Talk:Flapper/Archive 1

message: Does anyone have a reference for the claim in "Origins" that Americans thought the term derived from galoshes worn unbuckled? It seems an odd claim since galoshes don't appear to be part of flapper fashion. 7infinity 13:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently watched "Bare Knees" (1928), a flapper comedy/romance starring Virginia Lee Corbin.  In the film, she does actually make her entry wearing a pair of unbuckled galoshes - the camera starts on the galoshes and pans up.:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.188.69 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read references to this in a book about Colleen Moore's Fairy Castle that I purchased at Chicago's museum of Science and Industry (where the castle is).  It claimed her character in Flaming Youth was responsible, which seems unlikely, given the timing.Krilia (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but please see WP:original research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, very interesting anecdote.   As far as I can see the word 'flapper' was originally British slang and from another origin, but it's possible that when the word spread to America folk etymology quickly came up with an explanation for it connected with the fashion for wearing galoshes unbuckled.  This association must have happened early on, as the 1928 film 'Bare Knees' mentioned above seems already to reflect it. Could you add some dates to your anecdote, and tell us roughly when your grandmother was wearing this fashion?  BeyondMyKen is right, this is original research and we shouldn't add it to the article, but it could help explain where the 'galoshes' theory for the origin of 'flapper' came from. RLamb (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My intuition (in support of which I have neither reliable sources or anectodal evidence) is that the "flapping galoshes" origin of "flapper" is purely a folk etymology -- it just smells like that to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine you're right. The NYT has an article hailing the arrival of the fashion ('Flappers flaunt footwear fads', NYT, 29 Jan 1922).  They trace it to imitation of a Douglas Fairbanks costume in the film 'Three Musketeers' in which he wore his boot-tops turned down, 17th.c French style.  But you can't be sure of that of course.  I wouldn't take the word even of a contemporary newspaper as good authority for the origin of something as spontaneous and ephemeral as a teenage fad.  But by early 1922 any girl wearing 'flapping galoshes' clearly identified herself with the flapper image, so the temptation for others to derive the word from that source would be very strong.  And yes, I know this is all original research and can't be included in the article - that's why I'm putting it in here.  Or maybe it can go in the folk etymology page.RLamb (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flapping Galoshes? 

message: Okay, having no proof of certain things, I have taken them out. 
First, I took out "drank in public" because that implies on the sidewalks, in the streets, not at parties. That means without glasses, tables. That is called a wine-o. If someone can reference it, they can put it back in.
Also, I took out "-men that they would have sex with" because that's made clear later without being so cheezy.
I took out the "wrapped their breasts in cloth to make them smaller" because that's quite a claim for not having a reference. 
There it is.
:I reverted your edits. But I'll try to find the references for those claims later today. -Amcaja 12:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here are some references for the flattened breasts bit: here, here, here, here, here, and here. I'll try to reinstate your other changes when I get to work. --Amcaja 13:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh, man 

message: Flapper slang expanded, and may be expanded even more than that. The link added is to 1920's slang in general, but the stuff in the article is most assuredly flapper.
??But some of the slang quoted seems to predate the flapper era - OED gives 1910 quotations for 'big cheese' and 'bump off' and 1899 for 'hooch'.  This slang may have been used by young women in the 1920s but it didn't originate with them and wasn't exclusive to them.
RLamb (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  slang 

message: Betty boop is way off as far as being flapper. She hasn't got the boy-look, in fact, she's really curvaceous. She has clevage. While understandably some aspects of the flapper could not be shown in a cartoon, while they couldn't have her drinking whiskey- they could have had her in flapper dress, or have a keen flapper sarcasm. Betty was incredibly malleable and innocent.
Betty is a pin-up girl, which has kind of sort of ties to the flapper, but only if you read flappers as being the end all be all origin of promiscuity. 
The only similarity to flappers Betty boop has is having kind of short hair, and dancing. 
Also, she was created in 1930, at the end of the flapper era. She more closely resembles the pin up girl Betty Grable who was popular just before the time of Betty Boop's creation.
Minne mouse is at least independent and defiant as could be portrayed on reel at the time. They could have gone that direction with Betty- they didn't because she's not supposed to be a flapper.
:I reverted, but you've almost convinced me. I'm reluctant to dismiss Betty Boop, because Charles Solomon considers her "the archetypical flapper". Here's the quote from his The History of Animarion: Enchanted Drawings (1994): "She was the archetypical flapper, the speakeasy Girl Scout with a heart of gold—already something of an anachronism in 1930. Despite the advent of the Great Depression, the Betty Boop cartoons remained rooted in the Jazz Age." But then he goes on to describe how feminine Betty Boop is.
:So, did the concept of the flapper change with the times to get away from the boyishness? Or does Mr. Solomon simply misunderstand what a flapper is? (By the way, be sure to sign your comments on talk pages by typing four ~ symbols in a row.) —Amcaja 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've removed Betty from the article again. I agree that she is a flapper in her free-spiritedness, love of jazz dancing, etc., but she doesn't fit the archetype as it was understood in the '20s. Better to not, as you say, confuse the issue. —Amcaja 02:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betty Boop 

message: I've linked to sound byte from the term catchword, but wikipedia doesn't have an entry for sound byte. I thought it would. Does it have another spelling, or is there another similar concept to catch-word or sound-byte that anyone can think of? Lotusduck 04:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps catch phrase? —Amcaja 13:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound byte? 

message: Flappers as a popular image outside the 1920s differ from the flapper ideal in the time when they existed, but perhaps to keep these out of the main article, we add another header for the fictional flappeer out of the original context of flappers. None have the slang, and most are fleetingly historically accurate to the flapper ideal, yet still identifyably fictional flappers.
If this is a neccessary part of this article, some examples would be Betty Boop, Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly from the various incarnations of Chicago, and Huguette Verberie from Pas sur la bouche- although the original non-musical Chicago was an in-context 1920s play and not really as much of an abstraction. 
Anyhow, I haven't even convinced myself that this is worth doing, or how it would be organized, for instance as a list, or with descriptions for how they are flapper and how they are not or what.
:I'd say that a discussion of flappers in popular culture and the changing flapper archetype would be a very nice addition. I'd caution against a list format; articles read much better when ideas are organized into paragraphs. Good luck with it if you decide to pursue such an additon. —Amcaja 18:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularized flappers as they were seen from a different period 

message: Should the alternate meaning section be below External Links? Aren't External Links traditionally the last section in an entry? --Ben moss 00:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; alternate meanings should be at the top as part of a disambiguation statement. — Amcaja 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate meaning 

message: The article as it is makes Flappers sound particularly American and English. This is not so. They had a presence in the rest of Europe as well, or at the very least in France and most likely elsewhere. I have French magazine caricatures and fashion images… The idea that American prohibition was that large an influence has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I’d have to say that the ending of the First World War would have had a much greater bearing, obviously (this is supported by most writing on the subject), as well as the exporting of American culture (such as Jazz) by record sales, American servicemen, and cultural exchange through the popular films at the time. In fact the start of the "origins of the flapper" section would seem to have been writen by someone who knows primarly about them through watching gangster films about the 1920's. I will make an edit along these lines, change it back if you find it unacceptable.OzoneO 12:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International phenomenon

message: A "once over" read revealed  no evidence of Coco!  Chanel visualized the entire look of flapper dress, how can she ge absent from the article?--Tednor 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coco Chanel 

message: I have a Hulton Getty Picture Archive book called "Decades of Fashion" (Harriet Worsley, 2000) and on page 74, a section on World War I, there is a photo of a young girl wearing a large hairbow and the following caption:
"... A young worker mends army uniforms in America. Her sailor suit-style dress is typical of childrenswear of the time... The bows which girls wore in their hair became known as "flappers" because of the way they fell onto the head. The name would stick with this generation, as they grew up in the Twenties."
Mystery solved. 71.127.4.58 01:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another name origin 

message: I dont see why the British origin should be left out.  Flappers were not ONLY an American phenomana and they were very close in attitude and style to other countries fads of the time (the garconne look of France, the Modern Girl of Japan, etc).  The British Flapper would have been in step with the American flapper, and their term had similar meaning to the later American term.  Why remove it?  Its noteworthy; but I dont think it belongs in a seperate article.  Does anyone have any research either which way on this matter? --Maggiedane (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: British Term

message: As the term quite clearly has separate origins depending on which side of the pond you happen to be one than it needs to be covered as one Origins section. Entomology should probably be a separate section as it is supposed to discuss the origins of the word itself and not the origin of its usage persay.Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I believe that the title says it all.
In every other article I have seen and read, (Which I dare say is quite a large amount. I have to clean out my browser history every other day!) the  goes at the top. I feel that it should be the same for this article. Rengaw01 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tags at the top are useful for other editors, but not so for the general public who comes to Wikipedia to get some information - the people we're supposed to be serving.  For them, the tags don't provide any pertinent information and are intrusive and disfifuring.  The current recommendation is that tags concerning referencing can go at the bottom of an article, where they are near to the references section. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that makes sense. However, then shouldn't almost all other articles have the same placement? For example, the article List of cars manufactured in Brazil has the  at the top. If you have a look at the first five articles from Category:Articles needing additional references from September 2008( 10-Yard Fight, 1905 in aviation, 1980 Turkish coup d'état, and 1st Mountain Division (Germany) ) all have the  at the top (With the exception of 1906 in music which has a  at the top of the section.) Rengaw01 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think having the tag near the bottom would be preferable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with you that the article does look nicer with any tags at the bottom. However, when I first read this article I would not have seen that template if my mouse had not slipped during scrolling causing me to go to the bottom of the page. Furthermore, I have yet to see that particular recommendation in all the policies and essays I come across. (If you could provide a link to that I would be grateful.) Also, while the "readers" may not want to see it, It is also important to remember that quite a few "readers" are also editors and may not see said tag at the bottom. (Similar to me.) Therefore, maybe we should either A.Go on a massive editing spree to put all the  at the bottom or B.Inform more people about the "recommendation" you mentioned. Rengaw01 (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, the best solution to this dilemma would be to have an icon at the top of the page which would indicate to editors that there were cleanup tags associated with the article, and clicking on the icon would bring you to either the discussion page, where the tags would be placed (out of the way of the reader) or to a new tab specifically for tags.  This would solve both problems, I think, providing visibility for the editor and not getting in the way of the reader.  As of now, the "tags" subsection, which shows up in the ToC, provides some visibility for the casual editor. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the "Needs in text citations" template go at the top? 

message: I was at Goodbye Blue Monday, a club in Bushwick, Brooklyn, Saturday evening, November 15, 2008, and I saw a number of women dressed in flapper outfits.  There wasn't a 1920s theme going on, so I'm wondering if this is just a one-time one-place fluke or a revival of the style. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the slang does seem to be coming back  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finchtrainer (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revival?

message: Re the suggestion of a link between 'slapper' (Br. slang for a promiscuous woman or prostitute) and 'flapper' - it's tempting, but apparently there's no connection. Amazingly OED doesn’t quote anything earlier than 1988 for ‘slapper’ in the sense of ‘promiscuous woman’.  Earliest recorded occurrence of the word at all(1781) is in northern dialect and meaning simply any large thing or object, a usage similar to modern ‘whopper’.  Then  by 1825 still “any large object; as a big salmon”  Finally by 1854 it appears to have been applied mostly to big girls or women, and presumably it thereafter went from appreciative to derogatory. 
I feel sure that OED could improve on that 1988 reference though: I’m sure the ‘promiscuous woman’ sense was around earlier. But not early enough to influence 'flapper'. RLamb (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology: slapper/flapper 

message: First the words of F. Scott Fitzgerald. From Motion Picture Magazine July, 1927; "Clara Bow is the quintessence of what the term 'flapper' signifies as a definitive description: pretty, impudent, superbly assured, as worldly wise, briefly-clad and 'hard-berled' as possible. There were
hundreds of them, her prototypes. Now, completing the circle, there are thousands more, patterning themselves after her".
The media presence of a star defines his popularity. To underline, what Fitzgerald said, I ran some simple statistics on "newspaperarchive.com" today, covering the flapper-craze climax, January 1th, 1925, to December 31th 1930:
*Louise Brooks  2.638 hits 
*Clara Bow     21.209 hits
*Greta Garbo   13.943 hits (non-flapper, only for ref) Incidentally her entire career through out the 1930s couldn't match Bow's. 
*Joan Crawford  6.074 hits
*Mary Pickford  9.786 hits (non-flapper, only for ref)
*Billie Dove    6.729 hits
*Norma Shearer 10.791 hits
*Colleen Moore 12.064 hits (In mid 1924; to LAT; "no more flappers..I am tired of soda-pop love affairs" -kept her bobbed thou, my com)
*Norma Talmadge 4.929 hits (non-flapper)
*Alice Joyce    5.381 hits (non-flapper)
From a historical point of view, Louise Brooks presence on this page is wrong. Brooks found a pseudo-stardom thirty years after the actual heydays. Good for her. By keeping her as hostess, we feed a myth rather than uprooting it, and hence, fail our encyclopedic ambitions. Talmadge and Joyce are not even flappers, only 1920s fashionable women. They got to go as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stovelsten (talk • contribs) 03:50, 5 October 2010
:The images in this article are included to illustrate what a flapper looked like. All of the current images serve that purpose well which is actually the bottom line here. There's no "from a historical point of view" to cover as this article is about a flapper - not what various actresses fit into your definition a flapper. If they looked the part, that's all that matters as far as images go. Additionally, Louise Brooks is not the "hostess" of anything here. Her picture just happens to be at the top of the article. Like it or not, Brooks is closely associated with that era and with flapper image. She also played the part of a flapper in films and has been cited as a flapper in various sources (which I can cite if need be), so to claim her presence on this page is "wrong" is puzzling at best. In my opinion, this whole brouhaha seems to be more about having the article be all about Clara Bow than anything else. Clara Bow isn't the end all be all and she certainly wasn't the only actress or person to represent the look. Unless you can prove that the non-Bow images do not clearly represent what a flapper looked like, the images you don't personally like do not "got to go". Pinkadelica♣ 08:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input P. Again, Today we believe that any fashionable dressed woman of the 1920s was a flapper. If you stick to sources of today, it's easily verified. It's certainly not in line with historical events, but Wikipedia is not an academic journal, and primary sources are not generally recommended. I find that dubious. It's not a winning concept, in days to come, where not the quantity of articles, but rather the quality of them will be in focus. The "Flapper" text in itself is rather good, and using movie stars to illustrate it is OK, but since the core-issue of flapperdom is
social behavior my suggested pics on smoking, drinking, man hunting and fashionable Clara Bow is the obvious choice. Added to this, Bow's stature as the leading flapper of the era, described above and in mainstream literature as well, makes someone else to head this page illogical. The Categorization should be revised, "Social behavior", "Women liberation" is more adequate.S.81.231.109.201 (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point again. It doesn't matter if the women in the picture walked the proverbial walk. The pictures are here to illustrate what a flapper looked like - nothing more. The points about the social behavior of the flapper are discussed within the article text. The reader isn't going to understand the text any less if they don't have a picture of Clara Bow smoking a cigarette. While I believe you raise some interesting points, I still don't believe the photo of Louise Brooks is inappropriate or misleading and should be removed. If the article didn't feature a photo of Clara Bow in any capacity I could see a problem, but she is clearly represented in both text and photo. I believe that to be sufficient. Pinkadelica♣ 01:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are missing the point. The pictures are here to illustrate what a flapper was like - in particular. General 1920s fashion pics belongs elsewhere. The Billie Dove football-pic hits the nail, while Louise Brooks totally misrepresents the text. There are better, true flapper-attitude pics on Brooks in the repository. If cigarette-Bow is too lame, I think I can source a movie pic from 1924, showing her defeating a villain with her fists. Almost as flapperish as the fact that Governor-offices in Texas and Wyoming where held by women in the 1920s. Miriam A. Ferguson and Nellie Tayloe Ross could make an educational duo. Whatyasay? No other than Adolf  could possible head the Nazi-party page. That goes for Bow too I'm afraid.81.231.109.201 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right! Clara Bow would definitely be an improvement on the Nazi party page. :-) Yworo (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Clara Bow should head this page

message: The previous image arrangement did not meet several points of the MoS guidelines. For instance, images are supposed to be in the section, not above the section pushing the section heading to the left. Where possible, images should not be manually sized. Left-facing images should be on the right and right-facing images on the left. I've fixed all these defects with minimal image movement, but it was reverted en masse with the inexplicable comment "not improvements". Please explain how conforming more closely to the MoS is not an improvement before reverting again. If you have a problem with a specific image placement or size, please address that on the talk page, not by reverting all my improvements. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Point 1: The article has been in this state (absent the recent addition of some images) for quite a long time, so it is the status quo.  WP:BRD means you were Bold and changed the status quo and I Reverted.  The next step is that we Discuss.  You do not change the page back after I reverted, the status quo remains in effect while the discussion goes on.  For that reason, I have restored the status quo. I am more than willing to discuss this with you, as long you don't edit war to restore your alterations.Pont 2: MoS is a guideline, it is not intended to be hard-and-fast rules.  They are a guide to editors in making decisions, and I took them into account, and made the decisions which improved the visual look of the article.  I'm willing to discuss anything specifically with you, but a blind adherence to rules for the sake of rules, as opposed to decisions made to improve the look and flow of an article, is not going to be an argument which cuts much ice with me.  After 5 years of editing and close to 70,000 edits, I have a very good idea of what works for an article and what doesn't, many times that right inline with MoS, but slavish adherence to MoS can get in the way of making an article look better and be easier to read for our users, and that must be the primary concern, not guidelines (which in any case, are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive. 21:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion. Now let's wait for other editors to chime in. I can't help but notice that haven't actually given any reasons for reverting other than that you seem to believe that you own the article. You don't. Length of time in a non-compliant state is a pretty weak argument. Please justify each and every diversion from the MoS and image use policy (which is a policy, by the way). In my opinion, my changes actually make the article look better and easier to read. That being the case, there is no reason to be idiosyncratic. Please detail how you think my changes make the article look worse or harder to read. Yworo (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I don't own the article, but I've put a great deal of time and effort into getting it into good shape, and making it look good, and I am, understandbly, a bit annoyed when someone who's never edited it before comes along and says, "You can't hang that picture on the wall right there before Local law 17A Sub-section 451 says that a picture weighing more than 2.7 lbs cannot be hung more than 3.72 inches from the closest stud."  MoS guidelines guide us, they do not rule our lives, they are not policy and they are not laws. We are all human editors, with the gift of thought and the ability consider what's good and what's not, without reference to arcane regulations. You can file that under WP:IAR, if you like, but "It looks better this way" is a perfectly valid argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To be blunt, the way you arranged the images looked like crap. Got it? Yworo (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be blunt, only an [redacted] would template for edit warring after a discussion had already begun.As I said, if you have specific problems, I'm happy to try and fix them -- tell what and where, and also what browser you're using.  I check pages under Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome and IE and it looks fine to me, but if you've got something specific,tell me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been specific, you hung images into sections from outside the section in two places, indenting the heading. You had unnecessary sizing on many images, breaking things for visually disabled people. Let's start with MoS and IUP compliant placement and sizing and you tell me how it disrupts the article, which is the only reason for not adhering to the guidelines. Yworo (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, all that is deliberate, and it all works well - I just checked it again on all those browsers (except Opera, couldn't get that to open), and it looks good.Remember, under BRD, you don't have the right to revert back, and compliance with MoS is not an acceptable excuse for edit warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BRD is a guideline, not a policy. It also assumes that more than one regular editor is doing the reverting. Not a single editor edit warring. You're not discussing, you're simply asserting superiority. Yworo (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've been wikistalking me, reverting changes I made to article, just to retaliate.  This estalishes two things: you are a grade A asshhole, and this conversation is over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't much of a conversation on your side, anyway. Oh and don't forget no personal attacks. Yworo (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Yworo, comments like this are rather dickish and do nothing to help your cause. I have reverted back until there's an established consensus about the placement of photos because, to date, you're the only one who seems to have a problem with it. You can't cite guidelines and rules and then follow only the ones you choose. Establish a solid consensus per an RfC to implement the changes you want and stop edit warring please (edit warring is actually policy, not a guideline). You know proper procedure - follow it please. This tit for tat is beyond childish and appears to be personal in nature. Following Beyond My Ken to various articles and reverting him and then "suddenly" showing up here to implement needless changes defines wikistalking. Your edit history is telling. If you have issues with Beyond My Ken, keep it out of the article space please. If you believe he has violated some kind of rule or has ownership issues, take him to AN/I and stop following him around. Again, that kind of behavior does nothing to help your cause. Pinkadelica♣ 00:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but notice that you are neglecting to discuss the content. Yworo (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

text: P.S. that claim about wikistalking is bogus. I was referred to three specific articles by a complaint that I read. The other articles I edited have not been edited by BMK for some time, some were already on my watchlist, others I added recently because they are within my interests. As I am sure you know, Wikistalking only applies to following an editor to harass them; it does not apply to good faith attempts to improve articles. Yworo (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but notice that you completely missed the fact that I clearly stated that the changes you're attempting to implement are needless which would mean I did give my opinion (albeit briefly) about the content. From the looks of things, you're not terribly interested in various opinions anyway but there you have it. To be frank, I really don't care why you want to make changes or what brought you here. You can deny all day long but arriving on an article Beyond My Ken frequently edits and maintains after getting into a disagreement with him on another article only minutes before is coincidental to say the very least. That's an issue better left for AN/I which is where I suspect this will end up. I commented on you edit warring and not following proper dispute resolution steps which is the problem here. If someone takes issue with your edits, you're well aware that you're not suppose to keep edit warring in an attempt to shove them in. Leaving baiting edit summaries [redacted] and claiming I'm a part of some phantom "tag team" isn't collegial. If you're passionate about picture placement and the MOS guideline, open an RfC and clearly state your case. If you'd rather prove your point by being blocked for 3RR, that's ok with me as I honestly don't care enough about any article to do that myself. Pinkadelica♣ 01:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing. Yworo (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS guidelines on images 

message: The image placement in this article did not conform to Manual of Style guidelines and Image Use Policy. I made minimal corrections to improve compliance without significantly altering size or placements. Which looks better:
*MoS compliant version (support changes)
*Idiosyncratic version (oppose changes)
===Responses===
*Support changes as originator. Yworo (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Really?  That very much surprises me, the one seems clearly better to me, for the reasons I've given. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Likewise, I did the same thing (Firefox), and saw no difference depending on whether I was logged in or not. The MOS-compliant version is clearly more attractive, readable, and visually-balanced, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement 

message: *Support changes as originator. Yworo (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Really?  That very much surprises me, the one seems clearly better to me, for the reasons I've given. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Likewise, I did the same thing (Firefox), and saw no difference depending on whether I was logged in or not. The MOS-compliant version is clearly more attractive, readable, and visually-balanced, in my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: Substituted at 14:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The editor User:Jsneed8542 has been making edits to the article which, in my opinion, do not improve it.  Some of these edits have removed sourced material and replaced it with unsourced (or badly sourced) material.  When I have reverted these changes, Jsneed restores them, without discussion.  This is, of course, not in the spirit of WP:BRD, which calls for Bold edits that are disagreed with to the Reverted, followed by Discussion, not by edit-warring to restore the bold edit.I have formally and specifically asked Jsneed to comment on their edits here, and make arguments for how they improve the article, so that a consensus can be found.  I hope to see his or her response here soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well guess what im showing its not just dresses they wore other to show there rebellion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsneed8542 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

text: No offense but is English your first language? If this comment is a demonstration of your grasp of the English language, perhaps you should take more care when contributing to English language articles.24.111.54.158 (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You responded to them eight years later. (oh the irony) Googleguy007 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion needed on contentious changes 

message: It is possible that some people compared German backfisch with flappers. However, the hallmark of a the German backfisch is immaturity, and the age group is younger (about 1415-17). A German backfisch was supposed to be well behaved and demure, though sometimes giggly: she was certainly not expected to be wild, woolly, independent or rebellious. This needs to be made clear, or these misleading references should be removed from the article. Norvo (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I've removed that section from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The stuff you took out was contemporary evidence countering the suggestion that flappers evolved from backfisch.  Now the backfisch suggestion is left unchallenged, which makes it read as if there may be something in it after all.  This is the opposite of Norvo's comment. RLamb (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it from Etymology to Behavior.  "Backfisch" didn't have any influence on the etymology of the word flapper when I think about it.  I don't agree with the suggestion about "backfisch" but I wouldn't remove it because I'm impressed by the source. Graves wasn't an academic but he was a good novelist and shrewd observer, and he'd lived through the flapper period.RLamb (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly much clearer now. Thanks! Norvo (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevance of  'Backfisch' 

message: I find the mixing of notes and references confusing.  What about a ‘Notes’ (or something to that effect) section, consisting of a call to Template:Notelist, with all the explanatory footnotes formatted with Template:Efn, these referring to references either with the ref tags or the Template:Sfn and similar ones?
: — Lgfcd (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally don't mind the mixing of types of notes, but if it bothers you, and you're going to separate them, I'd suggest calling them "Citations" and "Explanatory notes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes and references mixed

message: An editor is removing the word "Western" from this article  with the claim that flappers did not have to be Western.  However, the entire articles deals only with flappers in the West, and essentially serves as multiple sources for flappers being a Western phenopmenon.  If the editor feels that there were also flapper in the non-Western world, I believe he or she will need to provide a citation from a reliable source which goes to show that flappers were also a phenomenon in the non-Western world as well.  Until them, with the rest of the article showing flappers as being a Western phenomenon (and, in fact, primarily in the US and the UK), the wrod should remain in the article. BMK (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the usage of the word "Western" is justified and needed. Flappers were a Western phenomenon - starting in the US and spreading from there, as you already know. It doesn't make sense to remove it. Arotaes (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Western" 

message: The POV of the article seems to be that a bourgeois white woman is the definition of a woman. "No longer would a woman have to be a homemaker" - This is nonsense on several levels, but exemplifies a classist racist and elitist tone throughout the article. I think we need to re-word most of this in a more objective, factual and neutral way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.113.248 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And what, exactly, would you suggest, considering that flappers were overwhelmingly a white middle-class American and (to a lesser extent) British phenomenon?  Do you have a source to back up your contention?  Something which says that the flapper phenomenon perrmeated working- and lower-class families and women of color.  If you have such a source, then by all means let's look at it to determine if the theories of the author are accepted by mainstream historians or not. Wothout such a source, there's not much that can be done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the definition is backed up by tons of historical evidence. The flapper culture was regulated primarily to the Western white upper/middle classes. Arotaes (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The section is largely trivial and contains opinionated information that needs to be reviewed. As well, it's horrendously formatted - without any semblance of flow or structure. In essence, the section looks like it was written by a middle schooler.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arotaes (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy editing needed to be done to "Gibson Girl" section 

message: The term is an American/North American term. My History teacher in Canada years and years ago told us that it came from the shoes/boots the girls wore. She said they wore a type of galoshes or boots and they didn't fasten the top, so when they walked the tops flapped and made a bunch of noise. It was a way of not conforming to the norms of the times. They were the first rebellious teenagers as a group, not the 1950's as what books on culture state. 
In all social phenomenons, there is usually a starter group, and then it spreads out the mainstream to a larger group of people, and many times the starter groups involvement is negated or is lost in the documentation and history. I think thats what happened here. This social trend was most likely started by lower to middle class girls and then spread to a mainstream population.  
A blog write up about the boots
Flappers, Galoshes, and Zippers in the 1920s
https://witness2fashion.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/flappers-galoshes-and-zippers-in-the-1920s/Starbwoy (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but neither your history teacher nor the blog is a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay Sargent/ Officer, I'm just illustrating that its a widespread ideaStarbwoy (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flapper term 

message: For my history class we were assigned to add information to a Wikipedia article. I've chosen this page because I believe there is more information that could be added. I will be basing my information from sources similar to the ones that I've referenced below. My overall goal will be attempt to improve the section a bit more. If anybody has any suggestion on reputable sources please let me know! Thanks. Histedit110m (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding to the "Hair and accessories" or "Cosmetics" section(s) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flapper. 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/20160503151305/http://www.genderforum.org/issues/gender-and-consumerism/flapper-girls-feminism-and-consumer-society-in-the-1920s/ to http://www.genderforum.org/issues/gender-and-consumerism/flapper-girls-feminism-and-consumer-society-in-the-1920s/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618074534/http://local.aaca.org/bntc/slang/slang.htm to http://local.aaca.org/bntc/slang/slang.htm
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) 02:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flapper. 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/20091204031128/http://www.philsp.com/homeville/fmi/f25.htm to http://www.philsp.com/homeville/FMI/f25.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412055632/http://www1.assumption.edu/ahc/1920s/Olive%20Thomas/ to http://www.assumption.edu/ahc/1920s/Olive%20Thomas/
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) 02:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See . Bright☀ 12:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image layout 

message: BmK - the text I removed is duplication of text in the section and already had  tags.
"The flapper lifestyle and look disappeared in America after the Wall Street Crash and the following Great Depression"  which is then duplicated in the next paragraph with:  "It wasn't until the Wall Street stock market crash of 1929 that the roaring '20s era of glitz and glamour came to an end, and with it, the flapper dress"
Secondly, you say "markw ith CN if needed" - if you look at the original you'll see that the removed text already had  tags from both October 2018 and November 2018 - almost 12 months old.
What's your justification for insisting on pointless duplicated text and reinserting material already marked with long term  tags?  Why was it "better before"?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made adjustments to reduce the duplication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the flapper era 

message: I have long heard the word flapper came from the word flappable. Is this true? 69.5.103.209 (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flappable 

message: Started on her book "Flappers" today, having read a mostly  negative book- review online (in german). But her book is very very good.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judith Mackrell 

message: I think the quote is saying that the parties were notably different from parties typical in the previous generations in that the participants were promiscuous and not looking for committed relationships with a regard to eventual marriage. Don't quite know how to put that in a succinct, encyclopedic way though (it's also kind of already implied in "where the activity was the main attraction"). Nardog (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume something like this too but can't be sure. Shall we wait for a more expert opinion? Wolfdog (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the source is concerned I don't think there's any other way it could be interpreted. At any rate, "in youthful imagination" makes no sense and does not appear in the source, so it should be removed or rephrased. Nardog (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. So should we turn  into something like ? Wolfdog (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The only man" and "the only girl"