Talk:High five

Template:WP1.0

"The Slick"

One mention in a film does not make a gesture notable. Is it mentioned anywhere else, like in the Jim Robison article? Further reliable independent sources are needed. Does anyone disagree? ... discospinster _talk 13:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a very common variation of the standard High Five. Since there seems to be no definitive source for official high five variations I believe that "the slick's" appearance in film and television should be considered a viable source for the article. This is a very specific act that can be specifically described and occurs in the real world. I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed in the article.--72.37.249.20 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability and maintainability problems. Given the level of sourcing that's being provided, here, I could just as easily claim that people regularly high five goats with spatulas, argue that it's a very specific act that can be specifically described, and wonder why that claim can't be included. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This comment is without merit. Notability: it is in a feature film as indicated many, many times. Apparently that is not considered notable. A claim that people high five goats with spatulas could be considered notable, but it is no permanent media. What is the necessary level of sourcing? Obviously a primary source is not enough. "Peer review" is not enough. Joebin (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is so basic, I don't know who hasn't done this as a child; at least a child growing up in the 80's where high five's had really come into their own in popular culture. In fact, I hadn't known the name of this move at all until I found the information here. Now I can't wait to go watch Blank Check! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.248.202 (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Slick" is an essential concept to master in order to properly socially engage the masses with high fives. While most high-fiving is celebratory in nature, it is also critical to master the art of disingenuous high-fiving so as to masterfully humiliate one's enemies. There is nothing more devastating to one's psyche than to have a positive gesture so abruptly transformed into an action of mockery. While Blank Check is the most prominent pop-culture reference point for "The Slick," the late 80s and early 90s are rife with examples of smooth operators wreaking havoc on the egos of their nemeses with what is undoubtedly the definitive "bait and switch" of high-fiving. Today's high schoolers clearly know the score: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2204920104&topic=1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.72.71 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not yet seen any argument for inclusion that's backed by apparently relevant sourcing, let alone reliable sourcing, nor by policies or practices as commonly applied on Wikipedia. "It's cool!" and "It's funny!" aren't typically considered good reasons to include content in mainspace articles. I'm rather disinclined to look favorably on any attempt to turn this article back into the playground it was a few days ago. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, a feature film that is widely distributed and viewed would be considered relevant and reliable primary sourcing. The only mention of the slick being "cool" or "funny" is this discussion is in the preceding comment. Joebin (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevant and reliable? Not necessarily, no. The use of a particular gesture in a particular scene in a particular movie demonstrates close to nothing, by itself -- we might as well use Spaceballs to obtain a "reliable" description of military salutes. To infer as much as you have from this one video clip is clearly original research, as I've already explained. Has this gesture, or the movie's use of it, been mentioned in reliable sources? Specifically, has it been mentioned in mainstream media or academic sources? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your examples continue to be ridiculous and not comparable to the listed responses. The movie Spaceballs is a satirical film and in no way reflects a standard military. Would a reference to Saved by the Bell be helpful? They used the gesture there as well. It is difficult to reference copyrighted material in order to cite to a specific movie without violating Wikipedia policy. Joebin (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My examples are ridiculous precisely to demonstrate that relying exclusively and blindly on non-expert interpretation of random, tangentially related video clips is problematic. Star Trek fans regularly try to extrapolate rules for 3D chess from watching clips of the game being played on the show, but their interpretations are, at best, guesses. Extrapolating a popular trend from one or two YouTube clips seems even fuzzier. I ask again, has this been mentioned in mainstream media or academic sources? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are not academic sources for specific high five variations. Nothing in the current article is referenced in this way either. The "High Five" article is about a social gesture that has taken different forms over the course of human interaction. It seems completely acceptable to site popular media sources as an example of how this interaction has evolved.--24.1.90.97 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your examples are ridiculous because they make no sense and are without merit. As you pointed out, 3-D Chess has a place on Wikipedia, as does the salute from Spaceballs. Perhaps a reference to a Star Wars character using the slick would help its addition to the high five page.Joebin (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------

Many of the previous arguments have attempted to discredit Luna Santin's arguments for why a particular version of the high five should not be included in the article. I have nothing but the most utmost respect for Luna and other Wikipedia users who dedicate so much time to protecting the integrity of the entire site; however, I have to agree with the opposing viewpoints here. I will try to further enhance the arguments in support of the "slick." First, let it be noted that Joe Bin added a primary source of an example of this variation of a high five; however, I will explain why I believe the "slick" (and other popular variations) should be allowed even without this primary source on the High Five article.

Many Wikipedia articles contain entries with no sourcing that are completely acceptable. The reason for this is the obviousness and uncontroversial nature of the entry. To illustrate my point, here are a couple examples:

On the article Porn, the article begins by stating things that the general public agrees upon, such as "Pornography may use any of a variety of media, ranging from printed literature, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, or video game." Although the previous example does not include any reliable or scholarly references that pornography actually exists on those mediums, that entry remains unchallenged because the general public accepts this as an accurate representation. The Porn article later talks about Sub-genres and states "In general, softcore refers to pornography that does not depict penetration (usually genitals are not shown right on camera), and hardcore refers to pornography that depicts penetration explicitly." Again, this does not include any reference, but it is a clearly accepted principle to anyone that follows the subject to any extent.

Of course, comparing the High Five article to the Porn article may seem like oranges and apples, but my point is that when a term becomes so common that almost everyone already knows of it, it becomes less important to cite because everyone knows and accepts it. Furthermore, it becomes more difficult to cite because many basic terms and actions are not the subject of scholarly material. Additionally, many scholarly editors don't write articles on subjects such as high fives and porn that may be referenced later by Wikipedia editors.

Now just because there may be a lack of primary or secondary sources, does not mean that the article is not accurate. I believe that the positive responses to the inquiry as to whether the "slick" should be added show that this is a common (and well known) variation of the high five and is generally accepted. Many people have stated that they have used this variation in the past and that their friends all knew of it too. At what point do these responses become a secondary source of their own?

To conclude my rather (unintentionally) lengthy argument: I believe that a variation of the high five that is known by the vast majority of people (and not just a close circle of friends) should be allowed due to its common acceptance. The primary sourcing and external references to the "slick" are really there to help few viewers of the article who are in fact unfamiliar with the variation (but I find it really hard to believe that some of the people have never seen or done this variation).98.214.241.177 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

--------------------------------------------------

I checked this wikipeida page around a month ago and loved seeing all the versions of the high five that I have come to put into practice. With the exception of the spock five, which I now use extensively, these high fives were extremely well known. I have been using the slick since the late 80s. It is often used in a handshake format, but is also extremely effective in a high five situation. I hope this helps in getting the slick approved to this page. I never knew there was a name for it. Now I do!!

I completely agree with the above post. Even young British children know of the slick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bgOWbxrJvM. 75.73.215.158 (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That video is hilarious. Thanks for helping the slick stay up!

Quick side note on the page. How is 'gimme some skin' a variation? Its a variation of saying "high five" but it is not a different form of the high five.Joebin (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Slick" was performed recently on the FX (TV channel) television show It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia. During the episode titled, "The World Series Defense", the character played by Charlie Day is seen becoming a victim of "The Slick" at the hands of the Phillie Phanatic. Charlie Day's character "Charlie Kelly" is dressed as the sub character "green man" while he is a vicitim of "The Slick". --72.37.249.20 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too! That is another primary source that is subject to no other interpretation other than the obvious: that this variation exists and is performed exactly how it was stated by Joebin and that it is commonly known and executed. It is now even more verifiable than before. I'm glad that someone else caught that, but soon it will be on Hulu where everyone can check the facts for themselves. 98.214.241.177 (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Two or three inadequate sources don't combine into a good one. Did each of these cases involve "cat-like reflexes and a trusting face"? Did each "reinforce your slickness"? Was each identified as "the slick" in context? Were any of these sources authoritative? Were any of them even mentioned in other available sources? Given the continued lack of academic sourcing and tone, I remain inclined toward exclusion. Still, I've started an RfC, below, in the hope of getting more input from the community at large. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should variations of the high five, such as "the slick", be added to the article based on sourcing provided by YouTube clips of television shows or movies? See representative diff. Some editors feel the material is phrased in an unencyclopedic way, and are concerned that including loosely sourced material may risk a slippery slope; others feel that the material is notable and adequately sourced, and are concerned that excluding such material risks an incomplete article. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is sorely in need of Reliable Sources. The lead, which is the foundation and anchor of any article, is loosely written and has zero citations. That allows the rest of the article to wander. That's point one. Secondly, reliable sources are the backbone of any wiki article. Text that is not sourced can be challenged and removed per Wiki guidelines. But when the rest of the article is also un-sourced it's hard to make a case to disallow the slick. By the way, You Tube is not an acceptable as a source or external link on Wiki. See WP:RS and WP:EL -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you would like to remove the entire page because it doesn't have "scientific" sources. This logic makes no sense to me. Obviously, the "High Five" is a real thing. Obviously, variations of the "High Five" exist in the real world and are practiced regularly. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a "scientific" source for the High Five or any of its variations. Any website that would dedicate itself to cataloging high five variations (and could be used as a reference) would probably be considered satirical in nature by tyrannical moderators that control this page.

My point is, I don’t think any reference or source exists in the entire world that would make the people who are trying to destroy this page happy. The people who are removing these variations from the page are offering no form of compromise and are not willing to negotiate any type of solution.

This is getting ridiculous. “The Slick” exists; it is practiced in real life and has been seen in pop culture, which has been reference with several different mediums. The description is fun and enjoyable to read. I don’t know why people are trying to remove any semblance of comedy from the wiki community.--72.37.249.20 (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comments. I understand that my comments may not make sense to you. However, I think if you familiarize yourself with Wiki's policies on Reliable Sources you would understand where I am coming from. WP:RS I am not advocating that the article be deleted only that it is in need of serious clean up. This is an encyclopedia. Just because we know something exists does not justify its presence as an article or subtopic of an article on Wiki. What Wiki wants is content that is directly sourced to verifiable third party references such as magazines, news articles, books etc. If its not, then it is not notable or verifiable and has no place on Wiki. That's not my opinion, that's the Wiki policy. Whether it makes sense to us or whether we agree with it as editors does not matter. That is simply the policy for this online, collaborative encyclopedia. I hope you will take some time to review some Wiki guidelines. It will help improve this article and also allow you to grow as a Wiki editor. The way to end this debate is to cite in the article, reliable secondary sources for the Slick. Then it would conform to Wiki guidelines and be 'good to go'. I wish you all the best. PS the sources don't have to be academic or scientific. -- — Kbob • Talk • 15:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There has to be some type of sociological or anthropological studies that encompass the idea of the high five. You could also make a section discussing popular representations of the High Five, such as the slick, but these should not outweigh the scholarly approach to the subject. I did a quick Google scholar search with search terms ""high five" social norm" and found this article for example: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v3620w73468001nj/, which analysis physical contact, especially high fives, in the context of sports. Also you could also propose the idea put forward by http://www.nationalhighfiveday.com/, sceptically, stating that "scholars have yet to propose an origin of this gesture but..." . You could also discuss the psychological and social effects of the high five based on anthropological studies. Bottom line, there are better ways to approach this article, and the current use of popular websites to "verify" the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia and outweighs the constructive material found in the article. Thats my opinion hope it helpsSADADS (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello editors. I am still learning the ropes of the Wikipedia guidelines, so I hope my comment on this high five page isn't completely unnecessary. I originally argued that things that are obvious or common should not require sourcing (or at least secondary sourcing of a scholastic journal or the like). No one responded to that argument. My next question on Wiki-guidelines refers to when an article's purpose is to state a fact or occurrence rather than someone's opinion. Examples include synopsis of film and literature as well as U.S. Supreme Court cases. In the former, editors state what they perceived from watching the film or reading the literature; in the latter, editors summarize arguments and court opinions - again, from their understanding of reading it. In the aforementioned examples, the editors have little or no choice but to report the facts of an actual occurrence or primary source. We all know of the high five's existence and that it occurs on a regular basis. I believe editors such as Joebin are in the right by adding the Slick section to the High Five page. The reason for this is that the Slick is a real occurrence documented by numerous videos, and discussed by many individuals. Like a movie or a United States Supreme Court case, Joebin had little or no choice but to report the Slick in factual fashion. He has sourced it to the only thing that one can source to in situations like this: to mainstream videos of the slick actually occurring.

I would also like to say that I want to hear a response other than "Wikipedia's #1 concern is not truth, but verifiability," (or something similar) because the examples of summary of films and literature can be verified the same way as the Slick, yet both are editor's interpretations of primary sources.

Additionally, I would like to add the link to the Slick being performed on It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia http://www.hulu.com/watch/104781/its-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-the-world-series-defense (It occurs around 13 minutes and 5 seconds.) 98.214.241.177 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Scriptures teach us that it is the published scholar, not the editor, who will decide which high five variations are notable. JosiahHenderson (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but I feel that it does nothing more than prove my point about the evolving nature of Wikipedia. I believe that JosiahHenderson's comment shows that although these clear line rules may exist, they are actually not so clear, but more of a grey area. Here is a short list of examples in which editors and not the published author decided to add sections to an article:

-The Plot section of the film The Dark Knight

-The summary of the story Huckleberry Finn including the breakdown of the stages of the story.

-The landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, in which the editor(s) exercised "original research" by reading the Court's decision (which is a primary source and summarizing the analysis and outcome of the case

Clearly, all three of the previous examples represent editors using their own discretion to determine what should be added to Wikipedia based on their research of primary sources. I feel that all of these contributions are extremely helpful and should not be removed or attacked simply because the editors actions fell on the wrong side of some people's interpretation of what should be allowed on the site. For the reasons stated, I believe that there are plenty of instances in which editors should be allowed to cite to a primary source when adding to Wikipedia articles. I also feel that variations of the High Five fall into these allowable instances when those variations are backed by primary sources (especially when multiple primary sources exist). Thank you. --98.214.241.177 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Summaries of Fictional works do not need to be cited and are not original research, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for these style conventions.

For the Roe v. Wade example, using the court record to withdraw factual information, such as the recommendations made by the court, is not WP:Original Research. Instead it is simply summarizing the article. Any analysis thereof probably should be removed, however no editors have, so it stays.

What we are suggesting is that: this article should not cite primary sources for proof of certain types of high five, it just doesn't make sense. The slick is not a common societal thing. Quite frankly I had never heard of the slick until an editor brought it up.SADADS (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That may be true for Roe v. Wade, but I think the previous person made a good point. Many Supreme Court cases are left up for interpretation. Often the Court's guidance is not clear. For example, a hotly debated case decided by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, In re Bilski, does not have a widely agreed upon interpretation. Joebin (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Information on variants can be of three types that are treated here and in general in Wikipedia generally differently: Among 'variations', we require verifiable information from already existing reliable secondary sources. As far as I see, there is no such thing for the slick, not even for the name. Without, you can only make lists of observations and original interpretations. If some editors would venture beyond this particular topic they might understand better why the overall consensus on this site is to not have such original research in the encyclopedic parts. What we have for the so called slick, instead, are two occurrences in film and the 'popular culture' section allows indeed for information that comes directly from such sources. The Slick variant falls currently squarely inside this category, so it should be moved there. The third category are the external links that include e.g. sites that document variants in a less restrictive way. To find some common ground, I've drafted a new version in the PC section, mentioning also some details and the name with a cite tag. There is no deadline and this can stay around for a while until better sources appear or not. Please be so kind and let this alternative stay up, refine instead revert, until all interested editors had a look.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The current proposal is agreaable. The quest for scholastic journals documenting the slick will continue.Joebin (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a policy on Wiki, I'll try to find the reference, that says that all articles should be written according to the Wiki guidelines and not according to the activities or poor editing practices of another article. In other words we don't create a sloppy encyclopedic article and say its OK because there are other sloppy articles. I hope that makes sense. -- — Kbob • Talk • 21:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Hi fellow editors. It is great that you are taking an interest in developing this article. I think that some of you are new to Wiki and I welcome you. As you continue to participate you will learn more and more about how Wiki operates. The main point is that it is an encyclopedia and contains information from verifiable outside sources and does not reflect the opinions or personal knowledge or conclusions of the editors who create and develop the articles. I am not here to oppose you but rather to help you to acclimate to the Wiki culture so that you can continue to grow and enjoy and contribute to this great project. OK, now. This article contains a lot of unverified information that Wiki calls Original Research (OR). This is one of the core principles of Wiki. Here is some text from the OR policy which you can read in full by clicking here [1] or here WP:OR.

• Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
• Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
• "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with neutral point of view and verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you care about this article you need to do some research on the web and obtain reliable sources that meet Wiki's standards (no blogs or YouTube or MySpace etc). Just find news and magazine articles about this topic and use them as reference for text in the article. Text that is not referenced can be challenged by other editors (like me) and removed. So please start finding references or else the text, like the entire Pop Culture section for example, may be taken out. Please let me know if I can help in anyway. I look forward to working together. Peace!-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower variation

This variation actually has its origins as a lewd sex act, it can be found in Dirty Sanchez's Guide to Buck Nasty Sex on books.google.com pg.40, involving one woman and two men. It has since entered mainstream culture as a "wink wink nod nod" sort of thing sometimes involving two guys doing a high five over-top a woman's head (who may or may not know the innuendo), or just some variation like in IT Crowd with sexual innuendo. I have no idea how to write this up according to Wikipedia standards since the "best" source we have is Dirty Sanchez, and a cryptic YouTube clip from IT Crowd. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs vs section headers

Sorry, didn't mean to imply it didn't have "merit", any good faith edit on Wikipedia has merit. What I'm saying is, section breaks and paragraph breaks are similar, the question is when to use one vs the other. Paragraph breaks provide logical breaks in the content. In this case there is a new section header at the top of almost every paragraph, which is redundant, that's what paragraphs are made for. By adding those section headers, I believe, it chops up the article which discourages reading it as a single block of text from top to bottom, and encourages skimming and skipping, like reading an outline that hasn't been filled in, or a "list of" sort of thing, rather than a chronological and somewhat inter-related history of the origin of the high five. If we thought those origin theories were going to be greatly expanded.. say 4 or 5 or more paragraphs each.. I could see section headers making more sense, but until then, I believe it reads better as a single block of text. Green Cardamom (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. I think it looks better the way it is now, especially with the long block quote in the first section. I mean, the other option to me is bullets, but I think we both would agree that's not that aesthetically pleasing. Without some kind of division, it makes it harder to see that the three options are mutually exclusive, or arose independently at best. Without the divisions, in my opinion, it sounds like one origin narrative that all together led to the high five, rather than three separate possibilities. JesseRafe (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much look as how it reads. This section was written as a single piece of text, there are transitional breaks at the start of each paragraph:

"For decades, conventional wisdom was that the first high five occurred .."

"Another origin story .."

"Recently the Burke story was challenged by Lamont Sleets .."

In other words, it's a non-fiction narrative. The section breaks don't add to the flow for readers in fact break it up. While it's true these theories are different, by definition, that doesn't mean we need section breaks every time there is a new idea presented. That's what sentences and paragraphs are for. If one of these theories was greatly expanded in length, I agree sectioning would make sense. But when the sections are simply duplicating paragraph breaks, it's doesn't add anything in fact takes away the narrative. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see it being very different than an article like this in any metric other than length, Multiregional origin of modern humans (sorry, it was the first thing I could think of that would have multiple origin hypotheses). But if you feel strongly about it, go for it, just good to know someone else is watching the page. JesseRafe (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"High Five" in Railway Conductor book from 1894

Mistakenly removed a reference to this 1894 bit of text in my recent clean-up, the source is available on Google Books, "The Conductor and brakeman, Volume 12 By Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen" it is on page 225, and the text reads: "Progressive high five was the order of the evening and refreshments were served [...]". It's surely not a reference to the hand gesture, but any ideas what it could be? Deserves some discussion. I read the whole page, no clear idea of what it could be, but it sounds abstract, like some kind of bonhomie or pleasant ambiance rather than a tangible object or act. JesseRafe (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's an antiquated name for the card game cinch. Another reference from 1891. Nothing as exciting as discovering Victorians doing high fives, but it does appear to be a bit of history that doesn't exist on Wikipedia anyway, good find.Green Cardamom (talk) 06:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Birth of the gesture"

Re: this recent addition by 99.187.247.153:

The origin of the high five may be debated, but it is most likely the result of a Big Ten player's choice of trading the traditional sportsman rear slap with raised hand slap. In 1978, Jeff Blackard, a guard on Northwestern University Wildcats was preparing to play The Ohio State Buckeyes in Columbus. During warmups, Mr. Blackard, John Egan and Lyle Dobbins passed each other in front in of a hostile crowd estimated at 10,000. Feeling a rear slap was inappropriate, Blackard raised his had overhead and slapped his teammate's hands. The practice of recognizing a good shoot, save or defensive move with the overhead slap became a tradition. The practice spread during the 1978 season as the team played Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan, and Michigan State. The gesture was quickly adopted by nearly all the Big Ten teams. The following year, Northwestern opponent Michigan State received national attention, led by Ervin "Magic" Johnson. Johnson popularized the ritual and was often seen on broadcasts using a lower, shoulder-level version of high-five.

Couple problems for Wikipedia purposes: 1) it is un-sourced and thus can't be kept. 2) the wording is strongly opinionated that this origin theory is the correct one but doesn't say why or whose opinion it is, even though it's actually a lesser-known theory compared to the others. Currently the best source we have for the history of the high-five is by Jon Mooallem. "The history and mystery of the high five", ESPN, 29 July 2011. Moollem does mention in passing something about Magic Johnson but with few details, so if you can provide a source for the above theory, we'll find a way to work it into the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If you watch "The Man With The Golden Gun" at the end of the "karate nieces" scene they high five each other. The film was released in 1974 and filmed in 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.125.33 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

When I was in high school, 1973–75, many of the athletes exchanged high-fives with each other during games and practices. the gesture and that name were long known long before the origins alleged in this article.Marzolian (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Photo

The reason I added the new photo: it had a picture of a 1. black, 2. female 3. child 4. underprivileged. I thought it would help counter wikipedia's systemic bias problem. Since we can choose any picture we want, why not add some diversity and challenge the stereotypes. The American military high-five'ing it up in Iraq could be seen by some people as having a political shade, it's a contentious topic (though more so in 2008 than today). Green Cardamom (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposed new photo is overly "busy" and complicated for illustrating such a simple concept. It's too large in the manner you've presented it, and making it smaller would make it even harder to pick out the actual "high five." I've restored the old photo, although that one isn't great, either. I will look for a better image and, if unable to find one, post a request via Wikipedia:Requested pictures; given the thousands of Wikipedians eager to upload photos of their own genitalia or bodily fluids, I suspect we can find one willing to take a picture of a high five. (It's too bad that whoever created the excellent "too slow" images didn't create a standard one, as well.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the image, albeit with another image involving military officers, because the clearest images on [Commons] all seemed to involve military officers. If you wish to take a clear and uncluttered picture of one or more 1. black 2. female 3. child and/or 4. underprivileged people engaging in a high five, feel free to do so. Or feel free to add such images as additional illustrations in the article, but it's my opinion that the top image used to illustrate a topic should be the best image we have available. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The new photo (two Navy officers) works for me as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Antecedents

The article history starts in the late 1970s. But no human gesture is new, slapping palms together must be a physical movement even Neanderthals or Roman soldiers could have done (speculation, but the idea being it must be very old). Rather the name, meaning, and cultural context is new. So this contribution from a Godard film, made by an anon editor, is an interesting find: it documents the gesture, the physical gesture, but not in the modern sense of the gesture. If gesture antecedents have a place in the article, or wikipedia, I don't know - we do include antecedents of words sometimes. I'll try to write something for review and see what others think. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed it and said in the edit summary that it's pure superficial similarity, but not a high five. Think of it like you and I are writing a screenplay with an alien language and we make up some gibberish, but that happens to be Burmese or Nahuatl or some language it's completely unlikely either of us may know, and then when the movie comes out it is recognized as being in that language. Did we write part of our script in Nahuatl? No. Or, similarly think it wasn't a Godard film, but a Howard Hawks one, and his gibberish included words like "Internet" and "4G Hotspot" - would these be the first recorded instances of these terms? No, because they have a sense (nowadays to us) but there was no reference at the time, there's no way it could be so intended, and as it is it must just be considered a coincidence. But noted that the core aspect of a high five is not a greeting or salutation gesture, but congratulatory in its essence. JesseRafe (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your original removal, the way it was written was poor and your position above supports that removal, no problem, you were right to remove it. I've re-added it under an entirely different wording and sense, as an antecedent, which I think hopefully is well understood. I think it's important because invariably readers will see the 'physical gesture' being made pre-1970 in films or whatever, and believe it's a high five; but it's not, as the antecedent section explains. It's like meeting uncontacted tribes in the Amazon and discover the handshake gesture means something entirely different to them. There is the physical gesture itself, and then there is the cultural meaning of that gesture. Two different things. Now, we can either fight editors by deleting every time they bring up this distinction, or we can acknowledge these antecedents exist with a few examples isolated in its own sub-section. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Too slow" history

After multiple attempts at research via Google (everything, books, scholar etc), simplyscripts.com, as well as reference books not online, I'm unable to find anything pointing to the origin of "too slow". However we logically know it was sometime after the high five itself originated, but there is nothing I could find predating 1991, though I'm certain it's older than that. So sometime between 1978 and 1991, probably on the early side of that. In the article I added some non-trivial/notable 1. sources, 2. people and 3. uses of "too slow" to help establish cultural history, notability and verifiability. The intent is not to list every find in pop culture, rather, early uses ("early" as in found appearances from major notable sources like the NYT or films, that predate other found appearances in those media (print, film, song etc)); well known people such as Arnold; or when it's a primary focus in a work of art, like the song "High Five!" by They Might Be Giants. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a television show in the US called "Happy Days" that ran from the 1970s into the 1980s where the main character heavily popularized the "too slow" hand movement by sliding his hand back through his hair before someone else could touch it. 93.95.76.135 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I remember. Happy Days is based on American Graffiti, maybe it was there first. But I don't recall high fives, low fives. -- GreenC 03:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Journal of transpersonal psychology - Volumes 15-16 - Page 176 books.google.com.au/books?id=SBB9AAAAMAAJ Transpersonal Institute, American Transpersonal Association - 1983 - Snippet view - More editions Whether we hammer, or hoe, whoop or holler, as they say, slap five up high, down low, you're too slow, we do it with the rhythmic motif that leads to harmony. Possession is only the most complete form of the same rhythmic drive. In any good ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.99.88 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Free video clip available

This six-second clip 11:49 > 11:55 looks pretty good. It's NASA, free. Does anyone have a video editing tool or ability for upload to Commons? Green Cardamom (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dick Shaw

Regarding this section recently added:

<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0790071/bio "Dick Shawn Biography"]</ref> [[Dick Shawn]] executed the high five in the 1968 film [[The Producers (1968 film)|The Producers]]. During the play within the film, "Springtime For Hitler", Hitler, played by Shawn, sent for Goebbels, played by [[David Patch]]. Instead of putting his hand in front of for the "give me five", Shawn held up his hand like a Nazi salute, and Patch slapped it.<ref name=mooallem/>

This is an antecedent of the high five, before the term or culture significance had been invented. Of course slapping palms together up-high is probably older than civilization, but this article is about the specific "high five" cultural gesture discussed in the article. So we can list some antecedent examples but they are not established origins or anything. My concerns with the above is the sourcing to IMDB which isn't considered reliable, anybody can edit it like Wikipedia. The claim that Dick Shaw "invented the high five" sounds like someone's pet theory, searching Google Books comes up empty. We've already established it was done in another movie, Breathless, in 1960 - do we need another antecedent from a 1969 movie also? Also, not sure why "ref name=mooallem/" was used, the ref says nothing about Dick Shaw. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Precursors

I found a couple interesting precursors from 1944 (see these images): The Zoot Cat http://www.screencast.com/t/2lQjh9XXLi and, Cover Girl http://www.screencast.com/t/pcCmxYLt — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISAWaUFO (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wild One, a 1953 movie starring Marlon Brando, contains sequence of two person ritual gestures between members of the Black Rebels Motorcycle Club in a scene about 23 minutes in. This sequence starts with a very clear high five between the lines "Pop me daddy!" and "I popped ya daddy." Theodore.norvell (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This was added by a user today though unsourced: "Orlando Cepeda and the St Louis Cardinals (which he called El Birdos) were high fiving during their 1967 and 1968 pennant winning seasons." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6813042/who-invented-high-five. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The above reads as a non-specific boilerplate. It's not copyvio when citing a source, and with the text in (block) quotes, it's fair use and done all the time professionally and on Wikipedia. Text is the not the same as pictures, although it is possible to re-write anything in our own words, we have the freedom to choose quotes for their particular quality and style of the writing and the authority of the author in conveying the story in this case the origin of the high five. The length of the quote is hardly long or impede commercial prospects for the author (just the opposite probably). The overall amount of quoted text in this article is minimal. -- GreenC 21:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Low five

The article mentions "low five", but does not explain it. Is it just a handshake? Is slapping involved? Where do the fingers point?--91.115.13.78 (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Low five does indeed redirect to high five. Hold out the palm facing upwards, like waiting for coins, then someone slaps the palm, with their palm, using a downward strike. -- GreenC 15:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Too Slow origin

An anon editor left the following:

"While the too slow variation includes a high five motion, it preceded the actual high five, being popular in the early 1970s"

This sounds pretty interesting but in all my research I have never found any mention of it prior to the 1980s. It's possible it was done in the early 70s, but there is no evidence for it. It's also possible the mind mis-remembers. I once remembered reading a book in my youth, only to discover I had actually read it much later (the book publication date made it impossible to have read it in my youth, yet that is still how I remember it strangely). -- GreenC 16:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

removing origins

origins theory is nonsense

rumble in the jungle took place in 1974

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yNWfRfaHPU

as you can see from this video Ali is talking about fighting Foreman and says to the kid "give me five" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8600:1D8E:452A:3590:F3E6:3F72 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad gives a low five in the video. They have been around since the 1920s at least. The article is titled "high five". -- GreenC 23:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Low five

The preceding three comments, over the past 12 months, confuse the low five with a high five. It's confusing, evidently. Perhaps the problem is low five and give me five redirect to this page. A separate article on the low five would at least give a place to show pictures and disambiguate between the two. -- GreenC 23:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think there should be two articles. And the "low five" only came about after "high five" was named; it should just be called "[giving] five" if anything, and since the High Five is the most common term, a subsection on the low five should do, or one on giving five/slapping palms/dap etc could be added, and the redirects be sent directly to those # sections, rather than the top page to mitigate navigation confusion. JesseRafe (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a third way and that is to make this article about both low and five, not just high with low tacked on. Since the low is far more common and far older, and has many more sources available, it would rename to something like "Give me give" (or whatever) and then have an integrated single history of both the low and high. An integrated lead section of both low and high. Pictures of low and high etc.. The problem with tacking the low onto the five is the low is actually the more notable of the two, in terms of available sources. If anything it should be the other way around with a low article and the high tacked on as a sub-section. But that doesn't make sense since this article is so long. Thus it comes back to having a separate article on give me five (low). -- GreenC 15:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I really don't see how the low five could be considered more common. Maybe as a gesture, but then it's not a "five" it's a slap of the palms, and certainly not as a term on its own. The high five is more prominent because it actually has some form semantic impart rather than a mere greeting. When I say "more common" I mean instances of people saying "give me a low five", not simply slapping palms or fingers or as part of a handshake or dap or anything else where it's just a greeting. High fives are more meritorious of an article and have more of a basis for study, not just a thing that people do as part of something else (e.g. "taking a step with the left foot" being in a different article than "walking"). JesseRafe (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't know until a search for sources is done on how notable the (original low) gesture is. If it's not very notable it will have to go into an existing article like this one. The high and low (whatever it's called) are different in origin, history and meaning. They have a common origin, and both involve slapping palms, but are different gestures. -- GreenC 00:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt it's that notable, because again it doesn't have an significant semantic meaning, unlike the high five which, whatever its origins, is generally viewed as a congratulatory measure, not a mere greeting. Likewise, any sources naming the gesture would mention the high five because there was no reason to name the low five a low five before the term high five gained currency, and for that reason making it a section of this High Five article makes sense as the term is derivative. JesseRafe (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "significant semantic meaning", like handshake? The name of the gesture, it was called multiple things prior to low five so the article wouldn't necessarily be titled low five. The name would depend on what the sources call it. -- GreenC 17:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what else to tell you, then. A low five doesn't mean anything. Semantics has to do with meaning. A high five has a meaning, even if it is used in lieu of a handshake at a greeting it is done so in reference to its meaning. It's simple. And if you don't even know what the "AKA low five" article would be called, it's more than a little bit too much to even suggest it have an article. JesseRafe (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, it's not what you or I decide to call it, it's what the majority of sources call it. (And if an article has enough sources it will pass an AfD). The argument that a gesture must have a specific "meaning" doesn't sound right. It's true that gestures contain semantic information but they are also customs, and we have articles about customs. The meaning of a custom varies widely, see handshake, but it doesn't preclude an article about it. -- GreenC 20:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Then I'm just confused what you're trying to do if it doesn't even have a name how you would find your sources. I will wait until you have your data, but I'm wagering it will ultimately belong as a subsection of this article or the handshake one then. JesseRafe (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There is one source in the current article ("been a part of the African-American culture since at least World War II"), so I assume they must exist. Given that the gesture is much older than the high five, and at least during the 60s and 70s was symbolic of the counter culture, my guess is it wouldn't be difficult. At the moment I'm working on other projects but will keep this in mind. -- GreenC 16:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Abbott and Costello

This ref to In The Navy with the Andrews Sisters performing "Gimme Some Skin, My Friend" has been removed before from the article, it's "in popular culture" trivia about the low five which isn't the focus of the article. Nevertheless I'll take these multiple attempts to add it as some sort of democratic sign that it's significant - there is more to say about the Andrews Sisters in relation to mainstream white culture and black crossover but that's probably beyond the scope. -- GreenC 13:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

National High Five Day nom'd for deletion

As per the use of some wikilinks added today, I for the first time noticed there was an article for something called National High Five Day. I have nominated it for deletion for reasons detailed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National High Five Day As that article is an orphan (among its other many faults) I felt it only right to post about it here as well, for any interested and disinterested (as the substantive author had a quite apparent COI username) parties to weigh in. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The Phil Silvers Show

Seargeant Bilko used a version of what is now known as the high five in in hit TV show The Phil Sivers Show in the 1960s. He would regularly touch palms of the hand with a twist of the wrist with arms up high with his side kicks Henshaw and Rocco. This predates the baseball players in the 1970s using it for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.243.142 (talk • contribs)

Monkees video

Regarding this recently added:

Additionally, two members of the American pop-rock band The Monkees can be seen doing it near the end of a video for the 1967 song "Look Out (Here Comes Tomorrow)"

Here is the video @ 1:56. The problem is they are clapping hands as part of a song, it's not a gesture but a sort of choreographed routine mimicking what children often do in the patty cake song. I think we would need a source drawing a connection to the high five as its not obviously a greeting like the others. -- GreenC 15:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

(Meta-talk on) "valency"

  I used that noun in my edit summary w/o any sense it was more than a hint at what I meant, and I want to go on record as willing to try clarifying what i meant. I doubt it's the right word, since WP doesn't seem to cover the topic under that name. (Unless i add a 2nd to ccontrib saying else, wiki also fails to doc my sense.)
--Jerzy•t 12:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

   yeah. Clearly i don't know the right word! I wanted to clarify the syntax by the addition of the hyphen, indicating that the two hyphen-connected words were a unit, since the 4 or 5-word phrase was ambiguous. A more coherent editor would have commented "clarify syntax".
--Jerzy•t 12:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Scope

Should there be more discussion about the cultural scope of the high five? It seems to be a very western/white practice. Is it used globally? Are there other global interpretations of the high five? How could we investigate such a topic?Snekkirino (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how it's a "white practice" when at least two of the suggestions are that it came from black Americans, but there should definitely be a more global scope. The category "American cultural conventions" is especially odd but I guess it's not wrong. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High five. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808053607/https://mubi.com/topics/first-high-five-in-cinema-history to https://mubi.com/topics/first-high-five-in-cinema-history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Dubious

The part about a war in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes being started by a "too slow" high five is false. The image that caption is under is during the part where Ceasar tries to make amends with Koba over a disagreement about how to handle humans. They actually just shake hands. The source is obviously making a bad joke. That "too slow" event never happened and was never a plot device. RockingGeo (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:GreenC, I can link a youtube cut of that very moment in the film if you want. This false statement should be removed. RockingGeo (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes please let's take a look. -- GreenC 21:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the ridiculous statement about this film. It's very obvious that the caption is a joke. Please head over to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and find any statement that mentions this if you want to restore it. Or any source anywhere in the world that mentions it outside of one image caption, for that matter. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for removing it while this was under discussion, but it's quite embarrassing that we have this in the article. I understand if the caption misled you, GreenC, but truly nothing like that happens in the movie. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The "too slow" high-five is a routine (up high, down low, too slow), if he merely pulls his hand back, without the previous up-high, it is not a too slow, and C|Net is making a (bad) artistic interpretation. But hard to say without seeing the clip would easily settle it. -- GreenC 22:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the clip of the event:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM_2x39PLvc. At the end you can see that the event in question is a handshake and not a high five. Note, this clip is also a joke. The captions are not what were actually said in the film. RockingGeo (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Lol, totally nothing to do with a high five or too slow. One would think a C|Net article in place for 6 years.. well I eat crow. Good catch, a legitimate hoax and possible candidate for Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Hoax_statements_in_articles. -- GreenC 00:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Replacement of "Too Slow" images.

I suggest the replacement of all four images under the Variations section relating to too slow, as the overly specific chronologically ordered pictures teaks too much space clarification in that specific section of the article in the sense of four whole images (that is simply a waste of precious Wikipedia public bytes in the Wiki base) and that a compression in grid or comic format per say would be a sufficient replacement in my eyes. In addition, the subtle inference of slapstick era-ques comedy portrayed with the characters, hear, does not accurately portray a neutral/unrelated to emotion point of view that Wikipedia strives to be, as the section and information presented previously does not seem to correspond with this attempt at comedy, as backed with the writer of this suggestion wherefore and second personalities not finding this inference particularly funny. My main concern that is especially out of place to me is the final image which depicts the use of finger guns, which is arguably completely and utterly irrelevant in the context of different variations of high fives and the existence of those specified 2 bytes of text are only reliant on the also wasteful inclusion of previously mentioned four images. This complete lack of consideration to access in easily navigable and accessible information provided by Wikipedia is jarring to me, as this inclusion of images (as shown) and as proven is not sufficiency in efficiency of text. I can only respond in my now hindered view of this article is, as the great Julius Caesar said, "Et tu brute?" in response to such a preposterous and beast-like attempt of addition to Wikipedia, excelsior (In proper latin, I must say laughing [slightly less now I must say] out loud!). Kugihot ^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Denied. LiberalPeygamber (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

no fun allowed Marmartoo (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Cover Girl

Regarding this addition. That someone in an Internet forum called it a high five doesn't make it so. The slapping of palms up high is probably nearly as old as humans. What makes it an antecedent is if the gesture is used in the same context as the modern high five invented/coined in the 1970s - that is, a sort of congratulatory or celebration. Since Cover Girl is a dance musical we have to assume it is part of a choreographed routine, like how a schoolyard patty cake song and hand-slapping is part of a routine. If we can see a clip it would help. -- GreenC 02:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Earliest high five

-- Image added by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotXW (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

On the pommel there are two figures high-fiving each other.

Correction: on the pommel there are two figures with their hands touching. I'm hoping this was just a sad joke. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hah 3200 BC. The act of placing palms together up high is probably so old Chimpanzees and Bonobos were doing it before the human split. -- GreenC 15:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Cover Girl

In the "Antecedents" section, we have "For example, it can be seen in the 1944 musical Cover Girl..." and I've tagged that for removal.

The first ref is a clip from the movie itself, which would be fine if that was a sky-is-blue high five. But it's not, not even close. It's some kind of squirrely gesture that they make without raising their hands or bringing them together. The other ref is just IMDb saying that that's a high five, and IMBb is not usable for disputed facts.

It may be -- not sure -- that this gesture was devised by Silvers as one of his little tics and he used it as Sgt. Bilko also. Incidentally, at this blog (not a reliable source) we have the writer describing a different scene in that movie as the antecedent high five: "It dates back to 1944 when in the movie, Cover Girl (1944), Phil Silvers' character, Genius, tears up a telegram and attempts to 'high five' co-star, Gene Kelly." In our clip, there's no telegram, no tearing, and no failed attempt at anything. It may be that there's some confusion and we had the right idea but put in the wrong clip. If so, we need to find the right clip or remove the material.Herostratus (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed it. See two sections up. I posted about it here but forgot to remove it. -- GreenC 17:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

1969 High Five

In the 1969 Lancet, the yearbook for Heritage High School, it says:

Bench warmers don't spend the entire game sitting. For instance, during the introductions, they carry out the vital task of forming a tunnel for the starters to run through as they are announced. They also supply the starters for someone to give a "high five" to.

This is the earliest written evidence of the high five. It is told in the context of sports, team support members (bench warmers), and other gestures like forming a tunnel which actually became a type of high five the gauntlet. @Marzolian: who has personal memories of the gesture in high school from the early 70s. -- GreenC 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If you flick through that yearbook you’ll see that this quote actually appears in he 13th annual edition (in 1981) not the first (in 1969) unfortunately. Overlordnat1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

1973 James Bond high five

Why isn’t the high five as seen in the James Bond film “The Man with the Golden Gun“ considered the earliest high five? It is clearly used in a celebratory context. Wikipediun2000 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

See previous discussions about antecedents. The motion of slapping palms up high is probably over 300,000 year sold (age of Homo Sapiens) . We're interested in the cultural phenomenon called the "high five". This term did not exist at the time of Bond. Nor was there any popular understanding of a distinct named gesture, nor understanding of what it means. -- GreenC 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Are we saying that only high fives performed in US sport can be considered? Regarding the term, are we looking for the the origin of the phrase or the act? The high-five in the Bond files is clearly congratulatory and I am struggling to see why it is culturally different (apart from not being performed in a US sport). It seems that by specifying that the action must be called the 'high five' to be considered as the 'original' high five, that will exclude any non-English speaking country from originating the high-five. Is there any evidence that the term was in use when Glenn Burke did the high five in 1977?

Yeah that's how Wikipedia works. Unless you have a reliable source that calls it a high five - and in this case would need to argue it being the first high five - then you have nothing but a personal opinion, which is not a reliable source. You would benefit from reading the sources in the article. The article reports what the sources say, we don't just say whatever we want or believe is right. -- GreenC 19:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As I raised above - " It seems that by specifying that the action must be called the 'high five' to be considered as the 'original' high five, that will exclude any non-English speaking country from originating the high-five."§

That would make sense. A gesture is a cultural meme, not an immutable universal understanding. Shaking hands meant one thing to Europeans and another to Indians. Like all memes its meaning is informed by the culture where it originated, it's history and context of use. -- GreenC 22:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The context in the James Bond video is a celebration, identical to the use in sports. I see little reason to discount it as an antecedent. There seems little to discuss when the high five is clear for all to see. Wikipediun2000 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)