Talk:Handkerchief code: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:06, 28 March 2012

Latest revision as of 00:37, 24 February 2025

(35 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=

{{WikiProject LGBTbanner studiesshell|blp=yes|class=start}}Start|1=

{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}

{{WPSEX|class=start|importance=low}}}}<!-- archive must stay multi-line -->

{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}}

{{WPSEX|class=start|importance=low}}}}<!-- archive must stay multi-line -->

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

Line 11 ⟶ 13:

|archive = Talk:Handkerchief code/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{archives|auto=|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot|age=60}}

{{archives|auto=|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=60}}

== Colors ==

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

There in an interesting implication here that gay men have extremely fine perception of colours in the blue-green range, even under disco lighting.

[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-08-19">19 August 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-11-29">29 November 2019</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Illinois_Institute_of_Technology/Seminar_in_Human_Sexuality_(Fall_2019)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Ryanccraw|Ryanccraw]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Mxrlena|Mxrlena]], [[User:Ekaufman1998|Ekaufman1998]].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 23:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}

Maybe they carry Pantone color chip sets along with the condoms and poppers.

== ColorsRewrite! ==

Any article that makes a number of factual claims and only after several paragraphs inserts a sentence to the effect of "This is not a universal thing and is different depending who you talk to and where you are" needs to be totally rewritten. If nothing else the point that "this is not a universal thing" needs to go at the very front of the article.

== Kleenex ==

Beyond that this article sounds a lot like someone is describing an urban legend as if it were fact.

It was my understanding that a kleenex in the right hand pocket is masturbation in front of a sexual partner and that a kleenex in both pockets signified an interest in mutual masturbation.

Imma look into this and if no one else wants to take on the rewrite I'll do that. (I'll probably delete 80% of the material.) [[User:Hmoulding|Hmoulding]] ([[User talk:Hmoulding|talk]]) 14:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

--[[Special:Contributions/86.16.194.235|86.16.194.235]] ([[User talk:86.16.194.235|talk]]) 19:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

:The last two paragraphs of the lede do seem to indicate uncited/original research, but the Origin and Examples sections are better and have at least of a couple of reliable sources. I'll take a look later, when I'm not supposed to be working. [[User:HalJor|HalJor]] ([[User talk:HalJor|talk]]) 17:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

== Commentary ==

:I took a stab at it. I removed a fair amount of uncited/original research and rephrased a few sentences. What remains is pretty general and (despite any additional citations) is reasonably true based on the citations that remain. I can't find my copy of the reference for the "Origin" section, or I'd confirm that the entire section comes from that reference. The "Examples" section is based on the citation mentioned there -- I rewrote that section a while back, more or less in its current form, so it should stand (the final sentence speaks to the current state of the code, where there is no consensus among the additional colors and the regionality of any deviations). The only part that could use additional work is second paragraph of the lede. Some of that is probably in the other works cited here -- I just don't have them handy. [[User:HalJor|HalJor]] ([[User talk:HalJor|talk]]) 00:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of references in the table of hanky codes that seem to just be general commentary. For now, I've simply grouped them out for easier reading, but I would support paring them down to those that really deal more with the hankies themselves, rather than things like "double-fisting is possible...", which really has ''nothing'' whatsoever to do with the hanky code. Does anyone else have any opinions on what can stay and what can go?

==THE BIG LIST==

Also, where do all these colours come from? If these are being cited solely from blogs and similar sources, it probably constitutes unnotable material or at best something that should be linked to as "Further Reading". I know the list has evolved over the years, but some of these seem really...well...to be polite, let's say "unlikely" colours to be seen in practical use. <span style="white-space:nowrap">– [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]] <sup style="line-height:0">[[User talk:RobinHood70|talk]]</sup></span> 06:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone else seen this? I'm not sure why the expanded version of the list isn't allowed in this article. https://unicornbooty.com/the-new-hanky-code-film-art-comedy/ --[[User:RThompson82|RThompson82]] ([[User talk:RThompson82|talk]]) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

:Because it doesn't satisfy [[WP:RS]], perhaps? That's a blog supporting a social networking app, and we've gone over this several times already. [[User:HalJor|HalJor]] ([[User talk:HalJor|talk]]) 02:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

== StrictlyMuch earlier origin? gay ==

I've read about handkerchiefs being flashed as part of a signal for gay men cruising as far back as 1702 - http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/twicken.htm

The term "strictly gay code" in the 1970s is misleading, pointless, wrong, and contradictory especially since later in the sentence it says that it's used by bisexuals and gay people. Bisexuals also used the hanky code in the 70s as well I was around then and I remember bisexual men using the hanky code. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.185.47.133|71.185.47.133]] ([[User talk:71.185.47.133|talk]]) 08:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

--[[Special:Contributions/86.160.19428.23558|86.160.19428.23558]] ([[User talk:86.160.19428.23558|talk]]) 1913:5047, 247 JulyNovember 20112017 (UTC)

:You're absolutely right. Anybody can change Wikipedia, so next time, feel free to change the sentence structure as you see fit. I'll go have a look at it now and see what I can come up with. <span style="white-space:nowrap">– [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]] <sup style="line-height:0">[[User talk:RobinHood70|talk]]</sup></span> 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

== Proposal to trim unsourced and apparent jokes ==

Many of the codes in this article look like jokes made up for this page. I propose that all codes without reliable sources are trimmed from the list until someone can provide a credible reference. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

:Looking over the extended table, by and large it's the last bunch that I find questionable. Most of the first 3/4 of the table constitute reasonably common practices in the gay BDSM community, so it's not difficult to imagine that they might have developed hankies to go with them. Nevertheless, as is stated in the text itself, the entries in the second table seem to be an amalgamation of web sources, are most likely not commonly used/known colours, and are not reliably sourced at all. Rather than trimming selectively, which no one can really authoritatively decide on, I'd suggest we remove the entire second table and any related text for the time being. I'm sure there's something more recent than ''The Leatherman's Handbook II'' to use as a source, which may list a few more colours/patterns that have come into common use. I'll ask around and see if someone can provide a recommendation for a modern reliable source. <span style="white-space:nowrap">– [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]] <sup style="line-height:0">[[User talk:RobinHood70|talk]]</sup></span> 03:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

::Having now asked a large number of gay BDSMers, the general consensus is that anything more than the older ones are unreliable at best and generally unused or minimally used in real life, and for that reason, anything "authoritative" is probably out of the question. There are numerous websites devoted to the hundreds of wild ideas that everyone and their dog has had since the advent of the Internet, but besides the Leather Man's Handbook II, already mentioned on the article, only one book was mentioned: Leatherboy Handbook by Vincent Andrews, which apparently has a list of 41 hanky codes. All the other recommendations were websites, most or all of which were self-published or otherwise non-authoritative. As such, I would recommend that we remove the entire second table (which appears itself to have come from two different websites) and reduce it to a small blurb that says something to the effect of there being a wide variety of more expansive lists available on the web. <span style="white-space:nowrap">– [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]] <sup style="line-height:0">[[User talk:RobinHood70|talk]]</sup></span> 03:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

:::''Support'' the suggestion. I see no harm in going ahead. If anyone has a beloved code to keep in, they should substantiate it with a new source. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 04:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

:::With nobody else having opposed the suggestion, and someone going so far as to Prod the article, as you noticed, I've gone ahead and removed the web-sourced table and made what I think are appropriate changes to the rest of the text. <span style="white-space:nowrap">– [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]] <sup style="line-height:0">[[User talk:RobinHood70|talk]]</sup></span> 04:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

: '''Object''' I STRENUOUSLY AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE the deletion of the longer color list. I have lived in [[San Francisco, California]] all my life and have been involved in [[BDSM]] since 1973 and I have seen people wearing every single one of the colors on the first 3/4 of the original list over the past 29 years. I have been to every[[Folsom Street Fair]] since the first one in 1984 and people have continued to wear them there. People still wear the colors today on the annual leather march from [[The Castro, San Francisco|The Castro]] to Folsom Street one week before the Folsom Street Fair. As sources, besides the websites, there is also a printed reliable source, the recent 2009 book ''Leatherboy Handbook'' by Vincent L. Andrews Las Vegas:2009 Nazca Plains, Corp., that mentions 41 colors congruent with the list. I deleted colors in the last 1/4 of the original list that had dubious colors (as mentioned by RobinHood) that I have never anyone wearing or seen on the color code cards or in printed sources such as the Vincent L. Andrews book. [[User:Keraunos|Keraunos]] ([[User talk:Keraunos|talk]]) 13:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::The various leather stores in San Francisco today as of 2012 still give out the printed color code cards mentioning the colors on the longer list and their meanings and they still sell all the bandana colors on the longer list. [[User:Keraunos|Keraunos]] ([[User talk:Keraunos|talk]]) 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:::Obviously, it is true that the colors are worn much less often today, because a lot of gay people today [[Cruising for sex|cruise]] through the Internet instead of going to bars, so they can just state their preferences on the website rather than wear the colors to a bar. However, the even if it were the case that the bandana colors were no longer used at all, the longer list would definitely still be worth preserving if only as a historical artifact. However, as I mentioned people still do wear the bandanas today, but less so than in the 1970s. A sentence could be added simply saying that the colors are less used now because a lot of people cruise over the Internet instead of going to bars. [[User:Keraunos|Keraunos]] ([[User talk:Keraunos|talk]]) 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the extended list should be restored. The code is used by multiple members of the community in Portland ME ~ including some of the ones on the secondary list (I rock a lavender one from time to time). They are usually worn out to the clubs/bars and are most often worn by members of the lesbian/queer community, so the idea that they are primarily used by cruising gay men is an anachronism. My two cents - restore the code![[User:Punkrockgrrl|Punkrockgrrl]] ([[User talk:Punkrockgrrl|talk]]) 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

: If we can limit it to the ones present in the Leatherboy Handbook (which ''was'' one of the sources I mentioned above), I have no objections to the restoration. If you have the book, Keraunos, it would be great if you could go over the 41 mentioned there and see if the various notes correspond to things mentioned in the book. If the notes can't be substantiated, they should be removed.

: Nobody's saying people don't flag at all any more, just that a lot of the more imaginative colours that were listed were not widespread. On the other hand, what do we consider to be reliable given that the list of colours has changed over time and continues to change? That's why the table was removed originally, because it had no reliable source behind it, just self-published websites like the two you restored. The problem with colour cards and websites is that they tend to simply follow the trends, and can vary from site to site, and store to store. A book ''tends'' to have more research behind it and will generally cover a broader area, while excluding those that are more local phenomena. I tend to put a lot more stock in something that's gone through a writer who has hopefully done some research and talked to various people in the international community, then gone through an editor, and has probably had at least a few others at the publisher's review it as well—though this is by no means guaranteed (witness the recent debate over [http://www.leatherati.com/leatherati_issues/2012/01/a-guest-editorial-review-by-guy-baldwinofthe-leathermans-protocol-handbooka-handbook-on-old-guard-rituals-traditio.html The Leatherman's Protocol Handbook]).

: I'm fine if we go with just the Leatherboy Handbook list, but if we do, we should remove the two websites as sources and ensure that the information we're presenting is ''only'' derived from printed material or any other truly authoritative, reliable sources. <span style="white-space:nowrap">– [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]] <sup style="line-height:0">[[User talk:RobinHood70|talk]]</sup></span> 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

:: Also, there are currently 50 entries on the list, so it should either be trimmed to the 41 in the LBH or something more reliable than a handout or website should be found. <span style="white-space:nowrap">– [[User:RobinHood70|RobinHood70]] <sup style="line-height:0">[[User talk:RobinHood70|talk]]</sup></span> 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)