No, if the new lexicon removes useful information, that's bad. Say you read a passage which mentions "Miletus, city of βλαύτη-wearers". With the new definition, all you know is it's a city where people wear simple sandals, which tells you nothing. With the old definition, you understand that the author is saying that Miletus is a decadent city.
Now, if that information is inaccurate, it's not useful, and it's right to remove it. But ease of understanding is not a reason to do this.
Sure, in exactly the same way that clown shoes are just common shoes, and swastika armbands are just common armbands.
Clothing has a cultural context.
No, it does not. "gay" did not mainly mean homosexual until mid 20th century. That dictionary entry was written in 1889; well before that.
Before that the primary meaning was "happy, cheerful, bright"
> By the late 17th century, it had acquired the specific meaning of "addicted to pleasures and dissipations",[12] an extension of its primary meaning of "carefree" implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". A gay woman *was a prostitute*,
So then the word "gay" has up to three possible meaning to the modern reader, in order of appearance in English: 1) "bright and happy", 2) "promiscuous and slutty", 3) "homosexual".
The last meaning definitely wasn't relevant to ancient Greeks, and I'm not sure about the second.
So removing this confusing Victorian moralising is still not an exercise in prudery at all? As it removes confusion, it is done for clarity, and if it removes moralising it is the opposite of prudery. Grandparent post from JoeyBananas is not correct on that.
It clearly was written having a sexual connotation in the context of the related definition (worn at Dionysian festivals). But note that the editors may infer that this is simply an incorrect definition considering evidence, and opted to remove that part rather than redefine it.
Since you're the only person in the written conversation who has been arguing that it probably meant "happy" in the entry, I won't bother replying to the other comments of yours expressing the same argument.
What even is "a kind of slipper worn by fops"? It's far easier to understand it's just a common slipper.
Similarly, I think gay women in this context means "overly" promiscuous. Which is probably what victorians would have though of any woman not wearing a corset.