Talk:Barber's pole/Archives/2012

100,000 barbers

there were over 100,000 barber shops in this country, but now there are only about 85,000.

Had to delete this as I don't know which "this country" is. PeteVerdon 14:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The "Barber's Pole" is also the nickname of a red and white needle on the airspeed indicator in the cockpit of jet aircraft. It is there to warn the pilot that he must not fly any faster, or he may risk overstressing the aircraft.

Paul Murphy, pilot.

There was a section on this (and others) before - but a NY public school IP butchered this article and the one on the Susan E Wagner High School.

If you think the text is now inaccurate - could you tidy it up Paul? Dugo 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The picture for this page is a little out of focus, perhaps someone can try to take a better one. Ultratone85 17:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Where?

I've never seen any of these in Spain. Only in american movies. As the history section talks about France having had them too, I guess they also have there, nowadays. We should be explicit in the article about the parts in the world where one of those can be found. --euyyn (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. This item is to my knowledge virtually unknown in Germany (other than from foreign, mostly American media). --131.220.135.102 (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Color?

The article says that they are usually Red and white. What about the blue stripes?[[00:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Video missing?

The article previously said:

"Spinning barberpoles are supposed to be oriented so that the red (blood) will appear as if it was flowing down. The video on this page is a good example of this."

Where is the video? I'm taking off the reference to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.122.174 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture needed of Red and White Barber Pole

This article could use a photo a a red and white (not blue) barber's pole. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Stan

"Barber pole" in web site design

As far as I can tell, this article is as complete as it has ever been. That being said, I can't find a source for "Barber pole" in web site design, even though I personally know it to be a correct use of the term. So I have not put it back. Can anybody help? 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Stan

To include or not to include, that is the question

• Stevens, Dana. Here We Go Round the Barber's Pole: Everything you never wanted to know about Michael Jackson's Johnson. (May 12, 2005) is one barber pole analogy I didn’t put in the article. Here is another one, Daryl Cagle. June 26, 2009 Political Cartoonists Mourn Michael Jackson The Moderate Voice, including a very funny cartoon. I decided to put it in the Daryl Cagle article, and to put it in See also.
• Here is another Custom barber pole stamps that might be included. But I'm not sure where. Probably would require a separate section, e.g., :Popular culture" or something like that. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Stan

Article scope and organization

I was asked to clear through the references a while back, and I took a peek into the article again this morning. I'm offering a few comments from an outside perspective. The first is that the "Other uses" section needs some cleaning up. There are 25 (!) subsections, most of which are one- or two-sentence paragraphs. I would find a way to combine similar or related topics together. A few of the subsections have bulleted lists. They shouldn't be bulleted. I'd make them into regular paragraphs.

A few of the subsections are only tangentially related, and they should be removed. The bit on booksellers, while interesting, does not have much to do with the red- and white-striped barber's pole. I would combine all of the animal life subsections together. That would be the "Animal husbandry", "Crustacea", "Dinosaurs with feathers", "Entomology", "Ichthyology" (check the spelling on that one) sections. Toss in "Cellular biology" and "Flora" for a combined section on biology. "Astronomy", "Electronics", "Music (acoustic illusion)", "Weather" would make a good "Other natural sciences" section. "Computer science" could be place in with that as well. "Aviation and space flight", "Border and lane markers", "Daymarks as a navigational aid" could be a good section on "Navigation and aerospace". The stuff on the "Canadian Naval Group" could be worked into that section as well. "Flyfishing", "Gambling", "Hockey", "Knots", "Music" and "Parachuting" could be in a "Sports and leisure" section. The stuff on the Barbasol trademark should be the section on the barber's pole itself.

The last suggestion. I would ax all of the categories that aren't directly related to the history, function or purpose of the barber's pole. That is "Advertising", "Hairdressing", "Iconography", "Signage", "Symbols", "Visual motifs". The rest don't need to be used on this article. As a side note, footnotes 48 and 49 of the current revision of the article are a shortened reference to a book of some kind. The full citation for the book is not listed in the article anywhere, making those two notes less than useful. Imzadi 1979 → 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Optical Illusion Section

I'm a bit confused about this part in the Optical Illusion section:

Compare Todorović, Dejan (2002). "A NEW VARIANT OF THE BARBERPOLE EFFECT: PSYCHOPHYSICAL DATA AND COMPUTER SIMULATIONS". PSIHOLOGIJA (Serbia, Yugoslavia: Laboratory for Experimental Psychology, University of Belgrade) Vol. 35 (3-4): 209-223 UDC 159.937.075. http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0048-5705/2002/0048-57050203209T.pdf. Retrieved November 26, 2010.. and authorities cited therein.[15][16][17]

Brain scientists will rethink current theory of how the brain’s visual processing region is organized to analyze basic information about the geometry of the environment, according to Duke neurobiologists. A study reported in the June 26, 2003, issue of Nature (magazine), which documented the visual cortex (visual processing region) of ferrets, as the animals' brains responded to complex patterns, such as barber’s poles.[18]

What's the first paragraph supposed to mean? I've never seen a source quoted in-line like that and I can't, for the life of me, figure out what they're accomplishing by linking to a PDF on the 'barberpole effect' in this most strange manner. Did someone just butcher a standard reference or is there a reason for this?

The second paragraph also concerns me. I don't know if "brain scientist" is really the most specific scientific term (psychiatrist? neuroscientist? neuropsychologist? cognitive neuropsychologist?) and the "scientists will rethink current theory" seems an awkward way to phrase the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubious Irony (talk • contribs) 11:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite it. If you could include these as sources (they are good sources I think, which gets the reader into the a lot of other sources), the article would be better for it. In the future, please remember to sign your posts. Happy editing in the New Year. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Thanks, I think I'll try to clean it up I get some free time. I don't know what happened to the signature, I usually sign and preview my posts. Must have have been distracted, whoops :) DubiousIrony ^yell 09:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what a "vanity posting" is or why you would say that. I thought ^yell was going to take care of this. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

Apologies, 7&6=thirteen, but I simply don't understand the purpose of a lot of your edits to this and the other article and you seem to be pursuing the same line here. Your edits are not well integrated, unencyclopedic and very VERY academic. I tried to correct this and was unaware that anybody else planned to do this too. I got there first. Tough, I guess. Famousdog (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. No worries. Feel free to make the article better. My only thought was that those are actually good sources (and filled with a whole lot of other good sources in turn). Mainly, I was hoping that this would be a jump off point for readers (and editors) who want to get into this more deeply. I am not trying to stand in your way, and I do assume that you have the best of intentions. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

Thanks for taking the time to clean up the Optical Illusion section, Famousdog. I did forget about this article for a while so I'm glad you helped. Cheers, DubiousIrony ^yell 22:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson cartoon

7&6=thirteen, so an intimate part of Michael Jackson's anatomy is striped like a barber pole. I accept that that is an amusing bit of trivia related to the topic of barber poles generally, but it isn't a particularly notable reference. In fact, the source that you quote admits that people didn't understand the reference/innuendo that the cartoon was making. Secondly, putting this in the 'see also' section is not integrating this 'information' in a particularly encyclopedic way. Daryl Cagle the cartoonist has no direct relevance to the topic of barber's poles apart from the fact that he once made an off-colour joke about it in a cartoon. You could always add something along the lines of: "Pop singer Michael Jackson's penis is said to be striped like a barber's pole (cite ref)". But I'm not sure where you'd fit that into the article! Famousdog (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "people" you are referring to were second (or was it fourth_ graders. The copyrighted picture is worth a thousand words. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So other editors are clear, this is the section we disagree about: Daryl Cagle—political cartoon regarding Michael Jackson "barber pole" metaphor. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Symbolism

The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says: "The barber's sign consisted of a striped pole, from which was suspended a basin, symbols the use of which is still preserved. The fillet round the pole indicated the ribbon for bandaging the arm in bleeding, and the basin the vessel to receive the blood." This contradicts the current article, which just has one ref (which won't open in my browser). Should we reflect the varying explanations, or go with Britannica? Malick78 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Present it as an alternative theory with the reference you indicated. We do not have to resolve the question. See WP:truth and WP:verifiable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)