Talk:High five

~~Reference to "progressive high-five in 1894 newspaper"~~

HELP - I found a reference in an Ogden, Utah newspaper, specifically The Standard, Sunday, March 25, 1894, page 1. In the article which described a surprise party being held for a gentleman, one sentence read "Progressive high-five was the order of the evening". I'm curious, did that mean the same thing then as now? Cfdc49 (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the best article on this website. Just came by to say that, I'm sure it means nothing to you awesomely cool people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.93.52 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

To the people who demonstrated the "too slow." Utmost respect! OhDoTell (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, that's the kind of stuff other encyclopedias just can't do :) Dylan Stafne (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Self Five

Wait a minute... That "Self Five" section has got to be a joke, right? 76.100.74.247 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

waksi?

what do you mean by that?

ldnwds on Oct. 29, 2008, 12:11 MET

Silvers

Is there a way to recover the now deleted links to Phil Silvers and Dean Martin using the high five? I must say that I am surprised that actual historic (video files) examples are being deleted. What gives? Also the Burke example is important because it helped popularize the gesture. Each of these examples were sourced, with date and location provided, yet they were deleted. Oddly, a reference to NASA (while interesting) remains. I'll check with NASA on that. Can someone restore the lost information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.86.158 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The motion of the High-Five is you put your Hand up then you put all five fingers up and you slap some ones hand that has his/her hand up high and five fingers up like yours.

What is the source on all this Glenn Burke stuff? It seems like it would be very hard to verify that this was the first ever high five in baseball. I think that one guy on outsports.com wrote about Burke and needed a good intro for his story. High fives have obviously been around for longer than this and the "first high five in baseball" seems like it is about as important and relevant as the first high five in accounting. I'm removing it from the page until someone comes up with a more verifiable source for it than outsports.com

I'm moving the children's game stuff here, in case someone wants to find a place for it. --Beefnut 21:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article from the 1981 Dodger Yearkbook:

http://www.thebookpimp.com/dodgers/pageone.htm Nobaddude (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)link is dead

And a quote:

The Dodgers and their fans are ecstatic as Baker tours the bases behind his three teammates, but the ultimate expression of the moment doesn't come until Dusty approaches the dugout.

Out jumps outfielder Glenn Burke, the man who has kept his team loose and laughing all season with his cassette player, his dancing, his unique clubhouse manner.

Burke winds up as Baker nears the dugout steps and Dusty does the same. Their right arms extend to the skies, their hands meet in a resounding slap that defines perfectly the impact of this moment.

"That's right," Dusty Baker says, smiling handsomely with the recollection of the magic moment. "That was it. The first 'High Five.' "

That seems to be the source of the matter, and at the very least worth mentioning. ALbino 22:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

In one popular children's game, variations of high fives are enumerated by the rhyme, "up high, to the side, down low, too slow!" When the "too slow" is recited the hand is withdrawn causing the other person to miss the slap.

Another variation is "in space". The "up high, in the middle, down low," is repeated similar to the first variation, but the hand is not pulled away on "down low." Instead, the person takes advantage of the other's bewilderment, and continues with "in space." When the other person strikes the hand "in space" (above "up high"), the first person retalites by saying "In your face!" and hitting the other person in the face.

---

Whoever created this page is a comedic genius. And that chick is super fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.49.141 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

High five/low five

The paragraph, as it was originally written, fused the "high five" (which was not developed during the 80's) and the standard "low five" ("Gimme five") which had been popular for many years before, and probably came from the world of jazz musicians ("Gimme some skin"). The high five was not, as stated, popular in the 60's, it essentially didn't exist yet -- the apparent "high five" in 'The Producers' was completely coincidental, as it was a five coming off a Nazi "Heil Hitler" salute. I'm making changes accordingly. 12.10.219.160 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A brief paragraph has been added, regarding another likely origin of the high five/low five. I agree with the above-user who stated that the high five/low five is in large part, attributable to early jazz musicians. Indeed, in the "Jazz Singer" (1927), Al Jolson distinctly gives another character the low five, which in my opinion, clears up any confusion regarding the verifiability of the high five/low five pre-dating the 1960's. 12.10.219.160 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of The Producers, but the rest of your argument regarding the high fives origin has no citations and is based solely on your opinion. So far the only two theories about the High Five origin on this entry are the Glen Burke info and the Mont Sleets info, which is linked to the citation. I'm cleaning up anything that isn't verifiable.

Indeed, the Dean Martin / Louis Armstrong link is quite verifiable, and dates to the mid-1960s "Dean Martin Show". Anyone can purchase this on DVD, and the Dean Martin estate retains ownership rights to all the shows. Same verification is able to be seen with Jolson in "The Jazz Singer". 12.10.219.160 (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

It would be both encyclopedic and hilarious if somebody could take a picture exchanging a high five. Taco325i 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Toasterb 05:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the man in the high five picture is from Burlington, MA. The picture was added before the Burlington, MA segment of the article was added... strangeToasterb 03:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I added some examples of the variations.Bgubitz (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You rock. I love you so much.24.182.179.40 (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

popularity and usage

probably needed is a small article on the popular use of the high five... just an idea, but you would be shocked at how popular the high five is here in the Philippines. I hadn't seen a high five done outside of sporting events, in anything other than jest in North America since about 1989. I came to the Philippines four years ago, and everyone is high fiving each other.Woknblues (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Stupidly Irrelevant Information

Again, I'm stuck removing blatantly ridiculous information from articles. The following was posted on this article, unfounded and exceedingly colloquial:

"It originated in Powell, Ohio due to a few young men who tried it and decided it was awesome."

If anyone believes this information should be in an encyclopaedia, please provide good reason here! Russthomas1515 (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

中国为什么打不开！！！！！！！ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.228.75.6 (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC) I don't know "why China can't open" -- Nobaddude (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As if somehow that's more ridiculous than an encyclopedia containing an article about "High Fives" at all, Poindexter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.208.246 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Virtual High Five

The link to the Virtual High Five appears to be defunct. Does anyone know if it has been moved, or has it been taken down permanently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.165.176 (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

     http://www.ihighfive.com/

(Sorry if I mess-up, first time with Wikipedia.) There's some odd information in the "In popular culture" . It talks about TV and whatnot, and then out of nowhere, starts going on about something called "the squid". It then continues on aboutpopular culture. It reads like someone just threw some info on the page. WaverlyThrough (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

The term "high five" does not need to be capitalized every time it appears in the article — only if it's part of an external link title. In some cases, replacing a small f with a capital F breaks the URL (compare http://www.brittofied.com/htm/gimmeFiveproject/home.htm to http://www.brittofied.com/htm/gimmefiveproject/home.htm).

Similarly, the section heading titles do not require to have every word capitalized (see Manual of Style). ... discospinster _talk 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance12.10.219.160 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

P. O. B.

Quote: While the exact origin of the high five remains unknown, its existence could be at the sesqui-centennial level, as it was once thought to be referenced by the "salutation of slapping palms" in poet and playwright Daniel Kamenetz's 1850 play, Among Combatants — this, however, cannot be independently verified or validated, as no copy of that writing currently exists. Indeed, the playwright's existence itself cannot be validated.

I have removed this. You don't have to thank me. Maikel (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well done!12.10.219.160 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation really needed?

Quote from page:

"The usual and ordinary five fingers of the human hand equal "five" in number[citation needed]"

Is this really under any sort of dispute? TheDarkFlame (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin dive and squid?

Some aquatically themed variants missing here. 1. The "High Five, dolphin dive" variant of the "too slow". Starts with a high five, and as the recipient moves in, the initiator's hand swoops down in a graceful swoopy thing as he/she says "Dolphin Dive". 2. "Squid" gets a mention in the discussion page here, not on the main page, which is a surprising omission. Same premise, but the initiator retracts the hand with the fingers bunched together, emulating a squid. Accompanied by the gentle call of "squid".

122.57.75.125 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, dubious entries

This article is not meant to mention every single variant of a high five that someone and his friends have come up with. ... discospinster _talk 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And the spock high five is a real thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.76.250 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to the Spock comment:

Of Course the Spock Five is real. See: http://everything2.com/title/Spock+Five Shouldn't all non-standard colored Canadian bills be listed on the High Five entry? I see no reason why they shouldn't. And I agree with discospinner that real high fives should not be listed on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.241.177 (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Reply to the Spock Comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.192.76.250 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But everyone knows the slide trumps the spock in terms of high five hierarchy.

Unsourced, unencyclopedic

All of the unsourced "high fives" have been removed. They should not be re-added unless there is a reliable source that acknowledges their existence. (Note that a video of two people performing a high five variation is not considered a reliable source.) ... discospinster _talk 02:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What's it called?

Okay, it became popular during the very, very early 1970s, if not earlier. Kids did it first. One person holds his hands out, palms up, and the second person slaps them, then turns palms up, and the first person turns palms down and slaps the second person's hands. What is this called? GBC (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I still hope someone who knows will answer this for me! GBC (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

red hands. At least that's what it's called in the sims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.223.123 (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"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)

This is the greatest article on Wikipedia

The pictures are hilarious. I'm glad Wiki allows some form of comedy sometimes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.55.123 (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Were you all raised in caves?

I was looking at the "In popular culture" section, and reached the only point so far in my life where I can accurately say that I am flabbergasted. What slobbering halfwit has omitted the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' quadruple Cowabunga high-five?