Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines

Who are the involved parties?
Everyone RomanceOfTravel Russavia


 * As Huaiwei has repeatedly reverted Russavia's edits     and is already busily opining on this page (see below), I'd suggest replacing "Everyone" with "Huaiwei", and also suggest that this mediation cabal case will be meaningless unless Huaiwei, Russavia and RomanceOfTravel agree to abide by its results. Jpatokal (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, should we consider adding "Jpatoka" under this list as well? This is a public discussion afterall, no?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do so. However, while I'm certainly interested in the general outcome of this case, I'm not really involved in the actual issue of whether codeshares/flight numbers should be listed. Jpatokal (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?
Russavia deletes the Flight Numbers and Codeshare section of the Singapore Airlines article. This is then reverted by other editors.

What would you like to change about that?
To get some comment. Certain editor(s) seems more interested in boosting their ego through manipulation of language against eachother which bounces on the line of childishness and flambait intentionally. It is unhelpful.

Mediator notes
OK, if it's OK with everyone, I'll take this case. Please just leave a comment below this stating you're OK with me mediating, and we can start discussing from there. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is ok by me that dihydrogen monoxide mediates, however, I will only be participating in this discussion so long as there is agreement by all parties that they agree to abide by whatever may come of this mediation. Without that solid agreement from all parties that they will abide by whatever concensus may arise, I do not think that this informal process is the right one, and I won't participate. That being said, of course based on the above, I agree that I will participate and will respect whatever agreement comes of this effort. --Russavia (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So would you make up your mind and state clearly if you would or would not participate?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I made myself pretty clear. If all users who are involved, including yourself Huaiwei, agree to respect and abide by any concensus brought about by this mediation, then I will participate. If not, then I will not participate, as it is totally pointless to discuss the issues within this arena, if those involved have no intention of respecting concensus. --Russavia (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you may just read the preceding section again, it clearly states that the intent of this session as defined by the nominator is to basically get comments from the various involved parties, minus the "boosting their ego" elements. I wonder if you understand the entire Mediation Cabal instrument of informal dispute resolution in the first place? Geez...it seems that the path we are supposed to avoid is going to be trotten on again!--Huaiwei (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is required to abide by consensus reached in this mediation, although it is recommended. However, if someone deliberately edits against it, and if this is taken further (MedCom, ArbCom, etc.), this editing against consensus formed here could be taken into consideration and preventative measures could take place to prevent it from taking place. So please, while you're not required to abide by consensus here, it benefits everyone, including yourself, if you do. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So Huaiwei, you refuse to abide by concensus here, and you refuse to abide by concensus at WP:AIRLINE. When exactly do you have to abide by this policy? Thanks Dihydrogen Monoxide for offering to take this informal process on, but owing to Huaiwei's apparent refusal to abide by concensus in this cabal and his apparent insulting attitude as evidenced in his reply to Jpatokal below, I have no interest in participating in mediation on an informal level, not unless there is agreeance to submit to concensus, and not to mention a rapid attitude re-adjustment by said member. --Russavia (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So before this process has even seriously started, you outright declare that I refuse to abide by concensus here. Like Jpatokal, you appear truly in need of getting yourself better acquainted with the MedCab process. The question is not if each of us will agree to concensus arrived from discussions between all involved parties here. It is whether each of you are able to come to this negotiation table with a genuine desire to arrive at an acceptable compromise for everyone, minus the "boosting of egos through manipulation of language against each other which bounces on the line of childishness and flambait intentionally". Judging from the above, are you?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've contacted Huaiwei in regards to this. While obviously no-one is "required" to abide by consensus here, it's better if we all try and get along. :) If he agrees to abide by consensus, will you, Russavia (and all others involved) agree to do so also? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * H20, as I noted above, if all parties agree to submit to concensus formed here, I will participate in this process. It is pointless to go on discussing anything to do with this article in an informal setting so long as participants ignore concensus; if all parties do not agree to abide by concensus then I suggest that this cabal be closed and moved to a more formal forum, for it isn't as simple, as stated by RomanceOfTravel, as me just removing flight numbers in this article, but issues which affect the wider airline wikiproject. So again in short, if all parties agree to submit to concensus, then I will participate. --Russavia (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I have no problem continuing without all of those involved. If we can reason a consensus, then that would establish a firm position for taking actions to support the consensus.  This would include being able to revert without violating the 3RR rule to enforce the consensus.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:3RR rule do not include enforcement of concensus as an exception. In fact, Vandalism specifically mentions that a phenomena whereby "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else" cannot be considered vandalism. This suggestion is simply not condusive in forming a positive environment for open-minded agreement-making which is the desire of this MedCab from the onset. Honestly, I expected better from you, Vegaswikian, for you have been the more mature of the lot so far. I hope I am still right.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Huaiwei, everyone else is willing to move onwards if you say you will. A discussion of the ins and outs of 3RR is not what we need now. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Dihydrogen_Monoxide. Before others approach this MedCab without full understanding of its purpose, I would call for all to acquaint themselves with it, and to reread the nomination reasoning behind this case before proceeding further. I have expressed by willingness to participate with in this MedCab by putting aside past grievances and approach it with a reasonable level of maturity, common sense, and tact. I wonder if the rest are similarly willing?--Huaiwei (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your willingness, I am sure the other participants are equally willing. Now, if I could from those who haven't already a summary in a new section, as Vegaswikian already has, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, and here's hoping we can reach a consensus that satisfies everyone! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I sure hope so, although apparantly the lack of an outright declaration by any of the other members should be noted. Anyway, I will be detailing my views on this issue soon, although not immediately due to various constraints.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Jpatokal (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me too. Yes yes, let's go. --RomanceOfTravel (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Concensus has been reached by members of the Airline wikiproject that flight numbers and codeshare destinations do not belong in articles, and should be removed inline with this concensus and project guidelines. Project guidelines state that codeshare section should only include the airline, not destinations. These revisions to this article are wholesale reverted by Huaiwei and RomanceOfTravel. It is those who are doing the reverting who are going against concensus already gathered. --Russavia (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful to read some previous cases, one being 2007-01-07 Singapore Airlines and the other being 2006-11-18 Singapore Changi Airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you may enlighten on the relevance of the case on Singapore Changi Airport to this one?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the participants are the same. So that case might be of interest to the moderator. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to identify these particular participants, and how that is supposed to be of interest?--Huaiwei (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You, obviously. In the Changi case, you refused to acknowledge or comment on the mediation cabal case while it was in progress, despite multiple reminders, and then disputed it vigorously when you didn't agree with its decision .  While I'm glad to see that you're posting on this one, it would save us all a lot of time and energy if you stated for the record that you're willing to accept the decisions of this Cabal if all other parties also do so. Jpatokal (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe my inquiry was directed at Vegaswikian, and not you. I do not feel obliged to respond to your uninvited intermission until I receives a response from Vegaswikian, even if it merely to confirm your personal view.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Uninvited"? This is a public discussion.  If your inquiry was exclusively directed at Vegaswikian, I suggest you remove it from here and post it on his talk page then. Jpatokal (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know you are making an uninvited comment without having to be told. Basic manners and civility dosen't take a back seat just because this discussion is taking place in public.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointint out those cases; I've looked over them and will certainly consider the discussion there, though I don't think we should necessarily use them as a precedent. Now, to get started, could everyone involved please outline what they would like to see happen in a separate section, as the initiator of the mediation did above? If you agree with someone else you can just say so in their section to save space. Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegaswikian's summary
I guess I'll go first. There have been many editing issues with aviation related articles involving Asian subjects. The airline wikiproject as well as other aviation wikiprojects have established project guidelines that try to establish a common layout of these articles. In addition they have reached consensus on what material is encyclopedic and also reached consensus that certain types of material is basically directory like and should not be included.

There are some very strong opinions from editors of some of these articles taking exception with the guidelines. The arguments in some cases claim that discussions on the article talk pages trump any project level guidelines, even if the project guidelines were established or reconfirmed after the talk page discussions. There have been charges that that some editors have decided that they own the articles. As you can see from the comments above, assume good faith is a concept that tends to be put aside at times.

We need to put an end to the edit wars and look at articles that create a cohesive encyclopedia and establish a framework for writing FA types of articles. The guidelines need to be followed unless there are good reasons for exceptions that get a consensus to avoid edit wars. We need to spend more time improving articles rather then bickering. We need to send more time contributing rather then making changes, trying to delete articles or taking actions only to make a point. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Jpatokal's summary
Let me attempt a statement of facts we can all agree on, and then I'll present two ways to approach the problem.


 * 1) Fact: WP:AIRLINE has decided by consensus "not [to] include tail numbers, flight numbers and code share destinations in article tables".  Jpatokal (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Fact: Several editors of Singapore Airlines are of the opinion that (for various expressed reasons) this consensus does not apply to the article, and tail numbers/flight numbers/code share destinations do belong in the article.

As far as I can see, the various expressed reasons above fall broadly into two camps:


 * The narrow problem: Singapore Airlines has a special need to include tail numbers, flight numbers and code share destinations, while other airline articles in general do not. WP:AIRLINE, in general, continues to apply, the article is only a case-by-case exception to WP:AIRLINE rules.
 * The wide problem: WP:AIRLINE is a purely voluntary group with no authority to enforce its decisions. Thus, any general consensus decided by WP:AIRLINE may be overruled by the "local consensus" of editors working on a particular article, such as Singapore Airlines.

So, is this mediation cabal about the narrow problem of SQ as a special case, or the wide problem of the general enforceability of WikiProject decisions? Jpatokal (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think, from what I've read over so far, that one of the aims of this case would be to determine consensus on the Singapore Airlines article, and to see if AIRLINES consensus applies to it. etc. The wider issue is one for wider discussion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so...
It would seem from the above that Vegaswikian and Jpatokal and Russavia agree that the flight numbers info etc. (just call it flight numbers for convenience, for now) are not encyclopedic, and this is backed up by WP:AIRLINES. While the airlines WikiProject isn't a policy, etc., it does have consensus at this time. I assume that RomanceOfTravel agrees with this, while Huaiwei and Russavia are is of the opposing belief. If they could provide a reasoning or rebuttal the above comments, we can start discussion a compromise. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder to those involved that we're still alive and kicking. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that Russavia supports the WP:AIRLINES consensus which is different then what you stated above. I know that I have not commented in a while since I think the facts are clear and there is not much to discuss. This is an either or situation. Also I'll note that I believe that the same issue affects other Asia based airlines so that whatever the consensus is here, there will be an attempt to apply it to additional articles.  Maybe a question here is, is there an attempt to assert ownership for these articles?  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right about Russavia, fixed accordingly. I would hope that Huaiwei (and RomanceOfTravel?) would come and comment here, else it seems there really is "nothing to discuss" and you can make the changes as you wish... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is one exception to the tail numbers that I believe has consensus support. Frontier Airlines with its distinctive tail art has not received noticeable attention to remove that information. I suspect that since the artwork is unique, the listing by tail numbers is acceptable and is in reality the only way to associate the art and the air frame.  I remember that the old Pan Am named all of their planes by the door.  I suspect that if someone included a list of the tail numbers with the associated names, there would be consensus to remove that data. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I sometimes throw my hands up in exasperation with a WikiProject which is willing to accept a list of individual tail numbers in an airline article, yet decides to nit-pick over a single column in a fleet table listing a range of tail numbers.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And the saga continues
Anyone watching the current round of edit waring? Anyone notice how the talk page is not being used to resolve problems? Vegaswikian (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes.


 * Since this, at least, is a fairly binary question (either SQ is or isn't a Temasek subsidiary), I'd suggest that both Huaiwei and Russavia agree on a third person to study the issue &mdash; from WP:RFC/ECON, perhaps &mdash; and render an opinion that they will both respect. But that would be just way too reasonable, now wouldn't it? Jpatokal (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is rather disappointing that it seems to only be you guys participating here, while others continue to edit (war) the article. Any objections to requesting protection on the article? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If protection is what is needed to allow productive editing, then maybe that is what we need. Around the time of the last Cabal I did protect it for a while and things were quite.  That was probably a result of the cabal discussion and the protection.  If this is done again, it probably needs to be done for an extended period of time.  I do have concerns that protecting would really slow down the timeliness of updates to the article.  However the only alternative is to move the discussion forward to arbcon with the issues here. That could well result in action that would end the issues.  Not sure we need that, yet.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The said edit war was a result of a long-standing dispute (which is apart from the above dispute over the inclusion of tailnumbers and codeshare information) which has remained unresolved many months ago. I am sure Vegaswikian would remember it, for he too was involved. Those series of disputes on whether the "parent company" field should state "Singapore Airlines Limited" (as it did for a long time) or "Temasek Holdings" (as championed by Russavia) has never been concluded reasonably, and the action of removing the disputed field entirely turned out to be a way to finally cool everything down and end the months of edit wars way back on 14 October 2007. A look at the edit history shows Russavia reintroducing the disputed field three days ago from out of the blue, reigniting the latest round of disputes, without nally a word in the talkpage to address past concerns or to present new information in support of his viewpoint, nor a word of warning in this Cabal. I shall let the facts and his actions speak for itself.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you agree to appointing a disinterested third party to decide whether SQ is or is not a subsidiary of Temasek? Jpatokal (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that a concensus-building process be formalised first after each party is given fair opportunity to put forth his points. Constant ego-bashing has unfortunately drowned out this basic step (which seems at odds with Russavia's constant reference to "concensus" in WP:Aviation and what not)--Huaiwei (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Appoint a third-party you both agree on, present your arguments, let him/her decide, then stick with the result. How's this for a "consensus-building process"? Jpatokal (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Concensus-building involves far more than just three wikipedians, especially on a topic like the ownership structure of an airline of this size. I believe this topic has never been given due consideration by more individuals, and I do sense it may actually affect a few other airline articles (an impending overhaul to Qantas may actually create the exact same problem). I am not comfortable with the idea of just one individual deciding on a matter of this magnitude, both for this case and potentially subsequent cases.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Issue of this magnitude"? You're fighting over a line in an infobox, for chrissake!  The only people involved in the present edit war are you two, and pages and pages of arguments, references and insults over half a year have obviously failed to result in agreement.  The issue at here is a very, very specific one, and any hypothetical future problems at Qantas or wherever are just that &mdash; hypothetical.  (I'm sure they'd find your precedent handy though.) Jpatokal (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remember it well. I was trying to figure out what the ownership of the company really was.  It was difficult and some of the editors who were able to access documents that I was not able to were not helping uncover the facts.  In the end, I believe that the following is the correct picture of the problem.  Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines are in fact one in the same company.  However the company treats Singapore Airlines in several different ways in the various documents.  One as Singapore Airlines Limited and Singapore Airlines being the same.  Another being Singapore Airlines as a part of the Singapore Airlines Group, sometimes with a parent of Singapore Airlines.
 * I don't believe that anyone is disputing that Temasek Holdings is the majority stock holder in the publicly traded company with, what is it, 54% of the shares. At one time I proposed that the airline portion of the company be split into a separate article about the airline  only so that these other issues did not affect the airline article as it is one of the more significant airlines of Asia.  That suggestion was fought for various reasons.  I believe that if we had taken that action at that time we might not be in this discussion today.
 * I think it is clear that as the article is now structured, Singapore Airlines Limited can not be the owner of Singapore Airlines since they are the same company. If the airline and Singapore Airlines Limited had two articles the only owner for Singapore Airlines would be Singapore Airlines Limited, not totally correct but not entirely wrong and not confusing to most readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mostly correct in your comments above. Singapore Airlines is = Singapore Airlines Limited which is = Singapore Airlines Group. You are also correct that the crux of the problem is that SIA itself uses all three terms for specific purposes (of which Singapore Airlines the airline is usually refered to as the "parent airline"), which is difficult to replicate here accurately. For example, this article attempts to talk about Singapore Airlines Limited as a publicly-listed company with Temasek as its biggest shareholder, yet indicates flight, operational and fleet statistics relevant only to the parent airline. Read the entire article, and this flip-flopping between the various quasi-entities begins to confuse the casual reader.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I had tried to split out the airline from the company. That would have provided an airline article that was not confused with the ownership issues.  The 'company' article could have then discussed the various issues. If there is a better solution to the problem I don't recall seeing anyone offer one.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly why you made those proposals, and I myself toyed with the idea of creating Singapore Airlines Group which you proposed many moons ago. 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)? Also remember how Singapore Airlines subsidiaries ended up being created despite my fierce objections? I was not sure if we were treaking in the right direction, and I am still doubtful. To date, it remains badly undeveloped, with its proponents seemingly only interested in creating it but not in expanding it. I fear the same will happen with a fragmented set of articles on the same entity.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The best solution is to state the simple, verifiable fact that Temasek Holdings is the parent company of Singapore Airlines Limited (trading as Singapore Airlines), which together with its subsidiaries, joint ventures and associate companies is known as the Singapore Airlines Group. Any attempt to split the airline out from the company is problematic for the following reasons, 1) it would be setting a precedent on wikipedia which I would presume would be overturned quick smart. I can find no other company article (not just airlines) where this is required, 2) doing so is only going to set the 'airline' article up to be a free-for-all PR-advertising fest. As has been pointed out on previous occasions, the airline is the company, and the company is the airline. It is really that simple. Just the same as Telstra; the telecommunications operator is the company, the company is the telecommunications operator. The problem with the article as it stands now, is that it is too crufty, too much unimportant information which is not going to mean a thing to the reader, when you consider that a reader of the article at the moment will know how to decode the SIA timetable (flight numbers) and will know how many Lufthansa destinations in Germany have flights to them with SIA flight numbers on them (codeshare destinations), and a spotter will be pleased to find that 9V-BFN is listed (fleet article), yet a small piece of information which is important in the business world (yes, remember SIA is a actually a company!) is not only missing, but is conveniently glossed over at the same time (even though what it is glossing over isn't even mentioned!), and I am of course talking about what is the parent company (i.e. which entity controls the company). Now, Huaiwei is obviously going to take deep offence at what follows here and may even say something about me having something against the 'little red dot', (just looking at my reservation now for a 4 day junket in May which was bought for the bargain basement price of AU$49.98 return [minus taxes of course, bugger]), as none is intentioned, but the reason that there is some disagreement as to whether Temasek is the parent company or not, is that in very plain terms, Singapore is a government-state in which the economy is almost controlled by the government; I don't mean in terms of regulations and laws and the like, but in the sense that the government has its fingers in almost every pie in town, and the government has ensured that it controls the biggest pies of all, e.g. SingTel, Singapore Airlines, Neptune Orient Lines, Singapore Technologies Engineering, Singapore Technologies Telemedia, MediaCorp, PSA International (the ports), etc, etc, and in some cases (such as Singapore Airlines for example), these companies will also be listed on the stock exchange, albeit whilst the government still retains a majority stake and control. Notice two different concepts here - 'majority stake' and 'control' - just because an entity has a majority stake it does not mean that it has control, as it can come down to many different complex laws concerning companies and their structures - however, due to company laws in Singapore, Singapore Airlines have made it very, very simple for us - in their annual report, it is very clearly stated that each ordinary shares carries a weight of 1 vote, and according to the structure of the company, all that is needed is a simple majority of votes in order to pass motions, make business decisions, etc. As Temasek owns just over 54% of these shares, this means that they will always have a clear majority of votes, and therefore they control the entity in its entireity; which in effect means that the shareholders who hold the other 46% of the shares are simply there for the ride. And this is the major reason that Singapore Airlines itself is wanting to get rid of the 49% it holds in Virgin Atlantic, due to it having absolutely zero influence at the decision making level of the board, whatever Branson says goes, goes. And it is the same with Temasek's control over SIA. However, with SIA, there is an extra surprise. Apart from the ordinary shares, the annual report also mentions that the Minister of Finance holds a single 'special share', the so-called golden share (that is sooo 1980s); with the Minister holding the golden share, if management should make a decision which the Minister deems is not in the best interest of the company, they can use their golden share to veto that decision. The golden share also has another purpose, in that if SIA should become the target of a takeover (like we saw with Qantas and the Airlines Partner debacle), the minister can use his share to block this takeover, thereby keeping the strategic interest in the hands of its parent (Temasek, which just so happens is 100% owned by the Ministry of Finance). Now is likely going to be the argument that Temasek isn't the parent company because it takes a hands off approach to the management and board. Whether Temasek appoints directors or not is totally irrelevant, and in fact, if Temasek's share of board directors is not appointed directly by Temasek, this in itself is a form of control in that it chooses 'not to exert influence' on the SIA board. From what Huaiwei has said in the past, it seems to me that it doesn't matter what Australian, American, British media, etc say, we are just all NPOV when it comes to Singapore, because we don't take into account what the Singapore media says to make it NPOV - of course, it is difficult to continue to argue that, when Singapore Airlines, a company domiciled in Singapore, and listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, issues an annual report which is it required to do under Singapore law, in very plain English (one of the official languages of Singapore), which contains the following statement: '''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.''' Now, that isn't the Singapore media, and Huaiwei said that the Singapore media tends to simply state that Temasek Holdings is a majority shareholders. Well firstly, I have provided quotes from Channelnewsasia, Straits Times and a host of other Singaporean media sources which state that Temasek is the parent company, including Today, the Singapore government owned (via Temasek of course) daily newspaper. Now of course, Singaporean media sources aren't exactly going to go out on a limb and mention active government controlling of these companies (which Huaiwei deems to be a prerequisite when its not!), when Singaporean media has a history and expectance of self-censorship and is made all the more difficult when Singaporean politicians, and especially Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong (his son and now prime minister) [who's wife Ho Ching is the CEO of Temasek by the way], have a long history of suing for libel anyone and everyone who should even so much as infer anything that they don't like to hear, and that is especially true when its foreign media and domestic political opponents. Now Huaiwei has brought up the issue of the Singapore Companies Act just recently (can't find it now, so perhaps he can point out where he wrote it). Let's look at this act, which can be found at this link. What is relevant in this discussion is: s. 5 (Definition of subsidiary and holding company) - funnily enough the Singapore Companies Act (as well much of Singaporean law) has its roots in English law, and in recent decades has borrowed much from Australian law - as per s. 5, Temasek fulfills the requirements to be deemed the parent company of Singapore Airlines. If anyone disagrees with this, feel free to contact Singapore Airlines, Ernst & Young and the Singapore Stock Exchange. Now the article as it stands now states: The Singapore government has regularly stressed its non-involvement in the management of the company, a point emphasised by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew when he declared that the aviation hub status of Singapore Changi Airport will be defended, even at the cost of SIA.[36] However, he was personally involved in defusing tensions between the company and its pilots,[37] warned the airline to cut costs,[38] and made public his advice to the airline to divest from its subsidiary companies.[39] Still, independent research typically rates the airline as practicing sound corporate governance policies in accordance with national regulations.[40] In the lead up to the conclusion of the Open Skies Agreement with the United Kingdom on 2 October 2007, the Singapore aviation authorities referred to the airline's audited annual reports to dispel the notion that SIA receives state funding, subsidies or preferential treatment from the government, despite being a Government-linked company. In essence, the Singapore government (via its 100% holding in Temasek) acknowledges that it has control of Singapore Airlines, yet it states that it doesn't exert its power of control, rather it allows the board to act independently, and that the company will be run along commercial lines only. Of course, I can quote reliable sources that say such a notion is totally absurd given the ownership structure and vested interests. I have not challenged the glossing over of this government-PR POV in the article but if need be will do so now, because if having the parent company as Temasek is POV, then so is the government notion. Prime example, looking at the first 'however', that being of Lee Kuan Yew being 'personally involved in defusing tensions between the company and its pilots' - got involved? I urge all parties to read these articles relating to the pilots and Lee to gain a bit of understanding as to why 'got involved' is a total misunderstatement: http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-040111.htm http://www.littlespeck.com/content/politics/CTrendsPolitics-040314.htm http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19525384_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20989535_ITM http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3676881.stm http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/1083436475894.html http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-12930113_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-31250489_ITM http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a02SpliJZs7Q&refer=home http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-899544_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20921982_ITM http://www.rsi.sg/english/connections/view/20040108132053/1/.html http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19910464_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20937158_ITM http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20937089_ITM And of course, there is this selection of articles, in which even a PAP member questions Lee Kuan Yew's continued interference in company affairs. And this article in which a Murdoch University professor states: In the long run, China's economy may evolve in the direction of Singapore, where Temasek played a key role in building many of the city-state's most famous international brands, including Singapore Telecom and Singapore Airlines. It has since stepped back from management decisions, and now controls seven of the country's 10 biggest listed companies and a portfolio worth an estimated $65 to $70 billion--or 34 percent of the value of all shares traded on the local exchange--as a major institutional investor. Rodan, however, argues that "if you look at the whole history of so-called privatization in Singapore, control hasn't really been surrendered, but capital has been redirected" into areas the state considers strategically important. In March, for example, Temasek sold a $1.25 billion stake in SingTel to fund expansion overseas. "I see this continuing, and maybe even accelerating, into the future," says Rodan. and a generalised comment which is so appropriate to this dispute over 2 words: In a sign of the disrepute that global markets still attach to state companies, every one of these firms downplays or denies its ties to the government. Putin recently noted that Russia's oil patch is less "fully monopolized" than that of most Middle Eastern states, or even Norway. Temasek insists it's no different from a private investment fund. Dubai companies like the airline Emirates describe themselves as "self-financing"--launched by the state but no longer subsidized by it--and publish annual reports vetted by PriceWaterhouseCoopers to prove it. I'd be more than happy to introduce parts of this to the article to balance out this extended NPOV issue, of course, it can be resolved simply by stopping the obfuscation of facts in regards to Singapore Airlines --> Singapore Airlines Limited --> Singapore Group of Companies - I am not going to explain this anymore, I have done enough professoring for now, so I will leave it up to others to consult the relevant TAXATION laws and COMPANIES/CORPORATIONS law and find out for themselves what the differences are (there isn't any) - and acknowledge that if a source which was demanded (i.e. a company source) states that it is a subsidiary of Temasek then this means it is the parent company of Singapore Airlines (aka Singapore Airlines Limited). --Россавиа Диалог 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Telstra example is definitely a solid one; that's generally how it works here (being Australian). Thus, referring to "Telstra" in Australia is referring to the telcom, and to business as a whole (obviously context could have you refer to one only, but in general...). I've read most of the rest of the comment, but will spare judgement on it in case someone wishes to contradict any claims made in it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eight days have now passed, and there has been no further comment in regards to this aspect of SIA. As the policy WP:CON states, silence equals consent, so I assuming due to this silence and the lack of any argument against what I have posted on the 7th, that it is now OK to include, and rightfully so, Temasek as the parent company of Singapore Airlines. If this is the case, do we move on to the flight numbers and codeshare destinations? --Россавиа Диалог 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that all of the issues have a consensus and it has not changed from the previous consensus positions. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Time to wrap this up? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus as summed up above, then probably yes. Your closing of this case would seem to say that the parties have reached a consensus that all parties need to respect.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, hopefully the parties would agree on the consensus made here. I'll leave it for a few more days in case anyone wants to say anything. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 12:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is eight days compared to the several months in which the various issues raised has never been addressed directly? Just what is the rush, Russavia, when it took you 45 days just to finally post a full response regarding the parent airline issue? Since when does WP:CON apply in this case, when the elaborate points you raise above has not been regurgitative, and which has already been addressed and unresolved ages ago? I will certainly respond in due time, at a time I feel comfortable.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What issues exactly? The only issue is, is that you refuse to recognise that someone, low and behold, may have a better understanding than you on some things, in this instance the structure of companies. If you can not see the DIRECT relationship Subsidiary --> Parent company --> Subsidiary, then I suggest that you leave this particular piece of information up to those of us who know what we are talking about. As was pointed out on the talk page by another editor, in regards to Temasek being the parent, There seems to be only one editor disputing this, but it seems to be one of the best sourced facts in Wikipedia. Until such time as Huaiwei can produce evidence that Singapore Airlines is different from Singapore Airlines Limited is different to Singapore Airlines group of companies, I will remind him that Wikipedia is based on WP:V, not a bunch of self-proclaimed wiki-aristocrats. That quote is directly from Huaiwei, from this revision of one of my edits right here. Removal of this information should only be done once Huaiwei addresses the issue of how they are different. And might I add, I am not willing to wait for this answer for as long as I have presented VERIFIABLE information (from SIA, Singapore Stock Exchange, Singapore law, dozens and dozens of RELIABLE news and industry sources), too many months have gone by, and I have had too many headaches and wasted too much time because of one editors stubborn-ness or ownership of this article. Then we may progress to flight numbers and codeshare destinations. --Россавиа Диалог 22:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An interesting discussion to look at is at Talk:Singapore Changi Airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports. What would you like to infer from these exchanges?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that other non-involved editors have commented on this, and Huaiwei is now claiming that the inclusion is political, as can be seen from this diff. His arguments hold little to no water when you consider what has occurred on SingTel, take this diff for example, in which he has stated News articles are not always accurate (remember "direct flights"?) Cite official statements from the annual reports for one. This has already been done on the Singapore Airlines article on umpteen occasions, and has been removed, somewhat sneakily as this diff shows, and it continues to be removed from this article, but other articles are left with this information. Is there some point in time at which one can honestly stop assuming good faith, particularly as shown above, the editor in question refuses to answer any questions, only saying that they will do so in their own good time. --Россавиа Диалог 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The latest revert by Huaiwei should not be taken lightly in my opinion. I have re-added the verifiable information, to be reverted with the comment (from this diff) - So Russavia has taken to revert warring. As stated in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-22 Singapore Airlines‎, I reserve my right to respond at a time I see fit - in other words what is being said here is that Huaiwei intends to drag this out for as long as possible, assume full control and ownership of that article, and make himself unanswerable to anyone, and will flout the spirit of WP policies. As to my supposed edit warring, I am simply adding back in verifiable information into the article, information which other editors have all agreed is correct and verifiable. Unless Huaiwei intends to reply in here, he has more than long enough time, can we close this informal process down, and take this elsewhere, somewhere where a more binding result can be had. As can plainly be seen by everything I have written above, and all over that article talk page, etc, I have been more than willing to explain why information is correct, only to have Huaiwei, whom I am no longer assuming good faith with I am afraid, assume full ownership of articles and revert anything which he does not agree with, or does not understand. Enough's enough. --Россавиа Диалог 18:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I have closed the case and will comment at a subsequent dispute resolution venue, as you see fit. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)