Pedant, correct thyself: the first citation for "burglarize" in the OED is 1871, and the first citation for "burgle" is ... 1872.
(The first definition for "burglarize" in the OED is "To rob burglariously", which is wonderful. For "burgle" they note that it's "a back-formation < burglar n., of very recent appearance, though English Law Latin had a verb burgulare of same meaning. Orig. colloq. or humorous." They define it too using the adverb "burglariously".)
Language changes and adapts with time and what is correct can change in years and even months.
If the vast majority of people say burglarize - then that is correct. The purpose of language is communicating information - and if the information is being communicated in a manner that most people can agree on the meaning of the information; then the language is doing its job.
This is why you can google something on Yahoo. The 'official' (and recent) definition specifies the Google search engine, but many people use the word "google" as a synonym for "search".
I love getting into arguments with people who treat their dictionaries like a religious text then using words with modern meanings that have nothing to do with their etymology.
I'm not sure about that. Using 'hoovering' as a synonym for vacuuming is really common at home. But Google as a brand is so strong that I'm not convinced people really disassociate the verb from the search engine.
That's so funny! Around here people never say "I'm going to hoover the floor" they say "I am going to bissell the floor!!" Bissell must have a greater market share around here!
Around where? Is this in an entire community, or merely your family group? I've never heard the name used like that before, and find it hard to believe it would displace 'Hoover' as a colloquialism. Also, aren't Bissel devices mechanical sweepers, not vacuum cleaners?
For English, this is absolutely true. (I believe some other languages are, at least officially, less fluid -- such as French, policed by the Academie Francaise).
And it does turn out, it seems, that 'burglarize' is legit (and I failed to do my homework). But I still dislike it intensely: why use more syllables/more letters when you could use fewer with exactly the same meaning? (I also have a preference, albeit weaker, for oriented over orientated, and so on).
Can we just agree that if you are in the US feel free to add -ize to anything as part of a greater trend to verb every word (although would you 'verb' a word or would you 'verbize' it?)
If you are from a non-us english speaking country (commonwealth mostly) and went through school before the internet blurred languages then burgled will be more familiar
burgle -> burglar -> burglarize -> burglarizer -> burglarizerize -> burglarizerizer -> ... ?
(Yes, this is off-topic pedantry; I can't help myself; sorry).
Edit: corrected my assertion that burglar comes from burgle.