Junior OED: Nature isn't worth defining anymore...?

[Gord Barentsen]

I am still finding this hard to believe, but here it is:

https://www.change.org/p/oxford-university-press-nature-related-words-should-be-reinstated-in-the-junior-oxford-english-dictionary

[Gord Barentsen]

Since I'm revisiting this for my CPRG talk I thought I'd include a Guardian article that goes into more details about the changes, which were in fact made way back in 2007 but have only recently attracted scrutiny:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/13/oxford-junior-dictionary-replacement-natural-words

as well as the Snopes article which researches and verifies this as true:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oxford-junior-dictionary-words/

The Snopes article has some more lengthy quotes from some of the authors who protested the decision, as well as the "justification" (laughable if you ask me) for the changes.

[Graham Barnett]

well i'll never have any use for "lark" or "kingfisher" or the like but i do think its a shame that they are no longer included.  just because im a city bloke with no knowledge of nature doesn't mean the children of the future should be..

[chacheng]

this is sooo typical of the world we live in....either way I think Nature will roll over us whether or not we respect it.

[Graham Barnett]

@chacheng OK but if we're part of Nature than maybe we can change this?  steer Nature in other directions?