Talk:Retroactive continuity

Batman

The article reads: "In the first (modern-day) Batman film, Batman's parents are murdered by the Joker. However, in the fifth modern-day film, Batman Begins, his parents are shown to be murdered by a street mugger." However, I don't think Batman Begins should be considered a retcon. It doesn't appear to be intended to be a part of the same continuity as the previous four movies, just as they aren't intended to be in continuity with the TV show, and the TV show isn't in continuity with the comics.

Types of retconning

"Although there is considerable ambiguity and overlap 'between different kinds of retcons', there are some distinctions that can be made 'between different types of retcons'..." One of these two needs to go. Which one is uncertain but the prose flow is disrupted by the obvious repetition. ZachsMind 15:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There are two general types of retconning, as far as I'm aware. One doesn't introduce inconsistencies; it goes along the lines of "we've been writing about this character for ten years without ever deciding on how he got his superpowers, but let's decide now and retroactively add it to his continuity." The other does, in a sense; it goes along the lines of "you know how we previously established that this character was born in 1930? Well, now he was born in 1960, and always was born in 1960. He was never born in 1930." Comic book universes have gone through massive rewrites of this second type, try looking up "Hawkman" and "Crisis on Infinite Earths" for examples.

Basically, retconning can be used for good or for evil; it can introduce inconsistencies or it can resolve them. -BD

Have I been mistaken in thinking that the term retcon primarily refers to the tendency of comic book (etc) writers to retroactively create new explanations for known facts, introducing new elements to backstory? For example, there might be a well established explanation of how a hero acquired his superpowers, but a later writer might decide that the old explanation was just a misunderstanding by the hero and that the incident was really a failed scientific experiment by Mr. Bad all along... This is similar to, but not quite the same as the first meaning elaborated in the article.

That's one of the meanings of retcon, yes. I don't know if that's its primary meaning, however. I tried to include it in the article, but if it isn't clear enough or prominent enough feel free to elabourate it. --BD

DS9

What about the episode of Deep Space Nine where they go back to the space station from the Tribbles episode of the original Star Trek series- when Worf is asked to explain the physical difference between post TNG/Movie Klingons and original (Kirk era) Klingons, simply avoids the issue by stating "it's a long story" or words to that effect IIRC quercus robur 01:06 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

Up to that point I really figured they'd retcon smooth-headed klingons ... Worf yells somehting like "it is a shameful part of our past we never talk about". My thory is that the Suliban genetic business in Enterprise will be responsible. So it's the 1st type of "non destructuve" retconning -- Tarquin 09:32 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

That ended up being retconned in Star Trek Enterprise's last season.

Urhixidur 20:56, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

The example cited from Buffy the Vampire Slayer isn't a genuine example of a retcon. It is, I think, deliberately playing with the idea of the retcon (and specifically the character-has-suddenly-always-had-an-extra-relative type of retcon), but it's not a retcon itself. If it was a retcon, Dawn would have appeared without explanation and the viewer would be required to accept that she had always been there; whereas a within-the-story explanation is provided (there was a big spell that changed reality), and the situation presented to the viewer isn't that she has always been there, only that the characters think she has. --Paul A 02:59 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that it isn't just a matter of altered memories of Dawn. There is also a complete set of physical evidence, including hospital records, baby teeth, report cards, etc. As far as the world is concerned, Dawn Sommers is completely real. Some of the (non-canon) comics stories set in the past include her as well.

I do bear the physical evidence in mind; but I don't see anything in it to alter my position. The Dawn thing is not an example of a retroactive continuity change because it is not retroactive. At the beginning of episode 5-1, Buffy did not have a sister, memories of a sister, nor evidence of a sister; at the end of the episode, she had a sister, memories of a sister, and evidence of a sister. This only means that she magically acquired these things at some point during the episode - it does not alter the fact that, at the beginning of the episode (and in all the episodes before) she did not have them.

I realise that it seems more complicated because the sister, the memories, and the physical evidence are all pretending to be older than they actually are; but Buffy's new sister is fundamentally no more a retcon than Giles's new car in the following episode.

--Paul A 02:21 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)

Crediting the term

Perhaps I've been overly bold here, but I credited the term "retroactive continuity" in the article to comic book author Roy Thomas. I do believe that he coined it in the early 80s, and I referenced the earliest example I could find. If anyone can come up with an earlier documented example, that could be cool. A more specific date for when and where the abbreviation "retcon" came into use would also be good (my guess is circa 1989 on rec.arts.comics). -- A friend of Damian Cugley here: Damian only had USENET access while doing vacation work for HP between his second and third years of University, so if anyone wants to locate the original post in archives, they should check rec.arts.comics between June and October 1988.

If people strongly disagree with crediting the term to Thomas, I still think the reference should be preserved in the article (as the "earliest known use", or something) as I think it has historical value.
--mhr 05:09, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

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)

To-may--to or to-mah-to???

It is all in how you look at it.

Tolkien did this too, with the Hobbit

Mark Richards 00:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Serpent in the Garden of Eden

I'm not sure the recently-added example from the Bible is really a retcon, since the reinterpretation is not established in any later work in the canon. It seems to me it's more of an example of fanon. --Paul A 02:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you and I've deleted it from here. I express no opinion about whether it deserves mention on fanon. JamesMLane 04:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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

SORAS and Growing Pains

I have questions about these two recently-added entries, and whether they really fit the bill of "retcon".

SORAS (Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome): It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that no retroactive alteration of continuity is even attempted to explain why the child given birth to four weeks ago is now fourteen, it just is. It seems to me it would be retconning if they tried to address the discrepancy by saying "my goodness, that experimental rapid-maturation formula the doctor put you on just after you were born certainly was effective!" that would be retconning, but instead, they just don't address the discrepancy at all.

This seems more like loose or sloppy continuity, than a retcon. It's a subjective distinction, but retconning generally involves an assertion of "this is what really happened" rather than simply ignoring consistency. Tverbeek 18:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Growing Pains: I've read two different accounts of what actually happened in regards to this. One is that an entire season was retroactively declared, the next season, to have been Mike Seaver's dream. The other is that the completed season ended on a cliffhanger suggesting that Mike Seaver was going to marry his girlfriend; when Kirk Cameron had the actress playing his girlfriend fired, nothing that had previously happened was retconned out of existence; the girlfriend character instead abandoned Mike at the altar without explanation in the first episode of the new season.

According to TV Tome, the latter retcon-free account is closer to what happened. It even cites an episode later in the season in which the girlfriend bumps into Mike and a new girlfriend. Evidently the left-at-the-altar episode contains a dream sequence, which (combined with the Dallas retcon) is probably where the "it was a dream" legend came from. Tverbeek 18:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any clarifications/commments? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On a similar note: What about the "Rudy Wells" entry, where one actor left the part and was replaced by a different actor? It seems to me that it's like SORAS; it's less an attempt to rewrite continuity and more to ignore continuity. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:53, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is the title of the article "retcon on willys!" when there is no mention of an extended title in the article itself? Shouldn't the article just be called "retcon"?

Because a vandal named Wheel on Willys wanted to move it. The vandal has been blocked, and you may move it back. Georgia guy 15:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Same character, different actor -- retcon?

The character remains the same, but the actor has changed -- is this a retcon or not? I am inclined to say not, because as far as continuity is concerned, there isn't an actor. Darren is Darren is just Darren; there is nothing in continuity about "he is played by Dick Sargent" or "he is played by Dick York" because in continuity, he is himself and not played by anyone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less I think this counts. If they actively inserted the new actor into old continuity (e.g. reshooting a "flashback" scene with the new actor), that might be a retcon, but just ignoring the change is more a matter of "loose continuity" than "retroactive continuity". Tverbeek 12:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The only case of that situation I can think of is "Third Rock From The Sun", where a season-ending cliffhanger had Phil Hartman in a key role, and he died before the new season started filming. I believe they reshot his scenes with a new actor. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about Alien Resurrection?

If I understood correctly the concept of retcon, the "rebirth" of Ripley in Alien 4 would be quite a fine example of filmmaking audacity.

"The return of a previously deceased character is a common type of retcon in many genres of film..." --Paul A 04:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but most stories just use the gimmick "well, he wasn't dead after all" (e.g. Ninja Turtles 2), not cloning characters who died by (spoiler) 200 years before.

Then I don't think you understand what a retcon is. "We thought he was dead (and the movie clearly intended him/her to be dead) but now it turns out, he/she didn't actually die at that time at all" -- that's a retcon. "We thought he/she was dead, and he/she was, but now we want the character to be alive, so we're saying that the old character got cloned," is not a retcon. It may still be an example of audacity, but the producers aren't changing what happened in the past, just saying "okay, here's what happened after that."

Now, if movie 3 shows a character dying, and movie 4 starts off with "Hey, you know when X died in movie 3? That wasn't really X, that was their clone!" then that is a retcon. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right, now I understand the difference. Still, from a writer's point of view it's the same trick, they implied something before but decided to change it so a sequel could me made.

disagreement there. If film Y definitely shows character R dying, and then the makers of film Z have her cloned, because they need her in, somehow, but no previous clues had been given that such cloning technology was even available, or that genetic material for cloning had been obtained, then, there's every probability of an actual retcon : it was that way, but we decide it to be otherwise. --Svartalf 23:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dragonlance

• The Dragonlance series is notorious for retcons. Many fans simply ignored some of the Preludes and Meetings books, among others. In the book The Second Generation, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman introduced Steel Brightblade, son of Sturm and Kitiara. As one fan put it 'why didn't Sturm's moustaches fall off when he saw Tanis in Dragons of Autumn Twilight?' indicating this was somewhat out of character.

Can anyone cast this in a form where non-Dragonlance fans can understand what is being talked about? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If i could explain further i would, but i happen to be one of the afor menioned fans who ignore the preludes nad meetings book, but more so with the Seconed gen books. I suppose i can explai, here inthe discussion at least, the example presented above. Strum Bightblade died in the original triology with out ever having a single romantic relation ship presented to the readers. As well as Kitiara,(i may be wrong, its been a long time) being dead at the end of the first gen books, there is no place within the story that the two would have met long enough to couple and cause Kitiara to be pregnent with Strums child. And YET his child comes into existence anyway. Dragonlance doesnt retcon, so much as they forget who they've killed off----Iorek Brynson

Dragonlance is horrible for that kinda stuff, and not just cause there are different writers, I have 3 novels written by the same person each describes Flint differently, one he uses a axe him and his brother found as kids, another one (that takes place previously chronologically ignoring the 50 years of using the axe) he only uses a hammer, one describes his house as wooden and another describes it as stone (which I believe is tha canon one). Highlandlord 13:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternate versions of Highlander 2 and Halloween: H20

It may be important to note that Halloween H20 had a scene scripted and perhaps shot (which was subsequently cut) that places the film in the context of parts 4-6 (Season of the Witch obviously not necessary here). Furthermore, there is a "renegade" version of Highlander 2 that follows more closely to its predecessor and eliminates the alien planet storyline.

Roseanne

I would like to correct your description of the final episode of "Roseanne".

A similar plot device was used in the final season of Roseanne, stating that Roseanne's husband had died of a heart attack at the end of the previous season, and the final season was all her self-delusion.

It wasn't "her self-delusion". Earlier in the series, she began using a desk in the basement for her writing projects, and in the final episode we learn that she had been writing a fictionalized account of her life. Some elements were fiction, some fact, some were presumably pure fantasy. We're left to decide for ourselves whether stories like the terrorists on the train were pure fantasy. Some episodes may have been mostly "factual", some weren't.

-- stephen

Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

Filling in gaps IS retconning; sloppy continuity is NOT

Please note that retcons don't have to change or contradict anything to be retcons. The term was in fact coined to refer to what the article calls "addition" retcons that merely add to past continuity, retroactively.

On the other hand, continuity goofs or just careless continuity (like somebody's unseen wife's name changing) are not retcons. Those are just mistakes rather than willful acts to retroactively change an established "fict".

Tverbeek 13:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek again

If I remember well, in the TOS episode Metamorphosis it was stated that Zefram Cochrane was from the Alpha Centauri system, but in the 8th movie they changed it and he was from Earth. Does it classify as a retcon? Alensha 22:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Startrek.com, he relocated to Alpha Centauri (as it was likely the next solar system to be colonized after the development of the warp drive). Obviously that is not a canon explanation but I cannot recall any precise dialogue. It could be termed a minor retcon to correct for the original episode's dialogue (somewhat similar to how the earlier episodes of the show have the Enterprise a member of the United Earth Space Probe Agency rather than the United Federation of Planets). But in all likelihood, the writers probably did not take that particular piece of dialogue into account when writing Star Trek: First Contact, assuming that the inventor of the warp drive would be a native of Earth (otherwise he would have been the progeny of a generational ship or a member of crew sent out in stasis, and there is no canon evidence to that effect). That would make it more of a continuity error than a deliberate retcon. Ben Babcock 23:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Except that they ignored more than just the line "from Alpha Centauri"; they pretty much created a whole new character from scratch, keeping only "Zefram Cochrane" and "invented warp drive". The fan explanation that he emigrated to Alpha Centauri is an attempt to accommodate a sloppy retcon. Tverbeek 01:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

He's supposed to have been from earth all along, living in Alpha Centuri (According to James Blish's 1969 epesode adaptation). Apparently after inventing the warp and meeting the Vulcans he mended his ways and became more like the person whom Kirk met. Out of fiction the character in the film was a retcon on how historical people are seen. The Next Gen crew think Cochren is one thing, the real man is very differnt. He drinks, smokes and is greedy.Djarra 13:50, 29 June 2006 (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)

Video game retcon

In the "Monkey Island" series of games, there is a recurring character Herman Toothrot. In the fourth game (which was not written by the creator of the first two) it is revealed that Herman Toothrot is in fact Elaine Marley's long-lost grandfather, and had suffered amnesia.

(In the second game, we know that H.T. and Elaine were on the same island for a while - it seems unlikely that she wouldn't have seen him.)

origin of the term

' "Retroactive continuity" was coined by comic book writer Roy Thomas in his 1980s series All-Star Squadron, which featured the DC Comics superheroes of the 1940s. The earliest known use of the term is from Thomas's letter column in All-Star Squadron #20 (April 1983), where Roy Thomas wrote that he heard it at a convention. '

This makes very little sense. First it is asserted that Thomas coined the phrase. But according to the next sentence, he didn't coin it, he heard it at a convention. Does anyone know which of these is true?

Ncsaint 02:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Clue

Added a reference to Clue. Since the script actually supports some on-screen actions in one ending, and then tries to claim they didn't happen in another, it seems like a fast-forward version of retconning to me. CM

Angel in "Buffy"

What does that mean: "In the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer the character of Angel was not originally penned as a vampire with a soul, though this retconning later in the series did not actively contradict previous episodes"? That's not correct. It's just a typical way for "Buffy" of dealing with new facts: It uses many twists. Like in the very first scene where two people break into the school and the girl seems to be afraid. Everyone thinks that some vampires will now attack both, but then we see that she herself is a vampire and kills the boy. It's the same with Angel: Nobody shall know that he's a vampire with a soul, but afterwards everything makes sense: He gave Buffy a cross, but he never touched it, it was in a box. And he stood in the mausoleum by daytime. But only direct sunlight can harm vampires. He could enter her house, but only because some seconds before she said something like "Come in". It's simply a twist, but it was definitely planned right from the beginning. And that's why I think this paragraph should be removed. Denny

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)

merge from ret-cons

Ret-cons is a mostly useless article and should definitely be redirected, but I think the example it has could be merged into this article. Amalas =^_^= 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. - Sikon 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  If you're talking about Crisis on Infinite Earths, that already is in the article, and has been since before the creation of ret-cons. It would have been greatly surprising indeed if it hadn't been. Crisis was not the first retcon, however, despite the other article's claims; it was definitely one of the biggest, though.

  Ret-cons is redundant. I've turned it into a redirect and removed the merge tags. (According to the history, the original author even tried to turn it into a redirect after finding the main article.) 82.92.119.11 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In political discourse

The snippet in the beginning of the article:

"The term retcon has also entered political dialogue to denote when a politician or other speaker attempts to support his or her arguments by relying on dubious interpretations of history or, less commonly, to "make up" supportive historical episodes whole cloth."

...err, it is? I hadn't heard this before and the only references to politics & retcon (and not politics within comics & retcon) I found via Google searches were in blogs and/or comments. It looks like the addition was a fairly recent snippet added in May 06, but at the least I would say this should be sourced. Diogenes00 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think this is so, and have removed it; someone can add it back if they have any example to cite. JonathanNil 06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove Pit/Kid Icarus from Video game section

I don't know how many people viewing the article would actually care, but the small section about Pit from the game Kid Icarus (second-to-last bullet under the Video games section) should be removed.

Pit is a character from a game for the Nintendo Entertainment System, which has primitive graphics capabilities by today's standards. As such, he is represented in-game by relatively few colors or distinguishable details (again, judging by today's standards).

Now this point in the article mentions the fact that he will be appearing in a new game to be released in 2006 with 3D graphics. The fact that his graphical depiction in the game will be updated with new details doesn't really rewrite the history behind his character.

Lastly, the Smash Bros. series is not considered canonical. It seems that one of the things that makes a new information a retcon is that there is an attempt to put it into the canonical universe. Many characters in the Smash Bros. games have certain traits or abilities that are new or slightly different from what has been seen in previous games in order to fill any needs required by this non canonical setting.

If at least a couple people respond in agreement, the Pit mention should be deleted.

--olanmills 12:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek/Borg

There is nothing to indicate that Picard was the first to discover them or that anything was contradicted; after all we already knew that the Borg destroyed the El-Aurian homeworld, and with the events of First Contact, there were surely rumors going around of their existence. This is probably why ships went looking for the Borg as indicated in Voyager's 'The Raven'. Picard however, was the first to officially report on them.--GeneralDuke 20:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is supported in 'The Raven' when Seven is reading her fathers logs from the start of the mission, he isn't sure what the Borg are or even if they "are anything more than myth and rumour". In this epesode the Federation Science Council are not supportive of the Hanson's mission and try to stop them. Guinan say's that Star Fleet will encounter the Borg when they are ready, an example of the Prime Directive. The Borg were known about before but not encounterd. Djarra 10:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Peanuts?

They've recently been rerunning the Peanuts strips where Charlie Brown's sister Sally is born. In one of these, Snoopy remark's in his thought balloons that he has no brothers and sisters, and is an "only puppy." But later on, brothers Spike and Olaf, and sister Belle at least appear in the strip, and even more siblings in one of the TV specials. Can I add this to the list? Fred8615 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think so. 163.1.209.234 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In 'Peanuts' lore only the daily strip is Cannon. The TV shows are seprate. Djarra 11:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the List of retcons, but decided not to put it in the main Retcon article. Fred8615 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed this discussion because I started it, and I thought it was okay because of that, and the fact it isn't active or needed anymore. Gotta save space somewhere. :-) Fred8615 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you removed other people's comments, and that is considered vandalism. --Chris Griswold 13:41, 5 July 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)

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)

List of retcons

Why is there a list of retcons both in this article, and in a separate List of retcons article? It seems that the lists overlap but that neither is a complete subset of the other. If this is the case then either the list in this article should be entirely moved to the list article, or the list article should be merged into this one (in my opinion), before the differences get any uglier.

In the meantime, which list should I add my Silver Surfer reference to? I put it in the main article for now. I added the reference because the Silver Surfer article links back to this article. --HunterZ 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I created the list, because this article is mainly about retcons and not a list of all of them. This article should only include notable retcons. But of course, people want to see "their" retcons on this page rather than on some list, so they ignore that. --Conti|✉ 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. For purposes of readability and maintainability, though, it might be a good idea to have a stated agreed upon limit on the number of "notable" retcons of each type in the retcon article, with the remainder being relegated to the list article. --HunterZ 00:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps 3-5 of each type, focusing on examples that are well-known in their art form or more interesting than just "Character Foo used to be portrayed as X, now he's portrayed as Y." Granted, those are not objective criteria, but having (for example) comics retcons be comparable to such famous examples as Jean Grey/Phoenix etc. would be a start for cleaning up the article. Ergative rlt 03:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with this merger idea. I feel that a decent article can exist on its own, and that the complete list ought to be separate.--Svartalf 09:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiderman

Theres another rather important Spiderman retcon, dealing with the clones and everything, where Ben Reilly turned out to be the real one and then Peter lost his powers and then they turned Ben into the clone (again) and turned him into dust Highlandlord 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mergerequest

I strongly disagree with the mergrequest from User:Wikipediatrix. We should have one article about what a retcon is, naming a few notable examples, and one article that lists pretty much every retcon. Merging these two articles would result in a way too big article, in my opinion. Currently, there are too many examples in this article, and I'm getting tired of removing retcons added here that should belong to List of retcons, I'd really like to find a way to keep the notable examples list here small. --Conti|✉ 15:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's merge the info, then, which is really all I'm seeking anyway. I agree that there are too many examples in this article and that the info really belongs on List of retcons, that's really the point of my merge suggestion. wikipediatrix 15:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, you could've put that template in the "Notable examples" section, then. I agree that most of the stuff there should be moved to List of retcons, but a few (notable!) examples in the main article would be nice. --Conti|✉ 15:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge the section; keep both articles. Croctotheface 08:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Conti that the definition of retcon should contain a few examples to aid in understanding but that the majority of the existing article should be moved to List of retcons. Perhaps instead of a Wikipedia entry the definition of retcon should be a linked Wiktionary entry while the List of retcons remains in the 'pedia. This would seem to me to be the "correct" method inasmuch as a dictionary exists for definitions whilst an encyclopedia exists for details and understanding. --AnonTech 14:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we at least should have a link to Wiktionary, yes. But as you can see, even without any examples, this article would still be more than just a stub, so I think we should keep this article. Maybe we should move all the stuff under "notable examples" into the List of retcons article and completly rewrite the section, only keeping really notable examples (Dallas and The Hobbit comes into my mind). And it should not look like a list, so people don't add whatever they know to it all over again. :) --Conti|✉ 15:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dune

Are the Dune prequels a retcon? As they were written after the original books218.103.142.199 02:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if they create contradictions with the original books that the reader is forced to overlook. --HunterZ 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Misery

Should metion of the plot of Misery by Stephen King be added to this article? It is, in a way, a story about a retcon, and one of the few fictional works about retcons. Koweja 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything in here is wrong, i'm going to make some ajdustments.

this entire article is unsourced

ContiE continues edit-warring on replacing unsourced information in the article. I quote:

"Either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source! --Jimbo Wales, July 12, 2006"

If the information as is sourceable as you seem to think it is, then go get some sources. The old info will still be waiting for you in the history, it's not going to disappear. wikipediatrix 16:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find the exact quote from Jimbo, he made no such statement on this wiki at that date, I only could find this, which is pretty much what I said. You omitted the "If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source" part, I don't know why. Jimbo was talking about negative stuff in biographies, and I totally agree with him there. Removing everything that's not sourced from this wiki would cut it in half and leave a huge mess, and I don't understand the point of that at all. I also could find this quote from Jimbo, where he again only talks about negative stuff, not uncited material in general. If we should remove everything without sources, what's the point of Template:Fact, then?

Every example is easily verifiable by looking/reading the movies/comics/whatever, so they're the sources. We don't need an external source to tell us that this or that is actually a retcon. If there are external sources, they would be nice to have, of course. As long as the examples aren't controversial, the talked about media suffice as a source. And two reverts are hardly "edit-warring". --Conti|✉ 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Yes, we DO need an external source to tell us that this or that is a retcon. What constitutes a retcon is largely a matter of opinion, and I disagree with many, if not most, of the examples I removed. (I'm not even sure that the term "retcon" is even legitimate anyway). Furthermore, these comments COULD be negative to the producers and writers of these shows/comics/etc. who may disagree with the claims made here. TV producers are real people, you know. Be all that as it may, the list you keep trying to re-insert would be more appropriate on List of retcons, not here. wikipediatrix 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I at least totally agree with you that the list should be at List of retcons, but that doesn't solve the sources problem, of course. That's why I did not reinsert the actual list of examples. We should have a few very major examples here, so people know what we're talking about, tho. If you think the term "Retcon" itself might not be legitimate (legitimate in what sense, anyways? There are certainly more than enough people using that term), you could nominate the article for deletion.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Jimbo meant articles like these also, and I very much doubt anyone will feel offended by this article or the list. Hmm, but it should be possible to find source for all the major retcons, for example those done at The Hobbit and Dallas. But what about the minor examples in the list? Should we remove them because no major source has talked about it, even though it usually is really obviously a retcon? --Conti|✉ 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Dallas retcon remains the best-known archetypal retcon in a classic sense, but I think one definition/example is sufficient, preferably a non-specific one, though. Otherwise, the Star Trek fans will think their examples are better, and then the Buffy fans will feel a need to insert theirs, and soon we'll be back where we started from. And yes, I maintain that without sources, the minor examples should stay out of even List of retcons. wikipediatrix 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that people will add their favourite retcon nonetheless, that's the nature of the wiki, it seems. Don't get me wrong, that really annoys me, too. I'd like to have one example for every kind of retcon (the "It never really happened" one, the "Nah, he lied back then!" one and so on). I'd also like to keep the minor ones in the list, at least those that are really obvious and undisputed. --Conti|✉ 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what Jimbo posted to the mailing list:

"If you read something negative about someone, and there is no source, then either find a _legitimate_ source (and make sure that WE do not make the negative claim, but rather than we merely report neutrally on what the claim is), or just remove it... and insist that anyone who wants to put it back, do so with a legitimate source!"

The subject of the thread was "Borderline notable bios (yes, again)". Aren't I Obscure? 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Conti|✉

From what I've seen and read, I'd have to agree with Conti. There's no reason to add so many {fact} citations and cut 60+% of an article without a majority consensus from its editors. It's overzealous and detrimental to the article and makes it difficult for editors and readers alike to view the article properly, i.e. in it's entirety, with all information in question present. Most would agree: it's better to have articles with more information than less, so long as a source is given for a) negative claims, b) unusual or controversial claims. It's neither necessary nor practical to require sources for statements that are a) trivial, b) common knowledge, c) describing a media reference that is itself the source (i.e. "In episode x of show x..."). Some would even argue d) easily found/proven statements needn't be sourced either. Either way, instead of using a {fact} template for every sentence in an article (which you literally have done), the {sources} template will suffice. More importantly, you shouldn't cut out half of an article just because you don't like the examples given. Also, if you don't even believe in an article's topic, you probably shouldn't be editing it in the first place. 66.229.160.94 19:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

does this belong in Wiktionary?

Basically, this is a definition of a word. 24.59.110.228 06:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion editing

I don't want to enter an edit war, but did whoever deleted all the examples that used to appear in the article make sure they were properly mentioned in the List of retcons? I'd hate it if perfectly good info were lost because of some yahoo's overzealousness. --Svartalf 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted example

I have deleted this example as very dubious and worded like a Trek bash more than an actual example: A good example of this type is the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Threshold" in which Tom Paris breaks the Warp 10 threshold and undergoes bizarre changes; the episode was deemed non-canon by Brannon Braga and has never been referred to in the series again. Since when did Braga ever de-canonize this episode? If he did then this is the only episode in the entire history of the canon (animated series notwithstanding) to be so treated. And the fact it was never mentioned again in the Voyager series is meaningless as there are literally hundreds of story points that have only been mentioned once in Star Trek. If someone can actually provide a credible citation that indicates that Paramount decanonized this episode (or indeed any live action Trek episode), I'm willing to stand corrected. Otherwise I'm taking this out on the grounds of WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. 23skidoo 04:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible reference

Is the article of the apparently prestigious TV tropes wiki acceptable as a source? --Kizor 15:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

I removed a section on whether or not certain kinds of retcons are "typically" more or less liked than others. That kind of statement needs a source for the sake of neutral point of view and verifiability. In other words, someone needs to do an extensive poll or study asking fans their opinions on various retcons, then aggregate the results and publish it in a peer-reviewed publication. Or at least someone smart has to say so. THEN we can put it here. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First use of retcon

Whilst Damien Chugley may well have used the term retcon in 1988 (and it may be the first documented use), Birmingham University Treasure Trap society were using it regularly in 1987 or possibly earlier. 140.32.16.103 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded Legend of Zelda reference

The article includes, when defining retcons, the sentence "Another example is the backstory of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, expanded with great detail in its prequel, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time." The continuity of the pre-Ocarina of Time Zelda games is a hotly debated issue and it is unknown if they even occur in the same timeline at all. While Ocarina of Time was considered at the time to be more of an "early" story than most Zelda games, mostly because it begins with the hero at a very young age in contrast to the other games, it was never solicited as a direct prequel to Link to the Past nor is any specifically intentional reference to Link to the Past made in the game.

As such, until official word says otherwise, its connection to Link to the Past is pure fan speculation and the sentence using it as a full example of a clear retcon should be removed. Ironically enough, the connection is so nonexistent that if the creators later say it IS a prequel to Link to the Past, that announcement itself could be considered a retcon...--76.169.38.32 08:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many inappropriate examples

Too many examples in this article seem to be cases where the a story is revealed in a non-chronologic manner. History revealed in a later fiction, even if by a different author does not constitute retroactive continuity, it is simply facts previously unrevealed. What Roy Thomas was doing in the All-Star and JSA stories was changing previous stories; changing previously known "facts". That is not the case in most of the examples in this article. This is likely why examples have no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.184.95 (talk • contribs)

I second this assessment. I also think that the first line of the article should be clarified such that it no longer could be interpreted as saying that any reference made in fiction to events before the present is a retcon. This article is probably one of the most abused in linking--it seems almost like people WANT to say that X or Y is a retcon so that they can link here. Without sources that make the same argument, such linking is blatant OR, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Croctotheface 15:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Business about "retcon by addition" should be deleted

Retroactive continuity, at least the way I've always seen the term used, denotes making changes to the continuity retroactively. Adding something that never happened before is simply part of establishing a continuity minus the retroactive part. The article seems to suggest that having a secret and hinting at it revealing it over time is a retcon. It isn't: it's simply part of good suspenseful writing in episodic fiction. At the very least, a retcon must change an underlying assumption that the fiction had previously suggested was true. Revealing that Bob has blue eyes because he's really Bill's son might be a retcon if it replaces other explanation or implication about Bob's ancestry or eye color. If it simply replaces lingering questions that Bob has about these topics, it's just continuity, not retroactive continuity. And, now that I think about it, even that first kind of example can be problematic, as it would make Darth Vader revealing himself to be Luke's father a retcon (it replaces a previous explanation), despite the fact that, within the fiction, Luke was being deceived and that deception was intended to be part of the continuity from the start. Croctotheface 15:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable retconned characters

Do you think we should have a list in this article about one of the notable fictional characters that had some of their descriptions retconned? Would it be necessary? The notable characters that had an age retcon were Amy Rose, Knuckles the Echidna, and Jody Summer. --PJ Pete

Boba Fett's Escape

Wasn't there a canonical explanation for Boba Fett's escape from the Sarlaac pit? I remember reading something about another bounty hunter freeing him on the Star Wars Wikia, Wookiepedia. Just wondering, since it states in the article, that something else happened. --Patar knight 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)