<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ResourceShelf &#187; Reference Tools</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.resourceshelf.com/tag/reference-tools/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.resourceshelf.com</link>
	<description>A daily newsletter with resources of interest to information professionals, educators and journalists.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:50:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Ain’t That the Truth Webster’s Third: The Most Controversial Dictionary in the  English Language</title>
		<link>http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/07/04/reference-tools-ain%e2%80%99t-that-the-truth-webster%e2%80%99s-third-the-most-controversial-dictionary-in-the-english-language/</link>
		<comments>http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/07/04/reference-tools-ain%e2%80%99t-that-the-truth-webster%e2%80%99s-third-the-most-controversial-dictionary-in-the-english-language/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>resourceshelf</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Information Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reference Tools]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.resourceshelf.com/?p=20352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the Article:
In 1961 a new edition of an old and esteemed dictionary was released. The publisher courted publicity, noting the great expense ($3.5 million) and amount of work (757 editor years) that went into its making. But the book was ill-received. It was judged “subversive” and denounced in the New York Times, the Chicago [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2009-07/Webster.html"><strong>From the Article:</strong></a></p>
<blockquote><p>In 1961 a new edition of an old and esteemed dictionary was released. The publisher courted publicity, noting the great expense ($3.5 million) and amount of work (757 editor years) that went into its making. But the book was ill-received. It was judged “subversive” and denounced in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the <em>Atlantic</em>, the <em>New Yorker</em>, <em>Life</em>, and dozens of other newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. Not every publication condemned the volume, but the various exceptions did little to change the widespread impression of a well-known reference work being cast out from the better precincts of American culture.</p></blockquote>
<p>Source: Humanities</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.resourceshelf.com/2009/07/04/reference-tools-ain%e2%80%99t-that-the-truth-webster%e2%80%99s-third-the-most-controversial-dictionary-in-the-english-language/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
