Talk:Retroactive continuity

moved from user talk pages

"Retroactive continuity" is not a portmanteau term. Portmanteau terms are words like "smog" and "chortle", where two words have been smooshed together. —Paul A 02:41, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Paul, I beg to differ. Retroactive is one word, and Continuity another. Seeing as Retroactive Continuity is sort a mouthful to get around in conversation written(electronic or hard copy) or on chat f2f or on the Internet; thusly to smoosh the first syllable of the two words together makes sense, and a portmanteau. Incidentally I am a man, although one would not think that from the way I write in terms of my grammar and lexicon...

Michael Reiter

jmr

I would argue that "retcon", being composed of the first part of each word, is a simple abbreviation - portmanteau words, as I understand it, require something unusual like combining the first part of a word with the last part of another word (e.g. smoke + fog = smog).

But this is beside the point anyway, because you didn't say retcon was a portmanteau term — you said retroactive continuity was a portmanteau term, which is evidently false.
—Paul A 01:44, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OOPS!!! Sorry. I guess you're right. I didn't read you right. I WAS trying to state and consolidate my position that retcon is a portmanteau of Retroactive Continuity. Once again, sorry for the mix up.

Michael Reiter

jmr

The list of portmanteaus includes for instance Interpol, which is also formed from the first part of each word. The term "contraction" is not correct according to the article it links to, which states that a contraction always has an apostrophe.

Fair enough. But "retroactive continuity" still isn't a portmanteau word. --Paul A 07:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not to split haris, but 'retcon' is more an example of clipping than portmanteau, in my opinion. From the article on clipping: "Clipped forms are also used in compounds. One part of the original compound most often remains intact. Examples are: cablegram (cable telegram), op art (optical art), org-man (organization man), linocut (linoleum cut). Sometimes both halves of a compound are clipped as in navicert (navigation certificate). In these cases it is difficult to know whether the resultant formation should be treated as a clipping or as a blend, for the border between the two types is not always clear. According to Bauer (1993), the easiest way to draw the distinction is to say that those forms which retain compound stress are clipped compounds, whereas those that take simple word stress are not. By this criterion bodbiz, Chicom, Comsymp, Intelsat, midcult, pro-am, sci-fi, and sitcom are all compounds made of clippings." Since 'retcon' retains compound stress, it should be considered a clipped compound. --07:17, 18 Mar 2008

Not a Retcon

• The revelation that Darth Vader was actually Luke Skywalker's father despite Obi-Wan Kenobi's earlier statement in Episode IV that Vader had killed Luke's father.

I removed this example, as I don't think it's really a retcon. Obi-Wan is simply bending the truth (speaking figuratively) in his earlier statements. --L33tminion 17:25, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

That an in-story justification exists is beside the point - the question is, did George Lucas know that Obi-Wan was speaking figuratively when he made ANH, or was it something he only decided afterward? If the latter, then it is a retcon: ESB retroactively changes Obi-Wan's truthfulness and Vader's relationship to Luke.

That said, I don't intend to argue the point. The article has enough examples already, and we don't need to lumber it with one that is (a) arguable and (b) a massive spoiler anyway. --Paul A 03:40, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know (heard/read interviews with George), he had written one big story, couldn't produce it all, and wrote three separate screenplays - taking a lot of things out, apparently (not surprising), but keeping the main storyline intact. He had always intended Vader to be Luke's father. 68.9.205.10 02:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Lucas has said a lot of things over the years about how massively foresightedly he planned out the whole storyline in advance, but some of those things have been found to be contradicted by documentary evidence -- his actual early drafts show things going in directions that Lucas always denied they ever went, et cetera. On the Vader issue, we may simply never know whether Lucas did intend it all along, as he now claims, or whether he came up with it after it turned out Star Wars was going to be a big enough hit to merit sequels. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just so you'll all know -- and I actually put this in the entry -- "Vader" is Dutch for "Father." Food for thought, 'n' stuff. Yar Kramer

Yes, which is evidence for, but not proof of, the "Lucas intended it all along" theory. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What kills the thoery he intended it all along for me is the romantic tension between Luke and Leia, including a fairly passionate kiss, in episode 4 (the first movie), contrasted with Leia's assertion she felt all along that they were brother and sister in episode 6. 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a retcon if it has always been planned. --Destron Commander 08:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What about when Luke askes Leia in "Return of the Jedi" if she has any memories of their mother? Later we see in "Episode 3" their mother dies in childbirth...Was the mother that Leia remembers supposed to be her adopted mother the wife of Bail Organa? Darth Jennocyde the NecroSith 9/11/07 1:20am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.153.24 (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The WWE

From the WWE itself: "At the WWE’s 1976 Shea Stadium event, he engaged in a boxer vs. wrestler confrontation with Chuck Wepner, in which he hurled the “Bayonne Bleeder” out of the ring and into the third row. Four years later, he had his first encounter with Hogan when the WWE returned to Shea." [1]

From IGN: "Smackdown Countdown 2003: Victoria -- She's one of the WWE's most intimidating female wrestlers and one of its most fascinating." [2]

From Motley Fool: "As we've mentioned here at the Fool a couple of times, lately, the WWE looked to be in the midst of a turnaround." [3]

From MTV: "Just when you thought that Tough Enough couldn't get any tougher, MTV and the WWE have flexed their muscle and upped the ante for a new round of competition that will bring out the most punishing training seen in the Tough Enough ring to date." [4]

From Brandchannel: "Castronuovo readily acknowledges that the WWE is about escapist entertainment." [5]

From ProWrestling.com: "Discuss the WWE" [6]

Conclusion: There is no point in repeatedly removing the "the" from "the WWE". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I could probably dig up just as many examples of using "WWE" without the word "the" in front; however, it seems to be unnecessary, as "the WWE" is just plain grammatically incorrect. As well, WikiProject Professional Wrestling has standardized on "WWE", sans "the", as the proper usage. --HBK 18:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Aw, heck, I have time:

From WWE itself: "She wept backstage, then tried to get on with her life … until a call from WWE’s front office came." [7]

From 411: "USA Network will also be promoting WWE's return to the network..." [8]

From InsidePulse: "WWE's time with Spike TV ended tonight with a Tornado Tag Team Match that ended with Eric Bischoof holding up the WWE Title!" [9]

From Pro Wrestling Torch: "The entire idea Spike officials are upset with Vince McMahon and WWE over Monday night’s USA Network references is laughable." [10]

From 1Wrestling: "WWE purchased local spots on cable systems in top 20 markets announcing to return to USA next week." [11]

I'll try to dig up more examples if you're unconvinced. --HBK 18:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You haven't proven your point, because your point was not that "WWE-with-no-the" is a frequent usage. No, I am not convinced that Wikipedia needs to standardize on one version when the WWE itself (or "WWE itself", if you insist) does not standardize. But hey, if you think that's where your Wikipedia time is best invested, in correcting "errors" that the subject itself doesn't treat as errors, well, you go, boy. I am pretty sure I can find better things to do with my time and effort than enforcing a "proper usage" that makes no functional difference whatever. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And yet you're the one who kept editing it repeatedly when I originally posted it as "WWE" with no "the"... but hey. --HBK 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"The WWE" is probably a leftover from its days as the World Wrestling Federation, when "the WWF" would have been correct use. 58.179.94.132 (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Married with Children

After reading the TV retcons, I'm suprised to not see Married with Children mentioned. They wrote off half a season as merely a bad dream of Al's after Katey Sagal had a miscarriage. -- Crimson30 06:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I added it here, and on the List of retcons page. BTW, I think the mention of Seven on the show should be removed. This is a case of Chuck Cunningham syndrome, not retconning. Fred8615 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Reference May Be Offensive

Certain populations may find the reference to the Bible as literature and in proximity works more universally accepted as fictional offensive. Likewise, the implication that the Bible is subject to revision or inconsistent may also likely offend many readers. Consider that this example may be superfluous among the large body of examples, and the article would lose little in its absence.

--Mwhidden 20:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it struck me as an intentional troll, actually. In any event it detracts from the article. SJennings 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not that it's offensive. It's that it presumes Christianity to be a fiction, thus violating NPOV. Further, it also presumes that the intended audience for the New Testament didn't suppose that the serpent might be Satan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand people thinking that any reference to the bible would be intended as provocative. However, I do think there are certain things around the bible and the interpretation of the bible that are examples of at least krypto-revisionism. Also could we not see some of the evangelical right's intelligent design ideas as retconning? For example the museum (i think in kansas) that introduces dinosaurs into the garden of eden, placing adam and eve alongside raptors. This is creating a new context for the bible by assuming there are ommissions. I think you're right to seperate it out as maybe a special case because it is factual information that is forcing the revisions of documentation of the past events covered in the bible, however I think to leave it out is missleading. Perhaps just a line (that could be noted as controversial) that states that some believe the bible and other religious texts are often recontextualised to support a differnt point of view of sect, in a way that extends beyond re-interpretation because it is presented as an extension of the core literature.--213.249.245.239 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While, technically, changes in the canon version of biblical events (like, did Adam first marry Lilith, or was Eve the first female he ever was tied with?) can be regarded as retcons, the extremely charged status of the book, as well as the fact that reconstituting the sequence of events and versions is difficult to impossible, plus the fact that retconning is associated with mass media entertainment stories, rather than religious or historical/pseudohistorical books would put the bible and any similar works beyond the pale. --Svartalf 23:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting example of the truth being omitted because it would offend a religious power. Christian beliefs are riddled with retcons. But, unlike comic books, people are forbidden from discussing them by the threat of reprisal. And so the fact of the retcon falls from history and memory. I wonder how much has been successfully retconned to the point where no evidence or suggestion of the original version exists at all. 98.207.134.67 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Einstein's laws of physics aren't retcons of Newton's. Learning further information doesn't necessarily mean it's a retcon. But even if Christianity is a lie, The New Testament's authors' supposition that the serpent in the garden was Satan still isn't retcon, since it's not inconsistent with previous expectations. Incidentally, what reprisal are you referring to? Are you suggesting Wikipedia is bowing to fears of Christian terrorism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete article?

This article really needs to be deleted. The majority of the article is personal opinions. If the individuals editing this article just want to share how they and their friends use the term, WIkipedia is not the right place for this. This term is one of the most overused, misused terms in all of Wikipedia, particularly the comic book listings. If the use of the term has really changed this much since it was originally coined, then it needs valid references. 24.165.188.30 06:22, 17 August 2007

I've moved this comment from the top of the page to a new section, I hope that 24.165.188.30 doesn't mind. Personally, I found this article quite interesting and I vote to keep the page. If the term is as well-spread as seems to be the case, it must be possible to find more references however! Bjost 23:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well most of it is utter bullshit, but hey that's wikipedia for you. Retcon is when you want to make a change that would contradict something which has gone before so you have to invent a (plausible) explanation of what people thought wrong. --IceHunter (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a wikipedian, probably just your average end-user, I just want to point out that until tonight, I didn't know about the term "retcon," and now I know what it means... and it's actually useful to me, since I'm creating a site with fictions taking place in a consistent universe as part of my leisure. Really, I'm not too focused on this article in particular, I'm just taking a few minutes to give you my opinion about this one like I could have done about the previous or the next one, and it would have been pretty much the same. Mine is a general comment that this article illustrates, just like so many others. Like every web user I guess, I spend a lot of time reading wikipedia articles... and I just would like to point out the fact that I personally don't like the turn that your encyclopedia has taken in the last few months. I'd like to know why so many articles I find useful happen to be plagued by these eye-catching boxes on the top with various complaints that uselessly distract the reader's attention. Then I go to the discussion page to understand what happens, and I see people asking for the article's deletion... This is really beyond me, because as a matter of fact the same thing tends to happen to every interesting article that there is in this corner of the web. As a general note, I don't understand how it comes that existing exact information that is already in your encyclopedia would labelled as "useless" and that its deletion would be requested. I understand that if something is factually wrong or opinionated it should be deleted, now, if there is some other, more interesting information to be included somewhere in this encyclopedia, asking for deletion of existing content will not make said information appear magically. The more exact information there is, the better this site is for me. I see a lot of energy being put by a lot of members towards decreasing the amount of what wikipedia has to offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.55.26.141 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This was the job of Winston Smith In Orwell's 1984

In the novel 1984, this was the job of the hero Winston Smith (as far as I recall his name). He retrospectively changed written history by altering the text newspapers etc. I think it desrves a mention in the main artivcle. Anyone agree? 80.0.125.65 (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There ought to be an independent page for listed retcons. There are simply too many, and too debatable to actually be helpful in the article. Perhaps the List page should be created. Mmmpotatoes (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger with Reboot(fiction)

There is a distinct difference between a retcon and a reboot. Sufficient that they should remain distinct articles. I oppose the merger, and will likely try to unflag them within the week. Mmmpotatoes (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I just stumbled on this article from outside, it is useful, and distinct from Reboot (fiction). - cohesion 18:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We could probably roll them both into Continuity (fiction). -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, with all the discussion about retcon in the Doctor Who TV series I think retcon warrants an article on its own. Derek (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Newhart Makes Fun of Dallas

I seem to have very bad luck with moderators accepting my changes, so I'll put this to the talk community to see if it deserved mention in the main article:

Probably the most severe instance of Retcon I can think of was Newhart 's apparent mockery of Dallas ' retcon. Returning from the final commercial break of the final episode, Bob Newhart's character wakes up to find himself in bed with his wife from the long-cancelled, Bob Newhart Show. The entire series, wherein Bob Newhart played a Vermont inn-keeper, was thus explained away as a dream had by a character of a previous TV series, wherein Bob Newhart played a New York psychiatrist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.231.65 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Men in Black

I don't know the details sufficiently to add them to the article but in the Men in Black films the characters use their "flashy device" to retcon people who have seen aliens. Derek (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)