See the dictionary cite! The blurred background is not called bokeh by anyone who understands what the word means. You can have more blur or less blur, but you can't have more bokeh or less bokeh. If there is any amount of blurred area, then there is bokeh. It's binary, on or off. Granted than many are confused, but lets try to keep it straight.

Calm down, it isn't worth a stroke.
As we said in Nam "It don't mean nothing!"
You are arguing for the technical original meaning and most people are now using it to mean the being out of focus or the area out of focus, not the aesthetic quality perceived. Language grows and meanings change or get piled on top of each other over time. The present trend will probably result in future dictionaries giving both meanings.
I had to deal with that a lot teaching history. A word's older meaning would be used in the book and the students got confused. Part of my job in my lessons was to inform them of what the word meant at the time as opposed to today.
Think how many words now mean something different than when we were kids.

Slow down Robert. (This ain't 'Nam, and for 55,000 American lives, not to mention a million Vietnamese, "it" did have meaning.)
That is beside the point, it was part of the attitude and graveyard humor for GIs to get through things without going crazy. It basically meant calm down, keep going, we will have time to freak out later, but not now. It was an inversion of meaning, by saying it didn't mean anything you were able to keep going/functioning without breaking down or freezing.

Look at what you are saying. It's wrong. Simple as that. No matter how you excuse it, the word doesn't mean what you said. The dictionaries (every single one of them) say otherwise. Every decent source on the Internet says otherwise. That's because it is otherwise.

You can't find even a single authoritative reliable source that will agree with you.

Most people are actually using it correctly. It is not uncommon for new people to make the mistake that you are, and it is also not really rare for experienced people too (particularly here on UHH). It is still a mistake. The word has always had just one meaning, and that has not changed. It's just that yes it is a technical point, and many people are not technical. It's hard to get across that using the wrong word or the right word in the wrong way causes others to have difficulty understanding what is being said.

Those of us with a few decades of experience have a duty to help others get it right.

It's not really about photography, it's about effective written communications.

Browse through the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary and note how many words have multiple meanings, often with dates for when they meant that.

I fought that fight in the classroom for years. Then I learned to explain it as words can have multiple meanings and to communicate you need to know which meaning is being used. I didn't tell them to forget all the "wrong" meanings, it would have been a waste of time because society and culture were against me. Not to mention TV, movies, music and other things that they saw and heard a lot more than they did me.

It seems like hit or miss when I'm taking the pictures. Seems like they're in focus when I'm in the DMF mode(magnifying the picture and using the manual focus) and when I look at the picture after it's taken but I upload it to the computer and...nope...more often than not the whole picture is not in focus...I read that I shouldn't be using anything in the focus mode but the flexible spot but just for kicks I've been experimenting trying "wide or zone" it's still hit or miss...

What am I missing? Oh and in the case of one shot here I tried to aim in the middle so I could get it all in focus. Seemed to get the flower and SOME of the leaf but not all. I was using a 55mm lens in AP and SP with ISO on auto

The last one was better but it just looks like the stem and a little of the petals are blurry...