"There are a people in the Frozen North whose warriors fight with unbridled fury, who can withstand crushing blows, and who scatter the opponents before them like leaves in the autumn wind. These warriors -- and others who have embraced this style -- have come to be called 'Barbarians.'"
That's way too setting-specific - presuming geographical and cultural features that are completely unnecessary and obviously linked to Backgrounds (where you came from) that don't need to be married to classes (what you do now).
"There are many types of ascetic in the world, pursuing enlightenment and existential truth in distant, often dismal, places. A certain portion of those who train themselves in these monasteries leave, and become adventurers.
That's way too narrow and obviously violates the separation of Background and Class outlined in the article - again imposing "where you came from" onto "what you do now."
Lets not get too tied up in what words have to mean what. Classes are more than just generic ability sets to be slapped onto anyone who happens to come along. Perhaps they'll mandate that each Barbarian choose a tribe, so even if you're a Noble, you've clearly spent time among the savages.
So much for Dwarven Battleragers and the like - I guess they just have to seek out some humans in furs to learn how to flip out in combat while using an ax. Marrying class to background so flippantly is just terrible design.
Perhaps they'll mandate that each Monk choose a monastery, so even if you're a Thief, you've clearly spent some time on the path to divinity.
Or they could require a core philosophy, belief, or virtue - similar to how a Paladin requires a Code.
Tethering the game mechanics more tightly to some in-world practice is a goal for this edition, and while not every DM may require that a prospective barbarian character literally spend time out in the wilds with Conan, having that link by default is a nice way to inject character by default.
Or, hey, they could be consistent with what they are already doing with things like the Knight (was a 3.5 class, Unearth Arcana super-class [Cavalier], and an Essentials build), Thief (AD&D class, Essentials build), and Thug (4E build) Backgrounds being independent of class - even if commonly associated.
The core take-away from the relevant part of the article should be that class is far less about what you did back then (that's background), and far more about what you do now.
Background: "I was trained as a squire and acolyte to the Templars of Bahemut."
Class: "I uphold the Code of Tyr, Lawgiver. May he strike me down should I ever falter."
Background: "I was orphaned at a young age and grew up on the streets, doing anything I had to to avoid starvation."
Class: "I walk the Path of Open Hand. If you persist in your violence I shall have to take certain steps to restore a peaceful harmony to this land."
If a class starts to stray away from "what you do" and into "where you came from" too deep then it needs to be reigned in. The class shouldn't care whether you spent dozens of years in rigorous training in the perfect environment, were ordained to this task by prophecy, or are just some sort of savant. That's not what Class is about for an Adventurer.
- Marty Lund