Talk:Singapore Airlines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Singapore Airlines article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Singapore Airlines was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 18, 2008
Good article Singapore Airlines was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 7, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Singapore Airlines: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines#Request for Comment: Reasons For/Against Request for comment.Find additional suitable images.New images uploaded to the Commons.
  • Copyedit: Shorten lead-in. Shortened. Events section needs to be incorporated into the main body of text.
  • Merge: The section on "Preparations for the A380" can be moved into the article Singapore Changi Airport. Much of the "Fleet" section can be merged into the article Singapore Airlines fleet. The "Events" section needs to be merged into the rest of the article text or removed. "Cabin" section needs to be merged into the "Inflight Service" section. It might be possible to refer some of the material on the corporate structure to Singapore Airlines Group which currently redirects to this article.
  • Verify: Find reliable sources for the article text. Find sources for {{cn}} or remove the statements alltogether.
  • Cleanup: Rewrite whole article, remove weasel words, cite sources for certain sections such as Awards, controversies, new events, new plane orders, edit directory of flight numbers, advertisement-like language.
  • Expand: Infobox needs to be updated. Needs for some historical controversies to be added into the article e.g. SIA pilots incident in the 1980s. Also, some of the non-SQ6 lawsuits to be added into the article. A brief mention on SQ6 and the lawsuits in "Controversy" section. Expand on the fleet, interior of the fleet and older history. Content to use old Straits Times newspapers, SilverKris as well as foreign news material.
  • Update: A380 status, recent events of SIA.
  • NPOV: Clean up anything that makes the article sound like an advert.
  • Other: After significant improvements have been made: GA-nomination, peer-review and FA-nomination.
Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5

Contents

[edit] RfC: Flight Numbers and Codeshare Agreements

Unfortunately Wiki Bureaucracy dictates we go for this token discussion of the repeting of views before we go anywhere else.

[edit] Parent company....here we go again.

Not having noticed that the parent company has been removed from the infobox for quite some time now by the looks of it, I have placed it back, and surprise, surprise, Huaiwei has yet again reverted it. This issue has gone on now since at least August 2007, and it has been an absolute headache. This is the very last time that I will be addressing this issue, as it is difficult to continue to assume good faith when an editor claims that a reliable source is not a reliable source, claims that information is not verifiable when it is, demands that I explain every word of every edit, which is reverted without question, and without the courtesy of responding to questions asked of him, making it appear to me that he is making a point that he has a certain right above every other editor to have certain controls over content, or perhaps one is just being inconsiderate. But hey, even though I am admittedly guilty of being uncivil to Huaiwei on a few occasions in the past, and I will admit that I do not believe Huaiwei has acted in good faith in regards to this issue, I will assume good faith one last time, and I will explain every word, even though just as Wikipedia is not a textbook, and is not meant to teach subject matter, I should not be expected to play professor and educate.

Parent companies are an integral part of the business world, and as this article is also under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, and of course WP:FIVE, the parent company which is verifiable and which comes from a reliable source should not be removed without concensus, as I see no reason why Singapore Airlines is so special that this info is not included in this article, yet can potentially be included in every other company article on WP. With the growing interest in Government-linked companies and the use of Sovereign wealth funds by governments, this information is all the more important, and there is much obfuscation by these GLC's in not disclosing their holdings, just look at Temasek Holdings as a prime example, publishing an annual report for the first time in 2004, yet it still only reports on the major investments it holds, no-one knows for sure just how many companies it actually owns and has investments in.

In August 2007, when Temasek Holdings was placed as the sourced and referenced parent company, Huaiwei reverted it, with the commentThe IHT is not an authority in deciding for SIA who its parent company is. Kindly find any source in (of course, IHT is in reference to the International Herald Tribune, a respectable and reliable source). I am willing to go out on a limb here, but Huaiwei is not an authority in deciding that the IHT is not a reliable source with a [[WP:V|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy].) Reverting and tons of original research occurred by Huaiwei after this. In the last few days, I have re-added Temasek this time being sourced to Forbes, and surprise, surprise, Huaiwei reverts it, this time stating, The only reliable source on a company's structure is obviously the company's own publications. And they simply do not show such a relationship. Again, Huaiwei is claiming that Forbes is not a reliable source with a [[WP:V|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy]. But alas, Huaiwei, the company's own publications do show such a relationship, that's the beauty of being listed on a stock exchange, they are required to, and that information was provided back in August last year, and you reverted it, claiming it did not show that relationship. If only looked at what has been written previously on this very talk page, unfortunately, another user has deleted it, but here it is. Mind you, what you are suggesting is that we write the entire article using only sources provided via Singapore Airlines, and that is squarely outright against the verifiability policy. Given that Huaiwei does not believe that a source which states that Temasek is the parent company of Singapore Airlines is not a reliable source, I hereby am providing a list of further sources which state that very fact, and will provide some further info on certain sources, and perhaps Huaiwei can then provide a reason as to why each and every single one of these sources is not reliable, and then they can be discussed by the entire project as to their reliability, and whether any of them should be used for providing verifiable information, remembering of course, that many of these sources are used on this very article? (Of course, they are reliable due to them extensively being used throughout Wikipedia, and due to them more than fulfilling requirements). Or perhaps, Huaiwei can stop reverting referenced, reliable, verifiable information, based upon purely belief that reliable sources are not reliable.

  • International Herald Tribune - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek signed a definite agreement to buy a 24 percent stake in China Eastern Airlines to add flights in the second-largest aviation market in the world. NOTE The IHT is being used in this article for the following citations SIA was shut out from the Toronto market after complaints from Air Canada of losing market share to SIA, and was forced to stop flying Boeing 747-400s into Jakarta in the wake of protests from Garuda Indonesia when it could not use similar equipment to compete, It similarly faced constant opposition from Qantas to allow it full aviation rights out of Australia, in particular to the United States, The cancellation was seen as particularly damaging to McDonnell Douglas due to the company's reputation, The A340-300 had been a replacement for a cancelled McDonnell Douglas MD-11 order, which could not meet long-range requirements as far as distance was concerned.
  • Forbes - article - quote from article - For a price tag of 7.2 billion Hong Kong dollars ($923 million), Singapore Airlines (other-otc: SGPJF - news - people ), 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. NOTE The example article, unbelievably, is not reliable to use to include Temasek as the parent company, yet it is reliable to use to cite this from the WP article: The deal, worth 7.2 billion Hong Kong Dollars, would have involved SIA buying 1.24 billion shares at 3.80 Hong Kong dollars a share and caused a major rally in China Eastern Airline's shares, which rose 83.91% to reach 6.86 Hong Kong dollars one day after the announcement of the deal
  • Bloomberg L.P. - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines Ltd. and parent Temasek Holdings Pte may pay about $930 million for a stake in China Eastern Airlines Corp. to expand the carrier's reach in the world's most populous nation, people involved in the talks said.
  • Reuters - article - quote from article - Shareholders of China Eastern Airlines (0670.HK: Quote, Profile, Research) rejected on Tuesday a deal to sell a 24 percent stake to Singapore Airlines (SIAL.SI: Quote, Profile, Research) and its parent Temasek Holdings TEM.UL for US$920 million.
  • Financial Times - article - quote from article - if CEA's minority shareholders reject a proposed HK$7.16bn (US$917m) investment by Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek at a shareholder meeting on Tuesday.
  • MarketWatch (owned by Dow Jones) - article - quote from article - Shares of Singapore Airlines Ltd. traded little changed Wednesday, a day after minority shareholders of China Eastern Airlines (CEA) blocked a bid that would have seen the Singaporean carrier and its state-owned parent Temasek Holdings take a 24% stake for HK$7.1 billion ($918 million).
  • The Australian - article - quote from article - Air China blocked a deal this year whereby Singapore Airlines and its parent, Temasek Holdings, would buy a 24 per cent stake in China Eastern.
  • Asia Times Online - article - quote from article - China Daily reported this Wednesday that Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings may pay about US$930 million for a combined stake of about 24% in China Eastern Airlines to expand the Southeast Asian carrier's reach in China.
  • Shanghai Daily - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines Ltd and its parent Temasek Holdings Pte signed an agreement last month to buy 24 percent of China Eastern Airlines Corp at HK$3.80 a share.
  • The Daily Telegraph - article - quote from article - Hong Kong-based Cathay had drawn up plans - revealed by telegraph.co.uk on Friday - to buy a minority stake in China Eastern Airlines Corporation, potentially trumping a previously-agreed deal between China Eastern and Singapore Airlines and its parent, Temasek Holdings.
  • Fairfax Media - article - quote from article - The companies announced in September that Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek would pay $US918 million ($NZ1.21 billion) for a combined 24 per cent stake in China Eastern
  • Air Transport World - article - quote from article - China Eastern Airlines continues to press on in its effort to reach a deal with Singapore Airlines and plans to cooperate with SIA parent Temasek to fashion terms that will be acceptable to minority shareholders, who vetoed the sale of a 24% stake last month.
  • The Honolulu Advertiser - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte agreed to buy a 24 percent stake in China Eastern for about $918 million last month.
  • USA Today - article - quote from article - This could mean the government reducing its majority control of SIA as it allows more carriers to be based at Changi and builds a terminal for low-cost airlines to further cement its air-hub position, analysts said. (the operative word here being control)
  • The Standard - article - quote from article - Shares in China Eastern Airlines (0670) soared 75.1 percent to close at a record HK$6.53, the day after the carrier announced Singapore Airlines and its parent, Temasek Holdings, have agreed to invest US$918 million (HK$7.16 billion) for a combined 24 percent stake in the mainland carrier.
  • Channel NewsAsia - article - quote from article - Established in 1974 by the government, Temasek controls some of Asia's best-known companies including Singapore Airlines and Singapore Telecommunications. (the operative word here being control)
  • China Daily - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte plan to buy about 25 percent of China Eastern, Li Fenghua, the Chinese carrier's chairman, said at a shareholders' meeting in Shanghai today.
  • People's Daily - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte are seeking to buy 24 percent of China Eastern to expand in China's growing aviation market.
  • Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation - article - quote from article - The rejection of a plan to sell 24 pct of China Eastern Airlines to Singapore Airlines and its Singapore government parent Temasek will delay the Chinese carrier's development
  • China Central Television - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent, Temasek, offered 3.8 Hong Kong dollars a share for a 24 percent stake in China Eastern.
  • Hong Kong Trade Development Council - article - quote from article - SINGAPORE Airlines Ltd. and parent Temasek Holdings Pte have agreed to pay about US$918 million for a 24 percent stake in China Eastern Airlines Corp., as economic growth boosts air travel in China.
  • Xinhua Financial Network - article - quote from article - The rejection of a plan to sell 24 pct of China Eastern Airlines to Singapore Airlines and its Singapore government parent Temasek will delay the Chinese carrier's development, China Eastern president Li Fenghua said.
  • The Economic Times - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek Holdings had made a persistent bid to buy a 24 per cent stake in CEA for 3.80 Hong Kong dollar per share.
  • The Straits Times - [1] - quote from article - Leading the charge is the Singapore government investment arm Temasek Holdings, which owns Changi Airport and a controlling stake in Singapore Airlines.
  • The Star - article - quote from article - Singapore Air, the world's second biggest airline by stock market value, saw its bid to increase exposure to the booming China market suffer a setback after shareholders of China Eastern last month rejected a deal to sell 24% of the firm for US$920mil to Singapore Air and its parent Temasek.
  • BusinessWeek - article - quote from article - And in September, Temasek scored an mergers and acquisitions victory when the fund teamed up with its subsidiary Singapore Airlines to take a 24% stake in China Eastern Airlines, acing out Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific.
  • The Age - article - Singapore Airlines and its parent, state investment company Temasek Holdings, are in talks to buy a 24 per cent stake in China Eastern Airlines.
  • Thomson Financial - article - quote from article - Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd is preparing a statement to respond to reports that it is seeking to invest in China Eastern Airlines Corp, a move that could possibly thwart a bid from Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd to buy a stake in China's third largest carrier.
  • London Stock Exchange - article - quote from article - Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd is preparing a statement to respond to reports that it is seeking to invest in China Eastern Airlines Corp, a move that could possibly thwart a bid from Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd to buy a stake in China's third largest carrier.
  • Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania - article - quote from article - It was a perfect deal and it had approval from the top levels of Chinese government. Singapore Airlines (SIA) and its parent company, Temasek, were set to purchase a 24% stake in Shanghai-based China Eastern Airlines.
  • Associated Press - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent, the Singapore government investment agency Temasek Holdings Ltd., offered $923.8 million (7.2 billion Hong Kong dollars or about HK$3.80 per share), for the 24 percent stake.
  • Singapore Business Review - article - quote from article - Last year, Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings offered to buy 24% of China Eastern Airlines at a price of HK$3.8 per share, totalling HK$7.16 billion in order to expand their businesses in China's booming aviation market.
  • The New York Times - article - quote from article - The companies in its stable represent at least one-fifth of Singapore's market capitalization and it has controlling stakes in Singapore Airlines and Singapore Telecommunications.
  • Payload Asia - article - quote from article - SIA and parent Temasek recently signed a definitive agreement to buy 15.7 and 8.3 per cent stakes respectively in CEA, with the Singapore carrier pledging significant cooperation with the Shanghai-based carrier.
  • The Boston Globe - article - quote from article - The statement by the Hong Kong-based carrier increases the probability that China Eastern shareholders will reject an offer for a 24 percent stake by Singapore Airlines and its parent, the government investment agency Temasek Holdings Ltd,. when they meet Tuesday in Shanghai.
  • World Trade Organization - article (word document) quote from article - Singapore Airlines (SIA) is Singapore's national carrier and a publicly listed company. It is majority owned (56.76%) by the Government through its holding company, Temasek.
  • Cargonews Asia - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and parent Temasek Holdings' bid of HK$3.8 per share for 24 percent of China Eastern was blocked by minority shareholders late last year after comments by Air China that the offer price was too low.
  • The Wall Street Journal - article - quote from article - By launching its offer, CNAHC had scuttled an earlier deal that would have given Singapore Airlines Ltd. and its parent company, Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., a 24% share in China Eastern.
  • Today - article - quote from article - Not because his ambitious target - Shanghai-based China Eastern Airlines (CEA), the third largest carrier in the world's fastest-growing, but still highly regulated, economy - spurned the HK$7.2-billion ($1.3-billion) advances of SIA and parent Temasek Holdings.
  • The Sydney Morning Herald - article - quote from article - Temasek owns many of Singapore's largest companies, such as Optus-owner SingTel, Singapore Airlines and Singapore Power.
  • World Bank - article (PDF format) - quote from article - In Singapore, Temasek-the national holding company-has a $90 billion portfolio with shares in over 20 major SOEs, including such well-known multinationals as SingTel, Singapore Airlines, and Raffles.
  • Asiaweek - article - quote from article - Affected companies contacted by asiaweek, including Temasek Holdings, the Singapore government investment arm that controls SIA, SingTel and DBS, declined to comment on any share price implications.
  • Businessworld - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines' parent company Temasek and a group of other investors are launching a low-cost airline called Tiger Airways.
  • Condé Nast Portfolio - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and its parent, the Singapore government investment agency Temasek Holdings Ltd., offered $923.8 million (7.2 billion Hong Kong dollars or about HK$3.80 per share), for the 24 percent stake.
  • Daily Times - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines: Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek Holdings Pte agreed to buy a 24 percent stake in China Eastern on Sept. 2 for HK$7.16 billion ($917 million), after more than a year of talks.
  • Air Transport World - article - quote from article - Separately, SIA and parent Temasek said they signed a definitive agreement to buy 15.73% and 8.27% stakes respectively in China Eastern Airlines for a combined HK$7.2 billion ($927 million).
  • Fortune - article - quote from article - But that makes its choice of partner odd, as Temasek also owns Singapore Airlines, which in turn owns both low-cost regional feeder airline Silk Air and Tiger.
  • CNN - article - quote from article - China National Aviation Holding, which owns 12.07 percent in the Shanghai-based carrier, said in a statement Tuesday that the HK$3.80 per share offer by Singapore Airlines and its parent, government investment arm Temasek Holdings, did not "reflect the fair value of China Eastern."
  • Asian Development Bank - article - quote from article - With few exceptions, the airline industry in developing Asia is dominated by state-owned enterprises. Although one such carrier, Singapore Airlines, has consistently been ranked as one of the world's best and most efficient, the record of state ownership in other airlines is poor.
  • The Edge - article - quote from article - The Singapore government, which controls flag carrier Singapore Airlines Ltd, also has equity in two budget airlines. Its state investment agency, Temasek Holdings, holds 19% of Qantas Airways Ltd.'s JetStar Asia and 11% of Tiger Airways, set up with the founder of Irish discount carrier Ryanair.
  • Aviation Week & Space Technology - article - quote from article - Tiger's main owners are Singapore Airlines and that company's state parent, Temasek Holdings.
  • Shenzhen Daily - article - quote from article - TEMASEK Holdings Pte., a Singapore state-owned investment company with US$85 billion in assets, may join its unit Singapore Airlines Ltd. to bid for a stake in China Eastern Airlines Corp., Morgan Stanley said.
  • JLM Pacific Epoch - article - quote from article - Air China Ltd's (601111.SH; 0753.HK) parent company China National Aviation Holdings Company, will vote against China Eastern Airlines Corporation Ltd's (600115.SH; 0670.HK; NYSE:CEA) proposed deal with Singapore Airlines Ltd (SIA) and its parent company Temasek Holdings at CEA's shareholder meeting scheduled for January 8, 2008, reports the Beijing News quoting Air China vice president Fan Cheng.
  • Xinhua News Agency - article - quote from article - The document sets out the framework for a cooperative partnership in conjunction with a proposed strategic investment in CEA by SIA and Temasek, which owns 54.8 percent of SIA.
  • ASEAN-Australia Development Cooperation Programme - Regional Economic Policy Support Facility (an initiative of AusAID in support of ASEAN) - article - quote from article - Governments' controls in other ASEAN airlines are still significant despite the various privatisation initiatives. For example, Singapore, despite being seen as having more foreign investor-friendly investment rules in place, sees the Singapore Airlines (SIA) being owned as much as 57% by the state investment holding company, Temasek Holdings.
  • Four Corners of the ABC - article - quote from article - It seems all flight paths lead to Singapore Inc. Brierley is now a Singapore company with 7 per cent owned by, yes, the Singapore government through a company called Temasek. And that's not the only coincidence. As well as its shareholdings, which weave a path through New Zealand to Ansett, the state-owned Singapore Airlines has 49 per cent of Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic. It turns out that Richard Branson has very close connections with Singapore.
  • AsiaOne - article - quote from article - Temasek controls some of Asia's best-known companies including Singapore Airlines, Chartered Semiconductor, Neptune Orient Lines, port operator PSA International and Singapore Telecommunications.
  • Gulf Times - article - quote from article - China Eastern Airlines nearly doubled in value to a record after Singapore Airlines and its parent Temasek agreed to buy a combined 24% stake in the Chinese airline for US$918mn and Singapore Airlines shares climbed 1.6%.
  • The Guardian - article - quote from article - With a portfolio of more than 160bn Singapore dollars (£55bn), Temasek is among Asia's wealthiest sovereign funds. It controls Singapore Airlines and Singapore Telecoms, owns a 13% stake in Standard Chartered Bank and bought 2% of Barclays earlier this year.
  • BBC - article - quote from article - The state-controlled carrier earned 868 million Singapore dollars ($553m; £293m) between March and September.
  • Flight International - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines and China Eastern Airlines were due to unveil a deal on 2 September in which SIA and its parent, Temasek Holdings, are to jointly buy a 25% stake in China Eastern.
  • Mint a newspaper from HT Media Ltd. Sister publication to Hindustan Times. Partner of The Wall Street Journal. Article using content syndicated from Agence France-Presse - article - quote from article - Temasek controls some of Asia's best-known companies including Singapore Airlines, Chartered Semiconductor, Neptune Orient Lines, port operator PSA International and Singapore Telecommunications.
  • The Independent - article - quote from article - Singapore Airlines will hold 49 per cent while its parent company, the Singapore state investment agency Temasek Holdings, will own a further 11 per cent.
  • Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China - article - quote from article - 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.
  • International Enterprise Singapore, agency of the Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry, utilising a newsfeed from The Business Times - article - quote from article - Ironically, the one venture where it seems to be doing reasonably well is its China-based Great Wall Airlines freighter airline business, where it has a 25 per cent stake, while its parent Temasek has 24 per cent.
  • SIA Engineering Company - annual report (PDF 4.0mb) - quote from Page 94 - 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.
  • Singapore Airlines - annual report (PDF 6.0mb) - quote from page 80 - 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. NOTE This exact source has been referenced by myself in this article on many occasions, and Huaiwei dismisses it, because he does not believe it says what it says. And now he still wants a company source? And it is his continual rejection of this source which has caused me such a headache, particularly, as he has taken it upon himself to use this source to claim things such as, Temasek is the parent company of the Singapore Airlines Group, something of course which it is not, and of course when I have told him this is not verifiable, it is dismissed by him. Additionally, referring to this change from today, which references page 80 as mentioned just above, it clearly states Singapore Airlines is a subsidiary of Temasek, yet this is reverted to saying that Temasek is a simply a major shareholder. I hope this will not be the case, yet again. Looks like I spoke too soon. Of course, Huaiwei can always tells us exactly what this statement means: 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. --Россавиа Диалог 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The above lengthy post makes zero mention, nor demonstrates any real intent in resolving past disputes which has been left hanging, including but not confined to these: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Russavia has shown an inability to remain consistent in even defining the entity "Singapore Airlines" in this article, choosing to take differing opinions just to ram through his personal POV, in particular his "concern" of Singapore Airline's reputation as a quality airline, and now, his agenda in pushing through greater emphasis on the actual role of Temasek Holdings and its shareholdings in various companies, including that of Singapore Airlines. Without any new information to support this stand, I fail to see any reason to shift away from the status quo, which is to outright delete the contested field until a reasonable compromise may be found. And that status quo has remained for several months until Russavia decides to reignite it again. Numerous news articles will simply not hold in this regard. I have seen numerous articles, most of whom simply copies from one another, calling Singapore Airlines a "parent company" of Tiger Airways:[7][8][9]. Do you plan to be consistent and enforce that relationship as well?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the airline and everything to do with your personal squabble. Take it to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines, please. Jpatokal (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether this is a personality or content dispute is not for you to judge, Jpatokal. Kindly do not capitalise on each and every dispute to your advantage and respect the views of each party concerned.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't give a flying fillip about which one of you is "right". You're both acting like kindergarteners and, seeing that you've both agreed to participate in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines (which is about you two and this very article), you should sort this out there instead of edit warring here. Jpatokal (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And that jolly well should be so, because you are in no position to judge either party. You are similarly in no position to call anyone names, not talk to anyone in a condescending manner, just because they have been involved in a dispute you could care less about. Even banned users deserve better treatment, so kindly avoid attempting to repeatedly aggravate the situation with needless comments.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, I have always stated that this article is about the company, which happens to be an airline, and I challenge anyone to show anyone any different. Out of all the above, when it is CLEARLY stated in the Singapore Airlines Annual Report (remember you are the one who insisted back in August that you want a company source, which of course you duly ignored, and then proceeded to use to engage in original research), what do these 2 sentences mean to you?

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.

What does being a subsidiary actually mean? It can mean only ONE thing. If CompanyA is a subsidiary of CompanyB, then CompanyB is the parent company of CompanyA.

In regards to Tiger, take it up on that article when the need arises, but I for one would never include Tiger as being a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines, due to the sheer number of sources which do make this clear distinction, but it is very fair to state that Tiger Airways is a state-controlled airline due to its ownership of Temasek, and its control of Singapore Airlines, the Singapore government does have control over Tiger.

Now, bringing it back to SIA, and still related to Tiger somewhat, if the government chooses to exercise that control or not is irrelevant, it is still a state-controlled airline. In the case of SIA, with each ordinary share of SIA carrying one vote, and with Temasek owning 54.47% of these share (and of course with the Minister of Finance holding a golden share), Singapore Airlines is controlled by (by legal definition) Temasek Holdings, and Temasek Holdings is the parent company (by legal definition) of Singapore Airlines.

Additionally, this is made all the more interesting by SingTel, which the other day I updated to show as Temasek being the parent company, and which you reverted again citing that news sources are wrong. But then straight away, you have basically reverted your own revert and included a source from Temasek (albeit quite a contentious source considering its content). So in that instance, I used a reliable, verifiable source which you reverted, and then added back the information using a self-published source. Your questioning of the reliability of sources claiming that they are not reliable has a dark cloud over it right about now due to that article. Yet, on this article, you already have discounted a self-published source, and for what reason I have no idea. Does the inclusion of Temasek, mean we will have a category of Category:Government-controlled companies with Singapore Airlines prominently placed there? Not a priority for me, but its a possibility (however, truth be known, I am working on a Temasek in-article template at the moment, due to much increased spotlight on governmet linked companies and the use of sovereign wealth funds [yeah, I know, Temasek doesn't regard themselves as one, but 99% of the world media does]). I have to question your motives here Huaiwei. I will be upfront about mine, to present the correct information without allowing advertorial PR to obfuscate and keep to NPOV - whilst it is true that Temasek is the majority shareholder, this does not in itself portray the reality in that it is the parent company, a piece of fact acknowledged by Singapore Airlines itself. --Россавиа Диалог 10:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And on a related note, due to Huaiwei refusing the recognise that Forbes and the IHT, two notable and reputable financial media companies, are reliable sources, I posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the concensus there is, is that yes Forbes and the IHT are reliable sources, and perhaps in relation to the links regarding Tiger but not relevant to the discussion at hand here, that if incorrect information has been printed, then it is up to the company to request a correction. --Россавиа Диалог 10:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You sound extremely sour over my comment that Forbes and the IHT are inferior in reliability when compared to official publications by Singapore Airlines, Russavia, to the point of now misquoting me of actualy dismissing both publications entirely on all aspects[10], despite me never stating such a viewpoint[11]. Thank you, Russavia, for once again demonstrating your rampant habit of misrepresenting and exaggerating the comments and viewpoints of your "editorial foes" in a bid to discredit them during the heat of a dispute.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If everything was this clear-cut, Russavia, why was this issue not resolved many many moons ago? Why did you fail to convince even a nuetral party like Vegaswikian, who clearly also has doubts?

  • Kindly state clearly whether this article is about Singapore Airlines the parent airline, or Singapore Airlines Limited and its group of companies, and tweak the entire article accordingly. You have insisted on presenting Singapore Airlines as a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, which will only be true if we are talking about the group of companies under the SIA umbrella (hence "Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company")" as stated quite clearly in the annual report, and not just the "parent airline" alone). Yet when the article is then modified to reflect this group of companies, you insist on reverting them back to Singapore Airlines the parent airline minus all its constituent parts. You can write an entire essay on your viewpoints, but if you cannot substaintiate them with simple logic and display consistency in applying them, is it anyone's fault that your POV continue to be removed (and not just by me alone)?
  • Even if we are to put aside the scope of this article, you ask for a check on definitions to bolster your point. Well, "Parent company", as that subsection in Holding company says, is a "holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm (subsidiary) to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors." Are you even in possession of a single verifiable source demonstrating Temasek Holdings actually exercising "management and operation control" over Singapore Airlines or any of the companies it has a majority stake in? The choice of terms used demonstrates a particular POV. The Australian media, for example, are prone to happily call Temasek a "parent company" of SQ especially during the hype of SQ's clashes with Qantas when the later called SQ a "government-subsidised company" when no such proof exists. The Singapore media (and a few other sources including those you cite above), on the other hand, tend to refer to Temasek simply as a "majority shareholder", without implying further relationship of any kind. Is this attempting to give undue weight to advance your POV?
  • I find it of particular concern that you consider highlighting Temasek's roles in its subsidiaries a urgent need in response to recent hype over sovereign funds, and that you take issue with Temasek's lack of disclosure. And here you are calling others attempting to suck up to state PR mechanisms, as thou you represent greater NPOV values? Your recent additions to this article attempting to portray Singapore Airlines negatively[12] has proven once again your inability to write with adequate balance and good unbiased research:[13]. Your views on Singapore-related matters, be it on Singapore Airlines, on Temasek Holdings, on Singapore's hotels, etc, etc, continue to be a major source of concern for several SGnb members[14][15], and I would continue to challenge you on your believe that you hold greater nuetrality in view compared to those members.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Temasek, it is a 55% shareholder of Singapore Airlines, (and has held a controlling stake since 1974 1975.) That seems to make it a parent-subsidiary relationship, as the SIA annual report says. There seems to be only one editor disputing this, but it seems to be one of the best sourced facts in Wikipedia. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to say that, yes, tamasek is the parent of SIA as both tamasek and SIA say so. Bonewah (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of you have failed to address the issues brought up above. Are you refering to SIA the group of companies or SIA the parent airline?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As you bring it up, I will ask you directly, since clearly none of us get it: How does 'SIA the group of companies' differ from 'SIA the parent airline'? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't. Singapore Airlines Limited (trading as Singapore Airlines) is the same entity at the Singapore Airlines Group of Companies; the Group of Companies monicker is used mainly in financial circles, so that it is possible to break up the company into the company and subsidiaries for purposes of financial reporting (e.g. reporting profitability of the company as an entity as a whole, or broken down into constituent companies). I suggest also looking at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22_Singapore_Airlines, as this issue is also covered there, in particular, Huaiwei states = But on hindsight, if Singapore Airlines = Singapore Airlines Limited = Singapore Airlines Group, which this not cause even greater confusion when they are actually the same entity (in the most basic sense minus the technicalities)? Now there will be an attempty by Huaiwei to obfuscate even more, but I say this.....
  • The IATA code SQ belongs to Singapore Airlines Limited
  • The aircraft in its fleet are registered to Singapore Airlines Limited (the Singapore CAA says so)
  • Huaiwei has no problem on SilkAir and Singapore Airlines Cargo with Singapore Airlines Limited being the parent company
  • The Singapore Stock Exchange doesn't have a listing for Singapore Airlines Group of Companies, but it does for Singapore Airlines Limited
  • IATA doesn't have a member called Singapore Airlines Group of Companies, but it does have a member called Singapore Airlines Limited
  • I can find no entity registered in Singapore called Singapore Airlines Group of Companies, but can find Singapore Airlines Limited
  • I can find no reference in any bilateral service agreements mentioning Singapore Airlines Group of Companies, but can find Singapore Airlines Limited
  • All sources regarding the China Eastern Airlines stake don't make any mention of Singapore Airlines Group of Companies taking a stake in that airline, but Singapore Airlines Limited (and its parent company Temasek Holdings)....refer to the long list of sources above, one of which is used as a reliable source in this article for info on that stakeholding, which apparently is not reliable enough to source Temasek as being the parent of Singapore Airlines
  • Other Temasek controlled entity articles have Temasek Holdings as the parent where verified, e.g. SingTel, which can also be called SingTel Group of Companies.
  • The list goes on, this article is about an airline which happens to be a company (as required by law) --Россавиа Диалог 16:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subsidiary --> Parent --> Subsidiary?

So after reading the above exchanges, it would appear that Huaiwei and Russavia have a personal conflict, and Huaiwei is fighting tooth and nail to avoid having to call Temasek a "Parent Company." After many struggles, the substantive question remaining is not what is posed above, because Huaiwei appears to have (after much struggle) acknowledged that Temasek is a majority shareholder of Singapore Airlines. The only remaining quabble is whether the corporate "Majority shareholder" of 55% of SA's stock is therefore SA's "parent company." Huaiwei appears to appoint a close managerial connotation to the words "parent company," which may or may not exist in Wikipedian English.

So the question remains: Does a longtime "Majority Shareholder" which is a limited liability corporation necessarily mean a "Parent Company"?69.140.102.62 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a conflict, and it is directly related to this issue which has been ongoing now for almost a year. Verified information has continually been removed by said editor. As to the question you have raised, if the laws of the country stipulate conditions which are met for a company being the parent of another, then yes, it is a parent company. Particularly, when the subsidiary company acknowledges it is a subsidiary of the parent company with:

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.

Taken from Page 80 of the 2006-07 Singapore Airlines Annual Report which can be found at:
http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/docs/company_info/investor/annual/SIA_AnnReport0607.pdf
--Россавиа Диалог 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
To avoid Russavia being drawn into an edit war, which will be bad for everyone's blood pressure, I have also reverted Huaiwei's deletion of sourced material. I still do not see a reason for Huaiwei's repeated deletions in all the above comments. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also reverted the change to avoid Russavia becoming involved in an edit war. There is no reason for this accurate and verified information to be removed from the article. SempreVolando (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
At what point does this go to the next step with {{Uw-vandalism2}} and the later templates being added to user talk pages? Another options are {{Uw-longterm}}, {{Uw-own1}}, {{Uw-nor1}}, {{Uw-npov1}}, {{Uw-unsourced1}} (for adding unsourced material so it may not apply). I think everyone has been hoping that mediation would resolve this. But since that is not the case, then all avenues to deal with this edit war need to be used. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring is not vandalism, so those templates would be over the top. A couple of users are behaving childishly, over a couple of issues, but surprisingly continue to work constructively on the rest of the article. Temporary blocks might just work (people are breaking 3RR which gets automatic 24 h block.) RFC and arbcom are next steps - will just get several useful editors 'topic banned'. Lets wait until they get bored again. Boredom may be a better mediator than a human. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I offered other options. Are you saying that none of those suggested warnings are appropriate? This is more then a simple edit war. Knowing some of the parties involved, I don't see this blowing over. There is an effort to try and formally mediate this dispute but that requires the involved parties to agree to the process. At this time, the key players have not all agreed so the second mediation step may not happen. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
A guide to applying WikiLove towards another editor.
A guide to applying WikiLove towards another editor.
  • I am all for NPOV but when I see such POV crusaders pushing their view into my face, I find that an insult. You don't go around other people's house and steal or stick something in there whilst claiming to be waiting for the Police to arrive to arrest you and still expect the owner wouldn't pull out a 12-gauge shot gun without any buckshots that won't have your name on it, do you? Perhaps that was a bad analogy but the bottom-line here is, please respect others here even if you disagree with them. I agree to disagree and I also disagree to agree but should you find yourself unable to do so, I think it's best you take a break and do something else instead of getting your temper or view fouled up by your personal inability to agree with what I just said here.
Read also
  1. Wikipedia:WikiLove
  2. Wikipedia:WikiHate
  3. Wikipedia:WikiCrime
  4. Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

--Dave1185 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Singapore Airlines fleet

With WP:AIRLINES deeming registrations irrelevant (and the community agreeing with comments on VS and VX fleet page AfDs leaning towards delete), there is no longer any material on the SQ fleet page that can't be merged into the main SQ page. With the SQ page effectively being a repository for 2 tables, I feel it ought to be merged into the SQ page, as pretty much no other airline wiki page has separate (and pretty much redundant) fleet pages. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is nothing on the standalone fleet page which cannot be merged once the 'cruft' of plane spotter style registrations etc... has been deleted. SempreVolando (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Listing specific aircraft is the only way to have confidence in the numbers. There is no other way to verify claims about how many aircraft there are. 85.18.243.58 (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes there are. It's called "external links". And that's how the numbers for every other airline is verified. There is currently no way to verify the accuracy of those specific aircraft, as the people that want those tables kept have failed to provide valid sources. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

There is too much reverting here, the page will end up protected soon if you don't stop. I admit that I'm mystified why the parent company info is impermissible. Could someone please provide a *brief* explanation or link demonstrating why the Tenekwhatever parent is wrong? Please no attacks on other editors as explanations William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Huaiwei acknowledges that Temasek is the majority shareholder of the corporate entity known as "Singapore Airlines Limited", but disputes that this makes Temasek the parent of the airline called "Singapore Airlines", which is only one of many business units in Singapore Airlines Ltd. Jpatokal (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines are two names for the same company. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying I agree with the line of argument above, I'm just attempting to summarize Huaiwei's POV. Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You have actually summaried my primary concern very well. Goes to show that discussions can indeed take place without the insults and derogatory comments. As for Vegaswikian's comment that Singapore Airlines Limited = Singapore Airlines, yes I have stated before that Singapore Airlines Limited = Singapore Airlines = Singapore Airlines Group. An important point to consider, thou, is that this equation is true only when the "Singapore Airlines" element is not specified to refer solely to the "parent airline", a term the company frequently uses to refer to the airline called "Singapore Airlines" within the group of companies called "Singapore Airlines Limited", commonly shorterned also as "Singapore Airlines". Btw, it is interesting to note that this discussion is now taking place back in the talkpage, when it dosent seem to work in a MedCab, and a formal mediation process on this seems to be stuttering even before the word "Go"!--Huaiwei (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I only added this article to my watchlist a few weeks ago, I think that Jpatokal and Vegaswikian have correctly summarised the complaint. So I have a proposal to make that may satisfy all concerns, and may make your mediation shorter:

  1. Omit the 'parent' section of the infobox
  2. Describe the ownership of the business and its legal entities in a couple of sentences of article prose, without using the word 'parent'

Comments?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I second your proposal, all in favour say aye! --Dave1185 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I oppose, as I have on previous occasions, removing parent from the infobox, and also oppose not using the word parent in the article, in order to satisfy what I believe is not a valid concern. Airlines are companies, not just a brand which flies people from A to B whilst offering them all sorts of inflight entertainment, and extensive wine lists, etc. They are companies. To remove this verifiable information is to turn the article into the brand, whilst also turning it into an article on the Singapore Group of Companies (which is not a legally recognised entity - it isn't registered anywhere). Even then, a "group of companies" is simply another way of Companies have an ownership structure (in many cases they have a parent), many companies have subsidiaries. It's a fact of the business world. These articles are on the company, not the brand. Wikipedia is not an avenue for which to promote a brand. Read the article introduction and one can see why it is not a good idea to set such a bad precedent on Wikipedia articles dealing with companies. --Россавиа Диалог 09:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The said dispute is not between a brand vs a company. Rather, they are between a part of a group of companies vs the entirety of that group. This has little to do with WP:NOT#ADVERTISING as Russavia constantly allerges, even if the article is about the brand, for there are obviously various brands on this planet which meet the notability criteria easily.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I also oppose, somewhat reluctantly. Hroðulf's proffered solution was, in fact, the status quo for a long time, but the fact of the matter is that there are countless solid primary and secondary sources where Temasek is described as Singapore Airlines' parent (see above), so why should we not state this as a fact with, perhaps, a footnote or link to the full explication? Jpatokal (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A footnote is not even necessary if one looks at the article as it stands right this very minute. Under corporate management, much emphasis has been placed on the Singapore government stating it would take a hands off approach to the management of the company (along with a laundry list of instances where it has actually interfered in company affairs). If a shareholder holds say 40% of voting rights, it doesn't have the ability to manage that company alone; if a shareholder holds 55% (as Temasek does), then it does have the ability to manage that company on its own volition, and whether or not they exercise that management right in day to day affairs of the company is irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that they do in fact, legally (and verifiably), control that enterprise. And this is more than covered by that emphasis already evident in the article. --Россавиа Диалог 17:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There are also plenty of sources describing Temasek Holdings as the "biggest shareholder" of Singapore Airlines without mentioning the word "parent". At the same time, I find plenty of sources describing Singapore Airlines as the "parent company" of Tiger Airways despite the former holding only 49% of the later.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The prolem is Huaiwei, is that it was yourself who made me jump thru hoops, and demanded a source from the company. And this has been provided dozens of times, and now again from the annual report:

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. Are you disputing that this statement from Singapore Airlines, in an annual report which was audited by Ernst & Young, and submitted to the Singapore Stock Exchange in accordance with various Singaporean corporation laws, is wrong? --Россавиа Диалог 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

        • And which part of the above source do you think I am actually disputing, Russavia? I am quite amused by this claim, considering I was actually the first to cite this statement!--Huaiwei (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ages ago a tried to make this into three articles. One on the company, one on the brand and one on the group. This would have done a lot in my opinion to make the articles simpler and easier to read. It would have also made it clearer how the company was really set up and working. However the fact that this is mostly a single company that is also an airline really forced it back into a single article. I still think that if you pulled out the SIA brand into an article, you would have ample space in a much smaller article to explain this particular problem and maybe end one edit war. It would not address the issues with the airline per say. However I have no idea at this point in time if that idea is viable or even reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If a solution must be worked out to end edit wars, than any solution may have to be re-examined. I have objected this proposal before due to same problem that they are but one entiry, but I am prepared to relook at this proposal if no other compromise can be found. I wonder if Russavia understands the meaning of "compromise" thou to take a similar stance and explore all possible options thou.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I would love to hear from other editors if the SIA brand (airline) as an article is an acceptable way to go. Clearly the owner of the brand is Singapore Airlines Limited with its multiple names and ownership issues. If we went in this direction, how would Singapore Airlines Group fit in? It would be something associated with the brand and probably the parent company. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It would be a lot of work (unless you already have your previous attempt at a split in history or in a sandbox.) Also, maintenance would be harder, as some facts would belong in 2 or 3 articles. And it has been done elsewhere, such as Coca-Cola and Royal Bank of Scotland Group. I personally dislike it, because to me it confuses readers and editors that are new to the topic, but if others think it would work, and the pitfalls more manageable than the problems we have right now, then it is certainly an option. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly support Hroðulf's approach, an approach which I have recommended before and which is already implimented in a way in the existing article. The "parent company" field in this article has been filled by "Singapore Airlines Limited" for many many moons until the unilateral amendment to "Temasek Holdings" by Russavia. Despite my objections to this given the concerns already stated above, he proceeded to make such changes in numerous other articles, so much so that I had to voice objection in [16], where I have recommended that the entry "parent company" be replaced by a far less suggestive and more descriptive term of "major shareholder(s)". As per Hroðulf's second proposal, it may be worth noting that the article[17] already attempts to explain its corporate setup, as well as the role its "majority shareholder" actually plays (or doesnt play) in the running of the company. There has been no need to use the word "parent" to accomplish this.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Nice to be supported. I don't see why you dislike 'parent'. It is not suggestive, only descriptive, and means exactly the same thing as majority shareholder. However I accept that you and Dave1185 do dislike it, so I think we should find a way to work with you as long as it does not involve deleting facts. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Hey, I work in this company for the past eleven years. It is a known fact within my company that Temasek Holdings is just a majority shareholder, else why do we (SIA) have our own board of directors, this is also true for the other subsidiaries such SATS, SIAEC, SATS Auxiliary Police and this has been so since the founding of this company since 1972. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Why does it have a board of directors? Simply answered, it is required to, because it is a company listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, and a company which is bound by the laws of Singapore dealing with corporations. And it is also a known fact within the business community that Temasek isn't just a majority shareholder, but is the parent company. Even Singapore Airlines itself acknowledges this in its own annual report in which it states:
          • 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. --Россавиа Диалог 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I hope I am not visually challenged, but I clearly fail to see the words "parent company" appearing anywhere in the quotation above.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • While not really helpful, corporate ownership makes an interesting read. At one point didn't someone source a policy or guideline that provided the guidance to list a majority owner as the owner in infoboxes? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parent Company vs Holding Company vs Majority Shareholder

OK... so, I think I understand this better now. We all agree that Temasek own a majority shareholding, but disagree as to whether this makes them a "parent" or not. Just because there are WP:RS saying they *are* the parent doesn't mean we have to say the same. The substance is that T are majority shareholders. The article already says this, in its current state, though no very prominently. Would replacing the word "parent" with "majority shareholder" in the info box be a good idea / acceptable compromise or not? (btw, one thing I'm missing in all this heat is why anyone cares enough to revert so assiduously... is there a political undercurrent that no one is mentionning, or that I've missed? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a very good idea, but there's an unfortunate side effect for other articles: for airlines that are 100% owned by another company/airline, it would be misleading to characterize the sole shareholder as merely a "majority" shareholder. But this could be neatly worked around by just defining a "majority shareholder" field in addition to "parent", and picking the right one for each article. Alternatively, just call it "Main shareholders", and list the actual percentages? Jpatokal (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This can easily be solved by adding the % shares owned to the entry as already done in several articles. Thus, a "majority shareholder" field with the entry "Temasek Holdings (100%)" immediately tells the reader that Temasek is also the only shareholder.--Huaiwei (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ahh... I just tried to do this, but of course it didn't work without the infobox being modified. Is modifying the infobox a problem? I don't think parent needs deleting, just maj-share adding William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As per our discussion, I agree with your recommendation. As for this big mess, well... call it a kind of persistent disagreement between User:Russavia (as well as those in his camp) with User:Huaiwei (as well as those in his camp). I'm all for NPOV here but as I told you before, myself being an employee of this company I find this issue amusing and yet flabberghasted by the amount of dirt it has managed to stir up here. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Another thing is, why the need to add another footnote or infobox to an article that is already quite bloated (in size, that is) when there exist a section in the page that aptly describe this whole ownership thingie. Read: Singapore_Airlines#Corporate_management. And dare I say this, with the page approaching 100K in size why would anyone want to merge the fleet part back into the page? I wonder... is there some kind of hidden agenda? Read also: Wikipedia:Article size. --Dave1185 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would ask that others look at the SingTel article, in which a similar thing has occurred. I posted information in that article that SingTel is a subsidiary of Temasek, which was reverted by Huaiwei. Which he changed to a majority shareholder only. If you look at that article as it stands now, you will see not only does it have Temasek as being the parent in the infobox, but it also clearly states that SingTel is a subsidiary of Temasek. Why the difference for this article? I don't get it. --Россавиа Диалог 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You're missing the point. No-one is disputing the 54% ownership. People are disputing the description of "parent". I've proposed that we replace "parent" with "majority shareholder", and people seem happy with that. Another possibility would be to replace parent with "is a subsiduary of" . I think you are being unnecessarily confrontational William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Because the Singapore Telecommunications article is for a group of companies. If anyone tries to insist that SingTel Mobile's parent company is Temasek Holdings, you can expect me to remove that immediately as well.--Huaiwei (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not missing the point at all. As it stands now, I believe that I am the only person who has yet provided a description of a parent company. A parent company can be described as:

A parent company is a holding company that owns enough voting stock in another firm (subsidiary) to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors.

That definition is from parent company

A company that owns or controls subsidiaries by buying up all or the majority of their shares. A company has a controlling interest in another when it has acquired over 50% of its issued shares which have voting rights. Where a parent company does not operate in its own right, it is called a holding company.

That definition is from [18]

The company owning the majority of the voting stock of another corporation.

That definition is from [19] or, there is this definition

Definition of subsidiary and holding company 5. —(1) For the purposes of this Act, a corporation shall, subject to subsection (3), be deemed to be a subsidiary of another corporation, if — (a) that other corporation — (i) controls the composition of the board of directors of the first-mentioned corporation; (ii) controls more than half of the voting power of the first-mentioned corporation; or (iii) 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); or (b) the first-mentioned corporation is a subsidiary of any corporation which is that other corporation’s subsidiary.

That definition is from the Singapore Companies Act, and it is within the requirements of this law that Singapore Airlines makes the following statement in its Annual Report:

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.

The argument has been made that Temasek is not the parent company due to it apparently not interfering in the day to day affairs of the running of that company. (I have italicised apparently, because it is insinuated in the article by the use of verifiable sources, yet this issue which is also covered by plenty of verifiable sources is being glossed over)

Might I remind everyone, that whilst Wikipedia is run partly on the grounds of concensus, the policies which surely take precedence over concensus are verifiability and no original research. As of this point, in over 12 months, not a single definition has been offered by any party which states that a corporation needs to actually exert control in order to be defined as a parent company.

Additionally, a majority shareholding needn't necessarily mean that a company is the parent. Take EasyJet Switzerland SA for example; here is a company which has easyJet plc holding a 49% stake, yet easyJet plc is the parent company. How so? If one refers to the 2007 annual report of easyJet plc, page 87, inline with the Britsh Companies Act 1985, easyJet Switzerland SA is regarded as a subsidiary of easyJet plc because

The Company has a 49% interest in easyJet Switzerland SA with an option that expires in 2014 to acquire the remaining 51%. easyJet Switzerland SA has been consolidated as a subsidiary from 24 June 1999 on the basis that since that date the Company has actually exercised a dominant influence over the undertaking. A minority interest has not been reflected in the financial statements on the basis that holders of the remaining 51% of the shares in easyJet Switzerland SA have no entitlement to any dividends from that holding and easyJet plc has an option to acquire those shares for a predetermined consideration.

Any concensus to not call Temasek Holdings the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited needs to be done within the policies of WP:V and WP:OR, not simply because some editors have a problem with it existing within the article, and moreso, when said editors have not provided a verifiable definition of said term in the first place. That is the point, and it is one that may have not been looked at. Call it confrontational if you will, however, I see it as squarely falling under several policies of WP:FIVE --Россавиа Диалог 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are too prolix. Multiple defns are not good. To take your first: wiki does not have an article called parent company; only a redirect to holding company. That should tell you something. Ditto youre second, which says Where a parent company does not operate in its own right, it is called a holding company.. As far as I understand it, the argument is precisely that T fits this category and is therefore not to be described as "parent". Why do you insist so hard on "parent"? I can't see the point. What is wrong with "subsiduary of" or "majority shareholder"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I would have no problem at all with the use of "subsidiary of". And I say this because of the subsidiary-->parent company relationship. --Россавиа Диалог 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As of this point, in over 12 months, not a single definition has been offered by any party which states that a corporation needs to actually exert control in order to be defined as a parent company - well, amusingly enough, you've just provided one yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me which one that is? --Россавиа Диалог 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I quoted it: Where a parent company does not operate in its own right, it is called a holding company. Meanwhile, does anyone else object to "subsiduary"? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. How widespread is this problem or confusion for the airline template? Since this is the only place it has received extensive discussion, I'm not sure that changing the template is needed. As I said in the newly added section, this issue really belongs in a discussion of {{Company}} and not the airline template. 20:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that definition doesn't state anything about exerting control. A holding company is simply a company which exists only to hold stakes in other companies. It doesn't produce anything. It offers no services to anybody. It exists only so that it holds shareholdings in other companies. An example of a holding company is Druk Holding & Investments Limited, which was formed by the Bhutanese government in order to hold the stakes of various companies, including Drukair. Whilst it fulfills the definition of a holding company, it is in fact the parent company of several companies (denoted on that page under DHI Subsidiaries), including Drukair. --Россавиа Диалог 21:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So is Temasek Holdings a holding company or a parent company based on these definitions?--Huaiwei (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on those unreferenced definitions, the company type of Temasek Holdings is a holding company (whose purpose is only to own other companies), and in regards to the companies which is owns a majority of voting stock in, such as Singapore Airlines, SingTel, etc, the relationship Temasek holds to the companies it holds stock in is defined as being the parent company of those companies. This is one example of how holding company and parent company are quite different meanings. However, holding company and parent company can be interchangeable, meaning that they mean exactly the same thing. Which means that within various definitions of holding companies and parent companies, Temasek Holdings is a holding company, which is the holding company (parent company) of many companies in which it holds investments. All verifiable of course. --Россавиа Диалог 18:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. So if you are asked a question: "What is Temasek Holdings?" and there are only two MCQ choices "A: Holding Company" and "B, Parent Company", how would you answer?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I would answer both, because it is. It is a holding company and it also the parent company of numerous companies in which it holds stakes. If the question was "What is Temasek Holdings' relationship in regards to Singapore Airlines", then the answer is against both. Parent company because this is the most widely used term used for this relationship, however, as written in Singaporean law, the term 'holding company' is used, albeit with the same definition of a 'parent company' - the term 'holding company' and 'parent company' are interchangeable in this context. --Россавиа Диалог 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So may I ask if your view is that the terms "parent company" and "holding company" are one and the same, in this regard? In what way would they be different in another context?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some basic issues with the article covering the company and the airline.

I mentioned this in the edit war section, but maybe it needs to be split out its own discussion.

Currently the article is about a company and an airline and some other stuff. While this increases the size of the article, it does not have a significant impact in the long run on the article size. Currently the article only includes {{Infobox Airline}} we probably need to include {{Company}} since that includes different information. However doing so, would further increase the size of the article. If the brand could be split out, clearly the parent would be Singapore Airlines Limited hence no problems over that issue and the contingent that wants to get this article to GA status could focus on that goal.

{{Company}} includes some important information in the box that the airline template does not, like the type of company. An interesting side effect of a split along these lines, some of the material that could be split out, like the fleet mentioned in the section above, could probably be moved into the company article. This should be OK since they are in fact the owner, unless there is some other structure that has not been mentioned yet. No need for articles that have questionable encyclopedic value. As a note, this template defines parent as Holding company or group of the company. Example: Google. So in the company template the issue of what the parent is may also be put to rest.

Is this worth pursuing as a concept? In the end, the company would be covered in single article. However the brand would get its own article. Clearly Singapore Airlines as a brand is a very encyclopedic article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

An interesting concept. One which I would almost agree to, as it would remove any notions of marketing from this article. But one which I couldn't agree to, as it is too problematic. And the main reason for this is just what would the brand article contain? Some things it couldn't contain
  • Any information on any aircraft. As these aircraft are registered to Singapore Airlines Limited, as per the CAAS aircraft register. Any attempt to state that these aircraft are operated by the brand would constitute original research. For example, it was Singapore Airlines Limited that was sued in relation to SQ006, not a legally non-existent brand (aside from the trademark).
  • Any information on any flights. As the flights are operated by Singapore Airlines Limited, as per approvals by the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Civil Aviation Administration of China, and others. In addition, the Singapore Airlines Contract of Carriage states "NAME OF CARRIER : SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED"
  • Any information on financial information, or shareholdings in other companies. As per various filings with the Singapore Stock Exchange, and other verifiable information.
  • Any information on people within the organisation. As per Singapore Airlines annual reports and other filings, these people are employed by Singapore Airlines Limited. The brand has zero employees.
Of course, it is possible to attempt such a split, but I wouldn't expect it to last for long before it is Afd'ed. --Россавиа Диалог 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
For any decisions to be made and enforced (as consensuses have apparently been reached in the past but disregarded), the mediation action needs to be undertaken, but it's not invalidated. Arbitration time? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Why the rush for arbitration, Butterfly0fdoom? You appear to be unusually determined to rush this through despite being only involved in this dispute for a very short time, and having hardly any experience in working out a compromise anywhere around here. What is your motivation?--Huaiwei (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I may be new to this dispute, but, looking at the discussion history, it's clear this debate has gone on for an excessively long period of time and it's clear that discussions here aren't leading to anything conclusive. I don't appreciate you operating as though I have some ulterior motive. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No one is in any position to prejudge others, something I clearly do not appreciate from you. Wikipedia is a community of editors, not a community of judges. You have absolutely no greater right to demand action on any other editor based on nothing but presumptions, and skipping normal channels of dispute resolution on the premise that these will fail before they have a chance to conclude, or even to commence at all. Your failure to properly discuss a merger/deletion of Singapore Airlines Fleet despite it causing an edit war and your failure to discuss the removal of financial data in Singapore Airlines and then immediately inserting it as a topic for discussion in a mediation case are cases in point. Kindly refrain from such hostile editing behavior if you genuinely interested in editing in good faith.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is in theory a good idea, although may I point out that the scope of the article need not be structured over "who owns what". To look at the fleets, for example, the Singapore Arilines article would carry details on the fleet operated by itself, but the Singapore Airlines Limited/Singapore Airlines Group article would carry details on all aircraft operated by Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Cargo and SilkAir. Ditto to information on manpower, on operational statistics, on financial performance etc. Russavia appears to be going to extremes to talkdown this proposal.--Huaiwei (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your take on what the brand would cover hits the essence of what should be included. Basically the brand article would cover the airline as if it existed as its own entity. Normally listing fleets at the parent company could be an issue, but this would be one of those cases where the exception would be justified and in fact the only thing that made sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this will not exactly be an exception. Let's look at many of the major legacy American carriers, where the holding company (for eg: AMR Corporation) contains information on the fleet operated by all of its subsidiaries, while the airline article (eg: American Airlines) only refers to aircraft it operates. I am not sure if you still have problems accessing the annual report of SIA, but it makes very clear distinctions between information relevant to the entire company group, or only to the parent airline, and it will be relatively easy to present this information here without having to crack our heads trying to decipher just which data goes where. In the most recent section on labour which I added, the annual report has stated that the group employed 29,457, while the parent airline employed 13,942. It should therefor make perfect sense to state each statistic in each article, if we are to have two distinct articles that is. Another advantage of such a split is that we can move Singapore Airlines subsidiaries to the group article.--Huaiwei (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If I were to start doing this today, I'd either start by moving stuff into the Singapore Airlines Limited article leading with {{tl:company}} which has a definition for what the parent is, or doing the Singapore Airlines Group article. The problem with the later is does SAG become the parent of the Airline or a child? Foing the latter would probably reduce the size of the article by a lot more then splitting out the company. On the other hand, splitting out Singapore Airlines Limited would move the owner discussion to a smaller article with less of a spotlight. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm now the problem is deciding which name to use. Each has its pros and cons. Singapore Airlines Limited is the official name of the airline group, and it is technically more correct to say that "Singapore Airlines Limited" is a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, and is listed on the SGX. However, I believe it will cause more confusions between itself and the parent airline article. Singapore Airlines Group, on the other hand, will be very clearly distinct to the reader, and the term, although not 100% official, is used in official capacity by the company in many aspects, including in its financial reports. But of course, it becomes an issue when saying "Singapore Airlines Group is listed on the SGX". Either way, I do not think they actually have an impact on how much content to move...both names will entail details on the same group anyway. As for your query, Singapore Airlines Group is definitely the parent of Singapore Airlines.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Huaiwei, please provide a source for your statement of "As for your query, Singapore Airlines Group is definitely the parent of Singapore Airlines." --Россавиа Диалог 06:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
When the SIA Annual Report frequently makes statements such as "As at 31 March 2007, SIA Group operating fleet consisted of 121 aircraft – 107 passenger aircraft and 14 freighters. 94 and 13 of the passenger aircraft were operated by Singapore Airlines and SilkAir respectively.", you will have to find us convincing source stating that "As at 31 March 2007, Singapore Airlines operating fleet consisted of 121 aircraft – 107 passenger aircraft and 14 freighters. 94 and 13 of the passenger aircraft were operated by SIA Group and SilkAir respectively."!--Huaiwei (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If this original research on your part Huaiwei is to have any merit at all, this needs to be explained. You have made a claim that Singapore Airlines Group is the parent of Singapore Airlines. Can you then explain to everyone here, why it is that when this dispute started, it was YOU who introduced in to the article this: "Singapore Airlines is the parent airline company of the Singapore Airlines Group of companies." Your reasoning is totally out of whack, and you are obfuscating and trying to confuse others with your whacked theories relating to companies, instead of words, perhaps you can present the structure of the company as a flow diagram? And do it using what you have said so far. For example, you yourself admit there is no difference between Singapore Airlines, Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines Group of companies, yet now you are claiming that Singapore Airlines Group is the parent of Singapore Airlines (Singapore Airlines or Singapore Airlines Limited, asking as now you are saying there is a difference?). You also claimed way back when that Singapore Airlines Limited was the parent company of Singapore Airlines. Additionally, you are making an EXCEPTIONAL claims with what you are claiming, so you may want to familiarise yourself with WP:SELFPUB and WP:REDFLAG. Sorry for saying it's whacked, but there is no logical reasoning behind your theories at all, and there most certainly no grounding for it by verifiable sources. As to your claim of using the fleet to detail ownership, uh uh, I have already presented a verified source above for the fleet, that being the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore civil aircraft register. If Singapore Airlines Group is indeed the the parent company of Singapore Airlines, then you need to find a source which states this. And if indeed Singapore Airlines Group is the parent company of Singapore Airlines, then there will be records lodged with various Singaporean government agencies showing this, e.g. if you go to this link search by entity name, put in search SINGAPORE AIRLINES, and search by records containing those words, you only two results, one being for Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd and the other being for (is there really any need for me to even insert what this link takes you to?). I think that until such time as you are able to find those sources, we simply follow my proposal below. --Россавиа Диалог 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One further comment, as I have said before, we are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to do marketing for Singapore Airlines. If one looks at Austrian Airlines as an example. Austrian Airlines owns Lauda Air and Tyrolean Airways (the latter operating as Austrian Arrows). Together, and with other companies which Austrian Airlines owns, they are referred to as the Austrian Airlines Group. This is done for two reasons, and they are reasons which I have mentioned many a time previously. The first is for the reporting of consolidated financial accounts. The second is for marketing purposes. Below is taken from the glossary of the Austrian Airlines annual report

Austrian Airlines Group: Austrian Airlines, Tyrolean Airways, Lauda Air and other Group companies (scope of consolidation for the IFRS Group financial statements); in marketing terms, the umbrella brand for Austrian, Austrian Arrows and Lauda Air.
Above Huaiwei has used information from the SIA annual report. Annual reports are used for 2 purposes. The main purpose, and especially for publicly listed companies, is for the reporting of financial results. The second, and not required, purpose is for marketing purposes, e.g. summarising news and events in the 12 months that the report covers, future plans for company, and other advertising/marketing materials. In terms of issues relating to ownership, as this information forms part of the financial statements of the company, in the annual report you refer to only the financial information, as this is audited by a third-party company. Needless to say, I am leaving this with Huaiwei to find some non-SIA sources which back up his claims, and have re-introduced information into the article, not waiting forever for his information to come to light (which it won't). --Россавиа Диалог 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You know why you have problems understanding the entire chain of comments? Because you are so stuck in your singular interpretation that you simply refuse to accept that ALL my comments are completely verifiable, and practically all of them are directly quoted from official sources. On the other hand, you are the one insisting on introducing your own POV by replacing quotable phrases like "substaintial shareholder" with "parent company", the former of which is peppered all over the annual reports, while the later is never mentioned anywhere in the said report. I challenge you identify each of my my past comments which are not verifiable from the said documents. I would also like to know what your response will be if it turns out that I was able to do so for every single one of them. The challenge is on!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My proposal to end this year long dispute

I have a proposal to end this dispute for once and for all, a year is way too long for this to keep going on. My proposal is this:

We introduce Temasek Holdings into the infobox as the parent company, and we also state very clearly in the text that Temasek Holdings is the parent company, not just a majority shareholder. This is as per the dozens upon dozens of verifiable sources, not a single one which has yet been shown to be incorrect. It is hard to dispute these facts when even the company itself acknowledges the fact. The burden that is placed on me in introducing this information has already been more than met, and over the 12 months, not a single source has been introduced into any discussion to dispute this. The only thing which has been mentioned is that Temasek is the 'majority shareholder'; it is impossible for anyone to argue that this does not mean they are the parent company, when it has been shown, and verified, that in holding 54% of the shares in the company, with each share holding 1 vote, Temasek is indeed the parent as required to declared by Singaporean company law.

As per all of the policies and guidelines, WP:V, WP:RS, this information is being placed back in by myself. As can clearly be seen the ONLY person who seems to dispute this fact has ZERO interest in discussing this issue, and will instead simply remove VERIFIED information. This has NOTHING to do with me wanting to push a certain point of view (which would be what exactly anyway), when this information is introduced into EVERY single other article without resistance - I could care less if the Singapore government thru Temaseks holds a controlling stake of SIA or not, I could care less if the Singapore Government thru Temasek says it doesn't interfer in company affairs (although it clearly has of course), and I could care less about any of the other inferences as to my motives which have been said when discussing this issue. I could also care less about Huaiwei's motives in keeping this information out of the article, whether that be because he doesn't understand business/corporations laws, or whether he has a problem with openly displaying Singapore government ownership of key companies in Singapore, the fact of the matter of is, is that that WP:V is a policy, and the information is verified.

I will not, and can not, continue to simply allow an editor to drag his feet and not conclude this in a more timely manner. As can be seen from the latest informal cabal, plenty of time was given for a response to be given, only to be told that a response would be given when that editor sees fit; although it is obvious said editor (Huaiwei) was reading that cabal, as it was only after the lengthy submission on the cabal about Singapore government interference (namely by Dear Leader) in company affairs, especially in the realm of labour disputes with pilots, did the Labour section appear in this article. That cabal was closed without result. And furthermore, the recently request for formal and binding mediation which was filed by myself was closed as not being accepted due to all parties not agreeing to it; namely Huiawei not agreeing, even though he was advised it mediation was requested, and even though he was active in posting on that mediation page, and even the talk page of the mediation request.

Inline with another policy of Wikipedia, I am reinstating this information into the article. If it is necessary to take this issue back to the mediation panel then so be it. And if it is necessary to file a RFC on me then so be it also. But I am keeping in mind that WP:IAR clearly states that if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, then break it. The policy on concensus is not relevant in this instance, as there has been no evidence presented to dispute the verified facts which are in dispute. Wikipedia's policy on verifiability of information takes precedence over unverified, unsourced and, in some cases, incorrect information being used as grounds to dispute the reliability of said verified information. This is why I am reinserting this information, as the processes, or more to the point, the abuse and disregard for Wikipedia policies and mediation processes is hindering my ability to improving this article and also Wikipedia as a whole. --Россавиа Диалог 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It appears that the very person who claims that the other party has "ZERO interest in discussing this issue" actually fails to make any comment in this discussion during the long period which I has no access to wikipedia, failing to address practically all of the suggestions already put up by other parties besides myself. The lengthy "solution" he proposes above has never moved from his original position. In contrast, others involved in this dispute has been willing to move from their original positions in a genuine bid to come up with a reasonable solution that all can consider acceptable. For someone who claims to uphold principles of WP:V etc etc etc (a classic example of someone Wikilawyering for all its worth), he gives yet another indication of his lack of adherence to WP:NPOV with that [[Lee Kuan Yew|Dear Leader]] comment. Here we are talking about someone openly insulting a primary political figure of another country, in a way which is completely irrelevant and uncalled for. Clearly, this individual is driven not merely by a small issue over the role of a Sovereign wealth fund in a widely respected company. He is politically motivated, and this point shall be raised each time he launches another spirited attack against another country, its leaders, and its people.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And in another classic example of someone who is simply not interested in the dispute resolution process, we have User:Russavia reinserting the disputed entry in the said article[20]. Perhaps this subsection should not be called a "proposal", for clearly he has every intention to impliment it even before a single comment has been made in response here?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yawn* Of course, I have no interest at all in dispute resolution. Like that cabal, in which I said I would only participate if all parties agreed to acknowledge any concensus resulting from it. This was said because of previous examples involving yourself, where you have totally ignored the concensus, such as the previous cabal on this article, the cabal on the Changi Airport, and all over wikipedia in general. Why would I want to waste my time discussing anything when all is said and done you are only going to ignore it anyway? But low and behold, I did participate. Did you? And it wasn't me who refused to accept the request for binding dispute resolution just recently, that was yourself. Now, if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is, are now willing to accept the request for binding dispute resolution? --Россавиа Диалог 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for confirming that you are simply not interested in the dispute resolution process. I am further amused by your accusation that I "totally ignored the concensus...all over wikipedia in general" Just who are you trying to smoke, User:Russavia? Kindly be fully aware that my contributions to this site extent far beyond the disputes you try to ignite between us, and that you certainly do not factor that high up my priorities in this site. Turning down mediation requests do not equate to a refusal to mediate, especially when it was found that users are filing mediation requests without a geniuine desire to consider alternatives, but instead are doing it to force compliance to your preferences. I suppose you have taken a leaf from the Mynamar Junta by organising a "referendum" in a way that the result will obviously favour themselves?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your prosoal isn't a way to end the dispute; its just a way for you to get your own way. [21] isn't a plausible edit, its just restarting the edit war. Don't do it. We've already had discussion above as to why "parent" is misleading; please don't try to pretend that you're unaware of it. There are several suggestions above as to how it can be described in a way that makes the ownership clear whilst avoiding the loaded word "parent". Why are these unacceptable to you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Because where is the verifiable information from reliable sources to back up the viewpoint that the use of parent is misleading, or that having this info is NPOV? What we have here is opinions of editors trumping verifiable information, and that just is not on. --Россавиа Диалог 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
And you are suggesting that your preferred version is not an opinion of a single editor, interpreting reliable sources in your own way? Seriously, cut the nonsense. You view is not any less POVed then the views of those you disagree with. If you cannot even recognise this basic fact, just what can you accomplish with any form of dispute resolution?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah - read the dozens upon dozens of sources above which state very very very clearly that Temasek is the parent of Singapore Airlines. That my boy is not original research, but reading verifiable information from a reliable source exactly as it is written. I don't see any sources from a reliable source called The Huaiwei Times, or an article from a reliable source written by a reporter by the name of Huaiwei. And I doubt we ever will, if even for the very laughable original research edits which you made to this article when I began to press this issue way back when. It is yourself who keeps changing their mind, whereas if one looks, over the last 12 months, my position on what is what has not changed one little bit. So please, don't accuse me of original research when I have done nothing of the like in this regard. --Россавиа Диалог 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
lol! Talk about civility at its finest from Russavia. Anyway, are you able to even cite me one of my viewpoints which was not verified? Each time citations were asked for, a source could be provided, and easily too. Your accusations of WP:OR on my part is clearly an opinion of your own, for observe, in particular, your reactions when I cited from an authoritative source on the relationship between Singapore Airlines (the parent airline company) and Singapore Airlines Group. As much as you can supposedly find "dozens upon dozens of sources" supporting your favourite phrase, there are also "dozens upon dozens of sources" using alternative phrases. Your highly selective and engineered research methods, your tendency to downplay the existance of equally reputable sources stating the alternatives, and your attempts to descredit them when they are cited, are typical behaviors of those intent on pushing a POV regardless of fact. And cite me even one instance where I have supposedly "changed anyone's minds", for just who do "they" refer to?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You already said above I would have no problem at all with the use of "subsidiary of". Are you withdrawing that? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No I am not withdrawing that, because subsidiary describes the relationship of Singapore Airlines to Temasek, whilst at the same time, it allows for the parent field to be completed as per verifiable information from reliable sources because the relationship of Temasek to a subsidiary is parent company. It's about time that people realise this. --Россавиа Диалог 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"It's about time that people realise this" sounds everybit like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to push a POV, do you not think? A company who has a subsidiary may be called a "holding company", a "majority shareholder", or a myriad of other names besides "parent company" to that subsidiary. Other users here has all found it perfectly ok to use any other term which basically means the same thing, all of which can similarly meet "verifiable information from reliable sources". On the other hand, you are the only one who vehemently insists that only the phrase "parent company" is acceptable, and this is what is intriguing.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formal request for mediation (2nd filing)

As the informal mediation in relation to the various issues regarding the Singapore Airlines article was not successful, I have now instigated a request for formal mediation on these issues at MedCom at this link. The previous request for mediation was not succesful as not all parties would participate, however, I am trying again with this request. I have added a number of 'involved parties', however, if you believe you are involved in the disputes raised in the request, please add yourself to the 'involved parties' list and add yourself to the 'Parties' agreement to mediate' section. Perhaps we can now have these issues resolved in a timely manner. --Россавиа Диалог 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russavia's POV-pushing saga continues...

I would just like to put on record, that Russavia has recently created[22] a category called Category:Government-owned airlines, promptly populating it with several entities which of course includes Singapore Airlines[23]. He also adds[24] Singapore Airlines to Category:Government-owned companies in Singapore for good measure, despite that category containing only two entries, each of which are holding companies established and 100% owned by the government. He did not proceed to add to that category the entire range of companies in which the Singapore government has a stake in, all of which, Singapore Airlines included, are commonly referred to as government-linked companies instead.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's valid. China Airlines is indirectly owned by the ROC, just as SQ is indirectly owned by the SQ government, and CI was put in that same category. How is it POV? It's fact. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for stating your viewpoint, although this is placed here as a behavorial record, not a call for content discussion.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not what this talkpage is for. If you have problems with a user's behavior, you put your objections on their talkpage. Stop abusing the functions of Wikipedia. By putting it here on the talkpage, you open it to content dispute. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I have another verifiable reliable source which states The battle won't likely impact relations between Singapore and China, say analysts. Both Singapore Airlines and Air China are government-owned. The source is here. Of course, many many more sources can be found by searching Google. Due to this source, the category is being added back. --Россавиа Диалог 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Singapore Airlines is government-owned. Come to think of it, my friend has shares in Singapore Airlines. Must be a paradox. RomanceOfTravel (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Being "government-owned" doesn't imply that the government owns 100% of it, just a controlling stake. Jpatokal (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)