Talk:Anachronism

message: Is our goal in this page to list every anachronism that exists, or to simply provide an example of each type of anachronism? Paragraphs upon paragraphs of this article are seemingly dedicated to cataloging every anachronism that currently exists. For the field of science fiction, as time passes anachronisms happen in any work set far enough away from the present time. It seems like a bad idea to try to list them all. Thoughts? 97.102.165.239 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Many Examples? 

message: Yeah, that.  Need section.Rayvn (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Science Fiction and Time Travel

message: Could you please add some examples!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.153.99 (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: The term is also often used (more metaphorically) to describe the experience of encountering things in life which appear to be out of place in time, though on a literal level they are not. Monarchies and other overly lavish political traditions from past centuries are considered by many to be quite anachronistic, as are some old-fashioned languages and certain religious traditions.  
Moral values prevalent in another time, which have now fallen out of favor, may also be referred to as anachronistic.
The style of the section "Anachronisms in art and fiction" is different. Is it from one of the public domain encyclopedias? In fact, you might say it's an anachronism. --Erauch 04:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Social anachronisms

message: In the immortal words of Greg Dyke, this article needs to cut the crap.
Agreed. How about futuristic anachronisms? The unintentional section was full of opinion and NO cited sources. I edited one sentence to remove some opinion (the previous writer had said the anachronisms present in David Brine's earth were "annoying". This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. And I don't know how why this box is here or why it expanded the page I'm new to editing and very new to discussion pages. Doing my best to fix it. EDIT: I was unable to find a solution and I've got to leave, if someone could fix this for me, it'd be much appreciated. GammaRage (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: Anybody certain that "anachronistic displacement" is an actual psychology term?
A google search on the phrase seems to yield only the wiki article and others referencing the wiki article.
:It's hard to answer that question in a direct way.  Does the concept exist in abnormal psychology?  Yes.  Does the offered phrase accurately describe the concept as it's understood in abnormal psychology? Yes.  Have I encountered the phrase in print?  I have only seen it in print in formal remarks by psychiatrists in patients' charts (I work in mental health care), and I have heard it used by psychiatrists. Does it exist in "official" psychological dictionaries? I cannot answer this of my own knowledge.  I can only attest that I have observed psychiatrists using it in formal contexts.  Others may quibble, but that's good enough for me.--7Kim 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consulted some texts in psychiatry last night.  The answer appears to be "yes and no": Yes, it is an actual technical term.  However, it appears to be a superannuated one, as the latest text I could find that found it worthy of mention was dated in the mid-1960's.  On the other hand, to this day it is used, immediately understood, and treated as technical language.  You pays your money and you takes your choice.  Arguing either side will drag us into prescriptionist/descriptionist flamewars debates and I'm not going there.  Personally, I'm for it, but from a Wikipedia perspective, absent a recent documentary citation it should probably go.--7Kim 14:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology 

message: Proposed additions:
*Add link to neologism and retronym.
*References to years in the 20th century. Before what was often referred to in speech as "year two thousand" and sometimes written informally as Y2K, 1995 would normally have been referred to as "ninety five" and written 95, whereas in the 21st century it has become usual to write years in full and to say "nineteen ninety five". Thus reference to "1995" in a play set in the 20th century might well be anachronistic. GilesW 12:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date anachronisms 

message: What does this section do?  It actually starts out talking about a person - an 'anachronist'. Has some eager person cocked this section up by adding that and no one has noticed?  It makes little sense... Malick78 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Two types" section - why?

message: Some of these things aren't so much anachronisms as consequences of the world evolving differently than futuristic depictions in TV and film. An exmple is "In the 1982 film Blade Runner which is set in 2019, Atari, which was liquidated by the late 1980s is portrayed as the main source of computer products. Also the film depicts cigarettes as being advertised, not anticipating that by the early 2000s most developed nations would have had legislated against tobacco advertisement in the name of health." If I made a movie about flying cars in 2050 but by 2050 we still didn't have flying cars..is that an anachronism? Maybe it is, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedxjade (talk • contribs) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor Choice of Examples

message: The concluding section dealing with the status of anachronism in academia is in part original research (the first example, so long as it lacks a reference) and in part an exercise in examples failing to demonstrate what they are meant to (the Sagan example). On the whole it is poorly worded and difficult to draw conclusions from. While it captures the general status of anachronistic analysis ('bad'), it would benefit greatly from at least one or two good sources (first to mind is Skinner) and a rewrite focusing less on examples and more on getting the basics established. Also there is a good article on the Historian's fallacy as a specific sort of anachronistic reasoning that should be at least linked to. (MH (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronism in scholarship

message: The first sentence state an anachronism "is an accidental or deliberate inconsistency in some chronological arrangement". If it can be used in both circumstances it would appear nothing is being specified. I will remove "accidental or deliberate"; without them the meaning will be identical.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.68.3 (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidental or Deliberate 

message: A literary work such as Quo Vadis set in the time of Nero is written in Polish, a language that did not exist in Roman times and is usually translated into other languages that did not exist in ancient times because modern audiences generally do not understand Latin, the language of Rome, any more than non-Poles can be expected to understand Polish. That sort of anachronism is generally excused.
Was the movie set in Polish? I see many 1950s movies with Roman characters speaking English as well,  but no one mentions this. The audience has to understand what they are saying at best.
Excuse me, 
but translating a work into a different language IS NOT an anachronism at all. That is helping to preserve the work for future generations so that people in Poland will understand the work. There is nothing anachronistic about it. Just like it is not anachronistic to translate Homer's Iliad into English or the Bible into English.
English did not exist in Biblical times. Maybe the King James translated Bible is an anachronism as well? This is not an anachronism, any more than translating Iliad into Russian is an anachronism. This puts it in another language so that people will better understand Homer.
BTW, Simpsons is an anachronism because Homer Simpson is featured in an episode with the river Styx in Ancient Greece. Can anyone say anachronism? Of course Blackadder is anachronistic, because IT IS A TV show that IS NOT meant to be historically accurate. 
You know, the parody of the Iliad with Homer Simpson in it.
The above passage is not an anachronism. Where was this borrowed from?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.34.150 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronism? 

message: Under future anachronisms we find the following:
A more subtle example may be found in the 1989 film Back to the Future Part II, where it is assumed that fax machines are ubiquitous in 2015, instead of e-mail.
It may come as a surprise to the author of that statement, but today, in 2012, in business settings FAX machines are still quite common! Are we expected to assumed that they will disappear in the next 3 years?  John Elson★3Dham★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 06:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAX machines 

message: If The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci, 1498, depicts oranges, which were brought to Europe by Portuguese traders from India in the 15th century and were unknown at the time and place of the Last Supper, than they are probably not oranges, but buns. If Leonardo did not know anything about oranges than, consequently he could not depict them. That is why this is not an anachronism. Picture removed. Hafspajen (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oranges? 

message: I thought this old classic would have gotten a mention (and even an image) in there somewhere. Any reason why not? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavemen and dinosaurs 

message: This article does not seem to have any proper sources except the mention about some of the text being from Encyclopædia Britannica. It mostly just seems to be original text and examples. How about if everyone would try to stick to proper sources instead of just telling about their own favourite example?
Especially because many of the so called examples now are rather debatable. It would be nice to have proper scholarly sources on what things are anachronisms and what not.
For example, can a work of fantasy like science fiction even contain true anachronisms? After all, it is already considered a work of fantasy. One can not argue that "something is out of place" before one first defines what is normal for that depicted environment or period. 
I mean, sure, we could argue that the American 1970s hairstyles in Star Wars (New Hope) are anachronistic [for example, because it's A) supposed to be the future, and/or B] it's supposed to be another galaxy), but on the other hand we realise how stupid that argument would be because of it's already a work of imagination and simply reflecting the time the movie was made in. Similarly now the article talks about anachronisms in the movie Brazil, which is rather silly as it is hard or even impossible to define what would be normal for the dystopian world seen in the movie.
We can debate about what is an anachronism and what isn't till we're all grey and drooling. Or we can stop doing original writing and find some proper sources. And then throw out all the unsourced ramblings. You know, like one is supposed to do on Wikipedia anyway. ;)
--Gemena (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of sources and original writing 

message: There might be some anachronisms in this movie, but I think the cited example is not one. Rather, somebody does not know what millet looks like and thought this was maize, therefore presuming there was an anachronism. As far as I could tell the plants cultivated in the movie was millet. Millet was present in Palestine for millenia before the events which the Nativity Story portrays. Did Catherine Hardwicke state somewhere that she had maize in the movie to make a statement with modern agriculture or bring in an American connection? Is it confirmed that this was maize and not millet? (^^^^)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.82.146.242 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested deletion on The Nativity Story 

message: Paragraph 2 in § Intentional views the future culture of an SF TV series as an anachronism because it is similar to that of an earlier time and place:
:The television series Firefly's vision of a pioneer culture dominant in the outer regions of the galaxy mirrors the mid-West pioneer culture of 19th-century United States. This can be seen as an anachronism…
"Can be seen as", maybe, but I don't think it's supportable. --Thnidu (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Firefly'' 

message: In view of its creator and star, Woody Allen, the movie Sleeper is satire of trends of the 1970s placed in a futuristic setting. I'm giving as an anachronism a reference to a historical event (the abandonment of clerical celibacy by the Roman Catholic Church) in which a character ("Miles Monroe") finds a 1990 newspaper that refers to the "wife of the Pope" having children. Such would not happen for at least 24 years after the time suggested in the newspaper.  
Nobody says that this movie is orthodox science fiction (note that tobacco and junk food have been found wholesome and organic foods have been found harmful in an Orwellian world), but a reference to a 1990 event that is shown to be impossible because a prediction of an institutional change that does not happen for a significant time later becomes an anachronism after 1991. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding unsourced content to this article.  It's becoming disruptive now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

text: You are treading dangerously close to a block for disruptive editing.  The next warning that you get will your final warning, and, after that, you will likely be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia.  As has been explained to you numerous times, no, you may not use the disc itself.  Stop rehashing the same arguments and ignoring clear, concise explanations of Wikipedia policy.  I mean this seriously: if you do not stop, I will seek administrative assistance to remove your ability to continue to disrupt this article.  If you honestly do not understand why I am opposed to your edits, read the previous discussion.  I'm tired of repeating myself, and I'm only replying to you now in order to warn you about your current course of action.  Do not take this message as an invitation to argue with me about whether some film or TV series is an example of anachronism in fiction, because I will not engage with you on that topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

text: He thinks that we (me and ) are opposed to the inclusion of the topic, rather than opposed to original research.  I have attempted to assist him with locating reliable sources and have given him explicit examples of how to add content to the article via Google searches, but it seems to be for naught.  Maybe someone else can reach him; he apparently does not read my messages and wishes only to debate whether his original analysis is correct. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. I am looking forward to hearing from Pbrower2a Sunray (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Please stop wasting your time and everyone else's. Nobody is interested. Practically every work of fiction or art ever produced claiming to represent the historical past contains anachronisms. Practically every work of fiction or art claiming to represent the future contains predictions which turn out to be incorrect. There are literally millions of examples that could be mentioned here, but the article does not need more examples. What it does need are references to secondary sources that discuss anachronism. If you wish to contribute constructively to this article, please go and find some of those. GrindtXX (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right now, I think a sourced definition would be quite helpful.  Although I found a few on Google Books, they discussed it in terms of academic research, and this article seems more oriented toward cultural depictions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sleeper (Woody Allen film) 

message: Is it not possible that the Last Supper, Aristotle etc. are portrayed in that manner because that's exactly what they actually looked like? They're only 'anachronistic' to people raised in the modern education system. And yes, furthering investigation into this would be improving the article, by making it look less ridiculous POV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.61.166 (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The artwork 

message: Clearly there is religious bias in the article. Without mentioning the anachronism in the Bible, Torah, Koran, it leaves the article obviously slanted in support of the most popular anachronisms in the world: Religious holy texts.  --68.173.189.62 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bible, The Koran, The Torah all forgotten in the article

message: I hope my bold removal of the main image wasn't uncalled for. I've read the source that was given and I don't think it says what the caption was saying it did.
The source writes this:
Even the rectangular shape of the table, and the placement of the sitters along one side, is an anachronism.
Wikipedia's caption wrote this:
The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci, 1498, depicts Jesus and the apostles sitting at a long table. This kind of table was unknown at the time and place of the Last Supper.
That is not what the source is saying. The source is saying that da Vinci departed from the artistic convention of depicting the last supper with a curved table. Sure, long tables may not have been common then, and you could argue that someone of Jesus's social standing would not have had access to a big fancy table, but it is ridiculous to claim that people 2000 years ago did not know about long tables. Obviously the author, an art historian and expert, is much more credible than me, but I think he misses the point. I've looked at the definition of an anachronism and I don't think what he calls an anachronism is an anachronism. At its simplest: an anachronism is a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists. It's not unrealistic for a long, rectangular table to appear in this time period. It may not be historically accurate, but that doesn't mean it belongs to a different time period.
He also says that "the practice of seating diners along only one side, with servants attending to their duties from the other side, was reserved for particularly wealthy households, hardly a likely scenario for Jesus and the apostles." I'm not sure what the point here is. Da Vinci likely just put them on one side of the table so we could see all their faces. What was he gonna do, have half of them with their backs to us? The same thing happens in plays and sitcoms; it's called blocking.
There's a lot of very interesting information about the symbolism of different types of tables (straight tables are hierarchical [someone has to be at the head], while round tables tend to show a sense of fraternal fellowship and equality) but I don't think this is a good example of an anachronism. 
Duey (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the Last Supper picture 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion