I am seeking any published writing style guidance or good/best practices to help with writing a paper so as to avoid introducing the taint of what is called "presentism" also known as "historical transposition".
I found this webpage at RationalWiki which gives a good solid definition of the topic, and points out that there are two very different uses of the word, one for historical matters and one for philosophical matters.
Please note: I am NOT interested in the philosophical context of this word (i.e. the contrast to eternalism).
In essence the following excerpt seems most relevant to the topic I am asking about...
presentism is a style of writing or argument that can be fallacious, depending on the circumstances. [...] Another common form of presentism is allowing present-day moral judgments to creep into characterizations of the historical figures. [...] In good scholarly historical work, like in law, it's imperative to separate the consequences of the action from the intent.
Hopefully such guidelines can help writers in two ways:
Show the researcher/writer how to identify subtle forms of presentism and related pitfalls that may creep into the text.
Show how to write a paper in a manner that helps the reader to avoid their own tendencies towards a presentist view.
Presentism is the concept that we as humans have a tendency to interpret history using modern world views by either condemning the past based on modern day societal norms (ex: ridiculing American 19th century indecency laws such as bathing suit requirements) or else discounting the significance of past societal norms that once were but are no longer acceptable (ex: asserting that sending people to debtor's prison can not happen in modern America). There are other more subtle forms however, such as the perception of implicit superiority of the present over the past in general.