Talk:Singapore Girl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Airlines WikiProject

	Singapore Girl is part of SGpedians' Resources An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore. To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Poor writing 2 Summary & Fair Use References 3 Copyright violations 3.1 Slated back to orginal text 4 Reviewed 5 1968 or 1972 6 Term Of Singapore Girl 7 Infobox 8 Singapore Girl Slapping Passenger for Making Out 9 What About Male Flight Attendants ? 10 Inappropriate tone, questionable notability 11 "Asian" should be "Oriental"

[edit] Poor writing

"Though this doll wasn't created by Mattel, it is extremely rare and hard to find."

Hmm. This article needs some joined-up thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.143.29 (talk • contribs)

Go ahead and do it. Be bold. Terence Ong 10:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary & Fair Use References

• NOTE: Article is not a direct copy as what it was claimed.
• Article has been written by user, with references based on http://www.brandchannel.com/features_profile.asp?pr_id=209 by Martin Roll, CEO of Venture Republic.
• Only 2 paragraphs of article is fairly reused with permission
• Article has been modified to Wikipedia standards
• Article is solely provided as information and reference to public viewing

[edit] Copyright violations

The original version of this article (here) contains copyrighted material copied verbatim from these websites: [1] [2]. According Wikipedia:Copyright problems the article should either be reverted back to a clean revision (which is not possible) or speedily deleted. I have started on a new article at Talk:Singapore Girl (Singapore Airlines)/Temp which can be moved into place once the original article has been removed. --Oden 07:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slated back to orginal text

I have been given permission to retype the article based on my own words using a few references from the aabove mentioned URL. However, based on your rules that it requires tags whatsoever, i have typed in my own words, and therefore modified its text with no absolute direct copy to the article, please do understnd that i have worked hard to produce this article with my own words and in no way infringed the previous article produced. Do read carefully thsat the article has been retyped by my own words.

If being an adminstrator that promotes contributing and fair editing, perhaps you shouldn't remove my article and state that it is copyvio becos it is not! It is not fair to me that u should remove my articles without any genuine reasons and the reason u gave me isn't good enough! Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by YuRiPa (talk • contribs) 08:19, 24 December 2006.

Wikipedia's policy is clear, if there has been a copyright violation then it has to be removed. If the first version of the article was a copyright violation then the article has to be deleted. For more information on how to write a article see Wikipedia:Article development. --Oden 08:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also located a free image Image:Singapore Airlines flight attendants.jpg which replaces the two fair use images you uploaded to illustrate the subject of this article. Please pay attention to copyright! --Oden 08:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• User:YuRiPa reposted material which was derived from a copyright violation. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4.
• User:YuRiPa also substituted a free image (Image:Singapore Airlines flight attendants.jpg) with a fair use image (Image:SIA Stewardess.jpg) which is in contravention with Wikipedia's image use policy. See WP:IUP and WP:FAIR.
• In the edit summary User:YuRiPa wrote: ":( Removed my hard-typed work! You can expand it but do not remove it!!!)" (diff). Remember that if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. See WP:OWN. --Oden 09:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewed

Hi, this has now been reviewed by two administrators. The versions deleted (twice) are both copyvios of [3] and/or [4]. These can be used as sources for the article, but the content should not reproduced verbatim or near-verbatim. Also, a fair use image should not be used when this image: Image:Singapore Airlines flight attendants.jpg is a reasonable free alternative. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 11:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1968 or 1972

Two websites show 1972 as the year that the sarong kebaya was introduced ([5] and [6]). However, the Singapore Airlines website says that the uniform was introduced in 1968 ([7]). The airline itself is a better source (in fact the airline would be the first-hand source). --Oden 13:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Term Of Singapore Girl

Coming across this article, SIA does not labelled the Singapore Girls as flight attendants. Though the term 'flight attendants' are commonly used in other airlines. However, SIA always addressed them as flight stewardesses instead. The uniform was only introduced in 1968 when Malaysia and Singapore were combined as the Malayan Airways Limited. But after MAL dissolves, the true identity of the Singapore Girl is introduced in 1972, not the other way round. How you base your knowledge from the official airline website, instigate your oversightness that you simply graze through, you did not understand the true origins of the SIA girl.

The reason i am stating this is because I am a flight stewardess from SIA and I know the true historical facts. Before you post such articles, be sure to get your facts right!! Shimmers77 13:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Singapore Girls do not like to be called 'flight attendants'. 'Flight stewardesses' is a more appropriate term used for us. Shimmers77 14:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please remember to be civil and assume good faith.
• The term "flight stewardess" appears to be fairly uncommon, and although it appears in the article and and on the Singapore Airlines website it should perhaps link to the article flight attendant since the former term seems to be a company-specific adaption of the older term stewardess (per Wikipedia:Explain jargon).
• I am not sure if the Sarong kebaya (or Sarong Kebaya) meets Wikipedia's guideline on notability. In lieu of a redirect to either sarong or kebaya the simplest solution seems to be to split the difference and go with "sarong kebaya".
• Try to avoid weasel words like "symbol of SIA's excellent service" (diff).
• Remember to use proper sources when introducing material into the article (verifiable, reliable and cited sources).
• A final note: copyrighted text is not allowed unless citing a source, this has been a issue with a another contributor to this article. Writing the article in our own words is our main contribution to Wikipedia. --Oden 14:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me symbol of SIA's excellent service isn't weasel words, they are facts and comments made by travelers and non-travelers alike. Please double check before you make such remarks. This article has contribute as much fairness to its subject and quality and in no way, contributing to the unfair bious towards its subjects particularly. Shimmers77 15:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Shimmers77 is a confirmed sock puppet of User:YuRiPa. --Oden 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

According to Help:Infobox "An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject". Together with the lead-in it provides the reader with a quick overview of the subject of the article. --Oden 09:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreicate you creatingan infobox for this article, but i find that infobox too wide and can't you format it like a taxobox or something? Plus the terms of trademark and discontinued left blank is unecessary. Can't u insert only info that is necessary, putting blank terms is kinda wierd looking and make the article look very amateurish!Shimmers77 10:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Shimmers77 is a confirmed sock puppet of User:YuRiPa. --Oden 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice written article, i am actually surprised that an article is written about the cabin crew. The information is pretty ok, just wish there are more information about SIA ground staff as well, because they are also part of making flying with SIA a wonderful experience, coming as a frequent flyer with SIA. Jetcali 12:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Jetcali is a confirmed sock puppet of User:YuRiPa. --Oden 06:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Girl Slapping Passenger for Making Out

On April 27, 2006 I was on a flight from Los Angeles to Singapore via Tokyo, and in the seats accross from me there was a young Japanese couple, with a guy and a girl wearing a Geisha dress that kept making out. They were on top of each other (well the female was on top of the male). For me, I thought it was strange, but paid little attention to the situation. But all the "Singapore Girls" were very distressed by the situation. The couple was doing nothing more than make out, but they were very distressed by the sight of them making out. So one of the Singapore girls actually went up to the young lady and angrily slapped her on her upper leg area, slapping her very hard, and told her to quit it. I was shocked and in disbelief about what the Singapore girl had just done. Never in my life would I imagine a flight attendent, and certainly not a "Singapore girl" slapping a passenger. If clients started to make out inappropriately at my work place, I would never slap them. But the Singapore girl slapped the passenger, and I will never forget it. After being slapped, they stopped making out for a while, but after 20 minutes or so they were making out again, and kept making out for most of the 12 hour flight...

I wonder what this has to do with the article since its irrelevant to the article. That's a personal account of what Singapore Girl(s) do. Well, quite interesting to hear of such a thing. Lol. Terence Ong 09:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, it has nothing to do with the article, but its one of those travel stories that you have to share with someone.

[edit] What About Male Flight Attendants ?

This article says nothing about the male flight attendants on Singapore airlines. On all my flights with Singapore, atleast 1 in 6 attendants is male. Maybe the article should give them some mention.

Why dude? - the male attendants are not "Singapore Girls" - and they're never featured in the Singapore Girl ad's... (not that I have noticed). It's an interesting marketing point though... --PeterMarkSmith 03:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate tone, questionable notability

I'm sorry, this article is in terrible shape. The entire thing is clearly biased towards supporting the airline company, and save for about two sentences regarding criticism the entire thing is like an advertisement of the "uniqueness" of Singapore Girls. I have removed blatant instances of pro-bias but it's structurally flawed on the whole and this article may not even be suitable for an encyclopedia (it reminds me of when we had an article on Erin Esurance). Seriously people. Wikipedia should not suck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.144 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Asian" should be "Oriental"

This article mentions "Asian women".

Asia is a vast continent which includes the Far East, South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc) and the -istan countries, like Afghanistan etc. To talk of Asian women in general is non-specific. However, there is are enormous differences between the people of India, for example, and the people of Japan. They are all "Asian".

I suggest that we change "Asian" to "Oriental" - because the latter term applies more specifically to those racial groups, including Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Singaporean, Vietnamese etc. These Singapore Girls are specifically Oriental - not just "Asian". EuroSong ^talk 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concerns to this article's talk page, Eurosong; it's always best to try and reach consensus about changes that are likely to be controversial first!

Currently there are two separate places and contexts where the description "Asian" appear in the text:

1. In the Commercial branding section where I presume you would agree it is not appropriate to change the direct and referenced quote: The Singapore Girl is said to engender "Asian values and hospitality".
2. In the Criticisms section (which I believe is your primary concern): The Singapore Girl marketing concept has been criticized as being sexist: apart from the inaccuracy of the term "Girl," the concept has been accused of being a stereotype of Asian women as being desirable[16] and subservient to white males.[17][18]

In the latter context, most of the source material I have looked at speaks about "Asian" rather than "Oriental" and our article on Oriental makes clear that the word means different things to different people. However, currently the lead states The "Orient" is a term traditionally used in Western culture to refer to the Middle East, and Egypt resp. the whole Arabian influenced North Africa. Today also the eastern and southeastern Asia is sometimes called "Orient", except Russia, i.e. North Asia.

In the Singaporean variety of English, I would have no real concern about swapping Oriental for Asian were it not for the fact that our article is supposed to reflect the sources. I would vehemently contradict the assertion in an edit summary that "Oriental" alludes to a "More specific geographic region..." than "Asian" does. It is just as vague and means different things to different varietal English speakers and across time. You are wholly right to say that ' "Asian" encompasses India/Pakistan/Bangladesh' but then, leaving aside that this is the ethnic origin of many Singaporean "Singapore Girls", this is precisely the geographic area that features heavily in current recruiting ^[1]

I can assure you that it is not just "Oriental" (in the sense you probably mean it - with Mongoloid eye shape), female cabin staff that suffer from the "subservient and available" stereotype - many western males definitely have an "asian thing" as I know from annoying personal experiences - however, my experiences (and that of my colleagues) constitute WP:OR where they have not been published and WP:COI where they have. Alice^✉ 07:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)