Talk:Olly olly oxen free

Please explain it

After reading the page and the "kick the can" page, I still don't get it. If I am playing kick the can, under what circumstances would I want to yell this out? why? If an adult says this at a meeting, or at a party, what does it likely mean?

As far as the game is concerned, this is yelled when the can is kicked, thus placing all the players who had been tagged back into the game. The person who kicks the can is generally the new "it".

Kick-the-can was played in our neighborhood for many years. Nothing is not yelled when the can is kicked; the call is only used to call people in when the game is ended. Kick-the-can is basically hide-and-seek, with the added twist of the can being used instead of a 'home base'. In regular hide-and-seek, a home base is an object (a tree, or a front porch, etc) which serves as a 'free' zone to any player who can reach it before being tagged by 'it'. The can is not 'home base' in that respect, but it does serve as a temporary respite for the hiders, because whenever it is kicked, the seeker must find the can and replace it in its original spot, before returning to seeking. In the meantime, the other players may use that time to move around freely, to reveal themselves without being officially caught, or to find a different hiding spot. Depending on local rules, the kicking of the can may also release those who have already been caught. The seeker ('it') never kicks the can himself; he would rather try to guard it, but of course he has to leave it in order to find the others; but he tries to keep an eye on it. If he sees anyone approaching the can he can call '1-2-3 on <player's name>' which disallows that player from kicking it. And, the whole point of kicking the can down the street is that the can bouncing down the street makes a lot of noise -- there's no need to yell anything; the noise of the can being kicked is enough to signal the other players. In addition, the kicker of the can is not made 'it' - being 'it' is not a desired position (it's lonely, and everyone is against you). Being a successful kicker requires speed and courage and those qualities are rewarded with respect. Likewise the last person to be caught is also honored for his cleverness. Usually the job of being the next 'it' is given to the worst performer -- the first person to be caught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.112.155 (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In hide-and-seek it means that everyone can come out of hiding. Usually marking the end of the game (for dinner, bedtime or whatever) or the timeout (when "it" has failed to find everyone and has to give up on the stealthiest hiders). JimD (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone saying this at a party would be making a cultural reference. Everyone raised in the American and British cultures has played, watched or at least heard others playing games like kick-the-can and hide-and-seek. This phrase declares that a game is over ... or at least that one round is over ... and all the people hiding or evading the seeker/chaser (the one called "it" --- as it, "tag, you're it!") ... all of those people can come out of hiding (in hide-and-seek) or stop running away and gather around to talk or get ready for the next round of the game.

(It makes much more sense if you hear it as "all ye, all ye, all come free" --- which was my own interpretation of what was meant when I first encountered it as a kid). (see below). JimD (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible contexts in which it might make sense would be highly idiomatic. If I were in a meeting and said that sardonically it might indicate that I felt that others were "playing a game" or being evasive, or even that they were being timid or shy. In another tone it might be taken as an invitation to speak up without fear of penalties. (In some meetings, a question posed can seem to bear the threat that any response will earn the respondent some sort of extra work) JimD (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s, we used this song as a signal to all other players that a new round was beginning for whatever game we were playing. Be it flag, kick the can, hide 'n go seek, or anything else that had players hiding as part of the game, this was the signal to say that either someone new was "it" or that it was time to come back to base to start a new round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crow whisperer (talk • contribs) 16:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible etymology

When I was a kid I heard this odd sing-song and though it must be a corruption of something like: "All ye, all ye, all come free"

I have no scholarly research supporting this theory; so it is simply my old childhood theory. It could be a case of linguistic/cognitive closure (we hear things that "sound right") on my part. It could also be that it really was something like that and slowly got corrupted over time. JimD (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is sugested by Frederick Gome Cassidy & Joan Hall, Dictionary of American Regional English, (1985) Vol III (I-O), p. 874, under "Ole Ole Olson All In Free."DavidOaks (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology: I also can't find a source for this, but a professor in grad school told us the phrase had been passed on by children almost unchanged from Anglo-Saxon. The original phrase was "ealla ealla oxan freo" in Anglo-Saxon, or "olle olle oxen fri" in Middle English. The phrase literally means "all all oxen free," or more loosely "all of the oxen are free," and is said when the children are supposed to run from their hiding spots to home/safe "like oxen free from their pen." This is by far a more credible etymology than anything I've ever read otherwise. 71.227.163.196 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Good god. I always assumed it was descended from an actual warning. Ollie ollie or similar just a shout for attention, like Hey, or all-ye or something, because the oxen had gotten lose. So take cover, watch out! There are free oxen, FGS. I didn't think the kids' cry was anything but a pirating of an old cry that had nothing to do with how they were using it.Venqax (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the song, 'Deep in the Heart of Texas' and seen it was on the flip side of another song called 'Ollie Ollie Outs in Free' released in 1941. Seems like this is a possible origin or possibly just another variation.

Don't change article name

I dissent, therefore you shall leave the article title as it is.

Change article name

I don't see why this article title, a common phrase, should be capitalized. So I will change it "Olly olly oxen free" in approximately 36 hours unless someone comes forth with evidence that one or all of the words in the current title are proper nouns (due to the phrase's origin). Remember, the nomenclature of uncapitalized abelian groups originates from the proper noun last name of mathematician Niels Henrik Abel. So if "ollie" comes from "Oliver," should "ollie" be capitalized? I opt for "nay." If the silent masses unanimously (and unknowledgeably) agree, then I will change it; if one person dissents, I will leave the article name as it is and take it from there.

Also, I would advise the following redirects, which I will also create if no one objects:

• Oley oley oxen free
• Oly oly oxen free
• Ollie ollie oxen free

The only redirect that currently exists is ollyollyoxenfree.

Thanks for reading, if you are. --Gracenotes ^T § 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Maikel (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sound

This is described as a six-tone signal in the Halo books, but I count seven individual notes, but only four distinct notes... am I doing it wrong? Tar7arus 16:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing of the Halo books; but I always heard it sung out as seven notes: "o-lee, o-leee, o-xen, freeeeeeeeeeee" (with the first four syllables sung as normal notes, the next two short and staccato, and the last one lingering and trailing off). (As described above I also ways sang it with the same pattern but using the words that made more sense to me). JimD (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Quote: The exact origin of the phrase is unknown, but etymologists suspect it is a childish corruption of the German "Alle, alle auch sind frei!", (literally, "Everyone, everyone also is free!"), which is purported to have been a cruel joke often played upon Holocaust victims by their jailers. At any particular time, a prisoner might be released, immediately upon which the phrase would be shouted. Any other prisoners who also left would be killed further down the road by Nazi soldiers.<ref>Gordon Leeman. WWII: The True Story. 1987.</ref><ref>William Cartel. History of Germany. Revised and Expanded. 1815-1990.</ref>

Junk reference. It is datable to long before the Holocaust. See Ringler & Hall. DavidOaks (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Alle, alle auch sind frei" is only "pig German" (i. e. corrupted German). A proper German sentence with the appropriate meaning would be "Alle, alle sollen frei sein" or "Alle, alle seien frei", but I've never heard of this sentence being used in a game of catch, and the German Wikipedia article on the game of "catch" bears me out.

Therefore the etymology can not be correct, and although this section is backed up by references I've taken the drastic step to take it down.

I also think the etymology doesn't make any sense. Why would concentration camp jailers use this phrase to entice prisoners to run away so they could shoot them? Who would be daft enough to fall for this? Why (and how) would this phrase then consequently been adopted into a children's game played in the English-speaking world? Did Holocaust survivors think this would be a neat phrase to teach children to use in a game of catch?

I'd really like to know the true etymology though! Maikel (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the idea was cruel hoax based on the idea of a "free-pass". Seeing their fellow inmate allowed to wander free without repercussions enticed those to hope this was truly a "free-pass". At the time they left the gate they were not aware they would be shot. And they were not typically shot until down the road a piece out of site of those in camp.

Guards are known from time to time to be extremely ruthless individuals. Those lacking in self esteem view their deminished service (compared to soldiers or law enforcement personnel) as a personal affront and the more evil individuals have been known to take out their frustrations and anger on inmates.

The sentence is not grammatical German. But some online sources suggest it may be Pennsylvania Dutch. (Of course the nazi story is a load of crap.)--88.73.6.173 (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As a native speaker, I can confirm that this sentence is not German, but rather made up from German words. I removed the sentence and the Google Translate reference (as Google Translate is not a reliable source for grammar).--Kernpanik (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How about "alle alle sachen freed"?

"all all things freed". In the game of tag, the searcher announces "ready or not, here I come." When a new searcher catches the next searcher, they yell "alle alle sachen freed" to let hiders know they can come out and rehide while the new searcher counts loudly, then yells "ready or not, here I come!" Philip.e.kahn (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Etymology: I also can't find a source for this, but a professor in grad school told us the phrase had been passed on by children almost unchanged from Anglo-Saxon. The original phrase was "ealla ealla oxan freo" in Anglo-Saxon, or "olle olle oxen fri" in Middle English. The phrase literally means "all all oxen free," or more loosely "all of the oxen are free," and is said when the children are supposed to run from their hiding spots to home/safe "like oxen free from their pen." This is by far a more credible etymology than anything I've ever read otherwise. 71.227.163.196 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have removed the "cleanup" tag as it was not argued out on the discussions page. Maikel (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate pronunciation

As a kid (60 years ago) we shouted "Olly, Olly, Ox in free" to indicate that all players still in hiding could come in without being "captured" or otherwise penalized. The "in Free" portion agrees with the meaning of the phrase. Perhaps it is a corruption of "All ye, All ye, All in free". Former Iowa Kid (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I always thought when it came to "kick the can" the phrase was "Ollie Ollie Ox I'm Free!, meaning I just kicked the can and set everone loose to go hide again.TheKurgan (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

More Alternatives

It took me a while to find the article, as I was looking for "ally ally ...". Maybe someone would care to make a few more redirects? Here's what I'm talking about --BjKa (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My Name is Earl

I never heard this, growing up in Las Vegas (a culturally strange place that almost seems backwards). It wasn't until an episode of My Name is Earl did I hear this strange phrase and decided to research it. Is it a Midwest phrase or anything like that? Sierraoffline444 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about regions too. As someone who grew up in the south east UK, this is just another of those weird unexplained phrases you occasionally hear in a US movie or sitcom. Google n-grams seems to confirm that, finding some US references for "oxen free" but no British (though, admittedly it finds nothing at all anywhere for the full phrase). 208.87.58.246 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Similarity to the Kentish game 'Pop'

Does anyone has any information linking it a similar hide and seek game 'pop' played in Kent at least in the 1980s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.110.13 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

All the outs in free!

I would like to see a possible heading for "All the outs in free!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhb4lol (talk • contribs) 16:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

German etymology

Since the dubious German etymology for the phrase is being added again and again, I added a sentence explaining why it's unlikely to be true. Technically, this is original research, of course, so if you feel it's not up to WP standards, I would suggest the alternative of deleting both the German etymology as well as my addition to it. --Baumi (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Weird.82.42.131.52 (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My German husband laughed when he saw all this controversy

He used to play it when he was a little kid in Lower Saxony. The German is "alle alle Ochsen sind frei", that is, 'all the oxen are free', which is, of course, a good reason for the designated oxen and their chasers to run like crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.40.214.245 (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Tag

A bunch of items in the "popular culture" section were removed... all were unref'd and all or most were overly minor. The remainder are ref'd; some are still kind of minor, some not. This being so, I think that if the section is going to exist at all, this tag should be removed:

since appropriate trimming has occurred. But another editor disagrees and wants to keep the tag. She apparently thinks we need to find an article in the Atlantic or whatever that mentions all these examples and ties them together in an article titled something like "Olly Olly Oxen Free: A Touchstone Of American Popular Culture" or something. He doesn't want to do this work himself, just wants someone else to do it.

However, such an article is probably not forthcoming, thus the tag will stay more or less forever, which is not functional nor what tags are for. So it looks like we need to decide whether to remove the tag, or the section. I'm with keeping the section, since it exists and somebody has done the work of compiling and ref'ing it, and it's a short article so there's room, and it's not like destroying information is helpful to the reader, really. But maybe others feel different. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: whereas tags are not for lingering at the top of sections forever, In popular culture sections are not for "simply listing appearances", as the tag says. I'd rather remove the section entirely if editors are unable to produce nothing more than an unencyclopedic trivia list. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:: Mnmh, sez you. I don't agree, because "how widespead is or was knowledge and use of this phrase?" is a reasonable part of understanding key aspects of a phrase to a reasonable level, which is what the article is here to help the reader to do.

Overall, you have a reasonable point. It is discouraged by a rule somewhere (enh, there are a lot of rules here, and usually a counter-rule, and playing dueling rules is boring), but more importantly it is true that these lists get clogged with overly trivial examples. Overly trivial in the sense of overwhelming the reader with extraneous data that's not helpful. Also these entries are often unref'd (altho that's not the case here). This happens because "oh I can add an example" is something that engages people. It is possibly an entré for some readers to become editors with their first edit, which is a good thing. I don't know if this true or not; it makes sense, so it might be, but I don't have any data (I see that recently User:Silverbelles added an entry to the list with her fourth edit.). But yeah, the editor is thinking of what excites them and not what helps the reader, often enough.

But here's what. I'm going to reformat the data, and it won't be a list or (since the article is short) in a separate section anymore. I'm going to change this in "In popular culture":

*A 1978 Katharine Hepburn film is titled Olly, Olly Oxen Free.[6]
*Perry Como released a novelty song in 1941 entitled "Ollie Ollie Outs in Free".[7]
*In the 2016 film Lavender, the children play hide and seek and use the term "olly olly oxen free", and Jane as a child repeats the term as she falls asleep.[8]
*Ronnie Radke, of the band Falling in Reverse, sings this phrase in his band's song "Bad Girls Club", released on June 17th, 2013 as track #2 of their album titled Fashionably Late. The relevant verse is "Olly Olly Olly Oxen Free, all the bad girls come cheer with me".[9]
*"Olly-olly-ox-in-free" is mentioned by the main character in the novel Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut.

to this, not in a separate section:

"Olly olly oxen free" or a variant is the name of songs released by the Ted Weems orchestra (sung by a young Perry Como),[1] Terry Scott Taylor (on the album Imaginarium: Songs from the Neverhood)[1] and Amanda Palmer (on the album Theatre Is Evil),[1] of a film starring Katherine Hepburn,[1] and a video game by Night School Studio[1].

It's been used on television, in episodes of The Twilight Zone,[1] The Original Series,[1] Seinfeld,[1] Will & Grace,[1] and 13 Reasons Why;[1] in song lyrics ("Stranger than Fiction by Bad Religion,[1] "Alpha Desperation March" by The Mountain Goats,[1] "Papercut Skin" by The Matches,[1] "Fashionably Late (Falling in Reverse album)" by Falling in Reverse);[1] films (Lavender,[1] Happy Death Day,[1] The Nines);[1] the comic strip Peanuts;[1] and the novel Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut.[1]

Zat better? The advantage here is that it's more compact, and not in An Evil List in A Horrible Section, therefore much more info can be included and its easier to scan. The disadvantage is that detailed info is lost on the TV stuff (name and air date of episode) and, in a lot of cases, the exact context where the phrase is used. This is OK tho IMO because where trying to demonstrate that the phrase is widely used and presumed to be understood by a wide audience, and more than that is overwhelming with detail, plus the interested reader can drill down into the refs if she wants. (OTOH the refs have to be attached to each example for the reader to be reasonably able to check each ref, so it's now an unholy mess to edit, with the refs and the text intertwined like that.)

So... overall, is it an improvement? Yeah, I think so.

But, I mean, you should have done this work. I'm not super happy that you drove-by tagged the section (and restored the tag) and left me to do the grunt work. Because I mean it was OK before IMO, you're the one bothered by it.

But as I said I think it's an improvement. It's easier to read quickly, so it gets the main info (that the phrase is somewhat common) across. So on that level I'm glad I did it. I think it might be a useful approach to a lot of these situations, so I learned something. On the other hand, we have a lot of readers here who come here for a lot of different reasons, and some non-zero number will have wanted quick access to the lost details for their particular research. I hate to destroy information. So, I don't know. It's a complicated issue.

At any rate, I'd much rather that editors take the approach of "It's not a question of my making the effort to add and ref this info; somebody already has. It exists. And no reader is required to read it. But I don't want readers to have the option to see it; think destroying it will, on net, improve the the readers experience because ___________" and if they can't fill in the blank with something compelling, maybe leave it alone and instead go add knowledge somewhere. Herostratus (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: yes, much better. And thank you for your thoughtful post. I think you've elaborated on some very important issues with "the wiki way" of doing things, some small and some more fundamental. For the most part, we seem to be of the same mind. The new version is absolutely a step in the right direction. Here are some pointers (not necessarily complaints, just minor differences in our points of view).

"[H]ow widespead is or was knowledge and use of this phrase?" is absolutely the sort of encyclopedic question the reader expects to find answered in the article. But ideally, we'd answer it by citing a reliable source that directly describes the issue: it could say it's widespread, or not very widespread, and list a select representative or unusual examples as evaluated by a professional writer. That's the ideal way. That's the golden standard. Failing that, we're just listing an indiscriminate assortment of appearances.

The practical question, of course, is what to do about it. Your solution is good. It addresses style, but not content. It probably answers the reader's question, though indirectly, letting them draw the conclusions that are not explicitly laid out in the text (is it widespread or not). My preferred solution would, still, be to remove the entire section until we have sources that actually talk about the topic as a popular culture phenomenon. But that's not your preferred solution, and that's okay too.

We should pause to think about the future. I think it's rather inevitable that (predominantly newbie) users keep adding trivial and unsourced mentions. Insofar as we agree that it's not okay, are we going to ask for page protection when that happens many times? I think that would help. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:, right, well, thank you for your kind words and acute insights. Yes, it was an interesting exercise, I learned something, and we arrived at what is a least an acceptable compromise, for now.

You are absolutely correct that just piling on examples to show the frequency of something is proscribed original research. IMO, though, original research is mainly proscribed to prevent it being used to make some point, or because it might be wrong; when neither of those are in play, it doesn't bother me all that much. But besides that, there's a long-standing tradition of piling examples into "in popular culture" type sections. I'm not saying it's a good tradition (maybe it is), but it is a long-standing one. They're just de facto not considered original research.

So... yeah, it's better now, so this is something I will keep in mind going forward. Yes I agree with your point that there are still problems with it (original research, not very useful), but for my part I'd say that the article is short, and the material isn't hurting anyone. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The phrase has been used on television

Does anybody actually even care what TV shows have simply said this phrase? GalantFan (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

In Popular Culture Separate article?

For those editors that just hate "In Popular Culture" paragraphs, would you be less offended and the article would still be encyclopedic and not just a list of trivia if there would be a separate list of the terms of use in culture. Actors have a separate list of their movies; music in a film can be separate; and other lists exist. Editors take the time to add their own life's experience and delete delete delete. Most often cause cited is no proper reference but the animus is the popular culture paragraph. I would be willing to pull out all the deleted info if Finnusertop would not object. The phrase is in the collective consciousness as evidenced by its use and people wanting to verify the continued use of a phrase from their childhood. I am not going to fight for this over objection. Herostratus and GalantFan Eschoryii (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Eschoryii: if "The phrase is in the collective consciousness", one would expect plenty of reliable sources discussing this. The bar for a separate article is even higher than a section or paragraph here, because the topic has to be notable (WP:GNG or WP:LISTN). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

So you are still opposed. Ok with me. Eschoryii (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't need a separate article, because we should just keep the material in this article. If "The phrase is in the collective consciousness", one would expect plenty of reliable examples demonstrating this also. Which is what we have.

So, User:Finnusertop and discussed this in the #Tag section above, and we arrived at a sort of compromise. I removed the separate section (with its title, which was "In popular culture" I think) and formatted from a list to prose, and removed a little bit of material. (At that time User:Finnusertop seemed OK with it, but it's perfectly fine and within his rights to change his mind of course.)

So, I mean, that compromise/rewrite was good enough in my book.

But somebody removed it anyway (I put it back per WP:BRD). The edit summary removing the material was not too good: "Listing every instance and tv show that this phrase has been used on television adds nothing to its meaning or relevance". But I mean showing examples of something absolutely does help the reader to see it relevance, which is partly determined by how many people use and understand it. At least, I would think it does. At any rate it at least arguable; since it's arguable, lets hear the arguments, and if they are convincing enough, then we can delete the material.

One thing I'm pretty sure of it that the material will unquestionably be useful to some readers, who if they wish will be able to synthesize knowledge in their own brain and, perhaps, say to themselves "Oh, OK, sure enough, it looks like it really is an idiom, and beyond the world of children, and in the modern world too". (The rest of the article does not indicate whether or not the phrase is archaic or is ever used or understood by adults). Some may come to other conclusions, or none. Some readers will have no interest in the material at all; they only care about the etymology or history or distribution. But the material is not hurting those readers.

If the list was incorrect, or not ref'd, or implying that something is true that isn't, or otherwise misleading, or designed to make some point, or something like that, that'd be different. But its none of those things. If we did our own synthesis and said "This phrase is used a whole enormous lot in various media, and here's some examples", that'd also be different. But we don't do that either.

C'mon. People like to write this stuff, and people like to read it. They just do, and you can't change that, and there's no call for being a snob about it. And not only that, adding in material like this is a first edit for some future editors, sometimes. So maybe read the WP:Wikipedian's Prayer and leave other contributors stuff alone, and certainly not delete it before getting consensus to do so.

You want the material removed? Make your case: "If this information is destroyed, the net effect will be to enhance overall experience of the reader, because __________". What goes in the blank? I'm all ears. Herostratus (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: the reader comes here to read an encyclopedia. We summarize reliable sources for the reader. If no reliable source makes the conclusion that the phrase is in our collective consciousness as manifested in numerous popular culture references, then it's original research, and readers don't come here for that. As an encyclopedia, we are also not an indiscriminate collection of information, and readers don't come here for that either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Those are reasonable opinions, well expressed. But they are basically opinions. A lot of what I say is my opinion also. Since that is so, it's difficult to figure out a "right" or "wrong" here. My inclination in such cases is to retain information, since its already there.

We just don't agree on the definition of "original research", nor on how much to worry about it when its not an actual problem, so we'll have to let part go I guess.

I mean, if you look at the other parts of the article, we're also just presenting bare facts, or if you prefer, a summary of source. That is what we generally do: make statements of fact. For instance (and I could have picked most any other passage in the article): "Various calls used for [communicating that players who are out may come in without penalty] have gone by the collective name of 'ollyoxalls' in some places".

Two ways to look at this are:

1) It's just statement of a fact, or

2) It is a summary or excerpt of all or part of the source (page 143 of Lore and Language of Schoolchildren), selected and written using our wit and skill.

And it's probably both. And whether 1 or 2 or both, it is one beam of the structure we are building to answer the reader's request, "Tell me about this entity, olly olly oxen free."

Well, the statement "The phrase has been used in the novel Mother Night" likewise is

1) A statement of fact, or

2) Or it is a summary or excerpt of part of the article "Vonnegut in Jerusalem: A Report on the Absurdity of Language and Media", selected and written using our wit and skill.

And it's probably both. And whether 1 or 2 or both, it is one beam of the structure we are building to answer the reader's request, "Tell me about this entity, olly olly oxen free."

We could have selected a much longer excerpt from that source

In the novel Mother Night, the protagonist Howard Campbell uses the term in his inner dialog as a metaphor for rescue; he "often longed for someone to give that cry [of olly-olly-oxen-free]" to signal that at last his "endless game of hide-and-seek" has ended and he can return to "that little Eden", what critic Matthew Gannon characterizes as the sanctuary of the self.

But we didn't. I guess we could put that in article. Maybe that'd be getting too far into the woods, maybe not. Anyway we haven't, at least not yet. We simply pointed out that it's in the book, and the interested reader can drill down into the ref if she wants. That's fine too. But if we did add a passage like like, we would at least be adding true information rather than subtracting true information.`

So, let's see... 374 daily pageviews. There are few incoming links, so I don't know where they're coming from. Mostly directly via google I would have to guess. What are these people looking for? I don't know (and neither do you), but probably a wide range of things.

For people who are specifically going out of their way to read the article "Olly olly oxen free", one would suppose that the material which it is proposed to remove would be welcome. How many of the 374? Half? Ten percent? Five percent? Nobody knows.

So OK, the downside. Two downsides that I see are:

1) Some non-zero number or readers are going to read the first of the article (the part that ends with "Another variant besides Alle alle auch sind frie is Ollie Ollie in come free") and be quite satisfied. They will then scan the rest of the article, find that part unuseful, and be out two seconds that they're not getting back.

2) Some non-zero number or readers are going to read the first of the article (the part that ends with "Another variant besides Alle alle auch sind frie is Ollie Ollie in come free") and be quite satisfied. They will then scan the rest of the article, and be annoyed that they are being bothered with prole culture cruft like My Name is Earl, Perry Como, and Thirteen Reasons Why. Maybe they will be angry. "I come here expecting encyclopedic information, not stuff the maid would be interested in!" or whatever.

For the first, well, no article can serve everyone perfectly. There're always tradeoffs. I am near 100% confident that the overall net effect is a gain. There's probably no way to tell; I'm left with my considered best guess opinion, as are you and anyone else. For the second, enh. It's Wikipedia not Snobopedia, we serve a very large number of readers from all classes from a very wide range of cultures and subcultures and with a very large range of interests and a very diverse set of information needs and should. Herostratus (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a discussion between the two of you again. Olly Olly Oxen Free is a childhood term used in games passed by word of mouth. Finnusertop will not find references and citations. I have used the term as a child well over 100 times. The article resonates with me. When there was a separate Popular Culture paragraph, it was always expanding with someone citing (not wiki citing) of a use still today. There is a movie and a song using the title. The culture references could get over 15 separate entries and "someone" deleted it all. This is an encyclopedia and not a place to list trivia. Proof of the term being used at a business meeting gave the article relevance but no footnote could or would be found for such a use. This term is in the oral history category and references do not apply. That is why I suggested a separate page that would have a blue link to this main article. That pages could go wild and simply record modern day uses. The opening paragraph could encourage oral modern day use without the required footnotes. But that is the wrong use of be bold. I am from a small Ohio town with a German club and church and I could only guess if the German presence bought the term to my community. I may not like something but I do not want to fight over content so truth and accuracy will lose out to wiki world "rules". Eschoryii (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: this was not my "opinion". I was paraphrasing WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. I believe that you are misconstruing WP:SYNTH, which prescribes leading the reader to some conclusion. But we are doing no such thing. The reader can reach any conclusion she wants from the raw data, or no conclusion. She can be of the mind "Wow, this is a plethora of examples, I conclude that this phrase is common" or "Wow, this is a paucity of examples, I conclude that this phrase is rare" or (probably more likely) "OK, this is data which indicates no larger point. It is just data" or anything else.

I am also confident that is not the intent of any editor to lead the reader to any conclusion. It is common for editors to try to lead readers to the conclusion that the Palestinian cause is just, or that acupuncture is efficacious, or that the Prime Minister of Canada is a montebank, or that Liege is a particularly wonderful city, and so on. I don't think anyone here had an ideological agenda about olly-olly-oxen-free such that they have cherry-picked or misrepresented the data. Lack of intent is not proof that the data, by random chance, is skewed. But it makes it a lot less likely, and anyway -- skewed how? These are just simple statements, backed by sources, how could this be manipulated material?

WP:NOT is misconstrued often enough... WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE proscribes four class in particular (Summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, exhaustive logs of software updates, and excessive listings of unexplained statistics), none of which this article is. Granted, it also points to WP:NOTEVERYTHING which is kind of the preamble for WP:NOT, which says "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive" and also other things which would support your position, but on the other hand, "there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries" which is true, and "the [four types of data described[ are good examples of what Wikipedia is not" according to accepted consensus. If there was accepted consensus that lists of examples of the manner we are describing at the end of articles are a no-go, then 1) a rule saying exactly that would have presumably been proposed and enacted, and 2) we would not have scores of thousands of articles that did include material like this.

Also, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE are kind of in conflict here. It's its a random data dump, it can hardly "reach or imply a conclusion", and vice versa.

Anyway, we are not supposed to be rulebound here. If you can fill in the blank in the statement "Removing this material will enhance the average reader's experience because ______", that's different. What goes in the blank? If it's something convincing, fine; if not... I'd leave it in. Herostratus (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Different use from that described in article

I remember immediately following "Olly olly oxen free free free" with "Here I come, ready or not!" when playing hide-and-go-seek. Did anybody else use it that way? John Link (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

We didn't, and I haven't seen anyone else say that either. Herostratus (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes! When my siblings and I played ‘Hide and Seek’ the tagger would call ‘All-E all-E outs in free’ as loud as possible once one of us was found - or if the game was up and we all won by staying out of sight longer than the tagger could stand looking….

We hidden ones would emerge from our spots shouting back ‘Here I come, ready or Not!’, as loud as our lungs would allow. It was a great way to spend time outside. 71.193.153.7 (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)