Talk:Fan (person)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sports fans[edit]

I suggest a new entry just for sports fans. There is an extensive area of research that focuses just on the attitudes, values and behaviors of sports fans. This may shorten the section created by billny33 and allow for more information on another page. --adamearn 06:47, 2 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamearn (talkcontribs)

Hey, I added a section on the end of this article about sports fans and honestly don't understand how that was never originally included into this page's design. I am not familiar enough with this stuff to create new entries, and I think sports fan should be its own page ideally, with a smaller summarization of sports fans in this article with a link to the bigger one. However since I don't know how to create a new article, I simply typed up a lot on sports fans in the hopes that someone else would correct it by making it its own article and dumping the excess info in there. There's plenty more to be said about sports fans than what I put in there today too so feel free to tack on more sections once its in a new article too. --billny33 0:11, 29 January 2007

Redirect?[edit]

Shouldn't fanboi redirect to fanboy? and not this article? - Abscissa 13:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be in at all. Since the basic definition of "fanboy" is "fan of something the commentor does not like." All the talk about social ineptitude seems to stem from that basic premise--since the speaker does not acknowledge the value of the fan's "darling", the speaker flatly reports that the fan is wasting his time, wasting his life, not social, etc. "How can he be social when he doesn't SKI like me?" Meanwhile the comic reader is whispering "Pathetic ski fanboy." It's an inherently invective term without any real delineation to it other than the speaker's personal tastes. 24.33.28.52 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Whore[edit]

Why is this section in this article? It doesn't fit in with the rest of the text and includes a link to a phantom entry graphics whore. I intend to remove it shortly if no-one can defend it's existance. Markb 07:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Good for you, Markb. Rick Norwood 21:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Biased?[edit]

I don't really care but this article does seem a tad baised agaisnt Fangirls. I really don't care for them but the article should be a bit more balanced. For instance, where it says some fangirls claim to be in a relationship with anime characters maybe it should be added that it is some times said only in jest...

Just my 2 cents

Agreed. I think strictly speaking, the term 'fangirl' really just means a female fan. Negative connotations arise from stereotyping. There are quite a few sweeping statements in that paragraph about fangirls, like "fangirls tend to be more devoted to emotional and romantic aspects of their fandom, especially shipping" and "[the term] is most often used in a derogatory sense to describe a girl's obsession with something". --Lareine 19:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Also agreed! I'm a fangirl myself, and while I agree with the fact that fangirls are what the article defines the term as, I didn't like how it said that fangirls "often" disregard canon when writing fanfiction. I changed it to "sometimes" - Cool? In addition, maybe someone should add something about "fangirls" also being considered as JUST female fans by some people, or something along those lines. Definitely add the part about claims of relationships are sometimes in jest. --Teoka 00:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Based on my experience with fanfiction.net, "often" seems more accurate than "sometimes," though I'm not sure about fangirls elsewhere..
I too believe "often" is more apt a term, for many fanfictions I've come across are simply fictional romances that completely disregard a character's personality, or any event in the storyline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.203.184 (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Really I don't mind whether it is biased or not. I really don't think so. I am a girl and willingly admit to being a mild fangirl. The connotation fits. It is a crazy obsessive nature of about 99.999% of girls whether or not they care to admit it. While only the extreme fangirl really poses any threat, it doesnt seem extremely...I don't know, healthy. While this tendancy can be found in guys, it's just shown more often and in a more interesting manner in girls. In fact, I believe the definition is too toned down. That's just me. I think that you have to be able to laugh at your crazy quirks, this being one of them. If you really take offense to this, maybe you just need to step back and ask yourself if you can laugh at yourself. Sorry if you take that the wrong way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.129.164.124 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
I don't really mind. I'm a fangirl, but I didn't find myself exactly screaming at the computer as I read the article. It's pretty true. But maybe it could say, you know, not all fangirls are crazy... I am, but not all fangirls are I am sure. 80.43.72.100 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I think someone should rewrite this. It makes it seem as if fanboys are on a higher level than fangirls. I myself am a Fullmetal Alchemist fangirl, but I focus more on scientific theories and symbolism in the series rather than relationships between characters. Not only that, but most fangirls I've spoken too aren't into yaoi or smut - romance is OK, as long as it's canon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.196.220.6 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Page title?[edit]

Why is this page at Fan (aficionado) rather than Fan (person) or something similar? Also, even if it's going to be aficianado, shouldn't the title include the accent marks? --tjstrf 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Aficionado" is not actually spelled with an accent mark. I will perform the move now. Peter O. (Talk) 05:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

i think that fangirls are described perfectly, as a fangirl myself I dont see anything wrong the post because it is all true and well that is not biased since it seems to have more objective statements rather thatn subjective

2 paragraphs[edit]

Hiya I added two paragraphs on fandom, including comparing fans to religious worshippers and providing an explanation for what makes a program have lots of fans. Does this qualify as orginal research? - Be Bold!

Yes, it does; if there is no evidence backing this up, then it's an OR violation.--Orange Mike 17:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the word[edit]

The notion that "fan" is short for "fanatic" is given short shrift in this article. Actually, the theory has much to reccomend it.

Also possible: "Fan" (more commonly "fanny" nowadays)is historically speaking a dismissive anatomical term, at present meaning "butt" and yet more anciently it was a derogatory term for female genitals. Calling someone a fan was at one time like calling someone an asshole or a cunt -- it meant the person in question was a jerk, a fool, a mindless follower. Tom129.93.17.139 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fanny" in the British sense was seldom, if ever, shortened to "fan"; and I've never encountered it used as a synonym for a prat or wanker, as you seem to be implying. --Orange Mike 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fan" is short for "fanatic" [1] - I have no idea why this article is here instead of at Fanatic. Can anybody provide a good reason? If not, I think a move is in order. Waggers 11:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Because (while I tend to agree with the theory) it's not all that settled as an etymology; and the two terms have entirely different histories nowadays. --Orange Mike 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This "fanboy" and "fangirl" nonsense[edit]

I don't even know anybody over the age of 17 who uses these words, let alone anyone who would consider them appropriate discussion topics in an encyclopaedia. Barely notable to be the first "type" of fan discussed either - At least merge these two sections.

So you consider youth culture to be an unacceptable subject for an encyclopedia? Algabal 03:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
To that extend? Do you consider that acceptable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.215.209 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I've heard adults use the word "fanboy" but only in the pejorative, referring to people who are blindly loyal and uncritical of someone or something primarily because of its image rather than its substance. I hear it used of fans of politicians, corporations, other types of institutions, among others. The clear implication is that blind loyalty is irrational. Bostoner (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just altogether removed the fanboy/fangirl section (as well as the last sentence of the "Loyalty" section as it appears to have been written by the same author). The entire thing was written condescendingly. That being said, it is a significant term in the Internet subculture, so it could certainly have its own place on this page if someone could manage to write it with a slightly more objective description of a fanboy/fangirl.Grillnick (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Pop Culture Fangirls[edit]

The entire Japanese Pop Culture Fangirls section, but especially the second, sounds like someone's personal vendetta. No citations, original research, and completely embarrassing besides. I'm not sure it's even possible to provide citations for broad claims like these--fans are by no means a unified group. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not entirely sure what to do about this, but honestly I'd like to just delete that paragraph until someone can write a useful replacement? Peachke 18:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, do you know any anime/manga fangirls personally? That section of the article may sound unfair but it is quite accurate. If you want to edit it and try to change what you think sounds like opinion into cold fact be my guest. 144.137.217.117 (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It was still unsourced and violated our restrictions on original research, verifiability, reliable sources, etc. I've removed it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (has an otaku fangirl in his home)
Unfortunately, we have to rely on sources because there are very few experts researching fandom and shipping. Guess we have to rely on personal essays? --Artman40 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jonas Bros.?[edit]

Where the attribution for the alleged Jonas Bros. stalker that's cited in the 2d paragraph of this entry? Sounds like some vandalism going on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.69 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Move Article[edit]

Move Fan (person) to Fanatical enthusiast Mr Taz (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? There's no support in the literature for any theory that this is the etymology of the term; and certainly nobody uses that term as a synonym for "fan". --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Because a Fanatical enthusiast are not always People (a Person) see Greyfriars Bobby a Skye Terrier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.82.128 (talkcontribs)
That argument is totally incomprehensible to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster definition of Fanboy[edit]

I've added the date of the earliest known use of fanboy, according to Merriam-Webster. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full dictionary so can't expand on it - if someone else has a subscription they could add more info and also sort out the {{fact}} tag on "originating in the United States". AJCham talk 06:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious "trekkie" statement[edit]

I tagged this as dubious: Trekkies, the oldest organized fandom focused around a particular show.... Off the top of my head, I can think of relatively organized "fan clubs" of the Lone Ranger, Flash Gordon, and Little Orphan Annie which preceded the "Trekkies" by decades. I'm willing to concede to a reliable source on this, but I think it's a fairly dubious, unsupported claim at this point. 67.160.71.165 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference is not to tiny fanclubs and the like (I thought of The Sons of the Desert myself), but rather to actual organized media fandoms with their own sub-subculture: multiple conventions, multiple fanzines, media coverage as stereotypes, etc. As I said in my edit summary, you need not like Trekkies or Trek to acknowledge that the organized media fandom phenomenon they inaugurated is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the fan clubs you cite. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Citation needed. You are making a specific, tangible claim ("oldest organized fandom"). Little Orphan Annie, for example, organized the "Junior Commandos", which had 20,000 children in participation during WWII. Additionally, you look at the history of the Lone Ranger from 1933 through its peak in the 1957, it follows a "fandom" history very similar to Trek's. I'm not saying that it is on the same size as Trek's, but Trek wasn't the first "organized fandom based around a specific show", which is your claim and provably false. If you can't find me a reliable source that backs up your "oldest" claim or better defines "organized", please don't put it in. 67.160.71.165 (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin[edit]

The word "fan" predates 1550 by 200 years, to the time of the Black Plague. It was widely believed that the plague was introduced as a punishment from God, and so then many cults appeared, traveling from town to town preaching these beliefs. One of the most prevalent, appearing throughout Germany, Poland, Austria, Italy, France, and England, would, while traveling, perform flagellation (whipping oneself--an act of self contrition). The English peasantry likened this behaviour to "fanning ones self" and so they were for a time called "Fanners" or "Bloody Fanners". Scholars latter attempted to dignify this rustic term in a "meaningful" English/Latin/Greek format, by using the word "Fanatic" to describe various behaviours that have been noted at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dæmonium (talkcontribs) 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like some of the silliest folk etymology I've heard in a long time; serve it up with sparrowgrass and crawfish. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Music fans[edit]

I suggest adding a section on music fans. Think Beatlemania, band merchandise, groupies, collectors, concertgoing etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees&Headphones (talkcontribs) 10:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it really should have this. There are many specific music fans with special names as stated above. Think "deadheads" for greatful dead fans etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niwrat (talkcontribs) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a brief section. music fandom is somewhat different than celebrity fandom, in that a genre or period is the focus, rather than one single group.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Religious fan[edit]

It is sad that nobody wrote about religious fans. I am not an expert on the subject, and this may be related to the article on religious fanaticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsk380 (talkcontribs) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "religion fan". This sounds like an effort to belittle or mock believers. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the term religious fanaticism would be more like religious extremism or radicalism such as the ideology of terrorist groups, etc. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Structure[edit]

I really don't understand the structure of this article... aren't science-fiction fans a 'type' of fans? And why are professional wrestling fans not included in the 'sport' section? Isn't it classified as a sport? Granted I know nothing about wrestling, but for the science-fiction bit, I think it needs to be changed... And incorporated into a 'media' section.

Anyways, unless someone disagrees, would it be ok to change the structure of the article? If yes, any ideas? Juniper4589 (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Traditional science fiction fandom long predates the various media fandoms, each of which (comics, Star Trek, etc.) originated as a splinter of traditional SF fandom. And professional wrestling is closer to a form of theater than to a sport, which is why it is not broadcast on sports networks but on entertainment networks. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Fandom?[edit]

There's a note on the page about a proposed merge with Fandom - since 2012, apparently - but I don't see any discussion of it here. Am I missing something? Ubermammal (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Much of this article reads as if it had been written by the very fanboys it purports to define... bias, slang, un-encyclopedic language, in-jokes, etc. PurpleChez 6/18/15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.249.207.195 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Fan"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of fan is under discussion, see talk:mechanical fan -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Trekkies[edit]

  "Trekkies are fans focused on the Star Trek science fiction franchise. Arising out of science fiction fandom they, to some extent, have served as a template for other organized fandoms in the science fiction television and film genres. Some "Trekkies" prefer to be referred to as "Trekkers" as they feel the term "Trekkies" was used in the past as a derogatory name for them and they hope to avoid the traditional stigma sometimes associated with being known as a "Trekkie". Many "old school" fans of the Star Trek universe defiantly, and proudly, refer to themselves, and other Star Trek fans, as "Trekkies" rather than the kinder, gentler "Trekkers" name used by many of the newer generations of Star Trek fans."

"In the past"? I hadn't realized it had stopped being used as a derogatory phrase. People who look down on Star Trek fans are likely to do so whether they call themselves "Trekkies" or "Trekkers". Besides, I don't think they're going to let you decide what they are going to call you. They're going to call you a "Trekkie" whether you want them too or not. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for citing that passage — it hinges upon typical fanboy nonsense. Trek fans (Trekkies, Trekkers, Trekkists, Trekkians, whatever) like to paint themselves as spearheading ALL organised appreciation of science fiction, speculative fiction, alt-history, fantasy, and horror. The first Worldcon was held in 1939, and was hardly the first organised get-together of fandom.
There is a recurring theme in this article of "fans are an oppressed minority!!" despite a dearth of proof (or even its offering) that any given fandom is indeed a minority OR oppressed OR even a definable group except through some undefined degree of exposure to a given topic. Generally, I'd recommend editing with that observation in mind.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sports[edit]

I think the section on sports fans is missing a crucial piece: sports fans aren't just highly interested in a subject like sci-fi fans are. The essential element is competition. These are people playing out the fundamental human tendency to form groups of "us" and "them", and then to compete. I find it telling how Europe used to fight small wars every few years, usually without serious rancor. The wars stopped, but sports have stepped in and taken their place. That's where these rabid sports fans come in, willing to do serious harm to opposing fans. These games are representative of national or regional pride, and the fans take things very, very seriously. It's not just about enjoying the game. It's a deep-seated psychological tendency in many people; they HAVE to feel like they are part of a group, and that their group is triumphant, or at least won't stop fighting no matter how often they loose. Basically, it's another form of patriotism. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)