Talk:Types of gestures

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Types of gestures redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Text and/or other creative content from Hand gesture was copied or moved into Types of gestures with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Types of gestures was copied or moved into List of gestures with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The Shave

In several latin countries (France in particular), people use the "shave" to indicate something boring. One folds all five fingers onto the palm of one hand and rubs back and forth the jaw line (on either the left or the right side of the face depending upon whether the left or the right hand is clenched) with the intermediate phalanxes as if imitating a shaving motion. The "shave" comes from the fact that in French the verb "raser" (to shave) means also "to bore". The shave is often seen in classrooms and most teachers take great offense in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.30.117 (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ConstantineCoin.jpg

Image:ConstantineCoin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kozakiewicz gesture.jpg

The image Image:Kozakiewicz gesture.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerking one's head

A gal sees someone, and they jerk their head down, or in the opposite direction. Can we add its meaning to the article?

Also, if she waits until the guy makes eye-contact before doing so, does that mean something different/more intense? --70.179.185.102 (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two handed "V" from crotch

As children in Toronto (1970's), Canada we'd lower both hands to crotch level (palms facing inward) to form an incomplete "V" and then the hands would quickly pop towards the insultee (in front) after a single bounce off the corresponding thighs. This was accompanied by swearing "vaffanculo" in Italian. (I'm wondering if the gesture itself is Italian.) Anyway, this is what we did long before discovering the finger. 65.92.120.169 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bite thumb

This bit is repeated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.18.11 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing

"In Western cultures pointing directly with the index finger at a person is considered rude." Pointing directly at a person in the U.S. isn't considered rude unless it's accompanied by some other insult or attitude. Maybe it's rude in Europe? In the US we point at people when complimenting them (usually with both hands), when helping them ("you've got something on your face right there"), identifying people in a group, showing someone's location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.16.136 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's often considered rude. Perhaps it's regional? Certainly, pointing with a compliment is always acceptable, and pointing to show some schmutz as well. Identifying people in a group, less so. In the general case, very iffy. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

retardedness

the quality of this article is soooooooooo bad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.242.224 (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:So fix it. Cnilep (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Approximation"

I've been searching for several days - since noting at the AfD that there were too few sources (full disclosure: I suggested deleting or userfying the page) - but cannot find any mention of "approximation" as a gesture. I'm moving the entry here, since it seems the most difficult to source. I'm also adding some sources, and marking other gestures with 'Fact' tags. Cnilep (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

===Approximation===

The "approximation" gesture is performed by holding the hand horizontally, palm down, with the fingers forward or spread, and then tilting the hand to the left and to the right. It indicates that a number or a statement is to be taken approximatively.

Likewise, the gesture, with a gentle rocking left-right movement, is understood to mean "so-so", (or, not too good, not too bad) a response one might give to the question, "How's it going with you?" A similar use is to indicate that an event is equally likely to end in one of two ways—a way of saying, "It could go either way." In both scenarios, the rocking motion is similar to the motion of a balance scale or seesaw.

This response-gesture is equivalently understood among various cultures or language groups; in particular the Spanish, French, and other romance language groups use it.

Reliable third-party sources

Many of the claims or descriptions in this article do not cite sources. Articles need to be supported by reliable third-party sources. This includes published materials such as books and scholarly journals, and most mainstream news media (excluding opinion pieces). Other articles on en.wikipedia.org are not third party sources, and articles from other Wikis generally are not considered reliable. If such sources are cited, additional reliable sources should also be cited. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more guidelines. I have removed "ref" tags that cited less-reliable sources.

In addition, please be careful to ensure that the source cited supports the actual claims being made. I removed a media description of the Valiant Charger which did not support the suggestion that people still display the "V sign" in reference to the car. Cnilep (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Dream Focus points out, the source on the Valiant Charger does mention a "V for victory" gesture. It did not quite accord with the description in this article (e.g. there is no suggestion that the gesture is still popular; the vehicle went out of production in 1978; etc.), but the proper response to such a situation is to edit this page rather than remove references. I have made that edit, and apologize for my prior hasty deletion. Cnilep (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article still contains a good deal of unsourced material, much of which may constitute original research. All editors are urged to add reliable sources where you can.

Furthermore, please do not add additional unsourced material or original research. That simply makes the job of finding reliable sources all the more difficult. Please find reliable secondary sources that directly support any claims before adding new gestures or analysis to the page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

This article, if kept, should be titled "Types of gesture". It will have to be an admin move as Types of gesture is currently under anti-Grawp protection. pablo_hablo. 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biting the thumb

I've moved the colourful story about taking the fig from the donkey's anus to the "fig sign" section. It's what the gesture signifies; the fig, on offer to the person gestured to. It refers to a specific incident, but I'll need to track down the reference, if you will bear with me. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Gesture

I read an article a while back about the gesture that many people make during victory, of pulling an arm with a clenched fist to their side, or doing it with both hands. This can be seen by many golfers, and other sports stars. The article talked about how there is evidence that at least one type of ape or monkey (I forget which now) does the same thing. I have tried to find that article, but I haven't been able to. Does anyone know which article that was or the study it was based upon? (Or maybe it was on the news) And if so, I think it would be good to add that gesture (especially since it seems to be truly cross cultural, and documentable) in this article. --Pordaria (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such a thing, but good luck tracking down that source. Note, though, that this article discusses "culture specific gestures that can be used as replacement for words" (from the lead section). Maybe such a cross cultural gesture would fit better at Gesture, if you can find a source for it? Cnilep (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of fact tags

Almost all content on this page is unsourced. Moreover, it is idiomatic content and it is unclear if citations are even appropriate. Perhaps the page is not appropriate for wikipedia and should be deleted. Else, it already wears the unreferenced template and the use of fact tags on each sentence in the article is considered unsightly, abusive, and damaging to the wiki markup. You know it's bad when I have to regex the markup to remove them. These concerns should be answered here before reinstating the tags. --CKL

Unfortunately, topics like Types of gestures that some users regard as "idiomatic" tend to attract unreferenced original research. Much, but by no means all, content on this page is unsourced. Thanks to the diligent work of contributors including User:Wordbuilder, User:Imnotminkus, User:Pablomismo and others, including me, unreferenced sections have been tagged and reliable sources are gradually being added. The use of individual, dated fact tags have been quite helpful in this regard.

It is generally considered inappropriate to remove maintenance tags from Wikipedia pages without attempting to address the issues these tags call to attention. It is also considered inappropriate to repeatedly revert changes that are contrary to the consensus of editors.

Please note that this page was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2009; the result of the discussion was to keep the page, notwithstanding problems with unsourced claims. Since that time, the above-mentioned users and others have done considerable work to improve the page. We are most happy to have more users dedicated to improving this page. Please remove maintenance tags only after you have addressed the problems they point out. Cnilep (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me of the page deletion nomination. I reserve the right to disagree with the placement of maintenance tags. The use of this quantity of tags, placed in the same month (and most likely in the same edit) is excessive, and represents the use of too much power by too few users. Would you like to me report the ratio of sentences with citations to the ratio without, or the ratio with tags to the ratio without, in the version I reverted? We can see whether a sentence has a source or not, by observing the presence or absence of superscript numerals at the end -- you should give it try. By all means go and look for sources, and tag those statements for which you can't find any, but that is not what you are doing. Where can evidence of the "consensus" you mention be found? Clearly there is at least one editor in disagreement. --CKL

So, by your reasoning, does the {{fact}} template hava a place on Wikipedia since a reader can just look for the superscript numerals? The problem is not with the presence of the tags but with the absence of citations. According to the template at the top of the article, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." The fact tags are serving to challenge the unsourced material and are, therefore, appropriate. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an example of a use for fact tags in the paragraph you're replying to. Yes, the template at the top of the article is another reason the fact tags in question are redundant. --CKL

I can understand why you would think this, but you are mistaken when you assume that the tags "placed in the same month (and most likely in the same edit)" represent some sort of power-grab by a user or small group of users. Many tags were placed during the AfD in June 2009 and thereafter in July of 2009, but at the time of the AfD discussion there were tags dating back to (if I recall correctly) 2007. Many problems have been addressed over the past two months. Older problems, indicated with individual dated tags, may be addressed first, either by deleting unsupportable information or adding citations. The fact that so many of the current tags are from 2009 is actually an indication of progress, not of retrenchment. Cnilep (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template at the top does not make the fact tags redundant. They work in tandem to state the overall problem then challenge the individual claims in preparation for removal (provided such claims do not become cited). How else would the unsourced material be challenged if not by using the fact tags? →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A strange calculus indeed when the addition of fact tags is considered progress. How else would unsourced material be challenged? You are so far out of touch with how wikipedia works and its looming health problems that it is senseless to continue this discussion. Bravo: I give up. You and your fellow "wikipedians" can continue to self-select here until something better blows this site away and you out of your mom's basement. By the way, I double-dog dare you to run down a maths article with your "challenges" like this. Triple-dog dare. I will sign with the tildas since I do not intend to return to clean up the misguided efforts of the "sign bot". beefman (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good display of WP:NPA there. I cannot say I have ever seen anyone get so worked up over the use of a few fact tags. Wikipedia is a collaboration. If something does not go your way, just roll with it. It is not that big of an issue. And, I really do not know what you are going on about in regard to "maths article." →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Types of gestures → List of gestures — I propose to move this page to "List of gestures" as this basicly just lists the gestures. List of gestures article is best moved to comparisation of gestures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.8 (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When filing a move request, please remember to substitute the template, using {{subst:move|NewPageName}} (note the subst: at the beginning), as explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. Thanks. Jafeluv (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. List of gestures is a stand-alone list complying with guidelines and traditions for such pages. I allow that Types of gestures is problematic in its current state, but see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of gestures for background on why this is so. See also "Excessive use of fact tags," above, and "Duplication with List of gestures," below, and in fact most of this talk page for details on how the page has improved since AfD. Cnilep (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First things first: For those of us coming here from Wikipedia:Requested moves, be sure to note the existence of Comparison of gestures, which also currently has a movereq. Anyway, by my reading of Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, this seems to be an appropriate location for this Article.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the understandable points made regarding the fact that it is not a simple list, I changed it to enumeration of gestures; the above opposes may thus be disregarded and new voting added.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 23:52, August 12, 2009
I wouldn't really have an issue with the name "Enumeration of gestures" name, but this really seems like change for it's own sake at this point. I just don't see any compelling reason to do it.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose moving or renaming this page; there is no compelling rationale to do so. I am aware of no guidelines deprecating 'Types of' in page names. See Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists. I also object to suggestion that other users' opinions "may thus be disregarded". Cnilep (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The suggested name is not an improvement over the current name. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro change

I changed the intro to Although some gestures, such as the ubiquitous act of pointing, differ little from one place to another, most gestures do not have invariable or universal meanings, having specific connotations only in certain cultures. This page discusses most gestures including these emblems or quotable gestures.

Stating to only show the "quotable gestures" would bring us in to trouble due to the article name change, also one cannot say that there are "gestures that differ little from one place to another", even much used signs as A-ok have very differrent meanings. International signs in "populair gesturing" (non-Sign language) simply don't exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.8 (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions

The descriptions are very vague and unsorted. It is hard to find anything. It would be better to simply state what the gestures mean rather than saying how it is performed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.190.8 (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication with List of gestures

(Note: Due to an ongoing controversy, the page formerly known as List of gestures is, as of the time of this writing, named Comparison of gestures. Since that page is a stand-alone list, it is my hope that it will be moved back to List of gestures. the following discussion relates to that content, not a page that redirects to Types of gestures.)

The page List of gestures is a stand-alone list of Wikipedia pages that discuss particular gestures. The page Types of gestures consists primarily of short descriptions of gestures that do not have their own pages. In addition, however, several of the gestures on Types of gestures have their own pages, or (especially in the case of gestures associated with college athletics) are described on other pages. In most cases, these gestures have a Main tag directing the reader to that page.

As a result, some of the content on 'Types' duplicates the work of 'List of' by directing readers to the pages where particular gestures are described in more detail. 'Types' does this relatively poorly, however, since there are no clear selection criteria for the page, and not all gestures on Wikipedia are on 'Types'.

Let me insist that I do not advocate adding even more gestures to 'Types'. It is already a long page, and the work of pointing to other pages is already accomplished at 'List of'.

What I recommend instead is removing all gestures with their own page from 'Types', and including only well-sourced yet relatively short descriptions of gestures that do not warrant their own pages here. Cnilep (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objections, I will remove the sections with Main tags. I will try to do this all in one edit so that it will be relatively easy to undo, just in case there are objections out there that haven't been expressed here yet. Cnilep (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

This info was removed by wordbuilder (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Types_of_gestures&oldid=307557737), reinclude:

===''A-ok''=== {{main|A-ok}} This is the touching of the index and middle finger (or just index finger) with the thumb (forming a rough circle) with the raising of the remaining fingers. In the United States and most of Europe, it means okay and is inoffensive (the ring signals a letter 'O' and the remaining fingers spell a 'K'). The okay sign is used extensively in [[scuba diving]]. It can also mean "[[0 (number)|0]]," or "[[money]]," in [[Japan]]. Vulgar meanings are found in other countries, but usually one has to turn the 'Ring' upside down (supinated to show the ring in front) like this example from [http://jeroenarendsen.nl/2006/05/butthole-is-not-ok/ Brazil]. It is then a sexual or scatological gesture referring to the [[anus]]. In some countries like [[Spain]], it can also signify [[cuckoldry]].{{fact|date=June 2009}} ===Beautiful=== Pinching the earlobe with thumb and forefinger, expresses that one finds something beautiful, or good. The sign may also be used to express appreciation for a meal. It is mostly used in Brazil. <ref>Etiquette in het buitenland by Kevin Strubbe, Liesbeth Hobert</ref> ===Crowded=== Holding the palm of the hand upwards, and bringing the fingers and thumb together in a repeating pattern, indicates an area is crowded. The sign is used in Brazil. <ref>Etiquette in het buitenland by Kevin Strubbe, Liesbeth Hobert</ref> ===Nice to meet you=== ====Bowing==== In Japan, a bow is made to greet a person. Males keep the hands next to the body, females place them on the thighs. The lowest bow is made by the person lowest in the social hierarchy. ====Namasté==== In India, the hands are stretched and the hands are placed together and in front of the forehead. The higher the hands are placed, the more respect is shown. ====Wai==== {{Main|Thai greeting}} In Thailand, the hands are placed together and held in front of the chest. A short bow is made.<ref>Etiquette in het buitenland by Kevin Strubbe, Liesbeth Hobert</ref> ====Handshaking==== [[Image:Pioneer10-plaque.jpg|thumb|right|Man in [[Pioneer plaque]] raising hand to (non-verbally) say "hello".]] Raising a hand is a gesture that conveys [[hello]].<ref>Cooke, Jean. (Jul., 1959). ''[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-373X(195907)18%3A3%3C233%3AAFGEIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L A Few Gestures Encountered in a Virtually Gestureless Society.]'' [[Western Folklore]] Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 233-237. doi:10.2307/1497708.</ref> In many countries (including China), a short nod is often accompanied with the handshake. This gesture is close to [[salute]], and is also used in an audience when one wishes to speak or be recognized. ====Salute==== ===You got it=== ===Friends=== Placing both index fingers together and rubbing forward and back indicates that one has a friendly bond with someone. The sign is used in Brazil. <ref>Etiquette in het buitenland by Kevin Strubbe, Liesbeth Hobert</ref> ===Affirmation/disaffirmation=== {{See|Nod (gesture)}} A nod, produced by tilting the head in alternating up and down arcs, is a gesture of affirmation or agreement in many cultures. In contrast, repeated turning of the head from side to side (head shaking) may indicate negation.<ref>Darwin, Charles (1913) ''The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals''. New York: D. Appleton and Company</ref> A nod, produced by tilting the head in alternating up and down arcs, is a gesture of affirmation or agreement in many cultures. In contrast, repeated turning of the head from side to side (head shaking) may indicate negation.<ref>Darwin, Charles (1913) ''The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals''. New York: D. Appleton and Company</ref> A single nod of the head may be used a gesture of greeting in passing.<ref>Kendon, Adam. (1977) ''Studies in the Behavior of Social Interaction''. Bloomington: Indiana University.</ref> In India, headshaking in a wobbeling movement expresses an affirmation, disaffirmations are not frequently given. This is thus completely opposite to the meaning in most other countries. <ref>Etiquette in het buitenland by Kevin Strubbe, Liesbeth Hobert</ref> In Greece, turning the head left to right also means yes. An additional difficulty is the Greek word Nè, accompanied with the headshaking which sounds a bit like no. Nodding in Greece means no. ===Don't know=== Raising the shoulders expresses that someone doesn't know something (eg the answer to a question, ...) In China, the gesture expresses discontempt and lack of respect to the bystander. <ref>Etiquette in het buitenland by Kevin Strubbe, Liesbeth Hobert</ref> ==Gestures made with hand and other body parts or clothing== *[[Anasyrma]] *[[Curtsey]] *[[Cheek kissing]] *[[Dhyanamudra]] *[[Hand-kissing]] *[[Hat tip]] *[[Mudra]] *[[Orant]] *[[Sampeah]] *[[Scout sign and salute]] *[[Sign of the Cross]] *[[Thai greeting]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 02:32, 13 August 2009

Some or all of the above may be appropriate to re-add. I apparently didn't see the refs when I reverted. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New info to include

This additional info also needs to be included:

==No== Thrusting with the forefingers underneath the chin means no in Portugal. In Belgium, France and Tunesia it means something doesn't intrest you At: Beautiful Pinching the earlobe with thumb and forefinger, expresses that one finds something beautiful, or good. The sign may also be used to express appreciation for a meal. It is mostly used in Brazil. [1] Add: In Belgium, and Netherlands grown ups use this gesture to make sure that they will pull their children's ears if they did something wrong. In Italy, it means an insult saying that someone is a sissy. Portugal; Indicates you find something beautiful Spain: indicates that you are broke and never pay for anything At: Affirmation/disaffirmation add that nodding means no in India ==No (2)== In Japan, a disaffirmation is expressed by moving your hand left to right in front of your face. In Turkey, a backwards thrust with the head indicates a disaffirmation. ==Unhappy== Shaking the hand next to the head or ear indicates you are unhappy with a specific event or occasion. It morocco, it indicates someone thinks you are a bit crazy (in a good way). ==Scepticism== In Brazil and France, Pulling down an eyelid with your finger indicates you dont believe what something is telling you. It indicates shame in Morocco. It act as a reminder for an appointment in Italy. ==Shyness== Holding a hand before your mouth indicates that your are shy. Used in Japan. ==Back off== Holding the hands in crossed position in front of the body, or holding the hands crossed to the side of the lower torso indicates that you don't want to communicate with someone. Note:not sure whether it's a gesture, i think about splitting these into a seperate article called [[Emotion indicator]]s as it shows an emotion and is not a willing gesture to give a person a message, info about something. ==Nice to meet you (update)== At: Handshaking Raising a hand is a gesture that conveys hello.[4] In many countries (including China), a short nod is often accompanied with the handshake. This gesture is close to salute, and is also used in an audience when one wishes to speak or be recognized. Add: In most african countries, the handshake is composed of shaking the hand, accompanied with grabbing each others thumb, after which the thumb is released and the hand is taken again. At Friends Placing both index fingers together and rubbing forward and back indicates that one has a friendly bond with someone. The sign is used in Brazil. [5] Add: In North Africa (Maghreb) the sign is called [[kifkif]] At Nice to meet you add: hongi The hongi is the greeting used in New Zealand; it consists of rubbing the noses against each other. ==Failure== In Russia a the [[doolya]] sign means that someone will not succeed -or get away with- in what he intends to do. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.243.178.120|81.243.178.120]] ([[User talk:81.243.178.120|talk]]) 08:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)</span>  All info is from the book Etiquette in het buitenland, please insert to article {{subst:UnsignedIP|1=81.243.178.120|2=08:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)}}  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 August 2009

Aún hay más

I have been searching for about three months now for a source that describes the so-called "Aún hay más" gesture mentioned on this page. In addition to sources describing gestures, I've looked at work on Siempre en Domingo (especially TV-review type stuff, even including work by fans of the show that I consider less reliable), and appreciations of Raul Velasco, including several obituaries. I am unable to find any reliable sources that describe this gesture. It may need to be deleted. Cnilep (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources

Thanks are due to User:Nigelj for adding a source to the section 'Beckoning sign'. Unfortunately, that source appears to be self-published and does not actually describe the gesture in prose (though it has pictures). Can a better source be found?

On the broader issue of self-published sources, newsletters, personal web pages, blogs, etc. are generally not considered appropriate sources for verification, unless their author has previously published similar work in reliable third-party sources. Cnilep (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bent elbow

A link for "bent elbow" led here and it is referenced once on the page. Could someone please make a section for bent elbow? Thanks. — Reinyday, 07:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not without reliable sources to establish notability and verify claims, I'm afraid. Cnilep (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is really annoying that the bent elbow has been removed, I was also following that link. I checked the history and looked at the version from 19 May 2009 where I found it. 62.119.40.134 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope reliable sources can be found. In the mean time, you might want to link to Finger (gesture)#Other similar obscene gestures, which mentions the gesture in question. Cnilep (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources (again)

As mentioned above, all information in Wikipedia should be supported by reliable third party sources. Wikipedia is not an appropriate source for information on Wikipedia. This edit adds information sourced to the page How to Talk Minnesotan on this Wiki. I reverted it once, and don't wish to start an edit war. Cnilep (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book does in fact contain the chapter I mentioned. Do you want ISBN number, specific pages, etc.? I can do that if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the book's existence, and the fact that it contains a chapter on waving, really relevant to the topic of waving as a gesture? At best, the book is a primary source for the current claim, "The book How to Talk Minnesotan devotes an entire chapter to 'The Art of the Wave'." Cnilep (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Facepalm?

Why does facepalm redirect here, but there is no entry for facepalm? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page Facepalm was created as a redirect to Types of gestures; it doesn't appear to have contained any other content. There was, at that time, a single sentence on the page mentioning the gesture, but it cited no sources and did not suggest particular notability. It has since been removed from the page.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to delete the redirect page, unless you are confident that a proper page can be created describing the gesture. Cnilep (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of deleting the redirect, we can just add an entry to this article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While that would seem to be ideal, I have recently spent six months searching for published sources attributing specific meaning to the gesture and found none. (I realize I'm a bit of a fundamentalist on sourcing.) Cnilep (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phone!

Can we add the old "thumb and pinky outstretched" "I'll call you" gesture? Pretty darn popular these days. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks. I just saw it in List of gestures, but added it here because it's just soooo widely used. Half of the items here are not types, but just gestures. What a fuzzy line between the two lists. And all of these stand alone articles like facepalm. Messy, messy. I saw the discussion above. Everything should really all be stuck together into one big article. Too big versus scattered -- I would pick too big. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the addition with the edit summary "Please find a reliable source". All additions should be sourced. I am now amending that suggestion, though, to "Do not add, since it's already on List of gestures."

On merging the three gesture-related articles

Note at the top of this page the pointer to further information at Gesture and List of gestures. Anna Frodesiak argues that 'too big' is preferable to 'scattered', suggesting that the three articles should be combined into a single page. For a number of reasons, including readability, ease of editing, and technical difficulties, though, it is generally preferred that articles not be more than 40kb (see WP:Article size). A combination of the three pages would be slightly larger than 40kb - close enough to warrant discussion, I think. A combination of 'Types' and 'List of' would be smaller than 32kb, but would combine a stand-alone list of links with a content-full description of gestures that do not have their own pages. Expanding content on the items currently at 'List of' would probably bring the combined page over 40kb.

On the third hand, I would support renaming 'Types of gestures' to something that better describes its content and purpose, and better spelling out the relationships among the three pages. Cnilep (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. But how about an A-L M-Z thing? It's just so hard to decide what goes into which list? Breaking it down into types and items, one hand and two hands, hand plus body, etc., just seems like an impossible task and will bring endless problems. Two fuzzy lists just doesn't seem right. Alpha sort with short entries and blue links to main articles where notability warrants is my suggestion. Sorry to open a can of worms. This has already been discussed to death, I'm sure. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until 2009, List of gestures was sorted alphabetically. The problem, as I see it, with that scheme is that someone searching Wikipedia is more likely to have in mind something like, 'That thing surfers do with their thumb and pinky,' than Shaka sign. That is, if you don't know what the gesture is and want to look it up, doesn't a vague body-part description do you more good than a (possibly obscure) name?

Regardless of the consensus on description versus name sorting, splitting is still possible (e.g. a page of one-hand gestures, another of hand-and-body, etc.). In either case, though, we need some consensus on the handling of gestures with their own pages (currently on 'List of') versus those without (currently on 'Types'). {{Main}} is a possibility, though it leads to ever-larger, redundant coverage. My personal preferences is for elegance, though redundancy has its advantages. Cnilep (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about searching. A-L M-Z has problems. I gather that when you say "redundant coverage" you mean the item would have a {{Main}} followed by a simple sentence describing the item, and thus be partly described twice. Hmmmmm. I suddenly feel like the fool in the old saying "Fools rush in where fools have been before." There is certainly no elegance in one article for hand, one for two hands and one for body (especially considering body often involves hand and body). What's the hand sign for "I'm getting a migrane"? Maybe it's as good as it's going to get. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much about the 40 KB 'limit' - it's only a guide, not set in stone. I work on several articles in the 80 - 100 KB range that no one is talking about splitting. Anyway, it's a usability thing, if the alternative is to make the two articles less usable because of an arbitrary or irritating split, then it's a no-brainer, I think. I'm all for merging. The fact that some will be described in-line while others are links to other pages is not a big problem. Maybe use {{main}} template, and give every one a sub-section? --Nigelj (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be easier after all: Perhaps the two articles coexisting seem odd because of the naming of "Types of gestures". It is a misnomer indeed, as it gives an incomplete list of examples. The word "type" means "category". The two articles compete with one another. The information feels as though it is in two places. If this article were named Physical gestures then it would proclaim itself as the main article, with "List of gestures" completing the list as a supplement. An easy solution with some measure of elegance. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way is fine with me. Anything is better than the current state.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An edit adding a subheading was made that I think obscured the last bit of this thread from people's watch lists. Are we close to some sort of consensus? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say merge, and then we'll sort out the structure of the new article. Reason: usability. --Nigelj (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lean that way, would support it, and would help with the work of sorting it out. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) While an eventual merge may be fine, I'd like to see more discussion first on two points: the advisability of merging, and page name (of either the merged page or this page if there is no support for the merge). I'd recommend adding a {{merge}} tag to the merger targets first. By the way, do you envision combining Gesture, Types of gestures, and List of gestures, or just the latter two? Cnilep (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest only the latter two - the lists and descriptions of actual gestures. I think the general concept can stand in its own right, although it says it needs work.--Nigelj (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

It has been suggested that List of gestures and Types of gestures be merged into a single article. A new name may be appropriate for the combined article, but that has yet to be discussed. Please note the previous discussion above under #On merging the three gesture-related articles (but note that the current proposal is to merge two articles). Cnilep (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position to date: Gesture seems fine. Merge Types of gestures into List of gestures. Break "List of gestures" into sections like "One hand", "Two hands", etc. Alpha sort items within sections as well as possible. Use {{Main}} and keep the info as short as possible for blue links. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position is similar to Ms Frodesiak's, three articles is at least one too many. pablo_hablo. 23:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate my position, I see two potential (minor) problems with the proposed merge. First, 'List of' is a stand-alone list, while 'Types of' is a glossary-like collection of short descriptions. These types of content would need to be harmonized, possibly by adding very short descriptions to all of the items from 'List of', along with their links. Second, the combined page may become rather large, though not necessarily too large for a single page. (I'd prefer to see it around 40kb). If these concerns can be overcome, I have no objection to a merger. Cnilep (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address Cnilep's minor concerns written directly above: If this list were merged into one article, then even without blue links, a simple explanatory sentence beneath the item would serve well. I agree and see it as a needed explanation for the items. The stand-alone list, as it appears currently has problems. That is that the meanings of the items are not clear without explanatory sentences: e.g. Dap greeting, Moutza, Pollice verso. Cnilep's suggestion clears up everything.

As for the size, I don't see it exceeding the limit. The article could only become too large if many new items were added. This is because we can control the size of each explanatory sentence below each item.

If this is satisfactorily resolves the remaining minor issues, then we should have consensus. I think that's now about four people in agreement. What now? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this will definitely need to be split into multiple pages. Adding 1-2 sentence definitions to the 'Single hand' section of List of gestures swelled the page size from 3k to nearly 9k. Cnilep (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cnilep (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian throat slash

Is is true that the Italians use their thumb instead of two fingers? If so, then shouldn't it be added here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.186.18 (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pictures

This article really needs some pics, sketches or diagrams of hand positions. CapnZapp (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has some pictures - nine of them, by my count. Do you have particular pictures/gestures in mind? Cnilep (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about one for each gesture? :-) Trying to imagine a gesture by reading a textual description is incredibly inefficient compared to looking at a picture, or where appropriate, an animated series of sketches.CapnZapp (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]