Talk:Rosy retrospection

Article re-write on 2017-04-22 by MagneticInk
I have re-written most of the article today. The quality of the previous version was simply far too poor, and had multiple instances of broken English and poor phrasing. I also removed a statement that was not backed up by any citations and replaced it with a different (unrelated) statement that could be backed up by citations.

One obstacle I encountered for writing my own iteration of the articles is that I remembered reading about a relationship existing between simplification/exaggeration of memories and data compression as it applies to the human brain. However, when I tried to find the corresponding citations I couldn't find them. It has been too long since I read the sources, and I was going off my own memory. If anyone knows some real citations for some of these statements that would be appreciated.

Anyway, now that the article has been re-written and is significantly different, the maintenance notices at the top of the page may no longer apply, but I figured it would be better to let other members of the community decide that rather than me, since it is my own work and therefore I may be biased without being aware of it.

Should we now remove the old maintenance notices that were on the page since before this major re-write?

Also: This is my first time doing a major re-write of an article so I am not certain that I have done all of the formatting and Wikipedia conventions right. Perhaps someone could look over it and fix any failures of convention that I have made (if any). Thanks.

--MagneticInk (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted the old maintenance notices, since this article (rosy retrospection) doesn't seem to get much editing traffic. I figured it is probably best for people to re-examine the article with a fresh up-to-date perspective now that it has been re-written. People are probably often too afraid to remove stale maintenance notices when they don't know what's been going on, so I figured it was best for me to go ahead and get rid of them.

The maintenance notices that I removed where the "needs additional citations" notice from 2012 and the "personal reflection" notice from 2015.

--MagneticInk (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation for study in 'experiments'
(Note: This section of the talk page was from before the 2017-04-22 major re-write of the article.)

The un-cited study mentioned in the 'Experiments' page is described in this document as well: http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr/documents/lyon2/2007/nunez_a/pdf/nunez_a-TH.5.pdf

It doesn't provide the original source of additional information for the study, so it's still a mystery where it came from but this is a start at least. O0factuallycorrect0o (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

improved?
If this is the result from a "major re-write," then I don't see why it should be treated gently. The rationalization that this article "doesn't get much editing traffic" is a poor argument for letting unfounded statements stand, but very good support for removal of same. Really, it ought to be a section of Nostalgia, which is deeply lacking for clearer in-context discussion of nostalgia as a means of "overlooking" the hard truths of history:
 * To whitewash is a metaphor meaning "to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data".

Such willful ahistoricism justifies unwise actions, not least being reactionary extremism: "We should return to the Olden Times, when everything was wonderful." Weeb Dingle (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)