is designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string [technology] at low speed and is nothing more than a small scale park for Skyway disciples with no experience". Suggestion for an addition to the description of the EcoTechnoPark testing facility:
...It has been suggested, however, that the EcoTechnoPark is little more than a "theme park" [Italian ref] unfit for high-speed testing, being described as a low speed "small-scale park for SkyWay disciples" [onliner.by reference]
[alternatively]...It has been suggested, however, that the EcoTechnoPark is more amusement park than testing facility. Onliner.by, for example, describes it as a low speed "small-scale park for SkyWay disciples" and MilanoToday as a "theme park".
IMHO enough verifiable sources comment on the fact that the EcoTechnoPark is more an amusement park than a testing facility and the description needs to be balanced with this criticism (especially considering it being included under a heading for 'testing'). Please include your criticism and suggestions below. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to add this phrase. How could Onliner know that EcoTechnoPark wasn't used as a testing facility? They should monitor it 24/7 to be sure which I doubt they did. At the same time there were videos showing specialist from sertification center inside vehicles. Theme/amusement parks suppose to allow anyone to use park amusement for money. EcoTechnoPark doesn't work in this mode except one day per year when there is an Eco Fest. Dron007 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:They don't suggest that it's never used as a testing facility; just that because it can't perform at high speeds, is not situated realistically far from the ground and is in the country and nowhere near any other buildings, that it could not realistically produce real-life parameters necessary for testing especially considering the length of the tracks which restrict the speed which the vehicles can reach, at least in August 2018 with the three tracks and vehicles present. The articles I read emphasize the fact that the 'testing' site cannot reproduce the conditions necessary for testing. Yunitskiy himself states emphatically that the length of the tracks make it impossible for the vehicles to achieve a high speed. The scientific facts in the articles suggest it would be physically impossible for them to get faster than 80km per hour, and that if they did they could vibrate and cause an accident. An accident is actually documented. And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour. These articles document the fact that as a 'testing' site it doesn't really do a very good job and suggest that it is not really designed to perform this function. But I've never been there, so I can only recite the facts that are told to me in these articles. The recent German translation which emphasizes the validity of the scientific documentation in the original Onliner.by article caused me to go back and pay more attention to them. But this problem remains: when you only have three sentences, a fourth sentence that is critical in any way is going to sound unintentionally biased and would no doubt prove to be reductive rather than informative and I can certainly see potential problems. Are there any facts in the article you think should be included? -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: all these reasonings like "is not situated realistically far from the ground", "it could not realistically produce real-life parameters necessary for testing", "the articles I read emphasize the fact that the 'testing' site cannot reproduce the conditions necessary for testing" - nothing more than your original research WP:NOR. Secondly, they are journalists, not scientists, so they cannot state any "scientific facts", they can only express the view (just like you). The fact that during visits of journalists vehicles drove at low speed can be explained by considerations of the safety of visitors. In my opinion, the "Testing" and "Evaluation" sections do not need to be modified until new articles appear (new articles are not a translation of two years old articles into other languages). I also think that such proposals about an "amusement park", in my opinion, only alienate the article from the neutral point of view and not vice versa. Please remember that there is a whole section "Advocacy and NPOV needs to stop", and this discussion should move in that direction. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:The German translation suggests that the extensive scientific credentials of the article are very good. They seem very well informed to me. The good thing about the Onliner.by is that they combine discussion of the 'science' by reputable Belarusian organisations with detailed descriptions of the business model of a company that employs people to create misleading and dishonest propaganda. Maybe you don't think these journalists are any good. The German Van Burren blog, however, disagrees with you. Even if none of the Onliner article makes it to the article, I think it's important that people get the chance to read what these journalists had to say on the talk page. You can't discount them just because they are 'two years old'. These articles were considered important enough in January of this year to translate by a reputable German blogger who comments on the legal aspects of illegal financial scams. I'm going to publish the complete translations of these articles with a summary of main points and useable quotes from the article here. Anyone is then free to use or ignore them as they feel fit. But I agree, it's hard to extend a text which is only a few sentences long without sounding partisan and 'amusement park' may sound unintentionally negative. this is nonetheless what many references say. I also look forward to new articles but discounting verified sources from the past which contain scientific information which is confirmed by third-parties and translators is not very helpful. We can only use existing articles, not fantasize about ones that may appear in the future. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:@Dron007:Thanks for helping me with this by the way. I really appreciate your opinions and I certainly listen to them. I'll continue to translate and summarise the sources I have and publish the information here for assessment. If you have ideas for information you think should be included, please post it here for discussion. Let me know if I can help and keep up the good work checking my suggestions.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: It is obvious that the blogger "who comments on the legal aspects of illegal financial scams" (this is your words, not mine) is not an expert in assessing speed, safety and other technical characteristics of vehicles. In addition, your hints that someone here allegedly creates "misleading and dishonest propaganda" are just amusing for me. There is not a word of propaganda in the article. I personally think that it is much more likely that some of the company's ill-wishers hire people who devote all their time (even on weekends) to translating and analyzing only critical articles about the company and its technology. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:It doesn't help anyone to suggest that people are corrupt or are wasting their time doing translations of material they find. If you think I should be spending my time on other material, you could help by finding and recommending other sources. The article, by the way, goes into detailed discussion of three staff members who have a history of working for pyramid marketing and who make money from 'pyramid schemes'. They are responsible for the webinars and film material used in SkyWay publicity. I'm just retelling what is in the article. If you think this is wrong, criticize the source material because there is something wrong with it. Don't shoot the messenger; read the message or provide your own alternative messages. Tell me what's wrong with it. The German translator who posted this article is obviously not a science expert. He delegates this task to the Belarusian experts quoted in the article. You can read it here in German,[49]. But if you think there's something wrong with the article, criticize it and not how I spend my weekends. Real criticism can be valuable and helpful. Suggesting I'm corrupt and critizing how I spend my weekends doesn't really achieve anything.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: As I said, and I repeat, all these arguments have nothing to do with the proposal to include "amusement park" in the article. I am not going to continue this discussion, everything is the same, we agree to disagree. But for the future, before offering to add such controversial "scientific facts" to the article, please avoid your original research WP:NOR and synthesis WP:NOTSYNTH - "where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources". Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Agree to disagree? I don't think so. I agree with most of your criticism. That's why I post to the talk page; to make suggestions and help improve the page. I post things here in good faith to argument on whether or not they could be valid changes. You, however, attacked the source material without actually addressing it, and worse still you made entirely unfounded claims about corruption and how I spend my weekends. Please keep your personal opinions to yourself. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: I have analyzed German translation and see that it has statements which don't exist in original Onliner article including answers from National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (4-page document) and answer from Belorussian State University of Transport (3-page document). For example there is no anything after "Notes:" (I used English translation of German blog article made with Google Translate). I mean this quote: "Note: Eco-Park is far removed from real-life conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds, nor does it have safety parameters in place.) Eco-Park is designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string at low speed and nothing else. Quasi a small recreational park for Skyway disciples without aha experience." Maybe they used another materials but we cannot rely on incorrect translation/synthesis. I also couldn't find anything about "not situated realistically far from the ground and is in the country and nowhere near any other buildings" neither in Onliner (original and German versions) nor in Italian article. Could you please give sources/quotes for these statements? Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander:You have mentioned that "The scientific facts in the articles suggest it would be physically impossible for them to get faster than 80km per hour, and that if they did they could vibrate and cause an accident. An accident is actually documented. And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour." I'll comment these statements one by one. 1) The statement in the documents says that the theoretical research done by scientists showed that is was possible to minimize the frequency of vibrations of 5 ton module only at 80 km/h speed using short distance between piers. At the same time there is a statement in 4-page document that declared speeds (500 km/h) are theoretically reachable but there are technical problems. That is not the same as "impossible". We probably need to do en exact translation of the origingal 3-page and 4-page documents not to quote them (primary source) but to check whether they were correctly used by the secondary sources. 2) Accident was not mentioned directly in any source but is implied in statements about max speed. What accident do you mean by "an accident is actually documented"? Is it the fact that I added some time ago when unibike hit the loader? It was removed later as not important. If so it is not connected in any way with the problems which appear in high speeds. It is more about overall safety of the system and low height of the railroad in EcoTechnoPark. I added it to show that despite the declared high safety standards there are obvious problems. 3) "And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour". Although it is a real fact during the EcoFest when there are many visitors in EcoTechnoPark there is no any evidence it is the maximum of speed ever reached. I haven't seen anything about this speed in any of the discussed articles.Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander:So as we see the following is not quite correct at least for the discussed articles: "These articles document the fact that as a 'testing' site it doesn't really do a very good job and suggest that it is not really designed to perform this function." So what facts from articles can be included? Re-reading 4-page document I have to say that it is rather unspecific. It can be used both as positive and negative resolution depending on which statements are choosen. Maybe we can mention that scientists recommended to launch additional tests and scientific research and also perform an independent expertise. We can take facts about unrealistic promises e.g. about the road in Mogilev as there is a document about it. Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:Thanks for these interesting comments. I'll copy them to the new discussion below on each ONLINER.BY article and the translations. We can specify there also the difference between the original and the translation. At the end there are a number of additional comments and I summed these up in a summary which I will publish in a few minutes. I will also publish the complete translation. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone's interest, here is a translation into English of the Onliner.by article from 22 February 2019: "I invested 6,600 dollars in SkyWay...". You can view it here:[50] The original Russian article is viewable here: [51] A summary of the German translation will follow.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the ONLINER.BY articles are not only about the EcoTechnoPark but introduce facts pertinent to the complex investment apparatus adopted by SkyWay in its marketing, I suggest a new heading be created specifically for these articles, their translation and possibly legal actions taken by Yunitskiy against Onliner.by or the Burrenblog. You can address any specific concerns you have about the validity of the claims made in these articles and their translations here. Please include only valid criticism or commentary on the CONTENTS of these articles and the facts within not your personal opinions about the translators possible reason for including them or the time they spend on translating them.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
String transport→SkyWay (name change): introduction adjustments and fact-check
It seems now pretty sure that the name of the article will be changing to "SkyWay Group". The wording, especially in the first paragraph will have to be changed. It's important that every setence is correct and verifiably reference. I was sure to fact-check every claim with individual references. Any suggestions you may have would be welcome at the end of the article to avoid confusion about the references and to assess your suggesstions.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Zaxander[reply]
SkyWay Group refers to a wide range of companies established and owned by the Russian inventor Anatoly Yunitskiy.[1] These companies are registered under business names like "SkyWay Capital Ltd." [2] and "Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd."[3] in London, Minsk and the Virgin Islands.[4] The companies make money by promoting and selling shares to investors; they make lofty claims about the potential of their light railtransportation system [1] called 'SkyWay' (also referred to by Kunitskiy as 'String Transport').[5] Potential investors are promised enormous returns on tax-free investments.[1] Unfortunately none of the Skyway group has ever realised a project [4] and various national banks have released warnings about financial irregularities.[2]
A prototype of the technology promoted by the Skyway Group was assessed by the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering. They concluded that "the technology is filled with a large number of system defects" and that the system is "associated with great risk". In 2016, a Russian government panel that evaluated the technology called it, "innovative, but only in theory".[5]
Although in various countries proceedings were started to initiate SkyWay Group projects - including India, Italy, the United Arab Emirates[7] and Lithuania - no projects have been realised; Memorandum of Understanding contracts were apparently signed but projects in Lithuania and India have been stalled due to concerns about safety and viability of the technology [6] as well as financial irregularity.[5] The Italian government has banned the advertisement and sale of SkyWay group company shares.[4]
The SkyWay Group is financing itself using suspicious marketing techniques [1] and crowdfunding.[4] However, financial regulators in multiple countries including Belgium, Estonia,[2] Germany [8], Greece] [9] Italy [4], Lithuania [2] and New Zealand [10] have issued warnings about the scheme and accused the promoters of not complying with legal requirements when seeking investment.[5] The FSMA (Belgium) warned that such financial schemes exhibit "the characteristics of a pyramid scheme".[2]
The Lithuanian Bank warning article (in English) states the following: "The Bank of Lithuania has recently noticed intensified activities of the SkyWay group, encouraging investing in this group’s project" and furthermore that "representatives keep issuing invitations, in various ways, to finance unclear projects, promising 'quick and easy benefits' ". It states clearly that "they have no permits to sale shares in Lithuania" and that the reader is warned because they "may lose their money". I suggest we change the sentence to "The companies encourage risky investment in unclear projects". I hope this sounds more neutral and is better representative of the material. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a phrase "Unfortunately none of the Skyway Group has ever realised a project outside of Belarus and various national banks have released warnings about financial irregularities." The problem with it is that it is 1) Not neutral and looks like a personal opinion. 2) You cannot proof absense of anything, right? So it is not possible to support this statement. "Financial irregularities" part is ok but it is repeated 2 sentences below: "As a result, financial regulators in many countries... have issued warnings...". The phrase "no projects have been realized" is also repeated so I think that sentence could be safely omitted.Dron007 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After all changes we still don't have anything about essense of the technology. I added a link on Skyway_(disambiguation) page and I had to give very short text describing this article so I used "а group of companies claiming the invention of a new transport technology" (BTW please fix grammar if incorrect). We don't have even this short description in the preamble. There is nothing about rails or suspension railway or even transport. Reader nowing nothing about Skyway have to guess it from companys' names, or from categories. There should be some descriptive text about the area of work of these companies. Dron007 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dron007 (talk·contribs) I'll check the disambiguation link. I think it's right to include information about what it is the companies are promoting. At the moment it says only that they 'promote' this technology and nothing else. I'll see what I can do but I'm worried that I will make the situation even worse. At the moment, they are trying to have it all deleted. I wonder whose interest that would serve? Not the interest of people who want to have an objective view of collected data, in any case. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dron007 (talk·contribs)The disambiguation link sounds great. I've included the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph. In this way, we mention Yunitskiy and his technology and we don't make unfounded suppositions about it either: "This technology was invented by Anatoly Yunitskiy and it is presented as a new type of light rail transportation system". Maybe 'elevated light right' would be even better? Please add something to support NOT deleting the article on the deletion request page. I know it's not perfect but silencing people isn't going to help anyone.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this is nice for start. I think it should be extended more as the next question of any curious reader will be "how it differs from any other railway system or monorail?" I surely add my thoughts against deletion.Dron007 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help on updating Skyway Group 'categories' and 'see also'
CATEGORIES
It seems to me that it is misleading to include the following as the only 'categories' for an article about a set of companies who promote an unverified technology:
Monorails
Proposed rail infrastructure
Rail transport
Do you have a suggestion about other categories we could include here? Please include them below or let us know what you feel about any suggestions made:
Pyramid & Ponzi schemes - this is a valid category and many of the verifiable resources suggest that SkyWay displays characteristics.
Multi-level marketing - also a valid category, and all business statements and SkyWay Group contracts involve the multi-level distribution of funding and the financial renumeration of getting more people involved in the project.
SEE ALSO
In the light of the name change it seems at best misleading to include only links to other forms of technology. Here are the links as present:
Well, the fact that some resources suggest that SkyWay displays characteristics of Ponzi scheme is still not enough to add this category. There were no proofs, no court decision and even above-mentioned resources have only suggestions. Opposite to this MLM is a valid category as it is the fact approved by the company. No objections concerning other categories. Dron007 (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 Thanks for your response. MLM is also known as 'pyramid marketing' so I'm happy with that. I don't want to change the categories without more consensus but it seems unproblematic to add to the 'see also' section. Even the company itself promotes MLM marketing and crowdfunding and the concepts are supported by the verified references, so I've added them to 'see also'. By the way, SkyWay doesn't share 'all' the characteristics of a 'monorail' either but it's still included as a category. But that seems irrelevant anyway as the article is no longer about 'rail' at all; it's about a business. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of companies belonging to the 'SkyWay Group'
There seem to be so many companies which belong to the SkyWay Group. The waters are muddied by the companies themselves being registered in difficult to pin-down tax havens such as the Virgin Islands. Whoever runs them is good at obfuscating the truth and confusing the matter by providing multiple conflicting accounts.
The idea is to include a complete list with the following information as it pertains to each entry: company name (place of registration) year of registration, year of dissolution, primary share-holder/owner & company director, e.g. Industrial Plastics Ltd. (Zanzibar) 1993-2012, I. Madork - Y. Gota. Include a separate reference if the company is registered with the same name in a different location.
American Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London) 2013-2015, A. Yunitskiy
African Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London) 2013-2015, A. Yunitskiy
Australian & Oceanic Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London), 2013-2015, A. Yunitskiy
Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), 2015
Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding II Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), 2016
Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding III Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), 2018
Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. (London) 2013-2018, A. Yunitskiy
First SkyWay Invest Group Ltd. (London) 2015, A. Kudriashov
Global Transport Investments Inc. (British Virgin Islands), 2015
СТРУННЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ ЗАО / CJSC String Technologies (Belarus) 2015
The actual article about the Skyway Group can only contain verifiable references. There are, however, many copies of official documents which, although unusable in the article, can help us build this list. Please help us keep this list up-to-date. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think this is too much information so with your permission I'll summarise it and then possibly at the end include it in a single table. Is there any information you think I should include in each reference? What do people need to know about the companies? With your permission, however, I'll remove all the information that does not pertain to the companies (such as commentary and websites).Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EXTENDED AND UPDATED LIST OF COMPANIES included in German here: [52]. It's a very expansive list of companies involved with the SkyWay Group in some way. It includes names of the companies, when they were registered, who founded and directs them and whether they are still extant. I'll eventually expand the list above with these names if no one else wants to do it. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This list includes the countries whose national banks or financial regulating agencies have issued some type of warning about investment in the SkyWay Group. Request for help to keep this list up-to-date with a link to the actual warnings.
Please note that financial regulations are considered primary sources like legislation. Verifiable links which help make a company notable need to include secondary references which verify these primary sources. A good example below is the Greek regulatory warning. First link is to a verifiable source (EconomyNews247) of a primary Greek regulatory warning from the HCMC. We need to find secondary sources for each of these warnings.
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 Good work! I translated the warning: it is very similar to the warning from the national bank of the Czech Republic. The list of countries which have issued warnings is actually getting very long - I changed the text to read 'many countries including...' so that this would be still be true for the unlisted countries. Do you think we should add 'Slovenia' and 'the Czech Republic' to the list? I'd be happy to do it, but I'd like to hear your opinion first (I put the Czech Republic warning there a few weeks ago and no one has either commented on it or responded too it). −Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: I will remove the reference to 'many countries'; it was only put there because there were so many countries that have released regulatory warnings and the countries in the 'regulatory warnings' section differed to the countries mentioned in the 'background'. These references, however, have been expanded upon. I have also added more specific links to actual individual sites and what those warnings say. They've each been checked. I can understand your worries about the FSMA reference being used a lot and I've tried to address these issues. I'll also remove reference to the supposed Estonia warning as it is only mentioned in the FSMA press release and may be a mistake. I hope I've helped to address your issues.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION on the warnings from the regulatory agency in Estonia
- At the moment we only have the FSMA Belgium reference stating that Estonia is one of the countries who has released a warning about investing in SkyWay Group company shares. I've been to the 'Estonian Financial Supervision Authority' (EFSA - Finantsinspektsioon) and I can't find anything there. This could be a mistake and therefore should be removed, but I'm requesting here that someone finds an actual reference we can use. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find it there using Google's search by site 'site:www.fi.ee skyway'. There are other warnings (Belgiam, Italian) including Estonian one: [53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dron007 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Publication of the German news feed geldthemen.de which includes links for many countries which have released warnings about companies in the SkyWay Group. Some of these countries, including Sweden and Malta, have not reached this list yet: [56].
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it is neither a biography or an attack. It is merely a summary of the verifiable references to the 'SkyWay Group' of companies. People have a right to read a collated collection of published verifiable information about a company and its practices. Not including this information allows the self-published, self-promoting sources to exist as truth. There has to be a place to share and build up verifiable information on any given subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page shoild be deleted becouse it is is about non-existent company, i mean SkyWay Group. There is no such a company registered anywere. There is no information on what this company produces. The accusations against the companies, which has a "skyway" in they title are obviously ambiguous. This article dont looks enciclopedic at all. It is more simillar to Black PR. --Владимир Малафей (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
-The term 'SkyWay Group' is a blanket term used to refer to a group of companies. They are listed in a sub-heading above. There are numerous verifiable references that use the term 'SkyWay Group' to refer to these companies. No one is suggesting that there is a company with this name. You should read the contents of the talk page and the request for the name change of this article before suggesting it be removed or supporting the deletion of an article. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST for exact verifiable reference for Yunitskiy as owner and founder
ANATOLY YUNITSKIY invented 'SkyWay' technology. He is also the spokesperson, chairman, director of most of the companies as well as the primary shareholder. He attends all SkyWay events and is present at all international negotiations. But before we include his name in the lede and the background we have to have a specific reference that states this. The fact that he is mentioned in almost every article, and when he's not mentioned, no one else is, is not enough in and of itself. Could anyone include a reference below that states something like "Anatoly Yunitskiy is the primary share-holder (and/or) director" it would be great. It has to be a newspaper and more than a newsfeed, i.e. "according to the Economic Times, Yunitsky is...". If we have this we can include Yunitskiy's name in the opening 'lede' paragraph.
Concerns about validity of Indian and Italian references
These concerns were brought up about the questionability of the sources from Italy (ref name="letteraemme") and India (the Economic Times. They were posted as part of the NOTABILITY deletion request from February 2019 and could not contribute to this argument as they concerned the content of the article, but should be considered here. They were posted by user: IGOR KOIRO. Let me know what you think:
I draw your attention to the fact that the cited source published the article of the political opposition to the then acting ruler who supported the technology and lied on purpose. There are words about innovations in the original document, but nothing about its theoretical nature. On the official website (in Russian) of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation there appeared the minutes of the meeting of the Expert Council held on February 11, 2016, during which the SkyWay transport system was recognized as innovative. This is the link to the document: https://itk-mdl.asutk.ru/upload/doc/%D0%9F%D0%A0%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E%D0%9A%D0%9E%D0%9B%2016%20-%20%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0%202.pdf
In English the relevant paragraph reads:
“V. On consideration of SkyWay Technologies Co. application (Davydov, Shatrakov, Slepak, Zarechkin, Polozov-Yablonsky, Zhankaziev) 1. The following information has been taken into consideration: 1.1. SkyWay Technologies Co. (Yunitsky) has spoken on the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way; 1.2. The Expert Council has admitted a possibility of recognizing the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way to be innovative. 2. There has been resolved as follows: 2.1. Recognize the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way to be innovative; 2.2. Recommend SkyWay Technologies Co. to additionally present a project for application of the proposed transport system Sky Way in specific operation conditions. In cooperation with the Industry expertise centre of import-substituting technologies in transport, it is recommended to prepare a comparative analysis of the proposed innovative solutions vs analogic existing technologies.”
Instead of quoting the source which is available on the official site, the author of the article has spent time finding a site that published an outright lie on this document due to subjective reasons, which is what he needed doing the same thing, because their goals are the same - defamation. Moreover, feeling the lack of negative info the author posts this lie twice, in the “Background” and “Test projects. Russia” paragraphs.
2) Can we believe in good intentions of such an author at all? No, meaning his point of view is not neutral WP:NCORP, WP:NPOV, WP:CSD, criteria WP:G10.
3) The article is to be deleted since the author’s point of view is extremely biased and thus violates the stated “Neutral point of view” requirement WP:NPOV. For instance, in “Abandoned projects. Russia” the article reads:
“In 2007 and 2018 pilot projects of the SkyWay Group technology were planned in Russian cities. But specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering gave a negative assessment of the project and it was not implemented.[3]”
The author refers to the article from a Sicilian newspaper which was written during the election campaign of the Mayor of Messina who at the time was supporting a transportation system reform. The political bias is transparent here. Anyhow, even without taking this fact into consideration, it is necessary to note that the author has found the real fact dating back to 2008, but neglected the following developments, moreover, he has lied about a negative assessment of SkyWay’s recent projects by specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering.
Vice versa: ten years after that event specialists of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering realized their mistakes, appreciated the works of Anatoly Yunitskiy and offered cooperation! It happened after a visit to the SkyWay EcoTechnoPark by the Professor of the Department “Bridges and tunnels” Vladimir Fridkin, Doctor of Engineering Science, who had doubted on the prospects of SkyWay transport previously. So, as a result, in December, 2017 an agreement on comprehensive cooperation between Moscow State University of Railway Engineering and “SkyWay Technologies Co.” was concluded. The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies while designing, developing and implementing SkyWay transport in transportation infrastructure.
The very fact of this final recognition is easily traceable in the official Moscow State University of Railway Engineering newspaper «Инженер транспорта» (Transport Engineer) №16 (824) dated December 22, 2017, where on page 3, in the article «На чём обогнать самолёт» (How to Overtake an Airplane) it is clearly written: «Нельзя не отметить, что 7 декабря было подписано соглашение о комплексном сотрудничестве между ЗАО «Струнные технологии» и нашим университетом. » (It should be noted that on December 7, an agreement on comprehensive cooperation was signed between “SkyWay Technologies Co.” and our university.) http://miit.ru/content/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%BA%D0%B0.pdf?id_vf=792053
From a first reaction to this, I think including the Russian project as a 'test site' and an 'abandoned project' is unnecessary. They are both based on third-party assessments of the same material - and would be better to use the original than refer to a third-party especially when two different articles have resulted in two different interpretations of the same material. I promote removing the Russian project from the 'abandoned projects' which is basically repetition of the same source material, if from two different sources. It's either a test site or an abandoned project; not both. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not as simple as user who calls themselves "Igor Koiro" says. Two facts are mentioned here. 1) Discussion of SkyWay in Russian government panel. 2) MSUoRE conclusion/collaboration about SkyWay. Let's consider them one by one.
1. Supporters of Skyway widely promoted the information that the Ministry of Transport of Russian Federation had recognized Skyway as innovative technology. I don't think that this fact is important at all and I don't think that Indian source lies adding "but only in theory". As it is given in the translation (quite correct one) that was a panel for import-substituting discussion. The only purpose of it was to find local products and technologies worth investing. According to the conclusion where it was asked to "present a project for applications... in specific operation conditions" there was not enough information to make a decision. Paraphrasing that we may say that there was no practical confirmations of the Skyway's work or that it is only theoretical concept which is not far from "innovative but only in theory". The mistake of the article was to use quotes. Anyway this fact gives us nothing. After 3 years there is no any evidence that Ministry of Transport selected this technology for import substitution or that they plan any other collaboration with Skyway. We can just remove it or at least remove the duplication. And I don't think that this phrase compromises the Indian article in any way.
2. There was no lie about assessment of Skyway technology by specialists of MSUoRE in 2008. The original document is available here [57] though it cannot be used in the article (primary source, self-promoted resource).Dron007 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007: That is not the "original document" from MSUoRE (MIIT). It was authored by SkyWay's predecessor, String Transport Unitsky "STU" and is a response to MIIT's evaluation of the technology of the same acronym STU (note the lack of quotes). OCR Translation from https://translate.yandex.com/translate gives the title of the document at http://www.yunitskiy.com/author/2007/2007_45.pdf as "Materials in the so-called expertise of STU performed by the MIIT, and examination of these materials, done by "STU" (July 2006 — January 2007). In other words, the title essentially means, "This document refers to materials produced by MIIT regarding STU (Unitsky String Transport), and we "STU" (String Transport Unitsky) have provided our examination of those materials also in this document." The opinion of the document is more or less clear from the machine translation. For example in section 2 we can see the following:
(Yandex machine translated of 2007_45.pdf via OCR) "Of course, working documentation for this project is a developer who is willing to provide it upon request of the investor or expert. But such queries till date not received, so expertise in the MIIT has deliberately been a virtual technical solutions that have no relation to STU and Khabarovsk. The purpose of this "expertise" to us is obvious: when ordering experts were programmed for a negative result, that in any case in Khabarovsk project STU not went investment.
It is clear that the document you cite as being the "original document" is actually a critical response by STU (now SkyWay). Therein STU (now SkyWay) says MIIT did not request working documentation of the String Transport technology. If true, it means that MIIT evaluated not the String Transport technology, but rather what they assumed it to be. Sincerely, talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you read full document you will see that the original report starts from page 71. The document includes it along with Yunitskiy's criticisms and other documents. @SiNkarma86: Please check the result after you break somebody's comment into parts. It is impossible to understand who was the author after such changes.Dron007 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2007 precedes 2008. The document provided is dated from 2007. Page 71 is the beginning of section 10 in the PDF and is a scan of a comb-bounded document from 2006. Where is the original document for the "2008 assessment"? talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yandex Translate only goes to the 25th page, in PDF so I had to open the PDF directly, viewing Section 10 without the helpful translation. Nevertheless, I notice that a lot of editorial markings of ✓ and ? are written in by hand in Section 10, presumably by a member of SkyWay reviewing MIIT's report for accuracies/inaccuracies. It's not clear how this reference you cite should make clear that "There was no lie about assessment of Skyway technology by specialists of MSUoRE in 2008." talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 05:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, the assessment was done in 2016, not in 2008 and Yunitskiy's critical report which includes photocopy of the original assessment (with his marks) is dated 2007. What are you trying to disprove? The fact that there was negative assessment done by MSUoRE (in 2006, not 2008 but that doesn't matter in current discussion) is approved by Yunitskiy in many speeches and in his report discussed above. Dron007 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. But Italian article is probably wrong about 2018. The article it references [58] is dated by 2010 and I don't know about any planned pilot projects in 2018. It is not quite correctly to say that "ten years after that event specialists of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering realized their mistakes, appreciated the works of Anatoly Yunitskiy and offered cooperation". One of the specialists who did first assessment, professor Zylev (Зылев) still criticize Skyway. At the same time there really was information about some agreement signed between MSUoRE and SkyWay in 2017. There were no details and very few comments from University about it. Supporters of the project evaluate this fact as full acknowledgment of Skyway by this University. There was also a video with prof. Vladimir Fridkin who supported the technology. But there was no 3rd party resources covering it, and video was promoted by Skyway sites. So as we can see there is no consensus about the technology from the University staff.Dron007 (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007: They keep using this argument that the MSUoRE has rethought its assessment and is now collaborating with SkyWay to change the article content saying things like 'but they realized afterwards that they were wrong about Yunitskiy and they are now collaborating with him'. This assumption seems really bad faith as it assumes that even if they did change their mind and provide approval, why is that decision important if it hasn't caused them to change their plans. Are they now planning to actually build something in Russia? I wonder what they agreed upon in 2017. I suppose if it meant anything they'd say what is was. Did the Italian article really use the Stringer article as a primary source? I checked and translated part of that article and it didn't really seem to say much about anything provable. Is it just coincidence that it's called "Stringer.com" [i.e. string-er]? I think it would be safe to remove Russia from the 'abandonded projects' as it uses the Italian reference and besides it's already in the test sites. Better to improve this reference to a test site than mention it twice if the information is unverified. We can always put it back later but I think this is creating confusion at present. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not planning to build something in Russia and I doubt that University is deciding that. Yes, this Italian article [59] has link to Stringer under link with words "Già nel 2007 e nel 2018, gli specialisti della Moskow State University of Railway Engineering". "Stringer" is just coincidence and it doesn't look like a reliable source for me.Dron007 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:So according to the Indian Economic Times article from 2017 testing happened in 2008 and ... last year? This seems a really bad basis for making a claim about the second assessment! So this is what we have then: the Indian article suggests 2016. SkyWay say that they renegotiated with the MSUoRE in 2017 and the Italian article says 2018? Even if we assume that the 2018 meeting was a mistake, did they really do a second assessment and what did they decide? It is safe to say that this took place in 2016 - does anyone else mention this? This needs to be fixed up before it causes even more problems. For the 'Background' I think it is accurate to conclude from the Indian article the following reliable information (that can be quickly fixed) :
− ::*"An assessment by the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering found that this technology was "not viable and unsafe".[ECT]"
− ::Although this doesn't include the years of assessment, this information is repeated anyway with more detailed information in the 'test sites'. I'll work on this later. We just have to find clearer references or make sure that all the information we do include in the 'test sites' is correct. Thanks for your interest and patience. It is really hard to do this is a way that won't upset people, isn't it?–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicting claims about MSUoRE assessment and test project in Ozery (Moscow area)
Different sources make various claims about the MSUoRE releasing assessments of SkyWay technology. They also claim that there was a test project in Ozery, a Moscow suburb, that was constructed and later taken apart. Some claim assessments were made in 2008 and 2016. Others claim 2007 and 2018. Some claim that contracts were signed between MSUoRE and SkyWay in 2017 although we have no idea why and to what end. We still have no verifiable references to these events. Please don't include YouTube films, uploaded images to commons, maps, primary sources like legislation or copies of contracts because we can't use them. At the moment, there is no actual information about the test site at all; only about the assessment. When we have verifiable descriptions of the deconstructed Moscow test site, I propose we create a new heading for 'Technology Assessment' which includes information about the assessment as opposed to the 'Test sites' in Ozery and Marjina Horka.
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a google translation of what the Norwegian article says about the Ozery project. They even have a photo of it. Note that I haven't been able work out yet what they are actually using to verify this. Otherwise they don't discuss any actual testing projects.
"Testing of SkyWay in Oziory- The first full-scale test installation was established in 2001 in the Russian city of Oziory with funds allocated by the politician Aleksandr Lebed. This installation was shut down and deconstructed after a few years."
An issue was brought up the user Andrew Postelniak concerning the assessment of SkyWay by MSUoRE, the year this took place and the decisions they made. Any comments are welcome :
The conclusion about the assessment of the technology by Moscow State University of Railway Engineering from 2008 is already outdated.
In early 2018, the technology underwent new expertise, and this time a positive conclusion was given. Here is a link from the official site of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering (in Russian):
They write: “The company "SkyWay" received certificates confirming the technical properties of the rolling stock of string transport. Certificates are issued for a unibus model U4-210 and a unibike model U4-621, which can be seen at the test site of transport - EcoTechnoPark. Today, string transport is a de facto separate type of transport, so certification was carried out to comply with the requirements of the regulatory documents of urban electric transport: Unibus U4-210 Certificate PDF, Unibike U4-621 PDF Certificate...
...SkyWay signed an agreement on comprehensive cooperation with the institution “Moscow State University of Railway Engineering”. A positive conclusion was made by the university on the work“ Preliminary Evaluation of the Development Prospects and the Field of Use of Innovative String-Rail Transport of SkyWay Rack Type".
The problem is this: will the positive assessment in 2018 actually result in new collaborations between Russia or the MSUoRE in the future? A negative assessment can be used as an argument for not applying a technology. This is referred to as a reason in secondary sources for non-implementation. But a positive assessment has to result in some type of proposal for actual implementation somewhere. Or it has to be used by a secondary source as the basis for either actual projects or at least the proposal of such projects. There also has to be secondary referral to original documentation. An agreement of comprehensive cooperation is great. But what are they going to do about it? There is a now a request to find actual proposals of possible collaboration or implementation of these assessments because the assessment itself is unusable as a claim in itself, or failing this references to a secondary source which describes some actual implications for this positive assessment.
[61] and [62] (section "Струны под сертификатом" in the second link)
They write: "The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies in the design, development, and implementation of string transport in the transport infrastructure. The agreement is long-term, it is related not only to extensive scientific and technical cooperation but also to analytical and socio-cultural activities. It will be especially interesting for graduates and young professionals who have graduated from MSUoRE, because their career horizons will expand in the near future."
I didn't find other links so far. The university is a governmental institution, so I think the main idea of this assessment is not that they will implement some commercial project(s) together but that the technology is technically feasible and is not "unsafe" anymore as it used to be in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Ozyory (Moscow region) test site is described in the onliner.by article viewable here [63]. I suggest we update the testing heading to include a brief description of this site something like the following:
In 2001 a prototype of a SkyWay track was constructed in Ozyory (Moscow region). but only A truck "with iron wheels" was tested on this track and it was later deconstructed.[onliner.by reference]
I think it is ok but it is better to remove "but only" as it supposes that there were bigger plans and they were not fully implemented. By Yunitskiy's word he is fully satisfied with that work.Dron007 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should add statements like "the test site was later deconstructed due to lack of funding" [64] without any reference to the reliable sources.Dron007 (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got a message from one of the main contributors to the Norwegian Wikipedia SkyWay article yesterday. He told me that it was hard to find verifiable references for the Ozyory site. I think he used the accompanying text to the Wikipedia commons images. According to the person who shared this image the site was taken apart in 2008 for scrap. There might be more information on the other phtoso. I imagine, however, that these texts are not really verifiable sources. The Onliner.by article discusses funding from the Russian government (Lebed). –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is general consensus over the fact that this site was later deconstructed. We don't need to know why especially if we don't mention the original funding by Lebed and the Russian government. I support returning the fact that 'This site was later deconstructed' but advice appreciated in this regard.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original Onliner.by article viewable here [65] does indeed mention that the site was deconstructed. The actual wording is "Then in Russia the first testing ground was demolished."
This link has recent photos of what is still in existence at the Ozyory deconstructed test-site.[66]
The conclusion about the assessment of the technology by Moscow State University of Railway Engineering from 2008 is already outdated.
In early 2018, the technology underwent new expertise, and this time a positive conclusion was given. Here is a link from the official site of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering (in Russian):
They write: “The company "SkyWay" received certificates confirming the technical properties of the rolling stock of string transport. Certificates are issued for a unibus model U4-210 and a unibike model U4-621, which can be seen at the test site of transport - EcoTechnoPark. Today, string transport is a de facto separate type of transport, so certification was carried out to comply with the requirements of the regulatory documents of urban electric transport: Unibus U4-210 Certificate PDF, Unibike U4-621 PDF Certificate...
...SkyWay signed an agreement on comprehensive cooperation with the institution “Moscow State University of Railway Engineering”. A positive conclusion was made by the university on the work“ Preliminary Evaluation of the Development Prospects and the Field of Use of Innovative String-Rail Transport of SkyWay Rack Type".
The problem with this source is that it is not an original material of MSUoRE but copy of an article from the "Transport of Russia" newspaper. It is dated Jan 2018 and in Dec 2017 there was a promoted material in the Skyway-related site: [68] (Russian) [69] (English) which is almost identical to this article including wordings like "As a reminder... the Expert Council under the Ministry of transport of the Russian Federation acknowledged SkyWay string technology as innovative." It looks like a Churnalism and I don't think we can use this material as it is just a copy of company's press-release.Dron007 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We would need an independent secondary source to tell us the significance of the certification, but it looks to me like a routine step in the product development process that simply confirms that the vehicles meets certain regulatory requirements. We shouldn't treat this as a government endorsement or as a sign that the overall concept is workable or practical.
The nature of the agreement with the university is unclear, and again we would need secondary sources to tell us what it really means. We shouldn't treat this as a "reversal" of the university's position. It may be the case that the negative assessment still stands, and the university has agreed to work with Skyway to develop a concept that is more than just a novel idea. We just don't know. –dlthewave☎16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two secondary sources: [70] and [71] (section "Струны под сертификатом" in the second link). It is clearly stated that "The company SkyWay received certificates confirming the technical properties of the rolling stock of string transport." Did they issue the certificates if the technology was unsafe? No, they've changed their mind after the assessment, which is not unusual, since 10 years have passed, and the technology has been improved over this time. They write: "The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies in the design, development, and implementation of string transport in the transport infrastructure. The agreement is long-term, it is related not only to extensive scientific and technical cooperation but also to analytical and socio-cultural activities. It will be especially interesting for graduates and young professionals who have graduated from MSUoRE, because their career horizons will expand in the near future." The university is a governmental institution, so I think the main idea of this assessment is not that they will implement some commercial project(s) together but that the technology is technically feasible and is not "unsafe" anymore as it used to be in 2008. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately any decision made by a university, a regulatory agency or a government doesn't mean anything if it hasn't resulted in the application of this technology. What happens to the career horizons of young professionals is especially irrelevant. Discussions of possible future collaboration doesn't mean anything either if it hasn't resulted in any real proposals of future collaboration. A decision today doesn't negate the results of previous negative assessments either which are still true for actual decisions about the implementation of this technology. Maybe it will mean something in the future. But these references do not give any indication that they mean anything now. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When someone has commented in a verifiable article on how this MSUoRE policy decision has resulted in actual application of this technology or at least to a proposal of implementation, we could change the article text. Until then it remains conjecture. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you contradict yourself: if a positive assessment made by the university "...doesn't mean anything if it hasn't resulted in the application of this technology", then why is the negative assessment made by the same institution is emphasized in the article? If the positive assessment is unimportant and the technology can be assessed only when it is implemented somewhere, then why is the negative assessment included in the "Technology" section? This is what I have already said: the article is far away from being neutral, and if there was another negative assessment of the technology, I am sure it would be included in the article without hesitation. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what your frustration is. Please make a suggestion how you propose we could word this better. A negative assessment is quoted because it was used as the basis for secondary sources and the choice to not implement the project in the past. You're right it is far easier to say that something resulted in a negative choice. Unfortunately this is the only verifiable realization of this (negative) decision. The positive assessment still doesn't mean anything until you're able to prove that thanks to this claim being made, something has happened that someone has documented. If you think we could word the 'negative assessment in a way that reflects better reality and this can be backed up with a verifiable reference, please include your suggestion below that someone other than me can assess. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 'technology' section is the result of a recent change by another user. It used to be called 'Assessment' and before that 'Safety & evaluation'. I didn't object to the name change because if it's called 'technology' we can change the content to include more about the technology when we have more verifiable references. I actually think 'Evaluation' would be a better title than 'Technology' but this new choice does offer more scope in the future. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid observation that so much specific information about only the (negative) assessment is now included in a heading which broadly describes the technology. This is misleading. Maybe someone (else) could change it to 'Evaluation' or something until we have enough valid content. It can always be changed in the future when the contents actually reflects the technology and not just its assessment in Russia. This is a very real problem I think. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation: Skyway in Chicago is actually something else
There is a Skyway in Chicago. But it's not actually a Russian company: it's a toll bridge. See a YouTube film about it here: [72]. There are lots of different Skyways around the world that refer to things like moving pathways at airports and actual companies who just share the same name. There's even a third-person platformer on steam called Skyway:[73]. But in a few places people are posting to SkyWay threads stories about how someone's mother had committed fraud on her grandschildren to help fund a 'Skyway' project in Chicago USA. They seemed to think it was the same one. I can't actually find any proof of such allegations. It seems unlikely despite all the current move towards deregulation happening there that our Belarusian SkyWay will end up in the United States in any real way. But with the current uncomfortable familiarity between the leaders of these great super-powers, anything's possible.
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking links in AfD page and found that this one [74] lists several pages with another "Skyway Group" company not related to the discussed one.Dron007 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Important disambiguation from this link: "SkyWay Group Inc." is also a company name in the United States. Apparently "SkyWay Aero, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the SkyWay Group, Inc., and is focused on all aspects of aircraft acquisition, brokerage and sales" [of aircraft]. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SKYWAY is also an entirely unrelated university in Malawi. See it here: [75]
'Awana SkyWay' is a gondola lift system connecting Awana Transport Hub, Chin Swee Temple and SkyAvenue in Genting Highlands, Pahang, Malaysia since December 2016. It has nothing to do with the Belarusian SkyWay company. It has been reported in various places on the internet that motivated sales meetings have been held by SkyWay in Malaysia (to sell cryptocurrencies) so it's important to make this distinction. The monorail system is owned by 'Resort World Genting' and has nothing to do with the controversial Belarusian SkyWay investment group. -Zachar (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SkyWay on Wikipedia - Czech, Hungarian & Norwegian
You can still find Czech and Norwegian language Wikipedia articles on ‘SkyWay’. The Hungarian article, mentioned above, was deleted on 9 August 2018 and the reason for it being removed was 'doubtful legitimate use'. The Czech language version seems really terrible. In structure it is sort of similar to what we used to have before November 2018. What makes it terrible is the fact that there are absolutely no references at all to any source material, verified or unverified as far as I could tell. It seems after looking in its history that it was started in April 2018. There have been about 10 changes to it in its 10 month history and the first posting is very similar to what it is now. We certainly don't want to emulate that one and I hope they get some sense and take it down soon. You can see it here:
What's good about it? Take a look. It's short, concise and has a great list of references. I should note here that it uses regulatory warnings - a lot of the same ones as in the English article - as verifiable references. Maybe the rules are different in Norway but we’ve been roasted for doing this in the recent deletion request.
The Norwegians actually started working on it in September 2017. The article has changed a lot since then. This was the opening paragraph:
"SkyWay Capital (also called Yunitskiy String Transport, Rail Sky Way and RSW Systems) is a finance concept which has as its face the British company Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd. The model is a combination of public finance and network marketing."
At this time the article was clearly about a specific business. The article was probably actually called ‘SkyWay Capital’ then. The article today is now completely different. It’s more about the technology. Although this may seem problematic, nonetheless the new article is short, concise and looks well researched with a great list of references some of which I’ve already included above.
The thing that does unite these articles (even the Hungarian one which has been removed) is that they are all called simply ‘SkyWay’. Maybe we should also consider simplifying the name of this article from ‘SkyWay Group’ to ‘SkyWay’ since we're having problems with the fact that very few references actually use terms like the ‘SkyWay Group’ to refer to these companies. We’d be able to include links to the foreign articles as well. The English article, after all, already touches on a variety of concepts – the group of companies, its marketing of the skyway technology, assessment and testing of this technology as well as Yutniskiy’s involvement. Would all these things be better summed up with simple use of ‘SkyWay’ rather than ‘SkyWay Group’ which suggests only a plural of companies? Maybe just ‘SkyWay’ would do this better? Just putting the idea out there to see what others think.
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HOW ARE THE NORWEGIAN AND ENGLISH ARTICLES DIFFERENT? I translated whole sections of the Norwegian article. Below is list of the Norwegian headings and a summary of their contents which helps to explain why the English and the Norwegian articles are so different. SKYWAY in Norwegian structures the article and classifies the information in a different way and according to different categories. Here's how they do it:
KONSEPT ('concept'): The technology as an idea of an elevated transportation system is proposed in a few sentences.
UTTESTING ('testing'): A few concise sentences describe proposed test sites. It starts with the deconstructed test-site Oziory (Moscow area) in 2001 (I've requested their resource for this so we can include it too). This is followed by a brief description of the proposed test-site in Lithuania which was cancelled in 2014. They finish with a brief description on the construction of the EcoTechnoPark in Belarus without actually naming it.
PLANLAGTE PROSJEKTER ('planned projects'): This starts with a brief description of the projects planned in India and Indonesia. Here they are quoting an article which discusses arrangments in made in Jakarta at the 'Universitas Indonesia'; they don't mention Jorong. They don't mention the United Arab Emirates either. They also mention a test project planned at university in Melbourne, Australia, but don't mention the fact that it was cancelled. I imagine however that this is because their article is out-of-date but nonetheless we have to verify our Indonesian source and to ask why it differs to what the Norwegians claim.
SKYWAY CAPITAL : This section is on the activities of the fundraiser company who sell the shares of specific companies. More recent research suggests that the information in the Norwegian article is incomplete although it should be said here that it' claims are of specific relation to activities in Norway.
I've come to the conclusion that although the two articles are different this can be largely explained by the fact that these differences are related to country specific factors and the fact that their article is now out-of-date. I suggest, however, that we update our reference to the project at Flinders University in Melbourned and check the Indonesian reference.
Include below information about all trade fairs where actual SkyWay technology had a stall of formally presented physical examples of vehicles. Information about the test site in Ozery, Moscow can be included in the already existing sub-heading above. Include below information about the 'Innotrans' trade fair or the Governmental summit in the UAE. Apparently there was also a presentation at a university in Indonesia. In the article in the future we should probably create a new heading for 'Technology proposals' or something similar. Please only include verifiable third-party assessments and not releases from either SkyWay or advertising from the trade fairs because we can't use them. You can just tell us when and where these events happened if you don't have the verifiable references. We want to know about them but extraneous links to them we can't use aren't really necessary. The individual entries below include the official EVENT title, WHEN the event was held, WHERE it was held and afterwards a description of WHAT actually took place with third-party assessments if you have found any.
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Future Cities Show
EVENT: 2nd Future Cities Show
WHEN - April 9-11 2018
WHERE - Dubai World Trade Center, The United Arab Emirates
WHAT - "Skyway String Transport was displayed to the Arab world at Future Cities Show."
WHAT - "His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, accompanied by Shaikh Hamdan Bin Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai and Chairman of Dubai Executive Council, reviewed two models of the Sky Pods, a mobility system being tested by the @RTA_Dubai in conjunction with Skyway Greentech Co."
The advocacy on both sides needs to stop. It is clear that someone related to the company is attempting to get it deleted based on the number of socks voting for such. It also appears that many SPA users are only here to add negative information. An example is this - "In 2014 the SkyWay Group planned to build its first test site in Lithuania, but this project was cancelled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud.[8]" - which is negative information written from a non-NPOV. That is NOT what the sources say. It is also the whole story according to some other references. The WP:OR and WP:SYNTH needs to be removed from the page. If no one wants to take the initiative, I will gladly do so this week. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I described above in the section on the Lithuanian scandal on the talk page problems that existed. I read all the references and I told the story as I had understood it. What was there in the article at the time didn't at all resemble what actually happened. I removed the facts that were outright lies and I requested that someone else tell this story again in a consequent way. No one has but it'd be great if you did. I obviously shouldn't. Also, we now have a new reference on the Lithuania scandal which I haven't translated yet. It is used in the section on marketing as they use it in the Norwegian article to discuss 'SkyWay Capital'. Thanks for your help with this article; your good advice was listened to and understood.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is about the story as I understand it. The talk page is obviously where you have to verify facts that are in question. I read the many articles on the Lithuania scandal and I communicated on the talk page the facts as they were stated in the articles. The whole affair is complex and confusing. I removed, however, the blatant lies and I requested that other users take a fresh look at the facts in the original articles and change the article based on these facts. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:The recent deletion request was a learning experience but it was also a disturbing one. Seeing a wave of people adopting the names of Belarusian SkyWay critics to peddle lies and make false accusations was to say the least disquieting. The intention has never been to include negative information; it has always been to include documented facts. There is just the blatant fact that all verifiable sources are if not just critical downright scathingly critical of SkyWay. But if there have been inadvertent negative information unfairly communicated then it should be said to ensure it doesn't happen again. The problem has been recently brought up of the difficulty of including positive assessments if they haven't actually led to instances of documented application. The (negative) Russian assessment is probably a good place to start. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some users even didn't try to find any positive information: there are references about EcoTechnoPark, about the new assessment of the technology in 2018, about the project in the UAE etc. At the same time, they keep finding and adding new sources about financial irregularities. "There is just the blatant fact that all verifiable sources are if not just critical downright scathingly critical of SkyWay" - this is obviously not true, and it cannot be true - all sources cannot be critical, some users just don't want to find neutral/non-critical references. So I agree that this article should be edited by more experienced Wikipedia users/editors.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The link is probably wrong but the statement that "this project was cancelled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud" is correct. Look here [76] "The reason for expelling the project from Lithuania was the statement of the Central Bank that the activities of Yunitskiy’s companies were fraudulent". The case is much wider of course, but it is its essense. Dron007 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This link [77] also states that "The investigation lasted for almost three years and ended with nothing... Just recently, the project obtained support from the government of the United Arab Emirates..." So probably better statement is "this project was canceled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud, which, however, were not confirmed and later removed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Sources can be critical without being negative. No one is looking for either positive or negative criticism. They are looking for facts. Anything else is irrelevant. This is what the verifiable references say: the project in Lithuania was stopped by the Lithuanian government in 2014. They discovered years afterwards that they couldn't prosecute SkyWay for being a pyramid scheme. They didn't say that they were wrong about stopping the project. This doesn't reverse any decisions the government may have made. Please read the summary above for a detailed discussion of the Lithuanian scandal. Furthermore, verifiable articles published recently have shown that Yunitskiy and company were unsuccessful in suing the Lithuanian government. They lost the case. Nothing in the verifiable references indicates that the Lithuanian government has gone back on its decisions:[79]. Also personal attacks on my credibility don't help anyone. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to know what justifies the accusation that 'many' Single-Purpose Accounts are negatively influencing this page. I'm not aware of any user who has recently contributed to this article who has not contributed to other discussions on different subjects; I know because I checked their history. I've also contributed to other discussions and I wrote an article on a musical instrument. So if you don't specifically mean my account or any other recent contributors, who do you mean? It should also be noted that the user Andrew-Postelniak was created on 4 March 2019; they have yet to contribute to any other discussion apart from the recent deletion request of this article. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
these accusations have nothing in common with reality. I am not a native English speaker, so I edit other articles in my native language, and here on Wikipedia, the history of editing is saved for each language separately. This account was created for the English language. I also want to draw the attention of more experienced users that user Zaxander violates WP:PA and often comments the contributor, not on content. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome the advice and participation of more experienced users. The site needs help and will improve when it has more varied participants. But as far as the amusing claim that I make accusations about other users and not content: these are not accusations; they are observations of fact about when the account was created and where its attention has been directed. Claiming anything else is just personal and is entirely unhelpful. If anyone wants to bring clearly necessary changes of content to this page, please post it here first for discussion, confirmation and consensus among other users. This is a contentious topic so discussion is necessary. Please assume that others are operating in good faith and don't get angry and start throwing accusations at people if they don't agree with your changes.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zaxander & Andrew-Postelniak, here's an "observation of fact." You both are WP:SPAs by definition. Many SPAs come to Wikipedia with a WP:COI or use the site for WP:ADVOCACY. One user wanting to solely document the company's shortfalls with one user solely wanting to remove them appears to be a violation of WP:NPOV on both sides, hence the heading of this thread. Experience does not matter so "more experienced" editors do not govern what goes into the page. However, SPA activity does cause the raising of eyebrows, especially when there are NPOV issues. What determines what goes into the page is Wikipedia guidelines and policies, coupled with consensus when there is a disagreement about content. Please stick to those guidelines and refrain from advocacy as I have suggested at the beginning of this thread. The WP:TE needs to stop in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:So people really do think I'm a WP:SPA. How awful. But being unhappy with the fact that people think something negative about you is about as unhelpful as throwing baseless accusations. Far better to learn from the experience and try to get better in the future. Thanks for your observation. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not negative to think you are an SPA and you shouldn't be unhappy about it. It's simply letting you know that you need to be aware of guidelines when editing and refrain from WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TE.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:You're right of course. Personal feelings are irrelevant (still I read the description of SPA and it's hard to not be disheartened that others interpret what you're doing as single purpose). In retrospect it's almost ironic that the two parties who are supposedly in conflict actually helped each other to fix the article in a useful way that could help prevent another dramatic deletion request (see discussion below on the Dharamsala project). Assuming that one's intentions are essentially good and that people only want the facts is helpful and produces useful changes. I've learned from this how important it is to assess every new posting on its own merits and not on the basis of supposed intentions. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:I don't want to remove all critical information from the article, I just want the article to be written in a neutral tone. At the moment, I think it does not meet WP:NPOV. Some examples: "these companies have been accused by regulators and other media" - the media is not a prosecutor to accuse someone. Mass media can inform, draw attention, express the view, emphasize etc, but not accuse. As for the regulators, they warn investors, they do not accuse the company. Then the whole "Marketing" section - "Although SkyWay has exhibited... they are yet to realize an actual project" - the reference just states that they showed their vehicles at the exhibition, all the rest is original research WP:NOR of the contributor. "They offer enormous returns on investment" and so on.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for these useful observations - they are constructive and helpful. I had a reply from the main contributor to the Wikipedia Norway 'SkyWay' with a verifiable source they refer to. Unfortunately you can't view this article in Norway without paying. In this article claims about promises of 'enormous' returns on investment are further confirmed. It's also clearly stated in the Slovenian article as well. But this sounds like original research especially if it is not part of a quotation and this has to change as quickly as possible. This is what the Slovenian article says: "All the supporters who will now buy shares in the company even before entering the stock exchange promise high returns - according to one of the Slovenian promoters SkyWay Capital, who has already participated in many monetary schemes in the past, even up to one thousand times" [80]. I think it's terrible that it sounds like these were empty claims; but they clearly do. In any case I've translated the Norwegian article entitled 'Pyramid Concept - Belarusian air-castles sold to Norwegians' and when I've got permission from the writer I'll make sure its contents are accessible. Please note that the title of the Italian article is "Skyway: the 'flying tram' company which has never realized a project". But I see the problem with the potential of this looking like original research and I'll try to change it. I can't think of a way to word it better yet. I'll also look at every other point you bring up. It's important to make sure it not only 'sounds' like it is neutral point-of-view but it is well backed up with verifiable references.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:New text: " The success of this company "depends on their product" - the SkyWay technology "which is far from commercialization".[1] " The next sentence on the Innotrans 2018 and the SITCE in Singapore is not so easy to improve. I propose we remove it. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:New text: " The SkyWay Group has exhibited this technology at trade fairs like the 3rd Singapore International Transport Congress and Exhibition (SITCE)[22] and InnoTrans 2018 in Berlin.[23] To date, however, they have not yet realized a project[3] outside Belarus. " Any better? I'm happy to try to word this differently or cut it out entirely but let me know what the problem is. Is this incorrect information or does it just sound not neutral? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Proposed changes to "These companies have been accused by regulators...". NEW TEXT: "The SkyWay Group makes ambitious and unsupported claims about their technology called SkyWay [1] (or 'String Transport')[2] and financial regulators have warned the public about making risky investments in SkyWay Group projects.[3]" This communicates the same information but it is clearly better supported by the links and doesn't suggest that the regulators are accusing anyone - just warning the public about their unsubstantiated claims. This is clearly better, but is it good enough? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: In my opinion, the problem of neutrality of this article is not only in the formulation of sentences (although in this too) but also in the fact that critical information is repeated several times in different sections of the article. My initial suggestions for improving the article:
1) Instead of "The public has been warned..." I propose this text:
"These companies are seeking potential investors all over the world for the development of its technology SkyWay or String Transport. The public has been warned by financial regulators about risky investments in SkyWay Group infrastructure projects". (words "ambitious but unsupported claims " must be proved - this is not a direct quote from the source).
2) The sentence "Anatoly Yunitskiy is the inventor..." can be removed from the beginning of the article - the same sentence is repeated in section "Background".
3) Section "Background" is not actually a background, it is a short summary of the article. I think this section can be reduced and renamed to the "Overview" or "Summary".
In the second paragraph of the "Background", I propose such changes: "Australia,[3] India,[5] Indonesia,[7], Lithuania[8] and the United Arab Emirates[9] started negotiating with the SkyWay Group, but the companies have not realized commercial projects yet, except for the test site called EcoTechnoPark in Belarus" (there is no Italy in the list of projects (canceled, postponed or planned), Italy forbade selling shares on their territory).
@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for advice; changes above implemented. This suggestion has a few problems I think. Italy did start negotiating with SkyWay, however; we know that from the verified source. They just didn't get far enough to need the cancel the project yet. Maybe it belongs in 'postponed projects' as well and we just need another reference. The EcoTechnoPark is a test site so you can't really call it a commercial project. We have almost no verifiable references on this place. When we have them, let's first extend the description in the test site. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the third paragraph of the "Background", I propose to leave only the first sentence, move the rest to the section "Regulatory warnings".
@Andrew-Postelniak:For now I removed the FSMA sentence which is repeated verbatim twice already. I don't think it's a problem to mention the countries individually but if the list gets longer we can always summarise it to 'many countries' if they are all included in the 'regulator warnings' section.
4) as for the section "Regulatory warnings": I see no reason to mark each country as a separate paragraph. Other countries may issue similar warnings in the future, and then the table of contents will bloat out an unreasonable size. I think that only Lithuania can be marked separately since there were proceedings with the prosecutor's office. Other text can be reduced to "Regulatory organisations and national banks in ..." (from the current section "Background").
@Andrew-Postelniak:I moved the information about the activity of the prosecutor's office to the 'cancelled project' in Lithuania. This all grew in reaction to the scandal in Siauliai and the illegal sale of shares via crowdfunding. I added a request for this section to be extended based on the verifiable references. Perhaps this actually belong somewhere in the 'marketing' text since it involves crowdfunding. The best solution is probably to create a new heading called something like "Legal proceedings" which discusses how Lithuania took SkyWay to court, banned them from the country for illegal activities, and how later Yunitskiy and his wife were unsuccessful in suing the Lithuanian government for lost earnings. This is currently not mentioned at all as it doesn't really belong in either the 'cancelled projects' nor the 'regulatory warnings' heading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: I don't think we need to create a separate section "Legal proceedings". Everything related to one project can be described in one section. So if you have further information about the project in Lithuania (which includes legal proceedings regarding the project), you can probably insert it in the "Cancelled projects" - Lithuania. I mean, the section "Canceled projects" can include information on why the project was canceled and what happened next.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for this advice. I've collected the Lithuanian references into one place so I can read them consecutively (again), including the translation and the more recent article on the unsuccessful attempt of Yunitskiy to sue the Lithuanian government (this is by far the best which decribes the whole scandal in detail). I'll write a single simple text that refers to the whole Lithuania scandal and what happened in the courts there. I'll include it when it's finished in the 'cancelled projects' section. If people think it belongs in a separate heading they can always move it later. This may take awhile - I dread doing this but no one else seems to want to do it. I look to forward to hear what you think about the 'regulatory warnings' summary. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5) "enormous returns" probably better to replace by "high returns".
@Andrew-Postelniak:I changed it what it says in the source - "astronomical" returns; we can always change it to high later. The source actually says "enormous returns" as well but it seems a stretch add "enormous" between quotation marks. We can always change it to high later without quotation marks. Hopefully I'll have a proposal for reducing the regulator warnings paragraphs to a single paragraph soon. This has to be done carefully and with attention to detail; it needs to be made clear which companies are warned against etc. May take some time and extra research. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the “Marketing” section should not contain duplicate information about the regulatory warnings. There is a separate section for this. And the fact that their marketing activity attracted the attention of financial regulators is mentioned in the "Overview". The last paragraph of the "Overview" can be reduced to "...marketing techniques that have drawn the attention of financial regulators in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy..." Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the bottom line with this one IMHO. There is nothing wrong with putting positive information in a Wikipedia page as long as it is not done in a promotional way and it meets WP:NPOV. The same is for anything that may be deemed negative about a company. A company lays in the bed it makes, but we need to always make sure to adhere to NPOV standards as this isnt a Yelp nor is it a place for a company to promote itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:Just for clarity: IMHO='in my humble opinion'? Any advice you can give would be more than appreciated. You've helped give an idea in your post below how we can remove this 'check for bias' warning and these issues will be addressed. I don't think your opinion here is humble and we are certainly not ignoring it. I'll mention this again here. There are three really good secondary references (to the regulatory agency warnings). They are already mentioned above or in the article. The 'financial magnates' reference refers to the FMA/FSMA warnings. The EconomyNews247 reference describes the ads and the Greek warning. The Lithuanian articles refer to the Lithuania warning. Do we have to use these to completely replace the primary sources or can we use the primary sources once they are referenced in a secondary source? In any case, I add a further request for other editors to find secondary references to these primary sources and include them in either the heading above, or the more recent discussion below on the reduction of the regulatory warnings discussion.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zaxander, In My Humble Opinion (IMHO). Yes, my opinion is humble because of consensus which is how Wikipedia works. There is no content ruler who is in charge to decide what content goes and what content stays. Its just my opinion, and one of many that can be decided for consensus. If you are asking me to come up with suggested wording I will be glad to do so. I haven't opined on any content at this point other than trying to keep everyone headed in the right direction as far as NPOV and original research. If you would like me to I will do so but please clarify what you are looking for. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:And is it going in the right direction? I hope so. The fact-checking of the resources you did must've been painstaking in that you had to read the whole (sometimes foreign language) articles to check if they were sourced correctly. It certainly made me go back and double-check some of the source material only to discover there were other problems(hence more recent changes). What you already suggested was really useful to ensure this article isn't nominated for deletion again. Keep up the good work. Your advice on the wording (and the reliability of the references) in 'marketing' would be particularly appreciated. It is based on the Norwegian article 'SkyWay Capital' sub-heading but this section is recently created and needs triple-checking.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
26 March 2019 (UTC)
Another remark: is it necessary to use this sentence in the "Marketing" section: "At the moment, however, all SkyWay has are "the prototypes running in Belarusian fields"? It is already mentioned there that "...according to Siol.net, [the technology] "is far from commercialization". So I propose to exclude the sentence. Also the sentence "The SkyWay Group has exhibited this technology at trade fairs ..." can be marked as a separate paragraph. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:IMHO you can't put the exhibitions into a separate paragraph until you have a source which suggests that this is a business practice or a tool of marketing. When you have found such a reference which refers to this aspect we could conceivably separate this into a new discussion. At present it is used to demonstrate how static models of the technology are used for company promotion. IMHO however you can contest this sentence and we can remove it entirely if you think it is misleading (by synthesizing an argument). "...is far from commercialization" is also different content to "all they have are the prototypes running in Belarusian fields". We could conceivably combine the two sentences. Remember this sentence was created from the original reference to remove the more ambiguous "no project has ever been realized".-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: These two citations: "...is far from commercialization" and "...the prototypes running in Belarusian fields" are from the same source [81]. I think it is enough to use one citation from one source. The meaning of the first quote is clear - the technology is not commercialized yet, but the fact that there are "prototypes running in Belarusian fields" the reader can find in the "Testing" section. Also, the fact that no projects have been realized outside Belarus is mentioned in the "Overview". So I propose to exclude "At the moment, however, all SkyWay has are "the prototypes running in Belarusian fields" from the "Marketing" section. But it would be interesting to hear what other users think about it. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also propose replacing the last sentence in the “Marketing” section “The Financial Services and Markets Authority in Belgium warns that these companies “exhibit characteristics of a pyramid scheme" whereas the Financial Markets Authority in New Zealand warns that they "could be involved in a scam" with "The company's marketing activities have attracted the attention of financial regulators in a number of countries". Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 08:15
@Andrew-Postelniak:This is a good idea but unfortunately the words "has attracted the attention of financial regulators" has been questioned and removed from the overview for synthesizing an argument. No actual reference actually states this in so many words. Primary and secondary references do state that the marketing techniques used by the SkyWay Group "have the characteristics of a pyramid scheme" and "could be involved in a scam". Perhaps so much information doesn't needed to be included but I fear we can't use your solution yet.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: In my opinion that text for the "Testing" section sounds slightly negatively but I also think we need to know the opinion of other users on these questions before reducing the text in the "Marketing" section as I suggested and adding to the "Testing" section (your suggestion). Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Possible suggestion. A new paragraph could be created in the marketing section which begins "The SkyWay Group promotes itself by presenting its technology at trade fairs like..." This seems to me an unproblematic claim and if necessary we can always expand on this aspect of their marketing when we have more verifiable references on this subject.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Advice request for Dharamsala project: is it really 'abandoned'
Recent changes to article structure have resulted in creation of 'abandoned projects' and 'future projects' headings. This may create problems. India used to belong to an 'unrealized projects' category. These headings were changed by user:Britishfinance to make clear the difference between projects like the one in the United Arab Emirates which are still in planning and the rest which have been cancelled or postponed indefinitely. This was a good faith change to improve the article, but unfortunately the Dharamsala project has now ended up under a heading entitled 'abandoned projects'. We have 2 verifiable articles on India/SkyWay negotiations from 2017: [82] and [83]. Neither of them seem to say that the project has been 'abandoned'. They do question its validity and the Economic Times article is highly crtical. The Norwegian article, however, suggests that this project is still planned in 2020. So has it been abandoned? Can we find another reference which specifically refers to this project being stopped or something? I propose we do the following to remedy this problem:
Until we have confirmation otherwise suggesting this Dharamsala project has been cancelled we move India to 'Future projects';
We follow the Norwegian model and rename the section 'planned projects' not 'future projects'. Planned projects happen in the future but 'future projects' could mean a lot of things.
We rename "abandoned" as something less negative like "cancelled" or "postponed"
Alternatively, you could also put them all back in a single category "unrealized projects" but I can see the point of the differentiating the projects that are still planned and the ones that have been cancelled.
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These changes have been introduced. Any suggestions are welcome to alternative better names for 'postponed projects' and 'planned projects'. Please note that the Norwegian 'SkyWay' article says specifically that the Dharamsala project is planned in 2020. The two verifiable references don't claim this. They do say that the project will be realized 'in three years'; this seems an insufficiently verified reason for actually stating 2020 until we have a verified source which discusses their exact arrangements. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the project in India is inactive now (there are no active negotiations, construction etc.), so it is ok to call it "Postponed". The project in the UAE is active or "planned" in the meaning that it can be implemented in the future. However, "planned" can also mean that something was planned but was not implemented afterwards. It is true for India but not for the UAE. If you put projects in India and the UAE in one section, there may be the impression that some active work/negotiations are underway in India to implement the project in the future, although this is not the case.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:I agree but the two references to the Indian affair don't actually state that the project has been postponed. The Norwegian article actually says the project is planned for 2020! We need more verifiable references that states exactly what happened. Is it really postponed? Who postponed it? Publish them here if you find any and we can update the article later. You happy with 'planned projects'? Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
definition of "postpone" in Cambridge Dictionary: "to delay an event and plan or decide that it should happen at a later date or time". Is the project in India active now? If not, then it is postponed. Or you can create and a new section - "Cancelled projects", and include there Australia, Lithuania, and Indonesia. "Postponed projects" - India, and "Planned projects" - the UAE.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:That sounds like a good idea to me that could fix ambiguity. If you want to make this change, it has consensus with me. If they ever cancel (or continue) the Indian project in the future we can always move it to another heading. This seems far better. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have enough time this week to check this article regularly, but I will review it from time to time. I still think that the article should be reviewed by other more experienced contributors, and check for neutrality word combinations like these ones: "these companies have been accused by regulators and other media" - the media is not a court to accuse someone; the whole "Marketing" section ("...SkyWay attempts to sell the shares...", "Although SkyWay has exhibited.. they are yet to realize an actual project" etc. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed reduction of the 'Regulatory Warnings' to a single paragraph
It has been pointed out a number of times that the 'Regulatory Warnings' section doesn't need to have individual headings for each country. The Norwegian article - although now out-of-date, does present the warnings in this way. I propose the following text. Please include your suggestions for further additions or reductions below :
Regulatory warnings
Many national banks and regulatory agencies have released warnings that companies from the SkyWay group do not have the legal right to sell shares in these countries and about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares. In 2014 an official statement was released by the Bank of Lithuania which warned investors that unidentified individuals invited Lithuanian residents to invest in "next-generation string transport" by acquiring on-line shares of the private limited company without a prospectus approved by a competent authority.[2] Vaidas Cibas, head of the Regulated Market Supervision Division of the Bank of Lithuania Supervision Authority made clear that this information would be disseminated widely so that “so that it is known in all countries that this company is engaged in illegal activities”.[3] Countries that have distributed this warning include Italy, Belgium and Norway. Since then warnings adjusted to the specific activities of SkyWay companies reported on in individual countries have been released in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Belgium, Italy, New Zealand, Germany, Greece and Slovakia.In December 2016, the Czech National Bank released a warning stating that a SkyWay Group company "Euroasian Rail Skyway Holding" was operating in the Czech Republic without a prospectus required by Czech law.[4]. In April 2017 the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority (EFSA) released a warning stating that the "First Skyway Invest Group Ltd" started offering its shares to the public without legal authorization to do so.[5] In September 2017, the Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) issued a warning concerning Skyway Capital who were offering investment to the public without a prospectus approved by the FSMA, as required by Belgian law. The FSMA further stated that "the scheme proposed by SkyWay Capital exhibits the characteristics of a pyramid scheme".[6] In January 2018 the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (the Italian Companies and Exchange Commission - CONSOB) – banned the advertisement and sale of SkyWay shares in Italy.[7]In July 2018 the Financial Markets Authority (New Zealand) released a warning stating that the Skyway Group "are not registered as a financial service provider in New Zealand and is therefore not permitted to provide financial services to New Zealand residents". The FMA further warned that the SkyWay Group "could be involved in a scam".[8] In November 2018 the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority of Germany (BaFin) warned that the "First Skyway Group Limited" company lacked a sales prospectus for their shares.[9] The Hellenic Capital Market Commission in Greece (HCMC) released a warning in the same month about various companies within the SkyWay group.[10]In January 2019, the National Bank of Slovakia released a warning stating The most recent warning from the Bank of Slovakia states "that neither it nor any other supervisory authority of a European member state had approved a prospectus for the legal sale of SkyWay Group company shares".[11]
@Zaxander:in this form, it is not a reduction, but simply merging of the current text of the section into one paragraph. In addition, information about Vaidas Cibas has been added, so here is even more text comparing to the current version. My suggestion remains the same: move the text from the section "Overview" and extend it slightly, like this:
"During 2014-2019, the regulatory organisations and national banks in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy,[3] Lithuania,[1] New Zealand[15] and Slovakia[16] have warned the public that companies from the SkyWay group do not have the legal right to sell stocks (or shares) in these countries and about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares".
I also think that the detailed listing of the names of regulatory organizations in different countries makes no sense, and simply increases the text of the article. The meaning of the warnings is the same - financial regulators have forbidden to sell shares on their territory or warned about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:I agree with you. Unfortunately if you look in detail at the warnings which I have done it isn't so easy to summarise them in a single sentence. The Bank of Lithuania was the first regulatory agency which released a warning. I thought it was important to mention the fact that the head of this agency had particularly stated in a verifiable reference that he would distribute this warning so other countries knew about the illegal activity. They sent out this warning to many countries and it has been published word for word by places like Norway (previously unmentioned) and Italy. After this, however, the same countries released ADDITIONAL warnings about specificities relating to specific companies and individuals canvassing for them. Each warning is different and some of them have specifics that need to be mentioned such as the FMA and FSMA. I really see what you're saying, but if we are going to reduce the text we have to be aware of the these specificities. We can always reduce it later. The Norwegian article does this and it doesn't include information about half of the warnings we have access to today. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: My suggestion remains the same. Yes, the text of these DIFFERENT warnings (Lithuania + other counties) is different but the meaning of the warnings is the same (as I wrote about it earlier). But I think we need to wait for what other contributors say about this. They may agree with you. I am also very tired today to continue this discussion, I suggest waiting for other comments.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for your input. Don't worry I think we need more consensus on this too. I think the problem is that some of these companies warn about different things (like the Greek warning which specifies a number of different companies and the individual - Greek people - who run them - this is not mentioned yet) but that's just what I think. Take your time there's no hurry and absolutely no pressure on you. And remember that I do agree with you; I want to reduce the text as well I just want to do it carefully and gradually so the possible variations between warnings are respected. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The regulatory warnings summary proposed today is considerably shorter. Note that Caibas has not been quoted in the current revision of the article. This seems to make a bit more sense of the regulatory warnings without putting unnecessary emphasis on them as is the case at present. Looking forward to anyone's responses to this. Note also that today this whole article was replaced by a stream of unindented, almost unpunctuated and completely unverified propaganda in terrible English which was fortunately directly removed by a bot:[84]. Check here or look in the history to see this recent attempt to radically change this article's content without regard to objectivity, truth let alone consensus among users. =Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2019 :DRAFT 2 - 15 March 2019
Regulatory warnings
Many national banks and regulatory agencies have warned the public that the SkyWay group do not have the legal right to sell shares in these countries and about possible risks associated with the purchase of these shares. It Started after investigation in Lithuania In 2014 when the Bank of Lithuania released an official statement warning investors that unidentified individuals invited Lithuanian residents to invest in "next-generation string transport" by acquiring on-line shares of the private limited company which was selling them without a prospectus approved by a competent authority.[2] Cibas, head of the Regulated Market Supervision Division of the Bank of Lithuania Supervision Authority made clear that this information would be widely distributed “so that it is known in all countries that this company is engaged in illegal activities”.[3] Countries that have distributed this warning include Italy, [12] Belgium[6] and Norway.[13] Since then warnings adjusted to the specific activities of SkyWay companies in individual countries have been released in the Czech Republic,[4] Estonia,[5] Belgium, Italy,[14] New Zealand, [8] Germany, [9] and Greece.[10] The most recent warning from the National Bank of Slovakia states "that neither it nor any other supervisory authority of a European member state had approved a prospectus for the legal sale of SkyWay Group company shares".[11](UTC)
What you need to do is find an independent secondary source that sums up the history of the warnings. You cannot use the agency that actually gave the warning as that would be original research. For instance, if the National Bank of Slovakia issued a press release with a warning, that would not be secondary nor would it be independent. We need a secondary source such as a news publication that wrote about the warning issued by the bank. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:I removed the direct quote from primary source. We already have secondary references to LBC, FSMA, FMA, Consob, EFSN & HNCN sources. The Norwegian article uses a BehindMLM site as a secondary source for Greek (HNCN) and German (BaFin) warnings, but I fear this is not really a verifiable source. So still missing good secondary references for CNB (Czech), SNB (Slovakia), BaFin (Germany) and Bank of Slovenia warnings. I propose we keep these notices until we have the secondary references, but waiting your advice on this. It's easy to remove these primary sources if necessary. I got the impression from reading the WP Guidelines on primary and secondary sources that it would be okay to use the press releases if a secondary source has been used previously to legitimize the primary source. Since the regulatory warnings are mentioned first in the 'Overview' I suggest we use the secondary sources here and the primary sources in the 'regulatory warnings' section if it has been previously sourced secondarily. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the sentence "Cibas, head of the Regulated Market Supervision..." is excessive. You can simply say, without losing meaning, that other countries have joined this warning. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:I'll take a look at this and try to word it better. It just has to say that they distributed this warning really. Thanks for your input. I look forward to hear what you and CNMall41 think about the neutral point-of-view now. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one seems to want to answer the basic question about sourcing. What reliable secondary sources do you want to use for the regulatory warnings? That is where it starts. Wikipedia doesn't care about what you or I think should be written. It cares about what can be verified through the sources. Currently, I see primary sources which constitutes original research which is not acceptable. Let's just take the following:
"The SkyWay Group is financing itself with crowdfunding[3] and other marketing techniques that have drawn the attention of international financial regulators in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy,[3] Lithuania,[9] New Zealand[15] and Slovakia.[16]"
Who says they are financed through crowdfunding? That's not what the reference says. It says that the founder's website says that it has used crowdfunding. It also says they have placed ads to publicly sell shares (which is typical for a company). The reference doesn't say that it has "drawn the attention of international financial regulators." This was added and is WP:SYNTH. It may have, but the reference doesn't say that. Then, the references for each country listed are to the actual warnings. These are primary and also SYNTH. We cannot say they received warnings by using the actual warnings. We need a reliable secondary source which says so. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:There has been a request put out days ago for secondary references to these primary sources. I listed in detail the sources that already have secondary references (the FMA, LBC, FSMA, Consob, Greek, Greek and German (BehindMLM)) above. Some of these are already secondarily sourced. The FSMA reference which is secondarily sourced mentions Lithuania and Estonia. We don't have secondary references for CNS, SNB and Bank of Slovenia, or Norway). There is a whole section above to pool the secondary references to the primary sources. The section on regulatory warnings has been reduced to remove emphasis from this section. Sorry if it's not going fast enough for you. It's not going to help being impatient about the speed this is handled. The Norwegian article which is generally viewed positively used almost completely these primary references (and the BehindMLM). If you think we shouldn't reference the primary sources, take them out. I don't know, however, how other uses will react to this who see these references as a step up from direct primary sources. It's not like they are images from commons of primary sources like legislation or copies of contracts. They are mostly press releases from internationally recognized regulatory agencies. I agree it's a problem but you're the only one who is talking about it. The problematic W:Synth is another issue which needs to be handled. It seems to me that stating that 'many regulatory agencies have warned the public about the activities of SkyWay' is, however, unproblematic because there are secondary sources which state this. But if you can state this better, please do. I tried to collect references on the marketing techniques. They seem to be using many different marketing techniques but I could only find verifiable references that refer to the MLM techniques and crowdfunding. It shouldn't however sound like these are the only marketing techniques used (and it may well at present). They also place ads and the public has been warned about these ads (see Economy247 reference to the Greek HNBC warning). Maybe this needs to be mentioned as well. If you can say this better you are obviously welcome to make these changes. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:There is nothing in your post which suggests you are actually being impatient at all; sorry for this. These are valid concerns but we are trying to address them. I'll try to do this in a consequent fashion later today if I can. I thank you for these helpful suggestions. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PROPOSED CHANGES TO OVERVIEW: The secondary link you can view here [85] starts with the following text "New Zealand’s FMA Adds Skyway Capital to Warning List. Regulators in Belgium, Lithuania and Estonia have also warned about the activities of the company and its associates." Another secondary reference in Greek discusses in detail the Greek SkyWay warning: [86] The wording is presently -
The SkyWay Group is financing itself with crowdfunding[3] and other marketing techniques that have drawn the attention of international financial regulators in Belgium,[1] the Czech Republic,[11] Estonia,[12] Germany,[13] Greece,[14] Italy,[3] Lithuania,[9] New Zealand[15] and Slovakia.[16]
In light of this verifiable secondary reference I suggest we change the text to:
The Skyway Group is financing itself with is using marketing techniques such as crowdfunding[Italian reference] and Multi-level Marketing [BehindMLM reference]. Many countries including Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and New Zealand have warned the public about the activities of the company and its associates[financial magnates reference][Economy247 reference][Italian reference].
An update replaces 'financing itself with' with simply 'is using'. Italy has also been added to the list of countries. In addition to describing Crowdfunding, the Italian reference actually includes information about the CONSOB warnings.––Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Norwegian Wikipedia article for 'SkyWay' also uses the following reference from BehindMLM to refer to the Greek and German warnings: [87] So Germany could be added to the list of countries as well if this reference is usable. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41:I waited a day for any response and then I applied the changes based on comments by CNMall41. I felt that it was worth applying them ASAP because of very real problems in the text (the Italian reference indeed doesn't say that they are 'financing themselves' using crowdfunding in so many words; or that this in particular has attracted the attention of financial regulators). The references are now sourced to secondary references. The Czech Republic and Slovakia were removed. Any further help or ideas appreciated. It should also be noted here that crowdfunding and MLM may be considered by some controversial, they aren't actually illegal. SkyWay Group isn't adverse to discuss these techniques openly on their websites. They may use other techniques as well but I haven't been able to find any verifiable sources which actually discusses them. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed reduction of Cancelled/Postponed/Planned projects to a single heading
The Norwegian Wikipedia article on 'SkyWay' which is discussed above list all international projects under a single heading 'Planned projects'. Perhaps following a similar model but calling it 'international projects' or simply 'projects' is a good idea? The following questions need to be asked:
Is it really necessary to use individual headings for each country?
Is it really necessary to distinguish cancelled projects from postponed ones?
In other words, if this information is included in the text anyway is it really necessary to emphasise it by having a separate heading? The Norwegians didn't think so. Note that it would also be possible to remove either the countries or the three 'project' headings. As it stands, the English SkyWay Group is still really different to the Norwegian SkyWay article which has been used as an example of an efficient article by other users. At present, it's the current designation of different projects and the division into so many countries that make the English article so different. These have been removed in the regulatory warnings section already and maybe this should also be applied to the 'projects'. What are the Wikipedia guidelines on issues like this? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: Not sure about the Wikipedia guidelines, but I think it’s necessary to somehow separate all the unsuccessful past projects and current ones (which are in progress). You can, for example, create one heading "Projects", and then highlight in bold "Cancelled projects" (or "Unrealized projects" - Australia, India, Lithuania and Indonesia) and "Current projects" (or "Active Projects" - The United Arab Emirates) - as individual countries are highlighted now.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to keep things from looking like a list per WP:PROSE. It currently looks like a brochure. A single heading of projects which summarizes both would be sufficient IMHO. It could likely be a paragraph (assuming a reference is available to support) that says they have done projects internationally with completed projects in X,Y, and Z. Then a paragraph that says they also have projects that have been cancelled in locations that include A,B, and C. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So something like this :
Projects
Company started negotiations in country W, X and Y. These projects were later postponed.
These are the verifiable details for W (reference). These are the details for X (reference). These are the details for Y (reference).
The company also started negotiating with country Z.
PROPOSAL for reduction and better wording of the international projects. Any advice on this would be appreciated. There is no hurry to change the text as it is, so take your time to check the text and the references. Note that there is a glaring mistake at present. The only reference to the Australian project was the Italian "letteraemme" article. It uses the SkyWay website for this date which is unreliable. More recent references suggest that project at Flinders University in South Australia was proposed and cancelled far more recently. Unfortunately an article entitle "Flinders SkyWay Train Left Hanging" viewable here [89] requires a subscription. Can anyone else gain access to this text? The reference we do have which is included below states that negotiations began in 2016. A proposed text follows:
Projects
The SkyWay Group started negotiating with countries like Lithuania,[1] Australia,[2] India,[3] Italy[4] and Indonesia.[5] These projects were later cancelled or postponed before construction began. The most recent planned project is in the United Arab Emirates.
In 2014 the SkyWay Group planned to build its first test site in Lithuania, but this project was cancelled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud.[1][6]A test site of the SkyWay Group technologyAnother project was planned at Flinders University in South Australia in 2016[2] but a dispute between Yunitskiy and his partners resulted in its cancellation this was later postponed.[citation needed] In May 2017 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the minister of Urban Development of the Northern Indian state Himachal Pradesh with one of the SkyWay Group companies. In July 2017 the Economic Times reported that the government was criticised for negotiating "with a company with no operational projects anywhere in the world" and doubts were raised over the safety and viability of the project.[3] A Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the University of Indonesia in West Java to build on-campus ‘sky trains’.[7] Plans were also made in Jorong, Kalimantan. Members of the public complained about the suspicious sale of investment products and negotiations were finally cancelled in 2018.[5]
In February 2019 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) of Dubai with the Skyway Greentech Company to build "Sky Pods" there.[8]
The project planned at Flinders University in South Australia in 2016 was postponed due to lack of funding, and not due to a quarrel between Yunitsky and his partners. There was another planned project in 2010 (in another region of Australia), and it was canceled due to a dispute. I also think that the sentence "To date, however, they have not yet realized a project outside Belarus" is more appropriate for the "Projects" section that for the "Marketing". Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:The intention of the sentence 'to date they have not yet realized a project' in marketing was to explain that the possibility of making money in the company is dependent on the success of the technology. The Slovenian reference says that the success of this technology is not very likely because it's only sign of success is what they show in Belarusian fields. This means that the small investors will (probably) never get their money back. I'll try to reword this mentioning exactly what the reference says and removing the comment on 'no project outside Belarus'. It may mean I have to remove the sentence as well about the technological exhibitions in Singapore and Berlin, but I'll try to keep it. Do you have a suggestion how this could be better explained? Also, do you have a reference for the Australian dispute in 2010? 2010 is years before the Lithuania scandal in 2014! Or more particular the reasons for the stagnation of financing in 2016? Why was the project postponed? The reference I read said that it was postponed because SkyWay took their business to Saudi Arabia (in 2018). I couldn't confirm this with an actual reliable reference, however.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not necessary to mention the negotiations in Australia in 2010 if they are only referred to on the SkyWay site and the Italian article. There are a lot of references to the project in Adelaide, however. The project in 2016 was thanks to Rod Hook, the representative of SkyWay in Australia who used to work for the Australian government. Was he involved in 2010 as well? Who actually had the disagreements with Yunitskiy? Also can anyone find a reference where it definitively states that the project in India was postponed? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:I changed the wording to better reflect the actual Slovenian reference. It now says "At the moment, however, all SkyWay has are 'the prototypes running in Belarusian fields'." It's probably unnecessary to begin a section on 'projects' with a sentence like 'SkyWay is yet to realize an actual project'. Besides 'these projects were later cancelled or postponed' says this anyway without actually making a negative broad statement about the company. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reference from The Advertiser (Adelaide) entitled 'Flinders SkyWay Train Left Hanging' definitely suggests that this project has been postponed saying this project was "unlikely to get off the ground" in July 2018. Unfortunately I still can't open it and I can't find a similar citation anywhere else. This is what you can read of the article: "Much-hyped SkyWay plan off the rails... IT WAS spruiked as the futuristic mode of transport that would shake up Australia’s rail industry. But SkyWay — the elevated, driverless train championed by former State Transport Department boss Rod Hook — appears unlikely to get off the ground." [90] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: I don't have any other articles about the project at Flinders University except for those you mentioned. Rod Hook has nothing in common with the project in 2010. Therefore, if there are no articles about the 2010 project, it is probably better not to mention this at all. And if to be completely accurate, the group of companies was formed in 2013, therefore this 2010 project has no legal relation to the group. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
regarding the "Marketing" section (my suggestion):
The success of this company depends on its product - the SkyWay technology - which, according to Siol.net, "is far from commercialization". At the moment, all SkyWay has are "the prototypes running at the Belarusian test site".[siol.net reference]
The SkyWay Group has also exhibited this technology at trade fairs like the 3rd Singapore International Transport Congress and Exhibition (SITCE) and InnoTrans 2018 in Berlin.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:IMHO the problem with this is the exhibition of the technology at SITCE and InnoTrans is no longer necessary with your new wording. You only have reason to include the examples of the technological fairs here to demonstrate the marketing. If you want to use this wording, we can just cut out the sentence on the technological fairs entirely as it no longer serves any purpose in demonstrating the marketing (IMHO). I've included possible adjustments to your text. Let me know what you think. If you think this works better, please apply it; but remove the references to the technological fairs. I'm happy to do it if you'd prefer me to. Perhaps we could get the advice of @CNMall41: on wording this or including information about these exhibitions somewhere else in the article if not here. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My hope is that you are able to reach a consensus on the content between everyone who is involved. My original reasoning for coming here was a request at the WikiProject Companies page. If you want help with wording, I will be happy to do so but that would still only be my opinion based on the guidelines and policies and would need consensus. I am not, nor is anyone on Wikipedia, an ultimate judge or jury on content. That is not how consensus works. If you let me know I will work through some of it this week. I have been traveling all over for work this past couple of weeks and have not had much time to spend here. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: I still think that the information about exhibitions must be included in the article. If you do not want to include in the "Marketing" section, maybe it can be included in the "Testing" section? Demonstration of prototypes at trade shows is also a kind of "testing". It's like scientists "test" their scientific findings at conferences, discussing them with others. Apart from that, information about exhibitions can be used as a description for images (which is discussed below).Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Trade fairs and exhibitions of static models are far more comparable to 'advertising' than actual 'testing' I think. It would certainly be a good reason for including it in marketing but none of the references I've read actually talk about the trade fairs as a tools of advertising in SkyWay arsenal. It is true that the 'testing' section is incredibly short with only one sentence on the Belarusian prototype. We are still searching for verifiable references on the other major test-site which actually used moving vehicles in Ozyory, Moscow (with no answers yet). I'm actually fine with leaving the reference to the trade fairs where it is but I think it couldn't hurt to get a third opinion on this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The primary function of this film is to claim that the SkyWay Group is not a Ponzi scheme. It describes how shell companies within the SkyGroup redistribute investment funds. It includes futuristic music, computer-generated animdations and flow charts cross-edited with films of the InnoTrans exhibition as well as the EcoTechnoPark in Belarus and the governmental summit in Dubai. It explains the offshore location of these companies in tax havens like the British Virgin Islands is to "save funds". This and other more irregular aspects of their financing are explained as being typical of all large Belarusian and international franchises like Wargaming and MacDonalds. It describes in great detail about how the company uses crowdfunding and multi-level marketing to fund their projects and suggests that this is typical of all companies in some stage of their history. They unsurprisingly come to the conclusion that the SkyWay Group is not a Ponzi scheme. This is actually a sleek and well-edited promotional film. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible SkyWay images for use in the article
It would be obviously better to use images of the deconstructed test-site in Ozyery (Moscow) or from the EchoTechnoPark in Belarus but reliable sources of either of these places is lacking. It would be possible, however, to include an image from a reliable source. I found two images in an Australian article that could be considered:
Problem with this image is that although it is fake, it actually looks real. We know it is fake because SkyWay has never actually implemented its technology in a real place above the ground. This is photo from the Australian SkyWay promotor Rod Hook.
Perhaps this image is better because it is obviously computer-generated. There may be problems with this because although it is used on a reputable and well-known Australian news sender, it's still SkyWay publicity photo. Maybe the accompanying text could say something like 'computer-generated image promoting SkyWay technology'.
These are to date the best images I've found in the references that are actually referred to in the articles. Any proposals would be appreciated. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This image is from the article in Slovenian. It is also interesting. It includes an image of the ring leaders of the SkyWay Group (Yunitskiy - bottom left), a computer-generated image of the technology (top right) and an image from a SkyWay Group promotional meeting (bottom right). It is sourced to the writer of the Slovenian article, Matic Tomšič :
Problems with this image could be that although the photo top left is almost certainly Kudryashov (a ring leader connected in multiple verifiable sources to SkyWay Capital) the article that uses this photo doesn't actually refer specifically to him straight away. It does directly name Yunitskiy and refers to this photo, and the only other person it discusses further on in the article is Kudryashov.
This image is from the InnoTrans technology fair in Berlin 2018. See the original site here:[94] Although it is promotional material, at least it is clearly exactly what it proposes as it was actually viewed as merely a stall at an exhibition. It doesn't either judge the technology or mislead by presenting an illusion. Although it is SkyWay promotion, this article is about the company; it is also no more than it suggests. It is actually what they presented at a technology fair.
The obvious problem is that this is a static presentation of the technology. But it is, nonetheless, a real presentation at an internationally recognized event. Maybe an accompanying text could suggest "static model presented at the InnoTrans 2018 exhibition in Berlin by the SkyWay Group of its technology".
This image is from the SITCE international transport exhibition in Singapore 2018. You can view the original site here. [96]. It does look like the EcoTechnoPark in Belarus. You can see one of the other tracks in the background (there are apparently 3).
The possible advantages of this photo are that it could be of the Belarus site but this could propose problems too: it doesn't really actually say where the image is from on the original site.
Images 4 and 5 look good but I don't know too much about Wikipedia policy about images. These designs are patented and photos are probably copyrighted. By the way there was an image in "String Transpor" version of this article. Maybe it is better just revert it.Dron007 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:The last time there were images was on this page from 16 February: [98] There was an unverified propaganda film with orchestral music of the Belarusian test site. This was removed for obvious reasons. The photo of the Ozyory site may have been removed because there were no verifiable sources for this test-site. I've made repeated attempts to find new verifiable references to this place to no avail. But they still use this image of the test site on the Norwegian page. I even asked them what their source was for this image and their information about the politician Lebed who provided the funding for this site. No one has replied yet. I think the best of the images I suggest is the one from the InnoTrans 2018 public transport exhibition. We just need policy information from someone who knows about these issues. Would we need permission to use it? Would we have to upload it first to commons and then use it? Advice on this from anyone appreciated. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:You're right, though. I checked the guidelines. These images are unusable because someone else could have the copyright to them AND they are of a patented product. You can refer to them on the talk page, however. Maybe we could use one of them if someone can get permission from the copyright owner (and SkyWay). The image uploaded to commons of the site in Ozyory is a Wikipedia image so we can use that one again if we can find a verifiable reference to this site. That shouldn't be too hard? If anyone has their own photo of one of the SkyWay vehicles or the stalls at the exhibition we may be able to use it if you upload it to commons. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can also use one of the photos from the Onliner.by or tut.by websites after getting permission from the photographer. Photos that are taken in a place which the public has access to can be considered under 'fair use' policy. I think no one wants to talk about the Ozyory site because they didn't actually build any cars for the track; they put a truck on it. It was just a site for testing of the tracks, and explains why this is all you can see in the Wikipedia photo. Here's an image of the truck: [99]
Considering the 'fair use' guidelines and the fact that this is an independent image taken in a public place, if we have permission this image could be uploaded to commons and included as an illustration for the 'EcoTechnoPark' test-site. This is the actual website where there are a lot of good images: [101]
I see no point in using the old photo of 2001 from the test site in the Ozyory. First, this photo refers to the technology, not to the company (in 2001 there was no SkyWay group). Secondly, if only this old photo is added, it will create the wrong impression among the readers of the article about the state of SkyWay technology for today. So I think we need to find a suitable photo from Innotrans 2018.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:I like the photo from InnoTrans as well. I think the photo I used was actually taken by a Hungarian blogger (I found it there as well) or at least a photo similar to the one from the SkyWay website I showed above. We can use it if we have his permission. I'm waiting for permission from the TUT.BY Belarusian newsfeed for the EcoTechnoPark. There are no longer restrictions on the patent, it seems, so permission from the photographer is enough. I think if we can upload these two recent photos, we could include them in the 'testing' and 'marketing' sections. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:This is the image: [102] This is the page of the Hungarian blogger Horvath Gergely: [103]. I sent a mail to him to request his permission to upload this image to Wikipedia commons which we can then use with a text like "The SkyWay Unibus displayed at the InnoTrans exhibition in Berlin in 2018".–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SKYWAY PATENTS ARE NO LONGER VALID - Apparently the patents placed by Yunitskiy in Europe are no longer valid, so we have no restriction on using patented images. Here's the translation of an article in German about what has happened to Yunitskiy's 'SkyWay' patents: "The European Patent Office espacenet.com has 14 patents filed by Anatoly Yunitsky filed between 1996 and 2013. Unfortunately, these important patents are invalid because Anataloy Yunitsky has failed to pay the main fees or renewal fees. The request to settle the fees are partly already several years back. But if we assume that the patents are part of the company's assets and the investors are shareholders in the company, much of the company's assets are currently unsecured and any savvy businessman can take advantage of them.[104]
@Zaxander: Firstly, the link you specified [105] does not work (I cannot open it). Secondly, you confuse Yunitsky's patents and the patents of the SkyWay group of companies. The group of companies was established in 2013, and therefore it is obvious that it could not own any patents until 2013. In 2013, Yunitsky transferred all his intellectual property to this group of companies (he is the main owner). So now all patents are issued for a company from the group (depending on what is patented). And I also think that it is necessary to very carefully verify information of this kind, which can cause significant damage to the company's reputation, before making such statements that are not true.Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:I just communicated the information I found in the German article. It includes copies of the patents which it says are no longer valid. The German title for this article is "Skyway Patente obsolet – Patentgebühren oder Verlängerungsgebühren nicht bezahlt – Patente nicht gültig". You can find it on the Burrenblog which you can view here: [106]. You can type 'skyway' into the search field and all the SkyWay articles will appear. The intention was not to blacklist the company but to say that we apparently would be able to use images which displayed the patents because they were no longer valid. If you are correct then we may have difficulty using the InnoTrans photo I requested from the Hungarian Blogger. I just posted the translation; I didn't make these claims about the company. I'm enthusiastic to use the image of the trade fair but it has to be patent-free, it has to be of a public event and we have to have permission from the company. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: I think we can use this image [107] in the article. The same image is also used in this article [108], so probably there is no copyright on it. Their website also states [109] that images cannot be used for commercial purposes but can be used "for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review". Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:I got email permission from the Hungarian blogger to upload this image. I uploaded it to Wikipedia commons and I will include it in the marketing section. If there are problems people can always remove it but it's better to have an updated image than one that is outdated.
@Zaxander: No, maybe some patents are not longer valid but still they have new patents for design of their vehicles. I don't think it means that we are not allowed to use any photos though.Dron007 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons shows warning for the images that were uploaded. If you are claiming fair use for any of these images, they would need to be uploaded on Wikipedia as Wikimedia Commons only accepts free images. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the permission I received from the photographer to Wikimedia commons permission for the SkyWay InnoTrans Berlin photo. But even if they finally give permission, I'm perfectly happy with the new one; thanks for whoever found and/or uploaded this image. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: I see that the photo of high-speed unibus has already been deleted by an administrator because the permission received by OTRS agents has been written incorrectly. Please note that the author of this photo has to provide a permission not for usage on Wikipedia/Commons, but declare a free license for his photo which allows anyone to reuse it for any purpose, including commercial purposes and creation of derivative works (see Commons:Licensing). For example, the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license is allowed here, but licenses with tags -NC and -ND aren't. You should ask him to add license information on his website on the same page where this photo is used, or send an e-mail with license declaration to OTRS himself (see e-mail templates). Also, there is no permission for another photo from tut.by. I doubt that this news agency would allow you to use their photo under the Creative Commons Attribution License, because their terms of use declare that you should not remove TUT.BY watermark from a picture. This term violates a principle of free modification and creation of derivative works, so this photo is not acceptable on Wiki without a special CC-BY permission from a photographer. 2A00:1FA0:4692:6076:35AC:A987:ADF4:6D05 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: I got advice from Wikipedia commons on how to get permission for uploading the InnoTrans 2018 trade fair image but while I was requesting this information someone else posted another photo of the same event. I requested after that they delete the photo because the blogger who had given me permission to use it in Hungary started advising me to invest lots of money in SkyWay through him and I decided it would be too risky to send the special request form to him.
I've revieved image sources of files that have already been uploaded on Commons and noticed that you can take necessary images from the official SkyWay YouTube channel. Most of their videos are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License, which is fully acceptable on Wikipedia and Commons. It has a lot of videos from EcoTechnoPark and exhibitions, where you can make screenshots of rolling stock and test tracks and upload them to Commons. For example, here you can take a screenshot of a high-speed unibus U4-362, and there you can make photos of rail vehicles in technopark: [110], [111], [112], [113], [114]. You can find more of them if you search on this channel. Also, you can already use File:U4-621_test_ride_in_Marjina_Horka.webm which shows a prototype pod in motion. This video is licensed under CC-BY 4.0 and music is in a public domain. Also it doesn't contain any advertising or doubtful content like promotional or doubtful texts or speeches, so I don't see any problem with usage of this video in this article. 2A00:1FA0:4692:6076:35AC:A987:ADF4:6D05 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is great advice. I think it would be misleading to include a film with orchestral music but there is nothing to stop us using a screenshot if what you say about the copyright here is true. The problem with using a film for the EcoTechnoPark is that it gives the impression that this place has received more coverage in the media than it actually has. I've been searching for months and I haven't been able to find any international anecdotal postings about this place let alone third-party scientific endorsement. There has been a recent translation of the onliner.by article in German, and I'm checking previous translations of this and the tut.by articles to collect published facts on the EcoTechnoPark. I'm currently working on trying to draft a couple of new sentences to extend the description of the EcoTechnoPark based on these verifiable references. After I've finished this and there is a workable text, I can try to tackled the problem of an image. Anyone else is welcome to try to post an image in the meantime but please don't post a film which has been downloaded from the SkyWay website then uploaded to commons even if you are allowed to do it. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded 5 photos as recommended above by taking screenshots from the Wikipedia commons film. These photos, however, were recently removed. I don't know why. The original source was certainly mentioned and they were included for awhile as part of the Wikipedia commons images now viewable with a recent link from the SkyWay Group article page. I still have these screenshots, however, so if anyone wants to have an image of the EcoTechnoPark prototypes, please advise me how to do it correctly and I could always try again. Please don't place the SkyWay film as it is misleading and has inappropriate orchestral background music; if readers really want to see it they can view the film already uploaded to commons and now connected with a link to the SkyWay Group site.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Taken together, the pictures include all the "completed" tracks. If it were even possible to include all tracks in one picture while still being easy to see, then I would have had no problem just having one picture for it. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 11:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SkyWay in Foreign Countries
Australia
Australia started negotiating with SkyWay thanks to promotion from Rod Hook who used to work for the Australian Government.
The following references were suggested in the March deletion discussion based on questioning the notability of the SkyWay Group:
Let's take Australian project, cancelled now. It was covered by popular news sites of Adelaide: [116][117][118][119] (some problems opening last one now. Text is available here: [120]). So it has "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources". Sources for Lithuania, India, Indonesia, UAE present in the article. Whole articles are about SkyWay, it is not just one-line mention. Of course most information exists in Belarus and Russian sites. Many of them independent like Onliner, Tut.By mentioned in the articles. There are many not mentioned yet like [121] or Popular Mechanics: [122] (it is placed on Skyway partner site but it is PDF of the printed version of the magazine. I cannot find it placed in the other place now.) Dron007 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an official notice from the Czech government that Eurasian Rail Skyway systems - a member of the SkyWay group - is selling shares there without a license. The notice says that "Public offer of securities of Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding [is] without prospectus." Here's a translation of the wording of the warning:
The Czech National Bank informs the public that the investment in the securities of Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding, ISIN VGG322291094, is publicly offered in the Czech Republic without the Czech National Bank, or the Supervisory Authority, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36c of the Capital Market Undertakings Act another Member State of the European Union, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 36f of the Capital Market Undertakings Act, a prospectus for that security has been approved and published.
That is absolutely realistic. Memorandum of investor was issued in 2015 or earlier and companies like Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding Ltd (ERSS), GTI are mentioned there. Now they have updated version but you can find there documents dated 2013-2015 (pp.55 and later). [124]Dron007 (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. But I included a warning from the state government about the unregulated sale of shares of this SkyWay company. Do you think this 'warning' is realistic? What on earth do you actually mean? You included reference to an entirely unverifiable SkyWay self-published document, so I don't see how this can help prove a governmental warning from a Czech source. It sounds like you either misunderstood the English translation or you want to make an entirely different point.
Not sure what you mean. I though that by "it seems hard to believe that this could be true in 2016" you doubt that there were Skyway companies in 2016. That's why I provided a document that shows that these companies have been existing since 2013 or so. Some of them may be checked in official sites. Need to check. Dron007 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm going to change the wording so it's clearer what I'm looking for. The talk page is to check facts before including them in the article; new issues should be checked first for accuracy by other users. I found the reference to a specific regulation from the Czech Republic warning people not to invest in one of the SkyWay group companies because they had no permission to sell shares there in 2016. Other countries like Japan and Lithuania issued warnings years later. But I translated this regulation directly from Czech with Google translate. What if I was wrong? What if I implicated the Czech government in a scandal they were not involved with? It would absolutely ruin my reputation which is already not great because I've included so much passion in my warnings that SkyWay is a scam (which I regret deeply in retrospect). So to be specific, if you know a Czech person who can find out if what I found on the internet is actually true, that would be great. But any additional references you find would be appreciated - and in fact it's great that you take the time to post here at all and keep an eye on what people are doing and I thank you for it. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although the document you include is unusable for anything in itself and doesn't have anything to do with the Czech warning it does provide a lot of information about the different companies and where they are registered. Thanks also for your support to the name change support with interesting arguments. Post any valid references you think I should see on your talk page or here and I'll take a look at them - it doesn't matter which language they're in. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia
This article entitled "Who wants to be a millionaire? The Heavenly Railway lures Estonian people" concerns SkyWay Capital operations in Estonia. The original can be viewed here: [125].
The article was published in the Estonian news sender "Eesti Ekspress" on 7 November 2017 and its subheading translates to:
Skyway Capital, a "new-generation" transport company of Russian origin, is looking for courageous (gullible) financiers from Estonia...
Unfortunately you can't see the whole article because it appears you have to have a subscription to see it. Does anyone have access to this text? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
India
Still unsourced article on the SkyWay scandal in India that is still to be verified. It's in English and was published in 'The Times of India' July 21 - 2017
BJP leader attacks minister over skyway skyway project
Advice requested: because of changes to title heading, the Dharamsala project is now in a heading entitled 'abandoned projects'. We now have 2 articles on India/SkyWay negotiations. Neither of them say that the project has been 'abandoned'. They question its validity. The Norwegian article suggests that this project is still planned in 2020. I suggest until we have confirmation otherwise, we move India to 'Future projects'. I also suggest we follow the Indonesian model and call it 'planned projects' not 'future projects'; they are after all planned projects. Planned projects happen in the future but 'future projects' could mean a lot of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another reference on SkyWay in India including detailed information about the MoU and other negotiations from 9 May 2017 in 'India Today': [126]
There is no information about it at all, meanwhile there was period when Skyway was producing a lot of news and their managers signed MoU there and told about $42 billion projects[127]. It was terminated and Skyway alleged that Indonesian partners did nothing to promote Skyway in the region and stole money. Let's collect verifiable sources here. At the same time Indonesian partners said that company was frozen because of public complaints. Unfortunately it is in Indonesian. Google translations: "Mufli Asmawijaya, as the Chairperson of OJK Advocacy through telephone confirmation also suggested that companies in Indonesia immediately announce their freeze, given that there had been a lot of complaints from the public regarding several MLM offerings that had been selling investment products"
@Dron07 - I actually studied Indonesia and lived there so I'll check out these references. Thanks for this. I changed the article already to mention that they are in negotiation with the SkyWay companies in Indonesia. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are the main facts suggested in the article:
Negotiations between Indonesia and the SkyWay Group were finally stopped in 2018.
News of the resignation of the director of 'PT Skyway Technologies Indonesia' was repressed by the mother company in Belarus.
According to the Indonesian Financial Services Authority (OJK), complaints had been made by the public about investment products being offered and because of the misinformation about the company this had to be made clear.
This misinformation propagated by Skyway involved failure to inform the public about the cancellation of Skyway projects in Turkey, Australia and Indonesia.
The OJK also confirmed that no SkyWay companies has ever registered officially in Indonesia.
'PT Skyway Technologies Indonesia' were apparently planning a project of 'sky trains' at the Jorong Port in Kalimantan.
Here is a new verifiable reference on the operations of the SkyWay in Indonesia. I found it in the Norwegian Wikipedia article. It concerns collaboration between UI (University of Indonesia) and Skyway:
This article discusses collaboration between 'Universitas Indonesia' and PT SkyWay Technologies Indonesia. 'PT' is an acronym for 'perseroan terbatas' which means 'limited company'. In 2017 an MoU was signed between the UI in West Java and this company. There is no indication that this specific project has been realized. According to the more recent reference all collaborations between SkyWay and Indonesia were cancelled. Unfortunately it didn't actually mention the MoU in West Java. It seemed important, however, to bring up the arrangements between UI and SkyWay in the article because it's mentioned in the Norwegian Wikipedia SkyWay article. They introduce it as a 'planned project'. These recent changes to the cancelled projects needs to be assessed however because I'm not actually sure that when the second article says that 'all projects are cancelled' it means the UI negotiations because a university isn't really a company and it doesn't mention specifically either the MoU or West-Java; it mentions a city in Kalimantan which is part of the island of Borneo. It could be that Indonesia belongs in either the 'postponed' or 'planned' projects; I just don't know. In any case, this article confirms that the Indonesian SkyWay limited company is part of the SkyWay Group: it mentions Yunitskiy personally and discusses the benefits of his SkyWay technology in detail. It also discusses the EcoTechnoPark in Belarus. Anyone interested in this translation can request it on my talk page. Interestingly, the SkyWay website mentions the Jorong port (which has been cancelled in the meantime) but doesn't specifically mention collaboration with the UI. Request for clarification on this subject. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this reference the Indonesian finance regulatory agency OJK (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan) warns about 57 different companies that have been banned and which investors could lose their money on. SkyWay is the second company on this list: [130]. IMHO it's safe to extend the list of countries that have released warnings about SkyWay can include Indonesia.
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here follows a summary and complete translation of the verifiable Italian article concerning a project in the Sicilian city of Messina and the shady history of the Skyway group, dated 20 July 2018:
SKYWAY the flying tram company which has never realized a project
The primary purpose of the article is to suggest why any collaboration between the SkyWay group and the large Sicilian city of Messina would be inadvisable.
In an effort to do this the article details the history of the SkyWay group companies, the involvement of Kunitsky as director, the controversies in Lithuania and India, their questionable use of crowdfunding, and information about the banning of these practices by CONFOB – an official Italian government organisation.
'Concise summary of the facts
Here is a concise summary of the most important facts in the article:
Anatoly Yunitsky is the director of the SkyWay group which has companies registered under a wide variety of business names in London, Minsk and the Virgin Islands (a well-known tax haven).
SkyWay has never realised an actual project anywhere. Existing proof consists of computer-generated images and a demonstration model in Belarus.
It’s currently illegal for any of the SkyWay group to sell shares in Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia and the United States.
There were many other SkyWay companies around the world promoting this technology which have since been dissolved. Current directors of the company deny having been involved with any of them.
India and Lithuania have been involved in shady financial dealings with the SkyWay group. In 2017 a proposed project in Lithuania was suspected of financial fraud through the illegal sale of shares, and was cancelled. In May 2017, however, the investigations were stopped after they decided they couldn’t prosecute the company.
In 2007 and 2018 specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering gave a negative assessment of this technology. In 2010 a project was cancelled in Australia before the planning started.
The companies have applied controversial ‘crowdfunding’ techniques since 2014. They make lofty claims to individual citizens and promise extremely lucrative returns at some unspecified time in the future if you invest your money today.
In January 2018 The Italian Companies and Exchange Commission CONFOB – a governmental organisation – banned the advertisement and sale of SkyWay shares in Italy.
There are precedents in the past for questionable investments of foreigners in Italian infrastructure, including Indian and Arab investors whose projects were suspended.
The mayor of Messina has been discussing possible collaborations with the SkyWay group as part of his electoral campaign.
'Complete Translation'
[The English translation of this article can be found on the user Zaxander talk page. It's a very long article, and seeing that I've included above all the major facts from this verifiable source, it seemed to me to unnecessary to confuse the talkpage with unnecessary information that can be checked elsewhere. In any case to change the article you can use any of the above-listed facts to help you. Believe me it's hard to find reliable sources on this subject because there is so much misinformation].Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More information on the Business Insider Italia article: ATTACCÀTI AL TRAM
Attaccàti al tram… Dal Pirellone a Messina, gli italiani che hanno abboccato alla fantomatica monorotaia da 500 kmh di SkyWay
Attack on the tram ... From the Pirellone to Messina, the Italians who took the SkyWay's elusive 500 kmh monorail
"Cities bursting with traffic? No problem, the SkyWay company has the solution: to buy one of its monorails that make speeding cars at 15 meters high at 500 kilometers an hour, with a frequency of one every 15 seconds. Moreover, the plants cost 20% less than a normal subway and are totally green ... It seems like a dream, but it is the "real" proposal that the Belarusian company has been promoting for years now to heads of state, transport ministers and local administrations of half the world. Too bad that such facilities do not actually exist on the planet Earth."
-Zachar (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuania
The scandal in Lithuania is complex and deserves a responsible description in the text. Unverifiable references and misleading text has just been removed. In an effort to do the issue justice I read the four verifiable articles, including the one in Lithuanian which I translated with Google. All the articles say pretty much the same thing. Here's a summary of what I understood (most of it was never mentioned or was deliberately distorted in the article): [1] Officials in the municipality of Siauliai started negotiating with SkyWay in 2014 and as such land was designated for use near a NATO based somewhere in the municipality; [2] The whole affair became embroiled in a corruption scandal when about 360 thousand euros was transferred by SkyWay into somebody's bank account; [3] Because of this the Bank of Lithuania started an investigation and the deal was prematurely concluded; [4] Eventually the prosecutor's office decided that although they could not prosecute the SkyWay group for being a pyramid scheme, that their methods of financing were highly suspect and for this reason Lithuania should have nothing to do with the company. Before recent adjustment, the second paragraph seemed to include a lot of unnecessary information justifying the actions of SkyWay by emphasizing the fact that they were exonerated from being a pyramid scheme. But that is hardly relevant here: even if that's true the Bank of Lithuania still started an investigation, found that the company was involved in shady practices and stopped the deal because of the illegal sale of shares. Although the investigation eventually ended and one of their conclusions was that they couldn't actually prosecute the company for the specifics of a pyramid scheme, this hardly exonerates the company from wrong-doing. They go out of their way to emphasise the fact that the investigation was stopped on May 26th 2017 and that this was because of their decision that there was no pyramid scheme. This is simply not true. I can't actually find this specific date anywhere in the four verifiable references and it hardly seems important. But I've concluded the paragraph with a sentence stating that the prosecutor's office decided to stop its investigations in May 2017. In the light of this information the whole story should be rewritten and told in a consequent fashion. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I translated the Lithuanian article into English.
Bank of Lithuania: signs of fraud in the activities of A. Yunitskiy promising “air trains”
By Šarūnas Černiauskas, www.DELFI.lt [DELFI is the primary news portal in Lithuania]
September 18 2014
You can view this translation at the user:Zaxander talk page. It specifically implicates that Yunitskiy founded the various companies in the SkyWay Groups in London and Lithuania. It is also very specific about him being the primary shareholder. Furthermore it mentions him in every single paragraph. It hardly mentions the technology itself. Its source of information is Vaidas Cibas, the 'Head of the Regulated Market Supervision Division of the Bank of Lithuania Supervision Authority'. The research seems to be very thorough. They conclude that they will share this information widely among international supervisory authorities "so that it is known in all countries that this company is engaged in illegal activities".
Here follows a summary of a translation of this article. It describes in detail the actual negotiations that were undertaken between the municipality of Siauliai and the SkyWay Group BEFORE the Bank of Lithuania suggested that the Prosecutor's Office start an investigation into this company. Information about the negotiations could be extended by making use of facts like these:
The Siauliai province was involved in a scandal when they started negotiations with the SkyWay company in 2014.
The Siauliai City Municipality signed an investment agreement with SkyWay and allocated a 30-hectare plot of land; they were planning to building a “string transport laboratory and a test track” there.
Controversy started when opposing politicians suggested that collaboration with SkyWay would pose a threat to “the security of our state and NATO”; Andrius Kubilius leader of the opposition turned to the Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence with fears of “a Russian-led shield organization based on the methods of operation of Russian special services directed against NATO and Lithuania”. He claimed that by approving this project Siauliai was “ignoring Russia’s aggressive policy towards not only the Ukraine but also against the Baltic states”.
The Mayor of the city Justinas Sartauskas was accused of signing this agreement without receiving permission from the national land service, checking the company’s capital or without consulting the Ministry of Defence.
The String Transport project also showed signs of corruption. A million litas (about 360 thousand euros) was added to the municipal bank account of Siauliai. According to Sartauskas these claims were unfounded. This money was transferred to guarantee the costs that would be incurred by pre-allocating this land to the SkyWay company test-site, ensuring no harm would be done to the city: “If they did not fulfill the terms of the contract, we would simply deduct the costs from that million”.
If we need more reliable sources acout this case here they are: [133][134][135] (about the reasons of project cancelling) [136] (latest news, rejection to pay $10 million compensation to Rail Skyway System). Dron007 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NEGOTATIONS TEXT: proposed extension to the text based on facts listed above in the Siauliai scandal.
"During negotiations with the SkyWay Group the municipality of Siauliai in Lithuania became involved in a scandal. An investment agreement was signed, a piece of land was pre-allocated to a SkyWay test-site and a large sum of money was transferred to the municipality's bank accounts to guarantee against loss to the city. The mayor was later crticised for signing this contract without receiving permission from the national land service, checking the company’s capital or consulting the Ministry of Defence and the project was finally cancelled at the end of 2014." –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another article on the investigation of the Yunitskiy by the Lithuanian authorities. It is a DELFI article entitied "History of Siauliai Sky Trains: Yunitskiy became a suspect" from 25 March 2015 and comments on the fact that "the pre-trial invstigation into SkyWay is gaining momentum" and concludes that Yunitskiy himself had departed from Lithuania and was not coming back. See the article here: [137] –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another article concerning the Lithuania controversy. Here it is made clear: in 2014 an issue was warned by the Bank of Lithuania for the operations of the company "Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.". In Siauliai, however, negotiations were held with the company "Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd." and this SkyWay test facility was cancelled for different reasons. Read the original article here published 23 August 2017: [138].
Nigeria
It seems that the SkyWay Group are active in Nigeria as well, at least according to the SkyWay website. Include any actual verifiable references to SkyWay activity in Nigeria below:
It appears they had a congress there where Nigerian SkyWay staff encouraged people to invest in this project: [139]
The article concerns how they use are using MLM-techniques to promote investment in SkyWay Nigeria. Small-scale investors are encouraged become 'affiliate investors' in an exciting project that will improve life in Nigeria for everyone; [140]
The photo in the last article include figures like František Solar who has been involved in negotiations with Indonesia which were cancelled and harks back to representing SkyWay technologies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and Kristiaan Van Den Vyver who has represented SkyWay Capital in Belgium (where FSMA has released a warning) and in other international negotiations such as Vietnam. –Zachar (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the Nigerian SkyWay company registered in Lagos is Technopolis Integrated Nigeria Limited : [141]
It appears that SkyWay has been active in Slovakia. At the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava they signed a 'Memorandum of Cooperation' in September 2016 on a "project of an innovative rail transport system in Bratislava": [142]. Please note that a 'Memorandum of Cooperation' may be similar to a 'Memorandum of Understanding' which is not actually a contract and does not legally oblige anyone to do anything. It can, however, form the basis for further cooperation and can result in the preparation of an actual contract. The fact that there is no third-party publicity about any actual collaboration between anyone in Slovakia suggests that this hasn't taken place yet. A Memorandum doesn't prove any actual scientific endorsement of this technology either. It just means they might in the future draw up documents to collaborate on something. There are no further endorsements anywhere on the company or its technology that I can find. Can anyone else find a verifiable article about either the negotiations with University of Technology in Bratislave or in fact any SkyWay activity there? Post it here.
SkyWay Capital or its associates may well have been seeking funding in Slovakia. The Bank of Slovakia released a warning about the activities of the SkyWay Group: [143]. So did the Czech National Bank: [144]. I haven't found any other references to collaboration between the SkyWay Group and Slovakia. SkyWay themselves claim that Yunitskiy has received an international peace prize in Bratislava. It seems that no one else has ever received this prize as far as I can tell: [145]
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we could find a secondary reference to collaboration between SkyWay and the Slovak University of Technology, then we could conceivably include it in the 'Projects' heading. But this is what worries me: the SkyWay Group has never actually realized any of these projects. You have to be careful about making claims like this but it is certainly true for the 'projects' discussed here. They may realize the proposed project in Dubai in the future and if they did this would be important news. But if they did, this would be striking and deserving of an individual discussion. The fact that they've been photographed on land which has supposedly been allocated to this project is not sufficient. Nothing has been built there yet. They have signed an MoU which is NOT a contract and no one is actually obliged to do anything. Although it can lead to a contract being drawn up, it doesn't actually mean much on its own. Maybe the section called 'projects' should actually be called 'negotiations' because 'projects' suggests that something has been built. It really hasn't. Negotiations are very different to actual projects. This is not a negative claim about the company. Negotiations are an important part of being a business, but projects result from legally-binding contracts which are drawn up after MoUs provide the foundation for them. I suggest we change the name of 'projects' to either 'negotiations' or 'proposals' or something like that. I say this because one of the users providing useful input to this talk page actually suggested we have a separate heading for the 'completed' projects. It's actually easy to assume if you see a heading like 'projects' that these companies have actually done something somewhere. I'm worried this could be misleading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenia
Here's a link to an article in Slovenian, published 31 May 2018. Note that from what I can tell it doesn't actually say so much about whether there is any specific activity in Slovenia. But it is very informative about the complexity of the group of companies, the connection between different company groups, what the money could actually be used for of investors and the chance of people actually making any money out of it, and interesting facts like how you are rewarded for bringing along three friends to meetings and convincing them to invest in shares. There are photos of Yunitskiy and Kudryashov (SkyWay Capital). Request for verification and possible translation of this interesting material. Here is the link:
WHO ARE THESE RUSSIANS HUNTING FOR SLOVENIAN MONEY?
31 May 2018 by Matic Tomšič
See the Zaxander (talk·contribs) talk page for the complete translation. Included below, however is a summary of the contents of this article. It makes pretty clear exactly what happened in Slovenia with pretty broad conclusions about the role of Yunitskiy, the SkyWay technology and SkyWay Capital which is closely involved in the funding operation. I tried to be really careful about how I worded this summary, and I encourage you to check the original or the translation before you use any of these facts in the article.
SUMMARY:
A ‘SkyWay’ meeting for potential investors was held in December 2017 at ‘Hotel Center’ in Novo Mesto, Slovenia. The first event had already been held in September of the same year.
SkyWay is a cable transport system designed by Anatoly Yunitskiy in the eighties. Yunitskiy, who is the primary representative today of the SkyWay Group, is making lofty claims about this technology.
Although Yunitskiy still produces prototypes of his technology, no pilot projects have been realised. A negative assessment was made of this technology in 2008 (MSUoRE) because it was considered too dangerous for passengers. In 2016 the Russian Ministry of Transport decided it was innovative but only in theory.
SkyWay Capital – the primary fund raiser of SkyWay projects – operates within the SkyWay Group; it has been seeking potential investors all over the world.
According to this company a polluted future and the end of all life on earth can be avoided by investing in SkyWay infrastructure. All they need is your money. They promise you high returns on any investments in shares or options.
Although it’s hard to tell because of the different companies in the SkyWay Group, it seems that the First Skyway Invest Group Ltd. (registered in London) is selling these shares.
The potential success of this company is dependent on the success of the technology; when it succeeds the price of its shares will increase. Seeing that there are still only prototypes in Belarusian fields, this seems unlikely.
SkyWay Capital ultimately absolves itself of any liability and offers no guarantee on returns to investors; furthermore it states that its shares are not valid in Russia or Australia.
According to the Indonesian article mentioned above, the SkyWay group has been misinforming the world about its negotiations with Turkey. According to the article, plans of the SkyWay group have similarly been brought into question and stopped, although you wouldn't think this from the SkyWay website which discuss it as an ongoing project. This is a request for documentation on actual articles referring to what is happening/has happened to negotiations in Turkey if they are at all. Despite the fact that it is mentioned all over the 'SkyWay' website, this is the first time a verifiable source has mentioned Turkey at all. Include any links below.
They wrote that mayor of Ersurum had visited EcoTechnoPark and that "The official edition of the municipality of Erzurum “Erzurum Büyükşehir Belediyesi” published an article, which, in particular, focuses on the fact that the Mayor of the city of Erzurum Mehmet Sekmen told the public about SkyWay technology. Moreover, he informed that it is planned to allocate funds for the construction of SkyWay transport already in 2017!"[146] but it is very easy to check that there is nothing about Skyway on the mentioned page [147]. Dron007 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007 More good research. This sort of proves how important it is for the SkyWay Group to 'appear' as if it is negotiating with powerful partners. The Indonesian reference you found actually states that collaboration between Indonesian companies and the SkyWay group were cancelled but that nonetheless the SkyWay group continued to lie about their collaborations, as they were doing with negotiations in Turkey and Australia. We do know that at one stage there really were collaborations with Australia and Indonesia. I wonder what the whole truth is about Turkey? Sometimes it's really hard to tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An unidentified user says that the following links are specifically about SkyWay's companies involvement with 'Sky Pod' projects in the United Arab Emirates. Thanks for posting this suspicion here and not changing the article with this information. Until now I haven't been able to find that there is a link between Sky Pods and SkyWay, but I haven't looked very hard. Can anyone else confirm this? -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links:
"Dubai's transport authority has unveiled its Sky Pod project, a futuristic mobility system which will require less power and infrastructure to operate."
On RTA site is said that "Dubai’s Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Skyway Greentech Company" and there is Yunitsky on photo so, yes SkyWay's companies are involved. Here is the link:
There is also a video where Yunitsky says that UAE building company plans to finish the construction of the first road in April in Sharja. Another project is in Dubai but there is no information about terms. Just FYI. Dron007 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much; well spotted. If even one of the references checks out, 'the United Arab Emirates' can be included in paragraph 3 of the introduction with the other countries that have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the SkyWay group. I don't know where else though because at least according to these references, they haven't been caught out doing something irregular yet! –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RTA reference really does look like a verifiable one. The link opens fine for me and seems like one that comes from the UAE and not from SkyWay. But these people are good at creating misleading links and this whole subject has got made worried about making a mistake. Can someone else confirm this and if deemed valid include it? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these links - I used RTA reference to add the UAE to the third paragraph. Other references may useful in the development of the body of the article as it is later extended when we find more references on their marketing techniques. Kind regards -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about these links?
1) "...The vehicles, invented by Mr Yunitskiy’s company Skyway and displayed at the World Government Summit in Dubai yesterday, would move high above the ground along a specially designed network of overpasses"
Thanks everyone for bringing up this issue and providing us with so many sources. Because of these references I've included the UAE as one of the countries in the 'Unrealized projects' of the article. The RTA article states that in February 2019 'Skyway Greentech Company' signed an MoU with Dubai's RTA. This company will build 'Sky Pods' there. Yunitskiy himself is pictured in the photo signing this deal. It seems fairly unambiguous that 'Skyway Greentech Company' is one of the SkyWay Group companies. Other articles confirm this same information. The conclusion is the 'Skyway Greentch Company' is without ambiguity one of the SkyWay Group. Unfortunately it doesn't actually say this anywhere (yet). Of course, the SkyWay company websites refers to the 'Skyway Greentech Company' as their own. But this website is an unverifiable source. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of all these references, also, it seems like we should probably include the 'SkyPóds' as one of the test sites even if it has been deconstructed and even if it was used as marketing rather than actual demonstration. It seems, after all, that they did build something else somewhere. I'll check the references we already have above for discussion of the technological park but include any new references to any external sources below (that are not published by SkyWay themselves, of course). If there are other places something was actually built for display, it should probably be mentioned. The problem is finding verifiable resources. Press releases from technology fairs don't really mean anything along with publicity photos from events. Critical descriptions of what these projects looked like and how effective they were. In fact, for every technological test site where something was actually built we should probably have a different 'test site' entry with short descriptions from verifiable sources. Start a new discussion thread for each new site but please only start it if you have verifiable references first. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that they presented two model 'sky pod' taxi unicars at a governmental summit, they signed a MoU and they opened a construction site for testing in Sharjah. This is, in any case, what SkyWay themselves had to say about it - how much of this is actually true remains arguable until we have verifiable sources. Also, seeing that not even SkyWay is claiming yet that that they've created a test site, we can't really put one there yet. Just examples of the technology at a Government Summit that don't move anywhere don't actually count as 'testing' I think. Keep posting your results here.
"The SkyWay Innovation Center should become part of a large research and development center located at the Sharjah campus. This will be a showroom for the Middle East region and a functioning transport line for local campuses. Preparations for its construction began in the spring of 2018. The specialists of SkyWay Technologies Co. designed and coordinated with the Arab side all the nuances of the future innovation center and convinced them to leave in the project all the know-how, not familiar to local consultants. At the end of September 2018, the opening of the site for building the Innovation Center took place. If priorities do not change, the first stage will be completed in 2019. In parallel, the designers were creating new models of transport for the local inhospitable climate."
Dubai Sky Pods is not a test site but a futuristic transportation system. It looks like localization/branding of Skyway. We can see this label and logo printed on Skyway vehicles exhibited in Dubai. Nothing new was built for that. At the same time they are building new test site in Sharja and showed a couple of videos from there. They planned to show something in April 2019 but in the video there was only a basement of some building. I couldn't found any secondary source supporting this information.Dron007 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnam
It has been claimed that SkyWay is extending its operations to Vietnam. I suppose it's not all that surprising. I read this information in an anecdotal (wholly negative) description of their operations. Verifiable references are, however, still lacking. According to one of the SkyWay websites they had a meeting there in June and July 2018. Lo and behold there are SkyWay facebook pages and websites in Vietnamese as well.[148]. If they only had meetings there and there are no verifiable references about these meetings, we can't really include anything about this in the article. But if you find any verifiable resources please include them below.
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a SkyWay marketing film in Vietnamese published on a Vietnamese news site. The title of the article is Vietnamese entrepreneur presents a Belarusian transport dream. It was published on July 7 2018. The accompanying text is "Long on claims and short on details, the 'Skyway' projects a three-hour ride from Hanoi to Ho Chi Minh City." [149] I still can't find any links to suggest that they have actually entered negotiations with anyone there yet. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ONLINER.BY SkyWay Articles - Claims & Controversies
A number of articles were published on the internet by the popular and well-known Belarusian publisher ONLINER.BY about SkyWay after they interviewed Yunitskiy in 2016 and researched the claims he made about his technology and the testing facility he was building in Marjina Horka at the time. They were written by Constantin Sidorovich and made a series of bold statements about the inventor of SkyWay technology, the exaggerated claims made by the SkyWay Group about this technology, the questionable scientific validity of both this technology its new Belarusian testing facility, and the marketing techniques adopted by these companies to fund themselves. The most recent article is from 22 February 2019 but the original article from September 2016 viewable here [150] resulted in legal action being taken by Yunitskiy against ONLINER.BY. He was unsuccessful and ONLINER.BY kept updating their articles and publishing new facts. Arthur Van Burren recently translated and published one of the more recent articles on the Van Burrenblog. You can view his translation here:[151]. An unidentified 'Sino-English law firm' in Hong Kong is currently reviewing the contents of this and other postings critical of SkyWay. Summaries of the conclusions drawn in these articles and translations will follow with specific information about facts which could be used to update this article. Include your comments about the CONTENTS of these articles and possibly legal actions taken by Yunitskiy against Onliner.by or the Van Burrenblog below. You can address any specific concerns you have about the validity of the claims made in these articles and their translations here. Please include only valid criticism or commentary on the CONTENTS of these articles by demonstrating why in other verifiable sources and not your personal opinions or attacks at the writers or translators as these will be removed immediately.
5 September 2016 - "Elon Musk is nonsense - give me money instead..."
Илон Маск — чушь собачья, несите деньги мне. Белорус основал «компанию на $400 млрд» и строит под Минском «сверхскоростной» Sky Way
Elon Musk is hogwash - just give me the money. A Belarusian founded "a company worth $400 billion" and is building a "superfast" SkyWay near Minsk
A translation from the popular Belarusian newsfeed 'Onliner.by' can now be viewed at the Zaxander (talk·contribs) talk page. It is the first article on SkyWay that later resulted in legal action by Yunitskiy and his associates for libel. These legal proceedings were unsuccessful. This article doesn't have a lot of information about the EcoTechnoPark (it was still quite new when this article was published; they'd only started working on it a year before) - but it was published while they were still building it and is largely in reaction to their return to Belarus after the unsuccessful projects in Australia and Lithuania. But the more recent articles make more sense if you read this one first. Two of the other Onliner.by articles appear to be transcriptions of actual interviews some of which were made for this article.
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here follows a summary of the original SkyWay article Sidorovich wrote for the popular Belarusian newsfeed ONLINER.BY. Although Yunitskiy was unsuccessful in suing him for the contents of this very article, this doesn't necessarily mean that each and every conclusion he made was true. If you have real proof that the claims that were made in this article were untrue, please post them here. In the following summary, quotes are used from the article. But I encourage you to read the whole translation or consult the original before using it to change the article.
SUMMARY:
This article was written in reaction to the ‘Kairos Technologies’ pyramid scheme [152] which attracted gullible people to “high-tech technology projects”. SkyWay seemed very similar.
The technology of ‘string transport’ known as SkyWay dates back to the eighties. In general terms it refers to a railway system where the rails are elevated above the ground on concrete supports: “A string rail is a bundle of pre-stressed tensioned steel wires placed in a concrete-filled body.” It was invented by Anatoly Yunitskiy.
The main claims of Yunitskiy about his technology are as follows: “String transport is safer, more environmentally friendly, faster (emphasis is placed on speeds up to 500 km per hour) and is ten times cheaper than everything that exists.”
Yunitskiy complains about the underfinancing of his projects. But it is this aspect of his endeavours that “cause the most controversy and suspicion”: “Money is collected from ordinary people, in return, they receive ‘shares’ from Euroasian Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd, registered in the British Virgin Islands (about 40% of offshore companies in the world are based here).” Apparently if you pay a dollar for a ‘share’, “you are promised a profit of over 1000%” in the future.
According to Yunitskiy his company had been appraised as being worth 400 billion – approximately the same as Apple computers, despite there not being any real results when this article was written.
SkyWay appears to have two locations. An office in Minsk and the test site in Marjina Horka. At the offices “dozens of young people work” and there is also a workshop there. In 2015 SkyWay rented a 35-hectare plot near Marina Horka to test SkyWay technology. The test-site which is called EcoTechnoPark has a field of hundreds of apple trees. A tree is planted for every investor who donated at least a thousand dollars. According to Yunitskiy “80 thousand people from 78 countries invest in us” (mostly 100-300 dollars).
According to Yunitskiy, his projects have been plagued by unfortunate setbacks. He almost completes a project, competitors or governments intervene and he is chased out, and after that he chooses another country and he starts again. This happened first in Russia, where he worked with Lebed (the governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory). In 2011 he went to Australia. After that Lithuania but they called him an international fraudster and arrested him.
Although Yunitskiy claimed he was treated unfairly in Lithuania, the Central Bank there accused him of selling "worthless shares” and the Prosecutor General’s Office started an investigation “into fraud, illegal economic, commercial, financial activities and the legalization of funds acquired by criminal means."
According to Yunitskiy Elon Musk (responsible for Tesla, SpaceX and Hyperloop) is a fraud and his work is utter nonsense whereas he himself has ready-made solutions “to all major world problems.”
Yunitskiy complains a lot about underfunding. And when you run out of money “you need to actively finance”. Yunitskiy decided to collect this money from private investors and crowdfunding as part of complex schemes. It is the pyramid structure of these investment schemes that creates the most controversy. This ‘referral system’ where investors receive a percentage of the money they get from other people they encourage to invest is well-known in the example of Kairos Technologies.
According to the economist Kovalkin this a significant way of extracting money from people. But products like Apple depended on a usable model which could afterwards attract investors to help send the product “to mass production at the factory”. In the case of SkyWay you need a working sample that meets all the “declared parameters” like speed, safety and economic viability.
The conclusion of this article is that although SkyWay could be a technological breakthrough, it looks like just “another fraudulent pyramid scheme”.
A translation of this article still hasn't been published. It seems to document the fact that the case was going to trial and contains further elucidation about the SkyWay company. A transltion will follow.
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is interesting because it's a clear documentation of Yunitskiy denying that he is connected to the SkyWay Group of companies in court. He claims on the one hand that the President of the SkyWay Group is just a 'virtual' position, and on the other that he has nothing to do with them. During the court prceedings, his business card is brought into the discussion by the defending council of Onliner.by: it clearly states that his email address is the one connected to the SkyWay companies. His answer to the defendant's question is that "he doesn't know why it's there". Onliner.by author Sidorivich who was taken to court by Yunitskiy for alleged false claims about the SkyWay Company Group, emphasizes the fact that he always used this email address to contact Yunitskiy. It's no wonder they threw this case out of court. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A translation has now been made of this article. It contains a lot of confusing answers from Yunitskiy about how his '400 billion' intellectual property was shifted in ownership to his offshore companies. He refuses to provide a clear answer in this court transcript. Defense suggests that his refusal to answer this question relates to the fact that he lacked permission from the regulatory agencies to start the company he refuses to discuss (probably in Belarus), but he gives as a s reason he was a Russian citizen when this took place and he would only answer these questions in Russia. Yunitskiy demanded a full refutation and the removal of the preceding Onliner.by article from the internet, and also 200 thousand rubles as compensation. The results of the court case were still pending when this article was published. Although this translation is still unpublished anywhere, I can send anyone a copy curious enough to read it. A summary of the details will eventually follow. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this information from Onliner is that they are taking part in the trial and we need to look for another independent source. Otherwise we will have to refer to another side of the trial too and make own synthesis which is wrong.Dron007 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:According to Wikipedia court-case transcripts, like legislation, are primary sources. Secondary sources, which quote them, however are usable. If this is true, we could use the dialogue but not the opinions about the dialogue. The transcripts are actually of the defendant's lawyer, a witness (Sibiryakov) and a linguist but not Sidorovich himself who published the article. I'm not sure about how much of the transcripts are usable. This article also contains additional information but not so many verifiable sources as the other articles. The transcripts of the dialogue between Yunitskiy and the Onliner.by's defense certainly seem highly questionable. In any case, the court-case was rejected. And there's a lot of interesting comments on Yunitskiy's qualifications following the second court-case article. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:I think the question is: are these transcripts publicly available or were they transcried by Sidorovich himself? If they are just transcripts that Sidorovich made then they are not usable. But this is different if anyone can access this material, even if they have to apply for it in person. I'm not sure of Belarusian policy on court transcripts but if these are public documents then I imagine these sources are usable. Looking forward to advice on this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:So Sidorovich transcribed them himself and we can't verify his transcriptions with the original even if we travel to the courts ourselves and apply to see them there? That is not so good. Thanks for this. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
8 June 2017 - "The court refused to file a complaint by Yunitskiy against Onliner.by"
Суд отказал академику РАЕН Юницкому в исковых претензиях к Onliner.by
The counrt refused to file a complaint against Onliner.by the RAEN academic Yunitskiy
There is still no translation of this article, but it appears to include transcriptions of the proceedings of the court-case. This is what the first paragraph says:
Today, the trial ended between SkyWay author Anatoly Yunitsky on the one hand, and Onliner.by, as well as a journalist who wrote the article “Elon Musk - bullshit..." [5 September 2016], on the other. The plaintiff was confident that this material contains information discrediting his “honor, dignity and business reputation.” The court found otherwise.
A translation has been made of this article. The origins of the court transcripts remain unverified and are probably unusable. Anyone curious enough to read this translation, however, is welcome to request it on the Zaxander (talk·contribs) talk page. The outcome of the court case are verified, however, by other sources. This is a translation of what they have to say about this in the article:
Today, the court rejected all the claimant’s claims, concluding that the controversial article does not tarnish its “honor, dignity and business reputation”. Also, Anatoly Yunitskiy will incur costs associated with the cost of Onliner.by for legal services.
According to this article Yunitskiy is an academic of the RAEN. This is what Wikipedia has to say about RAEN (the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences): The Russian Academy of Natural Sciences does not have any association with the Russian Academy of Sciences and has come under criticism for the fact that many of its members do not have any scientific credentials and because some of its members peddle pseudoscience." Until we have confirmation of this, however, it remains a claim about Yunitskiy's qualifications. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yunitskiy claims to have a PhD of Transport. One of the comments in this article claims that such a degree does not exist. Any confirmation on this? Note that Yunitskiy himself appears rather vague when talking about his qualifications. Sometimes they call him an engineer; sometimes a scientist; sometimes a doctor. Mostly, however, just an inventor. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
11 September 2017 - "I am leeching from pyramid schemes..."
«Паразитирую на финансовых пирамидах», «перспективы развития — виртуальные». Что происходит со SkyWay Юницкого
"I am leeching from financial pyramids", "development prospects are virtual" - What is happening to Yunitskiy's SkyWay?
This article was translated into German on the Burrenblog which can be viewed here:[153]. The title of thë page concerning this translation is "Is it the Fantasy Land of Dreamers and the Gullible?". A Summary of its contents follows with actual useable quotes from this article. We want to hear any criticism but only include verifiable counter-claims that are not from self-published sources and not baseless accusations and personal attacks as they will be removed.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander: I have analyzed German translation and see that it has statements which don't exist in original Onliner article including answers from National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (4-page document) and answer from Belorussian State University of Transport (3-page document). For example there is no anything after "Notes:" (I used English translation of German blog article made with Google Translate). I mean this quote: "Note: Eco-Park is far removed from real-life conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds, nor does it have safety parameters in place.) Eco-Park is designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string at low speed and nothing else. Quasi a small recreational park for Skyway disciples without aha experience." Maybe they used another materials but we cannot rely on incorrect translation/synthesis. I also couldn't find anything about "not situated realistically far from the ground and is in the country and nowhere near any other buildings" neither in Onliner (original and German versions) nor in Italian article. Could you please give sources/quotes for these statements? Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander:You have mentioned that "The scientific facts in the articles suggest it would be physically impossible for them to get faster than 80km per hour, and that if they did they could vibrate and cause an accident. An accident is actually documented. And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour." I'll comment these statements one by one. 1) The statement in the documents says that the theoretical research done by scientists showed that is was possible to minimize the frequency of vibrations of 5 ton module only at 80 km/h speed using short distance between piers. At the same time there is a statement in 4-page document that declared speeds (500 km/h) are theoretically reachable but there are technical problems. That is not the same as "impossible". We probably need to do en exact translation of the origingal 3-page and 4-page documents not to quote them (primary source) but to check whether they were correctly used by the secondary sources. 2) Accident was not mentioned directly in any source but is implied in statements about max speed. What accident do you mean by "an accident is actually documented"? Is it the fact that I added some time ago when unibike hit the loader? It was removed later as not important. If so it is not connected in any way with the problems which appear in high speeds. It is more about overall safety of the system and low height of the railroad in EcoTechnoPark. I added it to show that despite the declared high safety standards there are obvious problems. 3) "And the actual vehicles don't move faster than 20 km per hour". Although it is a real fact during the EcoFest when there are many visitors in EcoTechnoPark there is no any evidence it is the maximum of speed ever reached. I haven't seen anything about this speed in any of the discussed articles.Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:The 'April Fool's Day' article from 18 September 2018 has more information about the EcoTechnoPark and reasons for questioning the science and the possible speeds reached. But I can't find a specific place either that refers to the distance of the tracks from the ground or the exact speed of the vehicles while passengers are in them. And these factors certainly don't add to the 'amusement park' aspect of the EcoTechnoPark. After all, roller-coasters (staple events at amusement parks) fly by at high apparent speeds and at dangerously precipice-like distances from the ground. The accident actually used to be part of the article but the only reference at the time was to a SkyWay website (so it was removed). I recently noticed that it was the 'April Fool's Day' article which also documented an accident. Hopefully having the contents of these articles side-by-side it'll be easier to fact-check such claims in the future. I didn't mean to create the impression that these were the only reasons why the EcoTechnoPark was considered an amusement park; these were the reasons I could directly recite without having the articles immediately in front of me to check. Luckily there are other people to fact-check such claims to make sure they aren't published prematurely. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander:So as we see the following is not quite correct at least for the discussed articles: "These articles document the fact that as a 'testing' site it doesn't really do a very good job and suggest that it is not really designed to perform this function." So what facts from articles can be included? Re-reading 4-page document I have to say that it is rather unspecific. It can be used both as positive and negative resolution depending on which statements are choosen. Maybe we can mention that scientists recommended to launch additional tests and scientific research and also perform an independent expertise. We can take facts about unrealistic promises e.g. about the road in Mogilev as there is a document about it. Dron007 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:I'll use these ideas to come up with an additional sentence for a description of testing with something like "scientists have recommended, however, that independent testing be peformed by accredited organisations" based on your contribution and my recent summary, although I'm not sure how to include the road in Mogiliev. Do you mean somewhere else in the article? The Mogiliev claims are included in the summary below. I really tried in my summary to not synthesize any new arguments and use actual quotes from the article for problematic claims. When you have a chance to read it let me know if there are any problems. The intention is to summarise the contents but it's always possible I misinterpreted the facts or skipped important information which makes the summary sound more negative than the original article is. I ask this especially considering you have checked the translation so recently. Thanks again for helping me with this. It is really hard to summarise a lot of commentary into a single sentence.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander:Yes, I mean that claim. That is typical for Skyway partners to inform potential investors about non-existing facts like this one, about Mogilev. As this one is well-documented it probably can be mentioned. Among other facts there is for example information about preorders with total value of $100 bln ready to be paid by some unknown investor after demonstration of the technology. Yunitskiy said it at a conference several years ago. In the early stages of fund raising they used Simex croudfunding platrom (created by Ruben Meylumyan mentioned above, known manager of MMM Ponzy and creator of his own Ponzy Scheme projects). On the Skyway page there was information about planned tracks between cities with total length of thousands km. It created feeling that these projects are approved by government and it just needs to perform a demonstration of the technology which was almost ready. Many years passed since then, still no orders. So Mogilev is typical. To be more specific here is an article [154] which has Yunitskiy's quote: "we have preorders for billions of dollars there (in India)". That could be a paid article but it is not evidently specified and doesn't matter in this context. Using such statements Skyway has been involving investors in their project.
Possible addition to 'testing' heading describing the EcoTechnoPark:
...Scientists in Belarus, however, have recommended that independent testing of this technology needs to be performed by accredited organisations.[Onliner.by reference]
@Dron007:I'll check out the reference to fabricated claims made by Yunitskiy in this article from 2017. The title translates to "The Ministry of Transport and Communications did not support the 'transport of the future' project' (it seens unlikely SkyWay would have paid anyone for this). Regarding the examples of the Mogiliev and Indian fabrications, we could conceivably add a sentence to the overview and the marketing on these dishonest and/or misleading practices. The Mogiliev example seems particularly egregious. This could, however, create discord and its important we get it exactly right. Here's a first suggestion at least for the overview. This can be expanded upon the marketing section.
OVERVIEW: The SkyWay Group is using business practices like crowdfunding and multi-level marketing. It has also been documented that they make misleading claims about their negotiations.[onliner/burren reference]. Many countries have warned the public about the activities of these companies.
It looks good to me. In the Onliner's article there is a direct link (still active) to the Skyway site where they say that they have got the order to design city road of string transport in Mogilev and that they had already received advance payment. I remembered they excuses though. They said later that they hadn't written about the city administration of Mogilev. They didn't say at all from whom this request was from. At the same time in the same article they have the phrase that administration of Mogilev had recently visited EcoTechnoPark making feeling that it was the administration who paid for the work. Dron007 (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is only the proposal for a possible addition to the 'Marketing' heading. The best adjective I could think of was 'misleading' because the example used is of a fabrication. A fabrication is more than an 'unsupported' claim; but a blatant lie can still be considered misleading. Any other ideas for better wording appreciated. It should also be noted that these claims are fabricated at the office in Minsk by dedicated staff employed for this purpose who have a history in network marketing. SkyWay claim that lies are peddled in their name either by other companies or 'over-zealous referral participants' but the documented evidence proves otherwise. They all work at the same place and are employed by the same company. Counter-claims to this are from self-published company policies.
MARKETING: It has been documented that the SkyWay Group use misleading information about their technology to promote investment. They claimed, for example, that a SkyWay project “was supported by the authorities in Mogilev” (a city in Belarus) but actual documentation from the city prove this to be untrue.[Onliner.by reference]
Konstantin Sidorovich wrote this article. Arthur Van Burren posted a translation with additional commentary. The authenticity of the documentation used in the article has been positively verified by the issuing authorities in Belarus.
Yunitskiy attempted to sue Onliner.by for earlier articles but they lost the case. Nonetheless they kept an eye on this company.
SkyWay often uses promotional materials about itself on domestic media which are presented as facts.
They make lofty promises to ordinary people who they attempt to convince to become SkyWay “sponsors” (who they prefer to call “investors”).
Ruben Meylumyan (aka Ruben Fischer), Sergei Semenov, Mikhail Kirichecko and Sergei Sibiryakov are Belarusians involved in pyramid marketing on the internet and the creation of SkyWay “pseudo-videos”. Ruben himself was appointed the head of the department for attracting investment.
Vasily Pavlovsky is the Deputy Direcor of Biotechnology and Agricultural Engineering. He received a UN grant for SkyWay. Cooperation between the UN and SkyWay was short-lived and the grant had to be given up. No one knows what happened to the money.
The SkyWay news service loves to attract sponsors to invest more by commenting on “colossal deals with big business and government officials from different countries”. Particular claims made about SkyWay in India and the Belarusian city of Mogiliev are mentioned. According to the executive committee of Mogiliev these claims are entirely fabricated: “The resulting answer leaves no doubt that no string road will be built by SkyWay in Mogiliev…”
Scientific sources were consulted while writing this article, in particular the Belarusian State University of Transportation (BelGUT) and the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (NASB). Here follows a brief summary of their conclusions.
BelGUT: SkyWay “remains untested so far… At the moment, no track construction elements declared by SkyWay are certified…” Furthermore “the technology for creating pre-stressed reinforcement is not innovative” because it’s been used in the large-scale construction of beams for bridge spans for years.
NASB: Yunitskiy claims that his string transport will reach speeds of up to 500 km per hour, yet “theoretical research carried out by the scientists… could only be confirmed at speeds up to 80 km and not beyond.” A project study performed by Yunitskiy himself is rated as “insufficient by the scientists”. The NASB believes Yunitskiy’s team “should set up an on-site demonstration facility… as close to reality as possible on the basis of real conditions”. NASB representatives further add that the viability of string technologies is only testable “with the help of a pilot project involving state accredited bodies in the field of testing”.
According to the editors of this article, the EcoTechnoPark is “far removed from real-world conditions because it does not have enough distance to reach high speeds” and is “designed to allow the visitor to enjoy the string [transport] at low speed and is nothing more than a small recreational park for SkyWay disciplines with no experience”. Furthermore, this test site lacks any official accreditation.
Financing of SkyWay projects involves the accumulation of funds to a complex network of offshore companies such as GTI Inc. and ERSSH Ltd. registered in the British Virgin Islands. This fundraising involves “collecting cash from citizens across the globe through a variety of tools” such as crowdfunding, the sale of ‘certificates’ allegedly to “the right to shares” for SkyWay Group companies and “recruiting new investors, thereby encouraging commission payments to intermediaries.”
Yunitskiy and other representatives of the company have claimed that by investing money, “investors receive shares in the company” and that they “have the right to own some of the technology”. The legal fund of limited companies cannot, however, be divided into shares but into bearer prescriptions and cannot be sold to anyone (see Wikipedia article Limited company). They are, in fact, “no more than a bunch of worthless notes”. Although the only instances of this technology have appeared in Belarus, shares to the Belarusian SkyWay company ZAO String Technologies are not sold by anyone and investors “have no rights to the developments that arise in the territory of Belarus, as the investors acquire the certificates of other companies”. Furthermore “it is forbidden among the citizens of Belarus to sell such shares.”
1)"The legal fund of limited companies cannot, however, be divided into shares but into bearer prescriptions and cannot be sold to anyone (see Wikipedia article Limited company)." - not true. The procedure the company uses is officially called "transferring" shares, not selling. This procedure is not unusual and it is legal for any ltd company. [155], [156]. 2) The company is transferring shares of the root company, which owns all the others, including the one that deals with construction in Belarus. Therefore, investors are co-owners of all projects and all property owned by the company. See their investment memorandum [157] page 11. 3) "They are, in fact, “no more than a bunch of worthless notes” - this is only someone's opinion, from a legal point of view all investors are co-owners of all companies in SkyWay group. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the following article for further confirmation on the potential value of SkyWay company shares: [158] Here's a quotation from this article: "Swedbank Chief Economist Nerijus Mačiulis, having become familiar with the investment model, said that the 'shares' offered to residents of Lithuania and other countries are just worthless paperwork. His allegations were confirmed by the Bank of Lithuania, stating that 'no documents from the United Kingdom Financial Market Authority or any other competent authority of a Member State of the European Union have been issued that would entitle the public to offer shares in Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd in Lithuania'."
@Andrew-Postelniak:SkyWay is has not applied has not applied for the legally required prospectus to sell their shares. The ahares of options or educational packages they are selling you, however, have no value because their company's assets are all made-up. $400 billion intellectual? Please spin me another one. These are more lofty promises that don't actually mean anything. You apparently get a piece of paper signed by Yunitskiy. It may seem to mean something; and if you don't need your money maybe you'd like to on believing it despite that facts listed above stating that the company connected to the technology have nothing to do with the Shell companies like ERHSS you actually get 'stock option certificates' of some kind for.. I can't start stop your from believing in unicorns. I may doubt the possibility that unicorns will suddenly start existing just if you keep believing, but that's not my problem.
@Zaxander:"...and if you don't need your money maybe you'd like to on believing...", "I can't start stop your from believing in unicorns. I may doubt the possibility that unicorns will suddenly start existing just if you keep believing, but that's not my problem." - and this is the one who writes about "personal attacks" and "to comment only content". You continue to violate the rules of Wikipedia and comment on the author, not the content WP:BLACKMAIL. All of your "facts" is just your personal opinion, NOT confirmed by any real facts. And as you said, "please keep your personal opinions to yourself". By the way, why didn't you sign this paragraph? I see in the history that this is you who wrote this stuff, so no need to hide. I am no longer going to respond to such personal insults, and if they are repeated, I will contact the administrators who should explain to you about the inadmissibility of such comments. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:I didn't realize you had actually invested money in SkyWay as I wasn't referring to 'you' in particular but in general to people. I'm sorry that you misunderstood my language use as being personal when it clearly wasn't intended like that, but if you have invested money in this company yourself (which I couldn't possibly know anything about) and you took offence, then I'm sorry, but maybe you should think twice before posting personal information which would clearly make any opinions you make seem biased. You've already accused me of working for the competitors and being corrupt so what next? I'm just a volunteer in Belgium with no business interests whatsoever. I hope, in any case, that you don't have SkyWay shares and I really hope if you do that you make money on them in the future. That would be the best outcome for everyone; I may doubt doubt it from the extensive research I've done on this subject. The article below "I invested $1600..." tells the story of Olga who actually managed to get her initial investment back. No one should give up hope. It just seems to me that these shares are worthless and illegal as they have no permission to sell them anywhere. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:It has also been documented in this article that the SkyWay Group uses dishonest practices to promote investment. They employ staff to post misleading claims about projects that will never be built such as the entirely fictional string road in Mogiliev. These staff members were involved in network marketing in the past which have since proved fraudulent. This is not just an opinion - it is clearly stated in this article. You can disagree with that but you have yet to actually come up with any new sources to backup your objections. I look forward to reviewing any real verifiable references on people who have actually made money from SkyWay. Primary sources and vague policy guidelines about possible future outcomes are obviously unusable. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to note here the difference between a Public limited company (PLC) and a Private Limited company (abbreviated to 'Limited' or 'LTD'). Although every country defines these terms in slightly different ways, generally a PLC can sell its shares on a stock exchange to anyone, whereas the shares of a Limited company are generally "sold to close friends and others and that can only be done if all the shareholders agree". See this link for a discussion of this issue: [159] This is what they mean in this article when they say that it is irregular for a Limited company to offer its shares to anyone on the open market. If they were selling their shares on the open market via a stock exchange, they would not be a Limited company but a PLC. But they haven't applied anywhere to legally sell their shares anywhere. This suggests that the problem with this company is not only that this company is offering their shares to anyone on the open market and are thus misnaming themselves a 'limited company', but they have not applied for the permission anywhere to be a PLC either. I hope this makes this point clearer. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An accounting and consultancy firm in Moscow estimated the value of Yunitskiy’s intellectual property to be $400 billion. If you look at the original documentation, this sum is made up of assets in more than 100 countries. According to the attorney Sergei Zikratsky, “considering that the string transport does not actually exist at the moment, the actual value of these intangibles is zero”.
The court’s ruling in favour of ONLINER.BY greatly upset SkyWay who published insults and threats all across the internet.
The Burrenblog translation includes an analysis of the contents of the article. Here follows a summary of his findings: “If, according to available original documents, scientists of the National Academy of Sciences consider the Skyway project to be impractical and that further research with new data is necessary… if ominous people are involved connected to Ponzi-Schemes… and if Skyway representatives are not afraid to use other means to silence critics, then Skyway is as transparent as a dead man.” He further confirms that the company is worth exactly $0.00.
How can the company be worth "exactly $0.00" if it owns at least one computer or one chair that obviously costs more than $0.00? And if you sell all the already built vehicles in EcoTechnoPark (theoretically even for scrap), it will also be $ 0.00? Again, this statement is obviously not true. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Arthur Van Burren is referring to the collective value of the shares that are sold; the shares are not worth anything. That doesn't mean they don't have any money. They obviously do. The shares they sell are worth about as much as the paper they're printed on, at least according to Sidorovich and Van Burren. I'll dheck however to make sure this is exactly what he claims. Thanks for this observation.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:This is the claim made in the German article in the additional annotations after the actual translation: "Wie der russische Artikel schon anmerkte ist die ganze Firma exakt 0,00 US $ Wert" which translates to "As already noted in the Russian article, the whole business is worth exactly $0.00 US." -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point being made here is that if this company went bankrupt and all its assets were sold off, none of the 'shareholders' would have any right to compensation because their shares were not sold via an officially regulated stock exchange like most PLCs sell shares. It doesn't matter if they have assets and they are worth anything if their shares aren't sold in a way that can be regulated. On buying shares in this company, all you have is SkyWay's word that you will make money and their shares have value which they based on an impossibly inflated figure of 400 billion which is to say the least unrealistic. Believing you will make money is like believing in unicorns. I can tell you they don't exist but I can't stop you from believing in them. But your faith and what they tell you is all you've got. They haven't applied anywhere to legally sell their shares and they have no legal obligation to pay anyone anything. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
18 September 2018 - "Is it an April Fool's Day Joke?"
«Это прикол на День дураков?» Что происходит со SkyWay Юницкого
"Is it an April Fool's Day Joke?" What is happening to Yunitskiy's SkyWay"
No translation is currently available for this article but it has nonetheless been translated. It contains a lot of information about the EcoTechnoPark as it had been documented prior this article's publication but it basically confirms a lot of the claims made in previous articles. It actually makes a lot more sense if you are familiar with the other articles and I'm happy to send this English translation to anyone curious enough to read it
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
22 February 2019 - "I invested 6,600 dollars in SkyWay..."
Вложила в SkyWay около $6600. Ищем на карте мира ржавые струны Юницкого
I invested 6,600 dollars in SkyWay. We are looking for rusty Yunitskiy strings on the world map
You can view an English translation of the article here:[160].
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This article tells, among other things, the valiant story of the lady who actually managed to eventually get the money back she initially invested in SkyWay. This is the first and only time I've actually read something about someone actually getting returns even if it is only the initial investment. It should be noted here that this person didn't make any additional money, but after a lot of complaints to official organisations, SkyWay was finally convinced to return what she had invested. So you shouldn't give up hope if you've invested money and are unhappy with your investment. Maybe if you cause enough trouble too they will also be willing to return your money to stop you from causing them more misery. This lady had to shake a lot of trees to get results. And I still haven't read a story about anyone actually making money, which is sort of surprising for a self-confessed MLM company. Usually the first thing you hear at sales meetings is about the people there who recount tales of how much money they were making. I haven't even read stories that SkyWay made-up. Lots and lots of outlandish promises, however.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SkyWay in Court
Through the years SkyWay has been embroiled in legal scandals. Legal actions have been taken against the company but the most striking thing is the way this company uses legal threats to intimidate critics. There are a large number of verifiable references which attest to this. At the moment, these legal actions are barely mentioned. The regulatory warnings are an entirely different aspect of this and have to do with financial regulation and not legal actions in court. The Prosecutor's Office in Lithuania started an investigation into illegal activities. Yunistkiy and company were arrested and forced out of Lithuania. The investigation took years because Yunitskiy had escaped into Russia and was difficult to interview. They decided they couldn't prosecute him for being a pyramid scheme but they didn't go back on an any of their decisions. Later Yunitskiy and company were unsuccessful in suing the Lithuanian government for lost money. They also sued Onliner.by which resulted in a court-case as described in detail above. There are also the attempts made by individual investors to contact the courts to get their money back. Seeing there are already so many warnings from so many different countries it seems more likely that the future will bring more of these. But the company uses legal threats as well to intimidate critics. All of the Burrenblog SkyWay posts have legal actions being brought against them by a 'Sino-English' law firm in Hong Kong. Many verified references discuss the threats received against them from lawyers working for the SkyWay company. If there is consensus that this is a valid area of discussion then we can collate the most important verified references describing legal action instigated by or against SkyWay here. This section can be streamlined to only create the most essential aspects but all sources should be introduced here and verified for relevance. I suggest this heading be called something like 'Legal proceedings' or 'Legal action' (please suggest better ideas). Sub-headings need to be introduced below for the following discussions to collect new and examine existing references. [1] Lithuania investigation, [2] Legal action against ONLINER.BY, [3] Legal action against the Lithuanian government, [4] legal action against other critics (Burrenblog), [5] Attempts for investors to proceed against SkyWay to get their money back, [5] legal threats. Include your feelings about this subject below and any new headings you think should be included (or removed as insignificant). I will only open this discussion further if there is consensus that this is a worthwhile area of investigation. I think it is but you may well not. It seems to me at present that this area is now almost completely absent especially since the Lithuanian scandal is now mentioned only briefly since the project sections has been reduced to a few sentences.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think we need to add this section to the article. My arguments:
1) "Lithuania investigation and legal action against the Lithuanian government". This is mentioned in the "Negotiations". If you have other reliable information about further actions on this project, then it can be added in that section.
2) "Legal action against ONLINER.BY". Is it important? I don't think so. ONLINER.BY articles are already mentioned and cited in the article. I mean, what is the purpose to write something like this: "The company filed a lawsuit against journalists, but the court rejected the claim." If the court satisfied the company's claim, then these ONLINER.BY articles would have been excluded from the article. I could be wrong, but it seems there is still a trial going on there, and the company appealed the previous decision... In this case, you need to describe both sides of the conflict, and this can lead to Synthesis of published material - WP:SYNTH.
3) "Attempts for investors to proceed against SkyWay to get their money back". Firstly, there was only one investor who asked money back. The article states that woman was given back all her investments, and there was no court - the parties simply terminated the share purchase agreement by mutual agreement.
4) "Legal action against other critics (Burrenblog), legal threats". Is there any court decision on these issues? If not, then nothing to talk about. If the company is really threatening someone, then let those people file a lawsuit, and if the court makes any decision on these “legal threats”, then this discussion can be continued. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you can't really include the court-related details of the SkyWay Lithuania scandal in the negotiations section because it doesn't concern negotiations but specific legal actions after the negotiations were stopped and criminal investigations started. There were negotiations, then these negotiations were stopped and legal actions were taken. The investigation by the prosecutor's office was protracted and had nothing to do with any negotiations which stopped after Yunitskiy was arrested, his assets seized and he was forced out of Lithuania. The question is: does it need discussion at all. I think it does but others disagree. Until we have more verifiable references and opinions on this matter this should be considered a work in progress - post any new verifiable references on court cases and your opinions about this subject and we can always reassess it at a later date, certainly in light of the Onliner.by court-case. It's been suggested that this may still be ongoing. Does anyone know anything, for example, about the 'Sino-English legal firm in Hong Kong' which has taken legal action against the Burrenblog? We actually have no proof that it is the SkyWay company. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following text is IMHO an accurate description of the Lithuanian legal proceedings instigated by the prosecutor's office in 2014. This includes the December 2018 dismissal of a damages claim brought against the Lithuanian government by Yunitskiy and his wife. You cannot include this text in a heading discussing company negotiations. Not including them is an inaccurate representation of published verifiable references:
Litigation
The Prosector General’s Office of Lithuania suspected the SkyWay Group of being involved in “fraud and unlawful commercial activity” and started proceedings against them.[1] In October 2014 the Financial Crime Investigation Service opened a pre-trial investigation based on information from the Bank of Lithuania that SkyWay companies owned by Yunitskiy were attempting to sell shares without the necessary permits, but closed the probe in May 2017 because of a lack of sufficient evidence.[2]
SkyWay and its shareholders started proceedings against the Lithuanian government because of the damage done to their business by the lengthy investigation. Anatoly Yunitskiy and Nadezhda KosarevaThey claimed that the investigation which lasted for two years and seven months “paralyzed the company’s operations and tarnished the ‘good name and reputation’ of the CEO”. In December 2018, however, The Vilnius regional court dismissed this claim ruling that “there were sufficient grounds for opening the pre-trail investigation and that it took longer than expected because the authorities had difficulty questioning Yunitskiy”.[2] -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These paragraphs were carefully constructed after rereading all the verifiable references currently used to refer to the Lithuanian scandal including the regulatory warnings, but only two references were deemed necessary as they contain all the information repeated in the other articles. Firstly I used the Delfi article viewable here: [161] (translation from Lithuanian viewable on the Zaxander (talk·contribs) talk page and [2] the more recent Baltic Course article viewable here: [162] which is fortunately in English. I suggest that it would be inappropriate to include this text in the 'negotiations' heading, but that it would also be misleading to not include it at all. A new heading 'legal proceedings' could solve these problems and create a space for discussing the other legal actions that have been brought by or against the SkyWay company when we have more verifiable references. But maybe you think there is too much information in these paragraphs. Or maybe I skipped an important fact. Include your thoughts and suggestions below. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note you could extend the 'negotitiations' heading to include other important facts about the actual negotiating phase that took place in Lithuania before the project was cancelled in 2014. This includes the agreement to pre-allocate land in the Siauliau province and the 360,000 euros paid by SkyWay to the city. But these are issues separate to the court proceedings that were taken after a recommendation was made by Cibas of the Bank of Lithuania to the prosecutor's office. Such an addition to the negotiations description are, however, unrelated to legal proceedings which were started because of the illegal sale of shares in Lithuania on the internet. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the Wikipedia articles documenting both existing and dissolved companies refer to the documented legal actions brought against the companies. Problem is there is no reliable or consistent way of referring to these court cases. These articles have headings which vary as follows: 'lawsuits', 'court-cases', 'litigation', 'legal problems'. Some of the articles specifically list the legal problem in the title, i.e. 'FTC legal problems' or 'SEC Bribery Lawsuit'. The article YTB International has a heading for lawsuits which discusses a number of different legal cases brought against the company. Investigations which didn't include actual court-cases were also mentioned. The article MonaVie has a section called 'litigation' about the different court-cases against this company. The Vector Marketing article includes every court-case that was lodged against this company under the title 'lawsuits'. There is certainly precedent for including this information if it is discussed in verifiable references. It should also be noted that many of these articles include information about the court-cases not directly related to the business such as the Arbonne International article which includes information about an unfair dismissal hearing that took place. I don't see how the Onliner.by controversy is any less significant. The article on Young Living also has a section called 'litigation' which includes a discussion of the investigation; XanGo uses a litigation heading as well. I suggest this is a possible title for this heading. Please include any other suggestions below. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Market America includes claims and counter-claims proposed by the company in a section called 'legal actions and lawsuits'. The article on Mary Kay lists all legal action as individual 'court-cases'. The SeneGence article calls them 'legal challenges'. The only place I saw the court-cases listed in the same place as the regulatory warnings is in the Amway North America article which includes the 'litigation' and investigation by the regulatory agency FTC under the more general heading of 'controversies'.
The SkyWay website includes a whole webpage dedicated to how SkyWay protects its business investment in court. It discusses the court-case in Lithuania, although it conveniently leaves out the fact that their claims against the Lithuanian government were dismissed. They also mention court-cases in Russia, Australia and Austria. How much of this is actually true is arguable: [163].
other users (including me) disagree with you that this section should be added to the article. So this is exclusively your initiative. In addition, information on legal proceedings in Lithuania has already been added to the "Negotiations" section. I do not see any reasons for the duplication. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there used to be a description of the legal proceedings in what is now referred to as the 'negotiations' heading. This has been removed, however, for good reason. You can't mention the litigation in the negotiations section because the court-cases in Lithuania have nothing to do with the Lithuania scandal in Siauliai. I reacted to this and I updated the Lithuania negotations text accordingly. I went to the considerable effort of checking all the verifiable references. The 'negotiations' heading has been extended to included actual information relating to the details of what happened in Siauliai. The negotiations involved what is now known as the 'lithuania scandal'; they were complex and involved the pre-allocation of land by the mayor of Siauliai, the municapility's bank account being enriched by 1,000,000 litas by SkyWay and the signing of an investment agreement with this company without checking the company's credit, the Ministry of Defence or the national land department first. This was scandalous and the negotiations were cancelled at the end of 2014. Then in addition to that there was the investigation of the company by the Bank of Lithuania for the sale of illegal shares via the internet, the opening of the pre-trial investigation, the arrest of Yunitskiy and the seizing of his assets, him escaping Lithuania, the eventual decision that there was not enough evidence to try them for being a pyramid scheme, the attempt of Yunitskiy and his wife to sue the Lithuanian government for the long investigation and the dismissal of this case because the government found that their investigations were justified and that it only took so long to finish it because Yunitskiy had fled the country. What you are suggesting is that the Lithuania 'scandal' be included with this entirely different matter of the two separate aspects of litigation which actually occurred at a different time and in a different place to the negotiation phase in Siauliai. This is just wrong. You can argument for the mentioning the court-cases at all, however, but you have not done this yet. I demonstrated that other Wikipedia articles on companies devote considerable space to the discussion of all the details of companies who were involved in any type of litigation, much less significant than the legal proceedings discussed here. This seems more than significant to the SkyWay company. I considered, however, the lack of third-party references to the Onliner.by court-case. Although the many examples of all legal matters which actually reached the courts being mentioned in relation to other companies, until they're mentioned by another verifiable source there are not valid reasons for including them among the litigation. I fear however that it is only a matter of time before these verifiable links appear and I feel that the Onliner.by court-case only adds to this companies notability. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is actual potential for information repetition however, but not between litigation and negotiations but with litigation and the regulatory warnings heading. The Bank of Lithuania [1] recommended that the Prosecutor's Office start a pre-trial investigation to determine how this company could be prosecuted for fraudulent activity and around the same time [2] released the first regulatory warning which was then shared internationally to ensure that everyone would know about the potential criminal activities of this company. But the only commonality is the fact that Bank of Lithuania did these two things. They are still separate acts. And they both have absolutely nothing to do with the original Siauliai scandal.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. the Bank of Lithuania didn't tell the Mayor of Siauliai to cancel his contract with SkyWay because of their investigations, warnings or observations. The Prime Minister of Lithuania did this based on an independent investigation into Yunitskiy's credentials. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...I know it's confusing but it has to be understood that the Bank of Lithuania wasn't even investigating the Siauliai affair. Their advice to the office of the prosecutor and their regulatory warnings were based on the illegal sales of shares via the internet and the questionable way the company financed itself. The approximate commonality of time and place is incidental to two entirely separate affairs: one involved with the scandal in Siauliai and the other with what happened in the Lithuanian courts for entirely different reasons.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree that the inclusion of this section questions the neutrality of the article. After all, the first case decided that they lacked enough evidence to prosecute Yunitskiy and it states this clearly and unambiguously. The second paragraph merely states that the their damages case was dismissed and explains why. It makes no judgment on these legal decisions and it hardly contains language that is inflammatory or suggests that either the Lithuanian Government or Yunitskiy/SkyWay could have been wrong. Just that the court made these decisions as clearly stated in verifiable references. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious to me that a canceled project in Lithuania is described in great detail in different sections of the article, which can hardly be called a neutral point of view. Emphasizing only critical information is not a neutral point of view - this has already been discussed many times here and there is no point in repeating. You are the only user who believes that it is necessary. Besides, other contributors might not have time to check this page every day, so please wait at least one week for the responses of other contributors before adding new paragraphs to the article. Finally, it is very difficult to follow this endless text that is added every day to the talk page. Wikipedia recommends avoiding an excessively long talk page discussion WP:TEXTWALL. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the text that your input has influenced before making these accusations. There were entirely different instances, one that took place in Siauliai and one that took place at a different time and place in the Lithuanian courts. You seem intent on not recognizing this. Until yesterday there was a single sentence describing the Lithuania scandal. How can you say that this was "described in great detail". The only reason there is any description at all is because I extended based on research of the verifiable references. The only reason there is a lot of text is because of exact and precise research about a complex topic. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Belgian regulatory agency SkyWay shows aspects of a pyramid scheme but the Lithuanian government was actually unsuccessful in prosecuting them for this. I really appreciate this comment but the intention is to present a balanced perspective on verifiable published sources. Unfortunately none of them suggest that SkyWay is specifically and only a Ponzi scheme; the reality is far more complex. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed text including information about the court-cases which are currently not mentioned in the article. These are facts relating to two instances of litigation which are mentioned in verifiable references and which there exist clear precedent for inclusion based on the court cases of other companies.
I think that all problems related to the project in Lithuania should be described in one section. These events are one logical chain. Planned project - suspicions from the Lithuanian authorities - cancellation of the project - further investigation - closure of the case because of lack of evidence. If other users vote that the section "Litigation" should be created, then all problems in Lithuania should be in this section, including the text regarding this issue from the section "Negotiations". As I have already said, I see no reason to describe the problems related to the same project in different sections of the article. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Readers of the article should understand the logical chain of events in Lithuania in order to draw their own conclusions. And if information about problems with the project in Lithuania will be in different sections, you might think that these events (negotiations with the mayor Siauliai, criticism of the mayor by other authorities, cancellation of the project, etc.) are not related to each other, but this is not true. It is necessary to describe in one section how it all began and how it all ended - all suspicions were removed. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree but you could be right. You could help here by finding a reference that suggests that the investigation by the Prosecutor General's office involved the Siauliai scandal. But SkyWay didn't do anything wrong in Siauliai! The scandal revolved around the mayor who was criticized for his involvement; it was him who made the mistakes here. They investigated SkyWay for something different: the illegal sale of shares to Lithuanian citizens. That didn't happen in Siauliai - it happened on the internet and was probably initiated in Minsk. The regulatory warning and every reference I've read suggest that they only investigated the illegal sale of shares. And it didn't end with all suspicion being removed. It ended with the Lithuanian government not finding enough evidence to prosecute Yunitskiy and him unsuccessfully suing the Lithuanian government in 2018 for damages. Post your proof below and I'll double-check the references to help you prove a causal connection between the events that would justify including them under the same heading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The possible causal links between the two affairs are included above in italics. Now we just have to find references which prove this is true (listing them consecutively is clearly insufficient as it would imply WP:synth). –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article concerns the Prosecutor General's office investigation that occurred after the recommendation from the Bank of Lithuania:[164]. At the time of the article they were still trying to interview Yunitskiy. There is nothing, however, that suggests that they were investigating anything resulting from the Siauliai scandal. I can publish the translation of this article on request and can send a copy to anyone curious enough to read it.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article published by the official news portal of Lithuania DEFLI in December 2014 describes in detail the FNTT investigation of SkyWay:[165]. It describes how the authorities attempted to seize the computers of SkyWay. Translation of this article may prove a connection. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been translated. The FNTT investigated the company Railway SkyWay Systems Ltd. There is no suggestion that this investigation had anything to do with the Siauliai scandal. If you include information about negotiations that resulted in suspicion being drawn to the mayor of Siauliai under the same heading as the actual investigation by the FNTT into RSS you will be misleading the public. If you include them in separate headings, readers will "draw the conclusion" anyway that the Lithuania scandal is connected to the investigation that remain entirely different. I am genuinely interested to see the verified links that suggest that these two cases are inextricably linked. They could certainly enrich this investigation. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Rail SkyWay Systems offices were not in the Siauliai municipality; they were in Vilnius. Vilnius is in South Lithuania; Siauliai municipality is in North Lithuania. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter where their office was. Obviously, they cannot build a test site directly in Vilnius. Therefore, they were going to build it in Siauliai - there was a space for the construction. Honestly, I don’t have time to search and translate many sources, but I found few articles on their official website and on independent resources that tell the whole story in Lithuania (there is even a video with Unitsky and English subtitles):[166], [167], [168], [169]. And please stop your accusations that I supposedly work for the company - if that was the case, I would spend much more time on this discussion. I also hope that you are not engaged in a black PR campaign against the company. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what is written in the first article [170] (independent source) - Google Translate from Russian - "The investigation was conducted in connection with the activities of the company SkyWay Systems Ltd, which in Siauliai planned to establish a test site for the String Transport technology. However, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Lithuania suspected Unitsky of fraud and illegal commercial activities. He came to the attention of law enforcement agencies after investigations conducted by the Central Bank of Lithuania. They thought that the distribution of shares of the UK-registered Euroasian Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd is a financial pyramid.... They could not prove that SkyWay is illegal. Pre-trial investigation of Anatoly Yunitsky’s activities was terminated in Lithuania."Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these references. I've translated the links that are not specifically SkyWay sites (I'll check them later) but I imagine they say the same thing. They basically tell the same story as all the other articles: That the SkyWay company was investigated for the illegal sale of shares to the public by the BoL and the PGO. The quote you include above says this as well. It says specifically that the PGO "suspected Unitskiy of financial fraud and illegal commercial activities" and details about the RSS investigations. It doesn't mention the Siauliai scandal (negotiations with SkyWay and the signing of the contract with the Mayor of Siauliai municipality; he was criticized for what he did for different reasons and was finally instructed by the Prime Minisiter to cancel the investment agreement with Yunitskiy's company for reasons of national security that were unrelated to the PGO investigation). Your sources unfortunately do not mention this scandal at all, just that the project that was planned there was cancelled. They do confirm the fact that the court cases resulting from the investigation of RSS for financial fraud; but we knew that already. With the current references you could justify creating a whole new heading entitled specifically "The Lithuanian Controversy" (i.e. it can't be called 'litigation') which mentions first the negotiation in Siauliai, then the entirely separate investigations by the BoL and PGO in different paragraphs of the international SkyWay enterprise. Suggestion above; please make your own changes to it when you have the chance (there is no hurry). -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew-Postelniak:Thanks for your contribution. You don't have to translate anything if you don't want to or you don't have time. Just include the links. I haven't accused you of anything, by the way and it actually doesn't matter. You are prepared to legitimate yourself and you generally provide careful and well thought out comments and that's good enough for me. That is already much better than a lot of recent contributors. I'm prepared to look at anything if you think it's important. Don't forget that the only reason there is a description of the EcoTechnoPark and the exhibitions of this technology at trade fairs is because I went to the considerable effort of finding verifiable references about them. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Negotiations
...DuringIn 2014 negotiationsbetween the SkyWay Group and the municipality of Siauliai in Lithuaniaan investment agreement was signed, a piece of land was pre-allocated to build a SkyWay test facility and a large sum of money was transferred to the municipality's bank accounts. The mayor of Siauliai was later criticized for negotiating with the SkyWay Group[1] and at the end of 2014 he was instructed to cancel the project caused a controversy and the planned project was cancelled.[2]...
The Lithuanian Controversy
During negotiations in 2014 between the SkyWay Group and the municipality of Siauliai in Lithuania an investment agreement was signed, a piece of land was pre-allocated to build a SkyWay test facility and money was transferred to the municipality's bank accounts. The mayor of Siauliai was later criticized for negotiating with the SkyWay Group[1] and at the end of 2014 he was instructed to cancel the project.[3][4]
In October 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Lithuania suspected the SkyWay Group of being involved in “fraud and unlawful commercial activity” based on information from the Bank of Lithuania[3]. Although the Financial Crime Investigation Service started a pre-trial investigation it was finally closed in May 2017 because of a lack of sufficient evidence.[5]
SkyWay and its shareholders started proceedings against the Lithuanian government in August 2018[6] because of the damage done to their business. The Vilnius regional court dismissed this claim in December 2018 ruling that “there were sufficient grounds for opening the pre-trial investigation".and that it took longer than expected because the authorities had difficulty questioning Yunitskiy”.[5]
–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Please note that this is just the proposal for an addition to the article. This is only one possible solution to describe the Lithuanian affair and is an alternative to a new heading litigation. You may have a better idea. Suggest your edits to it by making changes to the actual text or including suggestions below. Here, the court-cases are included with the description of the Siauliai scandal which would be removed from the 'negotiation' heading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you may exclude "...and that it took longer than expected because the authorities had difficulty questioning Yunitskiy". One more remark: during the last weeks, I had enough free time to regularly edit this article, but I want to say that from next week I will be busy with my work for some time. It doesn't mean anything, and I don't ask you anything, I am just saying this to let you know that I will not actively participate in the discussion on this page for some time. Andrew-Postelniak (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the four references you included above. It seems that these texts also confirm the content of the proposed text on the Lithuanian controversy. Thanks for these references and keep posting them if you think they could help the content. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Text now includes proposed reduction of 'negotiations' text. Include your own advice and suggestions. The inclusion of such a heading is possible if you refer first to the fact that the original Siauliai negotiations caused a 'controversy' in Lithuania. This controversy involved political, financial and legal conflicts and the details of this complex controversy would then have an individual heading. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The SkyWay Group may have a wide number of shell companies registered in places like London and the British Virgin Islands, but verifiable references suggest that the central offices are in Minsk at the following address:
ЗАО «Струнные технологии», г. Минск, пр. Дзержинского, 104к2. 220116, Республика Беларусь
Although this office complex is mentioned in various verifiable references, this centralized location is not mentioned in either the opening paragraph or the overview. IMHO it's important to state this as a central location from which the SkyWay Group is directed. Here is a quote from a verifiable Russian reference on the location of the major Belarusian company actually registered in Belarus:[171]
Офис ЗАО «Струнные технологии» занимает несколько этажей в одном из минских бизнес-центров.
The office of the CJSC "String Technologies" occupies several floors in one of the Minsk business centres.
Note that this is the name of the SkyWay company actually registered in Belarus. A CJSC is a 'Closed Joint-Stock Company' which is a dated Russian term used to refer to a company which can sell to a maximum of 50 investors. This centralized location should be mentioned in the opening paragraph or somewhere in the overview. Note that registration in places like London and the British Virgin Islands doesn't mean anything more than a business name and a PO box. The point here is that it needs to be clear where this company is operated from. Please don't suggest that this is negative information about the company; if you disagree explain why with verifiable references. This is only a suggestion based on the wide number of verifiable references I've read and is dependent on advice and approval from other users. Other possible wording includes "with a central location in Belarus", "directed from Belarus" or "located in Belarus". If you disagree please provide verifiable recent references which suggest that this company is operated from a location somewhere else. Also other references which suggest that this company is where Yunitskiy works. The original Sidorovich Onliner.by article suggests that there is a central office in Minsk([172]), another that there is an office and a workshop in Minsk where the pyramid-marketers work ([173]):
SkyWay Group is a term used to refer to a group of companies centralized in Belarus but registered under business names including "Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd.", "First SkyWay Invest Group Limited" and "Global Transport Investment Inc." in places like the British Virgin Islands, London and Minsk.
There are lots of different places you can add extra information to this template by editing this heading. We obviously have to get this right before posting it to the article. Please add to this template or include suggestions below. Thanks on the beforehand for your help. –Zachar (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Holding Limited, First SkyWay Invest Group Limited, Global Transport Investment Inc., SkyWay Capital Ltd.
Please note this ISIN is for one of the ERHSS Ltd. companies in the Virgin Islands. It probably should only be added to infobox if this can be specified: VGG322291094.
The Lithuanian Controversy
So this looks like something that was opened and closed without any type of outcome. And it is significant enough to create a separate heading despite WP:CRITS? Seems very insignificant yet it is worded in a way to make it seem like the company is always in trouble. Reads more like WP:ADVOCACY than WP:NPOV.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This solution was suggested as an alternative to the introduction of a 'litigation' category. The intention was definitely not to create the impression the company is permanently in trouble! There was a scandal in Siauliai which didn't actually involve the company doing anything wrong. Please note that until recent changes at the beginning of April, the only description of the Lithuanian controversy was as follows: "In 2014 the SkyWay Group planned a test site in Lithuania, but this project was cancelled at the end of 2014 due to suspicions of financial fraud." This had to be replaced because it's wrong. The negotiations were cancelled at the end of 2014 because of a specific instruction from the Prime Minister of Lithuania that resulted from a report on national security issues. These are the facts as noted in the verified references already included in the article:
The mayor of the Siauliai municipality negotiated with the SkyWay group in 2014. An investment agreement was signed, 1,000,000 litas was transferred to the municipality's bank account and about 30 hectares of land was pre-allocated for a SkyWay test facility.
Various politicians objected to these negotiations and the mayor was later criticized for not consulting the Ministry of Defence or the National Land Department, and for accepting money from a company without checking the company's credentials. There were particular concerns about the security risk as Russia was considered a genuine threat.
After receiving a security report on the company, the Prime Minister of Lithuania finally instructed the mayor to halt his negotiations. It became known as the 'Siauliai scandal' and was widely discussed in local news. As a result, new legislation was drafted that made it less easy for politicians to enter negotiations without prior consultation.
Meanwhile the Bank of Lithuania noticed that the 'Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd.' company was illegally selling shares to Lithuanian citizens via the internet. As a result they issued a regulatory warning and shared it widely. They also advised the prosecutor general's office to start a pre-trial investigation into this company's activities.
As a result, the assets of Yunitskiy and his company were seized as the prosecutor attempted to build a case, and Yunitskiy fled the country never to return. The investigation lasted for two years and seven months but they finally decided that they did not have enough evidence to prosecute Yunitskiy. They didn't, however, exonerate Yunitskiy and the Bank of Lithuania actually rereleased their regulatory warning about this company.
The SkyWay Group (i.e. Yunitskiy and his wife) sued the Lithuanian government for 750 million euros in September 2018 for lost income because of the damage to the company caused by the long investigation. In December 2018 the Lithuanian courts dismissed this case because they found that they had sufficient reasons to start an investigation and that it had taken so long because they were unable to interview Yunitskiy.
If you have suggestions about how these facts could be better represented in the article than they already are, please propose them here or make the appropriate changes yourself to the article. Moreover if you think any of these facts are wrong or have been incorrectly extrapolated from the references, please publish your concerns with references supporting your counter-claims here so that no future mistakes are made. –Zachar (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Zachar (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that when they decided to cancel the project in Siauliai, they had two major reasons that influenced their decision. The first was that the Prime-Minister of Lithuania had made changes to legislation as a result of their negotiations and the second a report from "the relevant law enforcement agencies". It doesn't mention the Bank of Lithuania warning which led to the Prosecutor General's investigation. See the original article here: [174]. You can read a translation here: [175].
SkyWay Marketing - Cryptocurrencies
SkyWay appears to be offering cryptocurrencies which it will sell as some type of investment opportunity.
They have also offered 'Education Investment Products' which are still present on their investment portfolios and websites.
At a motivated sales meeting on 12 May 2018 in Wellington New Zealand, the SkyWay Invest Group had the following to say: [176]
"Skyway Invest Group offer a wide range of financial education products that allow you to earn while you learn and even give you a leg up into the world of Investing and finance."
According to BehindMLM, a recent SkyWay motivated sales meeting in Malaysia explained this funding of 'CryptoUnit' returns as being based on: "real estate in Russia, Skyway Capital shares, cryptocurrency, land, shares (in Visa, Mastercard, Twitter, Facebook, Fedex and 'SperBank'), energy, 'cash' and a gold mine in Ghana." Here SkyWay presents itself as some type of 'Global Investment Consortium':[177].
The following reference entitled "Suspect Skyway Capital Investment Fraud in the Making as New CryptoUnits, Tokens Introduced" can be viewed here: [178]. This sources suggests that "The platform recently announced its move toward Skyway tokens and CryptoUnits, and some surmise that it has to do with the company’s low cash flow."
SkyWay may be using plausible deniability to on one the hand distance itself from this practice on one website like this [179] where it says that "In the network appeared the so-called crypto currency 'SWcoin'. It does not have anything to do with SkyWay technology. We strongly recommend you to ignore it and similar projects." On the other to embrace it by saying that it "will be worth more than BitCoin" on another SkyWay website: [180] or here: [181] where a "cryptoconference" event is celebrated "dedicated to the market of cryptocurrency, mining and ICO [initial coin offering]." SkyWay use this argument here: [182].
Here is an event in Hamilton, New Zealand, where the SkyWay Invest Group promoted their CryptoUnits: [183]. This what they have to say about the event: "Join us for an information session about our new Crypto Unit. A security token backed by real assets, and generating monthly dividends." –Zachar (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
30 March 2019 in Perth (Western Australia) a big event was held in The Rise in Maylands by the SkyWay Invest Group Asia-Pacific. They announced the following about this event "SWIG CryptoUnit... No More Confusion! ANDREW HAWKES will present the full explanation and confirm the exact details presented by Andrey Khovratov and Mila Serdjukova last week."
This is a request for verifiable references on this aspect of the company's marketing and financing. Zachar (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2019 (U
Possible update to 'marketing' heading based on new information concerning 'cryptocurrencies'. Please help improve the text with your edits or suggestions below:
Early in 2019 the SkyWay Group started marketing cryptocurrencies in the form of SkyWay Tokens and CryptoUnits. They claim that this new investment product is based on the value of real assets and that it will generate monthly dividends.[184][185]. Claims they make about the actual value of these cryptocurrencies, however, have been disputed.[186][187].
This post concerns a monograph by Anatoly Yunitskiy written in 1995 and self-published again in 2017. Its title translates to STRING TRANSPORT SYSTEMS: on earth and in space. Here's a PDF of the second section: [188] You can also read what a SkyWay promotional site has to say about an upcoming English translation here: [189]. Zachar (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following list of articles cite a seminal work by Yunitskiy on his technology. They were found via the Google Search Engine.
The following is a complete search request [190]. This search request excludes results from yunitskiy.com: [191]. This search request further specifies citation-only sources: [192]
Струнные транспортные системы: на Земле и в космосе (1995)
Google Translation of these results:
Eurasian integration: the Republic of Kazakhstan as an example of state-building and participation in integration processes [193] (2015) by S.V. Biryukov, E.L. Ryabova
The integration processes that are actively developing today in the post-Soviet space, of which the Republic of Kazakhstan is an active participant, inevitably raise the question of a new meaningful content of such concepts as “integration”...
The aesthetosphere of the traditional culture in the noosphere concept: the Cossacks of Stavropol [194] by M.I. Vojvodina - Stavropol: AGRUS, 2015. – 160 p., 2015 - volgmed.ru
Relevance of the research topic. Currently, the growing consumer attitude of humanity to the world, when the interests of the individual are decisive in the determination of socio-cultural activities, has caused, along with ...
MOVEMENT OF A LOAD WITH A CONSISTORED MASS ON A FLEXIBLE STRETCHED SPACE [195]by O.V. Titiora
Motion along a flexible spanned span of length l is a load of mass m, to which a stiffness spring is attached with a load fixed at its end
Prospects for the development of SkyWay flyover in the Urals [196] (2018) by M.V. Dunaeva, S.A. Voloshina, A.L. Biryukov
Insufficient development of communication lines with the rapid growth in demand for transportation from the public and business led to an increase in traffic density, deterioration of traffic conditions and a decrease in the level of safety...
INNOVATIVE TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES OF THE XXI CENTURY IN THE SERVICE OF THE TOURIST AND RECREATIONAL COMPLEX [197] (2019)
by M.L. Nekrasova
Over the past fifteen years, the main object of the author’s scientific interests is the development of the tourism and recreation sector in Krasnodar Region and Russia. Considering the problems of the domestic tourist-recreational complex ...
The movement of cargo with a sprung mass on a flexible stretched span [198] (2003) by O.V. Tityra
We consider the motion along a flexible span of length l of a load of mass m, to which a stiffness spring c is attached with a load of mass M fixed at its end. The mass load m, whose speed has a constant horizontal component V, with ...
Dynamic model and estimated parameters of transport modules motion on the string transport line
The publication of a scientific edition by Anatoly Yunitskiy "String Transport Systems: on Earth and in Space" continues. The fundamental scientific paper sets out the theory, state of development, prospects and main results of the studies of high-speed land transportation, which moves along a string track structure, and non-rocket space transport in the form of a circular string system, covering the planet parallel to the equator.
Today's publication contains the chapter 4 "Dynamic model and estimated parameters of transport modules motion on the string transport line" of the 1st part of the monograph by Anatoly Yunitskiy.
@Kmarinas86:You can make a point about Yunitskiy's work without including such detailed information about everyone who has cited it. A title with a link between brackets is sufficient. I included links to the original publication and an English translation of the title so that people know what you are talking about. But if you think a work is worthy of further analysis you can just included a reference to the original work, and then say that it has been cited in sources [x], [y] and [z]. Zachar (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The search results were filtered so we can avoid use of primary sources. The sources can change with time, so it helps to know how to get them in the first place. Hence, I posted several stages of links narrowing the filtering progressively as a way of instruction. Also, most of the search results were not in English, and to display English translations should help the English-fluent Wikipedia community to find an impetus for digging deeper to find meaningful content for the article. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC) Zachar (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Litigation against the press in Samara (Russia)
It appears that SkyWay is taking legal action in order to silence critics. Two articles were published in Volga News, the first in May 2017 [199] documenting the way SkyWay was financing investment in fraudulent projects in the region. They were apparently making claims about projects that were going to take place in the region as a part of telephone marketing campaigns to small-scale investors at home. The second article dated 2 March 2018 concerns the litigation taken against the publication which had brought the company into disrepute: [200]. The court however ruled in the favour of the defendant in February 2018. Moreover detailed commentary and confirmation is included concerning the court-case against Onliner.by in Minsk. Translations of these articles will be included below. These verified instances of attempts to silence critics with legal intimidation needs to be mentioned. These are not just threats: these are confirmed legal actions which were brought against journalists
Samarans are being dragged into a "high-tech" financial pyramid (1 May 2017) - the article that caused the legal action
https://gid.volga.news/article/437987.html
Самарцев затягивают в "высокотехнологичную" финансовую пирамиду
Samarans are being dragged into a "high-tech" financial pyramid
1 May 2017
Representatives of the company offer gullible citizens to become investors of a dubious project for the construction of string transport, hiding behind non-existent contracts with regional authorities.
[illustration of SkyWay vehicle held up with paper string. A ticket seller says, “in the morning, money, in the evening…”]
It all started about a month ago, when a member of our editorial staff received a call from an unknown number with a proposal to invest their savings in a new transport technology, which "should come to Samara in the very near future." It was about the company Sky Way and the so-called string transport of the overpass type, where electric vehicles on steel wheels are used as vehicles, moving along special rails.
"Behind our technologies is the future", - every call began and ended with this phrase. But as they say, the devil is in the details. The girl operator happily said that the project, in which today it is possible to invest profitably, is almost agreed at the level of the regional government, and they say that the governor gave the go-ahead for the construction of a new expressway, you only need to get 15% of the votes of residents of the Samara region .
"You can go to our site, watch videos about our transport, register in your account, purchase a share in the company, after which your vote will be counted," the call center operator insistently inspired. "And you can invite your friends to our project and you will be rewarded for it. "
After these words, we seriously thought: is it a fraud? Judge for yourself: a certain company that does not have, as it turned out in the process of studying open sources of information, not a single realized project in Russia, collects money from ordinary citizens under the pretext of using them in the form of a public-private partnership. And at the same time uses the well-known network marketing technology! The account for transferring funds from the company is open in the form of a simple e-wallet. But what struck us especially was the courage of SkyWay representatives, who, without hesitating, use the name of the head of the region in their campaigns. By the way, the company’s website even has a video showing the first deputy head of Samara, Vladimir Slastenin, who, as a visitor to the Innotrans exhibition in Berlin, shares his impressions of the “new generation transport” developed by SkyWay.
To dispel doubts, we had to dive a little deeper into the history of the company. It turned out SkyWay is an international network holding, similar to a giant octopus. Its tentacles stretch from Belarus to Russia, Kazakhstan and other post-Soviet countries. At the same time, this structure is divided into three divisions.
The first is really engaged in development and even built a test branch near Minsk, where it occasionally carries out tests. The second is the Sky Way Invest Group, which conducts training in capital preservation and growth, Internet business and personal development. These are the services the company sells to its "investors." And finally, the third link is the regional offices of the Sky Way Invest Group scattered throughout Europe and Asia, which collect money from unsuspecting citizens, without having any licenses for such activities.
In Samara, SkyWay representation appeared relatively recently - in February of this year. Headed his wife Svetlana and Dmitry Bulavin. We visited them and even talked on Skype with their head, Andrey Khovratov, CEO of the Sky Way Invest Group. About what came of this, we will tell in the near future. For now let us just note that in response to our inquiries from the regional government and the administration of Samara, we were officially informed: "We did not sign agreements on cooperation and cooperation with SkyWay regarding the construction of a new type of string-rail transport." Moreover, according to Vladimir Slastenin, before our appeal, he was not aware of the use of his last name in advertising the company's services, this was done without his knowledge.
We will definitely continue to keep our readers abreast of developments around the activities of the Samara representative of the Sky Way Invest Group. In the meantime, we are officially asking the prosecution authorities to get involved in our investigation and give our company a legal assessment.
SkyWay Invest Group "squeezed" 120 million (2 March 2018) - court-case rejected and confirmation of Onliner.by litigation
Sky Way Invest Group "приструнили" на 120 миллионов
2 March 2018
SkyWay Invest Group “squeezed” 120 million
https://gid.volga.news/article/465427.html
On February 9, 2018, the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region rejected the claim for protection of the business reputation of Sky Way Group LLC and Andrei Khovratov, a resident of Sevastopol, to the Volga News information portal, the Volzhskaya Kommuna newspaper editorial board and two of their employees. The plaintiffs requested an unprecedented 120 million rubles, but the court found these claims unfounded.
Photo: Dmitri Burlakov
Offended by the truth
The reason for the trial was the publication of “Widely spread networks”, which was published in the “Volga commune” on April 21, 2017 and on the same day was published on the pages of our online publication. Its author, Alexei Dmitrenko, said that representatives of the Sky Way Invest Group, registered in the offshore zone of the British Virgin Islands, "offer residents of the region to become investors in a dubious project to build a string transport, hiding behind non-existent contracts with regional authorities After a talk with the local representatives of the company and its head Andrei Khovratov, the journalist concluded that the principles of the work of entrepreneurs are similar to the financial pyramid. This opinion extremely outraged the heroes of the publication, and on September 7 they filed a lawsuit with the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region.
The claim of Sky Sky Group LLC stated that the author of the article, as well as its publications, distributed information that allegedly did not correspond to reality. Also, the claim was applied to the calculation of the losses incurred, which consisted of the allegedly lost profits and non-pecuniary damage incurred personally to Andrei Khovratov. As stated in the statement, he was forced to "make excuses to relatives, friends and acquaintances, to partners and customers, to strangers, which eventually led to nervous feelings, nervousness and periods of insomnia." Each claimant requested compensation of 60 million rubles.
For the words answered
So what exactly did the claimants not like? We list the most fundamental points. For example, the subtitle of the article: "Samartsy are being dragged into a new" high-tech "pyramid." This phrase, according to the offended side, cast a shadow on the company, equating its activities to fraudulent. For the same reason, the following statements were taken out of context in the lawsuit: "We seriously thought: is it a fraud?"; "The account for transferring funds from the company is not opened in the bank, but as a simple electronic wallet"; "Sky Way is an international network holding, similar to a giant octopus. Its tentacles stretch from Belarus to Russia, Kazakhstan and other countries."
The editors presented their arguments. In particular, the author of the article objected that in fact in the text the representatives of the company in question were never called fraudsters in an affirmative form. The assumption, or rather, the rhetorical question - does not count, and this was confirmed by a linguistic study conducted by Nadezhda Ilyukhina - doctor of philological sciences, professor, head of the department of the Russian language and mass communication of the Samara National Research University. S.P. Queen. At the same time, Alexey Dmitrenko noted that the signs of a financial pyramid in the activities of the Samara representative of the Sky Way Invest Group are indeed visible. And the main one is that the income of the so-called investors of the company is formed at the expense of subsequent attracted investors.
[indented text]
Already during the trial, a journalist under the guise of a potential "shareholder" attended the Sky Way Invest Group seminar, at which he was unable to understand what kind of innovative products this corporation produces in Russia or, say, in the Samara region. However, his voice recorder clearly recorded the seller’s response that investor money transferred to the company's e-wallets could not be traced. And this was confirmed in court.
Other merits
[end of indentation]
Regional representatives of the Sky Way Invest Group assured Samara depositors that the company has already signed some contracts with local authorities. Among others, in the telephone conversations with potential investors, the name of Vladimir Slastenin was used, who at that time held the position of First Deputy Mayor of Samara.
A video with his participation was even posted on the company's page on social networks and presented in court. The fact stated in the article that Slastenin "was not aware of the use of his surname, this was done without his knowledge," caused outrage among the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the editors managed to confirm the correctness of their words by providing the court with an official response on the letterhead of the Samara administration.
Well, and, perhaps, the main phrase for which the plaintiffs were hooked - "a dubious project for the construction of string transport." According to Mr. Khovratov, there is no doubt that the string technologies, which, in fact, promotes the company Sky Way Invest Group, will soon receive worldwide recognition. And here, in the process, Anatoly Yunitsky, the general designer of String Technologies, CJSC, inventor and leader of a number of companies with Sky Way in the name, appeared like a little devil from a tobacco box. His lawyers have provided more than a dozen certificates, diplomas, opinions and letters of thanks, talking about the merits of "String Technologies". However, in practice, the plaintiffs could not show at least one actually operating or under construction facility that could transport people or goods on the territory of Russia.
At one of the court sessions, representatives of Khovratov and Unitsky presented a business plan, according to which String Technologies technology was to participate in the construction of the Gagarin Center and the bridge across the Volga near the village of Klimovka. And supposedly it was our article that destroyed these plans. Like, from here and multimillion losses.
In response, the editorial office submitted to the court the official letters of the Ministry of Construction and the Ministry of Transport and Highways of the Samara Region, which stated that neither Sky Way Group, nor String Technologies Technologies, had any relation to the above projects. And in general it is worth noting that in the contested article there was not a word written about Mr. Yunitsky and his company (although, perhaps, it would be worthwhile to give this person more attention). Nevertheless, all the above phrases in the controversial article, according to the plaintiffs, discredited the honor, dignity and business reputation of the designer. However, the judge Natalya Sharueva, having studied the four volumes of the case, considered these claims unfounded.
Fair verdict
The court drew the attention of the parties to the case that the losses caused by Sky Wei Group LLC by the actions of the defendants were not justified by reason, as Mr. Hovratov did not confirm his 60 million moral sufferings. Meanwhile, in accordance with clause 1 of Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, everyone must prove the circumstances to which he refers in support of his claims.
The court also appreciated the disputed statements of the article from the point of view of the ordinary reader and concluded that the publication is devoted to the “dubious” project of Sky Way, which in Samara invites citizens to become investors in the string transport project. In other words, in the text of the article we are talking about the Sky Way company and the Sky Way Invest Group company, while the court established that Khovratov Andrei Fedorovich, according to information from the Register, is the general director and founder only of LLC "SVIG CRIMP". This LLC does not engage in the construction or development of string transport, and has no relation to technologies that may at least somehow relate to those described in the article. The evidence confirming the fact that it is Mr. Hovratov who is the CEO of the Sky Way Invest Group is not included in the case file.
Thus, the plaintiffs could not submit to the court properly executed documents confirming their authority. And due to the combination of all the above reasons, the lawsuit was denied to them, which fully confirmed the position of the representative of the State Institution “The Volzhskaya Kommuna” newspaper, set out in the response to the lawsuit.
Irina Ryzhuk, lawyer, RBL Law Office:
- In accordance with the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, when considering cases of protection of business reputation, it is necessary to take into account a set of circumstances: the fact that the respondent has spread information about the claimant, defaming the information and the inconsistency of their reality. In the absence of at least one of the specified circumstances, the claim cannot be satisfied by the court.
The plaintiffs in this legal dispute did not prove the totality of the above circumstances, therefore, no damages or moral damage could be recovered. In addition, the fact that the defendant spreads information discrediting the claimant’s business reputation is not enough to deduce the damage to business reputation and to pay monetary compensation in order to compensate for the unjustified impairment of business reputation. To confirm the occurrence of adverse effects in the form of intangible harm to the business reputation of the claimant, it is necessary to establish the fact of its formation, as well as the fact of loss of confidence in his reputation.
The plaintiffs could not prove the existence of a direct causal connection between the data being refuted and the consequences for them in the form of causing real damage or loss of profits, as they did not confirm the fact of the occurrence of damages, and therefore there were no grounds for claiming reputational damage.
Alexey Dmitrenko, editor of the "Markets" department:
- The fiasco of the Sky Way project managers in the Samara arbitration is not the first “trial balloon”. Entrepreneurs already have the sad experience of litigation with representatives of the press. But, apparently, failures do not teach them anything. In September 2016, that is, six months before our publication, the Belarusian Internet portal Onliner.by published a devastating material about the string transport of Anatoly Yunitsky under the heading "Ilon Musk - bullshit, carry money to me." As part of their investigation, the journalists acquired a minimal stake, which Sky Way promises people in return for investments in the project. In response, they received a kind of electronic certificate that allegedly certified the right to company shares Euroasian Rail Sky Way Systems Holding LTD (limited liability company). Later, the online newspaper received a reply from the Securities Department of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Belarus. The ministry assured that in the State Register of Securities the shares of non-resident companies, which in some form or another indicate the Sky Way project, are not registered. “As of September 15, 2017, shares of the Sky Way group of companies were not allowed to be placed and circulated in the territory of the Republic of Belarus,” the department said.
Some time later, the author of Sky Way technology complained to the court about the portal and demanded 200 thousand denominated Belarusian rubles (5.7 million rubles at the current rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation). According to Yunitsky, the material contained information discrediting his honor, dignity and business reputation. Claims were more than a dozen, and, indicatively, most of them were subsequently presented as if for a carbon copy in a lawsuit against Volga News and the Volga Commune.
The process went on for a long time; on each meeting, the On-lineer published detailed reports. And in the summer of 2017, the court of the Moscow district of Minsk rejected the claim of Anatoly Yunitsky. Then the academician (as he calls himself) appealed with a cassation to a higher authority, finding the court’s decision unfounded. But the decision of the court of first instance was left unchanged.
I suppose that as soon as it became clear that it’s impossible to make money on the Belarusian portal, Sky Way representatives switched to the Russian media. In particular, claims fell in the address of the Crimean journalist Andrey Luchnikov, the author of the article “Under the Singing of Strings: Has a New Pyramid Come to Sevastopol?”, Published on July 4, 2017 on primechaniya.ru. The editors of the online publication told me that immediately after the publication of the article, they began to receive threats and insults. But, apparently, until recently, all the forces of the lawyers of the group of companies were sent to the Samara Arbitration Court. As it turned out a month ago, the rate did not work.
However, according to Belarusian human rights activists, the purpose of these lawsuits is not so much to win as to have a frightening effect on other media outlets that dare to reveal the truth. At least, this position is held by a lawyer from Grodno, Igor Koyro, with whom I have been in correspondence for almost a year. “They don’t care about the courts, they don’t attend many meetings,” he says. “The new investors will pay all the costs while the Sky Way management rolls around the world and chic in 5-star hotels. Even by the most conservative estimates of the last 3-4 years they’ve got hundreds of millions of dollars in their pockets and aren’t going to stop there. ”
[indented text]
A failed attempt by Sky Wey Group and its director to earn what is called “easy money” will most likely be for some time discussed in higher arbitration instances. However, precedents in similar cases still give journalists hope for the triumph of justice. We are sure that we are right and will continue to publish about the dubious schemes of work of any companies whose activities have signs of a financial pyramid.
According to the second article, although Anatoly Yunitskiy appealed the decision in Minsk, his actions were unsuccessful when the court confirmed its first findings: that Yunitskiy had no reason to suggest that Onliner.by had damaged the reputation of his company. He was obliged to pay all legal costs of the defendant, Onliner.by and the author of the article Sidorovich.
IMHO a new heading entitled 'legal proceedings', 'lawsuits', 'court-cases' or 'litigation' needs to be created to mention these cases. I have suggested this before and I showed examples of similar articles on other MLM companies like Arbonne International which were involved in legal activity. I'm proposing it again here because of the new reference to the Samara trial which cites the Onliner.by court-case in Belarus. There could be other who think this as well. Note that there are users (Andrew) who was positively against the idea but he can't argue his point yet because of his work commitments. We need opinions on this matter.
In September 2016 the Belarusian news sender Onliner.by published an article critical of the SkyWay Group and the EcoTechnoPark testing facility being built at the time in Marjina Horka.[1] Anatoly Yunitskiy sued them for damage done to his company and his reputation. Yunitskiy lost the case in June 2017 and was required to pay costs incurred by the defendant.[2] He appealed unsuccessfully against this dismissal.[3]
Similar litigation was instigated against Volga News for an article they published in May 2017 which was critical of a telephone marketing campaign used for funding in Samara.[4] In March 2018 the court decided against the plaintiff Andrei Khovratov who was representing the SkyWay Group.[5][6]
SkyWay and its shareholders sued the Lithuanian government in August 2018[7] for damage done to the company's reputation by a lengthy pre-trial investigation into financial fraud [8] started by the Prosecutor General's office of Lithuania in 2014 (finally concluded almost three years later after they couldn't find enough evidence). The Vilnius regional court dismissed this claim in December 2018 ruling that “there were sufficient grounds for opening the pre-trial investigation".[9]
This article in Russian confirms the dismissal of the damages claim made by Yunitskiy and the SkyWay Group against the Lithuanian government. You can read the original article here:[201]. You can read a translation here: [202]. Just click on the language button on the top-right hand side of the screen.
There is certainly precedent for the inclusion of court-cases involving specific aspects related to a company's activities particularly when this legal activity was the result of an attempt to silence criticism. Perhaps you disagree or you have suggestions about how this could be worded in a more nuanced way. Include your suggestions below or make changes to the text above yourself. –Zachar (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following article confirms the unsuccessful court action against Volga News for their covering of the fraudulent Samara plans. It was published by the Crimean news sender Premicheniya on 3 March 2018 and you can view it here: [203]. Better to use this verified link rather than the court-case as it was covered by the news senders themselves who were involved in the case.
^Cite error: The named reference lietuvos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference tbc2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
SkyWay in Crimea: legal threats against primechaniya.ru
Legal threats were made by SkyWay against journalists of the popular Crimean news portal primechaniya.ru (Примечания). They criticized SkyWay for promoting the funding of fictional projects in Sevastopol using telephone and network marketing techniques, as well as physical canvassing on the street and at promotional events. Here follows the translation of article that initiated these threats and three follow-up articles which also concern SkyWay. They are critical of fraudulent projects promoted by the Sevastopol branch of SkyWay (directed by Khovratov, the same man who brought the legal actions against Volga News in Samara), but also they recount the Onliner.by and Volga News litigation.
The first article is viewable here ([204]) and was published on the 4 July 2017. It concerns a non-existent project in Sevastopol being promoted by telephone and network marketing, and the dubious nature of the whole SkyWay project. The second article viewable here ([205]) documents the attacks which began against this news portal almost immediately after publication. The third article viewable here ([206])
concerns an actual promotional event held on the streets of Sevastopol to gather the signatures of citizens and promote SkyWay projects with aggressive sales techniques. This article confirms the Lithuanian suspicion that SkyWay were selling worthless shares. The fourth article viewable here ([207]) concerns in particular the legal threats made against Primechaniya by SkyWay but also the dubious nature of fundraising techniques used by this company. It comments particularly on the fact that although these threats were not realised against Primechaniya, they were brought to the courts in Samara, but that Volga News information portal fortunately won this case.
On the basis of these articles you could conceivably include an extra sentence in a proposed new ‘litigation’ section which says something like “Legal threats were also documented against a popular news sender in Crimea after they posted an article questioning claims they were making about their company’s arrangements in Sevastopol”. These threats are also confirmed in the Volga News articles. But whether or not this is considered significant enough to include by other users, these articles include confirmation of the Lithuanian investigation and the onliner.by and Volga News court-cases.
Под пение струн: в Севастополь зашла новая пирамида? (4 July 2017) To the singing of strings: has a new pyramid come to Sevastopol?
Towers throughout the city. Sapun Mountain, Balaklava, Inkerman, North - they grow even from the water on Fiolent. Above the ground, wagons of people rush along the strained strings. Haven’t you heard? Against expectations, innovative transport "Russian Elon Musk" has already conquered the world. Now engineer Yunitsky has come to you. Things are easy - to invest in the shares of his offshore company.
[computer-generated image of a futuristic tower connected by SkyWay cables]
The presentation of the project called SkyWay, which is now actively posting Sebastopol public on the Internet, recalls pictures of futurists from the mid-20th century. Concrete bollards, which, judging by the project, it is proposed to build even in the territory of the Chembalo fortress, raise happy passengers over traffic jams, allowing them to enjoy the views. A well-placed voice-over and background music make it clear: this is something truly global.
A visit to one of the more than 20 project sites offers you a brave new world. It turns out that similar SkyWay projects are now actively broadcasting in other Russian regions, and even countries. It turns out that the project "has already invested $ 70 billion" – just like Bill Gates. Here in the video, happy investors listen to their guru and his lively representatives. Here are the experimental supports of the new transport line. True, they are only two meters tall, instead of strings - water pipes, and instead of cars - a capsule per passenger, and that one is drawn in 3D. But the creators radiate such confidence that their doubts immediately become embarrassing.
The technology of string transport, which is known under the name Sky Way, can be found in Soviet newspapers and magazines of the 1980s. These are such rails without sleepers, suspended above the ground on concrete supports.
[photo of a SkyWay track in the Australian desert]
TEXT: Photos from the personal page "Vkontakte" of Anatoly Yunitskiy
In this case, according to the authors of the project, the string-rail is a bunch of prestressed tension steel wires placed in a concrete-filled body. The idea has been worked out by Anatoly Yunitskiy, a native of the Gomel region, for over 30 years, the presentation says. String transport is safer, more environmentally friendly, faster (emphasis is placed on speeds up to 500 km / h) and is ten times cheaper than all that exists now, he says.
So this is real import substitution. We knew we would wait to see you. And it is very symbolic that this meeting takes place on the bloodstained ancestors of the land of Sevastopol. They fought back the fascists here, and we will shame the Western sanctions of domestic believers, who doubt that a global technological breakthrough is possible in the country of Skolkovo and Rosnano. Here it is, the very showcase that we dreamed of in 2014.
"Like Apple"
The search engine on request skyway gives a lot of sites with demos, in colors describing the project. Yunitskiy himself is devoted to a full page with a description of his merits on the site “Tradition”, a favorite of Russian nationalists.
It says that Yunitskiy is a scientist, engineer, author of more than 140 inventions and more than 200 scientific works. The author of the concept of a non-rocket transportation system for the exploration of near-Earth space - the Planetary Vehicle. Member of the USSR Cosmonautics Federation. Member of the public organization of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. The Russian Academy of Environmental Sciences (RAEN) has no relation to the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) and is criticized by a number of academics and RAS staff for the fact that some of its members are persons who are far from science, have no proper education and recognized scientific publications. For example, according to Yuri Kuklachev, Ramzan Kadyrov and other eminent academics notes that the RAEN promotes the pseudoscientific theory of torsion fields.
It is reported that Yunitsky rented a 35 hectare land plot near Minsk - a former tank test site on which the whole Ecotechnopark is being built to demonstrate “ready-made commercial solutions”.
[photo of a half-completed test track in Belarusian fields]
In the abundance of sites with portraits of Yunitskiy and presentation colorful 3d-models there is not a single video with a demonstration of the current development of air transport in which it is proposed to invest.
Here, for example, is the video where behind the very real Yunitskiy and the interviewer the so-called “unibike” is moving - a 3d model clearly drawn on the computer.
Despite this, the sites are full of information about SkyWay cooperation not only with the heads of various Russian regions, but even with other states, for example, with India. Yunitskiy constantly places the stands of his project at various technical exhibitions, after which the sites are filled with photos of an engineer with interested delegates from various countries.
In an interview with the Belarusian portal onliner.by, the entrepreneur said that his intellectual property is estimated at $ 400 billion. It is more than the cost of Google. Who exactly appreciated his achievements in such a sum, Yunitskiy did not specify.
[Photo of Yunitskiy and a colleague in Belarusian fields]
TEXT: Anatoly Yunitskiy and Ruslan Gattarov, Deputy Head of the Celyabinsk Region, who visited him at Ecotechnopark
Infrastructure projects of this scale are usually financed by the state and large companies. But Yunitskiy collects them from ordinary people who get acquainted with the colorful presentation on advertising in local and federal media. You buy electronic shares - and you expect profits. 20 years.
The trouble is that there is no money to develop a working prototype for Yunitskiy. “We collected 10 million dollars for our program, but for such serious projects costs more than a penny,” says Yunitskiy. - We thought that we’d need at least 300 million. However, we are constantly optimizing costs, and I think that now 200 million will suffice. ”
If you believe the inventor, he is constantly deceived, persecuted, robbed and left with nothing. And so - for decades on the same scheme:
Yunitsky “almost completes” a sample of the string road, then officials or competitors come, take away everything, drive Yunitsky away, he again searches for a new country to implement his ideas, starts building there ... and so on in a circle. All this was repeated in Russia, Australia, Lithuania, Belarus.
“In Russia, my partner was the governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, Alexander Lebed,” the entrepreneur told the onliner portal. - He brought in a personal 300 thousand dollars to the project ... Then in Russia the first test site was demolished. I went to Australia, but everything was taken away from me there in 2011.
Lithuania has a different vision of the situation. Last year, the Central Bank of this country stressed that the "inventor" sells worthless shares.
And the Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s Office declared him “suspect in the investigation in connection with fraud, illegal economic, commercial, financial activities and legalization of funds acquired by criminal means, which is carried out by the Financial Crime Investigation Service”.
I had to flee to Belarus - and again to Russia. Apparently, now Yunitskiy is trying to expand to the Crimean peninsula.
In the morning, money, in the evening - something.
The Government of Sevastopol told Primechaniya that the SkyWay initiators came with a presentation to the department of priority projects. There they were advised to first submit technical documentation and clarified the procedure for submitting the draft to the strategic council.
The department of public communications explained to us that not a single project will be accepted without clear justifications: attractiveness, usefulness, volume of investments and, in principle, the project’s feasibility.
Primechaniya have become interested in what kind of company SWIG (SkyWay Invest Group) is, which promotes this video in the Sevastopol information field. And what kind of company should still be invested by the person interested in the project. It was difficult to answer this question right away.
It turned out there is no such company. There is SWIG-Crimea Ltd., which promotes the idea of a high-tech project in the Crimean area. It is headed by a certain Andrei Khovratov. The same person on numerous resources calls himself the CEO of the SkyWest Invest Group.
[photo of Andrei Khovratov in front of a SWIG poster]
According to users of the biznet.ru business forum, Khovratov might have been involved in the creation of a company that collected $ 6 million from newly-minted shareholders to develop a gold-bearing field in Zambia. Whether it was developed is unknown.
There is also the Belarusian String Technologies Company, which is headed by Yunitskiy. There is a Russian LLC String Transport Yunitskiy, headed by him. And another infinite number of LLC, JSC, CJSC, and so on. It’s impossible to understand right away where to invest all the same.
Find the official website of the SkyWay group of companies - the same: there are at least 20 portals promoting Yunitskiy's “air string technologies” online. As a result, we found out that investor money goes to the British offshore location, but more on that later.
By trial and error we find out that the official site of the SkyWay group of companies is rsw-systems.com. Call the number indicated on it. The responding girl immediately reports that it is on this site that an investor who wants to invest money in the SkyWay project must register. She confirmed that the investment object is “the technology of Anatoly Yunitsky, who owns a controlling stake”.
When asked where we, as interested potential investors, can get acquainted with the design and survey work, drawings of Sevastopol, the girl says that there is no documentation for individual projects, and it is proposed to invest in something in common, becoming the owner of certain shares.
“We plan to build in different countries and regions,” she says. —Talks are underway now, perhaps in your region. While this is all at the negotiation stage. We will help you choose a stock package. ”
You can invest through “several different sites,” the dispatcher says:
“If you are investing in technology now at this stage, then these shares have already invested a profit from all future targeted projects. When we continue to open new companies, it will be in the future. Now we have only one opportunity. Several of our sites are the same promotions. Not shares of different regions.
Further, the uncut dialogue of our correspondence with the dispatcher:
- I, as an investor, want to familiarize myself with PIRs, drawings. With what I plan to invest in. Can I get acquainted with them?
- I did not get that...
- Can I get acquainted with the drawings?
- And yes, on the website unitsky.com. There is a description of the technology. And on the site rsw-systems.com in your account you will find an investment memorandum, where all the conditions are described in detail. As for targeted projects - this information will come later. Now there is just a description of the technology. We have now concluded an agreement with Mogilev, with India on the construction of a road. It is at the negotiation stage. Construction will begin.
- we will upload videos and news and you will see how the construction is going. All the constituent documents, all we have. You just need to register, - the girl says.
The girl refused to give the name of the company that will issue shares in exchange for the investment. “I will not even dictate. There is everything in English. You just register here. Everything is there. ”
After that, she immediately jumps to the fact that "there is a referral program." That is, a potential “investor” is immediately motivated to attract other “investors”. He brought five (ten, fifteen, and so on) people - get your percentage from their contributions.
Immediately on the site rsw-systems.com future investors explained - if the project fails, there will be no refund. There are no guarantees either.
[Screenshot of SkyWay website showing SkyWay policy with certain lines of text underlined]
The chance of failure is incredibly great.
First, because today the company does not offer a finished product. In fact, a person is invited to invest in the air without any guarantees.
Secondly, because you end up investing in an offshore company. As Primechaniya found out, having registered as a hypothetical investor, money is collected from ordinary people, in return they receive “shares” from Euroasian Rail SkyWay Systems Ltd, registered in the British Virgin Islands (about 40% of offshore companies in the world are based here). You pay a dollar per share, and at the exit you are promised a "theoretically possible multiple profit, up to thousands of percent or more."
[typical SkyWay flowchart which attempts to explain offshore activity]
TEXT: SkyWay Group structure. Screenshot from the “investment memorandum”
Thirdly, when it comes to the courts, Yunitskiy deny that his is involved with rsw-systems.com - the site on which his interviews, self-presentations, videos with 3d-visualization, etc., are published, from which he himself publishes on their pages in social networks.
“I am not, say, the head or employee of the SkyWay group of companies. I have no relation to them,” said Yunitskiy at the trial against onliner.by, who wrote about his suspicious activities. Journalists of the portal told Primechaniya that the entrepreneur eventually lost his case.
In addition to journalists who suspect Yunitskiy of organizing at best a not insignificant form of network marketing, and at worse - a financial pyramid, it seems that this entrepreneur particularly dislikes his American "colleague” Elon Musk.
“He and his SpaceX are bullshit,” Yunitsky told onliner. - And Tesla is bullshit too. They do not solve any problems, because in order for the same electric car to move, it is necessary to burn three times more fuel than the internal combustion engine does. Hyperloop is complete shit. Money is stolen, laundered and cronyism flourishes. There is no project. The idea of putting something in a vacuum tube cannot be called a project. This idea is a hundred years old at lunch. And it was proposed by a Russian scientist, and I have it in my 1985 monograph. We can also steal. ”
Anatoly Yunitsky insists that Elon Musk has only fantasies, whereas he has a ready-made solution to all major world problems.
“This boy from South Africa just wants to make money, but for me money was never the goal. He is a businessman, and I am not! He just has good PR. If you can attract billions, talking about good goals, then why not voice them? They made Musk a billionaire Mask and gave his project funding (SpaceX) - that's all. We do not need space for a hundred years. He is needed for industry, and man is a terrestrial product, and to kill the Earth in order to fly to Mars is complete nonsense! Only lunatics say that!
And everyone shouts: hurray, Musk is a genius! Let's live on Mars! And I say - do not fly anywhere, you must live on the earth according to the laws of God.”
Interestingly, in 2014, Ruben Mejlumyan, known for his work at MMM-2011 Sergey Mavrodi, joined SkyWay promotion.
“This is a circus attraction"
According to scientists of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus, consulted by the news edition onliner.by, there is no practical sense in the ideas of Yunitskiy.
“The so-called string transport is a circus, an attraction. But even the circus rides, before being put into operation, must be certified and carefully studied.”
“Everything that we see here is only static calculations,” the engineers' letter says. - Where are the calculations of the moving load? This is a very old problem that has been solved for decades by outstanding scientists - mechanics, mathematicians, and physicists.
It is necessary to clearly establish the length of the sag of the rail or, as Yunitsky calls it, the strings, as well as many other parameters. Without addressing the dynamic impact of a moving load in a system, dangerous fluctuations may occur that will lead to catastrophic consequences.
[photo of a computer-generated image of a sleek SkyWay vehicle moving on a track above water]
What is the voltage of this string? What kind of effort? If you pull the cable, the deflection literally in millimeters causes such loads that no “string” can withstand. To increase strength, it is necessary to increase the diameter. However, if we increase the diameter, the cable itself will be of [huge] weight ... And how much metal will be needed! And what a load on the support!
Before you do something, you need to carefully calculate everything, everything else is talk. No such construction is carried out without the most complex engineering, mathematical and mechanical training. Without all this, Yunitskiy’s activities are worthless - this is the “Skillful Hands” group and children's toys.
In addition - security. Imagine that on these pillars the transport will indeed go at a speed of not even 500, but 180 km / h! The territory under the supports is still not suitable for any economic or relaxation activities.”
Hope sellers
In fact, Yunitsky decided to sell the most profitable product with a zero cost price - he sells hope. The hope that they can make money out of thin air. That they will be able to invest a dollar, and get a thousand without doing anything else. But it’s extremely likely that someone else is making money out of thin air right now.
Продавцы воздуха грозят «Примечаниям» Роскомнадзором (6 July 2017) Air sellers threaten “Primechaniya” with Roskomnadzor
The article “Primechaniya” about people calling for Sevastopol residents to invest in the SkyWay “string” transport system (the movement of cars along the cables stretched between concrete towers) was not liked by the adherents of this dubious business. When we assumed that a pyramid could be behind the initiative, we began to receive threats.
[computer-generated image of a futuristic SkyWay tower]
Recall that in the last two weeks in the Sevastopol segment of the Internet, the video presentation of air transport has been actively disseminated. The authors of the video propose to install practically skyscrapers in the city, to tighten cables between them and to put overhead passenger cars on them.
Giant supporting towers, which, judging by the project, it is proposed to build even in the territory of the Chembalo fortress, on a video with 3D-visualization entangle the entire city, including the waters.
A certain SkyWay company promises to implement the project (such a company does not legally exist) for private contributions: people are offered to invest in a non-existent object, invite friends and acquaintances to share - and thus become the owner of electronic shares of the company under another name, which turned out to be British offshore. SkyWay does not want to seek funding from the state or on serious crowdfunding platforms (where responsibility for deception is provided).
All this “Primechaniya” described in detail in the article “Under the singing of the strings: has a new pyramid entered Sevastopol?”
Today, a day after the publication, the Internet trolls of this project started attacking “Primecheniya”.
First, comments appeared on the material praising the author of the project Anatoly Yunitsky. Then reprimands began that our edition was “someone paid” for skepticism regarding SkyWay. The profiles of the authors of comments in social networks abounded with project logos and alternated with an abundance of business training advertisements like “register and earn from the first minute!”. Then came a wave of comments with links to SkyWay sites. After they were deleted, protests from annoying company employees fell on the editorial mail. Then the spammers from SkyWay became so much that we decided to close the comments. As a result, threats came to the “Primechaniya” post to expect “guests from Roskomnadzor” (the Russian federal executive body responsible for censorship).
Such anomalous activity, in our opinion, only confirms the assumption that, in the person of the SkyWay project, Sevastopol faced an aggressive financial pyramid. Recall that the Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s Office accused the author of the project of fraud. In this regard, "Primechaniya" advises Sevastopol to be cautious.
Авантюристы из SkyWay охотятся за данными севастопольцев (22 November 2017) SkyWay adventurers hunt for data from Sevastopol
SkyWay, promoting the utopian idea of string transport in the Internet space of Sevastopol, went to the people. Adherents of the company with signs of financial pyramids collect signatures for the project, allegedly agreed with the authorities. Just a tick in the right place is not enough. Those who flatter themselves on colorful booklets are offered to buy shares in an offshore company or at least leave a phone number. Perhaps it is the contacts of the townspeople are the main goal of promoters.
SkyWay promoters were spotted last week in the city center, on Primorsky Boulevard, and in the lobby of the cinema "Monsoon". In between sessions, annoying young people offered the audience to give their signature for the construction of a string road, the draft of which, they said, had already been agreed “with whom it is necessary” (and even with the military).
Those who respond to the request to sign it is not clear to whom the petition was sent, the company's employees obsessively remind: the project is very profitable, and only now anyone can invest in it. As soon as the road works, money will flow into the pockets of future investors
Talk about the construction of a circular string road capable of connecting remote areas of the city began in Sevastopol in the summer of 2017, when a video presentation drawn in 3D was massively replicated in the Internet community. In it between the giant concrete towers installed on Sapun-gore, in Balaklava, Inkerman and Fiolent, on the stretched steel cables, as on rails, passenger cars slide.
The picture looks surreal and futuristic, but a well-placed voice-over broadcasts: the technology of the future has long been worked out and is ready to serve people. In reality, further mini-models of cars at the SkyWay exhibition site did not move.
In the video about finance - not a word. But any interested Internet user in the network is expected by more than 20 sites of the company that “implements” similar projects in dozens of cities in Russia and the near abroad - all for “popular” money. Anyone can invest in construction, invite friends and acquaintances to share, and thereby become the owner of electronic shares of the company under a different name, which turns out to be a British offshore company.
Despite the large-scale promotion, the declared support from large investors and the state, in none of the cities did they even begin to build towers. But the gullible investors of a breakthrough startup are convinced: the technology has already been tested at one of the landfills in Belarus, however, the video with a moving test car for one person also looks like computer graphics. SkyWay is critical of criticism - it sends a huge number of praising bots in comments, and then sues publications that dare to doubt the company's activities.
Official science is skeptical of SkyWay’s idea of the Skytrain. Experts of the Moscow State University of Communications studied the technical feasibility of the project and made a conclusion about the failure of this technology. Scientists of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus believe that "the so-called string transport is a circus, an attraction."
In July of this year, Primechaniya wrote about these and other suspicious inconsistencies in SkyWay business projects, and also suggested that its activities may have signs of a financial pyramid. After the publication, the editors began to receive threats: “expect guests from Roskomnadzor”.
Now, several months after the viral distribution of presentations, SkyWay promoters took to the streets of the city. Why do they need the signature of Sevastopol, is not yet clear. Perhaps the petitions will serve as an additional incentive to part with money for future gullible investors. Or perhaps the true goal of the dealers are the contact details of the inhabitants of the city - a base of people who are easy to contact and are not critical of such projects. With them you can continue to work in the telephone mode.
Despite the fact that the activity of investment pyramids is prohibited by Russian legislation, SkyWay continues to “work” not only in Sevastopol, but throughout the country, while the neighboring countries have already drawn the appropriate conclusions.
Thus, in 2015, the Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s Office accused the project author of fraud, and the Lithuanian Central Bank, having familiarized itself with the investment model proposed by SkyWay Unitsky, confirmed that the residents of Lithuania and other countries were offered worthless shares.
Official bodies and financial institutions of European states such as Latvia, the Czech Republic and Lithuania issued warnings about Sky Way activities.
SkyWay «приструнили» на 120 млн рублей (3 March 2018) SkyWay "straightened" 120 million rubles
The promoters of the dubious SkyWay project could not sue the journalists who called their "Unitsky string transport" a pyramid scheme. “Primechaniya” received legal threats when a campaign to attract money to castles in the air began in Sevastopol.
[photo of sleek computer-generated SkyWay image on a track above water]
Last July, Primechaniya also wrote about the castles of the SkyWay group of companies. The company began to actively promote its string transport in Sevastopol. In the supermarkets of the city were placed racks with presentation materials and company logos. Video presentations of the project were published in various city public places - according to the commercials, modern cars will run through the city on strained strings through the air. The towers, between which the strings should be stretched, were planned to be driven all over Sevastopol, including near Chembalo in Balaclava. All this is on the money of shareholders. But not large investors, instead ordinary citizens who were offered to purchase shares for their hard-earned money. As it turned out to "Primechaniya", the money is sent offshore. Tracking them is really impossible. The company does not provide any guarantees - this is directly written on one of the many SkyWay sites.
After the publication in the commentary, a huge number of people came around, making fun of our publication and praising the genius of designer Anatoly Yunitsky. There was no evidence that the project was real, they didn’t cite - there is still no string transport in any city on this planet, despite the fact that the Unitsky company announced such a fundraiser collection not only in Russian cities, but even in Belarus , Lithuania and Australia. We also received threats to the editorial mail - unknown persons promised us lawsuits to the court.
Read more about what SkyWay is in our material “To the singing of the strings: has a new pyramid entered Sevastopol?”
A legal claim against Primechaniya has not yet been reported. But other Russian news senders were taken to court and they won. On February 9, 2018, the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region rejected the claim for protection of the business reputation of Sky Way Group LLC and Andrei Khovratov, a resident of Sevastopol, to the Volga News information portal, the Volzhskaya Kommuna newspaper editorial board and two of their employees. The plaintiffs requested an unprecedented 120 million rubles, but the court found these claims to be unfounded.
The reason for the trial was the publication “Widely spread networks”, which was published in the “Volga commune” on April 21, 2017 and was published on the same day on the pages of our online publication. Its author, Alexei Dmitrenko, said that representatives of the Sky Way Invest Group, registered in the offshore zone of the British Virgin Islands," offer residents of the region to become investors in a dubious project to build a string transport, hiding behind non-existent contracts with regional authorities." After a talk with the local representatives of the company and its head Andrei Khovratov, the journalist concluded that the principles of the work of entrepreneurs are similar to the financial pyramid. This opinion extremely outraged the heroes of the publication, and on September 7 they filed a lawsuit with the Arbitration Court of the Samara Region.
On the basis of misleading information being posted about projects in Samara and Sevastopol as documented in these articles, the marketing heading which documents this use of misleading information in their promotional material could be extended as follows, adding to the specific instance of Mogilev. Any suggestions on how this could be better worded appreciated:
...Similar misleading promotion has been documented in other places where the SkyWay Group has been seeking investment, such as Russia [Volga News reference], the Crimea [Primechaniya reference] and India [onliner.by reference].Zachar (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SkyWay Capital Investment Fraud - the geldthemen.de articles
There seems to be a great deal of disagreement about the financial aspects of companies in the SkyWay Group which many consider controversial. We need to have economists with knowledge of the way companies work providing input to this page. The German blog geldthemen.de explores this particular aspect of SkyWay, and it has published a large number of articles on this subject. Between October 2017 and November 2018 they published 9 articles focussing on particular aspects of what they interpret as unsupported technology behind a blatant financial fraud. As SkyWay partners began a war on geldthemen.de, they became more critical of them and comment on and analyse the way SkyWay partners use pseudo-arguments, sock-puppet accounts and even dead Russian figures as current investors. I translated the first article which can be viewed below. I’ll summarise the main points from the other articles as well. On request, other translations will follow.
If you want to understand the economic and financial background to the SkyWay Group, the first in the series of publications is a good place to start. It was published on the 31 October 2017: [208]. Note that there are a lot of responses to this original post, but the writers argue each and every one in great detail and with patience, even the trolls who attack again and again with a lot of hot air. regurgitated SkyWay promotion and no substance. I’ve included a translation of the most recent argument from March 2019 which is by no means the best but it does summarise the issues discussed in this extremely long blog feed. The nature of these attacks and the fraud aspects of the company become increasingly important in the discussions.
The second article was published on 31 October 2017: [209] The title of this article is “SkyWay Capital Fraud - Illegal, warn financial regulators”. It concerns the warnings released by financial regulatory agencies the world over about the activities of this company. It includes many countries that have not been mentioned on this talk page yet.
The third article concerns an award that SkyWay says it has won. Its title translates to “SkyWay Capital and the International Transport Award ‘Golden Chariot’ – a fake?” and you can view it here: [210]. It concerns primarily the unsupported claims that SkyWay makes about its technology, and in particular the German SkyWay representative Chris Schuster who claimed that SkyWay Capital was awarded the “International Transport Award” from an organisation called ‘Golden Chariot’ that SkyWay is actually the primary sponsor of: “SkyWay Capital is the primary sponsor of the Golden Chariot Award”. It appears that this award is unsupported by the industry.
Their next article was published 27 November 2017 and its title translates to “SkyWay Capital – Reactions to criticism – SkyWay Partner aggressive”. You can view it here: [211]. It concerns in particular the pages and pages of extremely aggressive criticism that was published in reaction to their publications. It concentrates on slander, threats and insults by SkyWay partners, in particular the unsupported rantings of Chris Schuster. It also explores various fake profiles invented on social networks to promote a negative and constant campaign against geldthemen.de, and the legal ramifications this could have for SkyWay. They suggest that people who are cheated by SkyWay Capital should employ a lawyer to get their money back.
Their next article followed two days later on 29 November 2017 and its title translates to “SkyWay Capital Dropouts – doubt and exits resulting from crises of conscience”. Its subtitle continues: “SkyWay partners abandon ship and distance themselves from SkyWay”. You can view it here: [212].
On 17 December 2017 their next article came out. Its title translates to “SkyWay Capital News – New info on the SkyWay Investment Fraud” and you can view the original here: [213]. It concerns in particular the accident that occurred at EcoTechnoPark on 15 December 2017, during which a number of people were injured (some of them badly). Their conclusion is that at the EcoTechnoPark is designed to “keep investors entertained” but that it “does not seem to have any safety features that prevent rear-end collisions and collisions with other vehicles”. They further comment on questionable claims made by SkyWay such as the support of the Dalai Lama for their project, questionable investment programs and appearances on Indonesian & Russian television as potential publicity stunts.
On 23 January 2018 they brought out perhaps their most striking accusation: that the SkyWay Group were using dead politicians as current investors of their projects. The title translates to “SkyWay Capital Lies – The Dead General, the USSR & the UN as investors” and you can view this interesting article here: [214]. The main point they make is that in order to encourage small investors, they need to have important figures who they can claim support their project. They use the example of the governor of Krasnoyarsk region A. Lebed who supposedly funded the Ozyory test project in 2001 which was later deconstructed. According to Wikipedia he died in 2002. The problem, however, is not whether or not he financed this project. He was listed as a founding investor in the First SkyWay Invest Group which was founded at the end of 2014 which means he was investing from beyond the grave. They also claim Soviet Union institutions which no longer exist helped fund their projects, as well as the UN as part of their “residential and settlement program”. There couldn’t find any indication that the UN invested money in SkyWay. Their conclusion is that these are lies to promote investment in Yunitskiy’s technology which has existed for 40 years but has produced no noteworthy results, and that Germans cheated out of their money should seek legal advice. –Zachar (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question [215] includes a screenshot of the list [216] with the caption "First SkyWay Invest Group strickt sich Investoren" which translates (very-badly) to "First SkyWay Invest Group is committed to investors". The archived copy can be found at [217] which is not a list of "founding investors" of "First SkyWay Invest Group". The title "Wer bereits investiert in SkyWay?" translates to "Who already invested in SkyWay?" which implies the claim to have invested in the technology of SkyWay, which predates "First SkyWay Invest Group", and which wasn't always called "SkyWay".
Currently, information about supporters can be found at [218]. In the English version, it is under the heading "Who supported the project?". One of them is described as:
"Alexander Lebed"
"Russian statesman and military leader, commander, Lieutenant-General. Former Governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation."
As you can see, there is no problem in acknowledging the former nature of his governor status.
Also, the article you cite is inconclusive as to whether such investments occurred.
"Selbst wenn wir mal annehmen wollten, dass Anatoly Yunitskiy durch Institutionen der ehemaligen sozialistischen UdSSR in irgend einer Form unterstützt wurde, kann man daraus keinesfalls eine Investition in die jetzt existierende und über 20 Jahre nach Auflösung der UdSSR gegründete, rein kapitalistische (und unserer festen Überzeugung nach auf betrügerischen Absichten basierende) SkyWay Unternehmens Gruppe konstruieren."
(Google-translated) "Even if we were to assume that Anatoly Yunitskiy was somehow supported by institutions of the former socialist USSR, it can not be considered an investment in the purely capitalist (and our firm conviction) now existing and more than 20 years after the dissolution of the USSR based on fraudulent intentions) SkyWay Corporate Group."
@Kmarinas86:They are in fact very conclusive. They say that these organisations no longer exist today so even if they even once in the past had invested in SkyWay (of which there is absolutely no proof), they certainly aren't today shareholders or investors as they simply no longer exist. The company they are saying it supported by the funding of these defunct organisations was created in 2014, long after the USSR dissolved. How is this inconclusive?–Zachar (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On Page 54 (054en.pdf) of the online preview of the new English edition of Струнные транспортные системы: на Земле и в космосе (String Transport Systems: on Earth and in Space), we see a picture (bottom) with the following caption:
"Krasnoyarsk Krai Governor Mr. Alexander Lebed visited the offical presentation of UST Track Structure test stand. Ozyory, Moscow Region, October 2001"
My guess is that Lebed is the guy with the clearly visible black tie over the white shirt covered with a shiny black jacket, standing to Anatoly's left (our right).
@Kmarinas86:There is a film of them together as well. He was definitely present at the Ozyory test site when they tested the ZiL-truck there in 2001 and he had the very distinct advantage of still being alive. But a photo or film of them being together is hardly proof of anything. I still can't find any actual proof that Alexander Lebed ever invested any money in SkyWay. He is most certainly no longer an investor as he is dead (he died in a helicopter accident in 2002) but SkyWay claim he allocated 300,000 dollars in local government funding in his role as governor of the Krasnoyarsk region. He may well have shook Yunitskiy's hand and said something kind about the project event he attended. And he may conceivably have invested in the Ozyory project, but I'm still unable to find proof of this. What do you think? I'm certainly willing to believe this as he was at least still alive in 2001 when the site was tested, and he did attend the event. But where is the proof that he invested in it? Any help appreciated.–Zachar (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"String Transport System Proposed for Russia" - Habitat Debate − Vol. 4 − No. 2 − 1998 − Sustainable Urban Transport
An international project to improve communication infrastructure using the String Transport System is being
considered by the Russian Federation. The String Transport System (STS), invented by Anatoly Yunitsky of
the research centre UNITRAN, is a rope−and−beam construction using electromobiles with a carrying
capacity of up to 10 passengers and 5000 kgs. It receives electric power through the wheels which are in
contact with the current−carrying heads of special rails.
The STS' optimal velocity ranges from between 300 and 400 km/hour. Traffic control is computerised, thereby
reducing human error, which makes this a safe form of transport. In the long run, it is also a cheaper form of
transport. The cost of a seven−hour trip to Paris from Moscow, for example, would only cost US$ 32 per
passenger, much less than the cost of an air ticket.
The proposed STS is also more efficient in terms of technical and economic indices than the high−speed
railways of France, Germany and Japan. STS, suspended on piers 10 to 50 metres high, can easily avoid
embankments, bridges, etc. and therefore reduces construction costs by up to five times.
Most importantly, STS is environmentally more sustainable because:
It does not use non−renewable energy sources such as oil, coal, gas, non−ore materials and ferrous and non−ferrous metals, as its structure and supports have a low degree of material consumption.
It uses electricity, which is one of the cleanest and cheapest sources of energy. In addition, ecologically−clean sources of energy, including wind and sun, will be used for the operation of STS roads.
Fertile soils will not be affected very much, as the construction of a string road does not require tunnels or cleared−up spaces.
In terms of exhausts, the STS is expected to produce less than 0.1 grams per passenger−kilometre, compared to 10 grams per passenger−kilometre for cars, 0.6 grams per passenger−kilometre for high−speed railways and 300−400 grams per passenger−kilometre for airplanes.
The main “problem” with introdcing this system is that it requires heavy investment in the initial stages: To be
implemented, STS would require at least one billion US dollars over a five−year period. But these initial
start−up costs have to be weighed against the economic and ecological benefits of this means of transport.
The above article is based on a submission by V.K. Storchevus, Head of the UNCHS (Habitat) Moscow Bureau. Some of the information was extracted from an article by Vladimir Sosnitsky entitled “The Road to the 21st Century”, published in Eureka, No.3 1998.
@Kmarinas86:Thanks for this! But how does this prove that the UN have invested money in a SkyWay company, which is the claim being contested in the geldthemen.de article? I think they gave SkyWay a grant (which they later revoked). Read about it here: [221]. But in this article they discuss the Russian federation possibly investing in a String transport project sometime in the future. It doesn't mention either the grant or the investment the UN supposedly made. -Zachar (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the UN-Habitat (UNSHC) website does not mention SkyWay or Yunitskiy. This is worrying because if they did give SkyWay a grant, why don't they want to advertise this fact today. Yet SkyWay use the UN-Habitat logo as you demonstrated above on their website as one of their investors. –Zachar (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The next publication came out on 10 May 2018 and its title translates to “SkyWay Capital – Experiences, survey – Review by our visitors”. You can view it here: [222]. Readers of this website are given the chance to vote on what they think of the claims SkyWay makes about its companies, including the marketing plans, their website, the business registration etc. Their highest score is 3/10 for their website and films. The rest are lower than 2, overall average is 1.8/10. At least 30 readers individual numerical analysis of SkyWay is included as part of the comments.
Their last article was published on 8 November 2018 and its title translates to “SkyWay Capital – BaFin reacts” and concerns the BaFin warning on SkyWay activities in Germany. You can view it here: [223]. They mention that although the German warning had come at last, it was far too cautious in wording and far too late; but better late than never.
THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE :
SkyWay Capital Invest Test (12 October 2017) – translation of the original geldthemen.de article
1. The company behind SkyWay Capital
2. The business model of SkyWay Capital or the Sky Way Group
2.1. Economics
2.2. Unrealistic promise of return
3. SkyWay Capital Appraisal
3.1. SkyWay Capital progress
3.2. Pretty pictures but technically unrealistic
3.3. The fundraising for SkyWay Capital
3.4. The true goals of SkyWay Capital and SkyWay Invest
4. Investment Warning at SkyWay Invest
4.1. Installment offered
5. Addition to the Illegal Sale of Company Shares by Skyway Capital
5.1 Belgian Financial Market Authority FSMA considers SkyWay Capital to be a pyramid scheme and prohibits its activities
5.2 Lithuania's Financial Market Authority warns of SkyWay Capital and declares it illegal
5.3 Financial Market Authority of Estonia to SkyWay Capital
5.4 Summary regarding missing permits and criminal activities
6. Critical votes pile up - SkyWay recruits aggressively
Commentary by Andreas from 18 March 2019
SkyWay Capital Invest Test
12 October 2017
Title illustration - SKYWAY INVEST GROUP
Nothing is as it appears – keep your eyes on the sale of stock
[translation of text in illustration showing a thief]
Is SkyWay Capital reputable or is it dubious – a fraud and a SCAM? Is it a Ponzi-scheme or a valid investment? For several months now, a group of companies called SkyWay Capital and First SkyWay Invest Group LTD has been attracting attention with massive advertising, unrealistic earnings promises and an unbelievable overall concept. The SkyWay Invest Group appears on social networks and on well-known websites and blogs and tries to attract investors. For these reasons, we are dedicated this article to the company and its concept.
1. The company behind SkyWay Capital
The company construct and the various designations are confusing at first glance. On the one hand we deal with SkyWay Capital (with website under the domain skyway.capital), which, according to the website, belongs to the company First SkyWay Invest Group LTD. On the other hand with the SkyWay Invest Group, with a website under the domain skywayinvestgroup.com and the company name LLC "SKY WAY GROUP" and RSW Investment Group Ltd.
In part, SkyWay also mentions Sky Way Capital Group Companies.
On the website under the domain skyway.capital the following information is provided:
FIRST SKYWAY INVEST GROUP LTD., Address: 239, Regent's Park Road Finchley, London, United Kingdom, N3 3LF, Incorporated under # 9320759
On the website under the domain skywayinvestgroup.com can be found under "About" this data:
Legal name: LLC "SKY WAY GROUP"
Legal address: Russia, Kemerovo region, Novokuznetsk, Avenue Kurako, House 12-11
PSRN: 1144217005140
ITN: 4217164442
Bank name: "Novosibirsk" JSC "Alfa-Bank", Novosibirsk
And to further complicate the view, additionally:
RSW Investment Group Ltd
Company Registration No.: 1837608
Legal address: British Virgin Islands, Tortola VG 1110, Road Town, PO BOX 2283
In summary: We have companies in Russia, in the UK and on the Virgin Islands, which are two LTDs and one LLC. All easy and without the fulfillment of special conditions to be found. From a corporation no trace.
2. The business model of SkyWay Capital and the Sky Way Group
First Skyway Invest Group Ltd announces the development of a revolutionary new transport system. It is a high-speed system that transports people and goods via special routes with a maximum speed of up to 500 km / h. This supposed future technology is estimated at $ 400 billion. By whom, Skyway Invest does not say.
2.1 Economics
The SkyWay transport technology should be 10 times more economical than the conventional transport systems. We think that is highly unbelievable. At least SkyWay is unable to substantiate that credibly.
2.2 Unrealistic promise of return
If the concept seems unlikely from a technical point of view, you'll be amazed at what investors are promised to get on board. SkyWay Capital spends up to 1,000% return on small investor leases. But these returns are absolutely dubious, even if they are made by a company that intends to actually build tracks and trains. The latter we consider here but excluded.
3.1 SkyWay Capital assessment
So what about SkyWay Capital, judging by everything we know? First of all, you should know that elevated railways, cable cars and suspension railways are not exactly the latest technology. There can be no question of innovation and progress. Nevertheless, SkyWay Capital would like to persuade the investors to have developed something very special. But what did the Skyway Group actually have to offer so far? Basically nothing.
Anyone looking for serious SkyWay construction sites will probably search in vain. Apart from a lot of talk, plenty of announcements and a lot of advertising material, SkyWay has not done anything. Although SkyWay has been collecting money for some time now and although it has reportedly been working on the project for almost 40 years, there is no noticeable progress. Since you hardly have anything to show except a balancing machine, you just turn over a video and present this machine as absolute high technology. Otherwise, the usual SCAM tactics of deceleration and in-the-length-pulling is used. After all, you want to collect as much money as possible from good faith investors for as long as possible.
3.2 Pretty pictures but technically unrealistic
[sleek computer-generated image of 3 skyway vehicles]
TEXT: That the SkyWay rails are too thin and too weak, you can even assume as a layman.
The pictures may look pretty, but they seem rather unrealistic. Static, that should bring some problems. The trains, trains, ride partly on such thin, unsupported rails that they would inevitably have to bend through. At the cable cars it looks almost worse. In practice, this should hardly work.
3.3 The fundraising for SkyWay Capital
[more futuristic images of SkyWay vehicles on tracks]
TEXT: The substructure under the rails is too weak. So the rails can hardly carry the trains
Obtaining funds for SkyWay Capital is anything but the usual approach of a technology startup. It would also be absolutely unrealistic to collect money from millions of small investors, if this money costs so much. Any company that raises funds would try to get cheap money. A company whose revolutionary technology is conquering the world and almost guaranteed billions in profits could not save itself from big investors. Loans would be comparatively cheap in the current low-interest phase. Of course, only if the banks and lenders can be convinced of the concept. This can probably be excluded here.
3.4 The true goals of SkyWay Capital and SkyWay Invest
[computer generated image of a SkyWay vehicle]
TEXT: Again, a SkyWay Capital Bahn on thin construction
We are convinced that the actual concept of SkyWay Capital is based on one goal only, that is to collect as much money as possible from as many people as possible. In fact, nothing is being developed. The so far "progress" is a mask of glitter, with which one would like to offer the investors something. However, we keep what is offered for extremely amateurish and implausible.
4 Warning about investing in SkyWay Invest
To be clear, we are convinced that at SkyWay Capital we are dealing with SCAM, fraud and rip-off. We specifically warn against investing in SkyWay Capital. We estimate the probability of a total loss here very high. So look up when buying a share, especially if there are no stocks at all and they are only offered in an indeterminate future. Here, a fictitious business model is presented to lure inexperienced investors and encourage them to raise money. We have had similar experiences on several occasions with snowball systems already collapsed, such as Recyclix or Right Rise.
4.1 Installment offered
Particularly perfidious for us is the fact that by offering an installment plan people want to move to create that can not afford such facilities.
5. Addition to the Illegal Distribution of Company Shares by Skyway Capital
To the best of our knowledge, SkyWay Capital has not provided or requested such approval in any jurisdiction in which the offering and sale of Company Shares requires the approval of the relevant Financial Market Authority. This makes SkyWay Capital's activities illegal in these countries! This applies to countries such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland, but also to most other countries in Europe and the world. The financial market supervisory authorities of Belgium, Lithuania and Estonia have already reacted.
5.1 Belgian Financial Market Authority FSMA considers SkyWay Capital to be a pyramid scheme and prohibits its activities
The Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) has stated that SkyWay Capital has not been authorized to offer shares in Belgium and that the company may not offer these shares in Belgium. In addition, the FSMA states that SkyWay Capital has the characteristics of a pyramid scheme and that it therefore considers it fraudulent. Here is the wording of the relevant passages from the declaration in English:
22 September 2017
SkyWay Capital, a company apparently registered in Belarus, is offering its shares to Belgian investors. However, it is doing so without having published a prospectus approved by the FSMA. The company in question is not allowed to offer its shares in Belgium.
Moreover, the scheme proposed by SkyWayCapital has the characteristics of a pyramid scheme. More information about this form of fraud is available on the website of the FSMA.
5.2 Lithuania's Financial Market Authority warns of SkyWay Capital and declares it illegal
The Financial Market Authority of Lithuania also warns against SkyWay Capital and explains its illegality: Here is the statement of the Bank of Lithuania:
August 23, 2017
The Bank of Lithuania has recently noticed intensified activities of the SkyWay group, encouraging investing in this group’s projects. Our advice is not to be drawn in by the proposals of SkyWay, as this may lead to investors losing their funds.
As early as in 2014, the Bank of Lithuania established that the company Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd, registered in Great Britain, was publicly offering its securities without necessary permits in Lithuania. To protect the interests of investors, the Bank of Lithuania has issued a public warning, transferring information on the Company’s illegal actions to the Prosecutor General’s Office. In addition, it has advised the Financial Market Supervisory Authority of the United Kingdom thereof.
Nevertheless, companies within the SkyWay group or their representatives keep issuing invitations, in various ways, to finance unclear projects, promising “quick and easy benefits”. It is now being proposed to invest in the projects of the private limited company First SkyWay Invest Group Limited through acquisition of its shares. Information for potential investors is being distributed through social networks, via invitations to project presentations, providing information on the Company’s website in Lithuanian, etc. The Company is presented as a prospective start-up company, which collects funds from potential investors (as stated, not publicly and only from professional ones) to finance its projects.
The Bank of Lithuania warns that it has issued no permits for First SkyWay Invest Group Limited to publicly offer its securities in Lithuania or provide related services. No decisions or permits of the supervisory authorities of other European Union countries, granting the right for the companies of First SkyWay Invest Group Limited or their representatives to raise funds in Lithuania, have been received either.
5.3 Financial Market Authority of Estonia to SkyWay Capital
The Financial Market Authority of Estonia (Financesinspektsioon Estonia) also warns and declares SkyWay Capital's activities illegal:
April 24, 2017
Finantsinspektsioon (the Estonian Financial Supervision Authority) would like to inform investors that according to Finantsinspektsioon ́s knowledge First SkyWay Invest Group LTD (https://skyway.capital/) has turned to Estonian population and offered them for purchase its ́ shares. First SkyWay Invest Group LTD has not submitted to Finantsinspektsioon documents required for public offering of securities
and therefore is not authorised to publicly offer securities in Estonia.
The list of companies authorised to provide investment services in Estonia, but also the list of registered prospectuses can be found on Finantsinspektsioon’s web page
http://www.fi.ee
5.4 Summary regarding missing permits and criminal activities
To put it bluntly, SkyWay Capital is acting illegally not only in those countries whose financial market supervisory authorities have pointed it out, but in all countries where it would require a license to offer and sell shares. It should be emphasized, however, that in particular the Belgian Financial Market Authority points out that SkyWay Capital has typical features of a pyramid scheme and the Financial Market Authority of Lithuania, Bank of Lithuania, found it necessary to inform the Attorney General about the illegal activities of the company.
6. Critical voices piling up - SkyWay recruits aggressively
(Update 27 November 2017) The critical voices to SkyWay are getting louder, the number of enlightening articles is steadily increasing. Anyone searching for terms such as "SkyWay Capital Fraud", "Skyway Capital reputable", "SkyWay Capital Experience" or "SkyWay Capital Scam" on Google or other search engines will find a multitude of critical articles and discussions. Anyone who wants to know if SkyWay Capital is going public or how likely it is to go public on SkyWay should read the critical articles on SkyWays Capital. All positive reports on SkyWay Capital are content from advertisers, affiliates who partner with SkyWay Capital, who promote their investment in the company by receiving a share of the investment they receive from them.
Due to the critical reporting on SkyWay Capital, the profits for the SkyWay partners, i.e. the advertisers apparently go back strong. As a result, these advertisers are extremely aggressive in their response to criticism and critics, and do not shy away from slander, counterfeiting, insults and threats. So u.a. publicly called on Facebook to "pass by" individual critics at home. It is clear that such statements are to be regarded as criminal and what is to be kept by the group of people who express themselves in this way.
DISCUSSION:
Andreas 18 March 2019
"Time will decide", "Time will tell" and the like is always heard by ignorant sales partners when they have no arguments and are hopelessly defeated in a discussion. In doing so, the losing ones, as a last resort, finally try to make the discussion seem like a preliminary draw to work towards a wait-and-see approach.
But no, your statement is not correct or only conditionally. After all, it has long been shown and decided what SkyWay Capital really is all about. And of logic, mathematics, arguments and tangible facts. Out of the mouse. There is nothing to wait for. SkyWay is scam. This has more than sufficiently been proven and proven. Examples?
Crowdfunding is illegal (say all European financial market supervisors who have dealt with SkyWay and also says the International Association of Securities Commissions)
SkyWay is a pyramid scheme (also say the European Financial Market Supervisors that have dealt with SkyWay and also says the International Association of Securities Commissions)
Around half of the collected money is paid directly as commission to the advertisers. This is proven by the SkyWay marketing plan). Of the remaining half of the money, the investor-bankrupt parks, the pretty vehicle models, trade fairs, bribes for third-world government officials, gifts for politicians and public figures to photograph with SkyWay representatives will pay for many animated self-produced video, for TV broadcasting time, paid articles in second and third-class magazines etc from. What remains then, the masterminds of SkyWay Capital pull themselves under the nail. Or does anybody who understands that they just do not grab the honey pot? That would not be just naive, but extremely stupid.
◾ There are no outstanding patents. For the most part, these are either design patents, expired, non-extended patents, or those that are irrelevant.
◾No any of the alleged preliminary contracts (such a preliminary contract was never shown), with which SkyWay boasted became a real contract. On the contrary, most of them have turned out to be pure fantasy contracts and dissolved in the air.
◾The SkyWay lie that Soviet institutions that have not existed for nearly 30 years and Russian personalities who died long before SkyWay Capital was founded would be SkyWay Capital investors. (Uncovered here on geldthemen.de)
◾SkyWay lends itself to anonymous backers and fake websites Transport Awards (Also revealed here on geldthemen.de)
◾SkyWay advertises a TüV certificate (ISO-9001), which, however, has no technical or business relevance, meaning that it is completely useless and can basically be obtained by any company. Quotation ISO-9001: "The test mark does not apply: for the quality of the products and services in itself."
Of technical inadequacies and absurdities I do not even start. But the listed points should probably more than clearly prove what SkyWay really is, namely a deliberately planned, large-scale fraud.
And the masses believe the critics all this, apparently. Because at least in Germany, Austria and Switzerland hardly anyone can be trapped. The whining also the sales partners in the relevant groups and opposite their Upline. "Because of the many negative reports, you can not advertise anyone". SkyWay ScamWay blew up and that's a good thing!
And yes, I know that here again maybe a lesser used, underexposed Keuler, who exaggeratedly overestimated his intellect, will open, to assert "What you have enumerated in point X is wrong! I refuted that SkyWay Capital is a fraud ". Preventive: No, denying something is not a proof and refutes nothing at all. No, even if individual points were refuted, which had never happened before, the remaining points would still prove that there is a scam here.
It is striking that SkyWay are STILL claiming today that Alexander Lebed who allegedly helped fund the SkyWay test site in Ozyory in 2001 (but who died in 2002) is a current shareholder of a SkyWay Group company. Check this list published by SkyWay: [224]. Here is again a link to the German article which questions the validity of many of these claims, such as the UN investment or defunct ex-soviet organisations: [225] –Zachar (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could conceivably add the following sentence to the marketing discussion on dishonest marketing practices:
...The official SkyWay list of current shareholders also includes defunct Soviet Union organisations and the Russian politician Lebed who died in 2002[226][[227].
The descriptor on the Skyway-Uk webpage [228] is '"Who has already invested in the development of technology SkyWay" and is expressed in the past perfect tense, so time is not specified beyond the fact that it happened prior to some event (namely in this case the time in which this information was posted). The descriptor (in bold) clearly is what is meant by the page's title "Our shareholders". This is very different than the paraphrase you came up with.
You could also ask yourself the question as to what happens to one's stock holdings after one dies. Is that a reason specifically to cast doubt that the investment ever occurred? Is that to say the investment is lost and there is no beneficiary to receive it? Does it mean the person/institution intended to revoke the investment? Is that to say that a body who refers to such a person or institution as being an investor is somehow lying in that the said person or institution could not be legitimately be described as a shareholder investor, just because they are dead? Estates do exist. The only way to confirm that these claims about past shareholder status are misleading is to find definitive evidence that the investment never occurred or that shares have been taken away from the shareholder or potential beneficiaries - being dead or alive has nothing to do with it.
In any case, until we have reliable, institutional sources which specify notable individuals who are known investors, it hardly makes sense to include speculative information about people/institutions that are "alleged" investors, let alone from non-institutional sources. talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 02:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kmarinas86:Thanks for your contribution! Unfortunately you're a bit mixed up with your grammar. 'Has already invested' is actually in the 'present perfect' tense. Past perfect would be 'had already invested'. Present perfect refers to an event which occurred in the past but that is still true, or something which has recently been completed (but is still relevant to the present moment). 'Has already invested' does not relate to a point in the past, but a point in the present. It means they are still investors today. The page says 'our shareholders'. How can a dead person be a current shareholder? He died in 2002. He couldn't be a shareholder in a company that was started in 2014! The page STILL says he is a shareholder of a company which didn't exist until 12 years after he died. I agree we should find more verified information about this subject but this is something that SkyWay claims about itself and I think such blatant dishonesty needs to be mentioned. I'd also appreciate your opinion on a new heading describing 'litigation'. –Zachar (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New project announcement in UAE
"We approved a package of Developmental projects to continue building Dubai as the world's best city. The SkyWay project, a 15 km Urban transit system, will transport passengers along Dubais skyscrapers thorough 12 stations..." - @hhshkmohd talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 15:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Realisation of such a project would probably be dependent on the successful testing at the Sharjah test site? I look forward to reading here news on any important changes to the Sharjah test site or real contracts signed as noted by third-party sources that are verifiable.Zachar (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not news area. To be aware on the project development and implementation I’d recommend to follow the official news of company. As for this place, it would be reasonably if this troll-like WP:G10 article was deleted or ultimately reedited. --George Marshal (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we need to mention it in the article. We have Twitter message in the oficial page of Dubai's sheik [229] and wide coverage in media. Message says: "We approved a package of developmental projects to continue building Dubai as the world's best city. The SkyWay project, a 15-Kilometer urban transit system, will transport passengers along Dubai's skyscrapers through 21 stations." Dubai Media Office [230] (part of Dubais' government [231]) says: "Skypods, a suspended transit system that links vital spots such as the @DIFC and @MyDowntownDubai. The project, which has 21 stations and the capacity to transit 8,400 riders per hour per direction." and adds 3D rendered video. Other sources: [232][233][234]Dron007 (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:What do we need to mention in the article? Instagram postings are not verifiable references. What Sheik Mohammed thinks or agrees to is irrelevant, even if his opinions are shared widely. SkyWay is using this new success as a reason for justifying more questionable investment from its 'small investors' around the world. If he signs a legally-binding contract to build something somewhere, or they actually build something at the Sharjah test-site, that will be important and worthy of mention. But Sheik Mohammed's opinions and agreements are meaningless if they don't actually result in a real contract (as opposed to an MoU which doesn't legally oblige anyone to do anything).Zachar (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“SkyWay is using this new success as a reason for justifying more questionable investment from its 'small investors' around the world.” I really don’t understand why SkyWay company has not yet brought you to a trial for such a damaging “conclusions”. And what role of a “magistrate” or a “prosecutor” are you taking insisting on some “justifying” obligation of an enough successfully and rapidly developing and growing innovative technology venture start up? Enough reputable sources announced its building, whilst such legal documents as contacts etc. are unlikely to be available to public as they can contain as well commercial and/or technology secrets as confidential information of all parties of contract.--George Marshal (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what SkyWay say on their own web page about the funding of their UAE projects: "However, as with other innovative transport systems, SkyWay Technologies Co. must first convince investors to finance the project." You can view this shameless self-promotion here: [235]. If they have the real investment of the UAE why on earth would they need additional money from small investors? SkyWay have been documented self-promoting itself with entirely fictional promotion around the world. They have brought unsuccessful litigation against journalists who commented upon such shameless and fictional self-promotion on the web and via telephone marketing campaigns in places like Minsk, the Crimea and Samara to threaten them into silence. But suggesting that legal action be brought against discussions on a Wikipedia talk page is inappropriate and ridiculous.–Zachar (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sheik is the governor of the emirate. If he personally announces his (same as Emirate's) plans about Skyway I think it worth mentioning. For media source I don't see any differ between the Tweet/Instagram message and site articles. It is just a media of expressing their position. Sheik announced approving this project and some details which are relevant to this article. We don't have any original documents both in MoU and this case and in any way we cannot reference primary sources. Here we have good second sources. So I think we need to add information that sheik approved SkyWay project in Dubai and that it is planned to be 15 km in length and have 21 stations. Dron007 (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sheik Mohammed personally announcing something is very different to actually signing a legally binding contract with a company. The project he proposes is no different to what they were saying when they signed the original MoU in February. When a non-primary source documents the signing of an ACTUAL contract, it could mean something. They still haven't built anything at the the Sharjah site, so nebulous discussions about projects which have neither been officially planned or safety tested for actual viability is hardly significant. Good secondary sources? To what exactly? The fact that Sheik Mohammed approves funding of an untested project? I don't think so; at least not in the references you posted (I checked them). They are basically just the reposting of a tweet.Zachar (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have details about planned road from very reliable source and good secondary sources like Khaleej Times - oldest newspaper of Dubai. This information is directly related to the discussed subject and could be interesting for any reader of this article. We don't make our own assessments and judgements of the technology, whether it was tested or not, we just provide related material from reliable sources. So I don't see any reason not to include this information. Dron007 (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sharjah site is a separated project which is not related to RTA MoU and sheik of Dubai. We don't have enough materials to write something about it at the moment. So I don't understand how situation in Sharjah influences the project in Dubai. We don't know is sheik approved funding, he just approved the project. That is what should be mentioned I think. Dron007 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting! But why are they building the Sharjah test-site? For another project somewhere else? Here's a possible addition to the article based on your suggestion:
Why any Sharjah test-site building relation to RTA MoU or its absence is needed to disprove this blatant defamation? Why SkyWay cannot develop multiple projects simultaneously aiming to use crowd investments as efficiently as possible? Anyway I agree with “don’t know’s’ of User Dron007 To understand such kind of details we need more reliable as well as official infos. However the approved project of transport line building in UAE is enough to completely refute all the “scam”, “pyramid” like and other similar blames.--George Marshal (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The approval of Sheik Mohammed does not refute any of the valid accusations of the extremely questionable way SkyWay finances its infrastructure projects with the money of small investors. The shameless reposting of the tweets of the RTA on the SkyWay website, in fact, prove the very opposite.Zachar (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Khaleej Times reference is the best of the three because it is does not appear to be a retweet of what the Sheik Mohammed tweeted a couple of days ago (only we know that it is). We could also add other information about the length of the proposed track and the number of stops if you think it's important. Zachar (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Zachar (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the same information directly in the sheik's official site: [237] just to make sure all numbers are not misrepresented by media sources. Yes, I think it is important to add details (at least the length and number of stations) as it is the main project of the company now. Surely we'll update this information according to the news. Maybe it will deserve a separate section. Dron007 (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This additional link concerning this current issue was posted in above in a topic it is entirely unrelated to: " His Highness was briefed about the Skypods project, a suspended transit system that links vital spots such as the Dubai Financial Centre and the Downtown with the Business Bay. Passing through the Happiness Street and runs up to City Walk, through tracks extending 15 km in length. The project, which has 21 stations and the capacity to transit 8,400 riders per hour per direction, offers an urban transit experience that features modern-designed pods passing through Dubai’s towers...." 201--George Marshal (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Zachar (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the following recent discussion other people have already reacted to the Sheik Mohammed's tweets:[238] They sound like the direct reprinting of SkyWay promotion. Furthermore, it is suggested that RTA should be contacted to explain "how they can manage throughput of 8,400 passengers in one direction in gondolas for 4-6 people" which would actually require more than two cars speeding by every couple of seconds. Sound ludicrous? In each of the RTA posts and its verbatim dissemination all over the UAE, this extremely questionable fact has been listed alongside the 21 stations and 15 km track length (facts which have actually already entered the article).–Zachar (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your link brings to another mudslinging without any grounds that, being so fast and so negatively emotional reaction to SkyWay events looks like a kind of indirect confirmation of real company success. So quick publishing of such “deep digs” as well as their immediate bringing accompanied by flowerily sarcastic phrases to Wikipedia should be significantly paid, isn’t it? As for substantive question of passengers per hour number the most probably this is about a possible maximum total of 21 stations. Furthermore where do you have “4-6 people” information from? However if you make simplest addition calculation for 21 stations per 60 minutes even for 4-6 people you can get superior number.--George Marshal (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that approval from Sheikh Mohammed is not "a kind of indirect confirmation of real company success". They still haven't built anything in Sharjah, approved any funding, signed a contract or in fact made a real proposal that can be referenced as a primary source. It doesn't mean anything until they've signed an actual contract, created legislation or actually built something somewhere. So they got the Sheikh to say something nice about SkyWay. How does this prove anything? -Zachar (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note however that the current changes are under the 'negotiation' heading. If they actually build something at the SkyWay Innovation Center in Sharjah and this can be reliably verified then it can be included in the 'testing' heading. If they actually start the project in Dubai - which sounds suspiciously similar to the completely unrealistic Sevastopol project which has computer-generated skyscrapers connected by cable rails - it would become the first real 'project' and be deserving of an individual heading (or an entirely new article). Considering how dangerous it would be to connect skyscrapers on cable cars that have not been safety tested anywhere, this seems highly unlikely. And Dubai has little to no regulation which means this is "just another level of pageantry." But the more publicity they gain from the RTA tweets, the more small investors they'll get to part with their money and invest in shares (or CryptoUnits or whatever they are currently calling their dubious investment product). -Zachar (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In light of these recent postings questioning the actual validity of the RTA claims, I reworded the text to reflect what actually happened: the RTA tweeted SkyWay promotion about a dubious project which included unrealistic and unverified claims about SkyWay, and this tweet was shared verbatim all over the United Arab Emirates by verified news senders. If you really think that facts like the length of the proposed track and the number of stops needs to be mentioned (or the totally incredible number of passengers whizzing by in Sky Pods every second), observe the previous wording and make the necessary adjustments to the text. This should be easy for anyone to do. -Zachar (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should've changed the wording. It was correct. The important fact is that the ruler of Dubai approved the proposed project not that RTA posted some information. And I don't understand why somebody's opinion in comment in a blog may affect wordings in this article. Why not just use sources? Unrealistic or not it is not a typo, it was posted on official sites so let's just provide it as is in the article adding corrections later if required. And yes, I think the length and number of stations is important information for anyone who is interested in this topic. Why should we suppress it? Even if it appear to be wrong it will still remain an important fact to Skyway. Comparing to many other proposals and 3d renders like in Sebastopol and probably any big city of Russia and Ukraine the situation is absolutely different as only here the project is approved by the ruler of the state (emirate). Dron007 (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:If you read the text above and still think this text should be included, then make the changes yourself based on what was there in the first place. I just don't want it to have anything to do with me. It seems to me clear what it is going on here. I don't think you need to mention this until they actually produce plans and legally binding contracts to build something. You could mention the Sharjah test-site when they actually build something there. You could even discuss actual negotatiations if they resulted in the signing of a legally binding contract with SkyWay if you wanted to (and I would support it). But if you want to give emphasis to an 'approval' for a nebulous project that sounds like SkyWay promotion and which contains unverified, unscientific nonsense, then go ahead and do it yourself. Other editors can read this discussion and have links to the sites which have formed our opinions. And just to be clear it's not someone's opinion in a blog that I used: it's the scientific ridiculousness of 8400 passengers per hour on a 15km track which renders all the facts completely unverified promotion that is repeated word for word in all the 'reliable sources' based on a tweet. You can pick and choose these facts from the SkyWay promotion if you want to. But you have to do it yourself (you can use the text I used or post something here you are are happier with and I'll correct it if you want).–Zachar (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:Here's a text you could post : "...that would have a length of 15 kilometres, consist of 21 stations and link vital locations in Dubai". –Zachar (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaxander:The wordings of the first part are almost the same. It was "the Vice President of the UAE approved..." and became "the RTA posted information about royal approval for a SkyWay...". But let's see the sources. Sheik posted it in Twitter, there is information in official site. Yes, RTA also published it but the essense is that "sheik approved" so RTA is irrelevant in this case. Moreover there is nothing about RTA in the source we provide so anyway it should be changed. What do you think?Dron007 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the numbers there is a difference between length/number of stations and capacity of transit. Length and number of stations are physical parameters related to the track. Capacity of transit depends on many other factors: speed, number and capacity of vehicles, delays, structure of the station (parallel routes). That's why I don't insist that we should mention it. But it is not correct to say that it is impossible to reach this capacity of transit with the provided route. It is reachable but with much bigger vehicles and Yunitskiy mentioned in some video that in UAE he was asked to use Skybuses with capasity of upto 300 passengers. It conflicts with the previous RTA announcements though so it needs clarification.Dron007 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:You're doing a great job uncovering this information and keeping the page informed about developments. I suggest you make these changes to the page. I fully support you making these changes if you think they are necessary but I'd avoid posting the information about the 8400 people if possible! Remember that the Sheik's tweets are not a primary resource like legislation, political documentation or copies of contracts. They are just copies of something he tweeted that sounds like it comes directly from SkyWay promotion. If the news site were sourcing an actual primary source, like legislation, contracts or court-case transcripts, this would be different. But they're not. Sheik Mohammed's word is not legislation and something positive he says about a SkyWay project should be taken at face value: he said he approved of something and he shared this information. This is not actual approval of funding or the signing of a real contract. I still don't think it really needs to be mentioned at all, but I fully support you doing it. –Zachar (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dron007:The RTA reference has been removed. Hopefully this works better now. If you want to mention the stations and the proposed length of the track, you can safely introduce these changes. Zachar (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
![[91]](https://d2nzqyyfd6k6c7.cloudfront.net/styles/nova_hero/s3/article/thumbnail/skyway.jpg?itok=_IO1oKit){kind=link}
![[92]](https://d2nzqyyfd6k6c7.cloudfront.net/styles/nova_wysiwyg_body__1400px_/s3/screen_shot_2016-05-18_at_1.16.58_pm.png?itok=Yy4Q_JYP){kind=link}
![[93]](https://siol.net/media/img/6b/4a/627d70c0926c766bd5f3-skyway-capital.png){kind=link}
![[95]](https://www.railway-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2018/09/skyway-unibus-innotrans.jpg){kind=link}
![[97]](https://www.gevme.com/sites/sitce-2018-website-temp/sites/default/files/New%20product%20image%201%20lr.jpg?fid=824){kind=link}
![[100]](https://img.tyt.by/720x720s/n/shukaylo/0c/4/skyway_20170628_shuk_tutby_phsl_5975.jpg){kind=link}
![[102]](https://nyertesvagy.hu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/innotrans_tomor_7.jpg){kind=link}
![[216]](https://geldthemen.de/wp-content/uploads/first-skyway-invest-group-investoren.jpg){kind=link}