Talk:OK gesture

OK gesture has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 7, 2019. (Reviewed version).

A fact from OK gesture appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 February 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the OK gesture (pictured) can stand for the evil eye, the letter F, the number 9, the rising and setting of the sun, or to signal that a scuba diver is safe? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/OK (gesture).

A fact from OK gesture appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 March 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the OK gesture (pictured) can stand for the evil eye, the letter F, the number 9, the rising and setting of the sun, or to signal that a scuba diver is safe? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/OK (gesture).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Deaf This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.DeafWikipedia:WikiProject DeafTemplate:WikiProject Deafdeaf articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is the discussion of the "okay gesture" under A-OK?. Perhaps title the article "OK (hand gesture)". There doesn't seem to be any basis for calling the gesture "A-OK" and not simply okay.

A-Ok as an article would be better applied to the astronaut usage of the 60's (see the Shorty Powers discussion below) Feldercarb (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the article's name has long since changed, but I thought I'd clarify past editors' reasons here:

• When spoken, "OK" means "just OK, neither good nor bad." Consider the expression, "The food was OK," which implies that it wasn't great, but not horrible either.
• "A-OK" means good, great, terrific, fantastic, etc.

The gesture has the connotation of the latter; using the gesture doesn't mean "things are so-so," it means things are "A-OK—all good." Morganfitzp (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that said the gesture is commonly positive in western countries was too vague. Most people would include southern and eastern Europe as part of "The West" and many would also include Brazil. Setting up an opposition between "The West" and "The Rest" isn't very useful. Interlingua ^{talk email} 02:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been amended in the article. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sign has no offensive meaning in Spain, nor in southern France or Portugal, AFAIK. Maybe this phrase is just inaccurate. Also, the linked "marica" article has nothing to do with the proposed meaning (faggot). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.163.50.211 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sources for my addition (all German): http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/dokument/dokument.html?id=40351323&top=SPIEGEL http://www.an-online.de/sixcms/detail.php?template=an_detail&id=376501&_wo=Auto http://www.zorno.de/marketinggalerie/bilder/missverstaendliche-bedeutungen.html There are several cases of drivers who were fined for showing this gesture. Didn't find any particular cases online yet. If necessary I can look more thoroughly. bossel (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on where in Germany you are. In the northern part the meaning is "OK", in Bavaria the meaning is "asshole". --Georg4512 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was snipped from an spam image cropping the spam link, but it's still a terrible picture (blur/shadow/glare). NTK 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it may not be professional quality, but you could do more than just complain about it. You're not helping anything. --Cheeser1 01:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a hand I would do it. 205.228.104.142 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

at least in switzerland, germany, netherland I think it can also mean "excellent" or "perfect" ... what about that?

If you have a source, you may add such information. I think it generally indicates "this is okay, good, positive, etc." "Excellent" or "perfect" seem to fall into that general idea. -Cheeser1 13:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often is this thing used? ForeignerFromTheEast 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty often though, it's like "hey there!". It's mostly used by patriots (and of course, nationalists), never by people with no national consciousness. Do you have to remove everything that has something Macedonian in it? Why don't you just leave it alone? And do you have to call it "ridiculous"?!? That word is offensive dude! This whole article is unsourced, do you see any sources provided for anything?! How do you expect me to prove that we (the Macedonians) use this salutation? We just do it, OK? I agree that the usage in Pirin and Aegean Macedonia SHOULD be sourced, since it's a bit controversial, but the info about its meaning is just fine and doesn't need any sources. The O-shape (the thumb and the index) are the Sun and the other three fingers are the three parts which the Macedonians consider parts of ethnic Macedonia. I'll remove the info about the usage in Greece and Bulgaria, but I don't see anything wrong in the explanation of its meaning. I hope you agree. Ahh... You don't? Why is that? iNkubusse^? 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why you don't like the explanation (about the meaning of the fingers). And what do you expect me to do in order to prove that it's used by some ethnic Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria as well? iNkubusse^? 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source is what you need. You can't just write what you think about the use of this symbol. Such extensive explanation/analysis of its use requires a source. --Cheeser1 23:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know about the "reliable sources", but what do you think would be reliable enough for this kind of info? The gesture is simply used, and the only possible way for you to believe what it means is to come here and see :) I mean, if you think of anything I can do, please advise me. iNkubusse^? —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is how I see it used" is anecdotal personal experience - not a reliable source (original research, actually). --Cheeser1 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that "While the gesture is positive in some countries, in certain parts of middle and southern Europe the gesture is considered offensive". Also, "In Japan it can also mean "0" or "money."". Why don't you need original research and reliable sources for those statements?! I really, really don't see the difference! Please explain to me, I can't understand! Why don't you just remove all the info that's unsourced (i.e. the whole article)?! I'll try to find some newspaper articles, but please tell me the difference between the usage in Macedonia and the usage in (e.g.) Japan! iNkubusse^? 01:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make a long story short, you have made questionable contributions in the past, which have raised suspicion in this case. ForeignerFromTheEast 02:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the problem? Than I'm supposed to withdraw from Wikipedia whenever I encounter you or any of your buddies? Hmm... iNkubusse^? 09:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some pictures, unfortunately they are all in the form of images, are they still reliable enough? [1], [2] (Mostly Serbian three-finger salutes, but one A-ok is visible on the right) [3]. There are more but I cannot find the links. Frightner 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.246.37 (talk) [reply]

Pictures aren't usually considered reliable sources, especially when we don't know where they came from or what they're pictures of. Articles (news or academic) are generally what we need. --Cheeser1 15:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not see a flag of the Republic of Macedonia in each and every one of the images? The first image is from the BBC website (an article on the anti-Albanian riot in Skopje), the second from Encarta MSN Encyclopedoa and the 3rd is a scan from a newspaper. There you have it, images from news and academics containing the flag of Macedonia, pretty much all the proof you need.

These aren't sources about this gesture or its use, and even if they were, you didn't give us a BBC article or an Encarta article (although we tend not to use other encyclopedias as sources). You gave us photobucket. That's not a source. --Cheeser1 09:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this picture represents an advertisement of a Macedonian beer brand (see the logo in the upper right corner, it derives from "Скопско пиво" in Macedonian, see article Heineken brands, section about Skopsko pivo), therefore the A-ok sign could be interpreted in quite different direction. The argument appears irrelevant. - Vulgarian 13:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A decade after the above discussion, I went and searched widely for a reliable source (e.g., an article in a newspaper or magazine) on this gesture as one rallying for a United Macedonia. After many hours, I came up empty-handed. Morganfitzp (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Just found a credible reference. The United Macedonia Salute is now back in this article. Morganfitzp (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Om page 139 of "Flight, My Life in Mission Control", Chris Kraft asserts that Mercury Public Affairs Officer (PAO) Shorty Powers of NASA invented A-OK in describing how the flight of Alan Shepard's Freedom 7 was progressing. That space flight was the first to put an American astronaut in space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.78.190 (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Goebel also mentions this here, although he doesn't go so far as to attribute Shorty with inventing the phrase. The quote is (with reference to the successful completion of Shepard's Freedom 7 flight) "FREEDOM 7 reached the top of its arc and reentered the atmosphere, inflicting twelve gees on its passenger. The capsule deployed its parachute and splashed down into the Atlantic, 490 kilometers (304 miles) downrange from the launch site. Shepard was plucked out of the ocean by a Marine Corps helicopter, and FREEDOM 7 was recovered as well. Shorty Powers announced to the public that everything had been "A-OK". Shepard himself had never actually used that particular phrase, but it would become, somewhat to his annoyance, a buzzword of the early years of the space race." Presumably it's military jargon. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And according to Wordorigins, which at least seems plausible, "the variant A-OK first appeared during NASA’s Mercury program of the 1960s. It may be a combination of A-One with OK. Tom Wolfe in The Right Stuff, however, claims that it was originally used by Shorty Powers, the "Voice of Mercury Control," in radio transmissions because the A sound cut through static better than the O." I'm sure that it wouldn't be too hard to reorder some of Wordorigin's words - just enough so that they aren't obvious copied - and voila! you've got an "etymology" section. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in contrast to ... er ... above-water diving? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.156.199 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast to ... skydiving, perhaps? :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.48.101 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any sources right now, but I have heard in multiple places that some people have used this as a "satanic" signal representing the number of the beast, 666. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.43.13 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely zero evidence for this or any related interpretation. The only sources that exist for this interpretation come from conspiracy websites and from certain evangelical blogs that talk about their interpretations of fatalistic prophecy and each of them in turn reference each other rather than reliable third parties or respected researchers. The evidence for these interpretations however (666, mark of the beast, illuminati, freemason, all-seeing eye, etc...) is completely lacking and highly dubious. To make matters worse, those who believe these unproven theories often become defensive when you tell them it is an invention and unproven and will then accuse you of being part of the larger conspiracy. The fact is these fanciful interpretations should not be mentioned at all (unless it became widespread and notable) because anyone can make a claim on a webpage but that doesn't make it valid. The web is filled with rumors masquerading as fact, some more popular than others, but most not notable enough to mention on Wikipedia. StickyWikis (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 666 connotation and other "occult" uses are currently in the article with a few citations, including a book from 1887. A valid source refuting these usages would be nice since they are not widely used. We might also compare this reputed meaning to the current debate about the gesture's usage as a white power symbol. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it merited to mention that in some places among 10-25 year olds (approx), if you make this gesture at a height below your waist and someone looks at the hole, you're "allowed" to punch them on the shoulder?

Also, the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.133.9 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Reliable sources for guidance.

Also, (The Game) which one? (if the mind game, then meh). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently this is mentioned in the article as "the circle game" with references and a link to the list of school pranks article. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently reads as follows (with no source cited):

In American Sign Language, it is the letter F, or the number 9, and when made with the thumb and forefinger parallel to the ground, means asshole.

I know only a bit of ASL, but I think the hand position is different for OK and ASSHOLE, and the hand shape for F in the manual alphabet is different (though similar). Position/orientation as well as hand shape are phonemic in ASL. In any case, a reliable source would be needed. Cnilep (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profanity in American Sign Language doesn't currently help (it says much the same thing, but without references), but that might be a place to ask. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored source for letter F in ASL (letter G in ISL/FSL). Sources abound. Please find and add. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the beginning of Ganesha (or, Ganesh) representation, OK hand gesture has been one of his main attributes. His job is balance of the universe. Think old ideas of elephants balancing the Earth, heavy loads, etc. No matter what strange weather has hit, no matter who died, the circle is whole, the hole is infinite, and radiating fingers are reverberations like waves or ripples ascending from an infinitely rotating circle of energy. Worshipers are calmed by the notion that Ganesh is on watch, the universe is being looked after, everything is turning according to schedule, everything will be fine. Ganesh is the combination of a giddy little boy's body, and a worn elephants head--one tusk broken off like the most experienced of bulls (male elephants). the regeneration symbol, if you will. "Everything is" is his mantra. This is synonymous with American ideas of acceptability in the face of tension. Acquired as a battlefield gesture, it doesn't reflect clockwork, it suggests that things are manageable, "Everything's as good as is necessary in this trench". This scenario is also seen in the iconic dancing Shiva figurine. With many arms radiating out, Shiva doesn’t walk on fire, he dances on it, relishing in the tension of destruction/creation. With his hand he gestures that everything is regenerating infinitely, coming from a hole, and emanating out in spiraling waves of energy. This life/death tension is otherwise noted in archaic icons showing the elephant god riding, sitting or dancing on his impossible mouse transport/companion. The happy tension is also depicted with a downward hand holding death (Ganesha’s own broken tusk) and an upward swung trunk or hand possessing a sweet delicacy; something taken away, something given. If there are other hands presented, like reverberations or avatars, they usually hold axes and such reiterating Ganesha’s position as “remover of obstacles” Prominent front right or left hands will alternate offering the OK gesture, and sometimes this is accompanied with a swastika stained palm reinstating the wheel of perpetual change to really ‘hit the idea home’.

The Arabic acquired numerical symbol for zero cannot be overlooked as a profound concept. While often overlooked as a lesser or diminutive concept in western culture, it is always a part of thee most significant paradoxical duality in the east. In this, dark is not "versus" light-- the two are perpetually entwined; Yin and Yang, Yoni and Lingum, etc. In the case of Ganesh, a large ring might be held with the same hand motioning the OK gesture. Like often misattributed sun worshipping idolatry, the significant aspects are the empty circle and the layers of fingers or rays projecting out from it.

Much confusion in early myth is attributed to purported culturally feeble folk tales, in the way that such creationist myths are viewed as impossibly overlapping and without a resolute beginning. Who made God in Christianity? Where did the dark rivers flow from in Ra’s Egyptian beginning? How did those turtles and elephants get placed under Earth’s globe? Who churned up the universe’s stars from dusty milk to solid buttery balls of existence? Somethingness and Nothingness are equivalent in this methodology. Relating back to Ganesh, it is not that your pangs and pleasures are not momentous and significant, it is just more that they are apart of the same adventure, along which, everything will be not without difficulty, but it will be OK. The zero is at the heart of the OK gesture. Attribute it to the annals of the arse if you please, but that dark hole is just one turn away from a womb, in any physical or metaphysical direction.

Gallant Gland (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a section on mudra. If there are any missing, provide a reference and they can be added in. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the article the sentence "In Chinese number gestures, it is the hand gesture for number three." is placed under the headline "neagative connotation". In do not see any negative with the number gesture. Should it not be neutral? -- 92.228.63.92 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being uncited, the information is incorrect. The Chinese number gesture for "3" is formed by raising the middle, ring and little finger, without forming a circle with the index finger and thumb, and normally with the palm facing towards the signer. The gesture discussed in this article is widely understood to mean "OK" in China. --106.185.39.151 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added info on it as a Chinese number gesture, along with references and alternatives. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Used in the Prisoner series with the words "Be seeing you" as a parting gesture, and a reminder that one is always under surveillance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.78.219 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "fictional uses" section is apropos for this, so I'm adding it. If anyone knows any other uses beside that of The Prisoner, please add them in or leave a note here. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:MattMauler has deleted this section, citing it as "popular references without discussion of significance/impact on culture or anything differentiating it from trivia." Before the section was blanked, it read:

"The gesture was given prominence in the 1967 British television series The Prisoner, in which a number of unnamed characters are held captive in a village.^[1] Whenever these residents take leave of each other, they do so with the phrase, "Be seeing you," accompanied by the gesture held up in front of their own eye as a reminder that despite any pretenses of freedom, they were all prisoners.^[2] The gesture is also used as a greeting in the show without the "be seeing you" phrase. The series' lead actor Patrick McGoohan stated that the show had adopted the gesture from the sign of the fish used by early Christians."^[3][4]

Any suggestions as to how one might offer more "discussion of significance/impact on culture or anything differentiating it from trivia" as per MattMauler's suggestion? Morganfitzp (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this picture, Uncle Sam is doing the gesture... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Is there a piece of writing about Uncle Sam making that gesture in the image? If so, we can add this to the article. Morganfitzp (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added a cropped version of this into the article as an item of interest...but I still want to know why Uncle Sam is making his OK gesture here. Morganfitzp (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it's it's just random factoids. No organization. Very annoying.

First and foremost: Better name. Your naming an ancient widespread gesture "A-OK" a jargony faddish term from the 1960s? Call it either the more common English label ("OK gesture") or description (Thumb index finger ring)

"AOK" phrase history should be moved to OK-word article.

First section should be history, origin, distribution of its most common meaning in Anglosphere ("OK"). This is English-language encyclopedia so I think its ok to assume thats what most readers see it as. you should start there. you doen't even say when gesture first showed up. See Desmond Morris Gestures.

separate section for all the alternate specialized meanings in Anglosphere like ASL, unicode or scuba diving.

Separate section for worldwide meanings, grouped either by positive/negative, or by culture/region. 173.53.75.228 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors and I have done a lot of this. More to come. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how common this is, but at least in Western Australia, making the "A-OK" over your nose doesn't mean "drunk", it's a vulgar way to indicate you have no idea what's being spoken about/going on (poking your nose through the hole = "fuck knows/nose")

Looked for a reference on this and couldn't find one. Post a link here if you have it. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sign stems from North American tribes,when hunting in cold weather hands become stiff,the sign was made using the thumb and little finger,it was a silent way to communicate they were still able to draw a bow or grip a spear,this sign was picked up on by interaction between the natives and early trappers and became popular in everyday life and over the years lost its original meaning,run your hand under a cold tap for 10 minutes to simulate long exposure to cold weather then try to touch the two fingers together,certain military units still use the old sign today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.117.166 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got verifiable sources for this information? A book, magazine article, or documentary? Paste them here and we can add these details to the article. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although some Americans may refer to the hand gesture as the "A-OK" sign, it is by no means universal, even in America, where it is most commonly known as simply "OK". Despite several requests for citations, the article gives no reliable evidence that the hand gesture is widely synonymous with the phrase "A-OK" as popularized by the American space program in the 1960s, rather than the more generic "OK". The hand gesture has actually been used to mean "OK" in America since at least the 1860s - a fact which the article should also mention.

I'm going to proceed with splitting, by moving the information about the phrase "A-OK" into the OK article, and renaming this article to "OK (hand gesture)". This is still somewhat American-centric, since there are many different meanings around the world, but since there is no universal name for the gesture, it seems like the best compromise. IamNotU (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been suggested a few times before (in 2008, in 2010, and in 2013, above) but hasn't come to anything, so I've gone ahead and done it.

I felt "OK (gesture)" was sufficient disambiguation (unless there a way of gesturing OK with some other body part that I don't know about) so I went with that. I've also put the AOK stuff on its own page; as it had a couple of reliable sources it might well be notable. If not, there's always AfD. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read in an article by a fairly respectable paper that this sign is made by white supremacists. The three fingers make the W(hite) and the circle represents the P(ower). I don't have any way to verify that, but the claim has been levied at all manner of suspected alt-right personalities. To be honest, it seems a little far fetched and moral panic-y. But if it's true, then it might be worth a mention in this article. 209.169.79.203 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in The Independent claims that "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) characterises the symbol as a 'racist hand sign.'"^[5] but the ADL website only seems to mention a "two-handed handsign"^[6] so I doubt the claim that this gesture is being used as a white supremacy symbol. BradleyShaw (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's effectively a meme. /pol/ intentionally tried to convince the media that the OK gesture is a sign for white power, even though the sign has no such meaning. It's exactly how the Pepe meme became associated with the alt-right, and people are falling for it, because it gives them a target. It's absolutely silly, because of how well known this symbol is. Next they're probably going to convince everyone that a Thumbs Up symbol is a white supremacist symbol. Here's a 4chan archive of a relevant thread from February. Just because a writer on The Independent was fooled, doesn't make it true. Ragef33 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this may have some place on this page, but care definitely needs to be taken. It should be made clear just how it originated, that it was basically a manner of trolling by people who wanted to make fun of the Left. I say care needs to be made so that it can be made clear that it isn't and hasn't been used in this way, that the claims to this are based on deliberate fabrications. That said, considering that it's already spreading from big reporters it might not hurt to note it.98.197.193.213 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's origins as a racist signal were a joke, it has grown in usage significantly, specifically in anti antifa protests. I read somewhere that it originated as an ironic protest against censorship, but now it is used widely and unironically. I agree that care needs to be taken when adding to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.30 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Where is there any proof that it is now being used unironically? Also, why would it being used at anti-antifa ralleys make it racist?[reply]

I'd say it would be a smart idea to adjust the final section of this article concerning the 4 Chan hoax meaning of the symbol so as to not render them or their silly shenanigans any undue credence. The ADL itself^[7] recognizes that the OK sign, a gesture that's been used worldwide since the ancient times, has not suddenly devolved into some kind of white supremacist hate gesture. I would like to put forward an edit to the article so that it doesn't spread false information (which is currently poorly cited anyways), but references the 4 Chan hoax directly and names it as such. If there are instances where it has actually been used to represent a white power hand gesture, those instances should be referenced, not simply alleged. I may borrow Ragef33's archival reference for the edit (thanks in advance!). Riftcast (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised this section of the article with more information concerning the 4Chan hoax. I would like to find and add more notable references to media outlets who reported on the gesture being a white supremacist hand-sign. If you know of any, please add them to this section. Riftcast (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2018

Overall I think that this section is WP:UNDUE not because it needs to be cut, but because the other sections need expanding. Links between the gesture and the alt-right are newly fabricated, whereas the gesture has meant "OK" for far longer and appeared as a number of mudras for far longer than that. Our project as editors is to give these legacy sections the due that this play-by-play section has been given in light of recent events. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting and seemingly well-researched article about the history of the OK sign as a white power symbol on Medium. According to the article, the sign is used by the alt-right, predating the 4chan hoax. John M Baker (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because articles on Medium are written by bloggers, they cannot be used as citable sources for Wikipedia articles. But if a blogger provides references in their post, then those might be citable. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

medical usage:OK sign for testing anterior interosseous nerve, a nerve in forearm supplying deep flexor muscles. Can this be added to the article? -- 15:51, 19 April 2018‎ 103.219.46.162

Of course, provided that there are references out there to back it up. Got some? Morganfitzp (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: "Ah! Just found something. Adding new section to the article." Morganfitzp (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this WP:UNDUE? It's an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory from the depths of the internet with major BLP issues, especially when it concerns a Mexican Jewish woman Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. These are "as-it-happens" additions to this article that may blow up or may blow over. In five years this section might just say, "In the late 2010s bloggers began to spread rumors that the gesture was a white power sign. These rumors appeared in the news a few times and then eventually died out." Or the sign could go the same way as the swastika. Only history, and those who make it, shall reveal. Morganfitzp (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the references but rephrased it as the fact that people on the Internet believe this, rather than the ins-and-outs of who she is and the discussion of her "intent". There is space for discussing slanderous crank theories on Wikipedia (see Pizzagate conspiracy theory) but this was written in a way that gave far too much credential to the theory. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the info about Bash and the Twitter allegations. If we're going to list every newsworthy incident involving the gesture – not that we should – then Bash's case seems to have been the first. I've stressed that the allegation was false and that Bash is Jewish and Mexican-American. But those facts alone don't make it WP:UNDUE if multiple mainstream sources have covered it, which they have. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it's time for the white power portion of this page to become its own article. Let that be the place where edit warring can happen and this can just be an overview about a simple shape that people make with their hands. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This GA review has passed --DannyS712 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:OK (gesture)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm going to be doing this review. Looking forward to it!

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 00:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Notes

[edit]

•  Done OK (gesture)#As white power symbol has a CN tag
•  Done refs 6, 51, and 55 have errors
•  Done Layout: Why are "Fingerspelling", "Sign languages", and "Counting" different sections. The seem to cover different angles of the same topic - sign languages
•  Done Please add a reference to the specific claim at the end of the first paragraph in the "underwater diving" section
•  Done ...where the single-handed gesture takes on a different meaning. - what is the other meaning?

Its explained in the paragraph below, but its confusing until you finish reading that. Can this be rephrased?

•  Done It was added to Unicode in 2010 under the name “Face With OK Gesture” (U+1F646 "🙆") and became part of Emoji 1.0 in 2015. it meaning the single-handed or the full-body gesture?
•  Done The first sentence of OK (gesture)#As white power symbol has 2 WP:SOB issues - white supremacist meme culture & message board 4chan
•  Done can we have more than just the one reference for the "Political affiliations" paragraph - its pretty long, and pretty specific
•  Done Now ref 58 has an error
•  Done errors in refs 66 - 69
•  Done can I suggest combining the "'Circle Game' prank" section into the popular culture section, given how short it is on its own?
•  Done Hopefully 1 last thing: what is the source for this edit?
•  Done see also section

Discussion

[edit]

• Please note here when you have fixed the issues noted above, and once I confirm that I will strike them. Please do not just remove them yourself. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DannyS712. I have done the following:

• • Fixed three refs that had errors
  • Rearranged "Sign languages" to be a separate section under which "Fingerspelling" and "Counting"are now subsections
  • Added a ref to the specific claim at the end of the first paragraph in the "underwater diving" section
  • Rephrased wording regarding various gestures in Japan
  • Specified which Unicode symbol was added in 2010
  • Remedied WP:SOB issues in the white supremacy section
  • Found and added more refs for the "Political affiliations" paragraph

I did not remedy the CN tag in the white power section. Another editor did this. Morganfitzp (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Fixed ref 58. Also added in a popular culture appearance of note for your review. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Morganfitzp: Please see updated notes above --DannyS712 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Fixed ref formatting errors for The Prisoner. Moved th circle game into the pop culture section, as suggested. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Morganfitzp: 1 last thing. See above --DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: I pulled more info from Ref #40 for the section about ecclesiastical uses to make that paragraph as substantial as the two following it. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Morganfitzp: Okay then. 1 last tiny thing - can the "see also" section have more than 1 link? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: I've thought on this a bit. Most everything that could be added to "see also" is listed on the Gestures template at the bottom of the page, and re-listing too many here would be excessive. The exception was Thumb signal as the most obvious corollary to the OK gesture because it has synonymous positive and negative meanings, as well as being a mudra. The only other page I think appropriate for inclusion is the disambiguation page at Three-finger salute, which lists OK and its manual relations that bear nationalist, vulgar, and/or pop culture applications similar to the OK. Adding now. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Morganfitzp: Maybe OK? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Seemed redundant because OK/okay is Wikilinked in the articles lede. But I'm happy to oblige. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Morganfitzp: Thanks. And with that, I am happy to announce that this nomination has passed, and that OK (gesture) has become a good article. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Were this any other article, I'd exclaim, "Woohoo! Yes!" here, but given its subject, I must simply say, "OK" and thank you for your collaboration by joining the tips of my thumb and forefinger and extending the remaining three fingers away from my palm: 👌 Morganfitzp (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Morganfitzp: To you too --DannyS712 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article should mention that the title of a popular Indian film was this symbol: Super (2010 Indian film). 117.198.120.49 (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'll get to work on that soon. Morganfitzp (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this, as well as a section about corporations that use the gesture/mudra in their logos. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I was taught to dive in 1982 by an internationally certified trainer, we were taught to flash the OK signal very crisply - totally unlike the sloppy photo. The three fingers are to be straight and tight together. If indeed this is now taken by some as a white power sign because the three fingers represent a 'W', that's another reason for executing the sign accurately.Cross Reference (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Reference: Cool. The Wikimedia Commons have many images of divers displaying the sign. Want to pick a better one for use in this article? I agree that the one currently here is pretty blasé. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that the word "hoax" should be removed or replaced by something else in this subheadline and the following paragraph. It implies that the association of the gesture with white supremacy is a falsehood, which is no longer true. The gesture now represents white supremacy in many contexts and is being used and understood as such, both ironically and unironically. The intentions of those who deliberately associated the gesture with white power are irrelevant for its current status as a symbol. It is not a "hoax" by definition, because the symbolism is real and not a falsehood. 2A02:908:D84:4560:78B6:7A79:2938:2A2B (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)A[reply]

It originated as an attempt at trolling, and was a hoax then... AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might have been intended to be a hoax by those who deliberately associated the gesture with white power, but it is not. They might not have known, that creating a symbol "as a hoax" is just creating a symbol, since the association with white power becomes reality in the process. Regardless of the origin and semantics, the subheadline should stay this way (with "hoax" removed), because it could be potentially misleading about the current status of the gesture as a symbol for white power otherwise. Using "hoax" in the subheadline could be understood as implying that the association with white power is a falsehood, which is obviously not the case anymore. I don't think I have to elaborate on the potential harm of such a misunderstanding and the paragraph explicitly states that it originated as a trolling gesture already. 2A02:908:D84:4560:184C:8BB:2C44:49BB (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)A[reply]

You need to know that there's something very, very wrong with your logic.

What part do you have trouble understanding? I am sure people would help you out by explaining it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:D81:2C60:7934:CDFB:9D91:6D25 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Beseeingyou.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2017, users on the message-board site 4chan aimed to convince the media that the OK gesture, or the upside-down version of it, was being used as a white power movement symbol.

I am not sure if this is completely correct. Usage of the okay sign as a hate symbol was already documented by Media Matters two weeks before the cited 4chan post. [7] This could be added to the list of people who are accused of showing the okay sign in support of white-supremacist ideology. But then again, the aforementioned sentence would be wrong, as 4chan users were not trying to convince the media of the OK gesture being a hate symbol, but rather trying to convince the media that they are just making it up. A double bluff, so to speak. Would this constitute original research? If yes, I could only find a post on medium.com as a backup source yet. [8]

A lot of people mistakenly think that the alt-right use of the gesture originated with this 4chan hoax. But by the time this post was made in February 2017, the OK sign was well established as a far-right meme. The 4chan post is therefore evidence not of the creation of a hoax ex nihilo, but an instance of obfuscation, generating confusion over the origins of a preexisting phenomenon.

--2A04:4540:820D:EF00:77EB:188B:35FF:6171 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another 4chan user. Sigh. No, https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ok-symbol-%F0%9F%91%8C#fn12 2A00:1370:812C:DE1A:15E2:FAB5:7B92:CA9C (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just like in the UK an index and a middle finger with the palm facing front means number 2, but with the palm facing back means a completely different thing, this ok gesture with the palm facing back does not mean ok. In Venezuela, for example, it's an offensive homophobic gesture.

I'm really surprised that the enjosi has been wrong for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.195.122.15 (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the emoji facing backwards? It is wrong and I cannot understand why. As you can see by the wikipedia entry itself, the ok sign is the other way around. with the extended fingers facing the receptor.

Is there an explanation for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcongosto (talk • contribs) 10:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i boldly removed Cernovich from the list of white power examples. his article only describes him as a male supremacist (or what i learned in school as "chavinism") so i removed him from the list. i can not find enough material to support removal of the rest of the list. .usarnamechoice (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

greetings: Doug Weller asked that i come and defend one of the changes made yesterday. the prose describes a quote made by ADL on May 1, 2017. the ADL said one thing on that date, then later changed their minds and redirected the link to a new quote, made later. here is the material i replaced. notice the date of May 1, 2017

{{blockquote |Has the simple thumb-and-forefinger 'OK' hand gesture become a common white supremacist hand sign?  Not quite, but it has become a popular gesture used by people across several segments of the right and far right—including some actual white supremacists—who generally use it to trigger reactions. [...] Only if the gesture occurs in context with other clear indicators of white supremacy can one draw that conclusion.<ref name="ADL OK">{{cite web |url=https://www.adl.org/blog/how-the-ok-symbol-became-a-popular-trolling-gesture |title=How the 'OK' Symbol Became a Popular Trolling Gesture |date=1 May 2017 |publisher=Anti-Defamation League}}</ref>}}

and here is the material with which i replaced the above text:

{{blockquote |Has the simple thumb-and-forefinger “OK” hand gesture become a white supremacist hand sign? Well, no, it hasn’t, but you are likely to hear just the opposite from social media, thanks to the latest hoax from members of notorious website 4chan.<ref name="ADL OK">{{cite web |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170615223626/https://www.adl.org/blog/no-the-ok-gesture-is-not-a-hate-symbol |title=No, the "OK" Gesture Is Not a Hate Symbol |date=1 May 2017 |publisher=Anti-Defamation League |accessdate=June 15, 2017}}</ref>}}

notice the use of an Wayback link, and the use of the accessdate parameter, which i now see wasn't used correctly. Doug Weller claims to have clicked the link and confirmed that i vandalized the article but he apparently did not click the Wayback link i included in order to show exactly what the ADL said on May 1, 2017. the text as i found it was alleged to be from that date, but a quick look at that Wayback link shows they said one thing on May 1, 2017 and changed it to a different statement later. i also notice that Doug Weller did not assume good faith in his edit summary, accusing me of vandalism and claiming, of the quotation, that i seemed to have "made up the new one":

(Undid revision 1093803835 by .usarnamechoice never change quotations, I checked and the earlier version is correct, you seem to have made up the new one, if I'm wrong you can demonstrate it on the talk page)

i would respectfully ask others to simply assume good faith, click the link, and then compare before casting aspersions. :^) .usarnamechoice (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@.usarnamechoiceAnd on your talk page I said it looks like vandalism. I didn’t confirm anything and suggested you explain yourself here, and I would not have done that if I hadn’t thought you might have an explanation. Ironically neither link reflects the current version here. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is, i can clear my talkpage but those edit summaries are rather durable and it's insulting imo. .usarnamechoice (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s why it’s so important to be as clear as possible if you’re going to change a quote. But you could use the current article to provide a new quote explaining that it’s a third version and the other quotes came from previous versions. Bad that it was possible to find both old ones. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

id rather leave that to someone more experienced than me. i read through the notices and its too controversial and too much of a hassle so i will pass for now, but i did go ahead and add the template for disputed statements and im sure someone will come along to fix it. :^) .usarnamechoice (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

alright, i dont see an actual objection to tthe text, only my poor use of an edit summary. i have restored the correct quote as written by the ADL "on May 1, 2017" and removed the "dubious-discuss" template, along with a nice descriptive edit summary. .usarnamechoice (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We simply cannot use a source that the ADL has deleted from their website and replaced with a new page. By the way, I should have been clear, I meant use an edit summary explaining the situation. We wouldn't do that in the article. I still have to fix another use of the old version. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i wish you would have stated this from the outset. >:( .usarnamechoice (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@.usarnamechoiceI said "But you could use the current article to provide a new quote". I thought that was clear, I guess it wasn't. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it would be nice if you pointed me to whatever page states this rule about never using Wayback when a "reliable source" such as the ADL becomes slippery on something like this. .usarnamechoice (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@.usarnamechoice Isn't it obvious that if a website has deleted a page and put up a revised one we shouldn't use it? You can always ask at WP:RSN. Of course, that would allow us to use formally retracted material, perhaps because it was inaccurate. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no, it isn't obvious to me, especially when the article text was false due to the underhanded way the ADL changed it without a 'formal retraction'. it managed to trick the people who wrote this article into having a falsehood linger on Wikipedia, probably for years. in any event, as expected, this material is far too controversial for me to edit. .usarnamechoice (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@.usarnamechoice underhanded? That's a wild accusation and I suggest your retract it. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes the "Ok Hand Sign (U+1F44C 👌)" emoji but makes no mention of the "Face With OK Gesture (U+1F646 🙆)" emoji. I'm confused by the latter. Does anyone have a reference for why the unicode committee chose making a circle with the arms as an "OK Gesture"? Does this mean OK in some cultures? Quantum7 20:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]