Talk:Fop

message: 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)
thread_title:  no citations and original research 

message: 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)
replies: text: How do I know it's you. And notability is the main reason for removal. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No they don't. One Night In Hackney303 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is quite obvious what the consensus of the discourse is.Tyrenius 02:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I'm not sure that he's even a homosexual.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, I tried not to mention anything like that! --Counter-revolutionary 20:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's right, they don't require a citation. Fair point about the clothes.Petercrapsody69 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia disagrees with that view. --Counter-revolutionary 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Call to improve this page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: After further investigation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghionis & McKee and  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)

text: Clearly a narcissist! --Counter-revolutionary 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Night In Hackney 

message: 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)
replies: text: See argument above. 15:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and dismissed it. Policy says the picture stays out. One Night In Hackney303 15:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Again, wikilawyering will not cause your vanity campaign to succeed. Please desist. One Night In Hackney303 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are "wikilaweyering" by citing "policy." You know that, come on. Petercrapsody69 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps if the boa were blue that would be slightly more subtle?   --Counter-revolutionary 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Picture

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sweeney Todd Reference 

message: Based on the definition, "A modern-day fop may also be a reference to a foolish person who is overly concerned about their clothing and incapable of engaging in intellectual conversations, activities or thoughts," should there perhaps be something about this mystifyingly popular television program and the whole "metrosexuality" cultural dealie?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.212.187 (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jersey Shore 

message: In the MMO Star Wars: The Old Republic, the character known as Darth Vowrawn was called a fop by Darth Baras after Vowrawn mocked Baras for claiming to be the Voice of the Emperor. --Senjuto 13:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SWTOR - Darth Vowrawn 

message: I have no dog in this fight, I ran across this page looking for something else, but the above "discussion" typifies the reason for my criticism of the Wikipedia editing process. The claim that labeling the photo as FOP is "original research" and requires citation is in CLASSIC Wikinazi form.
This is why Wikipedia works in neither theory or practice,facts and knowledge are not determined by "consensus", they are what they are. Some things are not subject to debate and and are above the need for citation. "Water is wet"...now go find a credible source.
As I have sad many times and will continue to say, ALL reference material originated from original research and if wikipedia is nothing more than a bibliography, save the bandwidth and eliminate the text articles all together. Cosand (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Typical Wikipedia editor ego and vanity run amuck

message: Clerk: I don't carry Dapper Dan. I carry Fop.
Everett: Well, I don't want Fop, goddammit. I'm a Dapper Dan man.
Related? Relevant?
67.171.222.203 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  O Brother Where Art Thou? 

message: Seems a bit thin on the Regency period. IXIA (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Regency

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fop. 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/20150206083256/http://the-upper-crust.musikear.com/cream-of-the-crust to http://the-upper-crust.musikear.com/cream-of-the-crust
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is Captain Hook as portrayed in the Disney animated film an example? If so, it would be good to mention that cultural progression from Disney’s animated pirates to Captain Jack Sparrow where the Johnny Depp role is mentioned. 2600:8805:3E05:86E0:0:0:0:E18D (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Hook -> Jack Sparrow? 

message: Although Blackadder the Third was produced and first aired in 1987, it is listed in the article under Media in the Twenty-First Century. It clearly belongs to the previous century. Varuzo (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can move it. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 02:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackadder the Third