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
The original version of this article (here) contains copyrighted material copied verbatim from these websites: . 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)
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)
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)
Hi, this has now been reviewed by two administrators. The versions deleted (twice) are both copyvios of  and/or . 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)
1968 or 1972
Two websites show 1972 as the year that the sarong kebaya was introduced ( and ). However, the Singapore Airlines website says that the uniform was introduced in 1968 (). The airline itself is a better source (in fact the airline would be the first-hand source). --Oden 13:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
===Nice one!=== Femdom is one of the best things since time immemorial, so I'd rather she slapped the boy. That said, it was discourteous to other passengers for them to be making out in public. Ergo, she was well within her legal and moral rights to do so, in my opinion, not to mention calling the police if it was getting really steamy. If it was a man beating off over her or an Irish Traveller trying to grope her, ditto. There is such a crime as "outrage of modesty" or "outraging public decency", you know. However, in the case of the former, you could offer them a suite for that purpose
If it was a member of the Taliban in that seat being transported to trial, they'd be scared of an exquiste raven haired oriental beauty. Chris Henniker (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
This article says nothing about the male flight attendants on Singapore airlines. On all my flights with Singapore, at least 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)
Imagine if you were to publish an ad for "Singapore Guys" on behalf of Singapore Airlines, I think the "guys" from Bugis Street would definitely come in first. Okay, jokes aside... I guess it SIA's company policy to sell on its "strong" point, that is the Singapore Girl. This is purely from a commercial point of view but isn't that the same thing the world over for other airline companies as well? --Dave1185 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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". EuroSongtalk 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:
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".
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 and subservient to white males.
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 
I can assure you that it is not just "Oriental" (in the sense you probably mean it - with Mongoloideye 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)
^Archana Venkat (2007-05-08). "The 'Singapore girl' may get an Indian face". Chennai: The Hindu Business Line. Retrieved 2007-12-28. Brand will have a fresh, modern look without compromising the icon; "The Singapore Girl will remain. She is not a creature of advertising," assured Mr Stephen Forshaw, Vice-President (Public Affairs), Singapore Airlines
Stewards versus attendants
It is widely accepted and noted that the cabin crews of SIA are referred to as Stewards and Stewardesses so I would appreciate that everyone would comply to that. Click on Steward and you would be directed to the disambiguation page of it, please let me know what you think of it. Also, please note that I had placed at the top of this page - this tag:
This article is NOT written in US-English. Please do not change it to US-English contrary to WP:ENGVAR: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation."
I think this would sum up the issue for most people here although I am not trying to exclude other editors (who don't use British English as we do) from actively contributing to the article itself. Lastly, please do not re-assert the generic term of "flight attendants" (which in my opinion is "sexless" and inappropriate for use) in this article, mind you this is Singapore Girl we are talking about here so if the male flight attendants of SIA are referred to as Stewards, then shouldn't the female flight attendants be referred to as Stewardesses? Thank you for reading this and cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
That is not a rationale that works. If you want to use ENGVAR, Dave, you should consult dictionaries and reliable sources about Singapore English (NOT the airline) and determine that the word "flight attendant" is improper usage within Singapore English. Otherwise we use flight attendant, irrespective of what SIA uses. When talking about cabin ranks I left in the names for the ranks of the "Steward" and "Stewardess" as names specifically used by the airline (that is because the ranks are "proper nouns). When referring to the Singapore Girl in common noun usage, please use "flight attendant." WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
So you are telling me that my company (FYI, I work for SIA) describes them as attendants? And that their male counterpart is too? Last I check, their name tags still read as STEWARDS and STEWARDESSES. So unless you can change my company's policy in naming them, I will strike off each and every of your assertion here. Kapish? --Dave1185 (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Listen, Dave. I am saying to do so DESPITE what the company says. Dave, your company's policy is not Wikipedia policy. BTW a proper noun is a specific name (I.E. "Dave Simmons" or "Tokyo" or a specific rank of flight attendant in the SIA hierarchy) - a common noun is an object that could be any one object, I.E. cat, train, car, or flight attendant. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the company uses Stewards and Stewardesses and so should we. --The High Commander (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
High, do we start describing employees of a department store chain as "team members" just because the company does? My point stands, and unless there is a reference, the edits should be reverted. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Stewards and Stewardesses have always been called Stewards and Stewardesses, and just because in the last couple of years, some politically correct American airlines have begun using the term Flight Attendant does not change the vocabularly of any language and therefore does not impact upon Wikipedia's 'vocabularly'. --The High Commander (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware that SQ calls its own cabin crew stewards and stewardesses. In fact, that is exactly what the previous revision said, and this revision should be restored unless there is evidence that "flight attendant" is not an acceptable term in Singaporean English. The issue is that WP should not use SQ's terminology except as "proper nouns." The Wikipedia standard of ENGVAR refers to regional variations in spoken English, not to company lingo. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
And what makes Flight Attendant standard? Because American airlines use it? Not every country in the world is so obsessed with political correctness. Steward and Stewardessare standard terms and have been since the very beginning of commercial air travel. It is Flight Attendant which is the new, fringe term. --The High Commander (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The use of Steward/Stewardess is part of SQ's corporate identity. Wikipedia is supposed to provide CORRECT information. ICAO is ICAO. This article is about the Singapore Girl. Planenut (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
As per the previous discussion, my point about what airlines call their employees still stands. The previous revision, which ought to be restored says "SQ calls them stewardesses," so this correct point is already reflected. "ICAO is ICAO" adds to the proof that "flight attendant" or "cabin crew member" needs to be used, because ICAO is an international authority that defines airline vocabulary. If you want a proper source of vocabulary, use the ICAO or IATA.
Also, in common noun usage we should not let our vocabulary be hijacked by an individual airline. We are here for Wikipedia's interests, NOT Singapore Airlines's interests. Just because SavXXMart calls its employees "associates," doesn't mean Wikipedia should be generally referring to them as "associates." I made this point previously in the discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In reply to the above and I know you will cite COI on me again but let me just re-iterate the point that all over the world (except maybe in your part of it, whichever it is), people are known to call them as Stewards & Stewardesses and I'm not just saying that my company does that, it is also affectionately known by all the passengers, ground staffs, airline Reps, travel agencies and members of public as such for the past forty years. I grew up calling them Stewards and Stewardesses because some friends and a few members of my family are staffs or former staffs of SIA, We don't call them flight attendants, ever at all. But when I come to wikipedia, I see this kind of political correctness! Whatever happened to being BOLD and original? Must we always conform to the generic norms when there are better terms to use instead of some generic ones such as "flight attendants"? I'm sorry but I don't see it as such and very soon, we might also be facing the prospect of being called "flight attendees" whilst travelling as a passenger onboard an airplane. Whisper, you could try to push your view but I perceived you as being another POV crusader. In the final analysis, I am all for NPOV and we are not trying to advertise a company's policy here by calling them Stewards & Stewardesses when they are, in fact, as such described! It's like using -ise and -ize, which would you chose? Well, it would all depend on where you are, actually. Really. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Additional note: whatever happened to the KISS principle? Seems that a lot of peeps in wikipedia have failed to do so. "Whisper", please read up on WP:KISS. Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I'll talk to you about some stuff on your talk page, but anyhow, you need to have a reference that says that the term is more common around the world and/or more accepted by international regulatory authorities. I have the frequencies of usage of the terms on the ICAO website as proof that there are newer acceptable terms. Due to this and Talk:Singapore Airlines issues, I think we will need a request for comment filed soon. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The authorities can name things as they want but it is up to the good folks at grass-root level to decide whether or not to accept it, OR stick with what they like to call. And the term "Singapore Girl" has been around since the 1970's to this very day in the third millennium, the term was endorsed by both Singapore Airlines and Singapore Tourism Board right from the beginning of SIA's Ad campaign, a lot of the passengers have like the service of the "Singapore Girl" and they still know them as Singapore Girl so does the various travel agencies, ground staff and airlines REP all over the world. You can't simply walk into this place and try to apply what you think is right when what goes on around the world tells us clearly it is not the case. Otherwise, why would CNN or USA Today still use this term of "Singapore Girl" (if your so-called international regulatory authorities tells you otherwise) in their reports or feature stories? It is a simple fact that other airlines doesn't have the "Singapore Girl", much less of something in the same class to show off to the world during their promotional campaign for their airlines. Is it really that hard for you to be able accept the cold hard fact here? --Dave1185 (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
2. What do you mean by political correctness? Generally Wikipedia is concerned with which words are typically used, and only does not use typical terms in case of POV issues. Using "flight attendant," the ICAO-preferred term, is the standard. Remember that Google search. "Steward" returns 3 results on ICAO site . Stewardess returns one . WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
3. There is an alternate proposition. ICAO also often uses the term "cabin crew member"  - Either "cabin crew member" or "flight attendant" may be used, as they are commonly used on the ICAO website. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
1. That is an airline. Remember what I told you about how companies may refer to their employees?
2. But they do not say which term is more commonly used where, or how frequently each paper uses which term. With the ICAO citation this proves that "flight attendant" and "cabin crew member" are generally the terms used by the international civil aviation community as of 2008. We are looking for the best term. "Stewardess" may have been the most common in the 1960s, but vocabulary changes. In 2008 "flight attendant" and "cabin crew member" are the best terms. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I know the Thai Airways International safety video refers to "flight attendants," (I do not believe I am allowed to post a direct link to it since the video may not adhere to copyright, but it is available on some video websites if you want to see it) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you like, not use another airline as a kind of "benchmark" here to set the stage of being politically correct? Pardon me for not citing a better example here but here we go, I like wearing briefs as underwear and you might be the opposite of me, choosing boxer shorts instead. Could you entice me to change to what you like or vice versa? Go figure. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I was using the ICAO as a "benchmark" - that is a division of the United Nations. It's just that I also found one airline to counter another, showing that using an airline as a benchmark is pointless. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Guys, per Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language, we should use "flight attendant," not "steward" and "stewardess." As WhisperToMe noted, we do not use company-specific terms. Dave, however much you may dislike political correctness, that is not an excuse to disregard Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It's a matter of professionalism as much as political correctness. GlassCobra 16:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is about the Singapore Girl. Singapore Girl = Stewardess. I don't see a need to have this article once we change it to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Planenut (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Planenut: Even though this article is titled "Singapore Girl" it also discusses male flight attendants. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra perhaps you should read what you quote. The MoS guideline states Please consider using gender-neutral language where it can be done without loss of neatness and precision. This recommendation does not apply to direct quotations, the titles of works (A Man on the Moon), or where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school. I direct your attention to or where all referents are of one gender, which is precisely what the Singapore Girls are. --The High Commander (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
But this also discusses the male flight attendants, High Commander. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to jump in on this conversation since I stumbled on it...I think since the ICAO, an international organization that serves to regulate civil aviation, refers to cabin crew as 'flight attendants' it would be proper to follow this most widely-used terminology. Also, I note that though this article is supposed to be about the female flight attendants, it seems as though half of the article discusses all Singapore Airlines cabin crew in general...perhaps such a specific article title is unnecessary and should be opened up to include all cabin crew if deemed notable, or else the other information doesn't seem relevant for this article at all. NcSchu(Talk) 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
So, would "Flight attendants of Singapore Airlines" sound like a good title if we kept the content and renamed the article? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
NO~! I really wonder what is the driving force behind you pushing your view here when almost all of what we know about this iconic symbol of Singapore Airlines is as such describe as Singapore Girl. What you are doing is no different from removing Mickey Mouse from Disneyland! It is absolutely ludicrous! Think about it! Highcommander has stated quite a good number of valid reasons and points or guidelines within WP:MOS that aptly applies here and yet all you and a few other editors can think about is change the name of this article? This is ridiculous! You have got to be either blind or numb to what we have told you here all along. You don't own this article and pertaining to your involvement in the request of mediation within the context of Singapore Airlines article, I'd suggest you keep it as such and not do anything at all until the end of the process. Also, don't push your view too far here. --Dave1185 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Then half of the information in this article doesn't belong here as far as I can see because it pertains not only to 'Sinagpore Girls' but also all Singapore Airline Flight Attendants. It's like devoting half of an article on a specific species of flower on the entire genus. As a reminder, please try to maintain civility User:Dave1185; nobody owns an article, so all of our opinions as long as they're based on WP guidelines are equally valid. NcSchu(Talk) 15:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.