![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Upper Crust is another "fop rock" band. They have a page here on wikipedia.
this page has no citations and could be argued to have original research (anon.)
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)
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)
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
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 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
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)
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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 Hackney 303 15:46, 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)
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!
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 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!
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Brilliantly put. Thanks! IXIA ( talk) 06:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
Seems a bit thin on the Regency period. IXIA ( talk) 06:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Upper Crust is another "fop rock" band. They have a page here on wikipedia.
this page has no citations and could be argued to have original research (anon.)
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)
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)
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
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 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
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)
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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 Hackney 303 15:46, 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)
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!
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 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!
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Brilliantly put. Thanks! IXIA ( talk) 06:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
Seems a bit thin on the Regency period. IXIA ( talk) 06:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)