National High Five Day was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 October 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into High five. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
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. -- GreenC04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. -- GreenC14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- GreenC19:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- GreenC22:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GreenC17:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're being anachronistic. It was filmed in 72 or 73, yes, but your conclusion is not valid as you cite articles from 2015 and 2021 (I'm not clicking on the blogspot which is obviously not an RS). It appears to be a celebration and post facto it is labeled a high five, but nothing from 1973 to 1977 suggests it predates the article's given origins, nor any of the retrospective articles you supplied suggest its primacy in memorializing the action, just describing it using the now-common English expression 50 years after the act. JesseRafe (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The espn article supporting the Glenn Burke and Dusty Baker high five is from 2011?
The ESPN article is making an argument for it being called the high five at the time (or soon after the initial slap). Your article does not, it's an anachronistic usage in a single sentence, the writer makes no assertion it was actually called a high five at the time. Anachronisms are very common, writers use them to make something from the past relevant to modern readers. - GreenC14:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It mentions obliquely how the term was used by contemporaries afterwards both to describe the specific instance and the broader act but doesn't give a year except that it was before 1980 that the Dodgers had already merchandised the expression on T-shirts and had trademarked a depiction of a high five for the same. You're moving goalposts to mix a sports metaphor, and seemingly just being argumentative. There's no reference to support that the 1973 Bond film was called a high five or even acknowledged as a curio at the time of its release, unlike, as evidenced by references, the other discussed possible origins in this article. JesseRafe (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, so in short the answer is "no" - the article does not state that anybody used the term, either at the time or soon after.
And I am not being argumentative, just querying. GreenC stated " the article is making an argument for it being called the high five at the time (or soon after the initial slap)." While also saying "your article does not". But as you have stated, the ESPN article does not state that it was used at the time. It was years later that this was used. 82.16.172.242 (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been a while since I looked at the ESPN article but the entire piece is specifically about the origins of the high five cultural phenomenon. If you can find a source about the high five (like ESPN and some other sources we have) and which also discusses James Bond that is something. The high five is composed of three elements: physical gesture + name + cultural meaning. Otherwise, we are just playing a game of who can find the oldest depiction of hands slapped up high, and the current record is 3200 BC (see picture) although a good argument can be made that over millions of years of chimpanzee and human evolution it occurred with frequency. On the pommel there are two figures high-fiving each other.. To your point the name came after the initial event, this may be true, but there was an event that sources believe was the origin and there are no sources that trace it to James Bond. Something first popularized the gesture that lead to it being named and taking off in culture. Anything prior to the is an antecedent because while it contained the physical gesture, it lacked either the name (or a direct linage to the name), or lacked a cultural understanding. GreenC16:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we get two reliable sources I would support it (and/or other sources that discuss Input mag), but with only the one I think it's too naval gazing, it was already removed by one editor. -- 15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC) GreenC15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Input writeup is not a reliable source for the images, it's just talking about the people in the images since they are on Wikipedia. It's not about high fives per-se. Sources about the Wikipedia article themselves are noted on the talk page. ...discospinstertalk18:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the images is Commons, where they were first uploaded/published by the creator - no ref required. If we were to talk about the images in the main text, Input mag is a reliable source. But I don't think it's justifiable to talk about the images based on a single source. The quantity and quality of sourcing will have to be a higher to consider Wikipedia itself as part of the social history of the too slow variation. -- GreenC18:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another discussion about too slow pictures
The maker of those pics (the people in them) are more marketing themselves as celebrities because they are the Wikipedia too slow five couple.
How exactly are they marketing themselves? Regardless I Don't see a need for them since they don't add much to the article. In fact, a lot of the pictures in this article should just be removed. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"commercial purposes" what? If you want to link to his/her website where he/she is marketing themselves with these pictures that would be something. Based on the Input mag investigative report, no one even knew who these people were until a few months ago, when they gave the interview. That single interview in an obscure magazine is not "marketing themselves", they were approached by the media not the other way around. The pictures are effective at demonstrating the too slow variation as it accurately conveys not only the physical motion but emotional element which is best seen. -- GreenC17:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but I feel that the prose describes it pretty well. Right now, on the page there are 8 files that are showing a high five. At most we should really only need one image depicting a high five, the too slow images (even though I Feel that those are unecessary), and possibly the "air five". I don't see how the baseball image and the video help convey the concept of a "high five" better than just the one image and the prose. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654517:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prose describes it well to someone maybe already familiar, but they help illustrate the aspects of the practical joke to someone who may not be familiar with it. It is a silly thing that we're taking seriously here, and there's no reason to remove the photos just because they're kind of goofy. As a well-known variant, it's important to distinguish it from a traditional direct non-practical joke high five. JesseRafe (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The video shows 5 (!) different variations in action. We have had people here from other countries that never heard of the high five before, they have no clue about ever seeing it done before, under what context or who does it or why. The sport pictures is its origin (not that picture but close). The top army picture is fine for an infobox-style first look. The wifi picture is useful to understand the variation. -- GreenC17:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As did I. But then consider it's an American phenomenon, and say you are a teenager in a slum Lusaka (Zambia), illiterate and born to farmers, with no education or much exposure to the outside world, then you get internet access for the first time with a cell phone and you start seeing this thing mentioned and wonder what it is. Consider there are billions of people in the world without Internet access at all or even access to reliable electricity. I think we would be surprised by how many people never heard of the high five only because it's so ubiquitous in our culture. (English is the common language of Zambia). It's like those IQ tests that are actually testing cultural background knowledge and not raw IQ. -- GreenC19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finger guns
Why is the insider article being used as a source for what is referenced in the article?
I ended up here because of the high five couple doing an AMA on reddit as the high five couple. And I have to say it is really weird to see them high fiving on an article on wikipedia, talking about it in the media. The other comments here about is it necessary for them to be IN the article seem relevant. It isn't like they are selling pics of themselves elsewhere. But it does seem like they used wikipedia to get a little a bit of fame and to post things on youtube or wherever as "the high five couple"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.157.32 (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures were originally added in 2010, so it's unlikely that they uploaded those pics in order to get a bit of fame 12 years later. From what I understand, Input Mag approached them about the photos, so it does not seem like they themselves used Wikipedia for promotional purposes. If they choose to take advantage of that fame now, it doesn't reflect on the Wikipedia article. ...discospinstertalk16:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add.. we often see users who contribute to Wikipedia become "famous". They even end up with articles written about themselves, because of their contributions to Wikipedia. See Category:Wikipedia people. This doesn't even come close, in terms of level of fame, number of sources, and an article about the couple. What concerns me is this continuous drumbeat that they used Wikipedia to become famous. That's clearly incorrect and bad faith, bordering on a personal attack. It looks like sour grapes. -- GreenC01:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
