Talk:Real person fiction

[[NOTE: Gah! Sorry, I accidently unchecked the "move talk page" checkbox when renaming the page so that Every Single Word Wasn't Capitalized. I've cut-and-pasted the talk page here. See Talk:Real_Person_Fiction for the talk history. -- User:Khym Chanur|Khym Chanur]] 10:13, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Fubar: Alright, I saw what you said on that page, but I don't believe I mentioned anything about having a grudge against the site. I still post at that site, and am still an active part of it. I don't understand why you think that it needs attention - the fact are stated, all I know and nothing more. I write fanfiction of this genre as well, and I didn't think that I needed to re-state anything written in the fanfiction or slash fiction articles, being as it does link to both. I'd like it if you'd talk to me about exactly what you think needs attention - and ask you to contact other people who write in RPF fandoms. If they talk to me about what's wrong - or maybe, gasp, edit it themselves - that might prove to me there is something wrong. But by your statement that it 'needs someone who knows about the genre' you simply prove that you know nothing about it yourself, therefore, how can you judge that there is something wrong with it? --AmethystAngel 01:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no opinion about, and not terribly much experience with, RPF fandom. That's why I didn't edit the article when I noticed that it needed it. Instead, I listed it for attention so that it would come under the view of others who do have some idea about this fandom. Wikipedia articles always need to be looked at by multiple people who know the subject at hand; that is, after all, what Wikipedia is for. Calling for such review isn't an attack; it doesn't mean the article is wrong -- it means it's a start that needs attending to.

If you don't have a grudge against fanfiction.net, great. Sorry I brought it up. (As far as I know, I've never even used fanfiction.net.) It was particularly the line "When fanfiction.net started cracking down and banning things, one of the first things to go was RPF" in the article that gave me that impression. That's the sort of phrasing a person would usually use to claim that an action was distastefully arbitrary -- Wikipedia articles have to present a neutral point of view that generally excludes that kind of thing.

Overall, my biggest concern here is actually with the legal speculation. I'm no lawyer, but I know enough to say this: if there is a real "legal issue" against RPF (for instance, that people have rights against the use of their likenesses without permission) then it's doubtful that placing "disclaimers" on such fiction would change very much at all. --FOo 04:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. After looking it over again, I agree that the line you mentioned did sound a little nasty - I made an attempt to change it a little and make it sound less like an attack. The legal section I tried to work with as well, but, like you, I have little knowledge about the legality of RPF - I've been involved with it for quite a time, but beyond disclaimers, I never looked into the legal implications of it. I left the pages needing attention bit up, because if others come by who know more about the legality than I, it would be quite useful.

Thank you for pointing out the problems in the article - as the author, I do have a hard time seeing things from any other point of view than my own. --AmethystAngel 18:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleaning

Okay, did some cleaning up on the article. However, anyone who wants to add to the timeline, please bear in mind a few things:

• The format should stay as is, because it follows WP standard. Do not just paste in whatever you C&P'ed from a blog entry.
• Keep it relevant. The opening of a new site is important to the timeline. Someone starting an argument because X didn't like Y's fic on said list/community/archive/whatever is not.
• Don't advertise. If it's a big site that's being added, fine; do not paste in something like "My new RPS site is here! ->". That will get deleted.

This article is close to clean. Let's keep it that way, shall we?--Mitsukai 20:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Grammer

I'm looking through and doing minor grammer fixes to the article. I just do grammer, but I do agree with keeping to the standard wiki formats. --Karpenl 21:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Timeline Question

In regards to

• 1980s - numerous Duran Duran and other bandfic authors began to write in isolation, spurred by MTV

Is there any evidence for this? All I have seen and heard of during the 1980s is Duran Duran. What other bands is there support of this material existing and the connection to MTV? --PurplePopple 23:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't know, to be honest. The original creator of the article had it listed there, and I saw no reason to doubt it, so I didn't bother removing it. Since DD's initial growth was fueled by MTV, that is probably a factor. I wouldn't be surprised if there are RPFs for other first-wave MTV artists as well (A Flock of Seagulls, Billy Joel, Joe Jackson, The Fixx, Journey, The Cars, etc.) --Mitsukai 13:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Question: the earliest RPF is from 1844? I don't think so. What about any of the books of the Bible? The Qu'ran? While it's open for debate whether or not Moses or Abraham or Jesus were real people or not, many historians believe that they were. However the stories about them in the texts are clearly fiction. Muhammad, on the other hand, was almost certainly a real person. The stories written about him by early Muslims are also certainly fiction. Beyond that... well we have the epic of Gilgamesh.. again.. questionable if Gilgamesh was a real person or not.. early works by Greeks and the Chinese based on real people... the histories of Shakespeare... does a work have to be *entirely* fictional to count as Real Person Fiction? Or if it is heavily fictionalized is that good enough? Like MacBeth, for example. It's based on a real king but the story as told by Shakespeare barely resembles the true history and has all sorts of fantastical nonsense like ghosts and witches thrown in. Anyway I think I've made my point. The Brontes did not invent this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.138.107 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps epics and myths like the Epic of Gilgamesh do not count as real person fiction because they are a retelling of what people believed to be true. If we discount epics and myths, I would suggest that Aristophane's The Clouds, featuring a fictionalized version of Socrates is one of the earliest example of real person fiction. It predates Shakespeare, anyhow. Edmonkman (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Links

Anyone have any non-Slash links that can be placed onto the external references? For that matter, anything not from LJ? It's startin g to look a little biased, and it needs to be cleaned up soonest.--Mitsukai 13:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a site (LJ or other) that lists RPF communities (LJ or other)? I think it would be better to have a single link to a guide site than to have an ever-growing list of individual fandoms. — Catherine\^talk 15:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

25 October - A LiveJournal community, Bam/Ryan OTP, dedicated to the pairing of Bam Margera and Ryan Dunn is created.

Why exactly is this bit relevant? Is there a major kerfluffle related to this comm, or anything other than just 'Hey, another RPS comm was made on lj at this date'? Because if the latter, the article could very quickly turn into just a long list of 'and on date X, Albion_fic was created, and then Stokesslash, and then OMGLanceAndChrisAreTheOTP'...

El Juno 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

External references/links

There are sixteen external links. I'm sure some--if not most--of them are unrequired and can be removed. After all, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Jude_tlk 04:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cleaned up the external links. Jude(talk,contribs) 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

This article doesn't cite sources (which isn't too bad when dealing with a topic like this that may not have many articles to cite) but it also makes some conclusions about patterns within the community, still without any evidence. Things like "A very common reaction among newcomers to an RPF community is "I thought I was the only one who wrote stories like this!"" are entirely unverifiable. Someone needs to find articles written elsewhere on the topic and cite them, reporting their conclusions, rather than reporting original ones. Night Gyr 15:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Some places for sources are http://www.fandomhistorypress.com/ and http://fanhistory.schtuff.com/?action=index --PurplePopple 05:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Franz Ferdinand & Apocalyptica

I think this should stay in. Why I can't talk for Franz Ferdinand, I was personally prestent at two accounts with Apocalyptica, and got to withness quotes such as "Oh, Eicca and Perttu, sure they will meet you too, but they are still in the shower being gay to each other" Tyyan 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

Gramatically, shouldn't this be Real-person fiction, or does it have common use that overrides grammar? Ace of Sevens 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Professional real-person fiction

Do movies that feature fictional treatments of real people fall into this category? Beyond the obvious points of any historical fiction that uses historical people in a significant capacity and Saturday Night Live skits, you have recent movies such as Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, Adaptation., Stuck on You, Being John Malkovich, The Last Action Hero, Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt (and numerous other things with Adam West), Wes Craven's New Nightmare and Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle. These are made with the consent and coooperation of the people portrayed, but still fit the basic criteria. Would it be too original-researchy to mention this? Ace of Sevens 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I just read a blog entry where the recent drama, "Death of a President", which deals with George Bush, being referred to as RPF. I think this stuff is RPF. Generalhoneypot 03:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always been of the opinion that historical fiction like Mary Renault's Alexander stories should count. --Bluejay Young 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup. Timeline necessary?

Timelines tend to just make an article longer and most people who read this article are not going to care when something happened, other than firsts. When an RPF site on LoTR actors went on line wouldn't count as much as, say, the first RPF site ever to go online, or the first book written about the history of RPF or something. I vote to scrap the timeline or drastically condense it. The article also still needs more references. --Bluejay Young 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Based on a survey from FanDomination.net"

This citation is too vague to be of any use. I've no idea whether the site is a reliable source, but even if so there needs to be a specific link to the survey in question - and if it's no longer available, then it fails WP:V anyway! Loganberry (Talk) 11:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fatty Arbuckle and the Time Pirates"

"In the early 1920s, Seigneur Books published the series 'Fatty Arbuckle and the Time Pirates.' Inspired by the actor’s career-ending scandal, the novellas depicted a time-traveling Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle forcibly raping famous historical figures."

I find no evidence whatsoever that this series, or "Seigneur Books," ever existed. I doubt very much that such a series could have been "published" in any but an extremely underground way in the 1920s. I suspect this entire paragraph is someone's prank. Pnh (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How does real person fiction differ from historical fiction?

Does the object of real person fiction have to still be alive to count? Otherwise, a lot of historical fiction would count as real person fiction. Or is historical fiction a subset of real person fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmonkman (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous

It’s ridiculous to cite a teen vogue article and call Shakespeare RPF. What’s the difference between RPF and historical fiction then? 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:9C91:9750:853D:2CB0 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

While it is obviously a provocative statement, the article does say that Shakespeare's histories are "sometimes considered" RPF. I believe the point is that the line between historical fiction and RPF is not always clean-cut. If you can find reliable sources arguing that Shakespeare's histories (or other examples of historical fiction) are not RPF, I do think that is a valuable perspective to add. LemonOrangeLime (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)