Language desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 18

Steve Jobs and Apple

Pretty sure this is the right place...what does history say about referring to past events? For example, Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple from 1997-2011. Many articles about Apple products released during that time period now say "then-CEO" or "former CEO". Is that right? It just seems wrong to me. He was CEO then, period, and i think the reader can understand that too, that if it's an article about the iPhone 4, a 2010 product, he was CEO and there's no need to annotate "former" or "then-CEO" whenever you refer to him.

Of course, if I'm off my rocker wit this one, I'll draw down on this. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a way to avoid a possible ambiguity. Whether it's actually ambiguous or not depends on many things, including the world-knowledge and cultural identity of the reader, and how much time has passed. Qualifying it as "then-CEO" eliminates the ambiguity for all time. ("Former CEO" doesn't, because it introduces another possible ambiguity). I have noticed a similar issue in Bradford Playhouse, where the article currently says that the building was called the Priestley when it first opened in 1937. I'm almost certain that this is incorrect, and arises from misunderstanding an account written during the period when it was called the Priestley in the late 90's. --ColinFine (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What ColinFine said. If "then-" isn't present, the reader is left with the impression that Steve Jobs may still be CEO to this day. We mustn't assume that everyone knows that he passed away in 2011. We should take care to spell it out, even if the result is a little more wordy than it otherwise would be. Akld guy (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrariwise, including the verbiage only helps by convention, not by semantics. E.g. "Cheng went to Los Angeles with his wife at the time, Sue." - readers may well infer that they are no longer married, but the sentence is still true and accurate even if they are still married. See also Mitch Hedburg's classic joke in the same vein "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: You've reversed the implementation in order to be contrary. If Cheng and his wife are still married, there's no need to specify "at the time" and in fact an ambiguity is created by doing so, even though it's semantically true. If Steve Jobs were still alive and CEO today, there would be no sense in saying "then-CEO" when referring to 2010. When I recommended spelling it out, I meant only in the case where the situation is no longer true, as I'm sure you realise. Akld guy (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On his radio programme, Terry Wogan refers to "my first wife". The joke is that she is, and remains, his only wife. Widneymanor (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More commonly, "the current Mrs Wogan".--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy:Yes, I'll cop to being contrary there, that's how I started the post :) But I thought it was worth pointing out that the meaning of the usage is an inference based on custom, not literal semantics. A literal interpretation of "then CEO" or "wife at the time" carries no extra meaning, the extra meaning is all via implication. Maybe it's not terribly relevant, but I thought OP might appreciate the indication that the usage is due to convention and custom, i.e. it's reasonable that it feels wrong to some readers, and it's also the concept behind several jokes. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's the old story about a guy taking a walk on a beach at sunset, and he comes across a stunning blonde. He says to her, "You remind me of my first wife". She says, "Oh, really? That's nice. How many times have you been married?". He looks surprised, and replies, "Oh, I've never been married". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any stats on how well that pickup line works? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a persistent rumour that WP has an article on everything, but I choose not to believe it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pick-up lines. If there are any well sourced statistics on the success thereof, it should be added there. --Jayron 32 15:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]