Talk:OK/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fascinating

This phrase has a fascinating etymology,history, legal history and ties to American History. This Canadian who would love to see an American write this non-controversial article. User:Two16, 6 February 2003 (this edit was manually dated by Korax1214 (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

"Non-controversial"? No, no. Everything in the Wikipedia is controversial! ;) I don't think the "Oll Korrect" initialism theory is universally accepted. I've heard one theory that the word "okay" came from an African language, and was introduced into America by slaves. I have no idea if this is based on hard evidence, but since I did read it somewhere, I thought I'd bring it up. Now, if I could only remember which book I read it in... -- Oliver P. 10:18 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I've heard the same theory, but also lack an attributable source. Someone with a good etymological dictionary like the OED (I don't have one) ought to see what they have to say. Jmabel 11:40, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've added the African origin claim, along with a source link to a Wiki entry almost completely dedicated to that discussion. -- Prell 23:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does "OK" redirect to "Okay," when the article seems to prefer "OK" in usage? Shouldn't it be the other way around? User:Xanzzibar

President Jackson

"The US president Jackson also wrote it in 1760 and a Boston businessman used it in a daily journal in 1815." Some citation or explanation, please, this doesn't seem to jive with the espoused etymology. Kevin Saff 22:40, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC) President Jackson in 1760 ???? -please check your history

M-W link broken

Also the m-w link looks broken. Kevin Saff 22:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Article is far too definitive

This article is far too definitive in accepting the theory that OK is derived from the initials of some other phrase. The article implies that Read was the last word on the subject; it relegates other views to the category of "competing theories"; it says "supposedly" about the existence of the Choctaw word, which as far as I know is undisputed, regardless of whether the Choctaw "okeh" was the source of our current expression. Jackson didn't use the expression in 1760, he not having been born yet, but the Boston businessman's use in 1815 is documented. One scholar writes: "The traveler's name was Richardson, and the 'Richardson OK' occurs in the entry for February 21, 1815. That entry includes this sentence 'Arrived at Princeton, a handsome little village, 15 miles from N Brunswick, ok & at Trenton, where we dined at 1 P.M.'" (Fay paper - a lengthy rebuttal of Read, arguing in favor of the Choctaw origin). Kevin Saff is correct that this evidence doesn't jibe with the espoused etymology. If Read's view nevertheless still has adherents, perhaps the article should be recast (including new headlines) to present the various theories on an equal footing, without endorsing any one of them. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know whether the NPOV ideal applies to subjects like this one. JamesMLane 14:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, James, your explanation seems more likely to me. Could you flesh out the Choctaw origins a bit more in the article? I don't know how many people support Read's view over the Choctaw etymology. -Kevin Saff 22:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Usage outside of the U.S.

I have noticed that this word is in common usage outside of the U.S. Is that from widespread American influence or because the word has a common influence from somewhere else(e.g. African Slaves)?--Pete Welch 04:22, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Too much Simpsons

There are too many Simpsons references throughout Wikipedia. Does this article really need to mention Ned Flanders? Taco Deposit 02:17, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

This is only one reference, and it's reasonably related to the subject of the article. I don't think any de-Simpsonizing is needed here. JamesMLane 03:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's definitely not Simpsons. :-) 217.171.129.77 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More on the History of OK

H.L. Mencken, The American Language, abridged edition, ed. Raven I. McDavid Jr. with David W. Maurer (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977), pp. 169-175, contains a brief history of the origin of this Americanism (agreeing with this article that it originated in Boston), with a list of 10 alternative etymologies. (One etymologist traced it to the French "O qu-oui"; those darned Frenchmen have a word for everything!) It also lists A. W. Reed's publications on ths word. A source worth mining for this article if for no other reason than to mention Martin van Buren's O.K. Club. -- llywrch 05:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The most convincing rendition of the history of OK I have seen was by Cecil Adams (of The Straight Dope fame) which can be found here: What does "OK" stand for?. --Broquaint 12:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Current usage around the world?

The etymology has been done to death, here and other places. I'd love to see more information in this article about current usage of OK around the world in other languages. I understand that it is quite common (though it seems to rarely take on all the meanings that it has in English), but I haven't been able to find much information about it in a brief search. Perhaps people from non-English speaking countries could relate their first-hand experience? I think it is fascinating that a single word invented so recently could fill a gap missing in so many world languages. --Anon (haven't yet got around to registering) 06:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from the Netherlands (it's inbetween England and Germany) and I can tell you that pretty much every European uses the 'word' OK.

Italians also use this phrase, quite often. Thought they say the phrase as I (an American) say it, even though the Italian name for the letter ‘K’ is kappa. Does this imply the Italians adopted the okay version? This usage doesn’t seem to fill any “holes” in Italian that I am aware of as they have va bene (go good), and tutto bene (all good). My understanding is that va bene and ok are synonymous.

In Brazil the word is also used... Both with it's original pronunciation and local traslation of O (ó) and K (ká), forming up something like "okah". The meaning is wide too, and can possibly be used EXACTLY as in english, but the most common usage is for confirming something as a reply... like "I got it" or "roger"... =/ I'm no logged now... my user is user:1ur1, if you really decide to put a section about international uses, I can be more precise if you need... =)...

It seems to me that the "kk" variant of okay may be from Engrish users online who also say, for instance, "hihi" when no native speaker I know would consider that standard usage. I hypothesize that both doublings may come from the more common "bye-bye" or perhaps such doubling is common in their languages; but as this is all wild conjecture on my part I am not yet prepared to stick in in the article; perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could lay my idea to rest one way or the other.

This is actually the reason I checked Wikipedia for OK. I wanted to see its usage around the world. I'm glad to have found some information in the discussion page, but I agree that there should be something about it in the article. - nwall

I'd like to see more about the current usage in the English-speaking world. The word has become really generic and has a lot more uses than mentioned in the article, but I don't really want to try to tackle that myself. -- KillerDeathRobot 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct spelling

I deleted the bit about the "correct" spelling, as it's a dubious claim at best to my eyes. Dictionaries recognize both equally, and "okay" is usually listed as an alternate spelling to OK. --Xanzzibar 02:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, although it's probably more a matter for a style manual. Of three style manuals I looked at, one said "OK, never O.K. or okay", one said "O.K., not OK or okay" and the third preferred "okay." Shoaler 11:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But what is Ok corral? -- Kizor 00:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you referring to The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral? --Xanzzibar 03:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently. --Kizor 06:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That would probably be a reference to a fictitious cattle brand. The "CircleK". hypotaxis 09:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Okely dokely"

Provide proof that this is in wide usage. It's fine to mention it in the Ned Flanders article if you really must, but it is of no broader relevance. Grace Note 01:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment. I think it was okely dokely to include it here, would like to see it re-inserted.--grubbmeister 06:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okely dokely is a Flanderisation of the well-established 'okey-dokey' or 'okey-doke'. Maybe they can be mentioned.

The workers in some versions of the WarCraft computer game series sometime respond with "Okely dokely" when told to do something. I once worked with a 50-something australian man who used the phrase constantly. 210.1.220.117 10:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mkay

Unless I'm mistaken (not sure, so I didn't add it myself) the "Mkay" variant comes from the film Office Space, more specifically from Bill Lumbergh. (It is later used in South Park as well.) Shouldn't this be added? Retodon8 15:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Mkay" has been around forever, it predates Office Space by many, many years. Certainly longer than my lifetime, and I'm no spring chicken. I assume it originated in the Midwest. Office Space and South Park merely popularized it recently. I like the idea of including a blurb about Mkay as a variant, but not if it's credited to some recent movie. Druff 23:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have also heard "mkay" long before Office Space. - nwall

ok

O.K has origin fron Greek frase [sic] (O)la (K)ala ,(Όλα Καλά) that means All Good or everything is good

This is a disputed "etymology". Read the article. 217.171.129.77 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference

why does it cite webster's even though it gives oxford's example?

Because Webster's is the definitve US dictionary, and OED the definitive British (indeed, English worldwide) one? -- 217.171.129.77 (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

English soliders

I heard a story from my english teacher that expresion OK came from english troops (not sure in which war), that after battle wrote number of killed on that day. OK = 0 (zero) K(illed).

This is another disputed (and almost certainly bogus) "etymology" which is allready in the article. 217.171.129.77 (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Now where's that apocryphal tag...

Although I'm not going to be the one to do it, you had better provide some references. I mean my daddy told me some of these fairy tales when I was growing up, but let's see some better scholarship folks! Silly rabbit kicks are for trigs.

I have created a Legends section and moved the various apocryphal portions of the article there. Best, Silly rabbit 11:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC) P.S., I'm not sure if all of the "Other possible origins" section should be moved there, but I leave it to the etymologists and linguists to decide.

I'm moving the greek Ola Kala into legends until someone can provide a reference which at least predates the earliest english usage within the OED. Silly rabbit 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

'Ok is Alright'

I have had an interest in the expression ok and it's partner alright. I think this is important to understand it's probable usage. The fact that 'ok' is often coupled with 'alright'. i.e. "Are you ok?" "Yes I'm alright." These expressions are electrified in the American dialect in times of panic, duress, excitement, etc.. Hence, the probable common usage could have been with the development of the telegraph. People wanted to know how could they get those letters to travel down the wires. They also wanted to know "What does 'ok' mean?" "It means alright." I haven't been able to afford to research personnal diaries on the arrival of the telegraph, but the telegraph did anihilate time and space in a magical way. People had to have been electrified with news and information from far away that had been inaccessible before.

The persons with the most aptitude for sending telegraph messages could have been typsetters, printers, and the like. Possibly the 'ok' was a common notation in the margin of an uncut printed page. Later, telegraph messages had to be relayed and resent over distance. Ok became a common transmission to the telegraphers and may appear on old telegrams. Once again, a modern use of 'ok' is that it is 'alright'. I have even talked to immigrant West Africans in public. A woman from Nigeria responded reluctantly but certain, "Oh yes! We use 'ok' in Nigeria...it means 'alright'. Although a taxi driver from Sierra Leone replied, "No we don't have such a word, maybe the closest would be 'Ohma' meaning great."

So it's possible that 'OK' was tied to British Imperial expansion. A survey of the modern British Commonwealth could reveal a pattern of usage for 'ok' and 'alright'. What technology could the United States have been purchasing from Great Britain that harbored the term 'ok'? The first commerical telegraph line in the United States famously completed in 1844. The first usages of 'ok' in dictionaries appear several years before this first commercial telegraph line. In any case, a modern workplace is punctuated with the expressions 'ok' and 'alright'. Possibly 'oll korrect' is Cornish and coined by the work of Humphry Davies. Mr. Davies apprentice was Michael Faraday who had been a bookbinders apprentice as an adolescent. Could a notation such as 'ok' appear in their work?

"Man lives not by bread alone, but chiefly by catchwords." Robert Louis Stevenson. Dudberg, December 5, 2005.

Anyone follow this one?? 195.7.54.2 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

O.K.

In Vienna a taxi driver told me his story about O.K. These are the initials of one Otto Kaiser. He worked in the Ford factory and his job was to control the cars. He was that last control and he signed them with O.K, ment this car was controlled by Otto Kaiser and you can be sure it is alright , so it is O.K. . Real or not, it is a fine story.

This "derivation" is already in the article, and is obviously bogus since OK was around long before cars. 217.171.129.77 (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mumbo jumbo

I hid most of the text at the bottom of the article. As said there, it should be cleaned up or removed altogether. ^KILO-_LIMA 19:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Erroreous Sentence on Spelling

The current article contains:

"Whatever its origin, the word spread around the world, the "okay" spelling of it first appearing in British writing in the 1860s. Spelled out in full in the 20th century, 'okay' has come to be.."

Is this sentence supposed to say that the "OK" spelling began in 1860s, but in the 20th century was spelled out in full? Or vice-versa? In its current form, the sentence seems meaningless --Alecmconroy 11:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Negative sense of the word

I'm going to go ahead and add my two cents here, okay? I realized yesterday that the word, which basically has only positive connotations, can also be used in a negative way. My wife offered to get some food for me, and I said "that's ok," basically meaning "No, don't get me any food." What does the word "ok" have to do with me not wanting her to do me a favor? I don't know. But I use it like that all the time, and most people around me do, too. I figured that it was worth adding to the usage section because it is commonly used like that here in Western Pennsylvania. Maybe it is a Pittsburghese thing, but I'll bet most parts of the country use it that way. It could be very confusing to a non-English speaking person. --Scott W

It's not just a Pittburgh thing. "That's all right", "that's fine", and whatnot can be used in the same way, too. I'm not sure whether you'd consider that use of it to be an idiom, sarcasm, or something else, though. --Xanzzibar 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If we extend the general concept of "okay" to other languages, then it's also not just in English. For example, in Japanese if you're offered something like a drink you might refuse with iie, kekkou desu (lit. "No, [I'm] fine"). I think it's probably an implicit "I'm okay as is, don't bother on my account" or something to that effect. 164.55.254.106 22:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree here -- saying "That's ok" is just short for "That situation is ok, you don't need to do whatever you're wanting to do."

Xanzzibar has made a good point... OR MAYBE it has something to do with your use of slang, or shortening of the sentence "No, that's OK". Rick. --142.68.50.33 19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

from OED

quote from OED online:

[App. < the initial letters of oll (or orl) korrect, jocular alteration of ‘all correct’: see A. W. Read in Amer. Speech (1963) 38, (1964) 39, etc.

From the detailed evidence provided by A. W. Read it seems clear that O.K. first appeared in 1839 (an instance of a contemporary vogue for humorous abbreviations of this type), and that in 1840 it became greatly reinforced by association with the initialism O.K. n., O.K. int. (see discussion s.v.).

Other suggestions, e.g. that O.K. represents an alleged Choctaw word oke ‘it is’ (actually the affirmative verbal suffix -okii ‘indeed, contrary to your supposition’), or French au quai, or Scottish English och aye, or that it derives from a word in the West African language Wolof via slaves in the southern States of America, all lack any form of acceptable documentation.

Competing theories as to the origin of the expression have been in evidence almost since its first appearance; cf.:

1840 Lexington Intelligencer 9 Oct. 3/2 O.K. Perhaps no two letters have ever been made the initials of as many words as O.K... When first used they were said to mean Out of Kash, (cash;) more recently they have been made to stand for Oll Korrect, Oll Koming, Oll Konfirmed, &c. &c.

It is not clear whether the ok of the following quotation represents the same expression:

1815 W. RICHARDSON Diary 21 Feb., Arrived at Princeton, a handsome little village, 15 miles from N Brunswick, ok & at Trenton, where we dined.

In form okeh (as used by Dr. Woodrow Wilson: see quots. 1919, 1939 at sense 1 of adjective) on the understanding that the word represents an alleged Choctaw word oke (see above).]

---

[< the initial letters of Old Kinderhook, the nickname of Martin Van Buren (1782-1862), president of the United States (1837-41) (< OLD a. + Kinderhook, the name of Van Buren's hometown in New York State), after OK a. and OK int. Cf. Old Hickory s.v. HICKORY n. 2c.

The use as an interjection is purely as an electoral slogan and rapidly comes to overlap with OK int. This assimilation is especially clear late in 1840, during the election proper, when the slogan is used to signal success in a particular locality (see quots. 18402, 18403 at sense B.), although the process had begun within a few weeks of the appearance of the initials:

1840 Democratic Republican New Era (N.Y.) 27 May 2/6 We acknowledge the receipt of a very pretty gold Pin,..having upon it the (to the ‘Whigs’) very frightful letters O.K., significant of the birth-place of Martin Van Buren, old Kinderhook, as also the rallying word of the Democracy of the late election, ‘all correct’... Those who wear them should bear in mind that it will require their most strenuous exertions..to make all things O.K.

Allen W. Read argues that the widespread use of the slogan was critical in popularizing the original, usual sense of OK (see Amer. Speech (1963) 38 83-102).]

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.37.16 (talk • contribs)

Some of this stuff should be incorporated into the article; I'm baffled why it has not thus far. In particular, the Richardson ok should be included in its entirety as it has been a great source of controversy. --C S (Talk) 16:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

See the IMO (International Maritime Organisation) published book, International code of signals. The 2 letter code signal for message 'It is all correct' is OK.

The first international code was drafted by the British Board of Trade in 1855. This code was then adopted by most seafaring nations.

The code of signals are still in use today and every merchant ship is required to carry a copy of the book and the code flags.

Okay is the new Hip Word

i use the word okay everyday in one way or another.

great article, lots of references. could be a featured article with some improvements. Doidimais Brasil 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK comes from the GREEK OLA KALA (ΟΚ) (ολα κάλα)- which directly translates into All Good (everything's fine etc.) Believe it or not, it's true

Allen Read steamrolled the etymology of O.K.

The article is extremely inaccurate in its description of the work of Allen Walker Read. This should be clear to anyone who carefully reads all six of his articles in "American Speech", which are available here. Read conclusively documents not only the history of "O.K." and "okay", but also its spread, its evolution, and even the history of its folk etymologies. The word okay seems to uniquely tempt people to come up with explanations of its history, but almost everyone other than Read is content with an unresearched one-sentence or one-paragraph explanation. Read found more evidence for the real history than etymologists usually find for a single word. His work has to be taken as accepted science.

I will change the entry to reflect these conclusions. Greg Kuperberg 17:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article now, and I also consolidated the sprawl of folk etymologies. I shortened some of the etymologies. I also deleted one particularly silly etymology concerning oak and some 16th century will which just seemed like a lot of free association. Greg Kuperberg 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Greg. 138.69.160.1 17:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article

I just reverted an edit that added a comment to the article, ehich probably belongs here instead, it read as follows. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very good article but needs more information. Ok is an essential word in our daily lives and we need it to communicate acceptance with others.

Oll Korrect is not the only theory

There is another etymology in Pidgins and Creoles by Loreto Todd, an early transcription of a black slave if I remember correctly, recorded as "oh ki". I don't remember any guess at specific language origins in that book, nor do I remember the date of the transcription, but that is a reputable source and theory for the peculiar word's origin. And the book was published in 1974, so this idea is not out of date. Magmir 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it isn't the only theory. There are tons of theories. However, Oll Korrect is part of the documented history of the word okay. This is the difference between scientific etymology and folk etymology. Scientific etymology is when you systematically search old written documents and other evidence and piece together the entire history of a word. This is what Allen Walker Read did. Folk etymology is when you see that two words are similar and suppose that they are related, or hear such a supposition from other people, regardless of historical evidence. Greg Kuperberg 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the word " OKAY " comes from an anecdote between LAFAYETTE and WASHINGTON. During a conversation between both officers, LAFAYETTE had suddenly the "hoquet", WASHINGTON worried about it, then LAFAYETTE says to her " it's nothing, everything is well it is the hoquet! " WASHINGTON deducted that from it when everything was well it was " OKAY " ( hoquet) and this word made its road until our days.

I think "o.k." originates from the greek phrase "ola kala" (greek: όλα καλά), which means everything is fine. I also believe that it was first used by greek immigrants to the United States and/or Australia. --Magioladitis 01:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, please!

The article as it's now written violates WP:NPOV. One theory is pronounced to be true and all competing views, even those that do cite old written documents, are dismissed as "folk etymologies". We should report all the theories without endorsing any of them. If there is a reliable source stating that Read's theory is accepted by the consensus, or even the majority, of the experts who've studied the subject, then that assessment of the state of expert opinion can be quoted, with attribution and citation, but even such a quotation wouldn't justify the dismissal of competing views. JamesMLane t c 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't violate NPOV, because Read has a fully documented history of English-language usage of "O.K." and "okay" over the course of a century. I have not seen anyone dispute any of Read's work and it is indeed accepted research. Etymology isn't just about finding a few old documents to prove that you are "first", it's about charting the evolution of language over time. If you just conjecture a word's origins when someone else has already published a connected chronology of its usage, then that is indeed folk etymology. It's still folk etymology even if you find an ancient document or two, if you can't make a connected history. It's folk etymology even if you're an etymologist, if you don't do your homework.

For that matter, the only "competing view" that mentions any historical documents in the present version of the article is the Andrew Jackson theory. However, the historical document in question was simply misread.

But you're right about one thing, which is that the article should have better citations. For starters, it could and should have a direct citation to Read's research papers. I read them myself and they are completely convincing. Again, I have not seen anyone anywhere explain how Read could possibly be wrong. I have only seen people, on occasion even an etymologist, make contrary conjectures because they haven't read Read's papers. We could also cite Read's obituary in the New York Times, which explained Read's achievement. Greg Kuperberg 08:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't seen anyone dispute any of Read's work, it's because you haven't read Fay's paper, the first entry under "External links". Fay presents the case for the Choctaw derivation. He also refers to etymologists who supported that theory (which was apparently the most widely accepted theory before Read's work). The current version of the Wikipedia article is actively misleading in that it implies that the Choctaw theory was, in essence, a flight of fancy on the part of Woodrow Wilson -- who, although a scholar, was not an etymologist. NPOV is violated both by the article's adoption of one theory over another and by the article's failure to present the other theory accurately and fairly, with appropriate references to notable proponents. JamesMLane t c 08:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You got me there: Jim Fay, PhD, self-published a paper on the Internet in 2004 saying that Allen Walker Read is wrong. I have never seen that before, but you are right that that is one example. However, as far as I can tell, it's Fay's work, not Read's, that has not been accepted by the expert community. Read had many papers published in scholarly journals over the course of a long career. I don't mean to trumpet journal publication as the only proof of peer review, but in this case I do not see that Fay's paper has been blessed by any serious peer review. When I read it myself, it seems poorly written and biased. It goes off onto irrelevant tangents about Choctaw history, it distorts Read's position, and it plays the race card against Read. I admit that I am not an expert, but then I do not see experts stepping forward to endorse this paper. It looks like the kind of agenda-driven theory that you wouldn't want in Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, if you want expert support for Read's work, see here, here, here, here, and here. Greg Kuperberg 09:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You write, "It looks like the kind of agenda-driven theory that you wouldn't want in Wikipedia." I have only a casual knowledge of etymology but a pretty good knowledge of Wikipedia policies -- enough to say that your statement is wrong. Also, your citations of support for Read do not constitute a defense against my criticisms of the article.

Your approach seems to be to assess all the evidence in order to come to a conclusion about which theory is correct. That's an appropriate endeavor for a scholar, but not for an encyclopedia. You'll find this difference explained throughout WP:NPOV. Here's a particularly illuminating passage:

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we could state a series of theories about topic T and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But then again, consider that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Reasoning behind NPOV

That's why it doesn't matter that you consider Fay's view to be "agenda-driven". The "okeh" theory is a significant view, so we present it. That's also why we as editors don't consider all the arguments for all the theories, decide which one we think is correct, and then state in the article that that theory is the correct one.

We can, however, state facts about opinions. For example, it might well be accurate to present the theories in something like this framework: For some time, the most common view among American etymologists was that "okay" was derived from the Choctaw "okeh". In 1963 and 1964, Allen Walker Read presented papers arguing at length for the "Oll Korrect - Old Kinderhook" theory. His work was praised by H.L. Mencken [citation], and his view is now the one most widely accepted in the field [citation]. Then present both theories in more detail, followed by all the others.

In my model, the second missing citation would be the critical one. As I said above, if there's a reliable source reporting that Read's view currently prevails, we can quote that -- it's a fact about an opinion. "Wikipedia editor Greg Kuperberg considers Read's papers to be completely convincing" is also a fact about an opinion, but your opinion, like mine, is not worth reporting. If we don't have a citation to a reliable source, stating facts about the opinions of people who matter, then we can't make such an assertion based on an editor's saying "as far as I can tell". Even if there is such a citation, it will justify only a statement to the effect that so-and-so authority assesses the current state of expert opinion to be thus-and-such. It will not justify a statement that one theory is right and the others are wrong. JamesMLane t c 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The central point is that, unless you find evidence to the contrary, Jim Fay's essay is self-published and 100% outside of the loop of peer review. Also, in the absence of peer review, where are Fay's own credentials in English linguistics? I don't see why any Wikipedia editor should read his paper differently from a paper on evolution written by a creationist. NPOV does not mean giving equal time to outsiders who try to invent controversies. Greg Kuperberg 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, let me separately respond to this, which has little to do with Fay's pseudo-paper: As I said above, if there's a reliable source reporting that Read's view currently prevails, we can quote that -- it's a fact about an opinion. I already gave you several of these. To pick one example, Richard W. Bailey is an English professor at the University of Michigan. Bailey explained in a 2002 VOA radio interview what Read discovered and why he is correct. Greg Kuperberg 16:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review has its strengths and weaknesses as an indicator of a paper's merit, but it is most assuredly not a perfect indicator of a viewpoint's significance. Frankly, it seems to me that you are still focused on truth and not paying enough attention to significance.

I can't see a basis for implying that this is an invented controversy. Read himself, at least as quoted by Fay, cited at least two dictionaries that accepted the Choctaw etymology. (Search the Fay article for the term "Webster" and you'll find the passage.) Thus, Fay, self-published or no, is probably accurate when he writes:

In the 1960's, when Pete Seeger drew from Choctaw tradition, the popular Andrew Jackson anecdotes and the standard dictionary definitions of the day to write, in the song "All Mixed Up," that "Choctaw gave us the word 'okay'" he was merely reflecting what had been the popular and accepted etymology for decades.

In other words, this isn't a theory that's found only in one self-published paper by someone who might be a complete crackpot. It is, instead, one of the competing views that, under Wikipedia standards (if not those of the academic community), must be presented "in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents". Ascribing the theory solely to Woodrow Wilson and omitting any mention of the documentary evidence cited by the adherents does not comply with that policy. Furthermore, we must "present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct." The current article also does not comply with that policy.

In these discussions, you frequently adduce facts about opinions, such as that Fay's paper is self-published. I have no problem with including such facts in the article. We can say, for example, "Jim Fay, Ph. D., in a self-published paper, argues that...." The difference is that, when we do it that way, each reader can decide for himself or herself how much weight to assign to the absence of peer review, along with weighing all the other considerations (viz., the evidence and arguments for each point of view, fairly presented).

After all, if the balance of the evidence is as overwhelmingly in Read's favor as you seem to think it is, then, when all viewpoints are presented fairly, the readers will see that Read was correct, won't they? See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves for a relevant discussion.

As for the Bailey interview, it's clear that Bailey believes Read was correct, and he does summarize some of the reasoning in support of that position. Nevertheless, he doesn't expressly say, "As of 2002, most of the etymologists who've studied the question agree with Read." My guess is that such a statement would be true. Nevertheless, we can't assert it in the article based on our guesses. JamesMLane t c 16:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review has its strengths and weaknesses as an indicator of a paper's merit, but it is most assuredly not a perfect indicator of a viewpoint's significance.

You can't have it both ways. First you say that I'm not an expert and it's not up to me to say that Fay's web page is poorly written and doesn't hold water. So I say, fine, let's instead use peer review as a standard. Then you say that peer review is overrated. Now, Wikipedia has to have some standards for separating accepted expertise from naive or crackpot speculation. If you rule out both common sense and peer review as standards, what standards do you have left? Fay's page isn't peer-reviewed and it looks shabby to me. If you want the Wikipedia article to take it seriously, you should provide some positive evidence that it's serious.

There is no question that a lot of people, including some etymologists, at one time took the Choctaw theory seriously. That was one of several serious lines of thought before Read's scholarship. But now it certainly is a manufactured controversy. You can't say, "Pasteur contradicted Aristotle, and John Doe from Peoria sides with Aristotle, therefore there's a controversy". If you really demand expert testimony that most experts believe Read, then Read's obituaries certainly imply it and I bet that I can obtain direct testimony. Although I think that it's a reactionary demand from you if you haven't found even one expert who says that Read is wrong. Greg Kuperberg 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, since your argument is very legalistic, I will address your citation of Wikipedia rules. You say that we must "present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct." I agree, but it would only carry weight in this discussion if Fay's web page represented a significant view as of 2007. You have presented no evidence that it is a significant view today, only that it is a view, and that it was once a significant view. It can be mentioned, as indeed it is mentioned, but it would be wrong to call it significant. Greg Kuperberg 18:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're still on the orientation of figuring out The Truth and presenting it to our readers. You see two alternative ways to determine The Truth: (1) reliance on peer review, or (2) deciding what the Wikipedia editors find convincing. Then you call me inconsistent because I reject both methods.

You're right that I reject both, but that's because we aren't here to determine The Truth. Wikipedia doesn't operate according to the standards of an academic journal. You consider it "legalistic" for me to cite WP:NPOV. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it is the governing policy for this project. In that sense, yes, it's like a law that we must all follow. Its relevance here is that we don't try to determine The Truth and tell our readers what they should think.

You say, "Wikipedia has to have some standards for separating accepted expertise from naive or crackpot speculation." Your wording suggests that you don't know what the standard is. You'll find it in, you guessed it, WP:NPOV, which reads in part:

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. . . .

But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

You express confidence that you can find a reliable source for the proposition that, today, most experts accept Read's view. That simplifies the problem. That's a fact about an opinion, which is perfectly proper. Therefore, we can present the information as follows: Longtime view that "okay" arose from "okeh" (with discussion of Choctaw etymology, Wilson's support, etc.); alternative "Oll Korrect/Old Kinderhook" view (because I think this view was out there even before Read championed it); Read's papers in the 1960s; most experts now agree with Read (citation that you'll provide), though there is still dissent (citation to Fay). I suggest that I write it up that way and insert the "citation needed" template after the comment about current expert views. Then I'll come back in, say, two weeks and make sure there's a citation for it. (Be warned that some people search for those templates and delete the unsupported statement if they think enough time has elapsed. I'm suggesting two weeks but if you can do it more quickly, to forestall these other buttinskis, so much the better.) That would give our readers all the objective information we have. Does that work for you? Do you want to leave a longer window within which to find the citation? JamesMLane t c 04:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You express confidence that you can find a reliable source for the proposition that, today, most experts accept Read's view.

No, most experts accept Read's research, not his view. Whether you view etymology as history or science, it isn't just a body of "opinions", it's also about discovering objective facts. For instance, it's not just an opinion that the word "opinion" comes from the Norman invasion of England, it's an accepted fact. It would still be an accepted fact even if someone like Jim Fay said that the word came from Choctaw, or even if a lot of people once supposed that it came from Choctaw. It would violate NPOV to say otherwise, and the situation is really the same as with creationism, which was once just as popular among intellectuals as anything that you propose. Greg Kuperberg 09:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking your analogy, we of course have an article about Creationism. That article doesn't say "This theory is false." Instead, it reports facts about opinions: "Creationism, as religion, is not within the mainstream scope of scholarly scientific comment. Most scientists, by consensus, reject the claim that creationism meets the criteria to be taught as a science." (The supporting citation is to http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298.) As I've said repeatedly, I have no objection to including a similar passage about the current conclusions of etymologists concerning "okay". Furthermore, I'm certainly not advocating that our article should state or imply that Fay is correct. An article that did that would, like the current article, violate the WP:NPOV requirement that we "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." JamesMLane t c 10:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ruling OK

What is the origin of the phrase "X rules OK?", where X can be any number of things? This seems to be a non-US development, though it is found in any number of contexts. The Dandy Warhols have an album Dandy's Rule OK?, and there are a number of others. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked in Google Print and old Usenet postings. This bit of slang seems to have simmered in England for a long time, before becoming more widely popular in the past 10-15 years. As far back as 1978, people left graffiti and sand scrawls in England with messages such as "Man United Rules--OK?". With that punctuation, you can see where the slang phrase could have come from; it could have been short for "X rules; is that okay?". Greg Kuperberg 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the OED finds no attested in print usage prior to 1975, but that one claims that it originated in Scotland several decades earlier. - Smerdis of Tlön 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ohne Korrektur"

One German explanation from the printing press is the following: when proof prints were checked for errors and none was found, the proof was marked with an o.K., meaning "ohne Korrektur", i.e. without correction, to distinguish it from proofs that had not been checked. I was told that in the beginning of the nineteenth century, many type setters were German immigrants. 132.199.75.160 16:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

0 k. = 0 killed

I've heard about this etymology. Might it be correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.17.54.70 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

French use

I use "okay" in my French class all the time and have never gotten called out on it. (My teacher is pretty strict about keeping Anglicisms out of our speech.) This is to be expected, however, since i live in Ontario and the French spoken around here is riddled with English faux-words.

Is "okay" used in France as well, or is it strictly a Canadian French thing? --BranER

No K

"No K," was thought to be the negative of the American "OK" by Vyacheslav Molotov[1]. May be something for a trivia section?--Brz7 10:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, and this is why not: 217.171.129.77 (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Entry should be under OK

I hate the way it is now, with Okay being the main entry, and OK being the disambiguation page. It gives the impression at first that there are two different entries, OK and Okay, and then it gives the impression that Okay is in some sense the main spelling. OK gets 5 times as many ghits as okay, and I strongly doubt 4/5 of those are references to Oklahoma or whatever (granted, a lot of them are, but it doesn't look like more than half, especially since things like "OK!" magazine are really references to the word OK.

OK was the original spelling, and it is still the most common. Until and unless "okay" has clearly become dominant, I think the entry should be under OK.

Mark Foskey 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK

Shouldn't the main article be OK? According to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, OK came first, and then okay was derived from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling32157 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Help for those who cannot read Japanese

As most readers of the English language Wikipedia probably cannot read Japanese I've added romaji transcriptions of the Japanese examples given.

Benjamin.Rooney 16:33, 11 December 2007

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

West African Etymology

Not so much Choctaw that I wanted to add, but the reference to an important book from IU Press: The African Heritage of American English that makes the already compelling evidence presented in the African Origin section more weighty. Mobilian Jargon is of course Choctaw based in part, so the fact that the term was phonetically shared would certainly not have hurt its currency. Would suggest rearranging the article to place the linguistically interesting and credible Native American and African etymology stories first before the "word games" theories that do certainly smell like "folk etymologies". --SashiRolls (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure why ShashiRolls seems to want to suggest that Professor Allen Walker Read was a "folk etymologist". His research into the origins of "OK" may have been given a good kicking by Dr Jim Fay but it has been widely accepted over the past 40 years, including Alan Metcalfe's recent book, which is published by the OUP (and referenced at the aend of the article). Since the "Boston word games" origin for OK is the most widely accepted one among scholars, it seems to me to be smelling of non-NPOV favouritism to promote the Native American and African etymology stories above Read's etymology - and indeed, even calling this article "Okay" and not "OK" smacks of a non-NPOV promotion of the anti-Read school over the Read school.

To sum up: Read's etymology, as the most widely accepted one, should go first. Zythophile (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)