Talk:Rosy retrospection

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]