From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would like to discuss the contents of this topic to assist in the accuracy and neutrality of the information presented.
- I cannot find any third party reference to the phrase itself, citation should be added to verify not only the existence and use of the term, but how it differs, and why it is important to distinguish it from similar practices such as retronym.
- Explaining and citing the origins and history of the phrase (such as who coined or popularized the phrase) are also important to distinguish it from similar practices.
- The reference to marriage may be a valid example, it should be generalized as this practice is not unique only to certain cultures. The information regarding Hillary Clinton is unnecessary, and might be more appropriately listed on Hillary's own wiki article regarding her political history and career.
- Information regarding royalty should be generalized, and third party citations should be added.
- The line "When people today read ancient histories..." is completely unnecessary, and may be misleading in that the use of the words "histories" and "historians" implies accuracy and authority, when in antiquity it was common practice to greatly exaggerate (and often invent) for the purposes of compelling story telling (oral tradition), rather than passing along true history. The goal of accurate and complete recording and retelling of history is a relatively new practice.
- Political and religious neutrality must be maintained throughout the entire article; it's current state implies bias.
- Referencing this practice in ancient texts such as various religious documents may be a valid example, but it should be generalized and third party citation should be added. The implication that this is unique to the Christian Bible (or any texts encompassed within the Abrahamic faiths) may be misleading.
- Referencing (again without citation) alleged Judeo-Christian examples (such as Sodom and Gomorrah, Job, David, Abraham and Jewish historical tradition) may be redundant and unnecessary. It also may be misleading in that it implies these events, places and people to be completely factual and historically verifiable.
- This article should make no mention of alleged disputes between various parties on any topic. It has no relevance. Again, neutrality and bias.
- Consumer products such as the colloquial use of terms for various types of automobiles may be a valid example, but it should be generalized, and references cited.
- The designation of World War I may actually be a better example of retronym, as is listed on the retronym article.
Thank you and I look forward to further discussion on this topic.
- Your first two bullets confuse the phrase with what it describes. Whether the term is in established usage is independent of whether the phenomenon is notable. I don't think this would be the only WP article for a well-known concept that has no settled name.
- A retronym, as that term is commonly used(!), is applied to distinguish older from newer kinds of <something>. That's not the case with, for example, the name Shouwa for the emperor formerly called Hirohito, or the Byzantine Empire (called Roman – and maybe Greek? – in its own time).
- What do you mean by "generalize"? That no examples should be given from any one culture without parallel examples from every culture? Is that also what you mean by "implies bias"?
- You have a point about the uncertain reality of Job, Sodom, Gomorrah. Whether or not David is fictional (I doubt it), the evidence of his retro-naming comes from within the same text, so it is evidence of the practice in period (if only in fiction of the period!).
- Neutrality often requires us to mention disputes!
- Valid point about WWI.
- In general, the article does need cleanup; it's a hodgepodge.
- —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do not contend that the practice itself does not exist, personally I agree, of course, that it does. But where did the phrase "retroactive nomenclature" come from? No sources or history is provided. One could just as easily argue that this practice is also called "purple monkey dishwasher". Obviously I am exaggerating, but I feel my point is valid.
- I must ask again, why is it necessary (or beneficial) to THIS article, to mention specific political or religious/non-religious affiliations? An example of marriage can easily be represented without a specific case study. Irrelevant verbose information only distracts. But I still have my doubts about marriage being a valid example of this practice.
- This is a good example of the marriage example:
- In many cultures it is common practice for a person to assume the family name of his or her spouse, this new name typically replaces the maiden name. An individual may be referred to by his or her present married name, even though he or she may have not yet assumed the name within the context of the reference.
- This is a good example of the marriage example:
- My points on neutrality and bias are because the majority of this article appears to be (as you said, a hodgepodge) of mostly conservative Christian 'matter-of-fact' type statements. This is also why mentioning disputes is not relevant, because mentioning anything specifically enough to need to be disputed is not good practice for an article of this type. If you want to include EVERY dispute regarding EVERY aspect of Biblical accuracy, it would fill volumes; instead it's better to simply not make those arguments here.
- My gut seems to be telling me that without the unnecessary list of Biblical examples, there would be no point to this article. It's as if this article was written as a soapbox to proactively voice opinion on the validity of certain possible Biblical contradictions or errors. This, of course, would not be good encyclopedic content.
- (I hope you don't mind my adjusting the indentation for my idea of clarity.)
- It's nomenclature. It's retroactive. If the article is to be kept (feel free to nominate it for deletion), it needs a title.
- It's a bit funny that you urge citations and complain (obliquely enough that I may be missing your point entirely) about the presence of the best cited example (the Clinton anecdote). Okay, it could be read as using Wikipedia as a billboard to score points against a politician (yawn!); so replace it with a less touchy example. Or pare it down to "Medved made a statement about 'Hillary Clinton ... in her college days'," though that strikes me as lame.
- Perhaps I've grown scar tissue over my sensitivity to Christian messages. ;) I deleted some marginal examples and the clause "this is acceptable..."; that makes the Biblical section short enough that it's no longer worth a header. Does the article still look Christian-biased? —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The word is retrospective, not retroactive.
- No, it's not. From Merriam Webster: "retrospection"--"the act or process or an instance of surveying the past" ie looking at the actual past, from the present. "retroactive"--"extending in scope or effect to a prior time or to conditions that existed or originated in the past; especially : made effective as of a date prior to enactment, promulgation, or imposition <retroactive tax>" ie changing the past, or at least the perception/record/effect of it. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)