Talk:Fop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Upper Crust is another "fop rock" band. They have a page here on wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] no citations and original research

this page has no citations and could be argued to have original research (anon.)

Some citations missed by Anon.: King Lear; Summer's Last Will and Testament (1592, printed 1600); The Relapse; Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, The Scarlet Pimpernel ... --Wetman 20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Illustration

I've put in a picture of myself to illustrate a modern fop. Why do you continue to delete it? There is not a rights issue, and I would like to see your written argument about how I do not represent a modern fop. If you go to the page duck, you will find a picture of a common duck that represents ducks. So surely notability cannot be one of the criteria for deletion. Please explain your reasoning. Petercrapsody69 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How do I know it's you. And notability is the main reason for removal. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we remove the ducks from the duck entry? Those are not particularly notable ducks. How about the entry for soldier? It's me because I have declared it. It would be impossible to operate wikipedia if every file uploaded was assumed to be false. Then we would have to delete all photos until they were proven to meet their claims. Do you think that would work? Petercrapsody69 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok then using Wikipedia:Citing sources show me proof that the person in the image is a fop. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, then please remove the uncited sources for the pictures in duck and soldier. If you can successfully lobby to have those photos removed on the fact that their sources are not cited, I would be happy to acquiesce to your argument.Petercrapsody69 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I will also delete the current picture on there until you properly cite the documentation proving that illustration to be that of a "fop."Petercrapsody69 10:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded a more foppish picture, in accordance with the suggestion as followes: Petercrapsody69, "you are right that every self-evident picture (or text, "water is wet") does not require a citation. However, all you have provided is a picture of a young man in what might be good clothes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)" Petercrapsody69 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed it per WP:BLP, as a living person is being described as a fop without a reliable source. One Night In Hackney303 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Again you can see two editors agree. And again, I will acquiesce if you can get a source cited for the picture in soldier or other such pages illustrating generic concepts. Otherwise, I can only construe your edit as political, and not due to an adherence to "policy." I have brought this to your attention. If you care about policy, you would pursue it. Petercrapsody69 15:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No they don't. One Night In Hackney303 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Last paragraph regarding dell'Arte and Alex Ghionis needs citing - I do not have the know how to achieve this so i will provide the references and someone could possible add them for me?

The Insider Magazine Autumn 2006

Seven (Sunday Telegraph Magazine)

Cathedral Quarter Arts Festival 2007

[edit] Big Problem

I have an issue with the photograph in this article; a) It isn't a fop b) It's there out of vanity c) It is original research to describe the photograph as a fop, as it is not sourced!

I believe due to the third reason we can remove the photograph.--Counter-revolutionary 10:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
See directly below. Petercrapsody69 10:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC). Precis: I'd hate to have to delete all the generic images used to describe generic terms, like soldier, because the sources aren't cited. If we were to follow your argument, how could we be sure the soldier picture is of an actual soldier if there is no citation? For example, it could be a security guard, or an actor posing as a soldier.


I have addressed these arguments above. Have you read those yet? If not, I will paste them here for your reference: Petercrapsody69 10:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Begin quote

How do I know it's you. And notability is the main reason for removal. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we remove the ducks from the duck entry? Those are not particularly notable ducks. How about the entry for soldier? It's me because I have declared it. It would be impossible to operate wikipedia if every file uploaded was assumed to be false. Then we would have to delete all photos until they were proven to meet their claims. Do you think that would work? Petercrapsody69 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok then using Wikipedia:Citing sources show me proof that the person in the image is a fop. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, then please remove the uncited sources for the pictures in duck and soldier. If you can successfully lobby to have those photos removed on the fact that their sources are not cited, I would be happy to acquiesce to your argument.Petercrapsody69 09:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC) END
This does not concern other articles. That is not how wikipedia works, this is about the farce within this article. --Counter-revolutionary 11:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wikipedia is governed by a series of rules. Indeed, those are what you are invoking to justify your constant reversion of my edit. Rules only work when they apply accross the board. Rules lose their authority and even their meaning when you begin excepting cases from the rule for whatever reason (in this case, in order to bolster your present argument). If you don't apply the rule to all articles, then it's not much of a "rule," is it?Petercrapsody69 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Shall I put the photograph into the article on vainglory? Because, by your standards, this would be fine. Prove it is not vainglory &c! --Counter-revolutionary 13:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Fact is it is original research to describe this photograph as a "fop". I couldn't care less about what other articles do. I am concerned with this one. --Counter-revolutionary 13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
See WP:IAR.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The rules in wikipedia about original research stipulate that citations be provided for information that is conveyed. In the complaints about my edit, the people opposing me have posted the reason of complaint being that my picture does not contain a citation (see above). I regularly encounter photographs illustrating articles without citations. These are mainstream examples, too, such as my example of soldier. If you abide by the rules, you would also be pursuing those delinquent entries that I have brought to your attention. By ignoring them, you are unfairly targeting my edit. I don't think that's a rule of wikipedia either. Again, if you can sucessfully make your arguments for the citation of generic photographs in more prominent articles -- like soldier -- I will gladly oblige your revision. However, as of now, I choose to follow the rules of wikipedia.219.79.47.197 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC) This was me: Petercrapsody69 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alex-fop.jpg

[edit] Call to improve this page

Let's face it, this article needs a lot of improvement. There is a lot of uncited material in here; to target my edit (which provides a useful illustration), and ignore the other uncited material is unfair. It smacks of politics, in fact. And I think we should start putting our money where our mouths are and work toward making this a better article. One of the wikipedians who complained about my edit even linked to a page that said "improving wikipedia" is paramount. All these discussions have done is waste time that could have been spent on improving the article overall. If citation claims are so important, then why leave all the others alone? You can just put up an "uncited sources" warning and forget about it until you want to specifically target something? That's selective. And I'm merely arguing that it's silly to require every self-evident, generic picture to contain a citation. Petercrapsody69 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is not useful. It is vainglory, that's all! It adds nothing to the article, in fact it detracts from it. I wouldn't call the picture that of a fop, Quentin Crisp was a modern-day fop; not the chap in that picture! --Counter-revolutionary 16:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How does it detract to have a picture illustrating the subject? Especially considering this article is not easy to illustrate, and there are no live photographs. I have released a photograph into the public domain in order to do that. How is that not an improvement? You have not responded to my call to further improve this page.Petercrapsody69 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Kindly do not keep inserting a photo of yourself into the article when it is against the decision of other editors. It is a blatant conflict of interest. If you carry on acting in this way, it is disruptive editing, which will lead to a block until you desist. Tyrenius 16:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How come there are no responses to my legitimate arguments above? The discussion page is a place for discourse. Petercrapsody69 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It is quite obvious what the consensus of the discourse is.Tyrenius 02:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say that it's not really a "consensus" when the counter-arguments are repeatedly left unaddressed and unrefuted. I think that's pretty clear for anyone to see.Petercrapsody69 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The matter in hand is the absurd photograph! It is not what I would call a fop to begin with! Have you seen pictures of people like Quentin Crisp, that is what a fop looks like; in the modern sense - not some-one wearing a shirt (without their collar on) and jacket! --Counter-revolutionary 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That young man isn't even trying! Where's his rakish hat or hand embroidered silk shirt? Pshaw. Twospoonfuls 19:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he's even a homosexual.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I tried not to mention anything like that! --Counter-revolutionary 20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Petercrapsody69, you are right that every self-evident picture (or text, "water is wet") does not require a citation. However, all you have provided is a picture of a young man in what might be good clothes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That's right, they don't require a citation. Fair point about the clothes.Petercrapsody69 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PeterCrap. A citation is needed with pictures that have something to prove. A generic picture like the one P.Crap submitted could not be argued this way or that. It is a fop. I mean, c'mon. What's more, even if someone posted a photo of his or her self out of so-called 'vanity,' would it not be still permissible if the photo corresponds with the article. If I posted a picture of my cat in the 'pets' article, would it not still be a damn cat even if I posted it because he's cute? I shall ask this to those who want the picture gone: would it be allowed on the 'metrosexual' entry? Or how about the 'Ubersexual'? Because we are dealing with subjects that are malleable and are open to interpretation, we should all ask ourselves, "what is a fop to me?" There are gray areas of defition, of course, but they are certain laws of what constitutes what that can not be broken. If it is in the ballpark, let it stay, and chill out with your editing vandettas.

Wikipedia disagrees with that view. --Counter-revolutionary 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Night In Hackney

just a call for this editor to stop mkaing unjustified edits when clearly there are sources available to back up the information and if they would care to take the time to check this they will be suprised at thier callous and unjustifiable actions which contravene everything that wikipedia stands for, and everything that the rest of these editors are trying so hard to achieve.

Nope. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence you are resposible to provide the sources if you want the material in the article. And according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons One Night In Hackney may remove it as per "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


meaning what? facts, and accepted truths are disregarded because they are not sourced on the internet? i thought this place was a website to compile the knowledge of the world not just a few websites. The sources exist, if anyone has a problem with that they can go and look for back issues, or request copies of the said magasine and articles. a bloody disgrace is what it is. the inefficiency of wikipedia has just been proved on yet another level. someone who makes up a website so as to feature himself/herself/themselves on the website are gaining validation becuase they have a website, for example. and real facts which are not located on the internet are disregarded? absolute bollocks. i feel, clearly, very strongly about the hypocritical nature of these principles.

Please take your vanity elsewhere Master (yes you are under 18) Ghionis, none of it is true. One Night In Hackney303 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
After further investigation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghionis & McKee and [1] are relevant as well. It seems your vanity has been ongoing for quite some time. One Night In Hackney303 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly a narcissist! --Counter-revolutionary 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly indeed, that is what I am, and Mr/Mrs/Miss One Night In Hackney you have all but added to my vanity by adding my name here! Such a big fuss over a seventeen year old from the UK. Flattered my dear, truelly I am! For me to cause you such aggrivation and the like, I am merely pleased that I have succeeded. Cheers mate!

[edit] Picture

Removed per WP:BLP. A reliable source is needed for that person to be described as a fop, as fop can be seen as a negative implication. One Night In Hackney303 15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See argument above. 15:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I did, and dismissed it. Policy says the picture stays out. One Night In Hackney303 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You have yet to address the argument. I am only following the suggestion of another editor, so now we have two editors supporting this. It's also wikipedia policy to discuss changes. Petercrapsody69 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You can attempt to wikilawyer as much as you want. The photo is not going in this article, please take your vanity elsewhere Ghionis. One Night In Hackney303 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who "Ghionis" is. If your edit is political, I must remind you that has no place in wikipeida. Please confine your argument to the post above, under "illustration." Your authority is "policy." If anyone were to believe that, you'd have to be more uniform in your enforcement. Instead, it looks political. Petercrapsody69 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, wikilawyering will not cause your vanity campaign to succeed. Please desist. One Night In Hackney303 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You are "wikilaweyering" by citing "policy." You know that, come on. Petercrapsody69 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Still looks like a young person in good clothes but now they appear to be emulating Pierre Trudeau. Adding a flower in the button hole and a cravat makes it a bit dapperish but certainly not foppish. The problem is that anybody could dress up to look foppish if they try but you also need to be able to prove that you are living a lifestyle and not just dressing up in clothes they might have borrowed or rented for the photo shoot. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, prove your case on more high-profile examples against more senior editors. See the entries for duck and soldier for egregious violations of your principles. Petercrapsody69 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen the latest effort - but if you've got One Night In Hackney and Counter-revolutionary agreeing on something, it really must be bloody awful. May I suggest a compromise: post your picture on your User page (which you don't seem to have bothered filling in so far), and we can move the discussion there. I am perfectly willing to help you produce a more serviceable photograph. May I suggest that your photograph also shows your shoes? As a matter of interest, Jeremy Irons and I share a cobbler (Jan Kielman in Warsaw), and I happen to know that he has a pair of bright red handmade Oxfords, perhaps a reference to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. Frankly, I wouldn't be seen dead in a pair of red shoes, but perhaps that's the point that's being made: there must be something slightly more outré than simply buying and wearing an expensive (?) designer suit. Shoes (or boots) would probably be a good place to start, I feel.--Major Bonkers (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
...perhaps a cravat as well? Oh, and maybe a colourful waistcoat too, try Favourbrook on Jermyn Street. --Counter-revolutionary 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Are we not in danger of confusing a dandy and a fop? Personally, I think Favourbrook a bit - you know - staid (for a fop). Be bold! A pink boa would be a good start (if a little obvious).--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if the boa were blue that would be slightly more subtle? --Counter-revolutionary 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know; I've just finished watching the film Casino, in which poor Robert de Niro is required to wear a shiny sky-blue suit and matching loafers. I have also heard, on good authority, of a Kazakh man who worked for a well-known firm of City solicitors and who wore a purple polyester suit (without having it cleaned for 8 months). Bertie Wooster had a pair of Old Etonian spats. The point being that the clothes that we find ludicrous - think also of the Americans' liking for pastel coats, and golf clothing - do not, in themselves, define someone as being a fop. There should surely be something outrageous and (perhaps) effeminate about a fop, which distinguishes him from a dandy, who is just a well-dressed man. Frankly, if you are buying off-the-peg clothes, I don't see how you can begin to qualify, because you lack the originality required.--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry Chaps i dont mean to rain on your parade but my name was used in accoradance with some sort of picture that your all wasting your lives discussing. You said i wanted to add that - i don't even know how to put a picture on wikipedia let alone try and argue the point that one specifically should be used. So instead of referring to me as Ghionis, you could all show a little bit more respect, and little bit more wit by firstly getting the correct facts in regards to who did what, and secondly stop talking as though your all intellects, cause your not, quite clearly! I havent done anyhting about pictures yet i appear under this sub heading. Do any of you editors actually no how to operate thie wikipedia malark? and Hackney, before you start quoting policy, don't! Cause it doesnt make you look important, go out and get a proper job! WikiLawyering! Whatever! Vanity Campaign? Im not some sort of international terrorist who throws The Picture Of Dorian Gray at innocent civilians! Stop using big words to make me sound like somone im not - although being a Vanity Campaigner may well get me a page on Wikipedia eh? Along with all the other terror organisations!

"stop talking as though your all intellects, cause your not, quite clearly!" - hahahah! --Counter-revolutionary 22:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

lol fair enough! but from your reply i can gather one thing - if thats the only thing about my comment that irritates you, then you must atleast agree with what im saying? If im wrong, im awfully sorry, but the principles that im argueing appear to be received by you without much hostility. Whatever happened to Hackney. I heard he'd been deleted because he was reffering too many people as vandals. How ironic

I find the whole thing rather funny. Did you add the picture yourself? and if so why did you want to do so? I think the matter is settled that the photograph won't be allowed up again. Please learn how to spell correctly, fops are certainly educated. --Counter-revolutionary 20:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

i am educated my young man, i am just typing quickly because i dont want to hang around here longer than necessary! however one thing is important to notice - i am not the person who wanted to add a photograph of myself. I wanted to add myself (my name, in the text) to it just to look cool - it is some person called "Peter Crapsody" or something who wants to add a picture of himself! I am blonde and seventeen - not a black haired partially asian man! Im not sure why that photo is called Alex.jpg, because its not me. If anyone is interested in what i look like - here www.bebo.com/dandy-esque ! Riddle me that one!

So, let us get this correct. Someone uploaded the photo of the foreign "fop" and you decided to add your name to in order to appear "cool" [whatever that means]? P.S, "Peter Crapsody" is, I hope, an invented name! --Counter-revolutionary 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I have, this moment, read through this again - purely for my own amusement. This whole discussion really is most funny. Well done. --Counter-revolutionary 08:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been following this debate for sometime. What Ghionis is saying is that once before a long time ago he inserted his name in the text as a vanity edit, and it was quickly removed. Some time later, a "Peter crapsody" (a different person) came along and put in a picture in the article, clearly NOT of Ghionis, saying it was himself. The picture was also called "Alex". Upon seeing this an editor named "One Night in Hackney" speciously reasoned this person to be the same as Ghionis, and began dragging his name into this debate. The most cursory bit of research - a google search - yields Ghionis' MySpace page here, which clearly shows that he is not the person in question and just a faintly irritating seventeen year-old vandal, as One Night in Hackney [2] has pointed out. Meanwhile, Crapsody kept trying to instigate a debate on the merits of using an unsourced picture to illustrate a generic concept, but these arguments have been largely glossed over by all the wikilawyers out there, who seem to have rarely debated the issue. Eventually Hackney got Crapsody banned. Is Hackney also now banned? All that this leads to is a significant worry --- the same people who can so easily get their facts wrong (not even a google search!) are the arbiters of information on wikipedia? This whole episopde should put everyone to shame.

Number one: Please can everyone contributing here sign their name; it's difficult to work out who we're dealing with (as well as the points that are being made). Number two: if the unsourced picture was first uploaded by one vandal and then added to this article by another vandal, then there can really be no defense to the argument that it should be speedily deleted. Number three: the sole issue ought to be whether the picture accurately illustrates a modern fop. Frankly, it doesn't. There should be something more outrageous and offensive about a fop's clothing than simply wearing a (shiny) suit; see John Hetherington and Quentin Crisp: after all, nobody's going to fine or beat up Ghionis/ Alex/ Peter Crapsody based on his choice of clothing, which is entirely mundane. Finally, to answer your question, One Night in Hackney appears to have retired from Wikipedia; if his legacy is the removal of that picture, he won't have edited here in vain.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
PS - Using a photograph to illustrate an archetype, where the whole point of a (modern) fop is individuality, is nonsense.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you: your final point sums it all up nicely. Hopefully this is the end of the discussion? Freshacconci 12:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sweeney Todd Reference

Is the Sweeney Todd reference really that relevant? It's about a word that appears in a song in a musical. Adding lists to times when movies/pop culture has referenced this word as a non-central theme/character seems extraordinarily ridiculous. Propose remove or replace with a not-insane reference. 64.26.146.2 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)