Talk:Jet set

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The following is ill-informed: '...was a set of upper-middle-class businessmen in the 1950s, who traveled extensively and, usually, internationally. Because they were relatively few, lived intense lives, and frequented the same hotels and restaurants, they developed a third culture, with social events held all over the world.' This isn't George Hamilton and Peter Lawford and Ceezee Guest, is it? --Wetman 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For no apparent reason, the 12 April 2011 edit adds a person's name as an example of a Jet Set member, someone apparently not famous. Google shows someone of this name being an attorney in New Jersey. It is interesting that the IP of the editor is owned by Philadelphia law firm Morgan Lewis, whose website does not show the person in question being on staff there. Vandalism? Practical joke? Maybe someone should find out what's going on at Morgan Lewis. -- (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence has something going on: '...a term for an international social group of wealthy people, organizing and 1958, was the typical jet set route'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed section[edit]

I've removed the "Members of the jet set" section because it's completely unreferenced, has potentially negative connotations, and could easily become far too long. The list is below; feel free to re-add it once reliable references are found.

tktktk 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


Is there any reference for the claim that "It could also now be taken to mean those who can afford to travel in privately owned or leased aircraft". That reads more like pure speculation. (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This usage seems to fit with my modern understanding of the term: The Jet Set are people who have Gulfstreams, Falcons, Citations, Lears, BBJ's, etc. at their personal disposal ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1D40:3:492A:6846:FEFC:6314 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


Is demographic information such as the typical net worth of the jet set crowd relevant to this article? Their net worth and income level distinguish them from the rest of the public and place them near the top of the financial pyramid which to me is notable information. Shawnc (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not relevant. The details you used were outdated (2006) and from an US-source. But the Jet Set from other countries can differ immensely. The Jet Set of for example Pakistan, will be far "poorer" than your US-average. The Dubai Jest Set will be far richer. Cherry picking some numbers from a rich mens magazine is highly dangerous. The Banner talk 23:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Why should we exclude US-sources for a term that was coined by an American for an American magazine? Any historical information can be outdated after publication, but why does that diminish its historical value regarding a particular demographic? Are you making an assertion that the American demographic is not notable? If you have sourced information regarding the jet set demographics in any country, why would you not include it in the article? Such information would be useful for those of us who are not already familiar with such information before reading the article. Some concept of wealth is involved in the various definitions of the term "jet set", so why is it that information from a source catering to wealthy individuals be irrelevant? Shawnc (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The material under discussion is

According to a 2006 survey by Elite Traveler, the jet set group have a median annual income of US$4.1 million ($9.2 million mean) and median net worth of US$41.2 million ($89.3 million mean).

The ref is here. In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with the passage. The objections that it's from 2006 are that it doesn't deal with Pakistan and so forth are quite weak. 2006 is not that long ago. The text does say "a 2006 survey" so the reader knows when the survey occurred. The {{Inflation}} template is available if we wanted to add " 2017 dollars" which I suppose we could if people really think that that's helpful. As to Pakistan, there are a lot of times when we go with partial data when that's what we have.

My problem with the passage is that the article writer is postulating a "new Jet Set" which he then defines as people who own a private jet or an interest in one. This would be a new definition of "jet set" which I think has not been used in the article to this point. It's largely a historical term, I gather, and refers to people who traveled on commercial jets. To the extent that its still extant, it means "those who have the independent wealth and time to regularly travel widely, at will and for extended periods, for pleasure" rather than people who actually own physical jets.

The ref could be used if the material was recast along the lines of "A new meaning for 'jet set' -- people who actually own their own jets -- was defined in a 2006 article in Elite Traveler, which surveyed..." or something. The problem with that is that "jet set" in that sense has no wide currency. It's just one article. So I dunno. We do talk about "wa-Benzi" as a kind of extension of "jet set" though , and it's information that might be useful or interesting to a person who's accessed the article, so I guess I wouldn't object if it's made clear that it's one writer's neologism.

The ref looks queer, BTW. It's not to Elite Traveler, but to some kind of Google page. The Google gives a link to the original Elite Traveler page, but going there gives a 403 Forbidden error. What's that about? Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So perhaps the definition of "jet set" is subject to writers' interpretation over time. Assuming "jet set" is unrelated to private jet ownership in common usage of the term nowadays, then the Elite Traveler definition might be considered a neologism. On the other hand, the Wikipedia article used phrases such as "independent wealth" and "social activities unavailable to ordinary people". To that end, the Elite Traveler article provided detailed information on jet owners' activities such as yacht rentals, villa rentals, fine art purchases and so on. While the magazine's definition may be a neologism, the data provided seem to support the Wikipedia introductory statement (which remains uncited). I found the magazine's usage of the term reasonable, and no less notable than the inclusion of the African term "wa-Benzi" in this article.
The Google cache was used because the original Elite Traveler article went offline a while ago. I have a copy of the original pdf. Should we avoid a citation because the original URL has become inaccessible online? It's still verifiable since Google's copy is online. Shawnc (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This is fine. I have mixed feelings but all in all it's probably a worthwhile addition. The ref'd article in interesting and fits in the general theme of the article, I think. How about something like this:
In a 2006 article, Elite Traveler described a "New Jet Set": those having full or part ownership of a private jet. A survey of 661 jet owners showed a median annual income of US$4.1 million ($9.2 million mean) and median net worth of US$41.2 million ($89.3 million mean).
This'd be fine I think. Certainly you can tweak the wording or change it however you want, I just want to retain the point that it's a new definition. Let's see what User:The Banner or anyone else who wants to chime in has to say.
Re the ref, fine. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, I just didn't understand it. In case the google page goes offline, I guess we should include the original article, so probably use the below or something like it. Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web |url= |title=The New Jet Set: A Psychographic Analysis of Luxury Spending |author=Russ Alan Prince and Hannah Shaw Grove |date=2006 |work=Elite Traveler |accessdate=October 4, 2013}}</ref>
The ref is still a tricky one, as it is likely that the whole magazine/website will be shot down as being a spammy site. And then your ref is suddenly invalid. Secondly, Elite Traveler is not representative for the Jet Set or the new Jet Set. They focus only on a tiny part of the Jet Set (in the article described as an international social group of wealthy people who traveled the world to participate in social activities unavailable to ordinary people), namely those people who own a private plane. But most of the members of the Jet Set just use planes from airliners. The Banner talk 18:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


If you know that Igor Cassini coined the term it ought to be easy to find out when. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)