Talk:OK/Archive 3

"Usually" vs. "often" -- and title of article
It will be problematic to support an assertion that the subject of this article is usually written as OK. Google hit counts don't offer adequate support; per GHITS, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number, and the caveats in WP:SET apply here, too. It seems the dictionaries agree that both okay and OK are acceptable, so unless robust and reliable support can be provided for the notion that OK is the "usual" expression, a statement to that effect runs afoul of the requirement for neutrality and verifiability. The present wording of the start of the lead's first sentence — Okay, often written as OK and occasionally spelled okeh — is neutral, accurate, and appropriately supported with references to reliable sources. We'd want to maintain that same standard if we change the wording. If consensus develops to change from often to usually, we'd also want to make sure, before we make that change, that doing so would not bias the article toward any particular local English usage custom. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say okeh is pretty well obsolete. jnestorius(talk) 19:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably so, though it's still on the books (one of which is referenced here in support) and I do still see it used okehsionally ;-) —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * GHITS is not relevant in this case since we are trying to determine how often a particular spelling is used. Google tells us exactly that.  Also you might look at the Bibliography and the notes to the article itself wher OK is much mor common, in fact the cited reference uses 'OK'.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * GHITS as a whole is not entirely applicable, which is why I was careful to refer to one specific (and applicable) sentence within it. But again, SET certainly applies, particularly in light of your apparent faith in a Google hit count to answer a question a good bit more complex than can be answered by a Google hit count. Referring to the article itself is circular and doesn't lend support to your position. "Okay is often written as OK" is a great deal easier to support and less questionable than "okay is usually written as OK". Unless a reliable source or two can be found that explicitly states the latter, I really think we need to leave it as "often" rather than "usually". —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Even your quoted sentence is not relevant. Quality of search does not matter here, all we want to know is how often a particular word is used. Google gives us a large, convenient, and (for this purpose) unbiased corpus for this purpose.

There is nothing circular about referring to the bibliograpy, notes (references), and even external links for the article. These are exactly what the article should be based on. Are you claiming that OK is not much more common than okay or do you agree that it is used much more but are just saying that we do not have a good enough source to say this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage p.685 jnestorius(talk) 22:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I (still) disagree with you; Google does not supply what would be needed to support the assertion you wish to place in this article's lead. Please review SET and GNUM. You obviously feel otherwise. Ok(ay), let's try and move this discussion in a more productive direction. If you feel there's robust reliable support for stating that the usual and most acceptable form is "OK" and that "okay" is merely a variant—and there very well might be such support—then propose an article move (rename) from Okay to OK. That would be far preferable and much cleaner than retaining an article name that is not in compliance with WP:NAME and then using the lead paragraph to explain that although the article is named this, the most common form is that. A couple of interesting refs are here and here. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying "Okay, often written OK..." suggests that okay is prior or more correct, and that OK is a later development. The etymology shows the reverse is the case. Which spelling is now more common is a lesser issue, since it seems clear that both are very common. Part of the reason the article is at Okay rather than OK is that OK has other unrelated meanings. jnestorius(talk) 23:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your revision to the lead — it seems quite neutral to me. And I agree with the removal of okeh from the lead, though not with its removal from the article altogether. I've placed it in the spelling variant table. I see your point about the article title, but I don't see a reason why this couldn't be handled as we handle all other such ambiguities, with a dab page. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The current lead is more neutral - but should it be? All we have done is avoided giving information that perhaps we should.  "OK" is much more common (eight times more so) than "okay" in the vast corpus searched by Google, but I agree that this figure is strictly WP:OR.   Although I think the lead is improved now I think Scheinwerfermann's suggestion to rename the page 'OK' would be better.  (I have just noticed that the spell checker here allows 'OK' but not okay). Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My dictionary (Collins) has a full definition for 'O. K.' where 'okay' is described as an alternative. Under the heading 'okay' the reader is simply referred to 'O. K.'.  From that it seems clear that 'OK' should be the name of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you may well be right. Please formally propose the move (rename); see WP:MOVE for the steps involved. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One simple question. Should the title be 'OK' or 'Ok' and should there be a redirect from the other one? Martin Hogbin (talk)
 * I would definitely suggest OK. Redirects are like really high quality chocolate: more is better; anything someone could reasonably be expected to enter in the searchbox looking for the article in question ought to have a redirect to the article. Generally there's no need to create redirects based on capitalisation, though. What we'll need is a dab link at the top of the article and redirects from "okay", "O.K.", "okie-dokie", "okey-dokey", and whatever others come to mind. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it might be worth, I definitely feel the article ought to be moved to have OK as its title, with okay linking to it. Pretty much any sources I've looked at (e.g., American Heritage Online, Merriam-Webster's Online, Merriam-Webster's 2nd unabridged, etc) all give OK as their main entry. It seems that both Ok and O.K. are now considered nonstandard, although M-W from the 1930s did give preference to the O.K. form. talk) 08:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oikea
"In Finnish, the word oikea means both right (okay, correct) and right (the opposite of left)."

That's from the article on left-handedness. I cannot pronounce Finnish, but is "oikea" a cognate of "okay?" If so, should it be mentioned on this page as possibly being part of the word's etymology?140.239.52.21 (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

German
Ohne Korrektion (without correction), or OK is what German text correctors in the printing business wrote in the margin of the texts they had verified. Riyadi (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wolof
All information in the paragraphs on Wolof can be traced back to a sloppy article by Dalby in the Times, which has been parotted ever since. Jesse Scheidlower debunks this Wolof myth. Big words are used here to magnify Dalby's article in the Times: it becomes a key study (it is not a study, and not key). The otherwise wrong examples become well documented, waaw kay (yes, indeed) becomes all correct, a related meaning, and more convenient for the sake of argument. Why such obstination to cry Wolof? It's politics: it all started with Cheikh Anta Diop who believed that his mother tongue, Wolof, was related to ancient Egyptian. Wolof has since then become sort of a holy language in afrocentric circles. Followers insert afrocentric comments and beliefs in blogs, Wikipedia articles, reviews... as if they were authoritative. Russell G. Schuh delivers a devastating analysis of this kind of crackpot etymologies, and also proves in a very funny way that English is in fact derived from Wolof in The Use and Misuse of Language in the Study of African History (p.10)Riyadi (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for Choctaw origin
This statement clearly shows a lack of historical understanding: "A serious problem with this etymology is the lack of a strong reason why a word from a language of a group geographically then legally restricted to America's south coast then later the mid-west would be colloquially familiar to English-speaking residents of America's north-east extremity."

The Choctaw usage of "Okeh" is identical to our usage of "OK" and Jackson and his Tennessee volunteers would have been repeatedly exposed to the expression. There is, in fact a specific reference to his exposure to the expression during the Battle of New Orleans. I'll have to dig it up, but IIRC it was a conversation between Jackson and Pushmataha, the Choctaw Chief. Jackson asked Pushmataha how the battle was going with the Choctaws (who were holding the left flank deep in the Chalmette swamp) and Pushmataha answered "Okeh."

Andrew Jackson then began using the expression himself, and took it with him to Washington D.C. when he became President. DrHenley (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The words "pow-wow", "wampum," "squaw," "teepee," and "tomahawk" are also English loan words from native American languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.1.97.94 (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sean Neil Connell
I am skeptical of the claim that the (very obvious) abbreviation "k" is "commonly attributed to have originated from actor/writer Sean Neil Connell." It has two sources, but one of them is a self-published book by Sean Neil Connell himself and the other is this less-than-authoritative-looking book. He has zero web presence aside from stuff quoted directly from this article. I'm inclined to just remove it, but seeing as it does have sources I figured I should bring it up here first. -Elmer Clark (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

EQ1 programming language
Please provide a citation for the claim that `k' might have originated from a bug in (an implementation of) the EQ1 programming language, which is not and has not been well-known or widely-used. As such, I find the claim of `k' originating from this bug highly dubious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmanis (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia page on identifying reliable sources, this reference is unacceptable. I vote that the EQ programming bug theory be removed unless more reliable evidence can be offered. 67.180.100.10 (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

American English?
Given the fanaticism by non-U.S. English Wiki contributors, it's surprising that the entry for this Americanism doesn't at least start off by pointing out that this is an American English term in origin and not just an English on. Jmdeur (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin of usage: OK (OKEY)

During the U S Civil War the principal ways of communicating were the railway stations annexed to a telegraph office. So the breaking news of the day were published on boards in front of the stations or the telegraph office. Being the main news the war and its casualties, they published the number of casualties that occurred that day and during battle days the casualties were numerous, (102 kills) so when there were no deaths, that was a very good day (O K zero kills) and so its use for good news, everything is allright was generalized after the U S secesion war. I can not attribute this concept to a determined author of fiction as I do not remember. (jorpre@yahoo.com) (Mexico) Nov. 15, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.236.221.196 (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Assuming there's anything to this Civil War telegraph story to start with, its later date would not not necessarily mean that the theory is wrong. Instead it might be an example of word convergence or appropriation. "OK" already meant "all right" or "good" by the time of the Civil War and of the telegraph, but operators could have appropriated it to also mean "zero kills". Modern Morse code is three dashes for the letter O vs five dashes for the numeral 0, so if the same code was in effect in the 1860s, using OK would have saved a slight amount of valuable time and effort. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Little Raskles"?
The table in the Spelling variations section says that the spelling Okie dokie was "Popularly known at least by the 1930s in "The Little Raskles" (Oki doki) and later popularized further as...."

What is "The Little Raskles" supposed to be? Is it a misspelling of The Little Rascals, the TV-syndication title of the Our Gang short film series from the 1920s-40s, or is it something entirely different? I can't find any meaningful information on "The Little Raskles" or even on the word raskle via Google or anywhere else online. The text was added by unregistered user 68.167.17.98 in Feb 2009, and I noticed just from reading through that user's edit descriptions that spelling is not his or her strong point.

Also, if the spelling of Okay supported by "The Little Raskles" is Oki doki, as the parenthesis suggests, why is it cited in the table as an instance of the spelling Okie dokie? --Jim10701 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediocrity
The description in the opening paragraph discusses how "okay" can mean adequate, in contrast to good ("the food was okay" is the example). It then proceeds to say that the term "can also be used to defuse a situation or to calm someone (It's okay, it's not that bad)." I think this use of the term is similar to the previous - it means adequate; the situation is not good, but it's not bad. This use is not a special or separate used solely for calming - it's merely saying the situation is not bad. This is applicable to any item that is 'not bad' (e.g. food) not just situations. -- GAMEchief (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"ok" as a slang
At the categories part it says slang I think it should be removed because even upper class people use the term so it it is not really slang. Only terms like kk or k are slang but that does not mean other ways of saying ok are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.106.98 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 I was an avid Everquest player for 3+ years and saw "kk" come on as short for agreement (ie okay). The reason given may be correct as some first letters were dropped in game early on, but the biggest reason "kk" caught on was speed, you didn't need to move fingers to "o" & "k"

Hybrid Theory?
As I read through this article, inadvertently finding myself in a cross-fire between "oll korrect" and "okeh," I had an idea that to me seemed so logical that it had a very good chance of being true, and as such I am compelled to share it. Read clearly has a valid argument in that New Yorkers might very well have begun using the abbreviation "OK" for "Oll Korrect" in common speech in the early 1800s. However, it also cannot be denied that the Choctaw used the word "okeh" and that Jackson and his men would have picked that word up in their war efforts with the Choctaw.

Now keep in mind that the population of New York at this time comprised an enormous percentage of the US population. So by the time Andrew Jackson returned from the Indian front, the use of "oll korrect" as OK could well have spread through a good 10% or so of the US population--that being the New York area's working class. But when Jackson ran for president and used the word "okeh," which he had learned on the Indian front, New Yorkers picked up on the word as the "OK" that had become common in their vernacular.

In fact, it is just as unlikely that a base slang term used by the New York working class could ever have become a global phenomenon as it is that a Choctaw word used only in the army and by a few Midwestern settlers could have spread through the entire American population. But with the large New York constituency enlivened by a president's usage of their convenient word "OK", a small but notable bunch of Mid-Westerners simultaneously using the word "okeh", and a president now driving the word's approval among the American elite, the word would have spread like wild-fire, forming a new word, "okay," distinctly American, with its roots in the New York melting pot every bit as much as the interactions with the Choctaw on the Western frontier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.96.98 (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

dictionaries
I don't necessarily want to disparage either Collins or Simon & Schuster dictionaries, but only Merriam-Webster and Houghton Mifflin's American Heritage can be considered authoritative sources for American English. Both of these dictionaries use well-credentialed original research for all of their entries. The name "Webster's" is public domain, and is appropriated by many other publishers, most of which are largely or entirely derivative, or where based on original research are not as well credentialed. (I've earlier today edited a statement in the article that pointed out an error in a "Webster's dictionary", which turned out to be a Simon & Schuster New World dictionary.)

Both Merriam-Webster and American Heritage are excellent and reliable sources. The single best dictionary to have for American English is the Merriam-Webster Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Even better is to use *both* this unabridged but older dictionary, together with their most recent Collegiate dictionary, currently the 11th edition (which essentially is also online). Merriam uses their successive Collegiate editions to keep the unabridged version updated.

Still older, but in many ways even preferable to Merriam's Third, is Merriam-Webster's Second New International Dictionary, Unabridged, which was last published and updated by a Collegiate edition in the mid-1950s. The difference is that the Second was "prescriptive", telling you how words *should* properly be spelled and used, etc, while the Third, in a sharp break with custom, is deliberately "descriptive", attempting to say how words actually *are* spelled and used, based on their occurrence in printed matter of all sorts. Perhaps the best practice of all for dictionary use would be to scrounge an old copy of this Second Unabridged or its derivative Collegiate, and supplement this with the online versions of both the Merriam 11th *and* American Heritage. Note that American Heritage is especially good at discussing etymologies and root words. (Of course there are also excellent specialized etymological dictionaries.)

Both a Merriam-Webster 2nd Unabridged of 1934 and its largely unchanged 1956 Collegiate edition have this: "O.K., or OK. [From the O.K. Club, a Democratic organization supporting (1840) President Van Buren for re-election, fr. Old Kinderhook, N.Y., his birthplace. ...]" (But note that Allen Walker Read did not publish his revised history of the expression, predating its use before 1840, until 1963-4.)

And then this further down in these older dictionaries, as a separate entry: "okay, okeh. Vars. of O.K."

Merriam-Webster Online (11th), the current edition, has this: "Main Entry: OK; Variant(s): or okay; Etymology: abbreviation of oll korrect, facetious alteration of all correct; Date: 1839"

Also, American Heritage (online) gives this: "OK or okay"; ETYMOLOGY: Abbreviation of oll korrect, slang respelling of all correct. The entry also provides a "Word History" which discusses both oll korrect and Old Kinderhook.

Milkunderwood (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"gross misrepresentation"
Millahnna, the long edit you made (Revision as of 16:29, 25 February 2010) gives a very helpful explanation and wrap-up, but I don't understand this one paragraph:


 * It was and is offered without reservation in dictionaries. The 1968 edition of Webster's Dictionary, for example, offered a gross misrepresentation of the documented early uses of the expression for months before it was ever used in New York: "first used in name of the Democratic O.K. club (earliest recorded meeting March 24, 1840), in which O.K. is abbrev. of Old Kinderhook.

By "documented early uses" do you mean, for instance, Jackson's use? But then you say "for months before it was ever used in New York", presumably meaning "months prior to the earliest recorded meeting March 24, 1840 of the O.K. club."

It's quite true that dictionaries and other sources tend to give either Oll Korrect or Old Kinderhook, or both, without mentioning any prior usage. Merriam-Webster's Online dates it to 1839, which would presumably fit your "months", but credits it to Oll Korrect rather than the O.K. club.

I wonder if you might want to edit this to try to clarify what you meant.

Then aside from the question of what the paragraph is supposed to mean, I also wonder about your "gross misrepresentation" terminology--whether it's really consonant with Wikipedia's policies of unbiased neutrality. Your dictionary (along with most others) being arguably incorrect may very well be the case, but I'm not sure that "gross misrepresentation" is the best way to describe the problem at this website. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't make that edit. I've never seen this page until today when I got your message.  Sorry I can't be more help.   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Belay my last; I was reverting vandalism. So I still can't be any help.  Heh.   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  12:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right--very sorry for the misattribution. (I wonder if there's any easier way to track down the original posting than tracking back edits one at a time?? There's gazillions of them.) Milkunderwood (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just in case you're watching here but not there, I replied on my talk page.  Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  23:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK as for 0 Killed
I also heard a story that this was started at WWII, meaning "Zero killed", written as "0 Killed", finally shorted to "0K" and then transcripted as a regular word "Okay" - is this true? If it is, I think it should be included in the article. LuciusMare (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's in List of proposed etymologies of OK. Mind  matrix  20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this was actually World War I, not II (see Trench Warfare in WWII) since the trench warfare in WWII was primarily in Russia and the Maginot Line, which was manned by the French for only the first few months of the war. Since "killed" is "getötet" in German, "tué" in French, "ucciso" in Italian and "убит" in Russian, this had to have come from the British and American soldiers.  Since neither army participated in trench warfare in WWII, it would seem pretty unreasonable to assume the phrase came about so late in military jargon.  Unfortunately the WWII association is being propagated across many sites on the web and I don't know if we have anyone left from WWI to tell us if I'm right. (Sadly, if you 'google' world war II trenches, the first thing that shows up in the results is a block of images that are supposed to be of WWII trench warfare, but the helmets on the soldiers in the pictures are from WWI.)  Ajacques1951(talk) 15:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs Work
Good article overall but needs to be re-worked for easier comprehension. Access to AW Read's articles would be helpful.Dynasteria (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

horrible explanation
I deleted the following text, because it's full of prejudices and mistakes.

"Oll Korrect is he word which was firstly used in indic countries like India, srilanka, and Pakistan. it is because of less knowledge and illiteracy of Americans because they also use to talk like Asians. that's why oll korrect becomes o.k in most countries of Asia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.237.165 (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek Origin?
I have heard a story that Greece is actually the place of origin for the term "O.K." and that it was just translated/transfered as a "loan word" into English.

The story varies slightly, but it basically says that the Greek term: ολα καλά, which translates in English to "all is well" was sometimes shortened to ο.κ. (ok). This then spread into other languages, most prominently English. --OrthoArchitectDU (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC) In fact there is much more in favor of this idea. ''ολα' from 'όλα καλά' is not merely the greek word for all but rather the word from which all-alles etc derive. It did not survive in the main Latin based languages but passed straigth in English and Gemanic languages from ancient Greek. Ola kala = o.k. was used in the greek shipping (and land) transportation for a very long time and Greece was a portal for oriental goods to reach UK and US ports centuries before the actual Greek War of Freedom in 1821. There were also many Greeks, especially originating from islands of the Agean sea, who made their fortunes and/or livings in the shipping industry, who after the fall of Kostantinople in 1453 emmigrated aborad and continued teir trades there. There is therefore a lot of scope to imagine extensive usage of the callsign 'ok' for ola kala in New York and other US ports. Even the theory supporting 'oll klear' could well mesh with this as the choice of ok-oll klear instead of ac-all cler is inexplicanle on its own and rather gains credence if the US port workers and officials were used to seeing the ok markings on cargo crates and shipping documents. It is very difficult to confirm all of the above of course and most of the evidence is anecdotal but it appears to make very good sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.99.46 (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

German Otto Klaus?
My German teacher told me that O.K. originated from the German shipping industry, where all the containers had to be checked to make sure there was no problems, and a company presumably named after an Otto Klaus (I think the first 'O' had an Umlaut, but I'm not sure) never seemed to have any problems with their containers, so the workers started to say O.K. if a container was fine.

This was probably passed on, and its uses expanded to different languages like English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.103.67 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

chatty, unsourced
Boy, this article is a mess. Lot of good stuff, but lots of essayish rambling - which makes it very hard to know what is legitimate sourced material and what is speculation/urban myth. I have tossed some stuff out, but better editing is needed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell.
Our history teacher said that "OK" derives from the initials of Oliver Cromwell that he used as signature (I am not sure how "C" changed to "K", though).

How common is this view? СЛУЖБА (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

0 K=> Zero Killed
The word OK is possibly directed from the expression 'Zero Killed' (0K=>OK) which is much used in WWII where soldier's reported there general that nobody killed/wounded a soldier from their front, so they could move on with their "mission", zero is pronounced as "O" (grammar) and K comes from Killed, and there you have it: OK sir! Ok this is what i heard about OK... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.116.0.254 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It could also stand for "zero credit" (misspelled, of course), which is the amount of credit that should given to this goofy explanation dreamed up by somebody who has played too much "Medal of Honor". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A Moroccan note
Some family of mine from Agadir Morocco say something I spell in my head as yee-yea which is close to the African version on the main page. I think this use of it in Agadir may be Berber in origin, but means more of a 'yes'. Interestingly, 'ok' translates to 'wa-ha' and 'yes' to 'Na'am', so I thought I'd post this half thought for someone to finish :)

See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061217162154AAmLOjR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.3.105 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Choctaw
Yes in Choctaw is yau, ah, i, yome (Choktaw grammar, p. 53) There is just one Ok ! translated as well ! now, as, I dare you ! (sic. p. 55 - 56, as wel as Ok hoh "no". Cyrus Byington, Grammar of the Choctaw language). Re: previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources -- I am new at this so I am not familiar with the problem cited here about the Choctaw etymology. Can someone give me a hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPFay (talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole section on Choctaw was a textbook violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, essentially an essay in support of a theory that is generally rejected by relevant authorities (most obviously, dictionaries). I've deleted it, but it may be possible to salvage something. JQ (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The essay advocating Choctaw etymology does not belong, do not put it back. There was a long essay advocating the Choctaw etymology of "okay" that I took out. It does not belong; the content is original research (see WP:OR), and is in disagreement with the accepted etymology. Furthermore, the tone is not encyclopedic; it reads like a high school essay advocating a particular position. It has been removed multiple times, but someone keeps putting it back. If you are planning on putting it back, before doing it please read and familiarize yourself with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, which are core concepts involving what is and is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Benwing (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AHEM!
(Edit) WAR! (HUH!) Good god, y'all! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin'! Folks, let's please be grownups. We have a disagreement on our hands, as it seems. That's fine; knee-jerk reversion is not. It doesn't move the article in a productive direction, especially when it is done in such a manner as to create the rancid odour of sock puppetry and with tendentious, belligerent edit summaries (viz. this, this, and this). Per BRDC, discussion is what's called for at this juncture. Remember we work by consensus here, not by trying to shout each other down. Let's all have a cuppa tea and make our arguments -- with reference to applicable Wikipedia policies -- for and against inclusion of some or all of the material in dispute. Please and thank you. —Scheinwerfermann T·C 06:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As somebody who isn't involved, can you explain why you think the long and apparently much-referenced item doesn't belong? What's wrong with it? How could it be improved so that it could stay, in your opinion? - 10:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read above this subsection. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just being "long" and "much-referenced" (or much worked-on, or whatever) isn't sufficient for content to belong. As I described above, the most basic problem with this content is that it's an original synthesis, which violates WP:SYNTH, one of the core Wikipedia principles.  As defined on that page, an original synthesis is a "synthesis of published material that advances a position", and that is exactly what this content is.  Rather than simply summarize what established authorities believe, the content in question is putting together a large number of references in an attempt to prove something that these references do not say, which is that "okay" is likely from Choctaw.  In fact, the scholarly sources that discuss this issue at all are in agreement that the Choctaw etymology is not likely.  Opinions that do not have significant acceptance in reliable sources do not belong in Wikipedia, no matter how much people like ChoctawMan and ChahtaGal may personally believe in them and no matter how many references the content may contain. (And I should add that doing things like using single-purpose accounts and accusing editors of "vandalism" who are doing nothing of the sort is not going to win you very many friends in Wikipedia-land.) Benwing (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Benwing. This is a clear-cut case. Trying to insert your own ideas, without a good WP:RS is just wasting everybody's time. Mention the claim and include a brief link to the best available source.JQ (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Enhancing this article
I'm used to reading Wikipedia articles in several languages and it appears that other versions of this one suggest other explanations as for the origins of "okay". Why not check and, if necessary, complete the existing English Wikipedia article? Those in English are generally more detailed, but elements are to be found in articles written in other languages. Different theses are given in the very short French article. This is a suggestion and probably derives to another debate but I hope this comment will be taken into account by those of you who are specialists in linguistic matters. If you need some help to translate French articles don't hesitate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gouigoui63 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Without English-language sources/references, these don't really belong in the English-language wikipedia, because readers can't check the veracity. That's particularly important for this topic, because off-the-cuff explanations (like the one you heard in the Canadian military) are all over the place. This article will only have value if it provides sourcing for them, and not just "it is sometimes said that ..." or "many people have heard that ..." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure that I entirely agree, the fact that all these stories have come up is interesting in itself, especially given the probable origin in slave speech. --SashiRolls (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in WP:RS that requires or even strongly encourages English-only sources, and for some topics it is conceivable that all of the sources are in other languages. It is an insult to the reader to assume that they are incapable of checking the veracity of a source just because it's in another language. This is especially true for languages that are widely spoken in the English-speaking world, and is also especially true now that we have online tools to assist in the translation. If the source is reliable then by all means it should be included regardless of the language of the source. Also please see WP:Verifiability, which basically states that foreign language sources can be used unless a reliable English language source can be found that says the same thing. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominate for Good Article?
I strongly disagree. see below --SashiRolls (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC) --I withdraw my objection, if anyone finds OK interesting :)

Hey -- I think this article ought to be considered for 'good article' status (criteria are here) after a few suggested improvements. These are the criteria for 'good article' status:


 * 1) Well-written: I could nitpick a bit here, but the article is coherent and legible. It's clear that a number of editors have helped prune out cruft.  My recommendation in this area before nomination:  The section on spelling variations includes a long table of international variants, which is redundant with the section on international usage.  I think that could be cleaned up considerably.
 * 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: Lots of sources (both online and print) are listed in the references section.  Suggestion: There are a few inline notes 'clarification needed', 'who?', and the like that need to be addressed.
 * 3) Broad in its scope: The article covers the possible etymologies (somewhat deeply), but also its use in popular culture, as a computing term.  What other article references Martin Van Buren, Billy Murray's record label, Ned Flanders, and HTTP protocol?
 * 4) Neutral:  Given the competing theories for the origins of 'OK', the article does a good job of discussing the best-sourced theories, lists lesser-sourced theories in a separate article, and manages to exclude completely OR theories like "my teacher said it stood for Oliver Kromwell".  Suggestions: The section on the Choctaw etymology is twice as long as the sections on Oll Korrect and Old Kinderhook; can it be pruned?  An editor (Benwing) recently removed the Choctaw section completely and replaced it with a quote from a source (The Random House Dictionary of American Slang, 1994) that discredited that etymology; his edits were reverted, but the article should probably acknowledge that there is some controversy here.
 * 5) Stable:  The page is frequently edited, though (with the exception of the Benwing edit above), most recent edits are minor in nature.  There aren't any ongoing edit wars at this point.
 * 6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:  The article shines in this area -- there are only four images, but the first two are historical, relevant, and interesting; the latter two show that there's still present-day variation in the spelling of "OK"/"Okay".

I haven't formally nominated the article yet, because I think it's verrrry close to qualifying but not quite there based on the suggestions I've made above. --Heath 71.62.123.39 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article strikes me as advocating the theories of a certain Mr. Read. It would be useful to have live links to any of his writings.  I have tried to soften the pride of place accorded to the mass market / generalist Random House Dictionary of American Slang and have added one more serious (and more recent) scholarly reference.  I cannot pretend to be an expert on the question, but I don't think those primarily basing themselves on Read can either.--SashiRolls (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason the article "strikes" you as advocating Read's theories is that these are the theories generally accepted as scholarly consensus. NPOV requires us to reflect consensus.  If there are scholarly sources making contrary arguments (as in the source you quote), these may be noted, but do not merit removing the fact that a consensus exists.  The Random House source is used because it happens to be one that explicitly discusses and dismisses the other etymologies. Most dictionaries simply list either or both of the two primarily accepted etymologies and don't even mention the others at all.  In the case of the source you present, it does not seem to go beyond simply noting the existence of similar-sounding discourse markers in various African languages.  From a linguistic perspective, this evidence does not meet the burden of proof.  Coincidences of all sorts of similar-sounding words exist between different languages, which is why linguists require stronger proof. Prof. Holloway is not a linguist and does not seem to present any documentary evidence of the sort that linguists would accept, i.e. evidence of any causal link between the African-language discourse markers and the English word "okay".  Prof. Read spends a great deal of effort tracing exactly such links, which is the reason that his etymologies are generally accepted and others are not. Benwing (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, the scholarly record is much stronger in favor of Read's etymology than this article claimed. The article appears to have been extensively edited by people trying to debunk the standard etymology in favor of Choctaw and/or West African etymologies.  I rewrote the section accordingly. (Before trying to alter this, please go and read the sources yourself ...) Benwing (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For the moment, I'll reserve judgment on your claims. I've downloaded a few fairly recent grammars from a French scholar on West African languages and will have a look myself at how the confirmatory marker that Holloway talks about is used. Thank you for adding all these citations, but do keep in mind that (at least from my point of view) the tone of the article is anything but neutral.  For example the line about the black panthers, is this an argument?  The verb "resurrected" is likewise rather partial, sir.  If we are to work together to improve the documentation on this arcane question, please, let's be respectful of the actors involved.  SashiRolls (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In addition, it is (unfortunately) usually the case that scholarly writings in linguistics and other humanities fields cannot be found freely on the Internet. All of the references to Read, Cassidy et al. can be found through JSTOR, but unfortunately only the first page of JSTOR articles can be freely accessed.  However, if you happen to attend a university, you can usually get full JSTOR access through the university's library system, and you may also be able to find it through your local public library or similar sources.Benwing (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Major Revision
I would appreciate that discussion take place before removing structural elements in the etymology section. I propose that the last section "miscellaneous arcania" be deleted, I do not see how it contributes anything of importance (other than length) to the article. SashiRolls (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I was working on a revision User:Jnestorius/Okay which I don't think I'll ever get back to. The Etymology sections at least are fairly thorough. jnestorius(talk) 20:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jnestorius. Your page did pop up in my research, but since it was a User page I hadn't really investigated your excellent impartial presentation.  For the official article, it does seem to me that brevity and impartiality should be key.  SashiRolls (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds my revision; I did it before noticing this discussion. The previous structure of the article was terrible, with no logical ordering and the entire Choctaw etymology being covered twice over in two different sections. I also removed the unreferenced synthesis speculating that the Choctaw usage came from West African slaves. – Smyth\talk 05:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not at all, thank you for your contribution. The comments about Mobilian Jargon were explicitly sourced to a dissertation on Mississippi Choctaw, I will add another scholarly reference on the well-known trade language, which is an important factor of exchange between the major languages of the day.  This is not Original Research (OR), but shared published knowledge.  I agree that the organization needed work, it seemed to me that the wisest was to let the facts speak for themselves in a first section:  earliest attestations. (forgot to sign) SashiRolls (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please also see my comment in the previous section about the 1784 citation. – Smyth\talk 10:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Good comments, I've added a link to the image for the 1784 citation. and have humbled down the wording.  It seems to me that the Read / Misc. Arcania sections would still benefit from consolidation, significant streamlining, and renaming.  In hopes that the Read experts will hear this call. SashiRolls (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"mnewel English"
The word "mnewel" appears to be a typo here, but I have no idea what the author intended. Even worse -- several sites have quoted this portion of the article. If someone knows what was intended can we get it corrected? Otherwise the phrase "and mnewel English" should be removed. Donperk (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently, it's an in-joke. I have removed it; if there's a more legitimate aspect, it needs to be supported or clarified. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Important evidence
New article: http://mentalfloss.com/article/50042/whats-real-origin-ok. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Occitan
I have removed a long speculation about Occitan from the south of France as a source of OK, becuase it had no reference - the only ref went to a wikipedia article. It was all placed by one new account. The stuff about "new rochelle" in particular was incredibly speculative. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Oll Korrekt", "Ola Kala" (although a Greek myself, i find the suggestion absurd, no matter how many sources one cites) and the rest of the OK-origin theories are unsubstantial. Even the "Old Kinderhook" assumption is obviously a posterior use of an existing expression. Why do you have such a hard time grasping the correct etymology (OK, from Oc), even suggested in the List of proposed etymologies of OK? Are you so satisfied with a list of ridiculous theories, that you cannot stand the obvious, more than a ludicrous "good faith" time span?


 * "New Rochelle" stuff is considered speculative, whereas Choctaw, Western African, Boston fad etc are all ..OK?

Steliokardam (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The items with more extensive listings have lots of good sources. Yours doesn't. That's the difference. It doesn't matter what you (or I, or any wikipedia editor) finds absurd, or our opinions about obvious etymologies - sourcing matters. Your item lacks it, so it is kept in short item in the list of all the various guesses. That's why it keeps getting reverted; find a couple of good sources and things might change. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By sourcing, I don't mean sources which prove that the etymology is true - as the article makes clear, nobody knows where OK came from. I mean sourcing which shows that a particular hypothesis has been the topic of discussion and analysis in reputable sources. Anybody can dream up a possible derivation; those guesses should only be part of this article in detail if that derivation has been the subject of discussion and analysis. Otherwise this article would be swamped with various ideas (as it once was). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Crystal clear, dude! Ola Kala, oke, okeh, waw-kay, Очень Хорошо, oll korrect! Steliokardam (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation of "oc" was /ɔk/ not /oʊkeɪ/. Little French kids nowadays do indeed pronounce OK /ɔk/ the first time they see a dialogue box, but by the time they are six years old or so they laugh about it.  :) I think you were probably joking, but I'm not sure Wikipedia articles are really the place for such jesting.  Personally, I don't think it overly likely that there was one trewe etymology, but that the 3 main etymologies discussed probably all had a role in the expansion of the term... SashiRolls (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been removed again a couple of times, six months later, for the same reasons - the only source was a Greek-language blog, not useful for the English-language wikipedia. No amount of indignation will change that! If this etymology it has been discussed by a reputable source that editors in the English-language wikipedia can read, then great, let's include it! If not, then no. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

oka
In the table "oka" is listed as an SMS or chat version, although more than that it seems to me like a variation used there by Spanish speakers (maybe also Portugese?). In Spanish you don't end words in consonants like K and the K is voiced "ka" in Spanish, while in English oka is a rather pointless abrviation saving just one letter when the shorter ok already exists. If it extended to English speakers, it may well have come from Spanish speakers. Quién es como Dios? (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

– Okay is simply a respelling of OK, and all of the history of the phrase lives within the latter. Compare OK with okay on Wiktionary and note the vast difference in substance. Relisted  Calidum Talk To Me 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC) WikiWinters (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay → OK
 * OK → OK (disambiguation)
 * Support per nom--ngrams are inconclusive but logic seems to lie with the proposal.  Red Slash 21:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If so, then page OK is a long disambig page, not a redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think what Anthony Appleyard is saying is that OK is not currently a redirect to Okay, it is a separate dab, so this move request is incomplete. You need to add the OK page to the move request. After which, here is a decision matrix:
 * Is OK more WP:COMMONNAME than Okay?
 * Is the-word-OK-meaning-"all right" the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the sequence-of-letters "OK"?
 * {|class="wikitable"

! Answer to #1 ! Answer to #2 ! Move old Okay to... ! Move old OK to... ! New OK is...
 * Y || Y || OK || OK (disambiguation) || the-word-OK-meaning-"all right"
 * Y || N || OK (word) Okay (no move; see below) || OK (no move) || disambiguation (as now)
 * N || Y || Okay (no move) || OK (disambiguation) || redirect to Okay
 * N || N || Okay (no move) ||  OK (no move) || disambiguation (as now)
 * }
 * My answers are Yes to both #1 and #2. (I think that OK is the most common spelling, with okay second, O.K. third, and ok fourth. It's an exaggeration to say all the history lives within OK; some is with okay, and strictly speaking O.K. with punctuation was the form under which it took off (although the very first attestation is o.k.) jnestorius(talk) 23:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK (no pun intended), here: Talk:OK --WikiWinters (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I fixed your edits. Next time please follow the directions on WP:RM. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought it was a single-page move at first. Thanks. --WikiWinters (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My answers are Yes to both #1 and #2. (I think that OK is the most common spelling, with okay second, O.K. third, and ok fourth. It's an exaggeration to say all the history lives within OK; some is with okay, and strictly speaking O.K. with punctuation was the form under which it took off (although the very first attestation is o.k.) jnestorius(talk) 23:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK (no pun intended), here: Talk:OK --WikiWinters (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I fixed your edits. Next time please follow the directions on WP:RM. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought it was a single-page move at first. Thanks. --WikiWinters (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The word is "Okay" and the abbreviation is "OK". The spelling of the word is more notable than its abbreviation. That, and in the United States of America, a standard use of "OK" is the abbreviation for the state of Oklahoma. Leave everything as is; the term "OK" does not have a clear primary topic. Steel1943  (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the word is actually "OK," as "okay" is a phonetic respelling of "OK." --WikiWinters (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, the purpose of this move discussion, as proposed, is to designate a new primary topic for the term "OK", and I do not believe that it should be the word "okay". That, and in all movies' closed captions/interpretation captions and media that I have seen, the more common spelling of "okay" IS "okay". Also, per the dictionary that I am looking at right now, the word IS "okay" and "OK" is an abbreviation for it. Cheers, Steel1943  (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, as I personally find "OK" to feel less natural than "okay," but the dictionary sister site for Wikipedia, Wiktionary, lists "OK" as the "original/real word," not "okay." --WikiWinters (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that. However, this important question remains: Do you, the nominator, honestly believe that "okay", the word, is the primary topic for the term "OK" over ALL of the other examples on OK (disambiguation)? And if so, why? Steel1943  (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it is from which all of the derivatives are. It has the most etymology. I'd like to hear the input of others. --WikiWinters (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. Just making sure, since that is not specifically stated in the rationale of this nomination. I would highly recommend adding that to your opening nomination rationale so that other editors will understand this discussion. (However, I still oppose for the reasons I stated above.) Steel1943  (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. WikiWinters is correct that OK is the original form and okay is just a phonetic expansion. As far as I know, all linguists who have discussed the term have done so under the rubric OK, as here and in this book. I also suspect, though I cannot prove, that historically OK has been the more commonly used form, with okay perhaps having come to rival it in relatively recent times. Deor (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Dunno what dictionary you consulted, but Oxford, American Heritage, Collins, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Webster's New World all have "okay" as a variant of "OK". Of course the fact that OK was the original spelling is not hugely relevant (see Etymological fallacy) but what the authoritative sources are saying is that OK is still the most common spelling. If you sincerely believe (whereas I don't) that a majority of Americans think of Oklahoma rather than okay when they read "OK" then you might favour moving okay to  OK (word). jnestorius(talk) 13:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving Okay to OK (word) is definitely a plausible option; essentially, I'm opposed to making the word the primary topic for the term "OK". There's too many other options. Steel1943  (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of options that matters, it's their relative salience. There are plenty of long dab pages of form Foo (diambiguation) where Foo is not a dab; e.g. USA (disambiguation), Elvis (disambiguation). jnestorius(talk) 16:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A term that requires parenthetical disambiguation isn't necessary when natural disambiguation - in this case the very common alternate spelling "okay" - is available. The discussion should be between moving to "OK" or leaving it here.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cuchullain's comment seems response to Steel1943's comment rather than to mine. The discussion on moving Okay to OK necessarily includes discussion of moving the existing dab OK to "OK (disambiguation)"; that is the substance of this subthread. jnestorius(talk) 07:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support moving Okay to OK if it's the primary topic of "OK" (which I suspect it is), strong oppose a move to OK (word) or similar. This is textbook WP:NATURALDIS; if just "OK" is not available, the common alternative Okay is preferable natural disambiguation over anything that requires a parenthesis.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of WP:NATURALDIS and have amended my above table accordingly. jnestorius(talk) 07:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. WikiWinters appears to be correct, original use was "OK", and "okay" is a phonetic respelling, a hypercorrection, and it looks odd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"No consensus" on likely origin
I believe that it is clear that the predominately supported etymology among reliable sources is the Boston origin. That possibility should presented as the primary, most likely origin, with the other suggestions being as more secondary theories. I don't believe there is "no consensus" for the origin; rather, there is a consensus with some outlying viewpoints still being held. To say that consensus does not exist is misleading. Dea db  eef  14:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A cursory look at the history of this article and its talk page would indicate there's anything but a consensus, neither on Wikipedia nor in real life. I'm not convinced these edits conclusively put the issue to rest (not enough to declare consensus, anyway). But, I suppose we should seek meta-consensus here: Is the Boston abbreviation fad the accepted origin? Can we stick a fork in the debate once and for all? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Blackguard 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim that there is no consensus is vague (consensus among whom? the wider public? linguists in general? linguists specialising in English? experts on "OK"?) and not supported by any source; the obvious solution is to simply leave this part out, as it is unnecessary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have returned that sentence because it *is* necessary from a readership point of view: Otherwise readers leap straight into the first proposed etymology, which brings a strong assumption that the Boston fad is the correct etymology. The sentence is a contextual setup reflecting material in the article, not some reference-worthy statement of fact. Removing it just confuses readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's nonsense. The section titles and the "See also" link make it clear that the first etymology, like all others that follow, is a proposed etymology, not necessarily the correct etymology. We do not cater to readers that are too inattentive to miss a "proposed" that occurs in a large font in a section title and even gets repeated immediately afterwards. We write for readers that we assume are not morons and need not explained everything multiple times. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we write clearly to minimize possible confusion, especially since wikipedia is read by many people who don't speak English as their first language. We don't sneer at people who fail to see things exactly as we do.
 * Your replacement sentence is, in my humble opinion, pompous and hard to read, and it makes a claim at least as unsupported as the one it replaced. But since you feel strongly about it, we'll leave it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "...decreasing order of prominence in the literature". Oy vey. What is the literature? Is someone going through the literature and keeping count? <font color="MidnightBlue">Blackguard 07:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Prominence is easily verified by inspecting the cited sources. The section on the Boston abbreviation fad is quite clear about this point. But if our readers and editors can be trusted to be this smart, it's probably not necessary to state the order explicitly.
 * Note that this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Readers who have trouble with "long words", Latinate vocabulary and specialist lexicon, will find most of Wikipedia incredibly pompous and impenetrable. This is one of the most frequently aired complaints about Wikipedia, after all. Our policy is to use the introduction sections as lay-friendly summaries, but the body of the article can place higher demands on the reader. The sentence in question was not part of the introduction, but I have now revised the whole part. If you can improve the readability of the article without sacrificing precision, you are welcomed to do so. It's a wiki. It's just easier said than done. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Back to the original issue, which made me object to the existing wording. As scientific consensus points out, consensus does not mean unanimity. However, Read's explanation is so widely accepted that I must question the claim that there is no consensus, and suspect that it is a way to sneak in POV by amateurs who feel defensive about some alternative explanation and wish to preserve a perception that the matter is not, for all intents and purposes, settled, so that their alternative explanation can receive more attention than it would otherwise if Read's etymology were portrayed as essentially the consensus. I see no real reason to challenge this conclusion, and no reason to disagree with Benwing, who is very knowledgeable about linguistics.
 * As a common but striking expression whose origins are not well-documented nor obvious, and which, due to its simplicity, makes it very easy to come up with plausible-sounding explanations (see backronym), OK attracts an inordinate amount of attention from amateurs. Quite probably not a single competing explanation, however, rises to the level of Read's research, not even close; essentially, they're largely baseless speculation and just-so stories, which you can believe or not. Read may not have been able to prove his story beyond reasonable doubt, either, but he made such a strong case from circumstantial evidence that all these reference works have fallen in line, leading to an effective consensus indeed, as far as I can tell. Even if I cannot back this perception with citations, if no source states something about consensus explicitly either way or the other, we should not do that either, given how it is not exactly obvious that there is no consensus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, poking around and reading more into the topic, I think you're taking a reasonable position here, even though I'm not convinced that "effective consensus" has reallhy been reached (but I'm not all that knowledgeable). Your current wording and organization of the section seems reasonable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC).

Source

 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/11/origin-of-ok-expression-video_n_6133026.html --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post is a poor source because it is cut-and-paste pseudo-journalism at its worst - this is a classic example, nothing but "somebody else said something" ... so the real link is

Please do not remove verifiable data
I have fished back up evidence that has been deleted by SpacePotato in a recent edit. His objection with my "editorializng" was taken seriously however, and I let the quote speak for itself. I couldn't resist adding a bit of background information on Read from the introduction to his book. It is important to have an idea of the fellow behind the archival work. Of course, the (written) archives Read had at his disposal probably did not include the data that is available 50 years later... (linked in this article)  That is why Read himself didn't care much whether his etymology for OK stuck for all eternity. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have fished back up evidence that has been accidently suppressed by Benwig in his 1 Mar 2012 edit (I have verified the exactness of the citation at the internet archive here: http://www.archive.org/stream/cihm_41222/cihm_41222_djvu.txt  (search for "great fifh jump up"):

"Kay, massa, you just leave me, me sit here, great fish jump up into da canoe, here he be, massa, fine fish, massa; me den very grad; den me sit very still, until another great fish jump into de canoe;..."

Likewise some sensible arguments were deleted for no apparent reason.

Regardless of who is right or wrong on this issue Mr. Benwig, erasing data and argument that do not fit with your theory (even if it remains the theory most widely printed for the moment) strikes me as objectionable. I am not the source of the first citation, I am the source of some of the deleted argumentation, no worries on that. The basic idea of the argumentation could also be attributed to the linguist Paul Werth (http://linguistlist.org/issues/4/4-705.html), though at the time I had not yet read his comments. Another source of discussion on the question is here: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?EtymologyOfOkay

I have tried in my last edit to remove the uncharitable adjectives, verbs, and unnecessary qualifiers from the March 1st edit. However it is clear that the data must be put back in, whoever put that here contributed a gem.

I apologize for the ruthlessness of my tone, Benwig, I do respect the material you have contributed, you have taught me a hell of a lot that I did not know. Thank you! However, I do want all the POV to be available. And, yes, I am more persuaded of the creolist hypothesis, m'kay? :)

SashiRolls (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate that a neutral pair of eyes look through for POV errors of my own, as well as readability which I think may be becoming a problem for this section. We need to be more concise. SashiRolls (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's OR to call this "earliest verifiable written attestation" unless you actually have a linguist who thinks so. For one thing, the OCR quality of that copy is appalling. ("I {Jjfeatened him ^^ith fevere punifhmeq|") Without seeing an image of the page, that word could be virtually anything. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 06:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the image of the page: http://www.archive.org/stream/cihm_41222/cihm_41222#page/n151/mode/2up/search/%22great+fifh%22. I understand your point regarding the word "earliest".  What I am saying is "the earliest of the verifiable written attestations present on this Wikipedia page" which is admittedly a more restricted claim, difficult to write without awkwardness! I'll settle for an indefinite article. SashiRolls (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Change the article text to OK
Folks who wanted to change the title should now change the article so that all those "okay" references now say "OK" to agree with the new title. I've tweaked the intro but there are hundreds more. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, maybe we should have moved it to "okeh" ^^ Saying that OK is a phonetic rendering of okay is a bit off.  /ok/ is a phonetic spelling of "oak" said with a French accent. Are you serious about respelling all of the instances of "okay" in this article to represent the NewSpeak spelling? ^^ ps hi David. SashiRolls (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Original Research in West African etymology section
The section on the West African theory of the etymology of OK contains this text:

"one can certainly wonder at the fact that this standard of written proof does not account for the illiteracy in which the West African speakers were kept during the period of slavery in question."

While one can certainly wonder this, unless this point is made in a reliable secondary source (and it should be rephrased if so), this constitutes WP:ORIGINAL_RESEARCH. I've tagged it as requiring a citation, and I'll remove it in the near future if it's not cited. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and speculation, no matter how interesting, doesn't belong here. Arathald (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Simpsons and South Park
Can someone give me a legitimate reason for a reference to "The Simpsons's" and "South Park's" use/spelling of OK? We have spellings and usage for multiple cultures, which are quite interesting, but then a western cultural reference at the end. Not that there's any problem with western culture. What I mean to say is, The Simpsons and South Park don't deserve to be seen as such a substantial cultural influence as to get their own references.

The reason I don't take issue with the Little Rascals' inclusion is because "Okie dokie" is definitely something that I've heard before (unlike The Simpsons'), and it definitely seems as though it was responsible for popularizing, if not developing, the usage. This against South Park's usage of "Mmm kay", which isn't original; that phrase had been around long before South Park.

I won't remove these for now, because I'm sure someone wants to make a case for them.


 * Although obviously nowhere near their peak both have been fairly massive parts of popular culture in many, many different countries and for a very long time. Each character is also very deeply associated with their respective OK-based catchphrase. They are absolutely substantial cultural influences, not just in the west and no matter your personal exposure or lack thereof. And even if it was only mainly relevant to English-speakers... to put the cultural impact in perspective, d'oh is literally in the Oxford English Dictionary.

On the other hand the mentions seem very lazily thrown in and should be worked on, but then the entire article is just a massive mess... "spelling variations" and "international usage" basically just repeat the same things and lack coherency, and of course the article ends with a linux reference. Always a linux reference, ugh. 85.227.181.208 (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Always a Simpsons reference, equally ugh! I think they're insufficiently important to be included, but you're right that the whole section is badly organized and confusing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Alternative origin
While far be it from me to muddy the waters, has it not been considered that when the seas were lower and Britain was still joined to the rest of 'Gal', in the old common language 'ogg', now 'ochee' or 'hueco' (a hollow, horizontal or vertical) could be a cave or 'home'? In England we have Wookey, a place of caverns in which people lived, perhaps even during the ice-ages, too. So if you were at home, it was OK. The origins of language go back beyond academia and the Neanderthal monosyllables to our animal past. No source other than evidence and common sense.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OK&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.71.163 (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The waters are already muddied! Many, many, many possibilities have been considered, which is why more than intriguing speculation is needed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on OK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.illinoisprairie.info/chocokeh.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 16:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion - claim was not reflected in source
I deleted the following claim: "In present-day American English, both "kay" and "m'kay" are attested modern pronunciations of the term. The fact that the onset /mk/ is foreign to English phonotactics may lend some support to the idea advanced by Dalby that "okay", along with "uh-huh" (yes) and "uh-uh" (no) -- and presumably the corresponding intonation patterns on "mm-hm", "mm-um"—have a West African origin. (ref. http://linguistlist.org/issues/4/4-705.html)" I checked the source, and the above claim is nowhere to be found. I deleted the whole thing. And even if the source did contain the claim above, I question using that link as a source: we do not know the credentials of the people posting there. They might be very highly educated individuals, but it's a messaging list, not peer reviewed or anything of the kind. Furthermore, the reason I decided to check the link in the first place: to suggest that South Park's "M'kay" somehow has African origins is ludicrous. It's just a slurred, lazy way of saying "okay" - "mk" is not an onset, it might as well have been spelled, "mmmm, 'kay?" --Tsuka (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that you left the claim directly referenced on linguist list, for which I thank you.   In fact, I believe I was synthesizing the work in Holloway, Joseph E.; Vass, Winifred Kellersberger (1993). The African Heritage of American English. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253328381, but my memory is a bit hazy so I won't restore the claim.


 * However, regarding m'kay as having its origins on South Park, I can assure you that I've heard m'kay all my life and that it can indeed sound like an onset in many a dialect. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I never said or suggested "m'kay" originated with South Park. I merely said that to suggest African origins to something which is obviously just slurred speech, is ludicruous. And it is still not an onset: 'M' is the sound you naturally make when your mouth is closed, and "mmkay" (or "mmokay") is easily the result when you start speaking before opening the mouth. There are examples of such even in my native Norwegian and, I'll wager, most languages. I know the stand-alone 'n' in Japanese often turns to 'm' (like "kempo" instead of the correct "kenpo") - sometimes sounds are introduced because they are easier. They do not require some foreign origin. At any rate, "mmkay" is sometimes pronounced with an undefined vowel, which actually sounds a bit like 'm' - this goes to show that "okay" is the word one has in mind, and the sounds produced are the way they are because one is too lazy at the moment to form a proper 'O'. Tsuka (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Supposed "Maya" variant
Article currently says Octl is a "Modern Maya variation of "Okay" from Maya language in contact with English. Frequently used in the Yucatán Peninsula. -tl is added to make it phonetically similar to other words in Maya." In addition to lacking a citation, this is linguistically implausible: no Mayan language has the consonant commonly spelled "tl". (Mesoamerican words ending in "tl" are generally from Nahuatl, which is unrelated to the Mayan languages and spoken in an entirely different part of Mexico.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.3.4 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Referencing
Regarding 's removal of citation style from the article, I would like to make it clear that I have tagged the page because I noticed that the Notes and References sections contain similar content and could possibly be merged to eliminate confusion as to where the article citations are located. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. In My ever-so-Humble Opinion, that's not enough of a problem to put a big hatnote on top of the article, although it is worthy of discussion here and of repair.
 * Hatnotes can really throw off readers, especially new readers, making them suspicious or mistrustful of articles. I think they should be used with more caution than experienced editors sometimes use - particularly a hatnote that doesn't reflect problems in the content of the article but reflects problems in its presentation. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Usage
I have just removed a long, unsourced list of ways that OK can be used, under the "Usage" subsection, which smacked of vague original research. Several of them are mentioned in the introduction. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Origins and Etymology
What about this? link Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends By David Wilton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.136.10 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an ancient european word 'ochee' or 'oque', which means a hollow or cave, ie.'home'. In Somerset in England, there is a place called Wookey, where there are caverns in which people lived for thousands of years, even during the ice-ages. 'Home' and therefore acceptable, even comfortable. So when a thing was good, it was 'OK'. Enough said?92.176.83.212 (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * An excellent example of how easy it is to think up a plausible-sounding etymology of a short word made of two common sounds.
 * Also, it's an excellent example of why such etymologies should be ignored unless they are accompanied by real evidence that they actually exist and were used. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In the book 'The Mendips' (hills), published fifty or sixty years ago, it specifically mentions that the origin of 'Wookey' was 'ochee, which equates to the modern word 'oque´. Nuf said? 92.176.83.212 (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.176.83.212 (talk)


 * I found the book. It was not where I thought.  The Mendips - by Coysh, Mason and Waite 1954, published by Robert Hale Ltd. pp. 35 -37.  It refers to writing by historian Camden in 1586, that it was then called Ochie-Hole, which by 1690 had become Oaky Hole etc.  A very informative book, explaining the origin of OK to you disbelievers.92.176.83.212 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on OK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606102657/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/OK to http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/OK
 * Added tag to http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?find
 * Added tag to http://www.languagemonitor.com/?p=5122
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018210748/http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxokxxxx.html to http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxokxxxx.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair use image is easily replaceable
Why do we have a single-use Fair Use image at OK? I cannot see how this image in any way complies with the Fair Use policy. We can literally take the OK dialogue from any program, and by my experience, we usually use screenshots from free-content software. To use Facebook's proprietary interface is plain useless. Blimey, even the template used states that it should be used, which this doesn't. It is an example of an OK button in computing. I say speedy remove the image for being unnecessary to Wikipedia. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 21:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * After two days, no one has talked with me about this. Well, since this is an issue about non-free content, I hereby proceed without consensus. I'm removing the article from this article, and then I will flag the image itself for speedy deletion by F5. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 19:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The claim is that dialogs usually use the spelling "OK". Facebook is a prominent exception. An obscure free-content program would be a less prominent exception. jnestorius(talk) 14:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. So Facebook's spelling is a notable exception? Okay, I get that. But do we have to illustrate it with NFC, though? I'm thinking about WP:NFCCP criterion no. 8, reading that we should use NFC if their . In this case, understanding that Facebook uses another spelling can stated in text without any difference in clarity. Having a image to it is a lot like a "look, evidence to the text!!!" thing. That would be fine, but in this case, it is a non-free image that we cannot use as we want. I re-removed the image - when it comes to NFC, the default option is always omission. Nothing personal, friend. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 16:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible alternative origin
I cannot of course prove that the origin of the "word" o.k. is definitely what I am about to describe,  but for me it is a definite possibility,  especially given its strong modern use emanating particularly from the USA. In recent years I have had growing contact with Chinese culture through my wife who comes from Malaysia with ancestors back a generation from China. I am not sure when I first noticed it, but I have noticed it many times since.

Before I explain, perhaps some justification that it could come from Chinese. I guess it is no new fact that there were many Chinese in America, very soon after the initial European occupation. The Chinese made their way there in large numbers, like many other nationalities, when gold was first discovered. They were hard workers, and so were favored as workers by the American pioneers and corporations. They were used as laborers in clothing and fabrics industries but also in agriculture. They were used quite extensively for, and were particularly instrumental to, building the railways there. What I am trying to establish here is the strong connection they had to a broad range of the American population from the early 1800's onwards.

In starting to learn and pick up some Chinese Mandarin expressions, I have learnt that the expression for "I agree" or "I concur" (essentially ok) is "ker yi". Spelt here in my interpretation of how it sounds. Now anyone familiar with the people and language will know that they very rarely say it once! If someone says something they agree with, it is common to repeat it a few or several times, kind of like we do in some circumstances in English. Now I am probably going to have to record this for you to get the point, which I will do at some point, but when said quickly and repetitively, it would be "ker yi,  ker yi, ker yi". But actually what that sounds like is "okay, okay, okay". Try it for yourself.

I am convinced that what I am saying could be in fact the origin of widespread use. The first time I heard someone say it, through a bizarre little twist in my brain, it sounded like "okay, okay,  okay" in English. I welcome your feedback. Evetal (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2019
37.129.65.27 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"Все против всех".
OK!! ..

"Заинтересованная группа лиц учёных ) в ЦЕРН-е". - Ха! Не верю!! Да они там на БАК-е БАК'l-уши бъют!! Водку пьют, деньги делят и морды у всех битые и светятца аж фонарями светодиодными !! ))) 85.140.79.182 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2019
Andrew Jackson is mentioned without any explanation of why he was relevant. Please change

sense of "Oll Korrect," to Andrew Jackson's bad spelling.

to

sense of "Oll Korrect," to the bad spelling of Andrew Jackson, Van Buren's predecessor.

208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Introduction and 'voice tone'
In the introduction to the article the last sentence says "it can also be used with appropriate voice tone to show doubt or to seek confirmation", where 'voice tone' redirects to Nonverbal communication. Can we change this to redirect it to Intonation (linguistics)? That article defines intonation as "indicating the attitudes and emotions of the speaker, signalling the difference between statements and questions..." and so on. I think it would be a better link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.100.138 (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020
- !Variation!!Where used/Origins Matt Polito (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

An "American English" word?
OK certainly has it's origins in the USA, but is it accurate describe it as being an "American English word" in current times? It's used extensively in other Anglophone countries. Wiktionary doesn't indicate that the word is a localism. <span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> — Ruyter (talk • edits)  17:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur and have made the changes. Incidentally, tracking when it crossed the pond would be a nice touch to the article. Wolfdog (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve the example used to compare "OK" with "good".
I would suggest to change the example "The french fries were great, but the burger was just OK" example to "The burger was great, the french fries were OK, too." since, in my opinion, it sounds more practical and better illustrates how "OK" can mean "mediocre" when used in contrast with "good" or "great". James Goner (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

OK or Okay ?
can we please clarify if it OK or Okay. I don't like Okay. I only use OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.24.51 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK is the normal version, Okay is the sarcastic form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.239.124 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay isn’t sarcastic, I think it’s normal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.126.135 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

okeh spelling
Tarl N. deleted the variant "okeh" from the lede shortly after I had added it. He contends that "As best I know, that's not an acceptable English spelling," though he gives no evidence that it is not accepted. (Personal experience is not acceptable in Wikipedia; I was raised spelling it "okeh," but that is no more relevant nor irrelevant than Tarl N.'s "knowledge.) The citations we have give it as acceptable  in 1913 and no reference indicating that that is no longer so.  Kdammers (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2020
Alternative etymologies A large number of origins have been proposed. Some of them are thought to fall into the category of folk etymology and are proposed based merely on apparent similarity between OK and one or another phrase in a foreign language with a similar meaning and sound. Some examples are:

A corruption from the speech of the large number of descendants of Scottish and Ulster Scots (Scots-Irish) immigrants to North America, of the common Scots phrase och aye ("oh yes").[10] A borrowing of the Greek phrase όλα καλά (óla kalá), meaning "all good".[33] ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// to Alternative etymologies A large number of origins have been proposed. Some of them are thought to fall into the category of folk etymology and are proposed based merely on apparent similarity between OK and one or another phrase in a foreign language with a similar meaning and sound. Some examples are:

A corruption from the speech of the large number of descendants of Scottish and Ulster Scots (Scots-Irish) immigrants to North America, of the common Scots phrase och aye ("oh yes").[10] A borrowing of the Greek phrase όλα καλά (óla kalá), meaning "all good" '''when the greek sailors were writing the shorter abbreviation o.k on the crates when disembarking them, with the "." in the middle.'''

abbreviation .[33] 193.92.204.227 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Mandarin does not natively have a syllable with the pronunciation "kei"
This is incorrect. 剋 and 尅 are pronounced "kei". --2001:16B8:31EF:7900:1DA4:B01D:5ABA:D676 (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semjjnok
2601:140:8102:6780:68D4:BBA1:E7E2:FD5C (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Jackson quote
In many other sources around the WWW the quotation attributed to Andrew Jackson contains some other words in place of "uncalled good", while it is understandable to not want to see the N-Word at all, I doubt it is right to rewrite history for the sake of it. Especially since this also removes the notable fact that Hugh McGary and Gasper Mansker apparently engaged in slavetrade. If you take away our right to say "fuck" you take away our right to say "fuck you".84.164.198.15 (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above overheated comment does appear to be correct, although there are many sources that mention "uncalled good" but it's quite possible they're scraping wikipedia. "negro man" is frequently cited by reputable sources so I will add it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

au quai
There is also the version that ok comes from French "au quai": it is on the dock, meaning ready. --Alex1011 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

origin of the word
in Finnish oikea is right opposite of left. amir arab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.86.153.167 (talk) 06:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022
Under References, please change "Greco, Frank A.; Degges, Mary (Autumn–Winter 1975). "The Etymology of OK Again". American Speech. 50 (3/4): 333–335. doi:10.2307/3088024. JSTOR 3088024" to

"Greco, Frank A.; Degges, Mary (Autumn–Winter 1975). "The Etymology of OK Again". American Speech. 50 (3/4): 333–335. doi:10.2307/3088024. JSTOR 3088024; https://fagreco.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/etymology_of_ok_again.pdf"

Note that that the JSTOR link requires a $15 fee; the Duke University Press said I could post a copy on my personal page for general use, which I have done. 2600:4040:5203:5200:6245:CBFF:FE9F:39A (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Unfortunately, we cannot verify who you are or that Duke University Press agreed to any such arrangement, so cannot add a link to your personal Web site as requested. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will try to incorporate the email exchange from Duke University Press. That will give you a contact person to confirm. I'm not sure how I can verify who I am. Is there a captcha? :-)
 * Email exchange between me and Duke University Press:
 * https://fagreco.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/fw_-external-re_-request-to-post-a-link-to-an-article-in-american-speech.pdf
 * Thanks.
 * Frank Greco 2600:4040:5205:DA00:6245:CBFF:FE9F:39A (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What about using any of the established ways to share articles, such as ResearchGate (or your university's repository)? Replayful (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The email from Duke University Press on p2 of the above pdf says that they generally don't approve posting articles to ResearchGate. I don't have a university appointment at this time. The first page of the posted pdf of the article complies with Duke's permissions. 2600:4040:5205:DA00:6245:CBFF:FE9F:39A (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It just occurred to me. Instead replacing the JSTOR link, could you just add the other link? 2600:4040:5205:DA00:6245:CBFF:FE9F:39A (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Excessive citations
The first sentence in this section has seven citations; is it necessary to use seven as opposed to two or three citations? Existent human being (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Made a ref-group for Read's multiple articles alluded to in the text. Not sure why the original poster felt it was necessary to link to all six.  --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 14:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024
Noticed a small issue at the "In Unicode" section at bottom of the page:

In Unicode Several Unicode characters are related to visual renderings of OK: U+1F197 🆗 SQUARED OK U+1F44C 👌 OK HAND SIGN U+1F44D 👍 THUMBS UP SIGN U+1F592 🖒 REVERSED THUMBS UP SIGN U+1F646 🙆 FACE WITH OK GESTURE

The "U+1F592 🖒 REVERSED THUMBS UP SIGN" isn't showing the corresponding emoji (on Safari 17.3.1). So I would change 🖒 to 👎 G4wkpd (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The current character is correct, the name is just confusing. Reversed means its an outline of a thumbs up icon, the character you used is called "Thumbs Down" (there is also a "Reversed Thumbs Down", which is also an outline). Safari does not implement these characters but the article is about unicode, not Safari. Jamedeus (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)