Jump to content

Talk:Merriam-Webster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2007

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Talk page I had deleted the previous comments as they are disruptive, and have nothing to do with Merriam-Webster. This is done in good faith. Thank you. Zidel333 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section that was taken out

[edit]

The following was an edit done on 03:22, 24 March 2007 by user:172.150.24.3. The comment was (Added at top of aritcal clarification of part of the artical which is incorrect.) The text needs to be Wikified, so I'm putting it here in case it can used later on for the article. Cheers. Zidel333 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Editorial Note==
If you would care to get your facts right, this is copied directly from the companies web site; "In 1831, brothers George and Charles Merriam opened a printing and bookselling operation in Springfield, Massachusetts which they named G. & C. Merriam Company. The company, which was renamed Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, in 1982, has been in continuous operation since that time. For more information on the history of Merriam-Webster, see Merriam-Webster Continues Noah Webster's Legacy and Merriam-Webster's Ongoing Commitment.", which means the following "Origins" section at minimal is inaccurate and should be revised!"

Took out WARNING edit

[edit]

I reverted an edit added 15:12, 6 October 2007 by 217.208.191.147 as good faith. It doesn't have a NPOV or references and has a personal, not encyclopedic style. Some one may wish to check this and add a modified version. Deleted text:

WARNING
Unfortunately, the Merriam-Webster Online web site is associated with fraudulent advertisers offering suspect software. When searching for a word, one is sometimes redirected to a page claiming one's computer has traces of "adult site visits" or that malware has been detected, with an offer to buy software to overcome this. Return to the original site is blocked.
The claims are verifiably fabricated, and the software a well-known scam.

Wayne Goode 20:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

En Dash Move Proposal

[edit]

I propose to move Merriam-Webster (with a hyphen–minus) to Merriam–Webster (with an en dash) as per [[Wikipedia:MoS]. An en dash is appropriate here for indicating disjunction between Merriam and Webster. Let me know.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 02:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although your adherence to the Manual of Style is admirable, it seems to me that since the company's logo shows what appears to be a hyphen in place of an en dash, we should refer to the company with a hyphen in place between the names. 76.14.20.15 (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Webster the Authority?

[edit]

For most of my life, I thought that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary was the authority in the fields of spelling, grammar, and definitions, along with Oxford's version.

However, I can't figure out if that truly is the the authoritive standard, or if all dictionaries are standards.

You see, I'm debating with an editor down on a Wikia website, because Webster says the "hacker" and "cracker" are synonymous in reference to malicious practices, while the counter-argument is that "the media is ignorant in the terms". My counter is "what the (most updated version of the) Dictionary says, goes", lest the definition be changed/added onto in the future.

A sample of the debate:

Opposition:

"[TurtleShroom], the only reason why those are synonyms [in the dictionary] is because the media is ignorant. The use the terms interchangeably when they are not. The original [definition of hacking] is the only true defintion, not the cracker."


Me:

"Webster is the authroity on definitions. It is not controlled by the Media (news and such); it is an independent company. It PWNS your measely slang and blogs, unless, and only unless, there are no entries in a REAL dictionary. For instance, "PWN" is not in the dictionary, and thus a definition is taken elsewhere. If PWN were to be added, it would immediantly override any existing definition, with the new entry becoming the standard."

&


--TurtleShroom! :) I like turtles. THE TURTLE'S OVER NINE THOUSAND! Madness? NO, THIS IS GOOMBA! 21:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiary issue....

[edit]

--222.67.207.160 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Further information: Organizational chart

and

Further information: Subsidiary

--222.67.207.160 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.207.160 (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.207.160 (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.207.160 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.207.160 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.207.160 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.207.160 (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.207.160 (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A contradiction?

[edit]

"In 1807 Webster began compiling an expanded and fully comprehensive dictionary, An American Dictionary of the English Language; it took 27 years to complete."

1807 + 27 = 1834.

"Webster completed his dictionary during his year abroad in 1825 in Paris, France, and at the University of Cambridge."

"At the age of 70, Webster published his dictionary in 1828 [...]. In 1840, the second edition was published in two volumes."

Either there's a mistake, or something is not well explained. 151.75.11.15 (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

[edit]

User:In ictu oculi made this edit, which I reverted. It violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR, as a start. I believe he inserted it in response to a discussion he and I have been having on my talkpage, and specifically this edit I made. If anyone else feels that Merriam-Webster is a "crap" dictionary, as In ictu stated here, feel free to reinsert - if you can find a citation to back it up. Dohn joe (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn joe, it doesn't really "violate WP:NPOV" to link to an error in dictionary but you're right it does tend to original research - even though it is original research which you commissioned remember, but fair enough, it should be an academic review to be in an article. Frank Abate's review of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, in Dictionaries 15 (1994): 175-88. should be interesting. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access that entire article. But the review ends like this: "it is a solid and reliable book, now freshly updated to meet the competition." Dohn joe (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Layoffs

[edit]

Have there been layoffs at the MW dictionary in Fall 2015? Will MW follow the AHD and NOAD in that no major program of revision will ever take place again in the foreseeable future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.170.64.216 (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will there still be a citations reading program like the one described in the text (an hour a day) after all the staff layoffs? With all the staff gone, will it be maintained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.183.137.163 (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American or British?

[edit]

In the lead section it is asserted "Merriam-Webster, Inc., is an American company..." Then the last sentence of that section asserts, "In 1964, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., acquired Merriam-Webster, Inc., as a subsidiary." So my question is very simple: Is Meriam-Webster, Inc an "American company" or is it an "American subsidiary of a British company"??? N0w8st8s (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. BilCat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where I thought it was made

[edit]

I thought that Merriam-Webster was made in Louisiana because of Webster Parish, until I went to the article page to realize it was made in Massachusetts. Hebdge134 (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merriam-Webster&oldid=1254689128"