Talk:Webster's Dictionary

message: I have just added quite a few 'fact' and 'verify' tags to this article.  I could see nothing in the Talk archive relating to the issue of support for the statements made in this article, so assume it has either not been addressed thus far, or else is a new issue after new additions to the article.
Some of the tags I have added are simply requests for proper referencing of quotations or facts.  The section on 'Criticisms' of the dictionary is one such area: although many quotes are given from contemporary critics (mostly newspaper editors), there is no proper citation for the quotes, simply ...as Joe Blogs says, "...".  This is the simpler use of the 'fact' tag.
However in many more cases statements are made which could well be true but which, without some sort of supporting evidence, are potentially questionable and POV.  Many claims are made about which dictionary is 'more popular', which is 'a better scholarly work', and other comments along those lines.  If some citation can be supplied to support these statements, then it would be great if they could be included where relevent (I've added tags for comments like this that I have seen).  Without citations, this article seems very POV to me, almost like a defence of the 'true' Webster's.  I can't NPOV the article myself because these comments are woven throughout the whole structure of the article.  If these statements are in fact true, then it isn't POV, but citations are needed to show this.  I'm hoping the original authors of this article or some experts can help out with these citations - it's a large task, larger if you don't know the source of the comments as I don't.  I'm happy to help include the citations if someone can help me locate them.  CastorQuinn 04:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's probably true.  I'm going to go through and include as many citations as I can when I have the time to read through all the reference materials.  CastorQuinn 05:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really necessary to cite page numbers for every item taken from the books in the refernce list?  I agree that most of these items are found in those references.  I see no need to clutter the article like this.  There would have to be multitudes of citations to cover the statements in this article.  Abstrator 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and support 

message: I think there should be a mention of the CD versions of these dictionaries (and the inclusion in CD encyclopedias, like the Britannica). That would be most helpful, and would complement the "online" references.
There is.  I believe it comes with the purchase of the Unabridged.  Alphabetagamma 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD versions 

message: In the intro paragraph this claim is made, "The entire dictionary was written fully by Charles John Webster in one night, in between band practises for his uber- popular rock band Supremo Gophero." As this seems unlikely, is there a citation available?
24.83.198.47 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation? 

message: Is public domain the correct term for a trademark? I thought
public domain was a term for copyright. --Gbleem 18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  public domain 

message: This is quoted from an old reference. Surely it matters that it is wrong? In Austrlia, New Zealand and the UK not only is this dictionary not a recognised authority it is almost unknown. In these countries the main, and really only reference, is the OED. I very strongly suggest that unless an up-to-date reference from a recognised athority is found to support such a major claim (which I tender will not) then it be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wide recognition in Great Britain and its colonies

message: I have to use this dictionary to check US usage. On p. 13a, in the section marked Inflected Forms, it is clear that the writer believes that 'inflected' has the same meaning as 'derivational': the intransitive verb 'gourmandize', according to the writer, is an 'inflected' form of 'gourmand'. Nonsense of this sort should simply not be in a book intended as a reference work for students. Pamour (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Really! You seem to believe the vocabulary of technical grammatical terms you learned (while, you testify, remaining ignorant of American usage, in general and i should presume as to grammatical terminology as well) must be identical to what you are familiar with. For my part, the definitions of "inflect" and "inflection", in their several grammar-relevant senses in my (copyright '81 and still the 1st Edn.) American Heritage Dictionary suggest ambiguity and flexibility:   inflect: "To alter (a word) as by conjugating or declining" [emphasis added]   inflection: "An alteration of the form of a word to indicate different grammatical and syntactic relations, such as ..." [ditto]    Hybridize, galvanize, sanfordize, anglicize ... well, they're all made into verbs, a change fraught with changes in "grammatical and syntactic relations". I'll leave it to others to count how many of the 5 senses and 8 sub-senses listed at -ize can arguably account for the transitions among linguistic roles between gourmand to gourmandize.   But actually, i think the bottom line for me is that you're saying you, who seem fancy yourself a linguist, don't know any word more restricted than "derivational" whose scope is broader than what conjugation and declension have in common. Is this as simple as -ize being suffixable to more than one part of speech?--Jerzy•t 10:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collegiate Dictionary 

message: Hello,
In the past I've seen non-Webster dictionaries that state that their volume isn't published by the current publishers of the Webster dictionary. Should this be noted in the article? - Thanks, Hoshie 07:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  disclaimers on non-webster dictionaries 

message: Do we know for sure that she used and wrote about a copy of the unabridged, that supposedly had the date 1844 on the title page? I have never come across such an item. I've seen several 1844 Webster's, and they were always the one that was abridged by Worcester and printed in NYC by Harper, but the title of the book is "Webster's ADEL" and the author was listed as Noah Webster. Nothing about the book looks like it was anything but a genuine Webster. It had all the words of the 1840 unabridged, and all of Webster's original definitions, word for word. The only thing "abridged" about it was that Worcester removed all the literary quotes. It's a smaller book, an octavo rather than quarto, and the type was smaller so I'm thinking the price was low enough for Emily to easily buy one. Many copies were sold, judging by how many we still see in the marketplace for used books, so I'm thinking it's the one she used. I have never seen an unabridged Springfield printing dated 1844, so I doubt she used this, if it even existed. She used the Worcester "Webster" of 1844. Take my unabridged word for it. DigbyDalton (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Emily Dickinson's 1844 Dictionary

message: Some information in these sections is erroneous.  The 1961 edition is the Third New International, not the Collegiate.  It is the current edition of the Collegiate which is covered by OneLook.  The digital Third NI is not available free online. I have edited the three sections to correct these errors and distribute the facts appropriately.  Xerlome (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections: 1913 edition, 1961 edition, and Latest editions

message: I removed the sentence claiming that the Century Dictionary was based on Webster's 1841.  This is misleading.  John Ogilve used the 1841 as a base for the 1850s Imperial Dictionary, and by Annandale's 1882 2nd edition, Webster's 70,000 vocabulary was nearly doubled.  The Century Dictionary used the later Imperial as its basis, but it vastly increased the vocabulary (to over 500,000 entries, don't know how many words that would be).  Hardly "based".  All this needs to be clear for accuracy.  I may get around to writing about it sometime if no one else does it first.  Xerlome (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact

message: The relationship among sections is chaotic: not as chronological as it could be without adding confusion, and splitting Merriam Webster in a way that defies logic. I may leave a lot of section-structure improvement undone, but i'm at least repairing to the degree that the way seems clear.--Jerzy•t 10:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I still haven't forgotten, tho i'm not moving at a reasonable pace. On the other hand, i don't see the deadline looming.--Jerzy•t 19:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Perhaps as a symptom of a malady related to the already mentioned one, discussion of Joseph Emerson Worcester's Dict Wars is split among "2 "Webster's" dictionaries by others", "2.3 Unabridged edition 1864" and "6 Competition". Surely readers will be better served by reducing the length of each of the Worcester mentions in the accompanying article and adding the removed wording to an account, more integrated than can be given within this topic, within our Worcester bio, and linking into that article 3 (or perhaps only 2) times from the accompanying article.--Jerzy•t 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectional structure 

message: *1 Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language
**1.1 ADEL first edition 1828
**1.2 ADEL second edition 1841
***1.2.1 1841 printing
***1.2.2 1844 printing
***1.2.3 1845 printing
**1.3 Impact
*2 "Webster's" dictionaries by others
**2.1 New and Revised Edition 1847
**2.2 British impact
**2.3 Unabridged edition 1864
**2.4 Webster's International Dictionary (1890 and 1900)
**2.5 Webster's New International Dictionary 1909
**2.6 Webster’s New International Dictionary (second edition, 1934)
*3 Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961)
**3.1 Deletions
**3.2 Reception and criticisms
***3.2.1 Permissiveness
***3.2.2 Ain't
**3.3 Revisions and updates
*4 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
*5 The name Webster used by others
*6 Competition
*7 References
*8 Further reading
*9 External links
**9.1 1828 edition
**9.2 1841 (1844) edition
**9.3 1913 edition
**9.4 Collegiate Dictionary
**9.5 Latest Unabridged
--Jerzy•t 10:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's what i found: 

message: #  *1 Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language
## *1.1 ADEL first edition 1828
## **1.2 ADEL second edition 1841
### ***1.2.1 1841 printing
### ***1.2.2 1844 printing
### ***1.2.3 1845 printing
##  **1.3 Impact
#: *2 "Webster's" dictionaries by others
## **2.1 New and Revised Edition 1847
##* **2.2 British impact (move near end of article)
# Merriams & their successors
## **2.3 Unabridged edition 1864
## **2.4 Webster's International Dictionary (1890 and 1900)
## **2.5 Webster's New International Dictionary 1909
## **2.6 Webster’s New International Dictionary (second edition, 1934)
## *3 Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961)
### **3.1 Deletions
### **3.2 Reception and criticisms
#### ***3.2.1 Permissiveness
#### ***3.2.2 Ain't
### **3.3 Revisions and updates
## *4 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
*5 The name Webster used by others
*6 Competition
*7 References
*8 Further reading
*9 External links
**9.1 1828 edition
**9.2 1841 (1844) edition
**9.3 1913 edition
**9.4 Collegiate Dictionary
**9.5 Latest Unabridged
--Jerzy•t 10:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a first cut at reorganizing 

message: There is a link in
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language#History
to non-existent section:
Webster's Dictionary#Reception and criticisms
Fholson 23:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please, read Help:Link, Wikipedia:Signatures.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken link to non-existent section 

message: "The only modern dictionaries that trace their lineage to Noah Webster's are published by Merriam-Webster."  What is the basis for this claim, and for the remark about Random House?  ("In recent years, even established dictionaries with no direct link to Noah Webster whatsoever have adopted his name, adding to the confusion. Random House dictionaries are now called Random House Webster's".)  It doesn't take much research to find that Random House's dictionary is an adaptation of Century Dictionary, which was based on the Imperial Dictionary, which was an expansion of Webster's Dictionary.  That is lineage, is it not?  I have no idea how much of Webster's original is still visible in RH today after all the adaptation, expansion, editing and rewriting; then again I also have no idea how much of Webster's work is visible in M-W today; others may know.  But it would appear to be a clear line of descent, and even if a lot has changed, the lineage is still there, in the same way that a prince today might trace his lineage to an emperor of a thousand years ago, despite the bloodline having been diluted through numerous marriages, or in the some way, linguistically, that we say that English derives from Germanic and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European, even though if you saw a text in reconstructed Germanic it would bear little resemblance to an English one. 13:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lineage