Retroactive continuity , or retcon for short, is a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work that have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former.
The current information from Chronicles do not recontextualize or break the continuity.
This event wasn’t retconned.
Because retcon, retcon and retcon all the story you played in the last multiple expansions is no longer cannon buy our book to know what the story is now until we change it again in the next expansion 
Also apparently changed the lore mid book too from 4 old gods to 5 so some of it may already be no longer cannon 
I’ve bolded the relevant part of the definition.
Per Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, the definition of recontextualize;
to place (something, such as a literary or artistic work) in a different context
The scene is recontextualized with Garrosh’s stipulations on the duel.
The event was not retconned. It is intact and unchanged in its result and its meaning, but the context involving Thrall’s success is supplemented.
Again, retcons only have a negative connotation, they are not inherently negative in actuality.
If you say “I shot Jim” and in another scene it is revealed why you shot Jim (in lieu of knowing before), that is a retcon. (Though, to be clear, we really don’t use the term in context of a self-contained piece of work. It’s usually across novels or pieces of media, like what we have here.)
He lost his powers because he doubted his own judgment for putting Garrosh in charge in the first place, not because the elements somehow put him in the penalty box.
so hes like the green lantern now?
And I’ve bolded for you what makes a retcon a retcon:
Retroactive continuity , or retcon for short, is a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work that have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former .
It must recontextualize or break the continuity with the former.
In this case, it doesn’t.
You can read my entire post before trying to argue with me, yes?
Which is not how Shamanism and the elements work like at least the Elements on Azeroth being displeased with Thralls decision on Draenor made some sort of sense.
That’s an article, and it is a wrong one.
And it doesn’t recontextualize the duel. They never defined the rules.
I’ve give you already the sources which tells you what you need to know about Mak’Gora. Garrosh saying whatever doesn’t change.
It would’ve changed if it actually stipulated that they couldn’t use magic.
That would’ve been a retcon because it actually recontextualize the history.
It’s a dictionary definition what? Do you like seriously not know what Merriam Webster is?
Elemental magic is a skill
Arcane , fire and frost magic are skills
Firing arrows and ammo at an opponent at range is a skill
Skill does not mean only holding a sword , axe or hammer.
What is an article? My Merriam-Webster definition of recontextualize?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recontextualize
Brother you cannot be serious. You are smarter than this.
The CONTEXT of whether or not Garrosh had stipulated anything for the duel was ENTIRELY MISSING from the event in-game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1SdVC2mrz8
That CONTEXT is added with
I don’t know how to make this any clearer for you.
Zuma, I’m curious. Does it ever get dull trying to post something you think is rage bait, only to have it turn hard against you?
The merriam-webester definition for retcon is incorrect according to the Literature.
If you look at the dictionary you’ll see the definition is incorrect.
retcon
This is NOT what Retcon is. It has to break continuity. Retcon comes from Retroactive continuity, and it is a literature device to change something already established by creating a new continuity.
Always has been this way. If you had a major in Literature you would know.
edit
Just ask GPT about retroactive continuity:
In summary, retroactive continuity refers to the deliberate alteration of established facts in a fictional work’s continuity by a subsequent publication, often to accommodate new story developments, correct errors, or respond to fan feedback.
Bro what? You have the literal definition there, and because it doesn’t suit what you think a retcon is, you think the Miriam-Webster Dictionary is wrong? Almost wanna slap this onto r/confidentlyincorrect
You are absolutely insane. Take the L in grace, I don’t expect WoW players to know what the hell a retcon is, they think WoW has had good writing in its past.
I will point you to the operative conjunction or in this sentence. I cannot believe I am explaining first grade English to a native speaker of the language.
Also yeah, I’ll take GPT over convention and respected dictionaries like Merriam-Webster or Cambridge. I will get right on that, pal.
I’m correct. You’re reaching here on this.
A retcon must change already established facts.
It was never established anything about any rules with Mak’gora between Thrall and Garrosh.
In fact, if you watch their first Mak’Gora which was interrupted by the invasion of the Lich King forces in Orgrimmar, thrall was shooting lighting bolt and even using thunderstorm on Garrosh.
I already provided sources which establish that it was a misconception from many, and due to the Warcraft Movie which shown Gul’dan as a cheater in the Mak’gora by using Fel to kill Durotan.
Again, lets say it together:
Retcon is the alteration of previous established facts in the story.
It hasn’t changed.
There was no recontextualization with the Mak’gora because the Mak’gora never established a rule to forbid magic.
If there was no recontextualization, then there was no retcon.
Yes, the OR.
Break or recontextualize.
again, there was no recontextualization with the Mak’gora.
Please tell me you are not going to make me define change for you.
Don’t bother. He’s just going to keep doubling down on this, even knowing full well that he is 100% in the wrong. That is just how he does things.
Thrall doubted himself after using his shaman powers to kill Garrosh.