Talk:Online Etymology Dictionary

Site's down (Jan. 31/06)
Not sure how long it's been offline, but it is as of now.


 * It's back now :D Maerk 23:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to be down again, which happened sometime today as I was on it earlier. It might be a very temporary situation, but worth noting on the talk page in case it goes down permanently (God forbid) so that we have the date recorded. Eximago (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Marked as non-notable and for not citing sources
Well, it certainly is notable amongst etymologists and people interested in etymology. Try and find another free online etymology dictionary, let alone one as comprehensive. It was created and run by a notable published author, journalist and historian who's credentials can be found through the site itself. But more to the issue of it not citing sources... huh? What isn't it citing sources on? It only claims one thing and specifically cites that it's from the homepage of the site itself.Number36 04:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem with the article, in fact I often see it cropping up as a reference in articles. If it were only one of many etymology sites, or had little content it wouldn't be worth writing about, but because of its scope and utility I feel it deserves a place here. Richard001 08:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added more information. I removed the notability issues and template. I'm not sure if this template was appropriate or not but in the future a simple "Please" would be nice and may help lessen the shocking effect of seeing a big anoying template. I believe the source will helps us off to a good start. Thank you. And please feel free to use know databases and news papers! --CyclePat 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. Try sending Richard a polite email with five sources of your own pointing out an inaccuracy in one of his unsourced etymologies. The response you will get back tells you all you need to know about Richard's ego and how much interest he has in sourcing his entries. --Cshawnmcdonald (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Notability" section
It is a self-reference. No Encyclopedia would have a section entitled "notability" except on Wikipedia, it is useless information and likely to change in any given year or month, it's more like marketing information. It might be appropriate for the talk page in order to satisfy some editors nag-tag, but it's inappropriate for the article proper, notability can just as easily be established on talk pages without cluttering up the article with useless links and information just to satisfy a rule. See all WP:IAR, we are here to build an encyclopedia and if the notability rules get in the way of this article then the rule should be ignored, clearly this is a notable site. Finally, if someone honestly still has a complaint about it, then put the article up for WP:AfD and see what the rest of the community thinks about it. -- 71.191.36.194 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability
When searching for etymology, the Online Etymology Dictionary is the first result returned from Google's search engine out of approximately 8.68 million hits. Similarly, Yahoo Search places this online dictionary as the first result out of approximately 5.6 million hits. It is referenced by the University of Ohio's Library as a relevant etymological resource and was recently cited in the Chicago Tribune as one of the “best resources for finding just the right word.” Used by many authors and researchers which follow the philosophy of etymology it is cited in numerous articles and used as a reliable source for explaining the history and evolution of words.


 * Some of the material you removed should still be in the article though. Perhaps "Acclaim" or something like that would be a less self-referency way of describing it. Richard001 08:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard001
 * I agree with you. However I don't agree with the comment from IP 71.191.36.194. I believe the information on notability is not self-referencing because some of the sources used where news papers. The Chicago Tribune, Google, Business Line, etc... It is well-sourced section which I believe should remain. To address your "potential problem" with "new information" or a change of information, which I doubt will happen since the website has been virtually the same thing for the past 2 years or more, we could always add another properly sourced citation/reference with that new information. In conclusion: The clearness of this website's notability is a relevant to the article. WP:NOTE even stipulates "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of notability guidelines." Furthermore, you alleged problem that the information is useless or, the alleged self referenced material, (none really specified) may change is easily solved. Solution: Per the above comment from Richard001, your own admission to the fact that "notability" as stated within the information removed, as well as my pro belief, I think there is a consensus that the information is useful. Furthermore, to try and solve your secondary alleged problem, we can always update the wiki to reflect the "past" and "more recent past (or as we tend to believe present)." (That is how we keep an WP:NPOV article that reflects not only opposing view but past, present, and perhaps future views) Hence the information you removed, evident because you either read it within the article should be put back. Furthermore, for future reference, the information footnotes should have been dropped into the bibliography to preserve integrity. --AdVocare (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How to cite this dictionary in a bibliography on wikipedia
Example of Manuscript:
 * Harper, Douglas. "Manuscript." Online Etymology Dictionary. Nov. 2001. Accessed 10-11-2007.

see also Template:OEtymD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.196.9 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Google Directory reference
This is just a question; I'm not looking to start a fight. Is Google Directory a legitimate source for a reference? Are the descriptions of the websites within Google Directory written by Google or are taken from the original websites' meta data? If it's the latter, then this reference would really be a self-reference. Just checking. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion
This is the first time I've attempted to post something here, so I am sure I will violate the protocols, and I expect some people will take that as grounds for a flame. Apologies in advance.

I appreciate the listing of my Web site in your work! I found this by tracking back links to my personal pages. Perhaps I can help make it more accurate. For instance, I don't know what "headquarters" is supposed to mean, or how this one came to be associated with New Hampshire, but the etymonline.com site is run out of my home in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Also, I probably confused your writer when I folded all my personal pages into the domain name etymonline.com. They originally had another home and are older than the dictionary. So I can see where "Douglas Harper originally created the online dictionary as a website where he could share some information on books and writers" came from, but that is a description of the personal pages (which bear the label "the Sciolist"), not the etymology dictionary. I linked back to the personal bio page from the dictionary to allow its users to satisfy their curiosity about who compiled it.

Probably a better place to start a brief description of the online etymology dictionary is here:

http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php

which describes how it came about.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etymonline (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks very much for this information. I've changed the headquarters field for the infobox to reflect your actual location. mkehrt (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I <3 etymonline!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.192.204 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Down again -
Some time this afternoon 17/12/15 ~! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.94.21 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a Reliable Source
I have some serious problems with Wikipedians taking this as a Reliable Source.
 * 1) It is the work of one person only, like a blog. No sponsoring organization, journal, society, university press, nothing.
 * 2) The author has a B.A. in History, which is useful, but no training in linguistics. (I have graduate training in linguistics.)
 * 3) No sources are given for anything he says. You can’t check his work. I am skeptical that he even looked at, or looked at for more than 60 seconds, many of the works in his list of sources.
 * 4) There are etymologies that are controversial or unresolved. There is research on etymologies. There’s a whole book _Looking for Dr. Condom_ (U. of Alabama Press, 1981), and then there's a later article taking issue with the book (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-etymology-of-the-word-condom). He doesn’t mention and I suspect has never heard of either. I've not read the book, but according to the review by L. C. Mugglestone in _The Review of English Studies_, 49 (May 1998): p196+, _An Informal Introduction to English Etymology_ by W. B. Lockwood (1995) contains "an account of the resolution of a number of noted etymological cruces" [crux=place of great difficulty]. But the author has never heard of it, or at least makes no reference to it.
 * 5) Bottom line: this is an amateurish, not a scholarly work. It shouldn't be taken as a Reliable Source.

I don’t think it even deserves an article. At least, the case for it deserving an article has not been made, not with verifiable cites.

Anyone disagree? deisenbe (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am proposing it for deletion. deisenbe (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support deletion. Martinlc (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See my comment below on why I think it should be protected from deletion. LRFtheLion (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous, at least all three of us know Etymonline and have opinions on it. It's sure as heck not a reliable source, though, and its compiler knows it: "Etymonline is a can-opener, an imaginary labyrinth with real minotaurs in it, my never-written novel shattered into words and arranged in alphabetical order." https://www.etymonline.com/columns/post/bio?utm_source=etymonline_footer&utm_medium=link_exchange --nhinchey (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2019‎ (UTC)

Rather than delete this article, I think it would be better to just add a section on "controversy" or "critiques", and here is my reasoning: If one goes to Google Scholar and types in "Etymonline" quite a few results are returned. A small quantity of these results are actual reviews of Etymonline. Many others appear to be academic articles from various fields that cite Etymonline. Since scholars are clearly relying on this source (regardless of what trained linguists might think of it), I think it is valuable for Wikipedia to keep a page going for the Online Etymology Dictionary, and to just provide sections within the page that express any critiques or concerns. One academic source that could be cited in a section providing critiques is the 2016 article by Zaidan Ali Jassem entitled Harper's (2016) Online Etymology Dictionary (Etymonline): A Critical Review I will try to work some details from this article into this page soon. LRFtheLion (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As the top of this page says, the deletion discussion already took place and it was kept. I suggest you make the edits you suggest WP:BOLDly. Nardog (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)