Talk:JetBlue flight attendant incident

LOL

This article is a joke. It's useless, and it's horribly written. There's also several exaggerations listed. Concussion? Really? People here are just trying to make their own things up to see if the media catches them. Which obviously won't work. This article is the only place I've heard "concussion" in. Like I said, this article is a joke. I support the fact it's getting deleted.CloudKade11 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted this sentence since it seems unsupported and is only speculation on behalf of an editor. With regards to the relevance of the article, the story is still developing and so is this article. You are free to improve it. There is no guarantee that it will be deleted, it should be reviewed after a week. Freelion (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

--Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)== Already seen in the JetBlue Airways article ==

There is already info on this incident within that article, and I feel that is enough to get this entry deleted. esposimi (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the man, not the company. Freelion (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This story has almost nothing to do with JetBlue. It could have happened on any other airline. Putting it into the JetBlue article makes absolutely no sense at all. This story is notable for the people and the events, not for JetBlue.--Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Putting a story about, lets say a Crash involvinga United aircraft in a article on United. "It could have happened on any other airline." Really.... But it didn't. happened on JetBlue, placed on JetBlue. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MOVE

Create event article for now. Should be covered, [1] says how. See discusssion in AfD. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "create event article for now" means. Is that a command or a suggestion? Discussion of this belongs in the AfD. patsw (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't run to his car

The article says he "ran to his car" after exiting the plane, however one of the passengers on the plan has gone on CNN and posted on his blog that he encountered Mr. Slater conversing with other passengers on the air-train from the terminal to the parking lot where his car was parked. Sounds more like he got out via the slide, entered a service door to the terminal, then took airport transport to the employee parking lot. --134.84.19.236 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with adding this is that you not only need the cite to the blog, but the blogger has to be identified in a reliable source to have been a passenger on the flight. (New sections to a talk page are added to the end.) "Ran to his car" may not be true, but it is verifiable at this point. patsw (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That he did not 'run to his car', as seemingly reported only in a UK tabloid, is contradicted by a detailed NY Magazine interview with Slater at https://nymag.com/news/features/70980/ Irish Melkite (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually

This person is part of our modern culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.28.10 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit, Don't Delete

I agree the article is poorly written, but that's something that can be easily fixed. Don't delete this post Steve Slater is being hailed as a hero and his actions are probably going to have a profound effect on society. Jrfoldes (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be edited and not deleted. How is this individual? Why have so many people responded? Are there similar events? What's next? What is the history? Etc.. --Scasey1960 (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the AfD discussion, the question isn't about the quality of the article, it's whether or not Slater falls under the prohibitions found in WP:BLP1E. Some, like myself, very much think he does, and thus we cannot, by policy, have an article about him. Others disagree. You are certainly welcome to comment there, although be sure to address the full scope of the article, not just whether or not it's interesting. As a side note, I think it's both highly speculative and ridiculously unlikely that this action will have any effect on society, profound or otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say this article can be included in the internet phenomenon page. User:devmanuel —Preceding (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC) comment added 08:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

KEEP.--Conrad Kilroy (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't Bite the Newbies

Drmies: Regarding this edit,[2] 69.141.122.210 appears to be a new editor. We should be welcoming and helpful to this new editor. Sure, we have a reliable secondary source, but it's out of date. I am trying to save this new editor's contribution by citing a primary source which is perfectly allowable according to our verifiability policy. Please remember that we were all beginners when we first started at Wikipedia. Reverting a good faith contribution by a newbie amounts to a negative experience for them. This makes it less likely to contribute in the future. I have no interest in engaging in an edit war, so I ask that you self-revert. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It's about time people help, newbies instead of penalizing them. Do you know how many times I've been banned or put on ANI notice because I did not meet someone's expectations, and instead of helping they just remove my work? Jrfoldes (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED

I checked the source used for Slater's expletive-laden quote, and it does censor. We need to match what our sources say, even if they choose to censor perfectly good words.

I also checked to see if there was a less-censorious source we could use instead: at the time the only results on Google were this article and a couple of Facebook pages. Hopefully that'll change, because I find the "****" nonsense insulting and patronising. But for the time-being it's all we've got.

TFOWR 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. If the source uses asterisks, all we can do is quote what the source says, even though most of us know what the asterisks are implying. It may seem silly, but we can't include the actual words unless we have a source for them. –BMRR (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is unnecessary and stupid. Even if the source censored the words with "*", every English speaker know what the words are and I don't see why Wikipedia has to follow the source in this case.—Chris!_c/t 18:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, interesting indeed, we could say something like...and the cabin staff responded with a string of expletives. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't "fill in the blanks." We must adhere closely to what material is provided to us by sources. Filling in the blanks would constitute original research. Bus stop (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes if the blanks are in the cite we cannot fill them in with what we think, its just an insulting remark anyways and has no educational or encyclopedic value at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 12 August 2010

Maybe this will work until we can find an uncensored source. –BMRR (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Thinking about it, Off2riorob's comment about the encycopaedic value is pertinent: if it's not informative to say precisely what the article's subject said then there's no need for the article to say it. The key think here is that there was an individual who apparently snapped, swore, and stormed off an aircraft. That's what we need to get across - not each and every "fuck". TFOWR 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, guys - it's not our call. Especially if we are quoting. And I would argue that the text IS relevant to some people. Depending on exactly what was said I can make a judgment call as to whether Slater was righteously angry or just a dick. Without context the reader can't make that call. Not to say we should encourage WP:SYNTH but, as a reader it does add to the article. Padillah (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Work in progress

Can't we all just agree this article is a work in progress. The investigation has not been concluded and as a result some information may be skewed. Right now we do have some legitimate facts, but what will happen remains to be seen.Jrfoldes (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every statement made by Slater directly or through his attorney of the account of the flight up to the point where he cursed at all the passengers over the aircraft public address system is being disputed by witnesses, either on the record, or through disclosures made by police. It is going to result in a massive change in tone in the article if it survives the AfD. patsw (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Which it shouldn't, most of the reasons for asserting it should be kept is that he is some sort of folk hero for standing up to rude customers. The article and ongoing debate about what happened shows that this things is a joke and shouldn' have gone beyond the "and finally..." section of Fox News. GainLine ♠ _♥ 11:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure mow, whilst this being about him is a joke (and shows why this type of news article is so ponitless) what this represents (in terms of a wider problom) may warrent merge, but not a delete.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some issues here that are noteworthy, particularly working conditions and the role of flight crew. While these may deserve an article of their own or inclusion in say the Flight Attendant article as a section that is where this guy should be mentioned not in a stand alone article about him or the incident. This is an encylopedia not Perez Hilton. GainLine ♠ _♥ 14:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think whether this will become encyclopedic or not will hinge upon whether a wider debate about flight attendant roles emerges from this incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And that is crystal balling which is a reason to delete the page. Its eithe notable or its not, might be notable is not a reason for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a debate will come or not should be readily apparent at this moment. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Chinese

If anyone writes a Chinese page about this, Apple Action News has a video about it, complete with CGI depicting the incident (No, JetBlue doesn't have 747s!): "空中少爺鬧爆惡乘客　跳機劈炮" WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to JetBlue article

Why can't "Steven Slater" just be redirected to the JetBlue article. I mean it was a "JetBlue incident". Slater was working at JetBlue. He was wearing the required JetBlue uniform. He did step out of a JetBlue airplane. Just because the media is calling him a "hero" doesn't mean this article has the right to stay now. Many people have been called heroes, and no such articles are listed on Wikipedia anywhere. Just last night I was watching the news about a woman bus driver working for the OCTA. She had stopped a passenger from lighting the entire bus on fire while she was driving and other passengers were present. She was called a hero afterwards for stopping the man, who is now a terrorist suspect. My point is that I don't see an article about her anywhere. She's perfectly listed in the "OCTA incidents" section. That story had to be not so different than the man from JetBlue. Article goes, redirects to JetBlue.CloudKade11 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that the article should be redirected, then you should go say so in the AfD about it. Silverseren^C 01:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and will be discussed in the Afd. There is no need to duplicate the discussion here. patsw (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a discussion for the AFD, hopefully we will get rid of the article though deletion but if not then the article should clearly be moved if it survives.- JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 - as you can see it is already a redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Argue for keeping/merging/deleting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater. TFOWR 08:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

WP:BLP, in the section labelled WP:BLPCAT, states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." I don't know if Slater is self-identified as LGBT, but even if he is, it has nothing to do with why he is (allegedly) notable. Thus, that category does not belong. 08:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (this was from Qwyrxian)

His sexual preference stays out as it is not part of any reason why he is notable. Off2riorob (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows he's openly gay but it's not referenced much at all (or almost never) by the media coverage of him. So, there's no point in including the information in this article.

I suppose this might become a big issue if/when we create a 'Category:LGBT folk heroes of America', but not until then... Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A big issue to you maybe. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth

Just because some articles say he's 38 years old doesn't mean he was born in 1972. Yes, it's true that 2010 minus 38 equals 1972, but that's not the whole story. What if Slater was born in September 1971? That would mean that he's currently 38, but will be 39 next month. Also, just because Slater claims to be 38 doesn't make it so. Lots of people lie about their age. I think we all know someone who is 40+ but claims to be 38 or 39. Long story short, until we have a reliable source for his DOB, it should be left out of the article. –BMRR (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what the c. is. He was born circa 1972 (could be 1971). That puts it in the ballpark. He's not 50. He's not 60. He's not 45. Age is a basic aspect of a biography. The referenced section was deleted here.Americasroof (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

All the cites do is say that he is so old today, its not worthy of adding. You can add somewhere is August 2010 press reports said he was (add age here) and imo not in the lede.Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reason

This article doesn't deserve to be one. Exactly Wikipedia's biggest flaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.54.237 (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –BMRR (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Until Wikipedia stops forcing readers to read articles they don't like I'm going to boycott Wikipedia. Or not. Or something. Seriously, your browser almost certainly has a "back button" - if you can't resist clicking links to articles you're not interested in, the "back button" is probably your best option. Or opaque sunglasses... TFOWR 08:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Name Change in Order:

There is a name change in order here... I think it should be the renamed The Steven Slater Air Rage Incident, and then either sourced properly and/or moved to the Flight Attendant article... Michael 03:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts

The account of Steven Slater has not been corroborated by the passengers and other crew members of JetBlue Flight 1052 on 8/9/2010 with respect to events prior to his tirade on the public address system. Also, since first presented with these contradictory accounts, Slater has declined to offer some evidence supporting his account, or even to affirm his original account.

• Accordingly, wording that Slater "claimed" is appropriate since later in the article wide skepticism of his statements is introduced with sources.
• Wording that Slater "spoke" rather than "responded to" is appropriate since the former is accurate without implying that Slater's account of a provocation is true. Furthermore, the source does not itself report that passenger Catelinet was a witness to anything other than Slater's farewell speech.
• When a witness to a news event is named in a linked source article, it is no loss of privacy to name the person in the Wikipedia article. Names are included for two reasons:

1. It establishes that several, not merely one or two "passengers" are being quoted by the media accounts of the incident. The fact that several passengers have gone on the record with their accounts is very significant.
2. It assists readers and editors to verify the the Wikipedia article is accurately summarizing the source. patsw (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with the inclusion of the name of one particular passenger who appears to be one of many witnesses. Including her name in particular, since she is not the one that supposedly sparked the incident, brings no particular value to the article. She wasn't the only witness and she doesn't appear to be a prime witness or anything like that. I think that the fact that multiple witnesses have made statements can be worded without the use of one particular person's name. See WP:BLPNAME. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This a special case where the credibility of Slater's account of the passengers has led the passengers, in fact, many of the passengers, to allow the sources to attribute their quotes to them by their names. It enhances the credibility of a reporter's account when he or she names the witness. It also lets a researcher or Wikipedia editor to see that "a passenger...another passenger" is not one or two passengers who have bombarded the media with their accounts but rather several passengers contacted independently. The context here is the persons quoted chose not to be anonymous. patsw (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but flip it around backwards... why the name of this particular passenger and why not include the two names in the same WSJ source? Or the passengers quoted by name in the New York Daily News or CBS News sources? There just doesn't seem to be any particular reason to single out this particular passenger. And the inclusion of her age is just excessive trivia that brings zero to the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't insert the named reference to Marjorie Briskin originally. Another editor did. I restored it. Consistency in adding the name isn't as important as letting the article show that many, not merely one or two, passengers made statements for attribution in contraction to Salter's account. patsw (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of the terms "He claimed", "He claims", and so on seem to me to be inherently pejorative language.

Something like "He said", "He says", "He stated that", and so on is better. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirected

This article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater, an recreated as a redirect to JetBlue Airways#Incidents and accidents.  -- Lear's Fool 04:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Appeal

How can an admin who was editing be the one to close the AfD. Especially in such a contentious Afd where there was no up down consensus at all, and that a 3rd way was starting to emerge of instead creating an incident specific article which would comply with wiki's Biography 1 event policies. I'd like to state this in the Deletion appeal, however wiki seems to supress IP users by prohibiing participiating there without an account. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Mkativerata closed the AfD and the only edit they made to the article was this one, after the article was deleted. They did, of course, delete the article after closing the AfD, but prior to that they had not edited the article at all. TFOWR 06:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, I was just about to say the same thingg. To the IP: you should be able to contribute to the appeal here. It's not a protected page so IPs should be able to edit it.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

deletion?

why are you guys deleting it? its all over the news, is it because hes not an Arab?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.67.246 (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does this only give Mr Slaters version?

This i9s not the deleted page. Why was not the last version of the origional page used? How is giving oterh winesses version of the events a BPL violation?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Page has been trimmed, excessive coverage of content about a living person in an article that is not about him but about a minor incident. Also weak titillating claims about him and other living people such as, I recognize a drunk when I see one. What is left is all that is of value and not violations of guidelines and policy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The we can remover soem of the material, but this page as it stands in little more then his version. If the incidetn is notable then so are all vaersions of the incident. Also why would his defence attormies version not be acceptable. This is little more then a tributre page at the moment. Also the jet blue material is not about him but directly related to the incident why did you remove this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have last night spent time removing what is rubbish, please do not replace it, if you want to add another report that may well be ok but it should be strongly cited and not attacking in nature. Off2riorob (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How are other versions of the story (all cited) rubbish? Nor was any of this attacking in nature, it just contradicts him. Also you removed this material without discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its like what you just added, is absolute valueless fluff, allegations they didn't report it for 25 mins, that is just tabloid fluff, fillers, something to add to make the story seem exciting, this is an encyclopedia. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How is any of this fluff? If this is all fluff then the whole story is fluff. The fact that police have not been happy with Jetblues reaction over this is of far more interest then anything else. This is just a tribute page and nothing more. Also the walls street journal is RS. None of this is a BLP violation, especially as his actions are the incident, so commenting on his actions is fair. If some one claims to have done something (such as saved some one life) and then a load of witnesses come forward and say Hog wash we report that. That is what has happened here, he has become famous for doing something that a lot of people say is false. That is an important part of the case.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

In one of the most polite edits the timeline was deleted here. This issue is very complex and I've found that on breaking news it's easier and less controversial to discuss developments in chronological order. The deleted material included references to events about the event having notability beyond one person's meltdown (e.g., the Republican ad, the Taiwan animation, the proposed television deal, analysis that he had become a defacto folk, and dealing both pro and con whether the story is true (this seems to be a moving target). Again I appreciate the polite comment on the deletion.Americasroof (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the reversion, I still don't think it really belongs here though. But, I won't edit war over it. Thanks for the note. — e. ripley\^talk 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your constructive comments and edits. We might revisit the timeline once we have a better feel for the impact. It's still too early to be making snap judgments. Thanks again.Americasroof (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This minor incident does not need a timeline at all. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How is this timeline not the ultimate in fancruft? Aside from the six entries that comprise the actual incident it's comprised of publication dates. Those are usually called references and are already called out in their own section. Do we really need a chronological breakdown of the refs table? This is pure fluff to fill the article and make it look like it can't be the blurb it really is (in the Jet Blue article). This coverage timeline needs to go. It's nothing but cruft. Padillah (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

90

Tyhe sources say that 90% of the passengers have not cooberated his story, why does the artciel only say dozens, that seems to undemine the fact.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

One source quotes an unnamed investigator as saying 90%, I believe it was a local NBC affiliate TV station. To me it needs to be corroborated a little bit better than that -- 90% is quite a statistic. If you can find it mentioned in another source that would sway my opinion the other way though. — e. ripley\^talk 01:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

well this also says 90% http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/14/2010-08-14_bloody_jetblue_evidence_witness_says_slater_was_fine_at_start.html#ixzz0wcFoaUka.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

nON WITNASES

If non witnases opinions of the matter should be given why can't we also have what actual witnese say abuot the incident?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of the incident

The discussion originated at User_talk:E._Ripley#Opinions and User_talk:WhisperToMe#Opinions

A user said:

"Just because they meet WP:V does not mean that they are appropriate for inclusion. Bill Briggs appears to be some sort of infrequent op-ed writer and should be identified as such; the way the article puts it right now it appears that he was an anchor making an off-the-cuff remark."

While it is true that just because a source meets WP:V doesn't mean that it is worthy from inclusion, when you are trying to save an article from AFD and demonstrate that there are wider implications of an incident (and therefore, notability!) statements from news anchors are priceless.

An off the cuff remark is one that isn't planned, as a dictionary article says here: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/off-the-cuff - The article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38718348/ns/travel-news is a written, crafted news article, not a spontaneous news interview where an anchor said something he didn't plan to say. News articles are not infallible, but they are not off the cuff.

Our goal right now is to save JetBlue Flight 1052 from AFD and/or to gut any credibility from the pro-deletion arguments. Once that happens, then find more analysis and build it up, build it up. Then once you have more analysis to choose from, then we can decide what analysis is not significant and what analysis is significant.

This is a problem solved by adding, and not by (initially) deleting.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In regards to concerns about WP:SYN:

WP:SYN says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

The user's concern was "Thanks. Frankly, the gathered info you've inserted re: individual flight attendants' opinions appears to me to skirt dangerously close to WP:SYN. If something like, say, the Association of Flight Attendants made remarks along these lines, to me that would be grounds for inclusion. Otherwise we're just gathering 2-3 opinions and structuring them in such a way that it's presented as a trend (under "broader implications," no less), which I think isn't appropriate."

I didn't choose the section name "Broader implications" - I could simply rename it to "Reactions" or something like that.

Considering WP:SYN, it is acceptable to take 23 opinions and structure them to signify a trend, as long as there is not a new conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I mentioned on your talk page, the way it's presented right now I believe is too close to WP:SYN, particularly since you have stated that what you're trying to do is use this information to support the notion that there's a trend. What we have is 2-3 opinions, which you have presented in such a way as to support your own hypothesis that this opinion is broadly held. I don't think it's appropriate. If an organization such as, say, the Association of Flight Attendants weighed in on the issue, then that would certainly be appropriate for inclusion and could reasonably be argued to represent the position of flight attendants broadly. But quoting 2 flight attendants and an op-ed writer does not a trend make, and I think skirts way too close to WP:SYN to be left in the article. — e. ripley\^talk 18:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Call it WP:OR, then. Either way, it's not an appropriate presentation to support your conclusion. — e. ripley\^talk 18:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well another thing is that, so far, there are no sentences that explicitly say that there is a "conclusion" - I.E. I did not say anything like "flight attendants have expressed support for Slater." If I did say that, then I would have to support that conclusion. Right now we have three statements of opinion from the media. Once we find more, we may find justification for including sentences like that. Until then, the Wikipedia article section isn't stating any conclusions as fact. All three statements are attributed to the speakers.

If you believe that the section needs analysis material that concludes that Slater acted inappropriately or something similar, one is welcome to add that to the section.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the Association of FAs... "Unhappy days for flight attendants" from The Washington Post and The New York Times says "While not condoning Slater's behavior, Corey Caldwell, a spokeswoman for the Association of Flight Attendants, said that flight attendants have it rough these days. They're working longer hours for low pay. And because airlines are charging fees for checked baggage, passengers are carrying on more and heavier bags." WhisperToMe (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The information is presented to draw readers to a conclusion that this is a widespread sentiment. Otherwise what's the point of including their opinions? What point does their inclusion serve? Otherwise I could cherry pick a million others that could be equally irrelevant, then we just end up with a quotefarm. The AFA quote is getting closer, but that's so generic and really doesn't say anything unique about this incident. FAs have a tough job. Well, yes. What we need, though, are broader implications. Is there anything unique to this incident that the AFA speaks to anywhere that you've seen? Along the lines of -- this incident shows why we need (something -- whatever... bag size standardization, training, anything). — e. ripley\^talk 23:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"The information is presented to draw readers to a conclusion that this is a widespread sentiment. Otherwise what's the point of including their opinions?" - As long as nothing is explicitly stated, especially when now all kinds of opinions are being said, the article isn't actually saying anything. As long as we do not explicitly say anything or cleverly try to insinuate some point of view or conclusion, an incomplete grouping of quotes is okay, even if there is some kind of trend. "Okay" won't cut it for good article or featured article statuses, but it will help an article survive AFD and prove notability.

Number two, articles are obligated to include the most significant points of view. When the cataloging of opinions is incomplete or there is little to be found, we must show whatever opinions we find, end of story.

"Otherwise I could cherry pick a million others that could be equally irrelevant, then we just end up with a quotefarm" - Then find those millions of others and let the quotefarm develop. Once you get a catalogue and once it actually becomes a quotefarm, then you have proven your point and then it is time to summarize and to pick the most important developments, and then you can exclude insignificant quotes. But you have to let the body of research be collected first. As the article develops, we will determine what is the most significant material. The research process is how we determine how to craft the article. Once you get the quotefarm, then we can choose how to present the many opinions related to the incident and then we can make it not a quotefarm anymore and turn it into a real summary of the various viewpoints.

"FAs have a tough job. Well, yes. What we need, though, are broader implications." As we pick from the quotes, we will find the answer to those questions. It's a game of hide and seek, and we find the answers where they are hiding, in the confines of the millions of newspaper articles and (someday) research articles.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the opinions of the others involved, the passangers. If wwe are going to have opinions of his actions tghen we need the counter opinions that he was rude and agreesive from the start. We need this in context. Also what opi9nions are we allowed to use this?[[3]]??Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just got that link. As for other passengers and/or crew, one could include their views in another section (maybe "Views from passengers and other crew members"). I renamed the section with the Flight Attendant Association and other third party views to "third party" views, so that all third party views can go there. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Article title

I missed it, did this plane crash? Was it involved in some sort of hijacking incident? Why in God's green Earth is this article titled after the flight number. This is usually reserved for notable flights in which people have died violently. The article is disrespectfully titled. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events).--Jojhutton (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This was an airliner incident so its named within the confines of the naming convention which says it should be namd after the flight number.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This was not an incident to the flight, it was an incident that happened on the flight, and afterwards. Some of what is in this article didn't even occur on the plane, or during the flight.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Steven Slater's profanity-filled address to the passengers began after some other passengers had disembarked. Obviously, the flight had ended. Technically, it would be the JFK Airport August 9, 2010 incident. Of course, Wikipedia editors would not assign that title, but media accounts of the incident likewise do not use Jet Blue 1052 as the descriptor but Steven Slater -- which should be incorporated into the Wikipedia article title. patsw (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming

Now that the whole AFD process is finally over (at least for now), maybe we can think about a good title for the article. I don't really think the flight number is the ideal title. As others have pointed out, the number hasn't been retired, so there are still other flights with that number. But more importantly, I don't think it's really what most people associate with the incident. My proposal at this time is to move it to Steven Slater air rage incident (currently a redirect), but maybe someone else can think of something better...What does everyone think? -Helvetica (talk) 09:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be the present redirect Steven Slater for the following reasons

• People known for single events in sport are not tagged with that event. To title the article Steven Slater air rage incident creates a precedence without there needing to be one.
• Avoids later name change if the article needs to be expanded by Steven Slater getting a TV show or if the incident becomes a complex court case.
• "Air rage incident" may turn out to be an incorrect description, if for example, what has been reported as "rage" was preplanned and not spontaneous (I am not suggesting this is the case, only to note the word "rage" presumes facts that have not yet been fully established as they might in court).
• Independent sources focus upon a very diverse range of aspects even of the "air rage incident". Many use the incident to focus upon other issues that do not link to the title upon customer relations, changing situation of workers in a recession, the use of "to pull a Slater" as a word, status as a folk hero etc.
• Steven Slater air rage incident might confusingly suggest other Steven Slater tagged articles exist with which it is being disambiguated.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia service: the vast majority of people landing up on this article initially search for Steven Slater rather than any other title as can be established on Wikipedia article traffic statistics.
• WP:TITLE requires that articles are titled in regard to Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. Steven Slater has less problems in this regard than Steven Slater air rage incident--LittleHow (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

LittleHow, I appreciate your passion here, and I do personally agree that Steven Slater has already risen to a level of notability where he deserves an article of his own. However, a couple points: 1. The article as it's currently written is not a biography, but rather an article about the event and its aftermath. 2. While I personally agree that having a bio article on Slater at this time does not violate BLP1E, there are a good number of people who feel otherwise. From my reading of the three consecutive deletion debates, it's clear that a consensus has emerged that the incident deserves inclusion, but it's not so clear what the consensus is regarding whether or not Slater deserves a bio article. And I think that pushing for it at this time - when there's no new information - is likely to cause a lot of unnecessary frustration. My suggestion would be to wait at least a couple weeks, and work in the meantime on the article about the event/aftermath. We should be seeing a lot more coverage again with the trial, and then once the legal issues are more settled we'll probably see public appearances, and maybe more of a concrete plan for the reality tv show. Of course if something major develops sooner then go ahead, but if it doesn't then I think it makes sense to wait a bit. I think people's understanding of the significance of the event is slowly evolving. Many people voted delete early-on in the first AFD, before they realized how much the story would take off, and in the second AFD a number of people changed their votes to "keep." So I think it just makes sense to be patient. -Helvetica (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Steven Slater air rage incident is fine in my opinion, and certainly better than JetBlue Flight 1052, which I agree is awful. Propaniac (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - There's a TWA Flight 840 (1969) and TWA Flight 840 (1986)Americasroof (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Americasroof, some people have pointed out the issue of the flight number not being retired, but for me this isn't a major concern. My issue is that this incident hasn't been primarily identified with the flight number. For example, doing a quick Google News search I get just 85 results for "JetBlue Flight 1052" [4](without the quotes) vs. more than 1800 for "Steven Slater" (with quotes) [5]. WP:NAME says that we should generally use common names. Most (if not all other) Wiki articles that are titled with a flight number deal with a subject that was also primarily identified in the media by that flight number as well. But that's not the case here. Rather, the media primarily reported and analyzed this as an incident involving Steven Slater. But the article can't be titled "Steven Slater" unless it's re-written as a biographical article, so unless/until that happens, it makes sense to use a descriptive name which as closely as possible matches the name by which it's most commonly identified. -Helvetica (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would support Steven Slater air rage incident as it gives the best balance between the event and the person. It also narrows it down far better than the flight number does. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• I support Steven Slater air rage incident over simply Steven Slater because "Steven Slater" is the name of a person and an article with that moniker should represent that person, not an incident in that person's life. Athletes are looked up by name because you want to learn about the athlete themselves. No one is going to look up Joe Namath to find out the score for Super Bowl III. They look up the incident itself. Steven Slater has already failed an AfD (based mostly on BLP1E) and would likely do so again if it were reintroduced. In fact there are more than a few that would cite the previous AfD to SNOW the article right off the bat. You can't get around an AfD by renaming the article, wait a week, and then renaming it back. Padillah (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Personally, I think it should be more generic. JetBlue flight attendant incident, or such as that. In a year, nobody's going to remember his name to search on it (if they even know it today), but people will remember "that flight attendant from JetBlue." — e. ripley\^talk 16:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

E. Ripley, that strikes me a very much crystal-ball. Nobody has any way of knowing that people won't remember his name a year from now. I think it's more likely that more people will remember his name but forget the name of the airline that it was associated with. In about a week, a trial is set to start that will likely get a lot of publicity, and the defendant is known not as "JetBlue Flight Attendant," but as "Steven Slater." We even have phrases already now like "pulling a Steven Slater." So it seems clear that the incident has been more identified with Slater than with the airline. Also, there may well end up being other incidents with other JetBlue flight attendants. So I don't really think that name fits so well. -Helvetica (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that line of argument, but just for the sake of debate, if you apply your same logic to your own counterargument then it invalidates yours equally. In other words, I'm not sure how you can predict that people will remember it as the "Steven Slater" incident any more than you can't predict that people will remember it as "that flight attendant from JetBlue." If more specificity is needed, then JetBlue flight attendant slide incident could be considered. — e. ripley\^talk 18:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, my argument isn't based on what people might or might not remember it by a year from now. I just mentioned what I happened to think about that. My argument is about what what people most associate it with now, and I think it's pretty clear that Steven Slater is more central to the event than the airline or even the slide. A re-name argument shouldn't be based on what a user thinks is most likely to be remembered in a month or a year, but on what's currently most associated with it. If for some reason it turns out that you're right, and it a year's time most people don't remember Slater's name but remember the airline in relation to this incident, then there's nothing that would stop anyone from proposing that it be moved again. -Helvetica (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

But my argument is about what's currently most associated with the event -- in the present, and in the future. I think most "regular people" who haven't been searching for multiple news sources to back up adding information to an encyclopedia article about this incident have little to no idea what this guy's name is, but they know what he did. I'm not sure why you would believe otherwise, beyond just opinion (referencing "pulling a Slater" is IMO a rather weak supportive argument here -- when the phrase gets put into the OED let me know), but if that's what we're arguing then we might as well just put this down for now. I still prefer my original suggestion and respect that you prefer yours. In any case, I definitely don't think it should just be moved back to Steven Slater, and would prefer almost any formulation over that within reason. — e. ripley\^talk 18:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) E. Ripley, unless there's been some sort of poll conducted, there's really no way to know for certain Slater's name recognition among "regular people." One of the only tools we have for gaging this is how it's presented in the media, and there are multiple examples of articles and editorials where the author starts with the premise that his/her reader already know who Steven Slater is. For example, this one, which begins with "By now, only the dead are unaware of Steven Slater," this one, titled "How To Head Off The Steven Slater In Your Organization," and this very recent one, which focuses on Slater and analysis of the event/impact throughout, but only incidentally mentions his airline and job as flight attendant. And there's no good reason to think we'd see this if Slater had such low name-recognition as you seem to think he has. As for your OED reference, I'm thinking that must be a joke, as obviously a new phrase isn't going to be put in there within three weeks of being coined, but the fact is that it has been used in notable sources. -Helvetica (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, isn't it? It's only been three weeks. There's no way, in my opinion, that any reasonable person could definitively say that his name has become a household word enough to support arguments like you're making. — e. ripley

e. ripley, do I understand correctly that your point is that we have no idea how this will be remembered in the future, but your best guess is that people are more likely to remember that the airline was JetBlue than that the guy's name was Steven Slater? Propaniac (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

\^talk 13:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally doubt people will remember this guy's name. My opinion is that most people -- just folks -- probably couldn't recite his name now, while the topic is still trending, so why would we assume that they'd suddenly figure it out in the future? — e. ripley\^talk 16:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@E. Ripley (Re:16:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)), it still seems to me that you're not really addressing the main point that I've been making and which Propaniac made again above. This is not an AFD debate, it's about the title of the article. It seems to me that you ignored Propaniac's question about whether you think people are *more* likely to remember that the airline was JetBlue than that his name was "Steven Slater." That's the relevant topic here - the *relative* notability of one vs. the other in regards to this incident. And you haven't shown any evidence that people are more likely to associate it with JetBlue than "Steven Slater." Wikipedia guidelines for naming say that we should generally use what it's most commonly been known by, unless there's a good reason not to, and it's clear that the coverage of this incident and its aftermath have focused more on Slater himself than the airline, so his name should be included in the title. -Helvetica (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that your latest source does not use his name in the title it in fact says something like "I have it moment" so its not fair to say that even in realtion to this incident and person the term "throwing a Steven Slater" has enterd the popular lexicon. I would susgest the title should refert to when and where JetBlue Flight 1052 air rage incident.Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, sorry for the delay in reply. I was traveling for a few days and not editing here. Anyway, I think you misunderstood. The sources I cited above were to demonstrate the more general point that Steven Slater has name recognition. Regarding phrases like "pulling a Steven Slater" coming into use, I hadn't cited any sources for that in my post above, but there are plenty of them out there. Here are just a few: [6], [7], [8],[9], [10], [11], and [12]. Helvetica (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care what the new title should be, but articles titled after airplane flights should be reserved for crashes and highjackings, not this flavor of the month nonsense.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, it looks like, after a month, the title is what it's supposed to be. this MSNBC article even feels they have to remind people who Slater is. Padillah (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Witness statments

At the moment (and in the past others were removed as BLP violations) we have a statment from one non-witness (she admits as much) backing Mr Slaters story and refuting claims that are not in the article. Either we should not have stamants from witnases or we should also include those statments thi9s person is repsonding to.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Slater from the intro paragraph.

User Johnuniq removed mention of Steven Slater from the lead paragraph [13], citing the first AFD. There are a number of problems with this. First of all, the results of the first AFD were contested, leading to a deletion review in which the result was over-turned, the article was restored, retitled, and retitled, and the 2nd AFD resulted in a consensus to keep. In any event, Slater is by, any objective standard, very central to the event, and it makes no sense not to mention him in the lead paragraph. Also, even if there were an undisputed consensus to not have a biographical article about Steven Slater, this in no way implies a consensus that his name should not be mentioned in the intro paragraph. A clear consensus has now emerged that this event is noteworthy and deserving of its own article, and since Slater played a central role in that event, there is no good reason for him not to be mentioned in the lead. -Helvetica (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a consensus delete for the original article, and the review revived the article provided that it focus on the incident. Consequently, it is not satisfactory to move this article back towards a bio by highlighting the name of the person in the lead. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, there's a leap of logic there. Even assuming a clear consensus to not have a biographical article on Slater (IMO, the consensus there was pretty ambiguous and the story gained momentum during the course of the discussion), but even assuming a clear consensus, this in no way implies a consensus to not mention Slater's name in the intro. And including his name in the first paragraph doesn't make the article a Slater bio. It's perfectly sensible to mention a person who's very central to an event in that event's introduction. If people start including a lot of biographical information on Slater that's not relevant to the event or its aftermath/impact, then you might have an argument that it's being turned into a bio... -Helvetica (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who believed (and still believes) that Steven Slater is/would be an extremely clear violation of WP:1E, it seems obvious even to me that Slater's name belongs in the intro. Many of the BLP1E incidents even include the person's name in the article (policy itself mentions, for instance, the Steve Bartman incident). Look, too, to their other example, George Holliday (witness), the person who filmed the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King, and Holliday's name appears directly in the lead. To not name Slater here doesn't make any sense. We certainly want no details of his life, his history, his opinions, etc., except as they relate unambiguously to the incident itself, but his name is clearly necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Johnuniq's concerns but I pretty much agree with Qwyrxian above. It seems reasonable to name the person up high. — e. ripley\^talk 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, I am happy to defer to this consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Move/Article Name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to JetBlue flight attendant incident. Jojhutton (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

---

JetBlue Flight 1052 → ? — A previous section was devoted to moving this article to another name. See Renaming, above. Some editors preferred Steven Slater Air Rage Incident, while some broached that the new name should be some form of Jet Blue Flight Attendant Incident, or anything to that effect. No one seemed to be in favor of the current name of the article. Are there any objections to actually changing the anme of the article at all? If not, then please state your preferance from the above or create a new one. This should be interesting.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jet Blue Flight Attendant IncidentSlatersteven (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also support some variant of the above. — e. ripley\^talk 23:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd be happy with either; both are better than the current one. Steven Slater Air Rage Incident is marginally better as he was the protagonist in the event after all. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I still support Steven Slater air rage incident, as I stated in the "renaming" section above. Steven Slater is very central to this incident, and the media reported on this the most in connection with Slater himself - more than in connection with JetBlue. I made the case for this pretty extensively above, and don't want to be overly redundant, but it's abundantly clear that Slater has been *the* primary focus of a large majority of the coverage of this incident and its aftermath. Wikipedia naming conventions say that the article should be titled based on what it's commonly known by, so it's clear that Slater's name needs to be included in the title. -Helvetica (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As a point of process, I would like to note that there has been extensive discussion about the article's title in other sections of the talk page, with a number of arguments made by a number of different editors. So I would ask that whoever closes this requested-move discussion take those into consideration as well, when trying to determine consensus, even if they don't re-state them in this section. -Helvetica (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support either suggestion over the current title, with a mild preference for Steven Slater air rage incident. Propaniac (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I support "Jet Blue Flight Attendant Incident", or any reasonable minor variant thereof, as it is equally accurate but less sensational. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't support "air rage" in the title. It's a loaded term that doesn't particularly apply, since they weren't even in the air. It's like calling someone shooting someone in a parked car in a parking lot a "road rage" incident. As well, it implies a state of "rage" which is somewhat subjective and unverifiable. If we are going to put Slater's name back into the title, it should just live under his name alone. I think it's been established by the most recent AfD that BLP1E-deletion is inappropriate in cases of significant ongoing coverage. All that said, I think that since Flight 1052 isn't a retired number, this article must not continue to live under this name, no matter what the final name is decided to be. Gigs (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you support Steven Slater JFK Terminal 5 Gate 3 rage incident as an alternative to Steven Slater air rage incident? The undisputed actions of Slater have been described as a rage in several reliable sources according to passenger accounts. That's verification for me. What, for you, would constitute verification that To the passenger who just called me a motherfucker, fuck you. I've been in this business 28 years and I've had it. is objectively a rage and not merely a personal reflection upon his career he shared with the passengers? patsw (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If the FAA or some other organization has some kind of objective criteria for what an air rage incident is defined as, then I think that would be acceptable to use. I can find lots of reliable sources that say "Failed Iraq War" but that doesn't make it a good title without some objective criteria for naming it that. Gigs (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Steven Slater incident or JetBlue flight attendant incident. Nothing about air rage (that implies a quite different type of incident); nothing about the flight number.--Kotniski (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So, unless there are any objections, I plan on moving this page today to JetBlue flight attendant incident. There seemed to be too many users who might object to using "air rage" in the title. I would have moved it already, but I wanted to give editors a chance to comment before the move.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Steve Slater's initial account of a confrontation with a passenger

Steven Slater air rage hoax would correctly identify his claim to have been in a confrontation with a passenger to be a hoax. No passenger or other crew member corroborated his initial story. patsw (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this is supposed to be a joke, but obviously the title needs to be as NPOV as possible, and this clearly fails, unless there's a wide consensus among reliable sources that it was just a hoax. We clearly don't have that at this time. -Helvetica (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a wide consensus that his claim to have had a confrontation with a passenger as the precipitating event of the undisputed parts of the incident is false. Are you making the case here that his confrontation claim is true, or at least not proven to be false? patsw (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Patsw (Re post at 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)), you say that there's a wide consensus, but you haven't shown any evidence to support this claim. Some coverage has suggested that it *might* have been a hoax, and there may be a small number who assert certainty that there was no confrontation, but this is certainly not the majority, let alone anything approaching any sort of consensus. As for what I'm claiming, my opinion about what happened isn't the most relevant, though I do think there probably was some sort of confrontation on board. I wasn't there, so I don't know what exactly happened. I don't know if there were any surveillance video cameras on-board that would have captured an incident or lack there of. If there are, then JetBlue could release them in clear up the mystery. This account from one passenger sheds a bit of insight: [14]. She didn't witness the confrontation itself, but saw Slater both before and after he was bleeding, so deduces that something must have happened to cause his head to bleed. In any event (to get back on track here), for the purposes of this Wikipedia article, it would violate policies like NPOV, no original research, and no novel synthesis for Wikipedia to assert that it was in fact a hoax, unless almost all of the mainstream media (and other reliable sources) were unequivocally presenting it as a purely contrived fraud, which they aren't - at least not at this point. -Helvetica (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Much of the coverage of the investigation which led Jet Blue, the Port Authority Police, and others to conclude the Slater's confrontational passenger was a figment of his imagination has appeared in the article. In the interim, the article was deleted and then rebooted, and I went on vacation.

It is known with certainty from the disclosures made by investigators, and the statements made on the record by passengers to reporters that Slater's statement was false. There is no might about it. There are no accounts taking into account these disclosures and statements which give credulity to Slater's initial account. In fact, later statements by Slater have avoided mentioning the passenger. So, it has morphed from these original accounts:

“ Reports claim that as the Embraer ERJ-190 taxied to the gate after landing, a passenger stood up and began pulling his luggage from the overhead bin. When Slater asked the man to be seated, the man refused. Slater approached, and as the man continued removing his bags, one of them inadvertently struck Slater in the head. A "heated exchange" ensued in which the passenger called Slater a "motherfucker." To the passenger who just called me a motherfucker, fuck you. I've been in this business 28 years and I've had it. (August 9, 2010) ”

“ It all began when he was hit in the head by an overhead locker door as a passenger collected luggage after their plane landed in New York. The same passenger swore at Slater when he told her to get back in her seat as the plane taxied to the gate at JFK airport. (August 11, 2010) ”

to this

“ A number of passengers were competing for overhead carry-on luggage area. (September 7, 2010) ”

So where is the evidence that Slater's initial statement was truthful? Or that any of the actions of passengers on this flight were justification for Slater's actions on that aircraft on August 9? patsw (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Our job here isn't to determine the truth or falseness of some information; the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Trying to ferret out "evidence" about whether this man's version of events is true or false is outside the bounds of Wikipedia's policies. — e. ripley\^talk 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The task of anyone preparing a summary of this incident is to note that early media accounts of the incident, that is the point at which most of the world learned of it, were wrong. It is verifiable that no passenger or crew member corroborated Slater's initial account. As of 7 September 2010 Slater's account omits the cursing passenger. I am discussing this here to find out if an editor discovered what I had not, namely support for Slater's account of the cursing passenger, not a condescending reminder of WP:V. patsw (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"So where is the evidence that Slater's initial statement was truthful?" AFAIK, the initial information did not come from slater. He did not speak publicly until after his release from prison. Initial reports most likely came from the police. Much of the information (gender of the passenger, when Slater was injured, when the confrontation took place) was incorrect. Therefore, the notion that "passengers could not corroborate Slater's story" is also incorrect. Perhaps this should be changed to "initial reports" and not "Slater's story". 76.166.181.166 (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC) AN 10 September 2010

@Patsw (re: post at 02:21, 8 September 2010), I'm not trying to be condescending, but what you're suggesting does violate Wikipedia policy. I think WP:V is not the most relevant here, but rather WP:NOR and WP:SYN, and maybe also WP:NPOV. If, for example, the New York Times says that "no passenger or crew member has corroborated Slater's initial account," then Wikipedia can say something like "according to the New York Times, no passenger or crew member has corroborated Slater's initial account." But if a Wikipedia editor goes through a bunch of different witness accounts and decides that that none of them verify Slater's initial account and writes that, then this sort of thing violates NOR and/or SYN. For example, the first sentence of SYN states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Also, if there's some subjectivity and judgment call involved, then it's likely to violate NPOV as well. I hope this clarifies things. -Helvetica (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter in dispute or subject to an interpretation by the secondary source and it appears in dozens of reliable secondary sources. Do you really believe that our editing guidelines need to add "According to ..." in cases like this: "According to the Los Angeles Times, President Obama spoke in Cleveland, Ohio on September 8, 2010"?

"No passenger or crew member has corroborated Slater's initial account" is a statement of undisputed fact backed by numerous reliable sources, so no "According to..." is required. It only requires a cite. patsw (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Helvetica; patsw's suggestion is inappropriate for all these reasons. — e. ripley\^talk 15:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that the case is that the confrontation (alleged or otherwise) is a minor part of this - the part that makes this notable was the very much confirmed exit via emergency slide. The article is about the wider incident, not individual aspects. TFOWR 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the story is more than the false statement of a passenger confrontation, he put the ground crew at risk of injury or death by dropping 3000 pounds of evacuation slide in their work area, so I support Steven Slater air rage incident as the article title. patsw (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Criminal precedents

Perhaps we are looking at this from the wrong perspective. If you view what he did as a crime then there are tons of precedents where the events are summarized in a biography of a perpetrator or in some cases the victim. There are not separate articles on the crimes. Some examples include Ronald DeFeo, Jr.. Bernhard Goetz, Ken McElroy. There are not stand alone articles on the crimes of Jesse James or Bonnie and Clyde. By that logic the name of the article should go back to Steven Slater. Of course this is all pointless because of redirects.Americasroof (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion table on talk page

User Mkativerata removed the AFD and DRV history table, saying that it was for a different article. But this is not true. The title was changed, but that doesn't mean it's a different article. Both the article and the talk page have an intact history from before the "Steven Slater" AFD, and that article was restored following the DRV and edited until it became what it is now. And the "Steven Slater" article was more of an event article than a bio article before the first AFD anyway. In any event, please do not remove this relevant history from the talk page. Thank you! -Helvetica (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No. You tell me where in the DRV closing statement the word "overturned" is used. The DRV closer merely recreated a different article. So I'm reverting your re-write of history back. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW if you want to write a note at the top of this page that is accurate, feel free to do so. The accurate statement would be that an article on "Steven Slater" was deleted, and after a deletion review, this new article was created.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to agree that they were separate articles as I took part in every AFD and DVR on the subject. But the page history seems to agree that they are the same article. I was unaware of this until now.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes the DRV closer took the (in my view novel) step of just moving the deleted Steven Slater article to this new title. For attribution reasons, that came with all the page history. The article then (quite properly) got rapidly rewritten to match the new title. Page history technicalities aside, it is a new article. That's probably a good reason to have a more fulsome tag on this talk page about the AfD and DRV history, but not the inaccurate history propagated by Helvetica.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now manually create an accurate tag of the articles' history. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Mkativerata, IMO you have a bit of a conflict of interest here, as you were the closer of the disputed "Steven Slater" AFD. As for this article being totally new and re-written I don't completely agree, though there has been an evolution since it was restored and retitled. If you look here, this version of the "Steven Slater" article from shortly before it was deleted was really much more an event than a bio article. I only see one sentence - "Slater's career as a flight attendant began in 1994, starting with Business Express Airlines, and later working for Trans World Airlines and Delta Air Lines." - that's actually biographical. The rest is about the event and aftermath, so it's really more just bio in name only. It doesn't take much of a re-write to turn something like this into a non-bio event article - just re-titling, re-wording of the intro, and removal of that one sentence. Anyway, I'm generally ok with your summary, but I've just changed it so it doesn't say "new article" as that's more opinion than fact. -Helvetica (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Add a head trauma section?

Everyone is talking of the hit to the head and there should be a link or section on what can happen with head trauma. For instance if it can be shown that a head blow can cause temporary irrational behavior then all the criminal hype over his actions will be just a work injury and nothing more. Did not the man who sold Oxyclean die a few days after being hit in the head by carry on luggage?Septagram (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

When Slater received the injury is a matter of dispute. He claimed it was at the end of the flight. No passengers said they were witnesses to the injury; none saw the wound bleeding. Some passengers reported noticing the unbandaged wound upon boarding the aircraft.

If Slater were injured in the course a passenger opening or closing an overhead bin, it is only speculation that rather than shouting and screaming that he was hit in the head and bleeding, that he would make the outburst I quoted above, perform several steps to prepare to deploy the evacuation slide, and deploy the evacuation slide, grab two beers from the serving cart, and slide down the chute. That's a lot of speculation, but it could have happened that way. Is there a reliable source for that particular cause and effect in this incident?

The consensus of passengers is that he was angry and drunk at the time of the incident, which I believe is an explanation more consistent with the undisputed facts. patsw (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing proposal

Can we group together the undisputed parts of the narrative into the "Incident" section which commence with his address over the aircraft public address system, and break out the variants of Slater's accounts into a new section so that its clear to the reader this is something which has changed from August 9 (and probably has not yet seen its last new disclosure). I'm not an advocate for "Slater's version" as the current heading has it, I suggest "Conflicting accounts of the background to the incident" or something similar. patsw (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV, corroboration, judgment, and such...

I just moved a statement from the lead which said that no passenger had corroborated Slater's account. This is a subjective matter, and I posted a link in a section above to an account from a passenger which does at least partially corroborate his account. I feel it's important to maintain NPOV here, especially while the charges against Slater are still pending. I think it's fine for Wikipedia to present, with attribution, what a police officer or prosecutor or whoever says, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to assert it as fact. It was presented as fact in the lead, with a citation, but the citation was to a Wall Street Journal article where an anonymous Port Authority officer was quoted as saying that. But this citation does not make the assertion a verified fact. It only verifies the fact that an anonymous Port Authority officer was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying that. Please maintain NPOV and proper attribution. Thank you! -Helvetica (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• What meaning of "subjective" is being applied here? Who is the "subject" introducing purported "subjectivity"?
• Heather Robinson explicitly denied that she saw or heard the confrontation:

“ The point is, the fact that I and most other passengers did not see or hear a confrontation does not mean it did not happen. ”

Robinson, Heather (2010-08-23). "From a Passenger on Jet Blue Flight 1052: Why Steven Slater Has Gone From Working Class Hero to Public Enemy Number One". Huffington Post.

• Information given on background to a reporter by a government or company employee is not "anonymous" because the reporter knows the identity of the source. Wikipedia articles don't pejoratively label content where someone quoted is identified by their position but not by name in a reliable source as "anonymous". patsw (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

LGBT People/Gay Man Categories

I have removed these two as this is supposed to be an article about an incident not a person. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the non-bio LGBT category. Slater's sexual orientation has received significant attention in the context of this incident, and has been a focus of much of the reaction to it. -Helvetica (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Somebody removed the category, but I restored it. The incident has receieved significant coveraged which referenced Slater's orientation, and much of the anti-Slater backlash was homophobic in nature. Slater was also in bed with his boyfriend when the police came busting in, and that was a big part of the story. Certainly enough for inclusion in the category. -Helvetica (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem might be that the text of article doesn't mention the topic. If it did then including the category might make sense, but without any mention in the text at all it just seems a bit pointless. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found a number of sources discussing this - [15] [16] [17] [18] - I'll put in a brief mention of this, but still plenty of room to expand... -Helvetica (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, don't do that. The article is about the incident not the person. Lets not stray into BLP1E ground again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Spartaz, no, this it's not a biographical category, and sexual orientation was a notable aspect of this incident and its coverage. -Helvetica (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Is everything that a gay man does indicative of their sexuality? Surely not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Does the LGBT history category belong as well? Is this really LGBT history? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think references to his sexual orientation, or LGBT-related categories belong here at all. This is about an incident on a plane, that he prefers sex with men has utterly nothing to do with the incident. If the police raided his house while he was having sex with his girlfriend would we insert a category about it? Of course not. Just because it was a titillating detail that can be verified doesn't mean it should be included here. We have BLP to think about. — e. ripley\^talk 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed this text: A number of LGBT publications praised Slater for his assertiveness in the incident and celebrated him being a gay folk hero. One Atlanta online magazine and a blog that doesn't meet WP:RS is not enough to support that "a number" of LGBT publications have praised him as a gay folk hero. — e. ripley\^talk 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources

I started the sub-section so people can see the sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Steven Slater for deletion

The article Steven Slater is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on JetBlue flight attendant incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207002712/http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/123967/new-rnc-ad-channels-jetblue-flight-attendant-steven-slater to http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/123967/new-rnc-ad-channels-jetblue-flight-attendant-steven-slater/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824215122/http://www.startribune.com/business/101191794.html?elr=KArks%3ADCiU1OiP%3ADiiUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUU to http://www.startribune.com/business/101191794.html?elr=KArks%3ADCiU1OiP%3ADiiUiD3aPc%3A_Yyc%3AaUU
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826042029/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35900/americans_praise_flight_attendants_for_their_courtesy_and_respect to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35900/americans_praise_flight_attendants_for_their_courtesy_and_respect/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100908134003/http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ex_jetblue_attendant_steven_slater_FAUzEbhlBpL2mPKrXhh2ON to http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ex_jetblue_attendant_steven_slater_FAUzEbhlBpL2mPKrXhh2ON

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

He's back in the news

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/03/he-quit-jetblue-by-sliding-out-of-a-plane-his-advice-for-rogue-twitter-employee/

--Marc Kupper|talk 04:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Was it really a crash?

Why DOES this article use the plane crash infobox? GOLDIEM J (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Disproportionate in all respects!

I have nothing to contribute, having landed on this topic by chance. However, I can't walk away from this talk page without noting that the length of the article itself and the sheer volume of discussion here are both way out of proportion to the event and, frankly, make Wikipedia look like a tabloid desperate for filler to achieve a promised page count. I can only wonder that no one bothered to identify the brand of beer Slater guzzled or described the necktie he threw to the tarmac. The detail in Timeline, Third Party Reactions, and Media Notability are prime examples of text that a seasoned editor anywhere else would have mercilessly pared and which far exceed similar sections in much more important and notable incidents than this one, which had its moment of notoriety and is now essentially forgotten. Seriously, people, while deletion may not have been appropriate, the piece is ripe to be offered for extra points on a final exam of a course on editing. Irish Melkite (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)