Talk:OK gesture

message: 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)
replies: text: This has since been amended in the article. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Western" or "Some" Countries 

message: 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)
thread_title:  certain parts of middle and southern Europe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If I had a hand I would do it. 205.228.104.142 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone with a camera and a hand please replace this image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  excellent? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Shorty Powers 

message: in contrast to ... er ... above-water diving?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.156.199 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In contrast to ... skydiving, perhaps? :p  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.48.101 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  underwater diving 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  666 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  American Sign Language 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  INDIA; Ganesh and “0” 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Negative connotation 

message: In this picture, Uncle Sam is doing the gesture... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 1900 depiction

message: 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)
replies: text: Other editors and I have done a lot of this. More to come. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize Article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Negative - "I Don't Know" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A-ok 

message: 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)
replies: text: Once again: "Ah! Just found something. Adding new section to the article." Morganfitzp (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  medical usage:OK sign for testing anterior interosseous nerve 

message: 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)
replies: text: Awesome! I'll get to work on that soon.  Morganfitzp (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Film 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Use by SCUBA divers

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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.  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. 
--2A04:4540:820D:EF00:77EB:188B:35FF:6171 (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear involvement of 4chan in usage as a hate symbol 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect emoji has a completely different meaning in some countries. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is this emoji backwards? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cernovich 

message: greetings:  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

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

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)
replies: text: @.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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: i wish you would have stated this from the outset. >:( .usarnamechoice (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @.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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @.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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @.usarnamechoice underhanded? That's a wild accusation and I suggest your retract it. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 1, 2017 ADL quote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  “Face With OK Gesture” (U+1F646 "🙆") emoji