Talk:Singapore Airlines/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Singapore Airlines. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Parent company

I have noticed that the parent company info in the infobox has been changed in the past and those edits have been duly reverted by other users. Hopefully, for once and for all, this can be cleared up. The airline commonly known as Singapore Airlines has the official name of Singapore Airlines Limited. As such, it is impossible that the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited could be Singapore Airlines Limited. Someone, or some entity, has to own Singapore Airlines Limited, and whether they be public or private investors can differ from company to company. To quote from Holding company:

"A parent company is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors. Examples are The Walt Disney Company and Halliburton.

A parent company can simply be a company that wholly owns another company, such as Quaker Oats being the parent company of Aunt Jemima."

As such, Temasek Holdings holds a 56.19% share in Singapore Airlines Limited, and as the majority shareholder in Singapore Airlines Limited can easily be classed as the parent company, particularly as it has a large enough shareholding in SIA Limited which can be used to influence management decisions without considering other shareholders.

I hope that this 'explanation' is more than suffice for those editors who doubt such edits being made to the article. If not, I don't know how any improvements can be made to this article as a whole when such a simple piece of information has been duly reverted on several occasions in the past. --Russavia 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this has been discussed in the past along with the Singapore Airlines Group. There has not been any reliable sources that I recall being found to show this one way of the other. What we need is for someone to find the facts. If Singapore Airlines Limited has several owners and has been involved with more then the airline (for example, Singapore Airlines Group), then it should have an article. Likewise if ownership has changed or if it is a listed as on a stock exchange. Who owns and exactly what is Singapore Airlines Group? Previous attempts to split this out have been reverted as being unsupported. I strongly support an article for Singapore Airlines Limited that can be cited. In there, the components of ownership can be discussed along with the other aspects. I did revert your change. Lets resolve this here before making changes. Vegaswikian 18:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor point, if the parent is not known it is usual to put the full legal name in the parent field refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline Infobox. MilborneOne 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Which leaves me wondering why Russavia should not see a problem with that part of the WikiProject, and instead bringing himself to wikiwar in this article with testosterones ablazing. The biggest shareholders of British Airways, Qantas and Lufthansa are not listed as the parent company, despite them being known. Can he care to explain this decrepancy before attempting to push forth his changes?--Huaiwei 09:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My heartfelt applause for such excellent research work on the part of my dear friend Russavia (which dosent happen very often), but until he changes the said field for British Airways, Qantas, Lufthansa, etc, I am inclined to believe that he should bring this dicussion to the wider community since it affects all articles across the wikiproject, and not constantly nitpick on this article alone. Until than, perhaps I can upgrade him from being a petty, hormone-raging teen to a more measured, balanced, mature, and valued contributor to this site.--Huaiwei 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MillborneOne, in this instance, the parent company is known and (now) referenced. And has been changed to reflect that. In all honesty, the only airlines which should have the legal name of the airline in the infobox are those shady operators in the UAE which run guns, etc in Africa (and a few additional ones I guess). Particularly when taking into account what the definition of a parent company actually is. --Russavia 09:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with only iffy airlines having the legal name in the infobox, but I have no axe to grind I just stated what is generally done in the rest of wikipedia airline articles. Perhaps it should be clarified in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Airline Infobox. MilborneOne 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Having the majority owner listed when this is a publicly traded company is simply wrong. That is not how it is done on the rest of Wikipedia. As an example, what would people say if MGM Mirage had the owner listed in the infobox as Tracinda? I still think that 'Singapore Airlines Ltd' needs an article. It is the company that is listed on the Singapore Exchange for the symbol S55. It is not accurate to list that as the exchanage symbol for only the airline. If there was a separate article, that that article could cover the ownership of the public company. I would like to have seen the S55 annual report, but the web copies refuse to load for me, some kind of an error in the file. But from what I have seen in other places, the reports appear to list the group as the main entity and Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as members of the group. Bottom line for me is that we still need to clear this up with referenced material that is readable by all. However listing Temasek Holdings as the owner is completely false. Vegaswikian 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegas, as per definitions of what a parent company are, Temasek more than fulfills that requirement. If Tracinda is also a major percentage shareholder in MGM Mirage as Temasek is in SIA, then having Tracinda as a parent company is not all that wrong. Having said that, there are several things in the infobox that I don't much like. Hubs/focus cities being two of them (they are US/Europe-centric and don't apply to all airlines). Parent company being another one. Perhaps parent company needs to be changed to Major shareholders. As to "Singapore Airlines Limited", it is correct to have this as the exchange symbol for the airline, because every other company in the SIA group is a subsidiary of the airline. It is in the same vein that we don't need articles for 'British Airways plc', 'QANTAS Airways Limited', 'Deutsche Lufthansa A.G.', 'JSC, Aeroflot-Russian Airlines', etc. --Russavia 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, this is exactly why this article will be like it is, because you are the petty, hormone-raging teen that you accuse me of being. Let's see, I am not the one who will go and revert fully referenced edits to an article (refer to any of your reverts of my (and others) edits on this article, Singapore Airlines Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations. I am not the one who will wholesale revert an edit to remove something which you dispute, take a look at some of your reverts of the destinations of Singapore Airlines Cargo - have a look at the number of destinations which aren't served by both airlines to see exactly what I mean. Although the 'parent company' in the infobox was not referenced by myself, it is now fully referenced in the article (in fact, it was already in the article although it wasn't cited). Additionally, can you explain why you would revert my changes on this article, and then turn around and try (harder next time) to insult me by calling me a petty, hormone-raging teen (actually I am somewhat older than that for your info), yet you go and do this [1]? As to who the biggest shareholders of BA, QF and LH, if these are well known, then why aren't you changing them? As yet, I have not bothered to look these up, but if they are well known, then surely you can make the edit? Anyway Huaiwei, I have had enough of responding to your infantile remarks, I think my time is better spent on answering Vegaswikian's questions. But a question for you before I go - you make out that Singapore Airlines is the best thing since sliced bread, and requires articles for this and articles for that, even when there is no rhyme nor reason for it. If the airline is as great as you think it is, why isn't it a featured article? In fact, the question should be why it can't even get good article status? Perhaps the reasons can be found in the mediation which took place some time ago, but at which absolutely nothing was achieved. There's a common demoninator in all of that. And I can understand why most people simply give up in the end. --Russavia 05:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now its rather late in the night, but just the length of that response above tells me I have somehow hit the nail on the head or something, so what else is there to comment? ;) Time and again, you claim you shant waste further time on me, yet can't help wasting more of your precious time moments later. You continue to claim that I make unwarranted, unexplained reversions of your edits, yet appear to completely ignore the edit summary, or the relevant talkpage, choosing to equate anything you refuse to agree with as being basically non-existant. Spoken like a truely petty, hormone-raging teen indeed!

And seriously, kindly grow up, if my reminders arent frequent enough. You apparantly think I am some kind of a Singapore Airlines fanatic who is desperate to promote it via this website, and do so by highlighting every teeny weeny detail about it. Or so you think. And since you persist on believing that the primary contributors to this article, myself included, are just a bunch of egotistic fanatical company shareholders, you seem to think you have the legitimacy to remove every item you personally consider mediocre. You choose to nitpick on this article, find little faults with just about anything in it and make a big deal out of each. You question every attempt to add content to the article, by using low-quality, under-developed articles as benchmarks. Why all these? It all boils down to the fact that you have a major inferiority complex problem. If wikipedia is not the place for fanboyism, I sure hope it isnt a place for sourgrapes who just cannot get over the fact that Singapore Airlines is as successful as it is, proven by countless independent sources, and not merely by my imagination or displaced pride. Why this article is not an FA? Because it is not fit to be one. Simple as that. And I will oppose any attempts to promote it as one until it meets an acceptable standard as far as this site's FA requirements are concerned. After all your wonderous efforts here, could you even cite one example of elevating this site towards FA status? You boasted that you will rewrite the article to one which is, to you, the FA standard. How is that going, now?

Oh, and talking about insults. Now if you do not consider dismissing editor's contributions as "fanboyism" as an insult, than I suppose you are clearly beyond hope. The whole world dosent owe you a favour. I wonder what kind of upbringing you have to actually think it is ok to heap insults on others, yet do not think it fair to receive any in return. By that remark alone, you questioned my editorial professionalism, my impartiality, maturity in thought, my ability to adhere to the NPOV policy, and basically my legitimacy and contribution value to this site. Kindly reconsider the tendency of pitting blame on everyone else for any repurcussion which may occur as a result. (Meanwhile, I will certainly try very hard in this department, thank you. You can do better coming up with your own ingenious insults, btw, instead of blatantly plagiarising comments from others!)

It is interesting that you chose to rehash some of our past "grievences". Kindly note that you chose to ignore discussions on Singapore Airlines Cargo after I allowed your preferred version to remain, and if this persists, you can expect some rekindling of sorts. Second, kindly inform if any of the edits in [2] are not legitimate? And lastly, I asked from you a very simple request. Find the relevant sources before making an edit, even if this may appear implied in the article's content. You chose to revert my reverts instead. You finally made the honorable step of explaining your edits in this talkpage. I pointed out the fact that your "findings" are not universally applied in the airlines wikiproject, and that project actually legitimises this inconsistency. I therefore took you to task for attempting to enforce a change in just one article which was not at odds with policy, your failure to discuss with the community for an edit which may have much wider implications, and your blatantly obvious bias in choosing to be anal retentive in this article. Imagine the smile breaking across my face when you now ask me why I arent making those changes to BA, QA, etc. My deepest apologies, Russavia, but I absolutely hold no intentions to make the same mistakes which you did!--Huaiwei 18:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring some of the earlier disputes, could I suggest the definition of parent company should be re-evaluated, with the view of applying the principal of substance over form to this particular case. In a group of companies, there may be many parent-subsidiary relationships: for example a parent company may be owned by another parent company (and so on). In such a group structure, the legal form of such a group is that the parent company at the top of group is the parent, which is usually disclosed as the "ultimate holding company" in group financial statements. However, in the case of Singapore Airlines, the ultimate owner is not a company but the Republic of Singapore which is the owner in substance. Could I suggest that what you put that the Republic of Singapore as the "parent", rather than any of any of intermediate parent-subsidiary companies which it is owner, so as to make this point clear. --Gavin Collins 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst ultimately Singapore Airlines is controlled by the Singapore government, the company is a direct subsidiary of the legal entity Temasek Holdings, not of the Singapore government, and as such, so as to be truthful to what an encyclopaedia is, to put Singapore govt as the parent is erroneous. --Russavia 15:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

subsidiaries

I've added subsidiaries in the info box. http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/company_info/siastory/subsidiaries.jsp lists Tradewinds Tour and Travel, SIA Engineering Company, and SATS which were missing from this otherwise fine article. I didn't leave a citation in the infobox for appearance, though you can add it.Archtrain 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited, Singapore Airlines Group

Vegaswikian, I hope this a useful explanation for you of the differences between Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group.

Singapore Airlines Limited is simply the official registered name of what we more commonly know as Singapore Airlines. It is no different to QANTAS Airways Limited and QANTAS. Or Lufthansa and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. All entities are one and the same.

The Singapore Airlines Group is not a legal entity, but is merely used when discussing Singapore Airlines Limited (the airline) and its subsidiaries (partly and wholly owned), most often seen when discussing financial statistics. It is possible that Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited) makes a profit of $500 million, but the Singapore Airlines Group makes a profit of $1 billion. This is due to some SIA subsidiaries having their own profit centres. From [3]

"Note: The SIA Group’s audited financial results for the year ended 31 March 2007 were announced on 11 May 2007. A summary of the financial and operating statistics is shown in Annex A. (All monetary figures are in Singapore Dollars. The Company refers to Singapore Airlines, the parent airline unit. The Group comprises the Company and its subsidiary, joint venture and associated companies)."

There is no need for a Singapore Airlines Group article, as all companies within that group are subsidiaries, joint ventures or associated companies of Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited), and would be dealt with as per other airlines.

To answer another question you had, SIA is a publicly traded company and is listed on the Singapore Exchange. Their details on the SGX can be found here [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 July 2007

Well, reading this release, is it clear that the company, I'm assuming this to be Singapore Airlines Limited treats Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as entities in Singapore Airlines Group. Clearly Singapore Airlines Limited when it makes announcements like this does not consider Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines to be one in the same. Given that, we should not try to make them the same. However we need to accurately define the structure which means doing more digging. But at this point I think it is clear that we have several legal entities here. Vegaswikian 05:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I find it amusing that you need this much level of digging to find information on something as basic as a company's corporate stucture, all the more so that this is a company as major as Singapore Airlines. Kindly refrain from cherry-picking a small range of articles and make your own inferences from there. It has been mentioned before that in various circumstances, such as in its financial reports, the Airline do make references to the Singapore Airlines Group because it needs to distinguish between the financial performance of its primary airline operations, and that of its subsidiaries. This has nothing to do with corporate organisation. If Singapore Airlines Limited is not the same as Singapore Airlines Group, this should be obvious from its website at the very least. Have you not considered why this is simply not so?--Huaiwei 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Web sites are marketing tools. While the information there may be valid, it may not tell the complete and accurate picture. In the US we can look at the required quarterly and yearly fillings for public companies to get the facts that the web sites try to hide. However in this case, we don't have those available. Also the name of the company for the stock symbol is Singapore Airlines Ltd and not Singapore Airlines. For accuracy this needs to be explained. Also has been stated, Singapore Airlines Ltd does group the various names in different ways for different purposes. Sometimes trying to show Singapore Airlines as the company and other times not the company. Frequently, even in the US, companies will include information on the web site of their main brand. That does not mean the two entities are one in the same. However the companies last financial report on page 19 clearly states that the report is for Singapore Airlines Limited ("The Company") and its subsidiaries (collectively the "Group"). Vegaswikian 19:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    - If you can even cite me one good reason why Singapore Airlines should attempt to shy away from declaring "Singapore Airlines Group" as a holding company and a parent of "Singapore Airlines", I will take the rest of your comments more seriously. You seem to assume that Singapore Airlines have no shareholders to explain themselves to. And please avoid simply comparing everything with the United States. While I understand that there is a trend of US airlines having a holding company each, this practise may not be widespread on a global scale. Attempting to force the rest of the world into the American mould is something I would have thought more typical for the less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks.--Huaiwei 08:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      - I have never once suggested that Singapore Airlines Group is a holding company. What I am trying to understand is how Singapore Airlines Ltd is set up and what it is. So far the only finanical company releases I have found indicate that it treats Singapore Airlines Group and Singapore Airlines as sub entities and in different ways based on what is being announced. If trying to understand something is an indicator for being "less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks", then I am guilty. The entire world does not do things in one way. However when one small country is different, especially in how they release data about corporations, it is worth the effort to explain this to the large number of readers who may not be able to comprehend this without sources and explanations. As I said, all of the Annual Reports which might help have PDFs that don't work. Not much help in getting to the facts using a source. You seem very able to tell me I'm wrong but unable to help me find documents that support your position. Vegaswikian 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        Either you have a major issue with one small country, or you obviously hadent researched adequately on major airlines all around the world, or that of major corporations to boot. Singapore Airlines is far from unique in this regard, and its financial information arent exactly debucking global trends either, if that is what you are suggesting. Get the facts straight. You are not doing a wonderous service to the "less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks", because I have yet to see anyone questioning SIA on its financial books, its website presentation, or even in this site except yourself. Kindly cite reliable sources illustrating confusions of the magnitude you portray. The PDFs you find problems with work very well on my computer, I am afraid. And if you feel I arent showing you documents to support my position, kindly realise that it is almost impossible to find sources to demonstrate the non-existance of a corporation, unless you can show me how this can be done. Although if you could, your issue would have been resolved already I suppose. And if you arent suggesting Singapore Airlines Group is not a holding company, kindly state what you imagine it to be, and just what exactly is Singapore Airlines?--Huaiwei 11:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        I notice that you find the group and the Limited company confusing in your responses, so clearly there is some confusion. I did not accuse you of hiding information. I clearly stated what issues I am having accessing the PDF files on several computers. The fact that you can load and read them does not help me at all. Without sources, I can not get the facts. Without the facts I can not prove anything, including your position. So without access to sources, this discussion is going no where. Vegaswikian 18:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        How you could deduce my supposed state of confusion remotely is beyond me. I also fail to comprehend this "hiding of information" thing. What information is there to hide, unless you think I am an SIA employee who encodes SIA's pdf files such that they refuse to open to select individuals like yourself? My ability to open those files may not be of any assistance to you, but kindly refrain from using technicalities as excuses for failing to back up your viewpoint, which btw is your onus to do so. Meanwhile, I am still awaiting your views on just what Singapore Airlines Group is and its relationship with Singapore Airlines.--Huaiwei 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fleet image

I have removed an image from the fleet section because the file link was wrong. If anyone can find the file please feel free to reinsert it with the correct link.

Infobox updated again and removed 2 sects.

I have updated the infobox on several occasions to reflect that Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, and the reasons for doing so are explained by myself [Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Parent_company here]. Even though Temasek's majority shareholding is stated and sourced in the main article already, my edits on the infobox matter have been continually reverted by Huaiwei, due to being unsourced.[5] In order to satisfy this demand by Huaiwei, I referenced the shareholding in the infobox (as silly as it sounds to have to provide two cites for the same piece of information). An example of such an edit by myself is here. This has been reverted on several occasions. Examples of these reverts are:

[6] Huaiwei mentioned that he reverted because concensus was not met on the talk page (although a couple of editors is not really a concensus is it?)
[7] Huaiwei said the reason for the revert is that the IHT is not an authority on SIA matters, even though the IHT is highly regarded in the print media. If it is true that the IHT does not meet WP:RS (which it does of course), I am expecting Huaiwei to remove any and all citations on these pages which are attributed to the IHT, including one already on the

Singapore Airlines article to another IHT article.

* [8] Huaiwei mentioned something about the 'brand', these articles are not about the brand, but rather the company, and this is evidenced that the article starts as Singapore Airlines Limited, this indicates a company, not a brand. It also needs to be mentioned that when I reverted his edit which resulted in this revert, he was asked to provide sources to support his assertion that Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent company of Singapore Airlines. This was not done.

I now find myself having to cite as many sources as possible, so that the verifiable information for the parent company is not continually reverted by Huaiwei who is acting as if he owns this article. It is absolutely ridiculous to assert that the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited is Singapore Airlines Limited - and I will be pushing for this to be addressed at the infobox project also in the next couple of hours (relating to all airline articles, not just this one). A list of sources for Temasek being the parent company of Singapore Airlines:

[9] - QUOTE: Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Temasek Holdings, may pay about $930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines, a deal that would expand the carrier's reach in the world's most populous nation, people involved in the talks said." - published by the International Herald Tribune, a media outlet for which there is no question as to whether they meet criteria for WP:RS.
[10]

- quote: "Asia's most profitable carrier, Singapore Airlines and its parent company, the Singapore government's investment arm, Temasek Holdings Pte plans to use the 25% stake it acquires as a key to open the gates of China's aviation market." - originally published by China Knowledge, a site which more than meets the criteria for WP:RS

[11] - QUOTE: "According to the plan, Singapore Airlines will buy 20 percent of the stake while its parent

company Temasek, a Singapore State-owned investment company, will buy 5 percent. The total of 25 percent is the maximum allowed by Chinese law." - originally published by the China Daily, yet another source which meets criteria for WP:RS

[12] (PDF FILE - approx 70kb) - QUOTE: "Elsewhere, Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Temasek, were rumoured to be paying US$930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines." - this was published by Lloyds TSB,

the fifth largest bank in the UK, and is part of an investment update, and Lloyds TSB would more than meet WP:RS criteria.

So there are some links which are from reliable media and financial services sources which state that without a shadow of a doubt that Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, a statement which is verified due to the reliability of the sources from which they came.

Here is another source to consider:

[13] (PDF FILE - approx 4mb) - QUOTE: "SIA Engineering Company Limited (the "Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore, which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Singapore Airlines Limited and its ultimate holding company is Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, both incorporated in the Republic of

Singapore." - this is found on Page 94 of SIA Engineering Company's Annual Report for 2006/2007 (page 96 of 160 in the PDF file). The only problem I can see with this statement is the use of the words "ultimate holding company" as there could very well be more than one (or more) parent companies between the two entities - even though is obviously not the case due to the referenced direct shareholding of Temasek in SIA in the SIA article.

And here is the last source:

[14] (PD

F FILE - approx. 10mb) - QUOTE: "Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore." - this is found on Page 80 of Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report for 2006/2007 (page 80 of 160 in the PDF file). This statement has been checked for accuracy and certified by the SIA auditors, Ernst & Young (E&Y definitely meet WP:RS)

But there is a major' problem with using the Singapore Airlines Annual Report to cite my edits of Temasek being the parent company.

Huaiwei has called into question the reliability of the International Herald Tribune and the ability of the IHT to write with any degree of authority on Singapore Airlines, so has therefore called into question, by default, the veracity of any claims made by any entity which makes the same contentious claim that the IHT makes in their article. And because this is such a contentious statement by the IHT, the same statement (assertion) made by the company themselves (Singapore Airlines) would be removed because it fails WP:SELFPUB; it also means that all information which is sourced from Singapore Airlines 'official' sources is impossible to verify and hence needs to be removed from the article, which would make for a very short article indeed (a positive of course is that it gets rid of the horrendous cruft which is in the article. On a sidenote, if you own stocks in any of these companies I suggest selling them as the ability of Ernst & Young to accurately audit and certify financial accounts of all of those companies has been called into question (looking at the list it could mark the end of all world economies).

Additionally, Huaiwei has in one of the above reverts made the claim that the parent company is whichever entity owns the "Singapore Airlines" brand. If this is the case, then why hasn't this been brought up before now? Perhaps it is because it is perfectly clear that the "Singapore Airlines" article infobox pertains to a company, not a brand, particularly when you have "parent company" wikilinked. Additionally, the lead paragraph mentions the Singapore Airlines, the airline, and Singapore Airlines, the company.

I will be re-adding Temasek to the infobox as per the above verifiable information regarding the parent company using the IHT source, to replace Singapore Airlines Limited which is not sourced. If a verifiable and reliable source can be found which would indicate that Temasek is not the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited, and that Singapore Airlines Limited (or any other company) is indeed the parent, I will stand by the newfound sources and will not change it back to Temasek. This is, of course, done in the interests of upholding WP:FIVE, which is my intent, and always has been. And we are all bound by these principles.

I would like to turn Huaiwei's attention to a couple of reverts of edits made by himself.

[15] - Temasek was changed back to SIA Limited with the reason being unsourced. A fact tag could have been added, but SIA Limited should never have been put back, with WP:V#_note-2 being precisely why, but I digress, unsourced information can be removed at any time.
[16] - Temasek (referenced this time) was changed back to SIA Limited again (and still unsourced). The reason used for the revert this time was that I had not gained concensus to include that information in the article.

Huaiwei has opened the door in using those reasonings for reverting my verified, encyclopaedic edit. If he expects me (and everyone else editing this article) to source information, gain consensus and a multitude of other 'demands' made when reverting others edits, because he does not own the article, then one would expect him to edit this article based upon those same 'demands', in order to uphold WP:FIVE.

Therefore, I have made the following edits at the same time as adding Temasek back into the article infobox, and will provide the reasons for those reverts here:

The Codeshare agreements section has been tagged as unreferenced since May 2007 - some 3 months. If you look at WP:V#_note-2, the entire section should have been removed long ago. However, structure guidelines of the Airline project does state that codeshare agreements should be mentioned, but that destinations should not be listed. As I have been coming across articles, they have been trimmed down to fall squarely within those guidelines, and I know that others have been doing the same since day dot. So I am completely editing this section to update it with only current

codeshare partners and to provide sources for the information. The destinations will be omitted as per the WP:Airlines guidelines. The section should not be reverted or edited to include destinations, until such time as consensus is gained on this talk page, or preferably on the airline project talk page. This also includes the unreferenced prose which has been unreferenced also since May.

Flight numbers this has been an issue for some time, as evidenced in the mediation from January of this year. There was clearly no consensus for the inclusion of these flight numbers, but rather the opposite, and even now there is no concensus for their inclusion in the airline articles. I am removing the section in its entireity for the following reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, the source for the opening sentence in this section is the SIA timetable, and the flight number ranges are used as a "How to" decode the airline's flight schedules - as publishing the airline timetable on WP would breach WP:NOT#TRAVEL and WP:NOT#DIR, the flight numbers provide no context for inclusion in the article.

Consensus on these two sections in particular was never gotten, and in fact, most say get rid of it. And consensus should be gotten for them to be included. --Russavia 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of having to write bloated messages to support blatant cases of non-concensus edits, let me just touch on each one, demonstrating my relative ease in shooting every point Russavia could put up:

Parent company: The definition of a Parant company is defined by law, in this case, defined by Singaporean Law. Not by some simplistic notion of "majority shareholding" alone, which has clearly been the sole criterion used by Russavia irrespective of the corresponding laws in force in that country. The Companies Act states that a "subsidiary company" is one if the holding company controls the composition of the board of directors of the first-mentioned corporation; controls more than half of the voting power of the first-mentioned corporation; holds more than half of the issued share capital of the first-mentioned corporation (excluding any part thereof which consists of preference shares and treasury shares); is a subsidiary of any corporation which is the Holding company’s subsidiary. In most cases, secondary sources are preferred, but when it comes to a formal designation such as a company structure, primary sources obviously takes precedence. Has Russavia found within documents issued by Singapore Airlines or Temasek Holdings explicitely refering to their relationship as one of "parent-subsidiary"? As long as this remains unproperly referenced, it will be removed immediately.
Codeshare agreements: The relevant guideline in the wikiproject calls for non-mention of codeshared agreements within airline destination lists for obvious concerns. There is no guideline forbidding its inclusion in another format somewhere else in the article, as long as it is not presented in such a way that it causes little distinction between actual flights operated and codeshared flights. Russavia's own inclusion of sources actually nullifies his own claim that the list is unsourced presently, and even if so, there are not difficult to come by if it need to be re-inserted now.
Flight numbers: Russavia claims there was no concensus to include flight numbers according to the Mediation cabel. He conveniently refuses to note from the mediation cabel, that the members has failed to come to concensus. Second, he fails to realise that the medication cabel in the first place is not meant to be binding. Third, the flight numbers formatting has actually evolved to its current state as a result of feedback to ensure it remains relevant, and there has since been no objections to maintain it.

Indeed, it can be observed from the above that almost all three items are either non-issues, or has no longer come under serious contention for sometime, until Russavia comes along and attempts to rekindle all past disputes for no better reason than his personal distaste towards "Singaporean fanboism", a statement he admits himself. Editing wikipedia to fulfull his personal agenda, mass editing articles to proof his point, and constant reversions without optaining proper concensus first are all signs of disruptive editing just to proof a point. The article gets reverted immediately because of the above.--Huaiwei 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly say that these are non-issues, after all these non-issues were one of the reasons for this mediation in January. You have demanded from me that I get consensus to make a single change to who actually owns Singapore Airlines Limited, yet you, Huaiwei, refuse to show anyone where there has been any consensus for the inclusion of codeshare destinations and flight numbers. Remember, you do not own this article. If this will not be discussed properly, and I am not talking about the inclusion of Temasek, but squarely about the listing of codeshare and inclusion of flight numbers, then this will have to be taken even further. And this is not about fanboyism, which yeah I have used in the past, but rather about getting rid of cruft out of this article, which is now being used as a precedent for inclusion in other articles. --Russavia 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not about fanboism now? You are the last person on planet Earth whom I would expect to hear that line from. Practically every reasoning you place in people's talkpages or article talkpage discussions includes at least one reference to that or its equivalent. Kindly refrain from using words like "cruft" without even obtaining concensus that those contents are indeed "cruft". They are so only in your opinion, and not amongst those who restored the information, as it has just happened twice over. If you have a major problem over Singapore Airlines being used as an "example article" for other airline articles, then its a problem you have to sort out youself outside wikipedia, not here. Wikipedia works out its standardisation guidelines via wikiprojects and concensus, not by habitually attacking the "offending" article alone. And kindly wake up to the simple fact that guidelines and just that: guidelines. They are not policies, and they do allow for exceptions. Most importantly, you jolly well report the situation accurately. I demanded that you seek concensus before mass-changing wikitemplates, reworking template entries across wikipedia, and defining just what a "parent company" is without first obtaining any concensus [17]. I demanded you to provide verification on just who is Singapore Airline's parent company[18]. So just where is the ownership element here? And now what? The issue is with supposed "ownership" now, and no longer about "fanboism"? Seriously, Russavia, if you are interested in accusing any other wikipedian of their "crimes" in wikipedia, please at least gather proper evidence first. Getting disruptive editing (now of coz that's my definition of your edits!) removed from an article constitutes as "article ownership"? Oh enlighten us all please! :D--Huaiwei 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I don't have to seek any consensus to change a field on a template which is sources and verifiable, particularly when you read this. I do like how you have totally sidestepped the issue here:

1) You claimed that the IHT is not a source which meets WP:RS. What grounds do you have for reverting on that basis?

2) You have still failed to show me where there is any consensus for the inclusion of codeshare destinations and flight numbers on this article. --Russavia 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now how is this supposed to say anything about you being excempted from seeking concensus? If anything, I noticed this: "company_name=parent or holding company if applicable, otherwise repeat full airline name". So if its company name, and not parent company which is currently being displayed in the infobox, could you kindly explain your exercise to change all references to "parent company" instead of simply getting that field corrected without the need to mass rename articles? A minor amendment to an existing template is not a new template, which you attempted to confuse by abusing the newinfobox tag. You appear to have problems even admitting to commiting minor mistakes. It's no wonder you remain obstinate in bigger issues.
So now lets discuss bigger issues. It appears that you have great problems understanding that the mere insertion of sources is not all there is to it. You took an interpretation of what the source says, despite its failure in explicitely specifying the information you are attempting to show. This is not accurate referencing work, and this isnt the first time you do such nonsensicle things too anyway. Just look at the mayhem over at Singapore Airlines Cargo for one. If there is a dispute over the interpretation of the same source, than clearly a concensus will need to be sought. Have you done that, Russavia?
Next, sidestepping the issue? Let's see. You claim IHT is a source which meets WP:RS. I have stated quite clearly above that "when it comes to a formal designation such as a company structure, primary sources obviously takes precedence." I challenged you to show any primary source from Singapore Airlines or Temasek Holdings which specifies their parent-subsidiary relationship, which if you could, I would accept it as a legitimate claim. Unfortunately, you chose to ignore that too. Selective reading has apparantly done you a deservice this time.
As for "concensus" for the inclusion of codeshare destinations, I suppose you are semi-blind once again. I said quite matter-of-factly that "The relevant guideline in the wikiproject calls for non-mention of codeshared agreements within airline destination lists for obvious concerns. There is no guideline forbidding its inclusion in another format somewhere else in the article, as long as it is not presented in such a way that it causes little distinction between actual flights operated and codeshared flights." The same guideline does not forbid the inclusion of flight numbers either, and as mentioned before, "the flight numbers formatting has actually evolved to its current state as a result of feedback to ensure it remains relevant, and there has since been no objections to maintain it." With no further objections for months, "silence equals consent". There was indeed consent for several months until you take it upon yourself to reopen old disputes with a apparant agenda, an agenda you admitted yourself. Still remember your own motivations, or do you need me to find the evidence for you?
It appears that I have to do frequent copy-and-paste operations when talking to Russavia. I suppose this is neccesary when dealing with individuals who show an apparant difficulty in accepting alternative viewpoints other than his own, engages in selective reading just to avoid facing the reality that his viewpoints can be challenged, and continously disrupts wikipedia with his mass-edits in the hope of lending himself weight in his battle against his primary target...this article, thus resulting in similar comments sprouting in multiple talkpages, but all basically saying the same old points over and over. Yawn.--Huaiwei 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will answer all of your questions and respond to all of your comments Huaiwei.

My exercise to change the infobox 'parent company' is nothing more than ensuring that articles are encyclopaedic in nature. One of the major pillars of WP is WP:V, and what was in the infoboxes did not meet WP:V. As you might have noticed I have put forward a proposal in getting extra fields to distinguish between 'parent company' and 'shareholders'.
The infobox template asking for new infoboxes to be inserted was an error on my part, hence why you might have noticed that I did not do all that many articles. You are not assuming good faith on my part, as in the reason I did so was so that editors of those articles could insert the latest version of the infobox to the article, for example, the SIA article infobox was hopelessly outdated. Am I expected to change THOUSANDS of infoboxes myself, whilst at the same time ensuring that information in them is correct?
Please do not say that I was non-sensical in the way that Singapore Airlines Cargo was updated. Even when it was clearly explained to you, you still insisted on self-published sources as they were written and perhaps couldn't see the distinction that I and others put forward to you.
Can you show me where it says that primary sources take precedence over secondary sources when it is my understanding of WP:V that the opposite is true. Additionally, WP:PROVEIT, states 'All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.'. As IHT is a reliable, published source there is no need to quote a 'primary' source. The right thing to do would have been to question it on the talk page (either article or user), whereby I would have happily supplied other sources as I have above, but the reverting of referenced material from reliable sources, because one may not agree, or doesn't understand, only serves to get people's backs up.
In regards to consensus on codeshare destinations, to claim that there has been no objection for months is a bit of an understatement. The way that I read this there was plenty of consensus, but yourself claimed 'Unrealistic expectations here may result in no resolution or improvement to the current impasse at all.' - which I interpret as, no matter the consensus, they are staying. this and scattered against other airline article talk pages and edits, codeshare destinations are removed, and they stay removed. All except this article. In regards to both the codeshare destinations and flight numbers, these are not old disputes as from where I stand, reading all over, the dispute has never ended, as people simply tire of continually hitting their head against a brick wall.
I, as well as many others, fail to understand, just what purpose both the listing of codeshare destinations and flight numbers serves in this, or any article?

I would ask that everything else be forgotten, and let's simply concentrate on the answering of the last question. What purpose does the listing of codeshare destinations and flight numbers in the Singapore Airlines article serve? I am questioning their encyclopaedic value, and I believe it is unfortunately your burden to explain this. Once done, let's get consensus for once and for all, by opening this long-drawn out dispute up for community comment/review. --Russavia 22:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My concerns have gone unanswered for 3 days, hence I will remove the sections as they stand now. If the questions can be answered satisfactorily, discussion on reinsertion can then take place. --Russavia 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If I write a comment, expect a response in 3 hours and I didnt get it. I suppose that gives me an excuse to start reverting articles too? Wikipedians are not held ransom by your whimps and fancies, including the time taken for others to response to your nonsence, if it was ever worth the time to respond to that is when they are primarily regurgitations of past comments.--Huaiwei 06:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the codeshare and flight numbers. They describe the codeshare operation, market profile, etc, as discussed many times before. These are very concise summary of previous long versions, I don't understand why anyone would want to make a big fuss out of this. --Vsion 08:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Because they do not describe any market profile, give any indicators as to market share, or anything else. The flight numbers especially is pure cruft. There is no sound reason as to why they should be on such an article, particularly as flight numbers for "Unutilised" are present. What exactly does it show? --Russavia 13:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pure cruft? Enlighten us on this one. I find it hard to believe that a former employee of an airline and self-claimed expertise in the aviation industry can actually consider a profiling of flight numbers (kindly note that this is not an entire list of individual flight numbers and their respective destinations) merely as a "travel guide" (oh, so I suppose your mother actually checks up wikipedia for a range of flight numbers that could fly her from Moscow to Singapore, finds that flights to Europe are in the range of SQ300-SQ399, and proceeds to book her flight telling the staff "oh, please book me a flight to Singapore, and make sure if ranges from SQ300-SQ399!" And when she goes to the airport, hey! Thank God there is only one SQ flight number which begins with 3, so she would probably be safe and sound in Singapore. God bless her on her return trip thou!) I believe we have stated repeatedly before, that flight numbers do give an indication on the airline's major destination markets, and in some cases, even the priority placed on each region. SIA's North American flight numbers don't kickstart the list by coincidence. Flights to China dont begin with the number "8" for fun either. A range of unutilised numbers simply hints that the company is reserving those numbers for future markets. If you cannot even read this kind of information by glancing at those numbers, you dont deserve to be in the airline industry, and you dont deserve to be an employee of Singapore Airlines.--Huaiwei 15:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are not a complete listing of flight numbers (I believe that article was deleted after failing Afd). The list of flight numbers as they are in this article still do not assert what you are hoping they would. The best indication of an airlines major destination markets is clearly given at Singapore Airlines destinations. The flight numbers are used in conjunction with a timetable in order to decode flights (WP:NOT#HOWTO). Additionally, by saying that the North American flights 'kickstart' the list because....., you are making unverified claims with this. The only thing which would explain what you are trying to do is PROSE, in conjunction with the destination list. And nice to see yet another attempted insult from you Huaiwei (*cough*bull*cough*sh***cough*), is that really the best you can do? LOL --Russavia 17:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For you to actually pick up that insult to react with animals sounds (quite primitive, it seems? :D), I suppose its effectiveness is already well demonstrated, eh? It is usually unnecesary to try too hard with relatively primitive species when it comes to this really, so too bad if you hadent had it good! Back to the gist of the issue. Lets talk about WP:NOT#HOWTO first, since you claim flight numbers used in confuction with a timetable can decode flights, and hence qualifies as a travel directory. Now lets see. The list shows a range of flight numbers, and there are is no information on which each individual flight number flies to, nor its flight scehdule, which would have been relatively close to what normal people would consider a "timetable". So without a timetable, and without a specific flight number, could you kindly tell us how your mother would use the information in this article alone to know how to get from Moscow to Singapore, and back? Yes I am expecting a full illustration of this, failing which you simply arent able to demonstrate this article's value as a travel guide! Next, indeed my "claims" are unverified at present. Hence they arent in the article. Duh. I do not need to verify my personal interpretation of facts presented in a wikipedia article, or do I? Every user who reads this article are free to form their own interpretations, or are they not allowed to? Lastly, could you perhaps give us verification to show that the destination list is the best indication of an airlines major destination markets? The number of destinations alone tells you how important a region is? I am sorry, but what kind of scholarly background do you have for you to actually ignore the importance of reading that information along with frequencies, capacities, yields, etc? Singapore Airlines happens to fly plenty of routes to the regional, Southeast Asian market, but is it a given that it is a more important market to Singapore Airlines compared to the much smaller number of destinations in Oceania, Europe, and the Americas, which incidentally are where its highest yielding markets are? Former SIA employee? Could you perhaps tell us in exactly which area where you working at? Cabin cleaner?--Huaiwei 10:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do keep the codeshare and flight numbers. I think it is note worthy enough to be here on the Singapore Airlines page. As for the edit war, can it stop. People I know who work for Singapore Airlines consider Singapore Airlines Limited as the parent company for Singapore Airlines itself, Temasek is nothing but just a major shareholder of Singapore Airlines. If you consider Temasek to be the parent company for Singapore Airlines, would Silkair and the rest of airlines that Singapore Airlines Limited has a stake in be under Temasek? -le petit vagabond 13:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia claims to be a former employee of Singapore Airlines, yet continues to wage war on this little aspect of the airline as thou he knew better. Perhaps now we know why he is a former employee of that airline.--Huaiwei 15:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Can the edit wars stop?

Despite the article name, the article is written about Singapore Airlines Limited which is a publically traded company. So, Singapore Airlines Limited can not be the owner of Singapore Airlines Limited. Vegaswikian 05:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In actual fact, this article writes about both Singapore Airlines as a group, as well as Singapore Airlines as the parent airline company, both of which has the same entity with the same legal name. The "Parent company" field in this case should actually refer to the "group", but since the group is called "Singapore Airlines Limited" officially, than that is what stays in that field. If this is too confusing to the average reader (which I think so too anyway), perhaps you may wish to comment on a proposal[19] to edit the infobox, which includes the possibility of changing "parent company" to "majority shareholder" etc.--Huaiwei 06:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If Singapore Airlines Limited had its own article, it would cover all of its assets in an overview and include the top level company information. Since it is listed on the stock exchange and owns several major operations, notability should not be an issue. Even if it was, removing some of this information from the overlarge and confusing Singapore Airlines article would justify this action. So my suggestion is to create Singapore Airlines Limited where its majority stock holder can be noted. It would list the various operations as subsidiaries or companies or whatever is the correct heading for them. Then individual articles can cover the significant operations. Operations that don't merit an article can be covered in detail within the Singapore Airlines Limited article. Vegaswikian 06:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no there we go again. Between creating two articles which has a grave danger of causing major confusions since they are assumed to be one by most people (and they are actually quite right), and simply amending a field in a wikipedia infobox, I would strongly believe the later choice is far more logical.--Huaiwei 06:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try Huaiwei, first the article is about the airline, then it was about the brand, now it is about the group. Which one is it? If the article is now about the group, may I ask why Silkair and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations and fleet numbers are not shown in the same infobox, because after all, it is about the 'Group' now, and not the airline (company). And I have changed it back to Temasek. --Russavia 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Perhaps you are the one who needs to enlighten me on that too. Could you care to explain why this article omits almost all data pertaining to Singapore Airlines Cargo and SilkAir, implying this article is about the airline aka parent airline company aka the brand, and not about the airline as a group, the later of which is majority owned by Temasek Holdings? If you are going to persist in forcibly reintroducing Temasek Holdings in that field, I am going to introduce information on Singapore Airlines Limited as a group of companies in the article. You jolly well stay consistent, not I.--Huaiwei 14:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The first reference that Russavia included in the infobox about Temasek is one that I do not accept as a reliable source since it does not appear to be accurate based on other information. Like with many companies, it talks about the major subsidiary and not the parent who is actually owned. They are confusing Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines. I'll repeat again, what we need is a clear understanding of the Singapore Airlines Limited structure! The only reliable facts we have is that Temasek is the majority owner of Singapore Airlines Limited which in turn owns, Singapore Airlines. We have a responsibility in the Encyclopedia to provide a clear and accurate overview of the corporation. Even when the corporation tries to obfuscate the facts. Vegaswikian 20:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegas, it isn't the IHT which has anything confused, honestly, they have it spot on. Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited (d/b/a Singapore Airlines), making Singapore Airlines Limited (d/b/a Singapore Airlines) a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings. The structure you want is on page 146 of the annual report. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russavia (talk • contribs).

The IHT article does not use the word limited. So their statement that Temasek owns Singapore Airlines is not correct since they own stock for Singapore Airlines Limited. As I have said before. I have yet to find a copy of the annual report that will open. As a result, I don't know if that report supports any position. Vegaswikian 05:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes Russavia. The Annual Report of Singapore Airlines Limited, ie, the group of companies, clearly states that Singapore Airlines Limited, the group of companies, is a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, which holds 55.24% shares of the former, a point no one has actually disputed thus far. The same source, in the same page, identifies Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited as a "Substantial shareholder". At no point in time across the entire publication does it ever identify Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited as a "parent company", or even a "holding company" for that matter (there where a few references to "parent", all of which refers to Singapore Airlines Limited as a group of companies). It is further of interest to note, that the report identifies just one out of nine directors in the company's Management Board to be from Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited and considered non-independent (there is a second member from Temasek, but he was still deemed independent by the nominating committee due to his nature of work at Temasek). Since Russavia is into self-interpretation of sources, I would self-interpret the above as insufficient justification to support his thesis. That field gets corrected once again. And btw, I do stand by my word. If Russavia insists on changing that field one more time, I am going to begin turning this article into one on Singapore Airlines Limited - the group of companies!--Huaiwei 11:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, this follows on from what I wrote below, in that I don't believe you are understanding how companies are structured and how they work legally. Page 80 of the report states the following: Singapore Airlines Limited (“the Company”) is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore. It does not mention anything about group of companies, only ("the company"), which is relating directly to Singapore Airlines Limited (contrary to what you wrote above). You also mention that at no point in the entire annual report does it identify Temasek as a parent company, but of course it does. The same quoted text states that "The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek...". Please read the subsidiary page...a subsidiary is an entity which is controlled by another entity (in this case Singapore Airlines Limited is controlled by Temasek), which means, even though it is not stated explicity (because it doesn't have to be by definition of the word subsidiary), that Temasek is the parent company of the subsidiary, i.e. Singapore Airlines Limited. This is confirmed by the Singapore Companies Act [20]. Additionally it matters not if Temasek appoints any directors to the board, whether that be none or nine, 5(1)(a)(ii) (the link) negates that, in that the corporation (Temasek) "controls more than half of the voting power of the first-mentioned corporation (Singapore Airlines Limited)". It might also be noteworthy that Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent (holding) company of Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited, but the ultimate parent company of SIA Cargo Pvt Limited is Temasek, as per this definition, but this does not mean that Temasek is placed in parent company for SIA Cargo. Now to the annual report stating that Temasek is a substantial shareholder (which you are assuming means they are not a parent). The declaration of Temasek being a substantial shareholder is a legislative requirement. The definition in relation to Singapore's Companies Act is here. Temasek is the only shareholder in Singapore Airlines Limited which fulfills any of the definitions in this section of the Act. This definition comes into play in the Divisions and sections of the Act which are quoted. The entire Act is here. To put it simply, Temasek is required to declare themselves as a substantial shareholder (as per the above) for the protection of other shareholders in the company. So as you can see I have done no self-interpretation of any sources (which you seem to insinuate I have attempted to skew information to suit my own goals), but I have simply called upon knowledge gained in Business 101 of my BCom. My only goal is an accurate, professional, encyclopaedic NPOV article. I feel that I have now explained where I am coming from succinctly and more than adequately on this issue. And I tell you what. I'll leave this article alone for a few days, and as you have had the biggest problem with my edits on this issue, I will leave it up to you - if you have the same goals as myself, when I look at the article again in a few days, I would be expecting to see Temasek in the infobox. --Russavia 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As there is continual reverting of edits relating to the parent company in this article, I have requested outside opinion on this issue from the Business and Economics WikiProject here. The constant reverts are not good for the article, and as this is obviously going to have implications for the rest of the project, outside opinions are going to be needed. I will put it up for community review as well if needed, but hope B&E project members will weigh in with their opinions on this issue first. --Russavia 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also added an accuracy dispute tag to the top of the article, and would ask that this not be removed whilst this dispute is active, and until such time as the issue can be settled for once and for all. --Russavia 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I beg your indulgence and ask you to remove the dispute tag for the time being? I would suggest this matter is a highly technical issue, and the tag may be interpreted as hostile and not being warranted at this time. There may be a work around that can be agreed on by all parties. I will post my view as to how this can be resolved in the Parent company section. --Gavin Collins 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Given User:Russavia latest reversion[21] to this article despite his "request for community review", and as per my earlier promise, I have commenced overhauling this article to one on Singapore Airlines Limited - the group of companies, instead of Singapore Airlines - the parent airline company. As this will need plenty of work, others are welcome to chip in. Cheers!--Huaiwei 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I request that both Russavia and Huaiwei refrain from editing this article before you have agreed on who is the parent company? The most productive way forward is to propose changes to the article on this page, and requesting comments on the proposals from other editors before further edits are made. --Gavin Collins 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to note another wikiwar going on at Aeroflot. I suppose this would give people a better sense of just what is really going on here.--Huaiwei 15:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, how dare I delete text from an article which is put there only to push your highly NPOV opinion, having used a single opinion to try and formulate an encyclopaedic entry. --Russavia 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to assume good faith, Russavia, as you so like to preach yourself[22]. So while it is alright to use a foreign newspaper like the IHT to determine SIA's parent company, it is not alright to use a local newspaper like the Moscow Times to talk about Aeroflot's image. And while it is not alright to use "one single opinion" to talk about Aeroflot, it is perfectly alright to use "one single opinion" to talk about SIA. Double standards at its finest? No I shall assume good faith and leave the facts to speak for themselves!--Huaiwei 16:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I will refrain from editing this article for the time being. I would ask Huaiwei also to stop editing other articles, such as Melbourne Airport and using Sorry, but according to User:Russavia, Singapore Airlines is supposed to be on the SIA Group) and (The Singapore Airlines article is about the SIA Group, as per User:Russavia's insistence) as edit summaries, particularly as I have not insisted on any such thing, nor have I even implied such a thing. If one cares to read what I have written in everything above, it is the exact opposite. --Russavia 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you find it rather tragic that I have to come to such ends just to stop you from wikiwarring in this article? The deal remains. If the Parent company reads "Temasek Holdings", than this article, and all articles which refers to this article, shall refer to Singapore Airlines as a group of companies, including all of its subsidiaries and shareholdings (good lord. Imagine the possibility of Virgin Atlantic being pulled into this dispute after being labelled as a subsidiary of the Singapore govenment!) If the Parent company reads "Singapore Airlines Limited", aka Singapore Airlines as a group of companies, than the article shall be restored to refer to Singapore Airlines as a parent airline company. There are no buts about it, and this has come to pass because of your own actions, Russavia, for you claimed no "opposite" at all with the kinds of edits you are actually making to this article.--Huaiwei 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This "deal" is entirely a figment of your own imagination, and if you persist on merging Silkair destinations into Singapore Airlines in other articles — which is obviously disruptive and a waste of everybody's time — I will file a WP:RFC/U. Jpatokal 02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but kindly do not jump into this conclusion, especially when it is clear from the discussions above (and from your own comments below) why this has come to past. It is of no dispute that this article can refer to either the parent airline company exclusively, or the entire group of companies, which includes its various subsidiaries. Since we now have an article which actually talks about the airline group, could you explain if I have been diruptive in correcting all entries refering to Singapore Airlines as the airline, and not the group. I would demand that you retract your accusation if you do not have valid grounds to do so.--Huaiwei 10:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, it seems that you don't understand the way that corporate structures can and do work. Virgin Atlantic would not be involved by me calling them a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, Temasek or any other entity (other than the Virgin Group), because this is not the case. Virgin Atlantic is not a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, as SIA only owns a 49% share in the company, and does not hold a majority of votes on the board, hence can't be deemed to be a subsidiary of SIA. So as the article stand now (since your edits), this is what is wrong with it...

And just which accounting textbook are you reading, Russavia, to form that simplistic definition of a subsidiary company? Even that unsourced wikipedia article gives you plenty of hints that a mere majority stakeholding is not neccesarily the sole determinant. Could you care to explain why countless company choose to list any entity in which the company has a stake in, no matter how small, in their subsidiary company lists, Singapore Airlines inclusive, which states it has over 50 subsidiaries?--Huaiwei 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Airways in the infobox as a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines is incorrect; if anything Tiger Airways would be a subsidiary of Temasek, via the holdings of its own added to the holdings of its subsidiary, Singapore Airlines; however, without knowing what the voting rights attached to each Tiger Airways share is, this is only an educated guess, and I wouldn't be placing that it an article without having a verifiable source for it.

Care to explain why some sources cite Tiger Airways as a subsidiary of SIA? [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]--Huaiwei 18:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Limited is not also known as the Singapore Airlines Group. Singapore Airlines Limited (Singapore Airlines) with its subsidiaries, including SilkAir (Singapore) Private

Limited (SilkAir), SIA Engineering Company Limited (SIA Engineering Company), Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited (Singapore Airlines Cargo), etc, etc, collectively are known as the Singapore Airlines Group.

This edit states your understanding that the annual report which I provided details from is for the Singapore Airlines Group. This is incorrect. The annual report is for Singapore Airlines Limited. They may make mention of "Singapore Airlines Group" in the report, in fact, on Page 8, the Chairman of SIA even states "I am delighted to introduce the Singapore Airlines Group’s 2006-07 Annual Report and Summary Financial Statements to shareholders.", but the entity which required to lodge the report (and also which is listed on the SGX) is Singapore Airlines Limited.

There are other points but these are the major as I see them. --Russavia 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

- This has got to be one of the most contradictory comments made by a single person ever. The same source, which specifically refers to itself as Singapore Airlines Group at some points within its annual report, isnt talking about Singapore Airlines Group? Is this severe selective reading, misappriopriation of facts, or an extreme case of basic logic deficiency? Singapore Airlines Group is Singapore Airlines Limited as far as the Annual report is concerned. Isnt this what you have been arguing all along, so why the contradiction?--Huaiwei 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
At the moment I can see that an end to this dispute is not yet in site. If this discussion continues as just an argument without hope of resolution, I can ensivage Singapore Airlines being nominated for inclusion in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, and I presume that neither of you want such a disgrace being brought upon an article that both of you have invested so much time. To resolve this, I think you have to do two things: turn your opposing positions around 360 degrees, and (a) desist from making statements or using language which you would consider offensive or annoying if you were in your opponent's shoes; and (b) consider that your oppenent may actually be correct, or at least in possession of information that is better than is in your possession. Now if both of you are correct (assume this for just a moment), then how could this article be best adapted to show this statement of fact? Please make your suggestions here, but in a style than is accomodating to an opposing point of view. --Gavin Collins 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Here's an idea. How about we keep this article's focus on Singapore Airlines the airline only, and list its parent company as Singapore Airlines Group. Then we create a new article called Singapore Airlines Group, which covers SQ, Silkair, SIA Engineering etc, and list its parent as Temasek (with footnote if necessary to untangle it). Would that make the two of you happy? Jpatokal 12:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a constructive idea with practical application. --Gavin Collins 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be supportive of such a proposal for the following reasons:

This article always has been, and always will be, about Singapore Airlines (the airline). It just so happens that this airline (as do most large airlines) has subsidiary companies.
Singapore Airlines Group and/or Singapore Airlines Limited as a parent of Singapore Airlines are not factually correct and are not verifiable. Temasek is verifiable (as has been demonstrated above), and does not meet the actual definition of a parent company of SilkAir, etc. It is an ultimate holding company, but it is not the parent. If verifiable and reliable sources for SIA Group or SIA Limited being the parent company can be provided, I may be supportive, however, this hasn't yet been the case (in regards to providing such sources). Any such move would therefore clearly go against WP:FIVE, in particular WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V.
It has ramifications for other articles as well, not only airline articles, but all company articles.
Subsidiaries, including some non-notable ones, are already covered at Singapore Airlines subsidiaries. If what is being suggested is a possibility that article is where it should take place. However, having said that, I would say that this does not mean simply that all 50 subsidiary companies can be listed, as that would likely go against WP:NOT, whilst it would still have to comply with all other policies (such as providing reliable sources, something that article still does not do).

I appreciate what you have suggested Jpatokal, but I do not feel that it would be acceptable as a compromise, as it would deviate too far from WP:FIVE. Having said that, if concensus from the community at large (without vested interest) says do that, I would have no problem with going with that concensus. So perhaps a WP:RFC is the best avenue? Or is there somewhere else that can be suggested. I will stay out of any such discussions, unless I am specifically asked a question to provide info, etc, as I believe my opinion on this matter would now be pretty clear? Cheers. --Russavia 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia said "concensus from the community at large (without vested interest)" Could you elaborate on the factors which may qualify one to be in that category of "vested interest" individuals, and if you have anyone in mind to cite as an example?--Huaiwei 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia, I think you're putting way too much emphasis on obscure corporate structure in favor of what people dealing with the airline/company actually experience. There is an airline called "Singapore Airlines"; there is a company called Singapore Airlines Ltd that runs Singapore Airlines and a number of other airlines too. Are you seriously claiming that Singapore Airlines Ltd does not own and operate an airline called Singapore Airlines? And I would suggest merging the material in Singapore Airlines subsidiaries into the proposed Singapore Airlines Group article. Jpatokal 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jpatokal, this isn't being directed at you, or any other user. But the structure of the airline isn't obscure-it is basic business knowledge, and other non-airline articles handle this (not a) problem without having to type out an entire page of explanation as to what a holding/parent company actually is - this article, as well as other airline articles, are great if you are a 'plane goes up plane goes down' type person looking for basic info, and again great if you want to know the ins and outs of mundane marketing huff and puff, but of absolutely no use if looking for information on the airline business. As to am I seriously claiming that SIA Limited does not own and operate an airline called SIA. Yes, I am. For Singapore Airlines is Singapore Airlines Limited, and Singapore Airlines Limited is Singapore Airlines. It is no different to ABC Airlines Pty Ltd operating as ABC Airlines, or XYZ Airlines Limited operating as STU Airlines. I really don't see why this article is being treated any differently to other airline articles, and I don't think people should be bending over backwards to make an exception in order to satisfy a small group of editors. Remove the codeshare information (as per airline project guidelines), get rid of the flight numbers cruft which shows absolutely nothing on the market share or anything else on the airline operations, cut out a lot of the info which could easily have been written by Singapore Airlines Public Affairs department, and there is absolutely no reason why the corporate info of the airline can't be added to this article, like it is on other articles. --Russavia 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Russavia, could you tell us how many destinations does Singapore Airlines/Singapore Airlines Limited fly to, and how many aircraft does it operate? Quite a simple question really.--Huaiwei 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Huaiwei, I wouldn't be able to tell you that from looking at this article, as until you seemed to think that my providing verifiable info into this article meant that somehow I agreed that you could turn this into an article on a non-existent legal entity. I would have to go away to another source and look for that information unfortunately. --Russavia 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that you have to answer that question based on this article, Russavia. Go right ahead and answer this simple question with whatever source you can find. And just which "non-existent legal entity" are you refering to?--Huaiwei 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has always been a mix of the airline and the listed stock company. If you are going to propose splitting it somehow you need to address Singapore Airlines Limited which is the listed company in which Temasek has a majority holding. Vegaswikian 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the idea. The Singapore Airlines Group article would cover Singapore Airlines Ltd as a listed company, including all subsidiaries. Singapore Airlines would concentrate solely on the airline of that name, not its corporate structure. Jpatokal 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Singapore Airlines Limited is the name of the company as listed on the Singapore Exchange, that should be where the article is built. The top level article should not be named Singapore Airlines Group. That does not mean an article about the group should not exist in addition to other articles if it is needed. Vegaswikian 05:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think using SIA Limited as a name would be confusing, but I can live with it. But what would be the point of splitting SIAL and SIA Group? Jpatokal 12:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong with the article at the moment as long as it explains the structure and has links to the subisidaries. I think the main problem is the concept of Temasak being the parent company, having just read the annual reports of Singapore Airlines Limited and Temasak Holdings it would appear that Temasak (a financial investment company) is just the majority shareholder not the parent company and not part of the corporate structure. Just looked at Singapore Telecommunications in which Temasek holds 56% (the same as the Singapore Airlines holding) it just mentions that it is majority owned by Temasak. So I would suggest remove the Parent company from the infobox and just a small tidy up of this article. MilborneOne 11:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Parent company states that A parent company is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors. Temasek is a holding company, as it does nothing but own other companies, and it has a majority stake in SQ, so yes, Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (and Singtel and many more). Jpatokal 12:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Singapore Airlines Limited is where Tamasek is investedand not Singapore Airlines. The problem is that we have an article that covers the stock company and the airline. I'm not sure of the corporate structure and the article as written does not help. That's why I think splitting is the right way to go. While it may create some problems, it would probably make for cleaner articles as long as we can source the material. Vegaswikian 18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No self-respecting wikipedian would actually quote an unsourced wikipedia article to argue his case in another wikipedia article. Do you have any evidence to show that Temasek Holdings has effective control of the SIA management board?--Huaiwei 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the situation here, am I correct Singapore Airlines is the trade name under which Singapore Airlines Limited trades, or is this still speculation? I could step in here and say that potentially this could be a very interesting topic, but I don't think you will agree with my geeky premise. If Singapore Airlines Limited is the owner of Singapore Airlines (or at least the trade name), is there a reason why the airline has this unusual structure? Perhaps Singapore Airlines Limited was one of the earliest companies to have been incorporated in Singapore? I don't really know, but if there is an interesting story behind why then perhaps the registar of companies will have something on file. Is there any history behind the company structure. If not, then I suggest just put the Republic of Singapore as this sounds a lot more grandiose. --Gavin Collins 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would love to see an answer to those questions. Some of this is in the annual reports which I have been unable to display, that's my problem, but maybe others can decipher something from there. In various discussions, SA, SAL and maybe SAG have been considered as one in the same. Sometimes SA appears to be listed as the parent of SAG and in other cases as a member of the group. So, some good detective work is in order. With facts, an intelligent decision about how to proceed can be made for proper encyclopedic articles that take the mystery out of this. Vegaswikian 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes Gavin, it is basic business 101. A Limited company having a trading name, Singapore Airlines Limited operating as Singapore Airlines. They aren't separate entities, they are the same entity. It's that simple, and everything I've posted above explains it in more detail than what is really needed I think? --Russavia 10:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    - Oh sure at least in this regard, I too agree that there is in fact just one entity. You appear to have major problems answering a simple question of just how many aircraft it operates, and how many destinations it flies to thou.--Huaiwei 18:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Before I make my full statement here (someone is probably not looking forward to this), how about turning this present article into a disambiguation page, with a link to Singapore Airlines (airline) and Singapore Airlines (group)? We then move most of the content here to the former, and information pertaining to the entire group of companies to the later. I am suggesting half in jest, but this addresses the problem of a single name which actually means both an parent airline company, and a group of companies, irrespective of whether it is "Singapore Airlines" or "Singapore Airlines Limited" (although of course "Singapore Airlines Group" can only refer to the later). Then again, someone may not be happy coz he can no longer plonk his beloved Temasek Holdings" in the former page!--Huaiwei 10:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Temasek would be evident on both articles, as Singapore Airlines Limited is a subsidiary of Temasek, and Singapore Airlines Group is simply a descriptive term for Singapore Airlines Limited and its subsidiaries, with Singapore Airlines Limited still being controlled by Temasek. --Russavia 10:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That will obviously have to be depend on whether the first article is talking about the parent airline company, or the group of airlines thou. Are you attempting to suggest, that Temasek holdings does not have a stake in Singapore Airlines Group?--Huaiwei 17:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can do the same for Qantas (airline) and Qantas (group), Cathay Pacific (airline) and Cathay Pacific (group), Aeroflot (airline) and Aeroflot (group), etc, etc, etc. Splitting up articles on non-sensical lines isn't such a good idea when they are the same entity. That's just my opinion. --Russavia 10:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you are the one who has initiated the entire fiasco with that "parent company" issue, than its your onus to convince everyone that the above setup is the best step forward for all airlines in similar situations. In case you are not aware, Qantas is indeed moving towards a setup where it will split into four companies, all under the Qantas Group. You better pray that Qantas Group becomes a holding company, instead of being a parent airline company, because then we will have exactly the same problem all over again!--Huaiwei 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Response I don't think a seperate article is necessary, unless one of these companies has a notable history other than the airline itself. I had a look at the listing for Singapore Airlines on the Singapore Stock Exchange, where the company has a public listing as Singapore Airlines Ltd (stock symbol: SIA) which states:

“

The Company (SIA) was incorporated as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Singapore government through Temasek Hldgs (Pte) Ltd on 28 January 1972 as a public company with limited liability[28].

”

I propose that the Info box show Singapore Airlines Ltd. to be the parent, but with the first reference/footnote of this article using the above the stock exchange wording. This way no-one can be offended, the wording comes from a familiar and recognised source, whilst this clears up any ambiguity about the parent without the need for a seperate article. All those who agree with this proposal, please put your signature below:

--Gavin Collins 11:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would normally agree to having just one article for Singapore Airline under whichever setup it happens to be, as was the case since day one, but with specific conditions which I will elaborate later. The setup proposed by Gavin do fit my conditions somewhat, so its a support from me.--Huaiwei 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- That quote belongs in the history of the listed company. Currently Temasek is the majority owner and not the sole owner. Mentioning that Temasek is the majority owner within the article is appropriate. If they continue to sell off their stock, this would become the largest shareholder. The same comment can be included in other articles where Temasek, or other company, thought multiple holdings, is the largest or majority owner of the stock. Board makeup is something for the articles of listed companies and this may or may not be important based on the members. Vegaswikian 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose As per my reasons above, it is not verified and the assertion also could be classed as original research. Looking at the history of the airline/company, there is no doubt as to the assertion that SIA and SIA Limited are one and the same has been commonly accepted, due to the article having started of as Singapore Airlines Limited...is the national airline of Singapore edit from 27/11/06 edit from 22/11/05 for over 2 years. In fact, it was Huaiwei who back in July 2005 edited the article to add in Limited into the lead, and I fail to understand why, 2 years after the fact, that the addition of the verifiable parent company into an infobox is an issue that is Bigger than Ben Hur. This issue isn't akin to whether Macedonia has a right to call itself Macedonia, it is a very simply, basic verifiable fact of (Singapore) company law; that being; a company which holds enough voting stock in another company is regarded as the parent company of that company; as Temasek holds well over 54% of SIA stock, and each stock carries a single vote, it is the parent company under Singapore company/corporation law (referenced) above, a fact that even Singapore Airlines acknowledges. To state anything but is erroneous, and also implies that Singapore company laws, Singapore Airlines and reputable media outlets are all wrong. Within the article, there is already a structural point in the article where any explanation of the Singapore Airlines Group belongs, that being Corporate management. So that's what I am thinking, and I can't put my name to something which I don't believe would pass a verifiability test; I am all for compromise, but not where WP:V comes into play. Now Huaiwei asked me above about where one can find someone without vested interest to comment on this issue, that would be WP:RFC, and I still believe that it be sent there for a broader outside opinion on issues surrounding this article. So that's basically all I have to input on this issue as it stands, time now for me to step back and what course this takes. Cheers --Russavia 20:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about we leave it at the version prior to the dispute while this is sorted out. It's obvious that both of you dont agree, so at least agree to disagree. Or look at outside editors not involved in the dispute, otherwise some editors may look at getting this article semi or even fully protected. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just made a partial reversion as per the above, of course keeping the more constructive edits at the same time.--Huaiwei 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Falsified verification failure?

Russavia insists on tagging certain statements within the "Corporate Management" section as being unverified by the included source. Or so he says.

Article text: Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies
- Source text 1: Group operating profit increased by $101 million (+8.3%) to $1,314 million, on the back of a strong performance by the Parent Airline Company.
- Source text 2: The Company refers to Singapore Airlines, the parent airline unit. The Group comprises the Company and its subsidiary, joint venture and associated companies).

I have amended the second reference to address his issue more directly.

Article text: The later of which (SIA Group) is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment and holding company, Temasek Holdings.
- New Source text: Singapore Airlines Limited (“the Company”) is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore.

I would like to remind Russavia not to use the {{failed verification}} tag just to indicate his opposition to the existing version of the article, while this talk page seems to suddenly become dormant. This is not mature behavior.--Huaiwei 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this fails verification for the following reasons, and was going to put a notice here as to why anyway, but seeing as you beat me to the punch, I will explain why those tags were put back in place:

1) The annual report is for Singapore Airlines Limited, the legal name of Singapore Airlines.

2) Are you claiming that Singapore Airlines is different to Singapore Airlines Limited, as you will revert any changes that I make which say this is so. I find it curious you have forecfully rammed home issues regarding Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group to Vegaswikian quite a few times; this being one such example, and there is no need to treat them any differently now, unless specific verifiable circumstances warrant it (such as when adding info about Singapore Airlines 'Group' financials). Might I add, my edits are completely sourced, and you are reverting back to unsourced material.

As to the rest Huaiwei, you can read below, and I have just about had enough of the time spent on this small but headache causing issue. I have explained in enough detail and provided enough sources on how Singapore Airlines (the company) is set up, providing sources for you at every demand, and I had it with having to explain every single edit that I make on this article in miniscule detail to yourself, whereas it seems you do not feel you have to do this for us. If you can't understand fully how this company is structured, then stop editing the article, go and study business/commerce at uni for 4 years, or read various business law/regulations, and get yourself up to speed.

Also, might I add, any sourced edits of mine are to be treated under WP:V, which explicitly states; The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Edits which I have made have explicitly said "XYZ is a subsidiary of ABC"; unfortunately your edits, whilst sourced are too vague, do not explicitly state what you have added to the article, and rely on the reader of that material drawing their own conclusions, which you have done above, hence those edits are also original research. So yes, your edits and sources have failed verification, and hence why I re-added those.

This is NOT about you, me or anyone else. This is about presenting an article which is in compliance with WP:FIVE, and whilst others may no longer be interested, hence I will continue, as much as it is a general waste of good time which could be spent doing other things. I am willing to have a discussion with you on these issues; the first question would be, what exactly do you see Singapore Airlines as being, in direct relation to this article? --Russavia 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would think most of the points you are asking from me has aleady been addressed before, if not, in the posts in the following section. As for your sudden emphasise on being explicit (something which I have been calling for for quite some time already), I don't think you have addressed my earlier request for you to find us an explicit statement in the annual report which states that "Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (the parent airline company)" either, or have you?--Huaiwei 03:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Group

I do not know what you guys are arguing about but the refrences make it pretty clear that Singapore Airlines is part of the Singapre Airlines Group. What is the problem? --Blue Tie 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Limited are kind of the same company and one is the parent of the group, how can a parent also be a child? This is part of the problem in that the structure is confusing. Vegaswikian 19:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

After recent edits by other editors, I have just a few questions/comments/concerns/suggestions in regards to the article as it stands now (which is a total mess and these suggestions demonstrate precisely what is wrong with it):

The infobox is entitled Singapore Airlines (SIA) with the parent company being Singapore Airlines Limited (SIA Limited). This is unsourced and needs to be sourced and verified for accuracy. Any reliable sources which states "Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited" or Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (or very close to this) should suffice for this purpose.
SilkAir, SIA Cargo, SATS, etc are not subsidiaries of Singapore Airlines, but of Singapore Airlines Limited, which is also the parent company of Singapore Airlines according to the article. All subsidiaries need to be removed from the infobox, as ownership by SIA Limited is verifiable by the Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report 2006/07.
The infobox says that Chew Choon Seng is the CEO of Singapore Airlines. I have looked at the annual report for Singapore Airlines Limited and I see that he is also the CEO of Singapore Airlines Limited. Does this mean that Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines each have a separate board of directors? Looking at it from a perspective of the SIA Group as a whole, it could make for interesting prose as to why Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines have the same makeup of their board, yet other companies within the SIA Group have different executives in different positions. To me this sounds like Singapore Airlines Limited doesn't trust the Singapore Airlines board to make the right decisions and have the right type of stewardship of the airline, so SIA Limited makes all decisions for SIA, whereas Singapore Airlines Limited subsidiaries have much more independence, so it would seem? Or is there another reason this is the case? Also, I see that IATA has a small profile on Chew Choon Seng on their website. It would be interesting to include how he went from joining Singapore Airlines in 1972 and climbed the ranks to become the CEO of both Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Singapore Airlines Limited. Also, it's good bio to state when he was employed by Singapore Airlines Limited.
The lead of the article states "Singapore Airlines Limited is the national airline of Singapore" - Singapore Airlines is the airline and Singapore Airlines Limited is just the parent company of that airline? Why is Singapore Airlines Limited in the lead?
The link to the Singapore Stock Exchange only makes mention of Singapore Airlines Limited as being the company listed on the stock exchange, so the ticker symbol link should be removed.
The second paragraph states 'The company is an industry bellwether for aircraft purchases'. The source for this statement doesn't mention Singapore Airlines buying any aircraft, but Singapore Airlines Limited, so Singapore Airlines being a bellwether for aircraft purchases needs to be removed as it [:Template:Failed_verification|fails verification] using that source.
Can someone please check WP:RS reliability for the source of this statement in the intro, 'and ranks amongst the top 15 carriers worldwide in terms of revenue passenger kilometres', as I have visited the site from which the statement was made, and in the top right hand corner of the page I landed at I find article titled China Eastern agrees to sell 24% stake to Singapore Airlines, Temasek, with a link to the article which starts with this statement; Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek agreed to purchase 15.7% and 8.3% stakes respectively in China Eastern Airlines, giving them a combined 24% holding valued at HK7.15 billion ($917 million).
In the lead, this statement has been made Collectively, the Singapore Airlines Group (including SilkAir and Singapore Airlines Cargo) is the world's largest carrier by market capitalization. The link from which that statement is, allegedly, taken is no longer available, and hasn't been for some time (as I checked about a month ago). However, Singapore Airlines has been changed to Singapore Airlines Group in the last days by Huaiwei, and as they aren't exactly the same thing, this statement would require a Template:Or tag for further verification and sources.
Corporate management section states 'Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies' - how can this be? Singapore Airlines is simply an airline/brand, it isn't a company - this is information presented by Huaiwei above and via edits to the article. If Singapore Airlines is a company, can someone please provide their Singapore business registration number from here, as it is impossible for a non-registered entity to own other companies, particularly those listed on the stock markets, as this would be totally against every corporation law in the world, and I am certain this includes Singapore.
This follows on with 'the later of which is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment and holding company, Temasek Holdings' - I need this explained to me, so that I understand, as I have no doubt it is correct. If Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies, then how can SIA Group be a subsidiary of Temasek, particularly as:

1) SIA Group is not a legally registered entity per se. If it were, someone needs to provide business registration data or other third party sources which establishes this.

2) If SIA Group is a subsidiary of Temasek, and Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited, why does IHT, Singapore Stock Exchange, and a multitude of other reliable sources, and Singapore Airlines itself, claim that Temasek is the parent of Singapore Airlines? Are all of these sources totally incorrect, and this article (as it stands at the moment by Huaiwei) correct?

3) Virgin Atlantic is included in this 'SIA Group', by ways of definition of the group. Does this mean that we now have to change the VS page to show Temasek as the parent of Virgin, seeing as this article says it is so, due to its membership of this SIA Group? Is anyone willing to make this change on the Virgin Atlantic page, because this article is asserting that fact?

In corporate management; warned the airline to cut costs, is sourced here. The article mentions Singapore Airlines Limited for the stock, but then mentions Singapore Airlines and its subsidiary SilkAir. But SIA Limited is the parent of SilkAir. What gives? Any explanation for this? Perhaps that should be included?
I turn your attention to page 146 of the Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report for 2006/07, to the section entitled Group Corporate Structure. At the left we have Singapore Airlines Limited - I can see such entities as SIA Engineering Company Limited, SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited, Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited, etc, etc, but I can't find Singapore Airlines Limited owning a company called simply Singapore Airlines. Surely if Singapore Airlines Limited was the parent company of Singapore Airlines, this information would clearly be indicated here. But according to this article as it stands at the time I write this, Singapore Airlines Limited isn't the parent of these "Group of companies" but Temasek is the parent, why aren't they mentioned in this annual report at this point?
In the section Operational investments, this statement is made, evoking a major rally in China Eastern's shares which rose 83.91% to hit 6.86 Hong Kong dollars a day after the announcement of the deal. This source is used for that statement. Can we please have someone verify the reliability of using Forbes as a source, as they also make this statement in the same article; For a price tag of 7.2 billion Hong Kong dollars ($923 million), Singapore Airlines, renowned as the best-managed airline in Asia, and its Singaporean government-controlled parent Temasek Holdings, are taking a combined 24% stake in money-losing China Eastern Airlines, China’s perpetual aviation laggard.
Section frequent flyer program states Singapore Airlines and its subsidiary SilkAir, this is not correct as Page 146 of the Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report 2006/07 states that SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited, which according to this article is also the parent company of Singapore Airlines (again, a fact which has not yet been sourced and verified). I suggest removed its subsidiary from this part to stay consistent.
The destinations section states It has a particularly strong presence in the Southeast Asian region, which together with its subsidiary SilkAir. Again, the SIA Limited Annual Report states that SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited is a 100% wholly owned subsidiary of Singapore Airlines Limited. Although, I can't find anything which affirms Singapore Airlines Limited being the parent of Singapore Airlines, as this article states this is the case, this statement needs to be changed and I suggest it be changed to which together with its sister airline SilkAir (NOTE: Sister is used to denote common ownership by the same company, as per an example, Sister station, whilst not specific to airlines, it can be used across industries, as can be found on a google search)
Codeshare agreements states Singapore Airlines has codeshare agreements[78] with its fully-owned subsidiary SilkAir, Virgin Atlantic Airways in which it owns a 49% stake, again Singapore Airlines Limited owns SilkAir, not Singapore Airlines. And Singapore Airlines Limited owns 49% of Virgin Atlantic, not Singapore Airlines.
In the fleet section, there is a list of aircraft operated by Singapore Airlines. The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore civil aircraft register states that the operator of these aircraft is Singapore Airlines Limited. It should be mentioned in this section if Singapore Airlines Limited leases these aircraft to Singapore Airlines for their flights? It is an interesting point in Singapore Airlines Cargo that its fleet was transferred at market value from SIA and all future fleet purchases are made on its own books, so it would be interesting to know also if Singapore Airlines is also made to pay its way by Singapore Airlines Limited or does it get a free ride? If SIA Limited leases the aircraft to SIA, these lease payments would be found in the annual report, but I can't find anything, perhaps I am looking in the wrong spot, or perhaps SIA Limited lets SIA operate the aircraft without charge? I can see aircraft purchases by SIA Limited in the annual report though. Anyway, it's an interesting point for inclusion in the article.
Singapore Airlines subsidiaries perhaps should be renamed to Singapore Airlines Limited subsidiaries, as Singapore Airlines doesn't own a single company listed there.
Why does Singapore Airlines Cargo has Singapore Airlines Limited as the parent company, and why it isn't Singapore Airlines Cargo Private Limited. The same goes for SilkAir and SilkAir (Singapore) Private Limited.

Does anyone have anything to add to this? Then we can make the necessary edits to the article. NOTE: The Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report 2006/07 is located here and is independently audited by Ernst & Young, and complies with Singapore company laws. --Russavia 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the annual report obfuscates the names and structure of the company. It would appear on one hand that Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines are both used to refer to the stock company. It also appears that the company considers Singapore Airlines as a part of 'the group'. So the name Singapore Airlines is used as both the parent and child. I still believe that it is best to have an article only for the airline operating as Singapore Airlines and another article for the stock company Singapore Airlines Limited. Vegaswikian 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If Singapore Airlines were to obfuscate the names and structure of the company, and particularly as they are listed on the stock exchange, this would be in violation of countless number of corporation and company laws in Singapore, and Ernst & Young would not be giving the report their stamp of approval. The very simple fact of the matter is, is that Ltd and Pty Ltd companies (and variations there of) do not need to distinguish between XYZ Widgets Pty Ltd and XYZ Widgets as they are the same entity (the Ltd is their legal name, and the other is their name within the marketplace). The structure of Singapore Airlines is very clearly noted in their annual report, and has been referenced countless number of times on this very talk page. Many non-US airlines (and companies) have the very same structures and there isn't any dispute on those, just this one, why? --Russavia 07:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I read Russavia's first two points in this section, found glaring errors both in his interpretation of sources as well as his interpretation of what others are saying, and simply stoppped reading the rest of his garbage. I think the patience of many are wearing thin over one single individual's persistent attempt in forcing his personal interpretation into an article, via any means he thinks possible, including something as silly as inserting dispute tags just to draw people's attention to his antics. I am not sure if Vegaswikian has finally been able to read the Singapore Airlines Annual Report, but his comment on the company's name usage is more or less spot-on, although I wont use the term obfuscate to describe this. As far as the company is concerned, Singapore Airlines is the shorthand of both Singapore Airlines Group and Singapore Airlines Limited, and Singapore Airlines Group = Singapore Airlines Limited, as long as we are referring to the name of the company. But when the company is attempting to describe its operations or financial operations of Singapore Airlines sans subsidiaires, it will refer to this entity as the Parant Airline Company of the Singapore Airlines Group. If this article is attempting not to refer to itself as the Singapore Airlines Group (which Russavia condemns anyway[29]), then it should be on the Parant Airline Company (officially known as Singapore Airlines Limited), which is only one portion of Singapore Airlines Group. Is it therefore accurate to say the Parant Airline Company is a part of Singapore Airlines Group (officially known as Singapore Airlines Limited)? Yes, and the sources say so, even if they are both known with the same name. Is it "contradictory" for this article to sometimes refer to Singapore Airlines Group? No, if the article clearly differentiates between statistics/information which relates only to either entity. Under the "Corporate Management" section, for example, I made it a point to distinguish between the two, and display statistics which clearly relate to either one of these. Russavia couldn't stand the fact that I am actually using a primary source, couldn't comprehend that fact that he has assumed wrongly on just how I interpret the entire saga, and hence keeps planting WP:OR tags there. Let's see what other garbage he can throw at us, and in the meantime, check out what happens over at Aeroflot. My continued believe that this member is unable to edit objectively continues to be reinforced by his actions there, although I end up having to be a tad "disruptive" to illustrate this.--Huaiwei 15:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for being disruptive and your comment above consists almost entirely of ad hominem attacks.

As stated before, show your evidence of disruptive editing on my part. My comment above refers to the disputes over at Aeroflot, which continues to rage on. Given Russavia's self-proclamation of "expertise" in the Aviation field, particularly in the Russian market, and the high editing standards he attempts to reinforce, I went over to take a look at Russia's largest airline, Aeroflot, to check out the high standards Russavia would presumably display there. It turned out to be a dissapointing visit, and I went ahead and overhauled that article. Some may presume this to be a tit-for-tat action amounting to being "disruptive", but unless you can show I am doing this merely to prove a point with nonsensical edits there, I would again demand that you retract your accusation.--Huaiwei 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this. To remind you, this is the episode when you went ahead and replaced all references to Silkair and Singapore Airlines Cargo with "Singapore Airlines" in their destination airports, alleging that Russavia wanted you to do so, and commented that "Don't you find it rather tragic that I have to come to such ends". Well, yes, I do find it rather tragic and this behavior — intentionally going against WP:AIRPORT in dozens and dozens of airport articles to make a point — was highly disruptive. Jpatokal 02:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And just what point am I trying to make with those edits then? I think I have made my point very clear. This article is either one on the Parent Airline Company, or the Singapore Airlines Group. I have repeatedly reminded Russavia, that he is turning the article into one on the Group in one key component, and that I will have to amend the rest of the article if he insists on reverting, for the sake of maintaining as much accuracy as possible. And since the article is turned into one on the airline group, links related to the article must be amended as well, and I am doing this with full intention of keeping them that way. When I went ahead to amend the articles, there has been little dispute from other users, except Russavia who comes along a few days later and reverts everything back again. So again I ask. Just what point am I am making with those edits, and what disruption am I causing if they are actually correct? Enlighten me on this one.--Huaiwei 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT: State your point; don't prove it experimentally. Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. Jpatokal 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And there you have it. My edits were meant to be permanent, and are not an experimental exercise. My action was not exactly unilateral, since it comes on the heals of Russavia's edits, and I have forewarned him that his action must come with my edit as a single package.--Huaiwei 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So you now agree with Russavia, and are OK with permanently accepting his suggestions? Jpatokal 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, I actually agree with almost all of what you say: this article should cover Singapore Airlines the airline, and the "Corporate management" section should cover the structure of the entire group, which is pretty much the case already. However, as the first sentence of the article corrently defines "Singapore Airlines" as "Singapore Airlines Limited", it's patently absurd to list "Singapore Airlines Limited" as the parent company of "Singapore Airlines" — a company cannot be its own parent. On the other hand, the company's own official, audited annual report [30] states in perfectly clear English that Singapore Airlines Limited is a subsidiary of Temasek, and hence Temasek is its parent. Is there any dispute about this? If not, can we change the infobox title to say "Singapore Airlines Limited", and its parent then to be Temasek? Jpatokal 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The infobox is for Singapore Airlines, the parent airline company, and not for Singapore Airlines, the group. No one actually disputes Singapore Airlines Group (officially Singapore Airlines Limited, or Singapore Airlines for short) as a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, as per the Annual Report. There is, however, a contention that the parent airline company is one. An infobox which says "Singapore Airlines Limited", and with most of its contents related only to the parent airline company cannot be confused with one on the airline group. Perhaps the best way forward is simply to remove that entry in the infobox.--Huaiwei 16:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Jpatokal 07:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty fast. Hope no one would see this as some kind of unilateral action and start revert warring again.--Huaiwei 07:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not agree to this, so I have reverted. I see no reason why this article is so special that we have to leave out info but leave it on thousands of other articles. This issue will be resolved for once and for all.--Russavia 13:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, leaving it there is indicative of the problems which this article has, so instead of hiding it and pretending all is ok, I would ask that it be left there, as I am STILL waiting for a source for Singapore Airlines Limited being the parent company of Singapore Airlines. Furthermore, Huaiwei's argument is that the infobox is for Singapore Airlines, the parent airline company. Does anyone have any idea what the operative is here? Company. What type of company is it? Of course, it is a Limited company. Meaning that the parent airline company is Singapore Airlines Limited. It can not be made any clearer than this, that is if the fifty thousand previous words I have written haven't made it clear enough as it is. --Russavia 13:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To have any meaning at all, the "parent company" bit has to link somewhere. It can go to a separate SQ Group article, or Temasek, but the current value is just wrong because a company cannot be its own parent and it should be removed. Jpatokal 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, and it has been my argument the entire time, hence why I have now written a thesis on this talk page as to why Temasek Holdings should be placed back there, for which it seems that you agree with, but will it stay there if this (example of) edit is re-instated? --Russavia 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So yet again Huaiwei, you are admitting to editing only to be disruptive, and that your edits have not been in good faith? I have no interest in pursuing any discussion with a self-admitted disruptive editor and will be taking that further. --Russavia 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can infer your from my comments all you like, Russavia, for your own comments seem to suggest guilt on your part. Past history has shown that you are hardly a man of your words, for clearly this isnt the first time you said you are not going to have "discussions" with me, and look what happens a short while later? You demand to be talked to, failing which you think you have an excuse to revert. And I suppose that also means only "arguments" are permissable? That explains!--Huaiwei 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership Structure

The Singapore Airlines Group (of companies) is a holding name - it does not exist. What does exist is Singapore Airlines Limited. The trading name for Singapore Airlines Limited is of course, Singapore Airlines. The parent company of Singapore Airlines is not Singapore Airlines Limited because they are equal.

Taking this into account, I am going to remove the Parent Company section in the infobox.

Furthermore, if we really need to state the Parent Company, I say that Temasek Holdings is undoubtedly the major shareholder with over 49% of shares in Singapore Airlines Limited. If an accounting textbook describes Temasek as the parent company then so be it. If not, I suggest we revert to calling it "Major Shareholder" in the infobox. This small piece of information adds very little value to the article anyway. RomanceOfTravel 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add this information as per Temasek to the infobox, but prepare to have the article owner revert it upon site, because he has no idea about company structures --Russavia 14:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I should have been bolder! RomanceOfTravel 19:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how to do it. RomanceOfTravel 19:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just who is the allerged "owner", may I ask?--Huaiwei 08:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Best word?

Hi Everyone! I'm a newbie here but would like to raise a little quibble: I recently changed the sentence: "Female flight attendants continued to wear the sarong kebaya dress" to "Female flight attendants continue to wear the sarong kebaya costume" because, for many varieties of English speakers, the word dress implies a garment that is either all enveloping or only hanging from the waist downwards. Of course all Singapore girls know that the sarong is the "dress part" and the kebaya our blouse.

If, as very prolific User:Huaiwei wrote when he changed my wording, '("custume" is less suited here)', can we come up with a better phrasing that is not just a teensy weensy bit misleading?

Perhaps: "Female flight attendants continue to wear the sarong kebaya as their uniform upon take off and at least until meal service is completed."

Is that wording OK or is there a better phrase? Alice.S 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, and thank you for raising this issue up here. To address the issue here, the sarong kebaya is basically the SIA FA's "uniform", which gives a more formal connotation than a "costume" would suggest. I changed it back to "dress", not because it is a tube- or cone-shaped garment, but because "dress" also means clothing in general. I am open to the option you proposed above. Thanks!--Huaiwei 02:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me such another big friendly welcome on my user page, Huaiwei, and for being open to discussion. Do you think it would be ok for me to replace the phrase with: "Female flight attendants continued to wear the sarong kebaya as their uniform upon take off and at least until meal service was completed.", then - or should I wait a week or so and see if there are any differing opinions? I really think uniform is the best word since it is SIA that supplies and mandates its use'

Do you ever fly the SIA route to Bandar Seri Begawan? Alice.S 02:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I arent sure what "upon take off and at least until meal service was completed" was supposed to imply. Do they change out of their uniform before take off, and after meal service? I dont recall this happening during my flights with them. Anyway, I hadent gone BSB, so I didnt have the opportunity to fly SQ there.--Huaiwei 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm too young to remember first-hand what the procedure was back in 1972 when SIA started up, but I should guess it was exactly the same as today: We always wear the sarong kebaya when we welcome passengers on board, for take-off and for at least the first meal service. Rules have varied after that as to when (and if) you can change out depending on flight routing, seniority and duties. Sorry if the reference to BSB confused you it was just to see if I could greet you if you ever flew that route.Alice.S 05:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Er I don't think I have ever seen them wear anything else other than the uniform for the entire duration of the flight. Do you mean they used to have such a policy before? What do they actually wear if they are not in the sarong kebaya? Anyway, you are flying as a FA with SIA?--Huaiwei 07:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My boyfriend's just reminded me to be careful what I say, but these two articles may interest you: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=412&Itemid=34 and http://books.google.com/books?id=dPhtrKE8GDsC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=singapore+airlines+uniform+changing+rules&source=web&ots=_XYUziM_CH&sig=bZOgYQZpYKWrj9cKlevqgivs-xM#PPA77,M1 Email me if you want to chat further. Alice.S 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I tried reading through those sources, but somehow they dont exactly say what they wear other than their uniforms on board flights. Could you point me out to the specific section, or quote the text directly over here? Thanks!--Huaiwei 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question from Russavia

A week ago I did a quick cleanup of different information in this article, which was basically reverted wholesale by Huaiwei; diff here.

I have a question which I would like Huaiwei to answer, in regards to the above diff, so that the necessary changes can be made to this article. In answering these questions, please take into account this diff from BOC Aviation which Huaiwei reverted:

SALE used to be jointly owned by four shareholders. Singapore Airlines Group....

was changed by Huaiwei to this:

SALE used to be jointly owned by four shareholders. Singapore Airlines....

with the edit summary reading:

(A non-existant company cant hold shares in another company)

The statement by Huaiwei Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies[25], the later of which is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment and holding company, Temasek Holdings[26]. was changed to Although Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of the Singapore government investment company, Temasek Holdings,..., and was reverted back in the above diff by Huaiwei. If a non-existent company can not hold shares in (or own) another company, then a non-existent company can not be a subsidiary of (owned by) another company. This has been explained in minute detail on this talk page, and numerous inline templates were placed explaining that your statement failed verification and for quotations to be supplied and these were duly reverted, diffs: [31], [32], [33]

The misinterpretation of sources has caused more information in the article to be incorrect, failing WP:V. Unfortunately, everything I have written on this talk page has either 1) fallen on deaf ears with Huaiwei or 2) caused Huaiwei to be disruptive on purpose (as admitted by himself)

Additionally, I added a ^{[improper synthesis?]} template to the following statement:

It has also restructured itself by hiving off operational units as fully-owned subsidiaries to maintain its core business as a premium passenger airline.

This is a case of WP:SYN (or WP:OR), as when a company restructures and it is to concentrate on its core business, it doesn't spin off units/divisions/branches as fully-owned subsidiaries, it offloads (sells) them completely. This syn template was also removed.

I am going to make the required edits to this article, and before any revision is done by Huaiwei, take into account the above information, and I will take this to WP:RFC/U if need be in order to allow non-verified edits to be removed without worry of having them reverted by an editor who seems to think he owns this article. --Russavia 03:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. Ever since my citation of WP:SYN, Russavia now plonks it into every argument he gets himself into, even thou his position (and that of his opponents) have not moved. Is this his latest excuse to revert war, and to insert a particular entry in a disputed field? I do not see a need to "answer" any of his queries above, because they have all been answered, several times over, and not just by me alone (and speaking of that, I am kinda wondering why he only addreses those questions to me alone. Is he aware that no one owns any article, even if they are one of the main contributors?) Someone else has completely removed all entries from that field[34], and I think that is probably the best course to take if no one could agree on just what should be displayed, a a result which has resulted in no more disputes except from Russavia. If Russavia has major problems accepting community concensus, and the very idea that his views may not be deemed correct nor acceptable to others, then by all means bring this argument to any dispute resolution mechanism he can think of, and we shall take him on there. Russavia's "threats" are certainly welcome, if that helps to cease his disruptive editing habits permanantly.--Huaiwei 10:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Height

So how high is the average adult? I suspect the 1.5m edit is vandalism, but I have not seen the specs. Any comments, or should that be reverted to a more generic "height of the average adult" and left unspecified? docboat 04:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply read Human height and select one from the table. Yes, there are a few variables. Vegaswikian 05:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Overhead storage

Is it really of encyclopedic significance that there is no overhead storage above the center seats in business class in one of SQ's planes? Jpatokal 16:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

One might ask the same question about many aspects of our coverage (Aircraft registration numbers or the recipe for cheesecake.

It's a judgement call and my judgement is that it would be one of the first things you would notice when you step into that cabin section in the A380 - before the in-seat laptop power supply or the width of the seats. As and when other airlines start flying the same aircraft it will probably cease to be notable, but until then...Oh, I see you've already deleted the "offending passage". (Perhaps it would be more productive if you would ask this sort of question before the act in future - unless you're going to self-revert, of course.) Alice.S 19:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose noting that in the A380 article, but I don't see the point of bragging about it for SQ -- other airlines will be flying the same plane in months. (And incidentally, cheesecake recipes fall under WP:NOT.) Jpatokal 02:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Months? About 23 I'd wager... Alice.S 17:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Emirates will receive its first A380 in Q3 2008. Jpatokal 03:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I still think it will be closer to 23 than 9 months but we'll have to re-visit this topic late next year. What about me restoring the wording until another A380 flies in commercial service - if you're right then you'll be able to excise the part about the distinctive cabin orientation very soon? Alice.S 16:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to comment on this. The overhead bins not being above the middle rows in the Business Class cabin are not unique to the A380. The Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER New First Class also has no overhead comparments. Furthermore, certain other airlines have ommitted overhead compartments to increase the feeling of space on certain aircraft in certain premium classes of service. I think there are many more features of the New Business Class that are worth mentioning apart from the cabin architecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The distinction was in Business Class, but if you say there are other airlines that have the same cabin configuration in business, then I guess that settles it - so I now agree that there should be no mention of bin position. Glad we could resolve the issue amicably. Alice.S 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Parent company

I have noticed that the parent company info in the infobox has been changed in the past and those edits have been duly reverted by other users. Hopefully, for once and for all, this can be cleared up. The airline commonly known as Singapore Airlines has the official name of Singapore Airlines Limited. As such, it is impossible that the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited could be Singapore Airlines Limited. Someone, or some entity, has to own Singapore Airlines Limited, and whether they be public or private investors can differ from company to company. To quote from Holding company:

"A parent company is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors. Examples are The Walt Disney Company and Halliburton.

A parent company can simply be a company that wholly owns another company, such as Quaker Oats being the parent company of Aunt Jemima."

As such, Temasek Holdings holds a 56.19% share in Singapore Airlines Limited, and as the majority shareholder in Singapore Airlines Limited can easily be classed as the parent company, particularly as it has a large enough shareholding in SIA Limited which can be used to influence management decisions without considering other shareholders.

I hope that this 'explanation' is more than suffice for those editors who doubt such edits being made to the article. If not, I don't know how any improvements can be made to this article as a whole when such a simple piece of information has been duly reverted on several occasions in the past. --Russavia 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually this has been discussed in the past along with the Singapore Airlines Group. There has not been any reliable sources that I recall being found to show this one way of the other. What we need is for someone to find the facts. If Singapore Airlines Limited has several owners and has been involved with more then the airline (for example, Singapore Airlines Group), then it should have an article. Likewise if ownership has changed or if it is a listed as on a stock exchange. Who owns and exactly what is Singapore Airlines Group? Previous attempts to split this out have been reverted as being unsupported. I strongly support an article for Singapore Airlines Limited that can be cited. In there, the components of ownership can be discussed along with the other aspects. I did revert your change. Lets resolve this here before making changes. Vegaswikian 18:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor point, if the parent is not known it is usual to put the full legal name in the parent field refer Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Airline Infobox. MilborneOne 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Which leaves me wondering why Russavia should not see a problem with that part of the WikiProject, and instead bringing himself to wikiwar in this article with testosterones ablazing. The biggest shareholders of British Airways, Qantas and Lufthansa are not listed as the parent company, despite them being known. Can he care to explain this decrepancy before attempting to push forth his changes?--Huaiwei 09:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My heartfelt applause for such excellent research work on the part of my dear friend Russavia (which dosent happen very often), but until he changes the said field for British Airways, Qantas, Lufthansa, etc, I am inclined to believe that he should bring this dicussion to the wider community since it affects all articles across the wikiproject, and not constantly nitpick on this article alone. Until than, perhaps I can upgrade him from being a petty, hormone-raging teen to a more measured, balanced, mature, and valued contributor to this site.--Huaiwei 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

MillborneOne, in this instance, the parent company is known and (now) referenced. And has been changed to reflect that. In all honesty, the only airlines which should have the legal name of the airline in the infobox are those shady operators in the UAE which run guns, etc in Africa (and a few additional ones I guess). Particularly when taking into account what the definition of a parent company actually is. --Russavia 09:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with only iffy airlines having the legal name in the infobox, but I have no axe to grind I just stated what is generally done in the rest of wikipedia airline articles. Perhaps it should be clarified in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Airline Infobox. MilborneOne 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Having the majority owner listed when this is a publicly traded company is simply wrong. That is not how it is done on the rest of Wikipedia. As an example, what would people say if MGM Mirage had the owner listed in the infobox as Tracinda? I still think that 'Singapore Airlines Ltd' needs an article. It is the company that is listed on the Singapore Exchange for the symbol S55. It is not accurate to list that as the exchanage symbol for only the airline. If there was a separate article, that that article could cover the ownership of the public company. I would like to have seen the S55 annual report, but the web copies refuse to load for me, some kind of an error in the file. But from what I have seen in other places, the reports appear to list the group as the main entity and Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as members of the group. Bottom line for me is that we still need to clear this up with referenced material that is readable by all. However listing Temasek Holdings as the owner is completely false. Vegaswikian 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegas, as per definitions of what a parent company are, Temasek more than fulfills that requirement. If Tracinda is also a major percentage shareholder in MGM Mirage as Temasek is in SIA, then having Tracinda as a parent company is not all that wrong. Having said that, there are several things in the infobox that I don't much like. Hubs/focus cities being two of them (they are US/Europe-centric and don't apply to all airlines). Parent company being another one. Perhaps parent company needs to be changed to Major shareholders. As to "Singapore Airlines Limited", it is correct to have this as the exchange symbol for the airline, because every other company in the SIA group is a subsidiary of the airline. It is in the same vein that we don't need articles for 'British Airways plc', 'QANTAS Airways Limited', 'Deutsche Lufthansa A.G.', 'JSC, Aeroflot-Russian Airlines', etc. --Russavia 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, this is exactly why this article will be like it is, because you are the petty, hormone-raging teen that you accuse me of being. Let's see, I am not the one who will go and revert fully referenced edits to an article (refer to any of your reverts of my (and others) edits on this article, Singapore Airlines Cargo and Singapore Airlines Cargo destinations. I am not the one who will wholesale revert an edit to remove something which you dispute, take a look at some of your reverts of the destinations of Singapore Airlines Cargo - have a look at the number of destinations which aren't served by both airlines to see exactly what I mean. Although the 'parent company' in the infobox was not referenced by myself, it is now fully referenced in the article (in fact, it was already in the article although it wasn't cited). Additionally, can you explain why you would revert my changes on this article, and then turn around and try (harder next time) to insult me by calling me a petty, hormone-raging teen (actually I am somewhat older than that for your info), yet you go and do this [35]? As to who the biggest shareholders of BA, QF and LH, if these are well known, then why aren't you changing them? As yet, I have not bothered to look these up, but if they are well known, then surely you can make the edit? Anyway Huaiwei, I have had enough of responding to your infantile remarks, I think my time is better spent on answering Vegaswikian's questions. But a question for you before I go - you make out that Singapore Airlines is the best thing since sliced bread, and requires articles for this and articles for that, even when there is no rhyme nor reason for it. If the airline is as great as you think it is, why isn't it a featured article? In fact, the question should be why it can't even get good article status? Perhaps the reasons can be found in the mediation which took place some time ago, but at which absolutely nothing was achieved. There's a common demoninator in all of that. And I can understand why most people simply give up in the end. --Russavia 05:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now its rather late in the night, but just the length of that response above tells me I have somehow hit the nail on the head or something, so what else is there to comment? ;) Time and again, you claim you shant waste further time on me, yet can't help wasting more of your precious time moments later. You continue to claim that I make unwarranted, unexplained reversions of your edits, yet appear to completely ignore the edit summary, or the relevant talkpage, choosing to equate anything you refuse to agree with as being basically non-existant. Spoken like a truely petty, hormone-raging teen indeed!

And seriously, kindly grow up, if my reminders arent frequent enough. You apparantly think I am some kind of a Singapore Airlines fanatic who is desperate to promote it via this website, and do so by highlighting every teeny weeny detail about it. Or so you think. And since you persist on believing that the primary contributors to this article, myself included, are just a bunch of egotistic fanatical company shareholders, you seem to think you have the legitimacy to remove every item you personally consider mediocre. You choose to nitpick on this article, find little faults with just about anything in it and make a big deal out of each. You question every attempt to add content to the article, by using low-quality, under-developed articles as benchmarks. Why all these? It all boils down to the fact that you have a major inferiority complex problem. If wikipedia is not the place for fanboyism, I sure hope it isnt a place for sourgrapes who just cannot get over the fact that Singapore Airlines is as successful as it is, proven by countless independent sources, and not merely by my imagination or displaced pride. Why this article is not an FA? Because it is not fit to be one. Simple as that. And I will oppose any attempts to promote it as one until it meets an acceptable standard as far as this site's FA requirements are concerned. After all your wonderous efforts here, could you even cite one example of elevating this site towards FA status? You boasted that you will rewrite the article to one which is, to you, the FA standard. How is that going, now?

Oh, and talking about insults. Now if you do not consider dismissing editor's contributions as "fanboyism" as an insult, than I suppose you are clearly beyond hope. The whole world dosent owe you a favour. I wonder what kind of upbringing you have to actually think it is ok to heap insults on others, yet do not think it fair to receive any in return. By that remark alone, you questioned my editorial professionalism, my impartiality, maturity in thought, my ability to adhere to the NPOV policy, and basically my legitimacy and contribution value to this site. Kindly reconsider the tendency of pitting blame on everyone else for any repurcussion which may occur as a result. (Meanwhile, I will certainly try very hard in this department, thank you. You can do better coming up with your own ingenious insults, btw, instead of blatantly plagiarising comments from others!)

It is interesting that you chose to rehash some of our past "grievences". Kindly note that you chose to ignore discussions on Singapore Airlines Cargo after I allowed your preferred version to remain, and if this persists, you can expect some rekindling of sorts. Second, kindly inform if any of the edits in [36] are not legitimate? And lastly, I asked from you a very simple request. Find the relevant sources before making an edit, even if this may appear implied in the article's content. You chose to revert my reverts instead. You finally made the honorable step of explaining your edits in this talkpage. I pointed out the fact that your "findings" are not universally applied in the airlines wikiproject, and that project actually legitimises this inconsistency. I therefore took you to task for attempting to enforce a change in just one article which was not at odds with policy, your failure to discuss with the community for an edit which may have much wider implications, and your blatantly obvious bias in choosing to be anal retentive in this article. Imagine the smile breaking across my face when you now ask me why I arent making those changes to BA, QA, etc. My deepest apologies, Russavia, but I absolutely hold no intentions to make the same mistakes which you did!--Huaiwei 18:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring some of the earlier disputes, could I suggest the definition of parent company should be re-evaluated, with the view of applying the principal of substance over form to this particular case. In a group of companies, there may be many parent-subsidiary relationships: for example a parent company may be owned by another parent company (and so on). In such a group structure, the legal form of such a group is that the parent company at the top of group is the parent, which is usually disclosed as the "ultimate holding company" in group financial statements. However, in the case of Singapore Airlines, the ultimate owner is not a company but the Republic of Singapore which is the owner in substance. Could I suggest that what you put that the Republic of Singapore as the "parent", rather than any of any of intermediate parent-subsidiary companies which it is owner, so as to make this point clear. --Gavin Collins 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst ultimately Singapore Airlines is controlled by the Singapore government, the company is a direct subsidiary of the legal entity Temasek Holdings, not of the Singapore government, and as such, so as to be truthful to what an encyclopaedia is, to put Singapore govt as the parent is erroneous. --Russavia 15:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

subsidiaries

I've added subsidiaries in the info box. http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/company_info/siastory/subsidiaries.jsp lists Tradewinds Tour and Travel, SIA Engineering Company, and SATS which were missing from this otherwise fine article. I didn't leave a citation in the infobox for appearance, though you can add it.Archtrain 16:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited, Singapore Airlines Group

Vegaswikian, I hope this a useful explanation for you of the differences between Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group.

Singapore Airlines Limited is simply the official registered name of what we more commonly know as Singapore Airlines. It is no different to QANTAS Airways Limited and QANTAS. Or Lufthansa and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. All entities are one and the same.

The Singapore Airlines Group is not a legal entity, but is merely used when discussing Singapore Airlines Limited (the airline) and its subsidiaries (partly and wholly owned), most often seen when discussing financial statistics. It is possible that Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited) makes a profit of $500 million, but the Singapore Airlines Group makes a profit of $1 billion. This is due to some SIA subsidiaries having their own profit centres. From [37]

"Note: The SIA Group’s audited financial results for the year ended 31 March 2007 were announced on 11 May 2007. A summary of the financial and operating statistics is shown in Annex A. (All monetary figures are in Singapore Dollars. The Company refers to Singapore Airlines, the parent airline unit. The Group comprises the Company and its subsidiary, joint venture and associated companies)."

There is no need for a Singapore Airlines Group article, as all companies within that group are subsidiaries, joint ventures or associated companies of Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines Limited), and would be dealt with as per other airlines.

To answer another question you had, SIA is a publicly traded company and is listed on the Singapore Exchange. Their details on the SGX can be found here [38] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 July 2007

Well, reading this release, is it clear that the company, I'm assuming this to be Singapore Airlines Limited treats Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo as entities in Singapore Airlines Group. Clearly Singapore Airlines Limited when it makes announcements like this does not consider Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines to be one in the same. Given that, we should not try to make them the same. However we need to accurately define the structure which means doing more digging. But at this point I think it is clear that we have several legal entities here. Vegaswikian 05:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I find it amusing that you need this much level of digging to find information on something as basic as a company's corporate stucture, all the more so that this is a company as major as Singapore Airlines. Kindly refrain from cherry-picking a small range of articles and make your own inferences from there. It has been mentioned before that in various circumstances, such as in its financial reports, the Airline do make references to the Singapore Airlines Group because it needs to distinguish between the financial performance of its primary airline operations, and that of its subsidiaries. This has nothing to do with corporate organisation. If Singapore Airlines Limited is not the same as Singapore Airlines Group, this should be obvious from its website at the very least. Have you not considered why this is simply not so?--Huaiwei 13:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Web sites are marketing tools. While the information there may be valid, it may not tell the complete and accurate picture. In the US we can look at the required quarterly and yearly fillings for public companies to get the facts that the web sites try to hide. However in this case, we don't have those available. Also the name of the company for the stock symbol is Singapore Airlines Ltd and not Singapore Airlines. For accuracy this needs to be explained. Also has been stated, Singapore Airlines Ltd does group the various names in different ways for different purposes. Sometimes trying to show Singapore Airlines as the company and other times not the company. Frequently, even in the US, companies will include information on the web site of their main brand. That does not mean the two entities are one in the same. However the companies last financial report on page 19 clearly states that the report is for Singapore Airlines Limited ("The Company") and its subsidiaries (collectively the "Group"). Vegaswikian 19:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    - If you can even cite me one good reason why Singapore Airlines should attempt to shy away from declaring "Singapore Airlines Group" as a holding company and a parent of "Singapore Airlines", I will take the rest of your comments more seriously. You seem to assume that Singapore Airlines have no shareholders to explain themselves to. And please avoid simply comparing everything with the United States. While I understand that there is a trend of US airlines having a holding company each, this practise may not be widespread on a global scale. Attempting to force the rest of the world into the American mould is something I would have thought more typical for the less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks.--Huaiwei 08:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      - I have never once suggested that Singapore Airlines Group is a holding company. What I am trying to understand is how Singapore Airlines Ltd is set up and what it is. So far the only finanical company releases I have found indicate that it treats Singapore Airlines Group and Singapore Airlines as sub entities and in different ways based on what is being announced. If trying to understand something is an indicator for being "less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks", then I am guilty. The entire world does not do things in one way. However when one small country is different, especially in how they release data about corporations, it is worth the effort to explain this to the large number of readers who may not be able to comprehend this without sources and explanations. As I said, all of the Annual Reports which might help have PDFs that don't work. Not much help in getting to the facts using a source. You seem very able to tell me I'm wrong but unable to help me find documents that support your position. Vegaswikian 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        Either you have a major issue with one small country, or you obviously hadent researched adequately on major airlines all around the world, or that of major corporations to boot. Singapore Airlines is far from unique in this regard, and its financial information arent exactly debucking global trends either, if that is what you are suggesting. Get the facts straight. You are not doing a wonderous service to the "less-literate, ill-informed, and provincial folks", because I have yet to see anyone questioning SIA on its financial books, its website presentation, or even in this site except yourself. Kindly cite reliable sources illustrating confusions of the magnitude you portray. The PDFs you find problems with work very well on my computer, I am afraid. And if you feel I arent showing you documents to support my position, kindly realise that it is almost impossible to find sources to demonstrate the non-existance of a corporation, unless you can show me how this can be done. Although if you could, your issue would have been resolved already I suppose. And if you arent suggesting Singapore Airlines Group is not a holding company, kindly state what you imagine it to be, and just what exactly is Singapore Airlines?--Huaiwei 11:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        I notice that you find the group and the Limited company confusing in your responses, so clearly there is some confusion. I did not accuse you of hiding information. I clearly stated what issues I am having accessing the PDF files on several computers. The fact that you can load and read them does not help me at all. Without sources, I can not get the facts. Without the facts I can not prove anything, including your position. So without access to sources, this discussion is going no where. Vegaswikian 18:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
        How you could deduce my supposed state of confusion remotely is beyond me. I also fail to comprehend this "hiding of information" thing. What information is there to hide, unless you think I am an SIA employee who encodes SIA's pdf files such that they refuse to open to select individuals like yourself? My ability to open those files may not be of any assistance to you, but kindly refrain from using technicalities as excuses for failing to back up your viewpoint, which btw is your onus to do so. Meanwhile, I am still awaiting your views on just what Singapore Airlines Group is and its relationship with Singapore Airlines.--Huaiwei 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fleet image

I have removed an image from the fleet section because the file link was wrong. If anyone can find the file please feel free to reinsert it with the correct link.

Infobox updated again and removed 2 sects.

I have updated the infobox on several occasions to reflect that Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, and the reasons for doing so are explained by myself [Talk:Singapore_Airlines#Parent_company here]. Even though Temasek's majority shareholding is stated and sourced in the main article already, my edits on the infobox matter have been continually reverted by Huaiwei, due to being unsourced.[39] In order to satisfy this demand by Huaiwei, I referenced the shareholding in the infobox (as silly as it sounds to have to provide two cites for the same piece of information). An example of such an edit by myself is here. This has been reverted on several occasions. Examples of these reverts are:

[40] Huaiwei mentioned that he reverted because concensus was not met on the talk page (although a couple of editors is not really a concensus is it?)
[41] Huaiwei said the reason for the revert is that the IHT is not an authority on SIA matters, even though the IHT is highly regarded in the print media. If it is true that the IHT does not meet WP:RS (which it does of course), I am expecting Huaiwei to remove any and all citations on these pages which are attributed to the IHT, including one already on the

Singapore Airlines article to another IHT article.

* [42] Huaiwei mentioned something about the 'brand', these articles are not about the brand, but rather the company, and this is evidenced that the article starts as Singapore Airlines Limited, this indicates a company, not a brand. It also needs to be mentioned that when I reverted his edit which resulted in this revert, he was asked to provide sources to support his assertion that Singapore Airlines Limited is the parent company of Singapore Airlines. This was not done.

I now find myself having to cite as many sources as possible, so that the verifiable information for the parent company is not continually reverted by Huaiwei who is acting as if he owns this article. It is absolutely ridiculous to assert that the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited is Singapore Airlines Limited - and I will be pushing for this to be addressed at the infobox project also in the next couple of hours (relating to all airline articles, not just this one). A list of sources for Temasek being the parent company of Singapore Airlines:

[43] - QUOTE: Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Temasek Holdings, may pay about $930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines, a deal that would expand the carrier's reach in the world's most populous nation, people involved in the talks said." - published by the International Herald Tribune, a media outlet for which there is no question as to whether they meet criteria for WP:RS.
[44]

- quote: "Asia's most profitable carrier, Singapore Airlines and its parent company, the Singapore government's investment arm, Temasek Holdings Pte plans to use the 25% stake it acquires as a key to open the gates of China's aviation market." - originally published by China Knowledge, a site which more than meets the criteria for WP:RS

[45] - QUOTE: "According to the plan, Singapore Airlines will buy 20 percent of the stake while its parent

company Temasek, a Singapore State-owned investment company, will buy 5 percent. The total of 25 percent is the maximum allowed by Chinese law." - originally published by the China Daily, yet another source which meets criteria for WP:RS

[46] (PDF FILE - approx 70kb) - QUOTE: "Elsewhere, Singapore Airlines and its parent company, Temasek, were rumoured to be paying US$930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines." - this was published by Lloyds TSB,

the fifth largest bank in the UK, and is part of an investment update, and Lloyds TSB would more than meet WP:RS criteria.

So there are some links which are from reliable media and financial services sources which state that without a shadow of a doubt that Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, a statement which is verified due to the reliability of the sources from which they came.

Here is another source to consider:

[47] (PDF FILE - approx 4mb) - QUOTE: "SIA Engineering Company Limited (the "Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore, which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Singapore Airlines Limited and its ultimate holding company is Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, both incorporated in the Republic of

Singapore." - this is found on Page 94 of SIA Engineering Company's Annual Report for 2006/2007 (page 96 of 160 in the PDF file). The only problem I can see with this statement is the use of the words "ultimate holding company" as there could very well be more than one (or more) parent companies between the two entities - even though is obviously not the case due to the referenced direct shareholding of Temasek in SIA in the SIA article.

And here is the last source:

[48] (PD

F FILE - approx. 10mb) - QUOTE: "Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore." - this is found on Page 80 of Singapore Airlines Limited Annual Report for 2006/2007 (page 80 of 160 in the PDF file). This statement has been checked for accuracy and certified by the SIA auditors, Ernst & Young (E&Y definitely meet WP:RS)

But there is a major' problem with using the Singapore Airlines Annual Report to cite my edits of Temasek being the parent company.

Huaiwei has called into question the reliability of the International Herald Tribune and the ability of the IHT to write with any degree of authority on Singapore Airlines, so has therefore called into question, by default, the veracity of any claims made by any entity which makes the same contentious claim that the IHT makes in their article. And because this is such a contentious statement by the IHT, the same statement (assertion) made by the company themselves (Singapore Airlines) would be removed because it fails WP:SELFPUB; it also means that all information which is sourced from Singapore Airlines 'official' sources is impossible to verify and hence needs to be removed from the article, which would make for a very short article indeed (a positive of course is that it gets rid of the horrendous cruft which is in the article. On a sidenote, if you own stocks in any of these companies I suggest selling them as the ability of Ernst & Young to accurately audit and certify financial accounts of all of those companies has been called into question (looking at the list it could mark the end of all world economies).

Additionally, Huaiwei has in one of the above reverts made the claim that the parent company is whichever entity owns the "Singapore Airlines" brand. If this is the case, then why hasn't this been brought up before now? Perhaps it is because it is perfectly clear that the "Singapore Airlines" article infobox pertains to a company, not a brand, particularly when you have "parent company" wikilinked. Additionally, the lead paragraph mentions the Singapore Airlines, the airline, and Singapore Airlines, the company.

I will be re-adding Temasek to the infobox as per the above verifiable information regarding the parent company using the IHT source, to replace Singapore Airlines Limited which is not sourced. If a verifiable and reliable source can be found which would indicate that Temasek is not the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited, and that Singapore Airlines Limited (or any other company) is indeed the parent, I will stand by the newfound sources and will not change it back to Temasek. This is, of course, done in the interests of upholding WP:FIVE, which is my intent, and always has been. And we are all bound by these principles.

I would like to turn Huaiwei's attention to a couple of reverts of edits made by himself.

[49] - Temasek was changed back to SIA Limited with the reason being unsourced. A fact tag could have been added, but SIA Limited should never have been put back, with WP:V#_note-2 being precisely why, but I digress, unsourced information can be removed at any time.
[50] - Temasek (referenced this time) was changed back to SIA Limited again (and still unsourced). The reason used for the revert this time was that I had not gained concensus to include that information in the article.

Huaiwei has opened the door in using those reasonings for reverting my verified, encyclopaedic edit. If he expects me (and everyone else editing this article) to source information, gain consensus and a multitude of other 'demands' made when reverting others edits, because he does not own the article, then one would expect him to edit this article based upon those same 'demands', in order to uphold WP:FIVE.

Therefore, I have made the following edits at the same time as adding Temasek back into the article infobox, and will provide the reasons for those reverts here:

The Codeshare agreements section has been tagged as unreferenced since May 2007 - some 3 months. If you look at WP:V#_note-2, the entire section should have been removed long ago. However, structure guidelines of the Airline project does state that codeshare agreements should be mentioned, but that destinations should not be listed. As I have been coming across articles, they have been trimmed down to fall squarely within those guidelines, and I know that others have been doing the same since day dot. So I am completely editing this section to update it with only current

codeshare partners and to provide sources for the information. The destinations will be omitted as per the WP:Airlines guidelines. The section should not be reverted or edited to include destinations, until such time as consensus is gained on this talk page, or preferably on the airline project talk page. This also includes the unreferenced prose which has been unreferenced also since May.

Flight numbers this has been an issue for some time, as evidenced in the mediation from January of this year. There was clearly no consensus for the inclusion of these flight numbers, but rather the opposite, and even now there is no concensus for their inclusion in the airline articles. I am removing the section in its entireity for the following reasons. First, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, the source for the opening sentence in this section is the SIA timetable, and the flight number ranges are used as a "How to" decode the airline's flight schedules - as publishing the airline timetable on WP would breach WP:NOT#TRAVEL and WP:NOT#DIR, the flight numbers provide no context for inclusion in the article.

Consensus on these two sections in particular was never gotten, and in fact, most say get rid of it. And consensus should be gotten for them to be included. --Russavia 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of having to write bloated messages to support blatant cases of non-concensus edits, let me just touch on each one, demonstrating my relative ease in shooting every point Russavia could put up:

Parent company: The definition of a Parant company is defined by law, in this case, defined by Singaporean Law. Not by some simplistic notion of "majority shareholding" alone, which has clearly been the sole criterion used by Russavia irrespective of the corresponding laws in force in that country. The Companies Act states that a "subsidiary company" is one if the holding company controls the composition of the board of directors of the first-mentioned corporation; controls more than half of the voting power of the first-mentioned corporation; holds more than half of the issued share capital of the first-mentioned corporation (excluding any part thereof which consists of preference shares and treasury shares); is a subsidiary of any corporation which is the Holding company’s subsidiary. In most cases, secondary sources are preferred, but when it comes to a formal designation such as a company structure, primary sources obviously takes precedence. Has Russavia found within documents issued by Singapore Airlines or Temasek Holdings explicitely refering to their relationship as one of "parent-subsidiary"? As long as this remains unproperly referenced, it will be removed immediately.
Codeshare agreements: The relevant guideline in the wikiproject calls for non-mention of codeshared agreements within airline destination lists for obvious concerns. There is no guideline forbidding its inclusion in another format somewhere else in the article, as long as it is not presented in such a way that it causes little distinction between actual flights operated and codeshared flights. Russavia's own inclusion of sources actually nullifies his own claim that the list is unsourced presently, and even if so, there are not difficult to come by if it need to be re-inserted now.
Flight numbers: Russavia claims there was no concensus to include flight numbers according to the Mediation cabel. He conveniently refuses to note from the mediation cabel, that the members has failed to come to concensus. Second, he fails to realise that the medication cabel in the first place is not meant to be binding. Third, the flight numbers formatting has actually evolved to its current state as a result of feedback to ensure it remains relevant, and there has since been no objections to maintain it.

Indeed, it can be observed from the above that almost all three items are either non-issues, or has no longer come under serious contention for sometime, until Russavia comes along and attempts to rekindle all past disputes for no better reason than his personal distaste towards "Singaporean fanboism", a statement he admits himself. Editing wikipedia to fulfull his personal agenda, mass editing articles to proof his point, and constant reversions without optaining proper concensus first are all signs of disruptive editing just to proof a point. The article gets reverted immediately because of the above.--Huaiwei 03:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly say that these are non-issues, after all these non-issues were one of the reasons for this mediation in January. You have demanded from me that I get consensus to make a single change to who actually owns Singapore Airlines Limited, yet you, Huaiwei, refuse to show anyone where there has been any consensus for the inclusion of codeshare destinations and flight numbers. Remember, you do not own this article. If this will not be discussed properly, and I am not talking about the inclusion of Temasek, but squarely about the listing of codeshare and inclusion of flight numbers, then this will have to be taken even further. And this is not about fanboyism, which yeah I have used in the past, but rather about getting rid of cruft out of this article, which is now being used as a precedent for inclusion in other articles. --Russavia 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not about fanboism now? You are the last person on planet Earth whom I would expect to hear that line from. Practically every reasoning you place in people's talkpages or article talkpage discussions includes at least one reference to that or its equivalent. Kindly refrain from using words like "cruft" without even obtaining concensus that those contents are indeed "cruft". They are so only in your opinion, and not amongst those who restored the information, as it has just happened twice over. If you have a major problem over Singapore Airlines being used as an "example article" for other airline articles, then its a problem you have to sort out youself outside wikipedia, not here. Wikipedia works out its standardisation guidelines via wikiprojects and concensus, not by habitually attacking the "offending" article alone. And kindly wake up to the simple fact that guidelines and just that: guidelines. They are not policies, and they do allow for exceptions. Most importantly, you jolly well report the situation accurately. I demanded that you seek concensus before mass-changing wikitemplates, reworking template entries across wikipedia, and defining just what a "parent company" is without first obtaining any concensus [51]. I demanded you to provide verification on just who is Singapore Airline's parent company[52]. So just where is the ownership element here? And now what? The issue is with supposed "ownership" now, and no longer about "fanboism"? Seriously, Russavia, if you are interested in accusing any other wikipedian of their "crimes" in wikipedia, please at least gather proper evidence first. Getting disruptive editing (now of coz that's my definition of your edits!) removed from an article constitutes as "article ownership"? Oh enlighten us all please! :D--Huaiwei 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Huaiwei, I don't have to seek any consensus to change a field on a template which is sources and verifiable, particularly when you read this. I do like how you have totally sidestepped the issue here:

1) You claimed that the IHT is not a source which meets WP:RS. What grounds do you have for reverting on that basis?

2) You have still failed to show me where there is any consensus for the inclusion of codeshare destinations and flight numbers on this article. --Russavia 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now how is this supposed to say anything about you being excempted from seeking concensus? If anything, I noticed this: "company_name=parent or holding company if applicable, otherwise repeat full airline name". So if its company name, and not parent company which is currently being displayed in the infobox, could you kindly explain your exercise to change all references to "parent company" instead of simply getting that field corrected without the need to mass rename articles? A minor amendment to an existing template is not a new template, which you attempted to confuse by abusing the newinfobox tag. You appear to have problems even admitting to commiting minor mistakes. It's no wonder you remain obstinate in bigger issues.
So now lets discuss bigger issues. It appears that you have great problems understanding that the mere insertion of sources is not all there is to it. You took an interpretation of what the source says, despite its failure in explicitely specifying the information you are attempting to show. This is not accurate referencing work, and this isnt the first time you do such nonsensicle things too anyway. Just look at the mayhem over at Singapore Airlines Cargo for one. If there is a dispute over the interpretation of the same source, than clearly a concensus will need to be sought. Have you done that, Russavia?
Next, sidestepping the issue? Let's see. You claim IHT is a source which meets WP:RS. I have stated quite clearly above that "when it comes to a formal designation such as a company structure, primary sources obviously takes precedence." I challenged you to show any primary source from Singapore Airlines or Temasek Holdings which specifies their parent-subsidiary relationship, which if you could, I would accept it as a legitimate claim. Unfortunately, you chose to ignore that too. Selective reading has apparantly done you a deservice this time.
As for "concensus" for the inclusion of codeshare destinations, I suppose you are semi-blind once again. I said quite matter-of-factly that "The relevant guideline in the wikiproject calls for non-mention of codeshared agreements within airline destination lists for obvious concerns. There is no guideline forbidding its inclusion in another format somewhere else in the article, as long as it is not presented in such a way that it causes little distinction between actual flights operated and codeshared flights." The same guideline does not forbid the inclusion of flight numbers either, and as mentioned before, "the flight numbers formatting has actually evolved to its current state as a result of feedback to ensure it remains relevant, and there has since been no objections to maintain it." With no further objections for months, "silence equals consent". There was indeed consent for several months until you take it upon yourself to reopen old disputes with a apparant agenda, an agenda you admitted yourself. Still remember your own motivations, or do you need me to find the evidence for you?
It appears that I have to do frequent copy-and-paste operations when talking to Russavia. I suppose this is neccesary when dealing with individuals who show an apparant difficulty in accepting alternative viewpoints other than his own, engages in selective reading just to avoid facing the reality that his viewpoints can be challenged, and continously disrupts wikipedia with his mass-edits in the hope of lending himself weight in his battle against his primary target...this article, thus resulting in similar comments sprouting in multiple talkpages, but all basically saying the same old points over and over. Yawn.--Huaiwei 15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will answer all of your questions and respond to all of your comments Huaiwei.

My exercise to change the infobox 'parent company' is nothing more than ensuring that articles are encyclopaedic in nature. One of the major pillars of WP is WP:V, and what was in the infoboxes did not meet WP:V. As you might have noticed I have put forward a proposal in getting extra fields to distinguish between 'parent company' and 'shareholders'.
The infobox template asking for new infoboxes to be inserted was an error on my part, hence why you might have noticed that I did not do all that many articles. You are not assuming good faith on my part, as in the reason I did so was so that editors of those articles could insert the latest version of the infobox to the article, for example, the SIA article infobox was hopelessly outdated. Am I expected to change THOUSANDS of infoboxes myself, whilst at the same time ensuring that information in them is correct?
Please do not say that I was non-sensical in the way that Singapore Airlines Cargo was updated. Even when it was clearly explained to you, you still insisted on self-published sources as they were written and perhaps couldn't see the distinction that I and others put forward to you.
Can you show me where it says that primary sources take precedence over secondary sources when it is my understanding of WP:V that the opposite is true. Additionally, WP:PROVEIT, states 'All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.'. As IHT is a reliable, published source there is no need to quote a 'primary' source. The right thing to do would have been to question it on the talk page (either article or user), whereby I would have happily supplied other sources as I have above, but the reverting of referenced material from reliable sources, because one may not agree, or doesn't understand, only serves to get people's backs up.
In regards to consensus on codeshare destinations, to claim that there has been no objection for months is a bit of an understatement. The way that I read this there was plenty of consensus, but yourself claimed 'Unrealistic expectations here may result in no resolution or improvement to the current impasse at all.' - which I interpret as, no matter the consensus, they are staying. this and scattered against other airline article talk pages and edits, codeshare destinations are removed, and they stay removed. All except this article. In regards to both the codeshare destinations and flight numbers, these are not old disputes as from where I stand, reading all over, the dispute has never ended, as people simply tire of continually hitting their head against a brick wall.
I, as well as many others, fail to understand, just what purpose both the listing of codeshare destinations and flight numbers serves in this, or any article?