Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

The Nice Guys

2019-06-01T15:05:13Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Future */ wp:rs

{{Infobox film
| name = The Nice Guys
| image = The Nice Guys poster.png
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Shane Black]]
| producer = [[Joel Silver]]
| writer = {{plainlist|
* Shane Black
* Anthony Bagarozzi
}}
| starring = {{plainlist|
* [[Russell Crowe]]
* [[Ryan Gosling]]
* [[Angourie Rice]]
* [[Matt Bomer]]
* [[Margaret Qualley]]
* [[Keith David]]
* [[Kim Basinger]]
}}
| music = {{plainlist|
* [[John Ottman]]
* [[David Buckley]]
}}
| cinematography = [[Philippe Rousselot]]
| editing = Joel Negron
| studio = {{plainlist|
* [[Silver Pictures]]
* Waypoint Entertainment
* Bloom
}}
| distributor = [[Warner Bros.|Warner Bros. Pictures]]
| released = {{film date|2016|5|11|[[Grauman's Chinese Theatre|TCL Chinese Theatre]]|2016|5|20|United States}}
| runtime = 116 minutes<ref name="bomojo">{{cite web |url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=niceguys.htm |title=The Nice Guys (2016) |website=Box Office Mojo |accessdate=April 23, 2016}}</ref>
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $50 million<ref name="budget">{{cite web|last1=Svetkey|first1=Benjamin|title='Lethal Weapon' Wunderkind (and Former Party Boy) Shane Black Is Back ... and Still Looking for Action|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/lethal-weapon-wunderkind-party-boy-892186|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|accessdate=May 15, 2016}}</ref>
| gross = $62.8 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=niceguys.htm|title=The Nice Guys (2016)|website=[[Box Office Mojo]] |accessdate=October 25, 2017}}</ref>
}}

'''''The Nice Guys''''' is a 2016 American [[neo-noir]] [[crime film|crime]] [[dark]] [[comedy film]] directed by [[Shane Black]] and written by Black and Anthony Bagarozzi. The film stars [[Russell Crowe]], [[Ryan Gosling]], [[Angourie Rice]], [[Matt Bomer]], [[Margaret Qualley]], [[Keith David]] and [[Kim Basinger]]. Set in 1977 [[Los Angeles]], the film focuses on a private eye (Gosling) and a tough enforcer (Crowe) who team up to investigate the disappearance of a teenage girl (Qualley).

''The Nice Guys'' premiered on May 11, 2016, in [[Hollywood]], and also screened on May 15 at the [[2016 Cannes Film Festival]], before being released by [[Warner Bros.|Warner Bros. Pictures]] in the United States on May 20, 2016. It received positive reviews from critics and grossed $62 million on a $50 million budget.<ref name="reviews">{{cite web|url=http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-movie-projector-20160517-snap-story.html |title=Captain America' faces new 'Neighbors' and 'Angry Birds' at box office| work= latimes.com}}</ref>

== Plot ==
In 1977 [[Los Angeles]], a young boy named Bobby admires a magazine centerfold of [[porn star]] Misty Mountains, when Misty herself crashes her car through the boy’s house and is found dead afterwards. Down-on-his-luck private eye Holland March is hired by Misty's aunt, who claims to have seen her niece still alive. March’s investigation leads him to Amelia Kuttner, who becomes increasingly scared and eventually pays muscle-for-hire Jackson Healy to scare March away. Healy barges into March's house and breaks his arm before leaving.

Healy is interrogated by two thugs, “Blueface” — so named after he sets off a [[dye pack]] while searching Healy’s apartment — and Older Guy, about Amelia's whereabouts. Healy wards them off with a shotgun, and teams up with a reluctant March to find Amelia first.

March and Healy question Amelia’s anti-pollution protest group and meet Chet, who brings them to the burnt-down house of Amelia's boyfriend Dean, who died in the fire. They learn that Amelia and Dean were working with Misty on an "experimental film" — combining pornography and [[investigative journalism]] — called ''How Do You Like My Car, Big Boy?'' The two infiltrate a party in search of the film's financier, Sid Shattuck. Healy discovers the film is missing, while a drunken March finds Shattuck dead, and unknowingly crosses paths with Amelia. March’s daughter Holly, having snuck along to the party, manages to stop Blueface from killing Amelia. Blueface is struck in a hit-and-run, and Amelia flees. Healy subdues Older Guy and finds Blueface dying, who tells Healy his boss has dispatched a hit man named John Boy to kill Amelia, March, and all other witnesses. Healy discreetly strangles Blueface.

March and Healy are met by Amelia's mother, Judith Kuttner, a high-ranking official in the [[United States Department of Justice]], who claims Amelia is delusional and believes Judith wants her dead. Judith hires the duo to find her daughter.

March and Healy make their way to an airport hotel where Amelia is meeting with distributors for the film. John Boy has arrived ahead of them; they witness the businessmen being slaughtered and hastily retreat, only for Amelia to land on their car and shoot at them, knocking herself unconscious. They take her to March's house, where she reveals that her mother is in the pocket of a cabal of [[Detroit]] automakers. After uncovering evidence that they suppressed the [[catalytic converter]], which regulates exhaust emissions, Amelia created the film to expose their collusion, and her mother has had everyone connected to the film killed.

Judith has her assistant Tally arrange for March and Healy to deliver a briefcase of $100,000; March tells her they have found Amelia. When March falls asleep while driving and crashes the car, the briefcase flies open to reveal shredded magazines; the delivery was a diversion to leave Amelia unprotected. John Boy arrives at March’s house, attacking Holly and engaging in a shootout with March and Healy before evading the police. Amelia flees the house only to be killed by John Boy when she unwittingly flags down his car.

March and Healy try to bring the matter to court but have no evidence. At Misty’s house, they discover the nearsighted Mrs. Glenn only saw projected footage of her niece — the missing film. They realize that Chet is the projectionist for the [[LA Auto Show|Los Angeles Auto Show]] and will try to screen the film. At the auto show, Healy and March are intercepted at gunpoint by Tally, who is distracted by Holly and knocked unconscious. Healy finds Chet, who has spliced the film into the auto show presentation. The film plays to the entire auto show, implicating the auto executives. On the roof, March struggles with Older Guy, who falls to his death while March lands in the pool. Holly stops Tally from reaching the film. Healy overpowers John Boy, but spares his life at Holly's behest, and March secures the film.

Judith is arrested, but insists she did not want Amelia killed and that "[[Charles Erwin Wilson#Secretary of Defense|what is good for Detroit is good for America]]", while Healy and March continue working together as private eyes, naming their agency "The Nice Guys".

== Cast ==

{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Russell Crowe]] as Jackson Healy
* [[Ryan Gosling]] as Holland March
* [[Angourie Rice]] as Holly March
* [[Matt Bomer]] as John Boy
* [[Margaret Qualley]] as Amelia Kuttner
* [[Yaya DaCosta]] as Tally
* [[Keith David]] as Older Guy (Eddie Harris) <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL5RsUCuC90</ref>
* [[Beau Knapp]] as Blueface
* [[Lois Smith]] as Mrs. Glenn
* [[Murielle Telio]] as Misty Mountains
* [[Gil Gerard]] as Bergen Paulsen
* [[Daisy Tahan]] as Jessica
* [[Jack Kilmer]] as Chet
* [[Kim Basinger]] as Judith Kuttner
* Lance Valentine Butler as Kid on Bike
* [[Ty Simpkins]] as Bobby
{{div col end}}

== Production ==
===Development===
Like Black's previously directed film ''[[Kiss Kiss Bang Bang]]'', ''The Nice Guys'' takes inspiration from [[Brett Halliday]], namely his novel ''Blue Murder''.<ref name=from>{{cite book|title=The Nice Guys: From Script to Screen|first=Shane|last=Black|pages=7–10|year=2016|publisher=Rizzoli|ISBN=978-0-8478-4981-9}}</ref> Black initially wrote a version of the script along with Anthony Bagarozzi in 2001 which established the characters but otherwise was vastly different.<ref name="Slashurbanwestern">{{cite web|last1=Giroux|first1=Jack|title=Interview: 'The Nice Guys' Director Shane Black Discuses His Latest Urban Western|url=http://www.slashfilm.com/the-nice-guys-shane-black-interview/|website=Slashfilm|accessdate=16 June 2016|page=1}}</ref> According to Black, each would start with one detective, he with March and Bagarozzi with Healy. Along the way, they swapped characters and eventually wrote a first draft. This version of the script failed to attract any buyers, and then Black reworked it into a 64-page version that would serve for a [[television pilot]]. [[CBS]] became attracted to it, but given the contents led to many objections by the [[Broadcast Standards and Practices (US)|Standards and Practices]] department, it eventually did not progress.<ref name=from/> Black would later, upon promoting the release of the final film, speak disparagingly of the idea of the television series, stating that such a show "wouldn't have been any good".<ref name="Slashurbanwestern"/> By 2009, Bagarozzi suggested changing the film from a contemporary setting to the 1970s. Black's producer friend [[Joel Silver]] was initially wary of the idea as he felt audiences would not be as welcoming to a [[period piece]], but he changed his mind after producing ''[[Sherlock Holmes (2009 film)|Sherlock Holmes]]''.<ref name=silver>{{cite web|url=http://pro.boxoffice.com/action-packed-career-producer-joel-silver-nice-guys/|title=An Action-Packed Career: Producer Joel Silver on 'The Nice Guys'|website=BoxOfficePro|date=May 18, 2016|author=Milczarski, Kathryn}}</ref> Black stated the change in time period helped as in contrast to "the divisiveness that we see now", the 1970s was full of multiculturalism and "was the aftermath of the protests and you got a sense that we are all in it together". The contents also drew to risqué films of the decade such as ''[[Vanishing Point (1971 film)|Vanishing Point]]'' and ''[[Five Easy Pieces]]''.<ref name=iw/> Bagarozzi noted how the title ''The Nice Guys'' aimed to be ironic and non-descriptive, as the two main characters were "literally the two worst people that we could think of and then trying to make that fun," given "one breaks arms for a living and the other cons old ladies out of money."<ref name=premiere/>

===Casting===
After Black completed ''[[Iron Man 3]]'' in 2013, Silver asked him what he wanted to do next, and he expressed interest in doing ''The Nice Guys''.<ref name=silver/> The scripts were sent to [[Ryan Gosling]] and [[Russell Crowe]], and both wound up taking the roles specially for the prospect of working with one another. Gosling even stated that when he read the script already picturing Crowe as Healy, "the movie just immediately became so funny" as he had never seen Crowe in a similar role.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://collider.com/the-nice-guys-ryan-gosling-russell-crowe-interview/|title='The Nice Guys': Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe on Playing Shane Black's Latest Onscreen Couple|date=6 May 2016|publisher=}}</ref> Gosling and Crowe accepted in a period of three days, and Black cited the casting as the reason the film was able to move forward, summed up as "After thirteen years it just popped into place in three days".<ref name=iw>{{cite web|url=http://www.indiewire.com/2016/05/shane-black-qa-how-ryan-gosling-helped-the-nice-guys-get-made-after-13-years-290616/|title=Shane Black Q&A: How Ryan Gosling Helped 'The Nice Guys' Get Made After 13 Years|first=Graham|last=Winfrey|date=13 May 2016|publisher=}}</ref> The film was announced in June 2014,<ref>{{cite news|title=Ryan Gosling & Russell Crowe May Be 'Nice Guys' for Shane Black|url=http://www.firstshowing.net/2014/ryan-gosling-russell-crowe-may-be-nice-guys-for-shane-black/|accessdate=13 June 2014|website=firstshowing.net|date=12 June 2014}}</ref> and other casting news followed with [[Margaret Qualley]] and [[Angourie Rice]] officially joining in September.<ref name=Rice-Qualley>{{cite news|last1=Kit|first1=Borys|title=Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe Thriller 'Nice Guys' Casts Female Leads|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ryan-gosling-russell-crowe-thriller-733267|accessdate=September 17, 2014|work=The Hollywood Reporter|date=September 16, 2014}}</ref> [[Matt Bomer]],<ref name=Bomer>{{cite news|last1=Fleming Jr|first1=Mike|title=Matt Bomer Joins Ryan Gosling & Russell Crowe In 'The Nice Guys'|url=http://deadline.com/2014/09/matt-bomer-ryan-gosling-russell-crowe-nice-guys-white-collar-843027/|accessdate=October 1, 2014|website=Deadline Hollywood|date=September 29, 2014}}</ref> [[Keith David]], [[Beau Knapp]],<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kit|first1=Borys|last2=Ford|first2=Rebecca|title='Nice Guys' Casts Its Bad Guys|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nice-guys-casts-bad-guys-739588|accessdate=October 21, 2014|work=The Hollywood Reporter|date=October 20, 2014}}</ref> and [[Kim Basinger]] were confirmed in October,<ref name=Basinger>{{cite news|last1=Kit|first1=Borys|last2=Ford|first2=Rebecca|title=Kim Basinger Joins Ryan Gosling, Russell Crowe in 'Nice Guys'|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kim-basinger-joins-ryan-gosling-742671|accessdate=October 22, 2014|work=The Hollywood Reporter|date=October 21, 2014}}</ref> and [[Ty Simpkins]]<ref name=Simpkins>{{cite news|title=Ty Simpkins Joins 'The Nice Guys'|url=http://deadline.com/2014/11/olivia-holt-same-kind-of-different-as-me-edmund-kingsley-capsule-1201276465/|accessdate=November 10, 2014|website=Deadline Hollywood|date=November 7, 2014}}</ref> and [[Jack Kilmer]] were announced in November.<ref name=KilmerCast>{{cite news|last1=Ford|first1=Rebecca|title='Palo Alto' Actor Jack Kilmer Joins 'Nice Guys'|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/palo-alto-actor-jack-kilmer-748799|accessdate=November 20, 2014|work=The Hollywood Reporter|date=November 13, 2014}}</ref>

===Filming===
[[Principal photography]] began on October 27, 2014, in [[Atlanta]] and [[Decatur, Georgia|Decatur]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Ryan Gosling's 'The Nice Guys' is Now Casting Actors for a Very Featured Role|url=http://www.projectcasting.com/casting-calls-and-auditions/ryan-goslings-the-nice-guys-is-now-casting-actors-for-a-very-featured-role/|accessdate=October 30, 2014|website=projectcasting.com|date=October 5, 2014}}</ref> While production designer Richard Bridgland saw a challenge in that the green Atlanta differed too much from desertic Los Angeles, he found some fitting locations such as [[Dallas Austin]]'s house, whose design was based on what architect [[John Lautner]] found in Southern California, and the Atlanta [[Hilton Hotels & Resorts|Hilton]], which had not changed at all since being built in 1976.<ref name=ad>{{cite web|url=http://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/tour-set-shane-blacks-latest-movie-the-nice-guys-starring-ryan-gosling-russell-crowe|title=Shane Black's Latest Movie, The Nice Guys, Takes Us Back to 1970s Los Angeles - Architectural Digest|publisher=}}</ref> On October 31, a police station scene was filmed in Atlanta among extras.<ref>{{cite news|title=Ryan Gosling's 'The Nice Guys' Casting Call for a Police Station Scene|url=http://www.projectcasting.com/casting-calls-and-auditions/ryan-goslings-the-nice-guys-casting-call-for-a-police-station-scene/|accessdate=November 1, 2014|website=projectcasting.com|date=October 28, 2014}}</ref> Filming also took place in [[Los Angeles]], mostly to get exteriors of locations such as [[The Comedy Store]].<ref name="Rice-Qualley"/><ref name=ad/>

Bridgland did his best to recreate the 1970s, researching from Super 8 films to documentary photographs, and basing the furniture on designers such as [[Verner Panton]]. Even the Misty Mountains glamour photography had Bridgland recruiting [[Arny Freytag]], responsible for most ''[[Playboy]]'' [[centerfold]]s of the decade.<ref name=ad/> For its part, Warner Bros. used its 1972–84 title featuring the "Big W" logo designed by [[Saul Bass]] for [[Warner Communications]] to open the film.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/movie-review-nice-guys-succeeds-article-1.2639999|title=Movie review: 'The Nice Guys' succeeds|publisher=}}</ref>

=== Music ===
[[John Ottman]], who had scored Shane Black's ''Kiss Kiss Bang Bang'', was brought to do the music for ''The Nice Guys'' along with [[David Buckley]]. Ottman drew inspiration from 1970s shows such as ''[[S.W.A.T. (1975 TV series)|S.W.A.T.]]'' and ''[[The Dean Martin Show]]'', with ''[[The Streets of San Francisco]]'' being a particular influence on the main theme. Ottman detailed that the difference to ''Kiss Kiss Bang Bang'' was that now the music was more song-driven,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=16102|title=Audio: "On the Score" with "X-Men: Apocalypse" composer John Ottman :: Film Music Magazine|website=www.filmmusicmag.com}}</ref> with Black stating that the songs would contrast to the [[neo-noir]] tone by focusing on mainstream, exuberant songs of the decade.<ref>{{cite press release|url=http://www.maintitles.net/forum/discussion/3921/pr-the-nice-guys/|date=2016-05-06 |title=LAKESHORE RECORDS PRESENTS THE PERFECT SOUNDTRACK FOR THE SUMMER |website=maintitles.net |publisher=Lakeshore Records}}</ref>

[[Lakeshore Records]] issued soundtrack albums for both the featured music and original score.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://filmmusicdaily.com/2016/04/21/the-nice-guys-score-announcement/|title=THE NICE GUYS: SCORE ALBUM FEAT. JOHN OTTMAN & DAVID BUCKLEY COMING SOON, FILM STARS RUSSELL CROWE AND RYAN GOSLING|date=April 21, 2016}}</ref> The soundtrack also got a special collector's edition vinyl designed by Los Angeles-based creative services company [[iam8bit]] to create "something that seemed like it was an artifact from the seventies" and also "drew from the fictional world of the movie and give you something tactile you can hold in your hand", with the [[gatefold]] being a 3D centerfold of Misty Mountains, and the packaging including posters of Sid Shattuck films and a business card for The Nice Guys Agency.<ref>Hart, Hugh. "[https://www.wheretowatch.com/2016/05/packaging-nice-guys-70s-music-vibe Packaging The Nice Guys '70s Music Vibe]". WhereToWatch.</ref>

{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| headline = ''The Nice Guys: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack''
| extra_column = Artist
| title1 = [[Papa Was a Rollin' Stone]]
| length1 = 3:20
| extra1 = [[The Temptations]]
| title2 = [[Get Down On It]]
| length2 = 2:58
| extra2 = [[Kool & The Gang]]
| title3 = [[Boogie Oogie Oogie]]
| length3 = 1:44
| extra3 = [[A Taste of Honey (band)|A Taste of Honey]]
| title4 = [[September (Earth, Wind & Fire song)|September]]
| length4 = 3:27
| extra4 = [[Earth, Wind & Fire]]
| title5 = [[Couldn't Get It Right]]
| length5 = 3:03
| extra5 = [[Climax Blues Band]]
| title6 = [[Love and Happiness]]
| length6 = 2:10
| extra6 = [[Al Green]]
| title7 = [[Dazz]]
| length7 = 2:23
| extra7 = [[Brick (band)|Brick]]
| title8 = [[Boogie Wonderland]]
| length8 = 1:18
| extra8 = [[Earth, Wind & Fire]]
| title9 = [[Jive Talkin']]
| length9 = 5:56
| extra9 = [[Bee Gees]]
| title10 = [[Rock and Roll All Nite]]
| length10 = 3:20
| extra10 = [[Kiss (band)|Kiss]]
| title11 = [[Ain't Got No Home (Clarence "Frogman" Henry song)|Ain't Got No Home]]
| length11 = 4:27
| extra11 = [[The Band]]
| title12 = [[Escape (The Pina Colada Song)]]
| length12 = 2:06
| extra12 = [[Rupert Holmes]]
| title13 = [[Lonely Boy (Andrew Gold song)|Lonely Boy]]
| length13 = 4:47
| extra13 = [[Andrew Gold]]
| title14 = [[A Horse With No Name]]
| length14 = 1:51
| extra14 = [[America (band)|America]]
| title15 = Green Peppers
| length15 = 4:45
| extra15 = [[Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass]]
| title16 =
| length16 =
| title17 =
| length17 =
| title18 =
| length18 =
| title19 =
| length19 =
| title20 =
| length20 =
| total_length =
}}

== Release ==
In the United States, the film was originally scheduled for a June 17, 2016, release,<ref>{{cite news|title=Russell Crowe-Ryan Gosling Pic ‘The Nice Guys’ Gets Summer 2016 Release Date|url=http://deadline.com/2014/09/nice-guys-russell-crowe-ryan-gosling-release-date-shane-black-827715/|website=Deadline Hollywood}}</ref> which [[Warner Bros.]] moved up to May 20, 2016, giving its previous date to ''[[Central Intelligence]]''.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Patten|first1=Dominic|title=Warner Bros Moves Up 'The Nice Guys' For Comedy 'Central Intelligence'|url=http://deadline.com/2015/03/the-nice-guys-central-intelligence-release-dates-warner-bros-dwanye-johnson-ryan-gosling-finding-dory-1201395236/|accessdate=March 23, 2015|website=Deadline Hollywood|date=March 19, 2015}}</ref> The film had its premiere at the [[Grauman's Chinese Theatre|TCL Chinese Theatre]] in Hollywood on May 11, followed by a 1970s-themed after-party at [[The Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel]], and screened at [[Cannes Film Festival|Cannes]] on May 15.<ref name=premiere>{{cite news|last1=Cavassuto|first1=Maria|title=Ryan Gosling on Working With 'Hero' Russell Crowe in 'The Nice Guys'|url=https://variety.com/2016/scene/vpage/nice-guys-premiere-ryan-gosling-russell-crowe-1201771602/|accessdate=May 26, 2016|newspaper=Variety|date=May 11, 2016}}</ref><ref name=IconLondon>{{cite news | url= http://www.ikonlondonmagazine.com/the-nice-guys-premiere-in-cannes-film-festival-in-pictures/ | title= The Nice Guys Premiere in Cannes Film Festival | work= Ikon London Magazine | date= 16 May 2016 | accessdate=23 February 2018}}</ref> The film was released on digital on August 9, 2016, and DVD and Blu-ray on August 23, 2016. It grossed $6,056,675 in Domestic Video Sales.

=== Box office ===
''The Nice Guys'' grossed $36.3 million in the United States and Canada and $25.5 million in other countries for a worldwide total of $62.8 million, against a production budget of $50 million.<ref name="BOM"/>

In North America, the film was released on May 20, 2016, alongside ''[[Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising]]'' and ''[[The Angry Birds Movie]]'', and was projected to gross around $10 million from 2,865 theaters in its opening weekend.<ref name="preview">{{cite web|url=http://deadline.com/2016/05/angry-birds-neighbors-2-nice-guys-captain-america-civil-war-box-office-preview-1201758521/ |title='Captain America' To Step On 'Angry Birds', 'Neighbors 2' & 'Nice Guys' – Box Office Preview |work= deadline.com}}</ref> It grossed $700,000 during its Thursday night previews and $3.9 million on its first day.<ref name="Thursday">{{cite web|url=http://deadline.com/2016/05/angry-birds-neighbors-2-the-nice-guys-weekend-box-office-1201760146/ |title='Neighbors 2' Parties Harder Than 'Angry Birds' Thursday Night – Box Office |website=Deadline Hollywood}}</ref> In its opening weekend the film grossed $11.3 million, finishing fourth at the box office behind ''The Angry Birds Movie'' ($39 million), ''[[Captain America: Civil War]]'' ($33.1 million) and ''Neighbors 2'' ($21.8 million).<ref name="opening">{{cite web|url=http://deadline.com/2016/05/angry-birds-neighbors-2-the-nice-guys-weekend-box-office-1201760146/ |title='Angry Birds' Is The Word With $42M-$44M No. 1 Opening; 'Neighbors 2' Lower With $25M – Box Office |work=[[Deadline Hollywood]]|date=May 26, 2016}}</ref> Phil Walden of ''[[Forbes]]'' argued that the film could have performed higher if not for sharing its release with ''Neighbors 2'', which shared the same older demographic the film targeted.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/philwalden/2016/05/23/as-angry-birds-soared-why-did-neighbors-2-and-nice-guys-miss-at-box-office/#4aa81079367d |title=As 'Angry Birds' Soared, Why Did 'Neighbors 2' And 'Nice Guys' Miss At Box Office?|date=May 26, 2016|author=Walden, Phil |work= Forbes}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[review aggregator]] [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film holds an approval rating of 93% based on 295 reviews, with an average score of 7.58/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "''The Nice Guys'' hearkens back to the buddy comedies of a bygone era while adding something extra, courtesy of a knowing script, and the irresistible chemistry of its leads."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_nice_guys/ |title=The Nice Guys (2016) |website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] |publisher=[[Fandango Media]] |accessdate=March 12, 2019}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a weighted average score of 70 out of 100, based on 51 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-nice-guys |title=The Nice Guys Reviews |website=[[Metacritic]] |publisher=[[CBS Interactive]] |accessdate=May 24, 2016}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B–" on an A+ to F scale, while [[PostTrak]] reported filmgoers gave it a 75% overall positive score and a 52% "definite recommend".<ref name=opening/>

Mike Ryan of ''[[Uproxx]]'' gave the film a positive review, praising Black's writing, and saying: "If you like Shane Black, you will like ''The Nice Guys''. It's probably the Shane Black-est of all the Shane Black movies. Black has a knack for turning action movie expectations on their head mixed with knowing and rich dialogue."<ref>{{cite web |last=Ryan|first=Mike|url=http://uproxx.com/movies/the-nice-guys-review/ |title='The Nice Guys' Is A Blast To The Past (And Also Just A Blast) |website=Uproxx |date=May 15, 2016|accessdate=May 15, 2016}}</ref> [[IGN]] gave the film a 9/10, writing, "Working from a tight and sharp script that perfectly balances the characters like a yin and yang of screw-ups ensures ''The Nice Guys'' is an absolute joy every step of the way."<ref>{{cite web|last=Thompson|first=Simon|url=http://ie.ign.com/articles/2016/05/15/the-nice-guys-review|title=The Nice Guys Review|website=IGN|date=May 15, 2016|accessdate=May 15, 2016}}</ref> [[Richard Roeper]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' gave 3 stars out 4 and wrote, "Forget about Kevin Hart and Ice Cube in ''[[Ride Along 2]]'', or Zac Efron and Robert De Niro in ''[[Dirty Grandpa]]'', or Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson in ''[[Zoolander 2]]''. Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling are the funniest duo of the year so far in ''The Nice Guys''".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/the-nice-guys-crowe-gosling-hard-bitten-but-hilarious/ |last=Roeper |first=Richard |title='The Nice Guys': Crowe, Gosling hard-bitten but hilarious |work=[[Chicago Sun-Times]] |date=May 17, 2016 |accessdate=August 22, 2016}}</ref> [[James Berardinelli]] described the film as reminiscent of ''[[Boogie Nights]]''. Berardinelli wrote, "''The Nice Guys'' is a refreshingly adult movie entering a marketplace saturated by teen-friendly superhero flicks and animated family fare. It's edgy (although not so edgy that it will turn off a mass market audience), funny, and fast-paced", and he gave a score of 3 out of 4.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/nice-guys-the |last=Berardinelli |first=James |title=Nice Guys, The (U.K./U.S., 2016) |work=Reelviews |date=May 19, 2016 |accessdate=August 22, 2016}}</ref>

On the other hand, [[Rex Reed]] of ''[[New York Observer]]'' gave a score of 0 and he felt that the film is "another sub-mental movie for morons churned out by the kind of sophomoric Hollywood machine that trademarks the works of [[Judd Apatow]] & Co."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://observer.com/2016/05/gosling-and-crowe-an-unholy-alliance/ |last=Reed |first=Rex |title=Gosling and Crowe—an Unholy Alliance |work=Observer |date=May 18, 2016 |accessdate=August 22, 2016}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' wrote that the film lacks wistful, slyly political sense of history that [[Paul Thomas Anderson]]'s ''[[Inherent Vice (film)|Inherent Vice]]'' had. Scott wrote, "Even nostalgic nonsense requires more than attitude and energy, which is all that Mr. Black has to offer. And despite all its restless detective work, ''The Nice Guys'' is unable to track down a soul or a reason for being."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/movies/the-nice-guys-review-ryan-gosling-russell-crowe.html?_r=0 |last=Scott |first=A.O. |title=Review: 'The Nice Guys' Pairs Gosling and Crowe as Slapstick Detectives |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=May 19, 2016 |accessdate=August 22, 2016}}</ref> [[Todd McCarthy]] of ''[[The Hollywood Reporter]]'' wrote, "That the film mostly falls flat has far more to do with the largely unconvincing material rather than with the co-stars, who are more than game for the often clownish shenanigans Black and his co-writer Anthony Bagarozzi have concocted for them; in fit and starts, the actors display a buoyant comic rapport." McCarthy, however, praised the production design (by Richard Bridgland) and costume design (by [[Kym Barrett]]) due to their "vivid reminders of how much [[Los Angeles|L.A.]] has spruced itself up over the past 40 years"; and the cinematography (by [[Philippe Rousselot]]) due to "the figurative and possibly even literal use of a smog filter to evoke a physically and morally toxic environment."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/nice-guys-movie-review-894065 |last=McCarthy |first=Todd |title='The Nice Guys': Cannes Review |work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]] |date=May 15, 2016 |accessdate=August 22, 2016}}</ref>

===Accolades===
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|- style="background:#ccc; text-align:center;"
! colspan="6" style="background: LightSteelBlue;" | List of awards and nominations
|- style="background:#ccc; text-align:center;"
! Award
! Date of ceremony
! Category
! Recipient(s)
! Result
! class="unsortable"| Ref(s)
|-
| [[AARP The Magazine|AARP Annual Movies for Grownups Awards]]
| February 6, 2017
| Best Buddy Picture
| [[Ryan Gosling]] and [[Russell Crowe]]
| {{nom}}
| style="text-align:center;"| <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/2017-aarp-nominations-movies-grownups-awards-956675/item/best-picture-956668 |title=Denzel Washington's 'Fences' Leads Nominations for AARP's Movies for Grownups Awards |first=Abid |last=Rahman |work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]] |date=December 15, 2016 |accessdate=December 26, 2016}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan="2"| [[Critics' Choice Movie Awards|Critics' Choice Awards]]
| rowspan="2"| [[22nd Critics' Choice Awards|December 11, 2016]]
| [[Critics' Choice Movie Award for Best Comedy|Best Comedy]]
| ''The Nice Guys''
| {{nom}}
| rowspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| <ref>{{cite web|title=La La Land Leads with 12 Nominations for the 22nd Annual Critics' Choice Awards |url=http://www.criticschoice.com/critics-choice-awards |work=Critics' Choice |date=December 1, 2016 |accessdate=December 1, 2016}}</ref>
|-
| [[Critics' Choice Movie Award for Best Actor in a Comedy|Best Actor in a Comedy]]
| Ryan Gosling
| {{nom}}
|-
| rowspan="3"| [[Empire Awards]]
| rowspan="3"| March 19, 2017
| [[Empire Award for Best Comedy|Best Comedy]]
| ''The Nice Guys''
| {{nom}}
| rowspan="3" style="text-align:center;"| <ref name="EmpireAwards">{{cite web|url=https://www.flickreel.com/star-wars-rogue-one-leads-empire-awards-2017-nominations/ |title=Star Wars: Rogue One Leads Empire Awards 2017 Nominations |first=Danny |last=Pape |website=Flickreel.com |date=February 7, 2017 |accessdate=March 3, 2017}}</ref>
|-
| [[Empire Award for Best Female Newcomer|Best Female Newcomer]]
| [[Angourie Rice]]
| {{nom}}
|-
| Best Screenplay
| ''The Nice Guys''
| {{nom}}
|-
| [[Rotten Tomatoes|Golden Tomato Awards]]
| January 12, 2017
| Best Comedy Movie 2016
| ''The Nice Guys''
| {{draw|4th Place}}
| style="text-align:center;"| <ref>{{cite web|title=Golden Tomato Awards - Best of 2016|url=https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/golden-tomato-awards-2016/|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|date=12 January 2017}}</ref>
|-
| [[Hollywood Music in Media Awards]]
| November 17, 2016
| Best Soundtrack Album
| ''The Nice Guys''
| {{nom}}
| style="text-align:center;"| <ref>{{cite web |url=http://deadline.com/2016/11/hollywood-music-in-media-awards-justin-timberlake-alexandre-desplat-trent-reznot-1201857357/ |title=Justin Timberlake & Alexandre Desplat Among Winners At Hollywood Music In Media Awards |publication-place=Deadline |publication-date=November 18, 2016 |access-date=November 18, 2016}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web | url=https://variety.com/2016/film/news/la-la-land-hollywood-music-in-media-nominations-1201907464/ | title='La La Land' Scores Three Hollywood Music in Media Nominations | work=Variety | date=November 2, 2016 | accessdate=November 3, 2016 |author=McNary, Dave}}</ref>
|-
| [[Houston Film Critics Society]]
| [[Houston Film Critics Society Awards 2016|January 6, 2017]]
| Best Picture
| ''The Nice Guys''
| {{nom}}
| style="text-align:center;"| <ref>{{cite web|url=https://movieawardsplus.com/2016/12/13/houston-film-critics-nominations/ |title=Houston Film Critics Nominations for 2016 Films |website=MovieAwardsPlus.com |date=December 13, 2016 |accessdate=December 15, 2016}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.awardscircuit.com/2016/12/13/houston-film-critics-society-nominations-nice-guys-rebecca-hall-get-deserved-boost/ |title=Houston Film Critics Society Nominations – 'The Nice Guys' and Rebecca Hall Get a Deserved Boost |website=AwardsCircuit.com |date=December 13, 2016 |accessdate=December 15, 2016}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan="2"| [[Jupiter Award (film award)|Jupiter Awards]]
| rowspan="2"| March 29, 2017
| Best International Film
| ''The Nice Guys''
| {{nom}}
| rowspan="2" style="text-align:center;"| <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jupiter-award.de/wahl/wer-waren-deine-favoriten-aus-kino-und-tv-im-letzten-jahr,8719370,ApplicationVoting.html |title=The Jupiter Awards 2017 |website=[[Jupiter Award (film award)|Jupiter Awards]] |accessdate=December 26, 2016}}</ref>
|-
| Best International Actor
| Russell Crowe
| {{nom}}
|-
| [[San Diego Film Critics Society]]
| [[San Diego Film Critics Society Awards 2016|December 12, 2016]]
| Best Comedic Performance
| Ryan Gosling
| {{won}}
| style="text-align:center;"| <ref name="SDiegoNom">{{cite web|url=http://www.sdfcs.org/san-diego-film-critics-society-nominations-2016/ |title=2016 San Diego Film Critics Society’s Award Nominations |date=December 9, 2016 |accessdate=December 9, 2016}}</ref> <ref name="SDiegoWin">{{cite web|url=http://www.sdfcs.org/2016-award-winners/ |title=San Diego Film Critics Society’s 2016 Award Winners |date=December 12, 2016 |accessdate=December 12, 2016}}</ref>
|-
| [[Saturn Awards]]
| [[43rd Saturn Awards|June 28, 2017]]
| [[Saturn Award for Best Action or Adventure Film|Best Action or Adventure Film]]
| ''The Nice Guys''
| {{nom}}
| style="text-align:center;"| <ref name="SaturnAwards">{{cite web|url=https://variety.com/2017/film/awards/saturn-awards-nominations-2017-rogue-one-walking-dead-1202000833/ |title=Saturn Awards Nominations 2017: 'Rogue One,' 'Walking Dead' Lead |last=McNary |first=Dave |work=''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' |date=March 2, 2017 |accessdate=March 3, 2017}}</ref>
|-
|}

== Future ==
===Possible sequel===
In May 2016, prior to the film's release, Black said of a follow-up, "I think it's a little premature to consider a sequel. I don't believe in jinxes necessarily, but we really need people to see this one before we can even talk about that. We're up against some stiff superhero competition and we just need people to, you know, maybe see ''[[Captain America: Civil War|Captain America]]'' six times, but not the seventh and see us instead."<ref>{{cite web|last=Eisenberg |first=Eric |url=http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-Nice-Guys-2-Isn-t-Table-Just-Yet-According-Shane-Black-132837.html |title=Why The Nice Guys 2 Isn't On The Table Just Yet, According To Shane Black |website=Cinema Blend |date=2016-05-24 |accessdate=2016-12-27}}</ref> In August 2018, Black reiterated his desire to make a sequel, although noted the film likely did not gross enough at the box office to make it likely.<ref>{{cite web|last=Davis |first=Erik |url=https://www.fandango.com/amp/movie-news/exclusive-shane-black-wants-to-make-a-sequel-to-the-nice-guys-753359?__twitter_impression=true|title=Shane Black Wants to Make a Sequel to The Nice Guys|website=[[Fandango (company)|Fandango]] |date=August 9, 2018 |accessdate=August 9, 2018}}</ref>

=== Television spin-off ===
In September 2017, it was reported that [[Fox Broadcasting Company|Fox]] had given a series commitment to a contemporary female-led television version. Titled ''The Nice Girls'', it is being produced by [[Silver Pictures]] with a script by Michael Diliberti.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://deadline.com/2017/09/the-nice-guys-female-series-reboot-the-nice-girls-fox-joel-silver-1202178759/|title='The Nice Guys' Female Series Reboot 'The Nice Girls' Set At Fox With Penalty|first=Nellie|last=Andreeva|date=28 September 2017|publisher=}}</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|30em}}

== External links ==
* {{Official website}}
* {{IMDb title}}
* {{AllMovie title}}
*[http://chng.it/dYqPHkdm Shane Black: Bring back The Nice Guys!] petition on [[Change.org]]

{{Shane Black}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nice Guys, The}}
[[Category:2016 films]]
[[Category:2010s action films]]
[[Category:2010s buddy films]]
[[Category:2010s crime comedy films]]
[[Category:American action comedy films]]
[[Category:American buddy films]]
[[Category:American crime comedy films]]
[[Category:American detective films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:Buddy comedy films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films scored by John Ottman]]
[[Category:Films about missing people]]
[[Category:Films about pornography]]
[[Category:Films directed by Shane Black]]
[[Category:Films produced by Joel Silver]]
[[Category:Films set in 1977]]
[[Category:Films set in Los Angeles]]
[[Category:Films shot in Atlanta]]
[[Category:Films shot in Los Angeles]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Shane Black]]
[[Category:Neo-noir]]
[[Category:Icon Productions films]]
[[Category:Silver Pictures films]]
[[Category:Warner Bros. films]]
[[Category:Buddy films]]

Google Glass

2019-04-09T08:40:03Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: Made non-hidden text hidden

{{Distinguish |Google Goggles}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2015}}
{{Infobox information appliance
|name = Glass
|logo = [[File:Google Glass logo(black).svg|center|220px|Google Glass logo]]
|image = File:Google Glass photo.JPG
|caption = Google Glass Explorer Edition
|aka = Project Glass
|developer = [[Google]]
|manufacturer = [[Foxconn]]
|family =
|type = [[Optical head-mounted display]] (OHMD), [[Wearable technology]]
|generation =
|lifespan =
|media =
|os = [[Glass OS]]<ref>{{cite web|url= https://support.google.com/glass/answer/4578099?hl=en |title= KitKat for Glass |publisher= Google |date= February 28, 2014}}</ref> (Google Xe Software<ref>{{Citation | url = http://googleglassfans.com/archives/3588/glass-xe16/ | title = Google glass fans}}</ref>)
|power = 570 mAh Internal [[lithium-ion battery]]
|soc =
|cpu = [[OMAP]] 4430 [[System on a chip]], [[dual-core processor]]<ref name="teardown" />
|memory = 2 GB RAM<ref>{{cite news|last =Fitzsimmons|first =Michelle | title=Google Glass gets more memory, photo-framing viewfinder|url= http://www.techradar.com/news/portable-devices/google-glass-gets-more-storage-photo-framing-viewfinder-1254714 |publisher= Tech radar |date=June 24, 2014}}</ref>
|storage = 16 GB [[flash memory]] total<ref name="teardown" /> (12 GB of usable memory)<ref name="tspec" />
|display = Prism projector, 640×360 pixels (equivalent of a {{convert|25|in|cm|abbr=on|disp= x|/}} screen from {{convert|8|ft|m|abbr=on|disp=x|/}} away)
|graphics =
|sound = [[Bone conduction]] [[transducer]]<ref name="tspec" />
|input = [[Voice command]] through microphone,<ref name="tspec" /> [[accelerometer]],<ref name="tspec" /> [[gyroscope]],<ref name="tspec" /> [[magnetometer]],<ref name="tspec" /> [[ambient light sensor]], [[proximity sensor]]
|controllers = [[Touchpad]], MyGlass phone [[mobile app]]
|camera = 5 [[Megapixel]] photos 720p video<ref name="tspec" />
|touchpad =
|connectivity = [[Wi-Fi]] [[802.11b]]/g,<ref name="tspec" /> [[Bluetooth]],<ref name="tspec" /> [[micro USB]]
|dimensions =
|weight = 36 g (1.27oz)
|compatibility = Any Bluetooth-capable phone; MyGlass companion app requires [[Android 4.0.3]] (Ice Cream Sandwich) or higher or any iOS 7.0 or higher<ref name="tspec" />
|predecessor =
|successor =
|related = [[Oculus Rift]]
|website = {{URL|https://x.company/glass/|x.company/glass/}}
|releasedate = '''Developers (US):''' {{Start date|February 2013}}<ref name=NYT_2013-02-21>{{cite news |last= Miller|first=Claire Cain|title= Google Searches for Style|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/technology/google-looks-to-make-its-computer-glasses-stylish.html |work=The New York Times |accessdate= March 5, 2013|date=February 20, 2013}}</ref> '''Public (US):''' Around 2013<ref name="Glass Press FAQ">{{cite web |url= http://gadgets.ndtv.com/shortlink.aspx?article=621345 |title= Gadgets | work = NDTV | place = [[India|IN]]}}</ref>
|price = Explorer version: $1,500 USD Standard edition:<ref name="under1500">{{cite web|last= Coldewey|first= Devin|title= Google Glass to launch this year for under $1,600 |url= http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/gadgetbox/google-glass-launch-year-under-1-500-1C8503747 | publisher = NBC News | work = Gadgetbox|accessdate=February 23, 2013|date=February 23, 2013}}</ref>
|unitssold =
|unitsshipped =
|gpu =
|service =
|topgame =
|other = Adjustable and durable frame fits any face, extra nosepads in two sizes<ref name="tspec" />
}}

'''Google Glass''' was a brand of [[smart glasses]]—an [[optical head-mounted display]] designed in the shape of a pair of eyeglasses. It was developed by [[X (company)|X]] (previously Google X)<ref>{{cite news |url= http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/04/technology/google-project-glass/ |publisher= CNN |work= Money|title= Google unveils 'Project Glass' virtual-reality glasses|last= Goldman|first= David |date= April 4, 2012|accessdate=April 4, 2012}}</ref> with the mission of producing a [[ubiquitous computing|ubiquitous computer]].<ref name="NYT_2013-02-21" /> Google Glass displayed information in a [[smartphone]]-like, hands-free format.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402613,00.asp |work= PC Magazine|title=Google 'Project Glass' Replaces the Smartphone With Glasses|first=Chloe |last= Albanesius | date=April 4, 2012|accessdate=April 4, 2012}}</ref> Wearers communicated with the Internet via [[Natural language processing|natural language]] voice commands.<ref>{{cite news |title= Google's 'Project Glass' Teases Augmented Reality Glasses|url= http://www.pcworld.com/article/253200/googles_project_glass_teases_augmented_reality_glasses.html |work=PC World|last=Newman|first= Jared| date= April 4, 2012|accessdate=April 4, 2012}}</ref><ref name="NYT 2012-02-23">{{cite news |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/technology/google-glasses-will-be-powered-by-android.htm |title=Behind the Google Goggles, Virtual Reality|last=Bilton|first=Nick|work=The New York Times|date=February 23, 2012 |accessdate= April 4, 2012}}</ref>

Google started selling a [[prototype]] of Google Glass to qualified "Glass Explorers" in the US on April 15, 2013, for a limited period for $1,500, before it became available to the public on May 15, 2014.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-glass-1500-to-buy-80-to-make/|title=Google Glass: $1,500 to buy, $80 to make?|access-date=2018-01-03|language=en}}</ref> It had an integral 5 [[megapixel]] still/[[720p]] video camera. The headset received a great deal of criticism and legislative action due to privacy and safety concerns.

On January 15, 2015, Google announced that it would stop producing the Google Glass prototype, to be continued in 2017 tentatively.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://time.com/3669927/google-glass-explorer-program-ends/|title=Google Will Stop Selling Glass Next Week|website=Time|access-date=2018-01-03}}</ref> In July 2017, it was announced that the Google Glass Enterprise Edition would be released.<ref name="Google Glass gets a second chance in factories, where it’s likely to remain">{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/18/15988258/google-glass-2-enterprise-edition-factories|title=Google Glass is back from the dead|first=Vlad|last=Savov|date=July 18, 2017|website=The Verge}}</ref> 

== Development ==
Google Glass was developed by Google X,<ref>{{cite web|url= https://techcrunch.com/2012/04/04/google-project-glas/ |title=Google's 'Project Glass' Augmented Reality Glasses Are Real and in Testing |work= TechCrunch |last=Velazco|first=Chris|date=April 4, 2012|accessdate=April 4, 2012}}</ref> the facility within Google devoted to technological advancements such as [[Autonomous car|driverless cars]].<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/4/2925237/googles-project-glass-augmented-reality-glasses-begin-testing |title= Google's Project Glass augmented reality glasses begin testing|last= Houston|first= Thomas|work= The Verge |date= April 4, 2012|accessdate=April 4, 2012}}</ref>

The Google Glass prototype resembled standard [[glasses|eyeglasses]] with the lens replaced by a [[head-up display]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-04-04/google-project-glass-augmented-reality/54010466/1|last=Hatmaker|first=Taylor|work=USA Today|title=Google shows off Project Glass|date=April 4, 2012}}</ref> In mid-2011, Google engineered a prototype that weighed {{convert|8|lb|kg}};<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10829574/Google-Glass-goes-on-open-sale-while-stocks-last.html|title=Google Glass goes on open sale - while stocks last|newspaper=Telegraph.co.uk|access-date=2017-01-15}}</ref> by 2013 they were lighter than the average pair of sunglasses.<ref name="NYT_2013-02-21" />

In April 2013, the Explorer Edition was made available to [[Google I/O]] developers in the United States for $1,500.<ref name="cnet release">{{cite web|last=Mack|first=Eric|title=Brin: Google Glass lands for consumers in 2014|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57462641-1/brin-google-glass-lands-for-consumers-in-2014/|work=CNET|publisher=CBS Interactive|accessdate=February 21, 2013|date=June 28, 2012}}</ref>

[[File:Google Glass detail.jpg|thumb|A Glass prototype seen at [[Google I/O]] in June 2012]]
The product was publicly announced in April 2012.<ref>{{cite news |title=Google Glasses Sound As Crazy As Smartphones And Tablets Once Did |work=Forbes |date=April 5, 2012 |accessdate=April 5, 2012 |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/04/05/google-glasses-sound-as-crazy-as-smartphones-and-tablets-once-did/}}</ref> [[Sergey Brin]] wore a prototype of the Glass to an April 5, 2012, [[Foundation Fighting Blindness]] event in [[San Francisco]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/06/nation/la-na-nn-sergey-brin-project-glass-20120406|title=debut on Google co-founder's face|last=Hubbard|first=Amy|date=April 6, 2012|work=Los Angeles Times|accessdate=April 6, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/6/2929486/googles-project-glass-sergey-brin|title=Google's Sergey Brin takes Project Glass into the wild|last=Bohn|first=Dieter|date=April 6, 2012|work=The Verge|accessdate=April 6, 2012}}</ref> In May 2012, Google demonstrated for the first time how Google Glass could be used to shoot videos.<ref>{{cite web|title=First Google Project Glass video released via Google+|url=http://www.t3.com/news/first-google-project-glass-video-release-via-google-1|work=T3.com|publisher=[[Future plc]]|accessdate=February 22, 2013|date=May 25, 2012}}</ref>

Google provided four prescription frame choices for $225 and free with the purchase of any new Glass unit. Google entered in a partnership with the Italian eyewear company [[Luxottica]], owners of the [[Ray-Ban]], [[Oakley, Inc.|Oakley]], and other brands, to offer additional frame designs.<ref>{{cite news|last=Rhodan|first=Maya|title=Google Glass Getting Ray Ban, Oakley Versions|url=http://time.com/36410/google-glass-ray-ban-oakley/|work=Time|accessdate=March 25, 2014|date=March 24, 2014}}</ref>
In June 2014, [[Nepal]] government adopted Google Glass for tackling poachers of wild animals and herbs of [[Chitwan National Park|Chitwan International Park]] and other parks listed under World heritage sites.
In January 2015, Google ended the beta period of Glass (the "Google Glass Explorer" program).<ref name="BBC News 15 January 2015">{{cite web |url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30831128 |title= Google Glass sales halted but firm says kit is not dead |date= January 15, 2015 |website=BBC News | accessdate=January 15, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://twitter.com/BBCRoryCJ/status/555786768029847552|title=Rory Cellan-Jones on Twitter: "Breaking – Google ends Google Glass Explorer programme, stops selling Glass in present form, still hopes to produce other versions in future"|last1=Cellan-Jones|first1=Rory|accessdate=January 15, 2015}}</ref>

=== Release date ===
In early 2013, interested potential Glass users were invited to use a Twitter message, with hashtag #IfIHadGlass, to qualify as an early user of the product. The qualifiers, dubbed "Glass Explorers" and numbering 8,000 individuals, were notified in March 2013, and were later invited to pay $1,500 and visit a Google office in Los Angeles, New York or San Francisco, to pick up their unit following "fitting" and training from Google Glass guides. On May 13, 2014, Google announced a move to a "more open beta", via its Google Plus page.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://plus.google.com/111626127367496192147/posts/QLD88fE7qmE|title=More open Beta begins in US}}</ref>

In February 2015, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that Google Glass was being redesigned by former [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] executive [[Tony Fadell]], and that it would not be released until he deemed it to be "perfect".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/style/why-google-glass-broke.html |title=Why Google Glass Broke |work=[[The New York Times]]|first=Nick |last=Bilton |date=February 4, 2015 |accessdate=February 19, 2015 }}</ref>

In July 2017 it was announced that the second iteration, the Google Glass Enterprise Edition, would be released in the US for companies such as [[Boeing]].<ref name="Google Glass gets a second chance in factories, where it’s likely to remain"/> Google Glass Enterprise Edition has already been successfully used by Dr. Ned Sahin to help children with autism learn social skills.<ref>Sahin NT, Keshav NU, Salisbury JP, Vahabzadeh A Second Version of Google Glass as a Wearable Socio-Affective Aid: Positive School Desirability, High Usability, and Theoretical Framework in a Sample of Children with Autism JMIR Hum Factors 2018;5(1):e1 https://humanfactors.jmir.org/2018/1/e1/</ref>

== Features ==
[[File:A Google Glass wearer.jpg|thumb|right|Google Glass can be controlled using the touchpad built into the side of the device]]

* Touchpad: A touchpad is located on the side of Google Glass, allowing users to control the device by swiping through a timeline-like interface displayed on the screen.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/glass/help/|title=Getting to know Glass}}</ref> Sliding backward shows current events, such as weather, and sliding forward shows past events, such as phone calls, photos, [[Google+|circle updates]], etc.
* Camera: Google Glass has the ability to take 5 Mp photos and record 720p HD video.<ref name=CameraQuality>{{cite web|title=Acceptable Google Glass Camera Sizes|url=http://stellarbuild.com/blog/article/google-glass-acceptable-video-sizes-for-camera|website=Stellarbuild|accessdate=14 April 2015}}</ref>
* Display: The Explorer version of Google Glass uses a [[liquid crystal on silicon]] (LCoS)(based on an LCoS chip from [[Himax]]), [[field-sequential color system]], [[Light-emitting diode|LED]] illuminated display.<ref name="Guttag">{{cite web|last=Guttag|first=Karl|title=Proof That Google Glass Uses A Himax LCOS Microdisplay|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/1504292-proof-that-google-glass-uses-a-himax-lcos-microdisplay|accessdate=February 4, 2014|date=June 23, 2013}}</ref> The display's LED illumination is first [[Polarization (waves)#s and p designations|P-polarized]] and then shines through the in-coupling [[polarizing beam splitter]] (PBS) to the LCoS panel. The panel reflects the light and alters it to S-polarization at [[active pixel sensor]] sites. The in-coupling PBS then reflects the S-polarized areas of light at 45° through the out-coupling beam splitter to a [[collimator|collimating reflector]] at the other end. Finally, the out-coupling beam splitter (which is a partially reflecting mirror, not a polarizing beam splitter) reflects the collimated light another 45° and into the wearer's eye.<ref name="US20130070338">{{US patent application|20130070338}}</ref><ref name="US20130207887">{{US patent application|20130207887}}</ref>

== Software ==
[[File:Google Glass with frame.jpg|thumb|right|A Google Glass with black frame for prescription lens.]]
{{Main|Glass OS}}

=== Applications ===
Google Glass applications are free applications built by third-party developers. Glass also uses many existing Google applications, such as [[Google Now]], [[Google Maps]], [[Google+]], and [[Gmail]]. Many developers and companies have built applications for Glass, including news apps, [[facial recognition system|facial recognition]], exercise, photo manipulation, translation, and sharing to social networks, such as [[Facebook]] and [[Twitter]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mashable.com/2013/05/14/glass-apps/|title=7 Standout Google Glass Apps You Can Download Right Now|date=May 14, 2013|work=Mashable}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://mashable.com/2013/05/14/mashable-launches-velocity-for-google-glass/|title=Mashable Launches Google Glass Viral Prediction App|date=May 14, 2013|publisher=Mashable}}</ref><ref name="AllThingsD, Nov 19">{{cite web|url=http://allthingsd.com/20131119/new-google-glass-apps-will-translate-the-world-from-your-eyes-and-other-tricks|title=Next Google Glass Tricks Include Translating the World From Your Eyes|last=Gannes|first=Liz|date=November 19, 2013|work=[[All Things Digital]]}}</ref> Third-party applications announced at [[South by Southwest]] (SXSW) include [[Evernote]], [[Plasq#Skitch|Skitch]], ''[[The New York Times]]'', and [[Path (social network)|Path]].<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.engadget.com/2013/03/11/google-glass-apps-gmail-new-york-times-path/ |title=Google shows off Glass apps: New York Times, Gmail, Path, and more|last=Santos|first=Alexis|work=Engadget|date=March 11, 2013 |accessdate= April 15, 2013}}</ref>

On March 23, 2013, Google released the Mirror API, allowing developers to start making apps for Glass.<ref>{{cite web|title=Google Mirror API Overview|url=https://developers.google.com/glass/about |publisher= Google |accessdate=May 5, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Overview|url= https://developers.google.com/glass/overview |publisher=Google|accessdate=April 18, 2013}}</ref> In the terms of service, it was stated that developers may not put ads in their apps or charge fees;<ref>{{cite web|title=Developer Preview Google Mirror API Terms of Service|url= https://developers.google.com/glass/terms|publisher= Google|accessdate= April 18, 2013}}</ref> a Google representative told The Verge that this might change in the future.<ref>{{cite web |last= Blagdon |first=Jeff|title=Google Glass developers prohibited from using ads or charging for apps|url= https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4228962/google-glass-mirror-api-documentation |work=The Verge|publisher= The Verge |accessdate=April 18, 2013}}</ref>

On May 16, 2013, Google announced the release of seven new programs, including reminders from Evernote, fashion news from ''Elle'', and news alerts from [[CNN]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Cain |first= Claire | type = [[World Wide Web]] log | url= http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/new-apps-arrive-on-google-glass/ |title= New Apps Arrive on Google Glass | work = Bits | publisher= The New York Times |accessdate=June 15, 2013 |date=May 16, 2013}}</ref> Following Google's XE7 Glass Explorer Edition update in early July 2013, evidence of a "Glass Boutique", a store that will allow synchronization to Glass of [[Google Glassware|Glassware]] and [[APK (file format)|APKs]], was noted.<ref name="Slash">{{cite web |title= Glass Boutique app store, MP3 player, Lock-screen & more revealed|url=http://www.slashgear.com/glass-boutique-app-store-mp3-player-lock-screen-more-revealed-05289182/ |work=SlashGear |accessdate=July 6, 2013| first =Chris | last = Davies|date=July 5, 2013}}</ref>

Version XE8 made a debut for Google Glass on August 12, 2013. It brings an integrated video player with playback controls, the ability to post an update to Path, and lets users save notes to Evernote. Several other minute improvements include volume controls, improved voice recognition, and several new Google Now cards.

On November 19, 2013, Google unveiled its Glass Development Kit, showcasing a translation tool [[Word Lens]], a cooking program AllTheCooks, and an exercise program [[Strava]] among others as successful examples.<ref name="Wired, Nov 19">{{cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/11/google-glass-sdk|title=Google’s New Tools Show How Deep Glass Will Embed in Our Lives|last=Honan|first=Mat|date=November 19, 2013|work=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]: Gadget Lab}}</ref><ref name="CNET, Nov 19">{{cite web|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57613010-93/google-glass-throws-open-its-doors-to-developers |last= Rosenblatt |first= Seth |title= Google Glass throws open its doors to developers|work=[[CNET]]|date=November 19, 2013}}</ref> Google announced three news programs in May 2014 – TripIt, FourSquare and OpenTable – in order to entice travelers. On June 25, 2014, Google announced that notifications from [[Android Wear]] would be sent to Glass.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.techhive.com/article/2369142/google-glass-will-get-android-wear-notifications.html |title = Google Glass will get Android Wear notifications|date = June 25, 2014|accessdate = July 5, 2014|website = TechHive |last = Newman|first = Jared}}</ref>

The [[European University Press]] published the first book to be read with Google Glass on October 8, 2014, as introduced at the [[Frankfurt Book Fair]]. The book can be read as a normal paper book or – enriched with multimedia elements – with Google Glass, Kindle, on Smartphone and Pads on the platforms iOS and Android.<ref>{{cite web|title=The World's first book to be read with GoogleGlass|url=http://universitypress.eu/_images/press_2014_10_09.pdf|date=October 9, 2014}}</ref>

=== MyGlass ===
Google offers a companion Android and iOS app called MyGlass, which allows the user to configure and manage the device.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.glass.companion |title= MyGlass | work = Android Apps | publisher = Google Play}}</ref>

=== Voice activation ===
Other than the touchpad, Google Glass can be controlled using just "voice actions". To activate Glass, wearers tilt their heads 30° upward (which can be altered for preference) or simply tap the touchpad, and say "O.K., Glass." Once Glass is activated, wearers can say an action, such as "Take a picture", "Record a video", "Hangout with [person/Google+ circle]", "Google 'What year was Wikipedia founded?'", "Give me directions to the Eiffel Tower", and "Send a message to John"<ref>{{cite web | work = Support |url= https://support.google.com/glass/answer/3079305 |title= Voice actions: "ok glass" | publisher = Google}}</ref> (many of these commands can be seen in a product video released in February 2013).<ref name="how it feels through glass">{{cite web|title=How It Feels [through Glass]|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE|work= You Tube |publisher= Google |accessdate= February 22, 2013|date=February 20, 2013}}</ref> For search results that are read back to the user, the voice response is relayed using [[bone conduction]] through a transducer that sits beside the ear, thereby rendering the sound almost inaudible to other people.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/02/google-glass-review-augmented-reality|title=Google Glass – hands-on review|last=Arthur|first=Charles|date=July 2, 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|location=London|accessdate=July 3, 2013}}</ref>

== Use in medicine ==

=== In hospitals ===
Augmedix developed an app for the wearable device that allows physicians to live-stream the patient visit and claims it will eliminate [[electronic health record]] problems, possibly saving them up to 15 hours a week<ref name="Charlotte Observer">{{Citation | url = http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/health-family/karen-garloch/article45336984.html | title = Charlotte doctor: Google Glass saves time, helps me focus on patients| newspaper = Charlotte Observer | accessdate = November 18, 2015}}</ref> and improving record quality. The video stream is passed to remote [[scribes]] in [[HIPAA]] secure rooms where the doctor-patient interaction is transcribed. Ultimately, allowing physicians to focus on the patient. Hundreds of users<ref name="Bloomberg">{{Citation|title=Google Glass Comes to Doctor’s Office Near You as Upgrade Looms|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-20/google-glass|newspaper=Bloomberg|accessdate=August 20, 2015}}</ref> were evaluating the app as of mid-2015.<ref name="MIT Technology Review">{{Citation | url = http://www.technologyreview.com/news/539606/google-glass-finds-a-second-act-at-work/ | title = Google Glass Finds a Second Act at Work | newspaper = MIT Technology Review | accessdate = July 24, 2015}}</ref>

In July 2013, [[Lucien Engelen]] commenced research on the usability and impact of Google Glass in the [[health care]] field. As of August 2013, Engelen, based at [[Singularity University]] and in Europe at [[Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre]], was the first healthcare professional in Europe to participate in the Glass Explorer program.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://futuremed2020.com/faculty/|title=Faculty|publisher=FutureMed 2020|accessdate=August 18, 2013}}</ref> His research on Google Glass (starting August 9, 2013) was conducted in operating rooms, ambulances, a trauma helicopter, general practice, and home care as well as the use in public transportation for visually or physically impaired. Research included taking pictures, videos streaming to other locations, dictating operative log, having students watch the procedures and tele-consultation through [[Google Hangout|Hangout]]. Engelen documented his findings in blogs,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130815203138-19886490-google-glas-in-or|title=Is Google Glass Useful in the Operating Room?|author=Čeština|publisher=Linked In|accessdate=August 18, 2013}}</ref> videos,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZtNO2OnSqY|title=Google Glass in Operating Room @umcn|work=You Tube|publisher=Google|accessdate=August 18, 2013}}</ref> pictures, on [[Twitter]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://twitter.com/reshapeglass|title=REshapewithGlass (REshapeglass)|publisher=Twitter|accessdate=August 17, 2013}}</ref> and on [[Google+]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://plus.google.com/u/0/100279561102106001682/|title=REshape withglass|work=Plus|publisher=Google|accessdate=August 17, 2013}}</ref> with research ongoing as of that date.

In June 2014, Google Glass' ability to acquire images of a patient's retina ("Glass [[Fundoscopy]]") was publicly demonstrated for the first time at the Wilmer Clinical Meeting at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine by Dr. Aaron Wang and Dr. Allen Eghrari.<ref>{{Citation|title=Course detail|url=http://www.hopkinscme.edu/CourseDetail.aspx/80033274|archiveurl=https://archive.is/20140909201538/http://www.hopkinscme.edu/CourseDetail.aspx/80033274|deadurl=yes|publisher=Hopkins CME|archivedate=September 9, 2014|df=mdy-all}}</ref> This technique was featured on the cover of the Journal for Mobile Technology in Medicine for January 2015.<ref>{{Citation|title=Google glass indirect Ophthalmoscopy|url=http://www.journalmtm.com/2015/google-glass-indirect-ophthalmoscopy/|year=2015|journal=MTM}}</ref> Doctors Phil Haslam and Sebastian Mafeld demonstrated the first application of Google Glass in the field of interventional radiology. They demonstrated how Google Glass could assist a liver biopsy and [[fistulaplasty]], and the pair stated that Google Glass has the potential to improve patient safety, operator comfort, and procedure efficiency in the field of interventional radiology.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whichmedicaldevice.com/editorial/article/390/google-glass-finding-true-clinical-value|title=Google Glass: Finding True Clinical Value|last1=Haslam|first1=Phil|last2=Mafeld|first2=Sebastian|date=October 31, 2013|work=Which Medical Device|accessdate=December 23, 2013}}</ref>

In 2015, IOS Press published "Clinical and Surgical Applications of Smart Glasses" a research article written by a team at the Columbia University Medical Center Department of Neurosurgery's Cerebrovascular Laboratory. Under Neurosurgeon Dr. Sander E. Connolly, Stefan Mitrasinovic, Elvis Camacho, Nirali Trivedi, and others analyzed Google Glass's useful applications including hands-free photo and video documentation, telemedicine, Electronic Health Record retrieval and input, rapid diagnostic test analysis, education, and live broadcasting. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://content.iospress.com/articles/technology-and-health-care/thc910 |title=Clinical and surgical applications of smart glasses - IOS Press |doi=10.3233/THC-150910 |publisher=Content.iospress.com |date= |accessdate=2019-03-06}}</ref>

=== In surgical procedures ===
On June 20, 2013, Rafael J. Grossmann, a Venezuelan doctor practicing in the U.S., was the first surgeon to demonstrate the use of Google Glass during a live surgical procedure.<ref name="Inside The Operating Room With Google Glass">{{cite news|title= Inside The Operating Room With Google Glass|url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnosta/2013/06/21/google-glass-in-the-operating-room/ |accessdate=December 18, 2013|date= June 21, 2013 |work=Forbes|first=John|last=Nosta}}</ref> In August 2013, Google Glass was used at [[Wexner Medical Center at Ohio State University]]. Surgeon Dr. Christopher Kaeding used Google Glass to consult with a distant colleague in [[Columbus, Ohio]]. A group of students at The Ohio State University College of Medicine also observed the operation on their laptop computers. Following the procedure, Kaeding stated, "To be honest, once we got into the surgery, I often forgot the device was there. It just seemed very intuitive and fit seamlessly."<ref>{{cite web|title=First US surgery transmitted live via Google Glass (w/ Video) |url= http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-08-surgery-transmitted-google-glass-video.html |work=Medical Xpress |accessdate= August 29, 2013|date=August 27, 2013}}</ref>

On June 21, 2013, Spanish doctor Pedro Guillen, chief of trauma service of Clínica CEMTRO of Madrid, also broadcast a surgery using Google Glass.<ref name="bostinno.streetwise.co">{{Citation|title=Bostinno|date=Jun 24, 2013|contribution=World’s first Google glass assisted surgery was successfully performed: video|contribution-url=http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2013/06/24/worlds-first-google-glass-assisted-surgery-was-successfully-performed-video/|publisher=Street wise}}</ref> In July 2014, the [[startup company]] Surgery Academy, in [[Milan]], Italy, launched a remote training platform for medical students. The platform is a [[MOOC]] that allows students to join any [[operating theater]] thanks to Google Glass worn by surgeon.<ref>{{Citation|title=Teaching surgery with Google glass: will this actually work?|url=http://www.fastcolabs.com/3026021/teaching-surgery-with-google-glass-will-this-actually-work|publisher=Fast co labs}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|title=Motherboard|type=[[World Wide Web]] log|contribution=Surgery academy: is the surgery class for Google glass?|contribution-url=http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/surgery-academy-is-the-surgery-class-for-google-glass|publisher=Vice}}</ref> Also in July 2014, This Place released an app, [[MindRDR]], to connect Glass to a [[Neurosky]] [[EEG]] monitor to allow people to take photos and share them to [[Twitter]] or [[Facebook]] using brain signals. It is hoped this will allow people with severe physical disabilities to engage with social media.<ref>{{Citation|title=Google Glass gets mind control app|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10958566/Google-Glass-gets-mind-control-app.html|newspaper=The Telegraph|place=[[United Kingdom|UK]]}}</ref>
[[File:SmallWorldSocial BreastfeedingSupportProject GeorgiawithBabyEve.jpg|thumb|Two participants in the [[Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial]].]]

=== In lactation consultation ===
In Australia, during January 2014, [[Melbourne]] tech startup [[Small World Social]] collaborated with the [[Australian Breastfeeding Association]] to create the first hands-free breastfeeding Google Glass application for new mothers.<ref name="Lactation Help">{{cite web|title= Google glass connects breastfeeding moms with lactation help |url=http://www.inquisitr.com/1224638/google-glass-connects-breastfeeding-moms-with-lactation-help/ |website= Inquisitr |accessdate=June 12, 2014}}</ref> The application, named [[Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial]], allows mothers to nurse their baby while viewing instructions about common breastfeeding issues (latching on, posture etc.) or call a lactation consultant via a secure Google Hangout, who can view the issue through the mother's Google Glass camera.<ref name="Jumpin Today Show">{{cite web |title= Exclusive Clips Google glasses help breastfeeding mums|url=http://www.jump-in.com.au/show/today/videos/3496995149001/ |website=Jumpin Today Show|publisher=Mi9 |accessdate=June 12, 2014}}</ref> The trial was successfully concluded in [[Melbourne]] in April 2014, with 100% of participants breastfeeding confidently.<ref>{{cite news| url= http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/breastfeeding-mothers-get-help-from-google-glass-and-small-world-20140118-311s3.html | work= The Sydney Morning Herald | title= Breastfeeding mothers get help from Google Glass and Small World}}</ref>

== Autism ==

=== Brain Power ===
{{Update|reason= No results are reported, after more than a year|date=November 2018}}

Brain Power, LLC, is a neuroscience technology company located in Cambridge, MA. It is a software that transformed Google Glass into the world's first wearable AI system for autism.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Liu|first=Runpeng|last2=Salisbury|first2=Joseph P.|last3=Vahabzadeh|first3=Arshya|last4=Sahin|first4=Ned T.|date=2017|title=Feasibility of an Autism-Focused Augmented Reality Smartglasses System for Social Communication and Behavioral Coaching|url=http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fped.2017.00145/full|journal=Frontiers in Pediatrics|language=English|volume=5|doi=10.3389/fped.2017.00145|issn=2296-2360}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://ww2.kqed.org/futureofyou/2015/09/11/can-this-google-glass-app-help-kids-with-autism/|title=Can This Google Glass App Help Kids With Autism?|author=Jessica Carew Kraft|publisher=KQED|work=KQED}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://cbspulse.com/2015/12/28/brain-power-wearable-devices-autism/?curator=MediaREDEF#.bordkq:I5DO|title=Brain Power Creates First Wearable Neuro-Assistive Devices For Autism|author=CBS|publisher=CBS|work=Small Business Wire}}</ref> Brain Power was founded by Dr. Ned T. Sahin.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.brain-power.com/clinicaltrial/|title=Clinical Trials|last=Sahin|first=Ned|date=2017-06-25|work=BRAIN POWER|access-date=2018-03-31|language=en-US}}</ref> After years of research and clinical trials, Brain Power's Empowered Brain system was created to allow people with autism to teach themselves life skills crucial to self-sufficiency, e.g. emotion decoding, eye contact, language, social engagement, conversation skills, control of behaviors, etc. Brain Power's apps use the newest AI and neuroscience principles for a heads-up, engaging experience for the user. Orders for the Empowered Brain system were placed in 2018, during the most successful autism-related crowdfunding campaign ever.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/world-s-first-augmented-reality-glasses-for-autism-education|title=World’s First Augmented Reality Glasses for Autism|website=Indiegogo|access-date=2018-03-31}}</ref>

== Media coverage ==

=== Journalism ===
In 2014, [[Voice of America]] Television Correspondent Carolyn Presutti and VOA Electronics Engineer Jose Vega began a web project called VOA & Google Glass, which explored the technology's potential uses in journalism.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.voanews.com/info/voa-reports-with-google-glass/4728.html | work=Voice of America | title=VOA & Google Glass}}</ref> This series of news stories examined the technology's live reporting applications, including conducting interviews and covering stories from the reporter's point of view. On March 29, 2014, American [[a cappella]] group [[Pentatonix]] partnered with Voice of America when lead singer Scott Hoying wore Glass in the band's performance at [[DAR Constitution Hall]] in [[Washington, D.C.]], during the band's worldwide tour – the first use of Glass by a lead singer in a professional concert.<ref>{{cite news| url= http://www.voanews.com/media/video/1890395.html | work=Voice of America | title=Pentatonix Gives Google Glass a Try}}</ref>

In the fall of 2014, The [[University of Southern California]] conducted a course called Glass Journalism, which explored the device's application in journalism.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://glassjournalism.tumblr.com/|title=USC – Glass Journalism|work=Tumblr}}</ref>

The [[World Wildlife Fund|WWF]] as of mid-2014 used Google Glass and [[Unmanned aerial vehicle|UAV]]s to track various animals and birds in the jungle, which may be the first use of the device by a non-profit, non-governmental organization (NGO).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/google-glass-drones-assist-nepal-fighting-poachers-protected-areas-1618460|title=Google Glass used by WWF in Nepal}}</ref>

=== Public events ===
In 2014, the International Olympic Committee Young Reporters program took Google Glass to the Nanjing 2014 Youth Olympic Games and put them on a number of athletes from different disciplines to explore novel point of view filmmaking.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Google Glass Experiments |url=http://andymiah.net/the-google-glass-experiments/ |website=andymiah.net |accessdate=15 March 2019}}</ref>

A visually impaired dancer, Benjamin Yonattan, used Google Glass to overcome his chronic vision condition. In 2015, Yonattan performed on the reality television program ''[[America's Got Talent]]''.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.androidheadlines.com/2015/06/google-glass-helps-blind-dancer-during-talent-audition.html|title=Google Glass Helps Blind Dancer During Talent Audition|last=Anin|first=John|date=4 Jun 2015|newspaper=androidheadlines.com|access-date=29 Mar 2016|location=}}</ref>

== Criticism ==

=== Privacy concerns ===
Concerns have been raised by various sources regarding the intrusion of privacy, and the [[etiquette]] and [[ethics]] of using the device in public and recording people without their permission.<ref name=TG01>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/06/google-glass-threat-to-our-privacy|title=Google Glass: is it a threat to our privacy?|first=Charles |last=Arthur|date=March 6, 2013|work=The Guardian |accessdate=March 7, 2013|location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/google-glass-say-goodbye-to-your-privacy-1134796|title=Google Glass: say goodbye to your privacy|first=Gary|last=Marshall|date=March 1, 2013|work=techradar.com |accessdate=March 2, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Warman|first=Matt|title=Google Glass: we'll all need etiquette lessons|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10015697/Google-Glass-well-all-need-etiquette-lessons.html|accessdate=April 25, 2013|newspaper=The Daily Telegraph (UK)|date=April 24, 2013|location=London}}</ref> Google co-founder, Sergey Brin, claims that Glass could be seen as a way to become even more isolated in public, but the intent was quite the opposite: Brin views checking social media as a constant "nervous tic," which is why Glass can notify the user of important notifications and updates and does not obstruct the line of sight.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ted.com/talks/sergey_brin_why_google_glass|title=Sergey Brin: Why Google Glass? – TED Talk – TED.com|author=Sergey Brin|work=ted.com}}</ref>

Additionally, there is controversy that Google Glass would cause [[security]] problems and violate [[privacy]] rights.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/controversy-grows-over-googles-glass-project/article4553860.ece|title=Controversy grows over Google’s Glass project|date=March 27, 2013|newspaper=The Hindu Business Line|accessdate=July 6, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Google Glass will make 'privacy impossible' warn 'Stop The Cyborgs' campaigners|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/google-glass-will-make-privacy-impossible-warn-stop-the-cyborgs-campaigners-8550499.html|accessdate=July 6, 2013|newspaper=The Independent|date=March 26, 2013|author=Rob Williams|location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Google Glass security failings may threaten owner's privacy|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/may/01/google-glass-security-privacy-risk|accessdate=July 6, 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|date=May 1, 2013|author=Charles Arthur|location=London}}</ref> Organizations like the [[FTC Fair Information Practice]] work to uphold privacy rights through Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPS), which are guidelines representing concepts that concern fair information practice in an electronic marketplace.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do|title=What We Do|work=ftc.gov}}</ref>

Privacy advocates are concerned that people wearing such eyewear may be able to identify strangers in public using facial recognition, or surreptitiously record and broadcast private conversations.<ref name="NYT_2013-02-21" /> The "Find my Face" feature on Google+ functions to create a model of your face, and of people you know, in order to simplify tagging photos.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://support.google.com/plus/answer/2370300?hl=en|title=See photos you're tagged in|work=google.com}}</ref> However, the only current app that can identify strangers is called MORIS (Mobile Offender Recognition and Identification System), and is a $3,000 iPhone app used by police officers.

Some companies in the US have posted anti-Google Glass signs in their establishments.<ref>{{cite news|last=Streitfeld|first=David|title=Google Glass Picks Up Early Signal: Keep Out|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/technology/personaltech/google-glass-picks-up-early-signal-keep-out.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0|publisher=The New York Times |date=May 6, 2013|accessdate=June 26, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.ria.ru/science/20130326/180266456/Google-Glass-Sees-Preemptive-Pushback-in-US.html|title=Google Glass Sees Preemptive Pushback in US|work=RIA NOVOSTI|accessdate=May 9, 2013|date=March 26, 2013}}</ref> In July 2013, prior to the official release of the product, Stephen Balaban, co-founder of software company Lambda Labs, circumvented Google's facial recognition app block by building his own, non-Google-approved operating system. Balaban then installed face-scanning Glassware that creates a summary of commonalities shared by the scanned person and the Glass wearer, such as mutual friends and interests.<ref>{{cite news|title=Smile! Face recognition for Google Glass is here, thanks to hackers|url=http://theconversation.com/smile-face-recognition-for-google-glass-is-here-thanks-to-hackers-16262|accessdate=July 29, 2013|newspaper=The Conversation Australia|date=July 29, 2013|author=Rob Livingstone}}</ref> Also created was [[Winky (software)|Winky]], a program that allows a Google Glass user to take a photo with a wink of an eye, while Marc Rogers, a principal security researcher at Lookout, discovered that Glass can be hijacked if a user could be tricked into taking a picture of a malicious QR code, demonstrating the potential to be used as a weapon in [[cyberwarfare]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Clever Hacks Give Google Glass Many Unintended Powers|url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/17/202725167/clever-hacks-give-google-glass-many-unintended-powers|work=|publisher=NPR|accessdate=July 29, 2013|author=Steve Henn|date=July 17, 2013}}</ref>

In February 2013, a Google+ user noticed legal issues with Glass and posted in the Glass Explorers community about the issues, stating that the device may be illegal to use according to the current legislation in Russia and Ukraine, which prohibits use of spy gadgets that can record video, audio or take photographs in an inconspicuous manner.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://korrespondent.net/lifestyle/gadgets/1521949-ukraincy-ne-smogut-legalno-kupit-ochki-google-glass-iz-za-zapreta-na-shpionskie-gadzhety|title=Украинцы не смогут легально купить очки Google Glass из-за запрета на "шпионские" гаджеты|date=March 13, 2013|publisher=Korrespondent.net|language=Russian|accessdate=March 13, 2013}}</ref>

Concerns were also raised in regard to the privacy and security of Glass users in the event that the device is stolen or lost, an issue that was raised by a US congressional committee. As part of its response to the committee, Google stated that a locking system for the device is in development. Google also reminded users that Glass can be remotely reset.<ref name="Slash" /> Police in various states have also warned Glass wearers to watch out for muggers and street robbers.<ref name="bp">{{cite web|title=US Police issues warnings for Google Glass Users over Muggery|url=http://news.biharprabha.com/2014/04/us-police-issues-warnings-for-google-glass-users-over-muggery/|work=IANS|publisher=news.biharprabha.com|accessdate=April 21, 2014}}</ref>

Lisa A. Goldstein, a freelance journalist who was born deaf, tested the product on behalf of people with disabilities and published a review on August 6, 2013. In her review, Goldstein states that Google Glass does not accommodate hearing aids and is not suitable for people who cannot understand speech. Goldstein also explained the limited options for customer support, as telephone contact was her only means of communication.<ref>{{cite web|title=Google Glass: Not for the Hearing Impaired|url=http://mashable.com/2013/08/05/google-glass-hearing-impaired/|work=Mashable|publisher=Mashable|accessdate=August 6, 2013|author=Lisa A. Goldstein|date=August 6, 2013}}</ref>

Several facilities have banned the use of Google Glass before its release to the general public, citing concerns over potential privacy-violating capabilities. Other facilities, such as [[Las Vegas Valley|Las Vegas]] casinos, banned Google Glass, citing their desire to comply with Nevada state law and common gaming regulations which ban the use of recording devices near gambling areas.<ref name=Caesars>{{cite web|last=Clark|first=Matt|title=Google Glass Violates Nevada Law, Says Caesars Palace|url=http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/08/google-glass-violates-nevada-law-says-caesars-palace|publisher=IGN|accessdate=June 1, 2013|date=May 8, 2013}}</ref> On October 29, 2014, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) announced a ban on wearable technology including Google Glass, placing it under the same rules as mobile phones and video cameras.<ref name=MPAA>{{cite web|last=MPPA|first=|title=MPAA and NATO Announce Updated Theatrical Anti-Theft Policy|url=http://www.mpaa.org/mpaa-and-nato-announce-updated-theatrical-anti-theft-policy/|publisher=MPAA|accessdate=November 7, 2014|date=October 29, 2014}}</ref>

There have also been concerns over potential eye pain caused by users new to Glass.<ref name="betabeat">[http://betabeat.com/2014/05/googles-eye-doctor-admits-glass-can-cause-pain/ Google’s Eye Doctor Admits Glass Can Cause Pain] Betabeat.com Jack Smith May 2014</ref> These concerns were validated by Google's optometry advisor Dr. Eli Peli of [[Harvard]], though he later partly backtracked due to the controversy which ensued from his remarks.<ref name=betabeat /><ref>[http://betabeat.com/2014/05/google-glass-eye-doctor-backtracks-after-speaking-out-about-eye-pain/ Google Glass Eye Doctor Backtracks After Speaking Out About Eye Pain] Betabeat.com Jack Smith May 2014</ref><ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com.au/google-glass-complaints-2014-5 The Doctor Who Said Google Glass Causes Eye Pain Now Says There's 'No Evidence' Of Health Risks] BusinessInsider.com</ref>

Concerns have been raised by cyber forensics experts at the [[University of Massachusetts]] who have developed a way to steal smartphone and tablet passwords using Google Glass. The specialists developed a software program that uses Google Glass to track finger shadows as someone types in their password. Their program then converts the touchpoints into the keys they were touching, allowing them to catch the passcodes.<ref>{{cite web|last=Fink|first=Erica|title=Google Glass wearers can steal your password|url=http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/technology/security/google-glass-password-hack/index.html?iid=HP_River|publisher=[[CNNMoney]]|accessdate=July 8, 2014|date=July 7, 2014}}</ref>

Another concern regarding the camera application raises controversy to privacy. Some people are concerned about how the product has the capability of recording during events such as conversations. The device sets off a light to indicate that it is recording but many speculate that there will be an app to disable this.<ref>{{cite journal|url = http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-google-glass-is-creepy/|title = Why Google Glass Is Creepy|last = Pogue|first = David|date = May 14, 2013|journal = Scientific American|accessdate = October 28, 2014|doi = |pmid = }}</ref>

Users have been referred to as, "Glassholes".<ref>{{cite web|last=June |first=Hardback |url=https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glasshole |title=Glasshole |publisher=Urban Dictionary |date= |accessdate=2019-03-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wired.com/2013/12/glasshole/ |title=I, Glasshole: My Year With Google Glass |publisher=WIRED |date=2013-05-15 |accessdate=2019-03-06}}</ref>

=== Safety considerations ===
Concerns have also been raised on operating motor vehicles while wearing the device. On July 31, 2013 it was reported that driving while wearing Google Glass was likely to be banned in the UK, being deemed careless driving, therefore a fixed penalty offense, following a decision by the [[Department for Transport]].<ref name="telegraph glass ban 1">{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10214822/Drivers-to-be-banned-from-wearing-Google-Glass.html|title=Drivers to be banned from wearing Google Glass|newspaper=[[Daily Telegraph]]|first=David|last=Millward|date=July 31, 2013|location=London}}</ref>

In the US, [[West Virginia]] state representative [[Gary Howell|Gary G. Howell]] introduced an amendment in March 2013 to the state's law against texting while driving that would include bans against "using a wearable computer with head mounted display." In an interview, Howell stated, "The primary thing is a safety concern, it [the glass headset] could project text or video into your field of vision. I think there's a lot of potential for distraction."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/tech/innovation/google-glass-driving/index.html?hpt=hp_c3|title=Lawmaker: Google Glass and driving don't mix|newspaper=CNN|first=Brandon|last=Griggs|date=March 25, 2013|accessdate=March 25, 2013}}</ref>

In October 2013, a driver in [[California]] was ticketed for "driving with monitor visible to driver (Google Glass)" after being pulled over for speeding by a [[San Diego Police Department]] officer. The driver was reportedly the first to be fined for driving while wearing a Google Glass.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.fastcompany.com/3020899/fast-feed/california-driver-gets-a-ticket-for-wearing-google-glass-behind-the-wheel|title=California Driver Gets a Ticket for Wearing Google Glass Behind the Wheel|work=|publisher=Fast Company & Inc|first=Christina|last=Chaey|date=October 30, 2013|accessdate=November 4, 2013}}</ref> While the judge noted that "Google Glass fell under 'the purview and intent' of the ban on driving with a monitor", the case was thrown out of court due to lack of proof the device was on at the time.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25764674|title=Google Glass driver Abadie has case dropped|work=|publisher=BBC News|date=January 17, 2014|accessdate=January 17, 2014}}</ref>

In November 2014, Sawyer et al., from the [[University of Central Florida]] and the US [[Air Force Research Laboratory]], published the results of comparative study in a [[driving simulator]]. Subjects were asked to use either Google Glass or a smartphone-based messaging interface and were then interrupted with an emergency event. The Glass-delivered messages served to moderate but did not eliminate distracting [[Cognitive load|cognitive demands]]. A potential passive cost to drivers merely wearing the Glass was also observed. Messaging using either device impaired driving as compared to driving without multi-tasking.<ref>Sawyer, B.D., Finomore, V.S., Calvo, A.A. and Hancock, P.A., “Google Glass: A Driver Distraction Cause or Cure?” in ‘’[[Human Factors (journal)|Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society]]’’, November 2014, 56: pp. 1307–1321, {{doi|10.1177/0018720814555723}}</ref>

In February 2014, a woman wearing Google Glass claimed she was verbally and physically assaulted at a bar in San Francisco after a patron confronted her while she was showing off the device, allegedly leading a man accompanying her to physically retaliate. Witnesses suggested that patrons were upset over the possibility of being recorded.<ref name=CBSSF>{{cite web|last=Vazquez|first=Joe|title=Woman Wearing Google Glass Says She Was Attacked In San Francisco Bar|url=http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/woman-wearing-google-glass-says-she-was-attacked-in-san-francisco-bar/|publisher=CBSSF|accessdate=November 7, 2014|date=February 25, 2014}}</ref>

=== Terms of service ===
Under the Google Glass terms of service for the Glass Explorer pre-public release program, it specifically states, "You may not resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person. If you resell, loan, transfer, or give your device to any other person without Google's authorization, Google reserves the right to deactivate the device, and neither you nor the unauthorized person using the device will be entitled to any refund, product support, or product warranty."
''[[Wired (website)|Wired]]'' commented on this policy of a company claiming ownership of its product after it had been sold, saying: "Welcome to the New World, one in which companies are retaining control of their products even after consumers purchase them."<ref>{{cite news |title = Google Is Forbidding Users From Reselling, Loaning Glass Eyewear |date = April 17, 2013 |url = https://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/04/google-glass-resales/ |accessdate = April 17, 2013 |work=Wired |first=David |last=Kravets}}</ref> Others pointed out that Glass was not for public sale at all, but rather in private testing for selected developers, and that not allowing developers in a closed beta to sell to the public is not the same as banning consumers from reselling a publicly released device.<ref>{{cite web|last=Suleman|first=Khidr|title= Google bans developers from selling Glass headset |url=http://www.itpro.co.uk/mobile/19645/google-bans-developers-selling-glass-headset|work= IT Pro |accessdate= July 2, 2013|date=April 18, 2013}}</ref>

== Technical specifications ==
[[File:Google Glass Explorer Optics Schematic.png|thumb|The Explorer's [[Liquid crystal on silicon|LCoS]] display is illuminated using sequential color LEDs that pass through a polarization conversion system, a [[polarizing beam splitter]], a [[Beam splitter#Beam splitter designs|half-silvered mirror]], and an [[anastigmat]], [[Collimator#Optical collimators|collimating]] reflector formed on the nose end of the optical assembly.<ref name="US20130070338" /><ref name="US20130207887" />]]
For the developer Explorer units version 1:
* Android 4.4<ref name="KitKat for Glass">{{cite web|url= https://support.google.com/glass/answer/4578099 |title= KitKat for Glass | publisher = Google | work = Support}}</ref>
* 640×360 Himax HX7309 LCoS display<ref name="teardown">{{cite web|last=Torberg|first=Scott|title=Google Glass Teardown |url=http://www.catwig.com/google-glass-teardown/|work=[[TechRadar]]|accessdate=June 12, 2013|date= June 11, 2013|quote= With a native resolution of 640x360, the pixels are roughly 1/8th the physical width of those on the iPhone 5's retina display.}}</ref><ref name="Guttag" />
* 5-megapixel camera, capable of 720p video recording<ref name="tspec">{{cite web|title=Tech specs |url= https://support.google.com/glass/answer/3064128?hl=en&ref_topic=3063354 |work=Google|accessdate=April 18, 2013 |date= April 16, 2013}}</ref>
* Wi-Fi 802.11b/g<ref name="tspec" />
* Bluetooth<ref name="tspec" />
* 16 GB storage (12 GB available)<ref name="tspec" />
* Texas Instruments OMAP 4430 SoC 1.2Ghz Dual(ARMv7)<ref name="teardown" />
* 1 GB RAM<ref>{{cite web|url=https://plus.google.com/108304992255149838420/posts/GwvagwVN6Hz | title= proc | publisher = Google | work = Plus}}</ref>
* 3 axis gyroscope<ref name="sensorspec">{{cite web|title=Sensor Tech specs|publisher=The Code Artist |url= http://thecodeartist.blogspot.com/2013/05/sensors-on-google-glass.html}}</ref>
* 3 axis accelerometer<ref name="sensorspec" />
* 3 axis magnetometer (compass)<ref name="sensorspec" />
* Ambient light sensing and proximity sensor<ref name="sensorspec" />
* [[Bone conduction]] audio transducer<ref name="tspec" />
For the developer Explorer units version 2, RAM was expanded to 2 GB and prescription frames were made available:
* all of the features from the Explorer version 1 plus:
* 2 GB RAM<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/gadgets/google-glass-1152283/review | title= Google glass | type = review | work = Gadgets | publisher = Tech radar}}</ref>
* Prescription frames available<ref>{{Citation | url = https://glass.google.com/ | title = Glass | publisher = Google}}</ref>
The new Google Glass Enterprise Edition improves upon previous editions with the following<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://9to5google.com/2017/07/24/google-glass-enterprise-edition-specs/|title=Google Glass Enterprise Edition: The full spec sheet revealed|date=2017-07-24|work=9to5Google|access-date=2017-11-07|language=en-US}}</ref>
* Intel Atom processor
* Dual-band 802.11n/ac wifi
* Assisted GPS & GLONASS
* Barometer
* 32GB storage memory
* 780 mAh battery

== See also ==
* [[Wear OS|WearOS]]
* [[Apple Watch]]
* [[Google Contact Lens]]
* [[Google Cardboard]]
* [[Microsoft HoloLens]]
* [[Project Tango]]
* [[Q-Warrior]]
* [[Samsung Gear VR]]
* [[Speech recognition]]
* [[Snow Crash#Metaverse|Snow Crash]]
* [[Google Goggles]]
* [[Smartglasses]]
** [[EyeTap]] – eye-mounted camera and head-up display (HUD)
** [[Golden-i]] – head-mounted computer
** [[Microsoft HoloLens]] – Windows 10 based AR unit, with high-definition 3D optical head-mounted display and spatial sound
** [[Looxcie]] – ear-mounted streaming video camera
** [[Oculus Rift]] – wide field of view virtual reality (VR) goggles with low latency head tracking
** [[Pristine (company)|Pristine]] – enterprise video collaboration and support software
** [[SixthSense]] – wearable AR device
** [[Spectacles (product)]] - Snapchat wearable glasses
** [[Virtual retinal display]] – display technology that projects images directly onto the retina
** [[Vuzix]] – augmented reality smart glasses
** Epson [[Moverio BT-200]] – another smart glass, with AR<ref>{{Citation | url = http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?sku=V11H560020 | publisher = Epson | title = Moverio BT-200}}</ref>
** [[GazerG]] – Google Glass Battery pack with second micro-USB port<ref>{{Citation | url = http://www.gazerg.com | publisher = GazerG | title = Google Glass Battery pack with second micro-USB port}}</ref>

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}

== Further reading ==
* "Doctors among Early Adopters of Google Glass," ''Canadian Medical Association Journal,'' September 30, 2013. Web. October 11, 2014.
* "Evaluation of Google Glass Technical Limitations on Their Integration in Medical Systems", 'Sensors' 2016, 16(12), 2142; {{doi|10.3390/s16122142}}

== External links ==
{{Sister project links |wikt=no |commons=Category:Google Glass |b=no |n=no |q=no |s=no |v=no |species= no}}
* {{official website|https://www.google.com/glass/start|Google Glass}} – official site
* {{Google+ |+GoogleGlass}}
* {{official website|http://www.glass-apps.org|Google Glass Apps}} – comprehensive apps list

{{Google Inc.}}
{{Android other}}
{{Mixed reality}}

[[Category:Eyewear brands of the United States]]
[[Category:Google hardware|Glass]]
[[Category:X (company)|Glass]]
[[Category:Android (operating system) devices]]
[[Category:Augmented reality]]
[[Category:Display devices]]
[[Category:Display technology]]
[[Category:Products introduced in 2013]]
[[Category:Upcoming products]]
[[Category:Wearable computers]]
[[Category:Wearable devices]]

User:JoshMuirWikipedia/sandbox

2019-03-20T10:11:20Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: blanked page

User:JoshMuirWikipedia/sandbox

2019-03-20T10:09:34Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: Essay

Managers of organisations often need to make ethical decisions, enabling sustainable relationships between stakeholders (Maak et al., 2006, cited in Maak et al. 2009, 539). Global warming, which has garnered substantial public attention in recent years in regards to Corporate Social Responsibility, (Gustayson 2009, 489) has generated such decisions, for example, should managers sacrifice profits to reduce carbon emissions. Managers use utilitarian, moral rights, justice and practical rules to guide these choices (Jones et al. 2017, 129). This paper will advocate managers accept the decision, using the utilitarian rule.

Using the practical rule, managers assess if decisions are socially acceptable and whether they could, without reluctance, communicate them to the public (Jones et al. 2017, '''Number'''). As, despite scientific consensus, only 36% of Australians in 2012 supported the statement "global warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking steps now even if it involves significant costs" (Hanson 2012), managers are ethically validated to work selfishly, maintaining carbon emissions. This highlights a flaw in the practical rule: ethics reliant on social norms do not always act in stakeholder's best interests (Sama and Shoaf 2002, 96).

Moral Rights principle guides managers to make choices that best maintain affected people's inalienable rights (Jones et al. 2017, '''Number'''). One is the right to life (“Drafting Committee” 1948), which maintaining emissions breaches, as in a warmer Australia, more extreme weather will put lives at risk. This decision alleviates concerns had of moral rights, while Cavanagh states moral rights can "encourage individualistic, selfish behaviour" (Cavanagh et al. 1981, 367), in this case, the principle defends a collectivist stance.

The justice model encourages decisions to have equitable and fair outcomes (Sama and Shoaf 2002, 95). Applying the justice model leads to a conflict of justice between stakeholders. Maintaining emissions harms the broader community. Reducing emissions harms shareholder’s investment. However, the major shareholders, in requesting the change, expressed a preference for prioritising the community, meaning a decision informed by justice would cut emissions.

The utilitarian model recommends managers choose options that produce the "greatest good for the greatest number" (Sama and Shoaf 2002, 95). While countries that met in 2015 for the Paris Climate Summit agreed to aim to reduce cooling to below 2°C of warming ("COP21" 2015), according to author Peter Christoff, there is "widespread agreement" that current mitigation efforts will likely result in 4°C of heating (Christoff 2014, 1). As global warming’s extreme weather effects (extremely high temperatures, extreme rainfall events etcetera.) will affect all stakeholders (Christoff 2014, 54), a utilitarian decision would strongly recommend reducing emissions. The issue's broad effects on all stakeholders mitigate problems that arise in utilitarian decisions of quantifying the satisfaction of each party (Sama and Shoaf 2002, 95).

To conclude, most ethical decision-making frameworks, including utilitarian, support cutting emissions. The contrast between utilitarian and practical decision’s outcomes highlight the public not always acting in their own best interest, even as they are the stakeholders most harmed by a decision of not reducing emissions.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Maak, Thomas, and Nicola M. Pless. "Business Leaders as Citizens of the World. Advancing Humanism on a Global Scale." ''Journal of Business Ethics'' 88, no. 3 (2009): 539. www.jstor.org/stable/40295017

Gustavson, Royston, 2009. "Australia: Practices and Experiences." In ''Global Practices of Corporate Social Responsibility'', Samuel O. Idowu and Walter Leal Filho, eds., 463-495. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. link-springer-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/book/10.1007%2F978-3-540-68815-0

Gareth R. Jones, Jennifer M. George, Mary Barrett, Beverley Honig, 2017. ''Contemporary Management''. 4th ed. North Ryde, NSW: McGraw-Hill Education

Hanson, Ferguson. 2012. ''The Lowry Institute Poll 2012: Public Opinion and Foreign Policy''. Lowry Institute. <nowiki>https://archive.lowyinstitute.org/publications/lowy-institute-poll-2012-public-opinion-and-foreign-policy</nowiki>

Sama, Linda M., and Victoria Shoaf. "Ethics on the Web: Applying Moral Decision-Making to the New Media." Journal of Business Ethics 36, no. 1/2 (2002): 93-103. <nowiki>http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074695</nowiki>

Drafting Committee for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." United Nations. <nowiki>http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html</nowiki>

Cavanagh, Gerald F., Dennis J. Moberg, and Manuel Velasquez. 1981. "The Ethics of Organizational Politics." ''Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review (Pre-1986)'' 6 (3) (07): 363-374. <nowiki>https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/229995360?accountid=10382</nowiki>.

"COP21 climate change summit reaches deal in Paris" 2015. ''BBC'', December 13, 2015. <nowiki>https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35084374</nowiki>

Christoff, Peter. 2014. ''Four Degrees of Global Warming: Australia in a Hotter World''. Routledge. <nowiki>https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/reader.action?docID=1480730</nowiki>

Gamergate (harassment campaign)

2019-03-17T03:50:24Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Organization */ Made requested changes

{{Redirect|GamerGate|the type of ant|Gamergate|other uses|Gamergate (disambiguation)}}
{{pp-30-500|small=yes}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2019}}
{{Use American English|date=November 2015}}


The '''Gamergate controversy''' stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the [[hashtag]] #GamerGate. The controversy centered on issues of [[Sexism in video gaming|sexism]] and [[progressivism]] in video game culture. ''Gamergate'' is used as a blanket term for the controversy as well as for the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it.

Beginning in August 2014, a harassment campaign targeted several women in the [[video game industry]]; notably game developers [[Zoë Quinn]] and [[Brianna Wu]], as well as feminist media critic [[Anita Sarkeesian]]. After Eron Gjoni, Quinn's former boyfriend, wrote a disparaging blog post about her, #gamergate hashtag users falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson. Harassment campaigns against Quinn and others included [[doxing]], threats of rape, and death threats.

Gamergate proponents ("Gamergaters") have stated that they were a movement, but had no official leaders or manifesto. Gamergate supporters organized anonymously or [[Pseudonymity|pseudonymously]] on online platforms such as [[4chan]], [[Internet Relay Chat]], [[Twitter]], and [[Reddit]]. Statements claiming to represent Gamergate have been inconsistent, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives. Gamergate supporters said there was unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. As a result, Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters engaged in. Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims.

The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a [[culture war]] over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games, and over the social identity of gamers. Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of [[feminism]] on video game culture; as a result, Gamergate is often viewed as a [[right-wing]] backlash against progressivism. Industry responses to the harassment campaign have focused on ways to minimise harm and prevent similar events. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on methods of addressing online harassment.

==History==

===Zoë Quinn and ''Depression Quest''===
In 2013, [[Zoë Quinn]], an independent game developer, released ''[[Depression Quest]]'', a text-focused game designed to convey the experience of depression though a series of fictional scenarios,{{refn|name=Kidd & Turner}}{{refn|name=Massanari 2017}} based in part on Quinn's own experience with the illness.{{refn|name=Hanson}}{{refn|name=Parkin}} The game received positive reviews in the gaming media, but faced backlash online from gamers who disliked its departure from typical game formats emphasizing violence and skill<ref>{{harvp|Jane|2017|p=30}}; {{harvp|Salter|2017|p=43}}; {{harvp|Mantilla|2015|p=83}}</ref> and who opposed "political" intrusions into gamer culture.{{refn|name=Salter}} Quinn was subjected to several months of harassment after its release,<ref name="csmonitor" /><ref name="KernelMag" /><ref name="dot" /><ref name="Malone"/> including rape and death threats.{{refn|name=Massanari 2017}}{{refn|name=Jane}} Quinn documented the harassment she received and spoke openly to the media about it, which led to an even greater intensity of abuse against her, including the posting of her home address online.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|pp=43–45}} She ultimately fled her house out of fear for her safety.{{refn|name=Parkin}}{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=44}}

[[File:Zoe Quinn Car 2014.jpg|thumb|upright=0.7|left|Game developer [[Zoë Quinn]], the initial target of the harassment campaign]]

The controversies and events that would come to be known as Gamergate began in 2014 as a personal attack on Quinn, incited by a blog post by Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni.{{sfnp|Jane|2017|p=29}}{{refn|name=Hanson}}{{refn|name=Mantilla}} Called the "Zoe Post",{{efn |Gjoni initially published the post on the video-game sites ''[[Penny Arcade]]'' and ''[[Something Awful]]''. After it was removed by the sites' moderators, Gjoni published "The Zoe Post" via the blogging platform WordPress.{{refn|name=Jason}}}} it was a lengthy, detailed account of their relationship and breakup{{sfnp|Jane|2017|pp=29-30}} that included copies of personal chat logs, emails, and text messages.<ref name="Malone"/> The blog falsely implied that Quinn had gotten a favorable review of ''Depression Quest'' because of her sexual relationship with Nathan Grayson, a video-game reviewer for the website ''[[Kotaku]]''.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=44}}{{sfnp|Jane|2017|p=30}}{{sfnp|Massanari|2017|p=316}}{{sfnp|Mantilla|2015|p=84}} Grayson never actually reviewed Quinn's games, and Grayson's only article mentioning her was published before their relationship began.<ref name="Singal September 2014"/><ref name="pcmag about gg" /><ref name="canadacom" /> Gjoni later updated his blog post to acknowledge this,<ref name="pcmag about gg" /> saying that a typographical error was to blame.{{refn|name=Jane}} Nonetheless, a link to the blog posted on [[4chan]], where many participants had previously been highly critical of ''Depression Quest'', led to renewed attacks on Quinn.<ref>{{harvp|Jane|2017|p=30}}; {{harvp|Salter|2017|p=44}}; {{harvp|Murray|2018|p=36}}; {{harvp|Mantilla|2015|p=84}}</ref>

After Gjoni's blog post, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent and often [[misogynistic]] harassment campaign.<ref name=WaPo/><ref name="nybooks 2015-06-25" /><ref name=HeronBelford2014/> Online attackers of Quinn at first used the label "Quinnspiracy",{{refn|name=Singal September 2014}}{{refn|name=Shaw & Chess 2016}}{{refn|name=Aghazadeh et al}} later adopting the [[hashtag]] "#Gamergate" after it was coined by the actor [[Adam Baldwin]],{{efn |Baldwin, known for his right-wing political views,<ref>{{harvp|Kidd|Turner|2016|p=130}}; {{harvp|Salter|2017|p=45}}</ref> tweeted the hashtag #GamerGate near the end of August alongside a pair of videos promoting the "Quinnspiracy" by a YouTube user called Internet Aristocrat.<ref>{{harvp|Kidd|Turner|2016|pp=129–130}}; {{harvp|Shaw|Chess|2016|p=279}}</ref> He would later tell an interviewer that a left-wing "culture war" was imposing "political crap" on gamers.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=45}}{{refn|name=Kaufman}}}} whose nearly 190,000 Twitter followers helped the spread of the hashtag.<ref>{{harvp|Salter|2017|p=45}}; {{harvp|Murray|2018|p=36}}</ref> Harassment of Gamergate targets was coordinated via [[Internet Relay Chat]] (IRC), spreading rapidly over [[imageboard]]s and forums like 4chan and [[Reddit]].<ref name="TeleStuart"/><ref name="HeronBelford2014"/><ref name="Massanari 2015"/><ref name="Johnston September 2014"/>

Less than four months after Gamergate began, Quinn's record of threats she had received had grown 1,000-fold.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=45}}{{refn|name=Jason}} At a conference Quinn said, "I used to go to game events and feel like I was going home [...] Now it's just like... are any of the people I'm currently in the room with ones that said they wanted to beat me to death?".<ref name=BBCQuinnInterview /> One anonymous 4chan user threatened to "give her a crippling injury that's never going to fully heal".{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=45}}{{sfnp|Mantilla|2015|p=86}}{{refn|name=Parkin}} Commentators both inside and outside the video game industry condemned the attacks against Quinn.<ref name="dot" /><ref name="Singal September 2014"/><ref name="DBMarcotte" /> The attacks included [[doxing]] (researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual) and hacking of her [[Tumblr]], [[Dropbox (service)|Dropbox]], and [[Skype]] accounts; she was again subjected to rape and death threats.<ref name="csmonitor" /><ref name="dot" /><ref name="WaPo" /><ref name="DBMarcotte" /> Quinn again fled her home to stay with friends.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=45}}{{sfnp|Mantilla|2015|p=86}}{{refn|name=Jason}} She wrote that "the Internet spent the last month spreading my personal information around, sending me threats, hacking anyone suspected of being friends with me, calling my dad and telling him I’m a whore, sending nude photos of me to colleagues, and basically giving me the 'burn the witch' treatment".<ref>Quinn, quoted in {{harvp|Mantilla|2015|p=86}}</ref>{{refn|name=Singal September 2014}}

===Other targets of harassment===

Gamergate supporters subjected others to similar harassment, doxing, and death threats. Those who came to the victims' defense were ridiculed as "white knights", or "[[social justice warrior]]s" (SJWs);<ref name="HeronBelford2014" /> this characterization was intended, according to Heron, Belford and Goker, to neutralize any opposition by questioning their motives.<ref name="HeronBelford2014" /> Shortly after the Gamergate hashtag was coined, video game developer [[Phil Fish]] had his personal information, including various accounts and passwords, hacked and publicly posted in retaliation for defending Quinn and attacking her detractors.<ref name=FishPaste/><ref name=BI/> The hacks and doxing also exposed documents relating to Fish's company, Polytron.<ref name=DailyFish/> As a result, Fish left the gaming industry and put Polytron up for sale, calling the situation "unacceptable" and saying, "it's not worth it".<ref name=csmonitor/><ref name=FishPaste/><ref name="gs fish" />

[[File:Anita Sarkeesian 2013.jpg|thumb|Feminist and media critic [[Anita Sarkeesian]] received death threats after releasing a ''[[Tropes vs. Women in Video Games]]'' video.]]

The campaign expanded to include renewed harassment of prominent<ref name="prominent 1" /><ref name="prominent 2" /> feminist media critic [[Anita Sarkeesian]], who had previously been a target of online harassment due in part to her YouTube video series ''[[Tropes vs. Women in Video Games]]'', which analyzes sexist stereotypes in video games.<ref name="Murray"/> Sarkeesian's attackers took her critical commentary as unfair and unwarranted, and considered her an interloper.<ref name="TheStar" /><ref name="TorontoExclusive" /><ref name="cosmo" /> After a new episode of ''Tropes vs. Women'' was released on August 24, 2014, Sarkeesian received rape and death threats, and private information including her home address was leaked; she was compelled to flee her home.<ref name="BusinessWeekSarkessian" /><ref name="WashPostSarkeesian" /> At the [[XOXO (festival)|XOXO]] arts and technology conference in Portland, Oregon, she said, in regard to the accusations that high-profile women were making up the threats against them, that "one of the most radical things you can do is to actually believe women when they talk about their experiences". "The perpetrators", Sarkeesian went on to say, "do not see themselves as perpetrators at all [...] They see themselves as noble warriors".<ref name=VergeXOXO />

Sarkeesian canceled an October 2014 speaking appearance at [[Utah State University]] (USU) after the school received three anonymous threats, the second of which claimed affiliation with Gamergate.<ref name="SLT ALberty101614" /> The initial threat proposed that "a Montreal Massacre style attack will be carried out against the attendees, as well as the students and staff at the nearby Women's Center", alluding to the [[École Polytechnique massacre]], a 1989 mass shooting motivated by [[antifeminism]].<ref name="montreal-massacre-threat-ctv" /> USU's President and Provost released a joint statement saying that USU, in consultation with state and federal law enforcement agencies, had assessed that there was no credible threat to students, staff, or the speaker.<ref name=USUthreat/> Requests for additional security measures were declined because of Utah's [[Open carry in the United States|open carry]] laws, leading to the cancellation.<ref name="nytimes usu threat" /><ref name=AnitaUSUCNN /><ref name=AnitaUSUBBC /> The threats drew the attention of mainstream media to the Gamergate situation.<ref name="venturebeat mainstream"/> Wingfield of ''The New York Times'' referred to the threat as "the most noxious example of a weeks long campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture".<ref name="nytimes usu threat" /> The [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (FBI) investigated the threat to attack Sarkeesian and other Gamergate-related threats.<ref name=HJFBI/> The investigations, which were plagued with jurisdictional issues, ultimately closed with the FBI failing to identify the perpetrators of some threats and declining to prosecute others.<ref name="FBI 2017Jan27" /><ref name="verge fbi closed" />
[[File:Brianna Wu next to Motorcycle.jpg|thumb|Video game developer [[Brianna Wu]] suffered Gamergate-related harassment beginning in late 2014.]]

In mid-October [[Brianna Wu]], another independent game developer and co-founder of video game studio [[Giant Spacekat (company)|Giant Spacekat]], saw her home address and other identifying information posted on [[8chan]] as retaliation for mocking Gamergate. Wu then became the target of rape and death threats on Twitter and elsewhere. After contacting police, Wu fled her home with her husband, saying she would not allow the threats to intimidate her into silence.<ref name="nytimes usu threat" /><ref name=WuBoston /><ref name=GlobeFeature /> Wu announced an {{US$|11000}} reward for information leading to a conviction for those involved in her harassment, and set up a legal fund to help other game developers who have been harassed online.<ref name="wu reward"/> As of April 2016, Wu was still receiving threats in such volume that she employed full-time staff to document them.<ref name="csm 20160411" />

Harassment related to Gamergate continued for several months after the onset of the controversy. Two critics of Gamergate were targets of attempted "[[swatting]]"—hoaxed reports to emergency services intended to provoke a [[SWAT]] team response at the target's home. ''[[The Guardian]]'' reported that both swatting attempts were coordinated through the "[[Baphomet#Modern interpretations and usage|baphomet]]" subforum of 8chan.<ref name="ars swatting" /><ref name="guardian swatting" /> After the initial rush of threats that caused her to flee her home, Wu documented receiving roughly 45 death threats by April 2015; Silicon Valley investor [[Marc Andreessen]] offered up to a $10,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of those who made the threats.<ref name="inc" /> Wu's studio, Giant Spacekat, withdrew from the Expo Hall of [[Penny Arcade Expo|PAX East 2015]]. Wu cited security concerns, lack of confidence in the management and their failure to return calls.<ref name="wu pax" /><ref name="venturebeat 2015-02-19" /><ref name="bostonglobe 2015-02-24" />

Actress and gamer [[Felicia Day]] wrote a blog post about her concerns over Gamergate and her fear of retaliation if she spoke against it. Almost immediately her home address and phone number were posted online, leading to harassing letters and phone calls.<ref name="seattletimes 2015-09-21" /><ref name=DayGuardian /><ref name=DayTime /> Actor [[Wil Wheaton]] and former [[NFL]] player [[Chris Kluwe]] also posted criticisms of Gamergate. [[Stephen Colbert]] questioned why men like Kluwe had not been threatened by Gamergate, noting that the targets were almost entirely women.<ref name=ColbertVerge /><ref name=WaPoColbert />

Some who have identified as Gamergate supporters said that they have been harassed.<ref name=Diver /><ref name=Tsukayama /> YouTube personality [[Boogie2988|Steven "Boogie2988" Williams]] remarked that a comment on one of his videos included his address and a threat to his wife's life.<ref name=Diver /><ref name=Codd /> In an interview with [[BBC Three (online)|BBC Three]], Gamergate supporter [[TotalBiscuit|John Bain]], known by his YouTube moniker "TotalBiscuit", said he had been the target of death threats and harassment from anonymous people who opposed his view on Gamergate.<ref name="bbc3 2016-03-16" /> Mike Diver wrote in ''[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]'' that threats against Gamergate supporters had been neglected in press coverage.<ref name=Diver />

Bomb threats have also been made towards events attended by Gamergate supporters. A May 2015 meeting in Washington D.C. arranged by writer [[Christina Hoff Sommers]] and journalist [[Milo Yiannopoulos]] was the target of a bomb threat made over Twitter, according to local police responding to information supplied by the FBI.<ref name="polygon 2015-05-03" /> During "Airplay", an event run by the [[Society of Professional Journalists]] in August 2015, multiple bomb threats were made. This led to the evacuation of the building and the surrounding neighborhood.<ref name="polygon 2015-08-16"/>

===Coordination of harassment===

Gamergate harassment was orchestrated largely through anonymous message boards such as [[4chan]], [[8chan]], and [[Reddit]],{{refn|name=Nieborg & Foxman}}{{sfnp|Murray|2018|p=36}}{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=41}} particularly the "KotakuInAction" [[Subreddits|subreddit]].<ref name="Singal October 2014" /><ref name="Barnes"/>{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=47}} ''[[Ars Technica]]'' reported that a series of 4chan discussion logs suggests that Twitter [[Sockpuppet (Internet)|sockpuppet]] accounts were used to popularize the Gamergate hashtag.<ref name="Johnston September 2014"/> Heron, Belford, and Goker, analyzing the logs, said that early Gamergate IRC discussions focused on coordinating the harassment of Quinn by using [[Astroturfing|astroturf]] campaigns to push attacks against her into mainstream view. They also describe how initial organizers attempted to cultivate a palpable narrative for public consumption while internally focusing on personal grudges against Quinn and aggressive sexual imagery.<ref name="HeronBelford2014" /> Mortensen wrote in ''[[Games and Culture]]'' that Gamergate's structure as an anonymous swarm allowed it to create an environment where anyone who criticized it or became its target was at risk, while allowing them to avoid individual responsibility for harassment.<ref name="Mortensen2016" />

There has been considerable discussion of [[Norm (social)|self-policing]] and the [[Collective responsibility|responsibility]] supporters of Gamergate share when the hashtag is used for harassment. A number of websites have blocked users, removed posts, and created policies to prevent their users from threatening Quinn and others with doxing, assault, rape and murder, and planning and coordinating such threats.<ref name=csmonitor /><ref name=dot /> 4chan founder [[Christopher Poole]] banned all discussion of Gamergate on the site as more attacks occurred, leading to Gamergate supporters using 8chan as their central hub.<ref name="Massanari 2015"/><ref name="wapost 8chan"/>

Many Gamergate supporters have denied that the harassment took place, or falsely accused victims of fabricating the evidence.<ref name="HeronBelford2014" /><ref name="WashPostSarkeesian" /> Gamergate supporters have used the term "Literally Who" to refer to victims of harassment such as Quinn, saying they are not relevant to Gamergate's goals and purposes. Commentators have decried the use of such terminology as dehumanizing, and said that discussions on Gamergate forums often center around those referred to as "Literally Who".<ref name="Singal October 2014" /><ref name="Malone"/><ref name="DipCour"/> Some Gamergate supporters have denounced the harassment, arguing that the perpetrators are in the minority and do not represent them.<ref name=Diver /><ref name=Tsukayama />

By September 24, 2014, over one million Twitter messages incorporating the Gamergate hashtag had been sent.<ref name="metro what is gg" /> A ''[[Newsweek]]'' and [[Brandwatch]] analysis found more than two million Twitter messages between September and October 2014.<ref name="Newsweek Brandwatch" /> Software developer [[Andy Baio]] also produced an analysis of #Gamergate tweets showing a discussion that was polarized between pro- and anti-Gamergate factions. One quarter of the tweets sampled were produced by users new to Twitter, most of whom were pro-Gamergate.<ref name="fastcodesign 2014-10-28" /> While the number of Gamergate supporters is unclear, in October 2014 ''[[Deadspin]]'' estimated 10,000 supporters based on the number of users discussing Gamergate on Reddit.<ref name="Ip 2014" />

==Organization==

The series of events that came to be known as Gamergate has been described as "torturously complex".{{sfnp|Nieborg|Foxman|2018|p=114}} As a movement, it had no official leaders or clearly defined agenda.{{sfnp|Nieborg|Foxman|2018|pp=113-114}}{{sfnp|Salter|2017|pp=41–42}} Because of its anonymous membership, lack of organization and leaderless nature, sources differ as to the goals or mission of Gamergate and defining it has been difficult.<ref name="Singal October 2014" /> Frank Lantz of [[NYU]]'s Game Center wrote that he could not find "a single explanation of a coherent Gamergate position".<ref>Lantz, quoted in {{harvp|Meyer|2014}}</ref> Christopher Grant, editor-in-chief of ''[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]]'', told the ''Columbia Journalism Review'': "The closest thing we've been able to divine is that it's noise. It's chaos [...] all you can do is find patterns. And ultimately Gamergate will be defined—I think has been defined—by some of its basest elements."<ref>Grant, quoted in {{harvp|Salter|2017|p=41}}</ref><ref name="Ip 2014" />

As the threats expanded, international media focused on Gamergate's violent, misogynistic element and its inability to present a coherent message. Bob Stuart, in ''[[The Daily Telegraph]],'' reported that "Gamergate has since swelled into an unwieldy movement with no apparent leaders, mission statement, or aims beyond calling out 'social justice warriors'. [...] When members of the games industry are being driven from their houses and jobs, threatened, or abused, it makes Gamergate's claim that it is engaged in an ethical campaign appear laughable."<ref name=TeleStuart /> The campaign's focus broadened to take on other targets in the news media, as with [[Bollea v. Gawker|Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker Media]].<ref name="NYTThielGawker" />

Jesse Singal, in ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'', stated that he had spoken to several Gamergate supporters to try to understand their concerns, but found conflicting ideals and incoherent messages. Singal observed Gamergate supporters making a constant series of attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian, and other women, while frequently stating that Gamergate "is not about" them.<ref name="Singal October 2014" /> Chris Ip of the ''Columbia Journalism Review'' said that Gamergate supporters espousing critiques of ethics in journalism could not be separated from harassers.<ref name="Ip 2014" /> With anyone able to tweet under the hashtag and no single person willing or able to represent the hashtag and take responsibility for its actions, Ip said it is not possible for journalists to neatly separate abusers from those seeking reasonable debate.<ref name="Ip 2014" />

[[Jon Stone (poet)|Jon Stone]] wrote in ''The Guardian'' that {{Nowrap|"[Gamergate]}} readjusts and reinvents itself in response to attempts to disarm and disperse its noxiousness, subsuming disaffected voices in an act of continual regeneration, cycling through targets, pretexts, manifestoes, and moralisms".<ref name="Ryan Cooper Week" /> ''Polygon''{{'}}s Grant said that as of October 2014, Gamergate had remained amorphous and leaderless so that the harassment can be conducted without any culpability.<ref name="OTMGrant" />

===Harassment and Twitter===

While organized through anonymous message boards such as 4chan and Reddit, Gamergate harassment was most prominent on Twitter. Michael Salter, a [[University of Western Sydney]] criminologist, writes that Twitter's design and architecture was "highly conducive" to such abuse campaigns, allowing Gamergaters to overwhelm users' ability to individually block the large numbers of fake or "sockpuppet" accounts used to send abusive and harassing messages.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|pp=47–48}}

Twitter was criticized for its inability to respond quickly and prevent harassment over the service. Within the United States, Twitter and other social media sites are not liable for content posted by third-parties of their service under [[Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act]] (1996), and so have no legal obligation to police malicious content such as harassment and threats.<ref name="fastcompany 2015-06-02" /> Brianna Wu, shortly after becoming a target of harassment, stated that Twitter facilitated harassment by the ease with which anyone could make a new account even after having an earlier account blocked, and challenged the service to improve its responsiveness to complaints.<ref name="businessweek wu twitter"/> Robinson Meyer of ''[[The Atlantic]]'' said Gamergate is an "identity crisis" for Twitter, and by not dealing with harassing users, the platform is failing to protect victims.<ref name="Meyer"/>

Early on during Gamergate, software developer Randi Harper started the "Good Game Auto Blocker" or "ggautoblocker", an expanding list of known Twitter accounts that were tied to the Gamergate hashtag which could be automatically [[block (Internet)|blocked]], therefore reducing the degree of harassment received.<ref name="verge 2015-06-10" /> In November 2014, Twitter announced a collaboration with the non-profit group "Women, Action & the Media" (WAM), in which users of Twitter can report harassment to a tool monitored by WAM members, who would forward affirmed issues to Twitter within 24 hours. The move, while arising in the wake of the Gamergate harassment, was due to general issues of the harassment of women on the Internet.<ref name="wiredWAMTwitterHarassment"/><ref name="TheVergeWAMTwitter" /><ref name="wam release" /> In May 2015, WAM reported that of 512 reported harassment instances by the tool during the month of November 2014, 12% of those were tied to the Gamergate controversy based on the ggautoblocker list, with most harassment occurring from single-instance accounts targeting a single person.<ref name="wam report" />

===Efforts to affect public perceptions===

Early in the controversy, posters on 4chan focused on donating to a self-described [[Radical feminism|radical feminist]] group called [[The Fine Young Capitalists]] (TFYC), who had been embroiled in a dispute with Quinn over a female-only game development contest they had organized. Advocating donations to help TFYC create the game, posters on 4chan's politics board argued that such donations would make them "look really good" and would make them "PR-untouchable".<ref name="Vice" /><ref name="fastcodesign 2014-11-03" />

To respond to widespread criticism of Gamergate as misogynistic, posters on 4chan created a second Twitter hashtag, #NotYourShield, intended to show that Gamergate was not about opposition to feminism or wanting to push women out of gaming. In the 4chan post that may have coined the hashtag, it was framed as a way to "demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism".<ref name="Johnston September 2014"/><ref name="telegraph" /><ref name=DailyDot /> Many of the accounts used to tweet the tag seemed to be [[Sockpuppet (Internet)|sockpuppets]] that had copied their avatars from elsewhere on the internet; the methods used to create it have been compared to #EndFathersDay, a hoax manufactured on 4chan using similar methods.<ref name="Johnston September 2014"/><ref name=DailyDot /> Quinn said that in light of Gamergate's exclusive targeting of women or those who stood up for women, "#notyourshield was, ironically, solely designed to be a shield for this campaign once people started calling it misogynistic".<ref name=Escapist4chan /> [[Arthur Chu]] wrote that the hashtag was an attempt to leverage [[white guilt]] and to prevent allies from supporting the people being attacked by Gamergate.<ref name="Chu2014" />

===Targeting advertisers===

Gamergate supporters were critical of the wave of articles calling for diversity that followed the initial outbreak of the controversy; interpreting them as an attack on games and gamer culture. Gamergaters responded with a coordinated email campaign that demanded advertisers drop several involved publications; in a five-step 'war plan' against organizations that offended them, a Gamergate posting described how they would choose from a list of target organizations, pick a grievance from a list others had compiled, and send a form letter containing it to an advertiser.<ref name=waposuccess /> [[Intel]] reacted to this by withdrawing an ad campaign from Gamasutra in October 2014. After a number of game developers criticized Intel for this, arguing that it could have a chilling effect on free speech and that it amounted to supporting harassment, Intel apologized for appearing to take sides in the controversy<ref name="GIBizIntel" /><ref name="VergeIntelStatement" /> and resumed advertising on Gamasutra in mid-November.<ref name="Intel_Telegraph" />

===Sad Puppies===
Gamergate became associated with the "[[Sad Puppies]]" and "Rabid Puppies" during [[Hugo Awards#Since 2000|2015 Hugo Awards]] for science fiction writing. These groups organized [[voting bloc]]s that dominated the 2015 Hugo Awards. The campaign was described as a backlash against the increasing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in science fiction. Members of the bloc said that they sought to counteract what they saw as a focus on giving awards based on the race, ethnicity, or gender of the author or characters rather than quality, and bemoaning the increasing prominence of what they described as 'message' fiction with fewer traditional "zap gun" science-fictional trappings.<ref name="atlantic 2015-04-09" /><ref name="latimes 2015-08-24" /><ref name="wired 2015-08-23" /> By 2018, the Sad Puppies had diminished visibility, and Quinn's 2017 memoir, ''[[Crash Override: How Gamergate (Nearly) Destroyed My Life, and How We Can Win the Fight Against Online Hate]]'', was nominated for the 2018 [[Hugo Award for Best Related Work]] (for non-fiction works related to science fiction or fantasy).<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.tor.com/2018/03/31/2018-hugo-award-finalists-announced/ |title=2018 Hugo Award Finalists Announced |date=March 31, 2018 |work=Tor.com |access-date=August 27, 2018 |language=en-US}}</ref>

==Ethics in journalism complaints==
The most active Gamergate supporters or "Gamergaters"{{sfnp|Barnes|2018|p=94}}{{refn|name=Braithwaite}} said that Gamergate was a movement for ethics in games journalism and that any harassment of women was done by others not affiliated with Gamergate.{{refn|name=Massanari 2017}}{{refn|name=Jane}}{{sfnp|Barnes|2018|p=94}} They argued that the close relationships between journalists and developers demonstrated a conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues,<ref name="KernelMag"/><ref name="Singal October 2014"/> leading to conflicts of interest.<ref name=BBC1 /><ref name="Straumsheim2015" /> Some supporters pointed to what they considered disproportionate praise for games such as ''[[Depression Quest]]'' and ''[[Gone Home]]'', which feature unconventional gameplay and stories with social implications, while they viewed traditional [[AAA (video game industry)|AAA games]] as downplayed.<ref name="overland" /><ref name="NYTSuellentrop" /><ref name="willametteweek" /> Journalists who did not cover the examination into Quinn's private life were accused of conspiracy, and a [[blacklist]] circulated by Gamergate supporters.<ref name=ibtimes1 />

Observers in the media have largely rejected these claims as baseless. Chris Ip of the ''Columbia Journalism Review'' wrote that "many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate [...] have been debunked" and concluded that "at core, the movement is a classic culture war".<ref name="Ip 2014" /> Writing in ''Vox'', Todd VanDerWerff said that "[e]very single question of journalistic ethics Gamergate has brought up has either been debunked or dealt with".<ref name=VoxLose /> According to [[Leigh Alexander (journalist)|Leigh Alexander]], then editor-at-large of ''Gamasutra'', the ethics concerns were a [[conspiracy theory]], albeit a sincere one; Alexander writes that there is nothing unethical about journalists being acquainted with those they cover and that meaningful reporting requires journalists to develop professional relationships with sources.<ref name=Time /> ''Ars Technica'', ''Vox'', and ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'', among others, stated that discussions of gender equality, sexism and other social issues in game reviews present no ethical conflict.<ref name="Johnston September 2014"/><ref name="Mortensen2016" /><ref name="Newsweek Brandwatch"/><ref name=VoxLose /><ref name=WiredHudson /><ref name=UWiscCulver/>

Several writers who attempted to understand Gamergate's motivations concluded that, rather than relating to purported issues with gaming journalism ethics, Gamergate represented an effort to suppress opposing views.<ref name="Ip 2014" /><ref name="VergeDead" /><ref name="WaPoRosenberg" /><ref name="Internet Monitor 2014" /> Salter writes that "mass media had a decisive role in evaluating the competing claims of Gamergate and its critics, and ultimately dismissing Gamergate as a misogynist abuse campaign".{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=55}} Screenshots of 4chan boards, collected and published by Quinn, suggested that complaints about ethics in games journalism were invented ''post hoc'' by Gamergaters to distract critics from their ongoing abuse of her.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|p=46}}{{refn|name=Johnston September 2014}} Jay Hathaway wrote at ''Gawker'' that this strategy emerged once Gamergaters found that harassing Quinn about her sexual history was unlikely to win them support; according to Hathaway, IRC chat logs showed that "the [Gamergate] movement was focused on destroying Zoë Quinn first, reforming games reporting second".<ref>Quoted in {{harvp|Mantilla|2015|p=85}} (attributed to T.C. Sottek)</ref>{{refn|name=Hathaway}}

Other commentators argued that Gamergate had the potential to raise significant issues in gaming journalism, but that the wave of misogynistic harassment and abuse associated with the hashtag had [[poisoned the well]], making it impossible to separate honest criticism from sexist trolling.<ref name=goldman /><ref name="HeronBelford2014"/><ref name=Vox /> Visible support for Gamergate in the form of tweets, online videos, and blogs seldom involved discussion of ethics, but often featured misogynistic and/or racist commentary.<ref name="Massanari 2017"/> The targets were mainly female game developers, academics, and writers.{{sfnp|Jane|2017|p=33}}

Researchers at the [[Berkman Center for Internet & Society]] at [[Harvard University]] described Gamergate as a "vitriolic campaign against Quinn that quickly morph[ed] into a broader crusade against alleged corruption in games journalism" which involved considerable abuse and harassment of female developers and game critics.<ref name="Internet Monitor 2014" /> Concerns have also been raised when juxtaposing the behavior of Gamergate supporters with their claimed message: Dr. Kathleen Bartzen Culver, a professor and media ethics expert at the [[University of Wisconsin–Madison]], wrote that while Gamergate supporters claimed to be interested in journalism ethics, their "misogynistic and threatening" behavior belied this claim. "Much of the conversation—if I can even call it that—has been a toxic sludge of rumor, invective, and gender bias. The irony comes from people who claim to be challenging the ethics of game journalists through patently unethical behavior."<ref name=UWiscCulver/>

After analyzing a sample of tweets related to Gamergate, ''Newsweek'' concluded that it was primarily about harassment rather than ethics, stating that the sample "suggests that [...] contrary to its stated goal, Gamergate spends more time tweeting negatively at game developers than at game journalists".<ref name="Newsweek Brandwatch"/> Casey Johnston wrote for ''Ars Technica'' that, based on logs from the 4chan users who initially pushed Gamergate into the spotlight, the goal behind the hashtag campaign was to "perpetuate misogynistic attacks by wrapping them in a debate about ethics".<ref name="Johnston September 2014"/> An academic analysis of a week's worth of public posts tagged with #Gamergate found that the [[issue public]]s involved were not "only or even primarily" concerned with ethics in gaming journalism.<ref>Burgess & Matamoros-Fernández, quoted in {{harvp|Nieborg|Foxman|2018|p=114}}</ref><ref name="BurgessMatamoros-Fernández2016" />

In an interview with Anita Sarkeesian in ''The Guardian'', [[Jessica Valenti]] said that "the movement's much-mocked mantra, 'It's about ethics in journalism{{'"}} was seen by others as "a natural extension of sexist harassment and the fear of female encroachment on a traditionally male space". Sarkeesian asked, "if this 'movement' was about journalism, why wasn't it journalists who had to deal with a barrage of rape and death threats?".<ref name="guardian aug2015"/> Wu told ''The Boston Globe'' that the ethics claims were "a pretext" and described Gamergate as "an actual hate group [...] they're upset and threatened by women who are being very outspoken about feminism".<ref>Wu, quoted in {{harvp|Murray|2018|p=37}}</ref><ref name="Bray"/>

Gamergate has been criticized for focusing on women, especially female developers, while ignoring many large-scale journalistic ethics issues. Alex Goldman of NPR's ''On the Media'' criticized Gamergate for targeting female indie developers rather than [[AAA (game industry)|AAA games publishers]], and said claims of unethical behavior by Quinn and Sarkeesian were unfounded.<ref name=goldman /> In ''Wired'', Laura Hudson found it telling that Gamergate supporters concentrated on impoverished independent creators and critics, and nearly exclusively women, rather than the large game companies whose work they enjoyed.<ref name=WiredHudson /> ''Vox'' writer Todd VanDerWerff highlighted an essay written by game developer David Hill, who said that corruption, [[nepotism]], and excessive [[commercialism]] existed in the gaming industry, but that Gamergate was not addressing those issues.<ref name=VoxConfuse /> Adi Robertson, of ''The Verge'', commented on the long-standing ethical issues gaming journalism has dealt with, but that most Gamergate supporters did not seem interested in "addressing problems that don't directly relate to feminist criticism or the tiny indie games scene".<ref name=VergeDay/>

{{anchor|GameJournoPros}}In mid-September 2014, [[Milo Yiannopoulos]], vocal critic of feminism and left-wing ideologies, published leaked discussions from a mailing list for gaming journalists called GameJournoPros on the [[Breitbart News]] website. Yiannopoulos and Gamergate supporters saw the mailing list as evidence of collusion among journalists.<ref name=GGJargon /> The list's founder acknowledged suggesting that journalists write an open letter of support to Quinn in response to the harassment she was facing, but said other members of the list had rejected his suggestion and helped him understand why his idea was inappropriate.<ref name=GJPresponse /><ref name=FudgeResponse/> Commentators did not consider the list to represent collusion, observing that it is a standard practice across professions to adopt informal venues for discussing matters of professional interest.<ref name=westmanjournal/> Following the leak, the mailing list was closed.<ref name=FudgeResponse/>

==Social, cultural, and political impact==
Observers have generally described Gamergate as part of a long-running culture war against efforts to diversify the traditionally male video gaming community, particularly targeting outspoken women. They cite Gamergate supporters' frequent harassment of female figures in the gaming industry and its overt hostility toward people involved in social criticism and analysis of video games.<ref name="Ip 2014" /><ref name=BBC /> ''The Washington Post''{{'}}s digital culture writer [[Caitlin Dewey]] said that "Whatever Gamergate may have started as, it is now an Internet culture war" between predominantly female game developers and critics advocating for greater inclusion, and "a motley alliance of vitriolic naysayers" opposed to such changes.<ref>Dewey, quoted in {{harvp|Hanson|2017|p=376}}</ref>{{refn|name=Guide to Gamergate}} ''[[Vox (website)|Vox]]'' said that Gamergate supporters were less interested in criticizing ethical issues than in opposition to social criticism and analysis of video games and in harassment of prominent women.<ref name=VoxLose/> ''Ars Technica'' quoted early members as saying that they had no interest in videogames and were primarily interested in attacking Quinn.<ref name="Johnston September 2014"/>

Gamergate has been described as being driven by antifeminist ideologies.<ref name="Vice" /><ref name="right wing" /><ref name="bostonglobe 2015-06-12" /> Some supporters have denied this, but acknowledge that there are misogynistic voices within Gamergate.<ref name="Singal October 2014"/><ref name=Diver /><ref name=Tsukayama /><ref name=Vice /> Antonsen, Ask, and Karlstrom wrote in ''Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies'' "in the case of #gamergate, it is the explicit goal of many of the participants to exclude groups of people, particularly women, from the debate and from the game industry and limit women's rights as citizens."<ref name="nordic" /> Jon Stone, in ''The Guardian'', called it a "swelling of vicious right-wing sentiment" and compared it to the [[men's rights movement]].<ref name="right wing" /> Commentators such as Stone, [[Liana Kerzner]], and Ryan Cooper have said that the controversy is being exploited by right-wing voices and by conservative pundits who had little interest in gaming.<ref name="right wing" /><ref name="MetalEater2" /><ref name="Ryan Cooper Week" /> Chrisella Herzog states that in addition to violent sexism, Gamergate has virulent strains and violent sentiments of homophobia, transphobia, anti-Semitism, racism, and neo-Nazism.<ref name="DipCour" /> Some figures and tactics associated with Gamergate went on to become components of the so-called [[alt-right]] <ref name="Alt-right Component" /><ref name="Bernstein J"/> which featured in the [[2016 American presidential election]]<ref name="Alt-right precursor" /><ref name="From Video Games to Politics" /><ref name="Old Racism, New Technology" /><ref name="LATimesHollywoodGG" /> and in other, more targeted harassment campaigns such as [[Learn to code]] in early 2019. <ref name="Learn to code">{{Cite web |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/153019/fetid-right-wing-origins-learn-code |title=The Fetid, Right-Wing Origins of “Learn to Code” |last=Talia |first=Lavin |date=2019-01-01 |website=The New Republic |access-date=2019-01-01}}</ref>

Quinn said the campaign had "roped well-meaning people who cared about ethics and transparency into a pre-existing hate mob",<ref name="ViceQuinn" /> and urged industry publishers and developers to condemn the hashtag.<ref name="bbc gg condemned"/> She further asked those Gamergate supporters who had any earnest discussion about ethics to move away from the "Gamergate" tag.<ref name="bbc gg condemned"/>

===Gamer identity===

Gamergate is often considered to be a reaction to the changing cultural identity of the "[[gamer]]". As video games grew in mainstream popularity during the 1990s, a "gamer" identity emerged around games marketed to an audience that was predominantly young, male and heterosexual. Over the years, the growing popularity of games expanded that audience to include many who did not fit the traditional gamer demographic, particularly women.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|pp=42–43}} Games with artistic and cultural themes grew in popularity, and [[independent video game development]] made these games more common, while [[mobile games|mobile]] and [[casual games|casual]] games expanded the scope of the industry beyond the traditional gamer identity.{{sfnp|Massanari|2017|p=317}}<ref name=Time /><ref name=LATimes /> The games most popular with typical "gamers", often featuring explicit violence along with exaggerated gender stereotypes, were joined by a more diverse set of games that included gay, lesbian, and transgender themes. "Indie" gaming blogs and websites were created to comment on these developments, in contrast to the more established gaming press, which was traditionally dependent on the games industry itself.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|pp=42–43}}

The media-studies scholar Adrienne Massanari writes that Gamergate is a direct response to such changes in video-game content as well as changes in the demographics of players.{{sfnp|Massanari|2017|p=317}} Surveys by the [[Entertainment Software Association]] in 2014 and 2015 showed that video-game players were between 44% and 48% female,<ref name="gamesindustry women" />{{sfnp|Massanari|2017|p=317}} with an average age of thirty-five.{{sfnp|Massanari|2017|p=317}} This broader audience began to question some assumptions and [[fantasy tropes and conventions|tropes]] that had been common in games. Shira Chess and Adrienne Shaw write that concern over these changes is integral to Gamergate, especially a fear that sexualized games aimed primarily at young men might eventually be replaced by less sexualized games marketed to broader audiences.<ref name="Chess 2015" /> Gamergaters often dismiss such games and their more diverse, casual group of players as being not "real" games or gamers.{{sfnp|Massanari|2017|p=317}} Alyssa Rosenberg of ''The Washington Post'' said that some of Gamergaters' concerns were rooted in a view of video games as "appliances" rather than art, that should be reviewed based on feature checklists rather than traditional artistic criteria.<ref name=WaPoRosenberg /> Chris Suellentrop of ''The New York Times'' criticized resistance to innovative uses of the gaming medium, and the belief that increased coverage and praise of artistic games like ''[[Gone Home]]'' would negatively affect blockbuster games such as ''Grand Theft Auto V''.<ref name=NYTSuellentrop/>

Gamergate is particularly associated with opposition to the influence of so-called "[[social justice warrior]]s" in the gaming industry and media, who are perceived as a threat to traditional gaming culture.{{sfnp|Massanari|2017|p=317}}{{sfnp|Nieborg|Foxman|2018|p=114}} As the video-game market grew more diverse, cultural critics became interested in issues of [[gender representation in video games|gender representation]] and identity in games.<ref name=Vox /><ref name=Time /> One prominent feminist critic of the representation of women in gaming is Anita Sarkeesian,<ref name="prominent 1"/><ref name="prominent 2"/> whose ''Tropes vs. Women in Video Games'' project is devoted to female stereotypes in games. Her fund-raising campaign and videos were met with hostility and harassment by some gamers. Further incidents raised concerns about [[sexism in video gaming]].<ref name=Vox /><ref name=Time /><ref name=PolygonFBI /> Prior to August 2014, escalating harassment prompted the [[International Game Developers Association]] (IGDA) to provide support groups for harassed developers and to begin discussions with the FBI to help investigate online harassment of game developers.<ref name=PolygonFBI /> In an interview on [[Comedy Central]]'s program ''[[The Colbert Report]]'', Sarkeesian said she believes women are targeted because they are "challenging the status quo of gaming as a male-dominated space".<ref name=Colbert />

In late August 2014, shortly after the initial accusations against Grayson and harassment of Quinn, several gaming sites published opinion essays on the controversy that focused on the growing diversity of gaming and the mainstreaming of the medium, some of which included criticism of sexism within gamer culture.<ref name="Plunkett" /><ref name="Johnston August 2014"/> These so-called "gamers are dead" articles were seen as part of a conspiracy to undercut traditional gamer identity{{sfnp|Nieborg|Foxman|2018|p=114}}<ref name="Chess 2015" /> and were used by participants to rally support for Gamergate.<ref>{{harvp|Nieborg|Foxman|2018|p=114}}; {{harvp|Shaw|Chess|2016|p=278}}</ref> ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'s'' [[David Auerbach]] and ''[[The Sentinel (Staffordshire)|The Sentinel's]]'' David Elks criticized these articles for alienating their publications' audience by attacking the gamer identity.<ref name=stokesentinel/> Writing for ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]'', L. Rhodes said the antagonism in the Gamergate controversy was a result of the industry seeking to widen its customer demographic instead of focusing on core gamers, which Rhodes says "is precisely what videogames needed".<ref name="paste 2015-04-20" /> Brendan Keogh of ''[[Overland (magazine)|Overland]]'' stated that Gamergate "does not represent a marginalised, discriminated identity under attack so much as a hegemonic and normative mainstream being forced to redistribute some of its power".<ref name="overland"/>

===Misogyny and sexism===
{{see also|Sexism in video gaming}}

Gamergate has been described as an expression of sexism and misogyny within gaming culture; its main themes are criticism of feminism and so-called "social justice warriors", who are perceived as a threat to traditional video games.{{sfnp|Murray|2018|p=36}}{{sfnp|Nieborg|Foxman|2018|p=114}} Women's greater visibility in the gaming industry has seen a corresponding rise in gendered harassment and intimidation directed at them.{{refn|name=Salter}} Among mainstream journalists, the harassment campaign that became known as Gamergate is considered emblematic of this surge of online misogyny.{{sfnp|Nieborg|Foxman|2018|p=112}} According to Sarah Kaplan of ''[[The Washington Post]]'', "sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem", and became the crux of the Gamergate controversy.<ref name=WaPo /> Jaime Weinman writing in ''[[Maclean's]]'' said, "[w]hether it was supposed to be or not, GamerGate is largely about women".<ref name=Macleans /> Discussing Gamergate on her [[ESPN]] blog, Jane McManus compared the misogyny that women in the gaming industry experience to that faced by the first women entering sporting communities.<ref name="ESPNMcManus" /> Canadian Prime Minister [[Justin Trudeau]] has described Gamergate as "something that we need to stand clearly against".<ref name="IBTimesTrudeauGG" />

Sexism and misogyny had been identified as problems in the video game industry and online community prior to the events of Gamergate.<ref name="gdc misogyny 2012"/><ref name="BostonGlobe Women Outside" /> Sarkeesian considered that the Internet has a "boys'-locker-room feel" to it, with male users trying to show off to each other which causes escalating cases of harassment in situations like Gamergate.<ref name="guardian aug2015"/> In March 2014, game designer [[Cliff Bleszinski]] wrote a blog post commenting on the "latent racism, homophobia and misogyny" that existed within the online gaming community.<ref name="NYTSuellentrop"/> In a November 2014 interview with ''[[Develop (magazine)|Develop]]'', Wu said the game industry "has been a boys' club for 30 years", and that the common portrayal of women as "sex symbols and [[damsel in distress|damsels in distress]]" in video games has led to the players taking the same attitudes.<ref name="develop harassment"/> Brendan Sinclair, writing for ''[[GamesIndustry.biz]]'', stated that the events of the Gamergate controversy were "reprehensible and saddening" and "this industry has some profound issues in the way it treats women".<ref name="gibiz silver lining"/>

Many commentators have said that the harassment associated with Gamergate springs from this existing well of deep-seated misogyny, and that it was merely brought to the fore by the anonymity of the Internet. [[Lisa Nakamura]], a professor of digital studies at the University of Michigan, wrote that Gamergate "showed the world the extent of gaming's misogyny".<ref>Nakamura, quoted in {{harvp|Murray|2018|p=37}}</ref><ref name="Nakamura"/> Regarding the false allegations against Quinn, [[Amanda Marcotte]] in an article for ''[[The Daily Beast]]'' accused the video game world of being "thick with misogynists who are aching to swarm" with hate on any "random woman held up for them to hate, no matter what the pretext". She related these attacks to harassment sent to a woman who criticized a ''[[Teen Titans]]'' cover and to a community manager of the ''[[Mighty No. 9]]'' game because she drew a feminine [[Mega Man (character)|Mega Man]], and virtual rapes committed against women's player avatars in ''[[Grand Theft Auto V]]'' and ''[[DayZ (video game)|DayZ]]''.<ref name="DBMarcotte" /> In an interview with the BBC, Quinn stated that "[b]efore [Gamergate] had a name, it was nothing but trying to get me to kill myself, trying to get people to hurt me, going after my family. [...] There is no mention of ethics in journalism at all outside of making the same accusation everybody makes towards any successful woman; that clearly she got to where she is because she had sex with someone."<ref name="BBCQuinnInterview"/> [[Danielle Citron]] of the [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]] wrote that the intent of this type of harassment is to demean the victim, make them doubt their own integrity, and to redefine the victim's identity in order to "fundamentally distort who she is".<ref name="inc"/>

Targets of Gamergate supporters have overwhelmingly been women, even when men were responsible for the supposed wrongdoings. Writing in ''The New Yorker'', Simon Parkin observed that Quinn was attacked while the male journalist who was falsely accused of reviewing her work favorably largely escaped, revealing the campaign as "a pretense to make further harassment of women in the industry permissible".<ref name="Parkin" /> In ''The New York Times'', Chris Suellentrop said that a petition sought to have a female colleague fired for criticizing the portrayal of women in ''Grand Theft Auto V'', while he and many other male critics raised similar concerns but did not face similar reprisals.<ref name=NYTSuellentrop /> Most commentators have described Gamergate as consisting largely of white males, though some supporters have said that it includes a notable percentage of women, minorities and LGBT members.<ref name="inquisitr" />

Critics of the movement have described it as a kind of misogynistic [[terrorism]].{{sfnp|Jane|2017|p=5}}{{refn|name=Musgrave}} Writing in ''The Week'', Ryan Cooper called the harassment campaign "an online form of terrorism" intended to reverse a trend in gaming culture toward increasing acceptance of women, and stated that social media platforms need to tighten their policies and protections against threats and abuse.<ref name=TheWeek /> Speaking on [[Iowa Public Radio]], academic Cindy Tekobbe said the harassment campaign was intended to drive women from public spaces and intimidate them into silence.<ref name=IPR /> Prof. Joanne St. Lewis of the [[University of Ottawa]] stated that Gamergate's harassment and threats should be considered acts of terrorism as the perpetrators seek to harm women and to prevent them from speaking back or defending others.<ref name="vice 2015-02-13" />

===Law enforcement===

[[File:Katherine clark june 2014.jpg|thumb|left|[[Katherine Clark]], the U.S. Congresswoman from Massachusetts' 5th District, sought to expand the FBI's ability to take action against cyberharassment similar to that faced by Wu.]]

Though ''Newsweek'' reported that the FBI had a file regarding Gamergate, no arrests have been made nor charges filed,<ref name="newsweek FBI" /> and parts of the FBI investigation into the threats had been closed in September 2015 due to a lack of leads.<ref name="verge fbi closed"/> Former FBI supervisory special agent for cybercrimes, Tim Ryan, stated that cyberharassment cases are a low priority for authorities because it is difficult to track down the perpetrator and they have lower penalties compared to other crimes they are tasked to enforce.<ref name="slate 2014-10-17" /> In June 2015, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|US Supreme Court]] ruled in ''[[Elonis v. United States]]'' that harassing messages sent online are not necessarily [[true threat]]s that would be prosecutable under criminal law and, according to ''[[Pacific Standard]]'', this poses a further challenge in policing Gamergate-related harassment.<ref name="psmag 2015-06-04" /> However, the Court's decision also suggested that if threats made over social media were found to be true threats, they should be treated the same as threats made in other forms of communication.<ref name="fastcompany 2015-06-02" />

Wu has expressed her frustration over how law enforcement agencies have responded to the threats that she and other women in the game industry have received.<ref name="ars 2015-05-21" /> On public release of the FBI's case files on Gamergate, Wu said she was "livid", and that "Only a fraction of information we gave the FBI was looked into. They failed on all levels."<ref name="gamesindustyFBIGG" />The lack of legal enforcement contributes towards the harassers' ability to maintain these activities without any risk of punishment, according to Chrisella Herzog of ''[[The Diplomatic Courier]]''; at worst, harassers would see their social media accounts suspended but are able to turn around to register new accounts to continue to engage.<ref name="DipCour"/>

U.S. Representative [[Katherine Clark]], one of whose constituents was Brianna Wu, called for a stronger response from law enforcement to online abuse, partly as a result of advocacy by the women targeted by Gamergate.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|pp=53–54}}<ref name="Merlan"/> On March 10, 2015, Clark wrote a letter to the [[House Appropriations Committee]] asking it to call on the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] to crack down on the harassment of women on the internet, saying the campaign of intimidation associated with Gamergate had highlighted the problem.<ref name="clark 2015-03-10" /><ref name="verge 2015-03-11" /> She asked the U.S. Department of Justice to "prioritize" online threats against women, saying, "We do not think this a harmless hoax. We think this has real-life implications for women".<ref name="Merlan"/> Clark also hosted a Congressional briefing on March 15, along with the Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus to review issues of cyberstalking and online threats; during the briefing, Quinn spoke of her experiences with Gamergate, which an executive director of the [[National Coalition Against Domestic Violence]] described during the hearing as "an online hate group [...] which was started by an ex-boyfriend to ruin [Quinn's] life".<ref name="polygon 2015-04-21" /> On May 27, the [[United States House of Representatives]] formally supported Clark's request for increased measures to combat online abuse against women, explicitly pressing for more investigations and prosecutions by the Department of Justice.<ref name="wgbh 2015-06-01" /><ref name="Salon 2015-05-29" /> On June 2, Rep. Clark introduced the "Prioritizing Online Threat Enforcement Act of 2015" to Congress. The bill would have allocated more funding for the FBI to employ additional agents to enforce laws against [[cyberstalking]], online criminal harassment, and threats.<ref name="metrowest 2015-06-04" /><ref name="H.R.2602" /><ref name="wapo 2015-06-07" /> Two years later, in June 2017, Rep. Clark introduced the "Online Safety Modernization Act of 2017" with co-sponsors Reps. [[Susan Brooks]] (Indiana) and [[Pat Meehan]] (Pennsylvania), which combined several of Clark's previous bills. The bill focused on penalizing "cybercrimes against individuals", including doxing, swatting, and [[sextortion]], as well as granting $20 million for law enforcement training to help tackle such crimes, and $4 million to establish the National Resource Center on Cybercrimes Against Individuals in order to study and collect statistics and information related to these crimes.<ref name="verge 2017-06-29"/><ref name="clark hr__2017"/>

{{clear}}

==Gaming industry response==

The harassment of Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, and others led prominent industry professionals to condemn the Gamergate attacks for damaging the video gaming community and the public perception of the industry.<ref name="Straumsheim2015" /><ref name="newsweek 2015-05-31" /> ''[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]''{{'}}s Laura Parker stated that the Gamergate situation led those outside of the video game industry to be "flooded with evidence of the video-game community as a poisonous and unwelcoming place", furthering any negative views they may have had of video games.<ref name="vanityfair 2015-08-04" /> Independent game developer Andreas Zecher wrote an open letter calling upon the community to take a stand against the attacks, attracting the signatures of more than two thousand professionals within the gaming industry.<ref name=BBC /><ref name=LATimes /> Many in the industry saw the signatures "as proof that the people sending vicious attacks at Quinn and Sarkeesian weren't representative of the video game industry overall".<ref name=NPR /> Writing for ''The Guardian'', Jenn Frank described the tactics used in the harassment campaign and the [[climate of fear]] it generated through its attacks on women and their allies, concluding that this alienating and abusive environment would harm not only women but also the industry as a whole.<ref name=GuardianJF /> Frank herself received significant harassment for writing this article, and announced an intention to quit games journalism as a result.<ref name=Vox /> Games designer Damion Schubert wrote that Gamergate was "an unprecedented {{sic|catastrof**k}}", and that silencing critiques of games harms games developers by depriving them of feedback.<ref name="EscapistSchubertInterview"/> Several video game developers, journalists, and gamers from across various gender, racial, and social backgrounds adopted new Twitter hashtags, such as #INeedDiverseGames, #StopGamergate2014 and #GamersAgainstGamergate, to show solidarity with the people targeted by the harassment and their opposition to the reactionary messages from Gamergate supporters.<ref name="salon 2014-12-23" /><ref name="Evans, Janish 2015" />

The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] characterized Gamergate as a "magnet for harassment", and notes the possible financial risk for companies dealing with it on social media platforms.<ref name="eff 2015-01-08" /> The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) issued a statement condemning the harassment, stating that "[t]here is no place in the video game community—or our society—for personal attacks and threats".<ref name="wapost esa" /> ESA president Mike Gallagher, speaking at the June 2015 Electronic Entertainment Expo, clarified that the ESA did not become more involved as they felt it was an argument that was outside their industry and their involvement would have been disruptive, but praised the efforts to counter harassment that will benefit the industry in the future.<ref name="gamasutra 2015-06-14" /> At [[BlizzCon]] 2014, [[Blizzard Entertainment]] president and co-founder [[Mike Morhaime]] denounced recent harassment; blaming a "small group of people [who] have been doing really awful things" and "tarnishing our reputation" as gamers. He called on attendees to treat each other with kindness and demonstrate to the world that the community rejects harassment. His statements were widely interpreted as referring to Gamergate.<ref name=CNet /><ref name=joystiqblizzcon /><ref name=PCGamerMM /> CEOs of both the American and European branches of [[Sony Computer Entertainment]], [[Shawn Layden]] and Jim Ryan respectively, said the harassment and bullying were absolutely horrific and that such inappropriate behavior would not be tolerated at Sony.<ref name="ibtimes 2015-02-23" /><ref name="sony response" /><ref name="venture sony" /> The Swedish Games Industry issued a statement denouncing the harassment and sexism from Gamergate supporters.<ref name="GuardianQvist" />

Responses to Gamergate have encouraged the video game industry to review its treatment of women and minorities, and to make changes to support them.<ref name="wapo 3 women" /><ref name="Slate GG2014" /><ref name="nightline"/><ref name="fortune august2015"/> Intel, following its accidental involvement in Gamergate, pledged more than $300 million to help support a "Diversity in Technology" program with partners including Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency organization and the IGDA, aimed at increasing the number of women and minorities in the industry. Intel CEO [[Brian Krzanich]] stated in announcing the program that "it's not good enough to say we value diversity, and then have our industry not fully represent".<ref name="Polygon Intel"/><ref name="NYTimes Intel" /><ref name="wired 2015-01-07" /> [[Electronic Arts]] (EA) COO [[Peter Moore (businessman)|Peter Moore]] said the controversy made EA pay more attention to diversity and inclusion, telling ''[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]'' "[i]f there's been any benefit to Gamergate, [...] I think it just makes us think twice at times".<ref name="fortune 2015-09-04" /> Speaking about Gamergate harassment to the ''[[Seattle Times]]'', [[IGDA]] executive director Kate Edwards said, "Gaming culture has been pretty misogynistic for a long time now. There's ample evidence of that over and over again... What we're finally seeing is that it became so egregious that now companies are starting to wake up and say, "We need to stop this. This has got to change."<ref name="seattletimes"/>

The [[Electronic Entertainment Expo]] 2015 included markedly more female protagonists in these new games, as well as more visible presence by women at the event. Some commentators characterized this as a response to Gamergate and a rejection of the misogynistic Gamergate harassment.<ref name="RepresentationStrides" /><ref name="GamergateFail" /><ref name="BadassCharacters" /><ref name="IBTBatman" />

The game ''[[Batman: Arkham Knight]]'' references Gamergate with hashtag, #CrusaderGate, which the [[Riddler]] uses to unsuccessfully try to rally the Internet against Batman; bemoaning its failure, the Riddler describes those who use the hashtag as "idiotic and easily roused rabble".<ref name="ArkhamKnightPolygon"/><ref name="IBTBatman" />

==Gamergate representation in media==
"[[Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 16)#Episodes|Intimidation Game]]", an episode of the crime television series ''[[Law & Order: Special Victims Unit]]'', portrays a fictionalized version of the Gamergate controversy, including a character whom some observers said resembled Sarkeesian and whose story seemed based on those of women subject to the harassment campaign.<ref name="ars 2015-02-12" /><ref name="washingtonpost 2015-02-12" /> The 2015 documentary film ''[[GTFO (film)|GTFO]]'' analyzed issues of sexism and harassment in video gaming. The film's director, Shannon Sun-Higginson, stated Gamergate was "a terrible, terrible thing, but it's actually symptomatic of a wider, cultural, systemic problem".<ref name="nytimes 2015-03-08"/><ref name="LATimes 2015-03-13" /> The Gamergate situation was covered as part of a larger topic of online harassment of women in the June 21, 2015, episode of ''[[Last Week Tonight with John Oliver]]''.<ref name="time 2015-06-22" /> The impact of the Gamergate controversy on Brianna Wu was the subject of the March 16, 2016, episode of ''[[The Internet Ruined My Life]]''.<ref name="cnnmoney 2016-03-16" />

==Reducing online harassment==

In January 2015, Quinn and Alex Lifschitz created the [[Crash Override Network]], a private group of experts who provide free support and counsel to those that have been harassed online, including as a result of Gamergate, and to work with law authorities and social media sites in response to such threats.<ref name="CSM 2015-01-20"/><ref name="Verge 2015-01-17" /> Software developer Randi Harper founded a similar group, the [[Online Abuse Prevention Initiative]], a non-profit organization that also seeks to provide aid to those harassed online.<ref name="guardian 2016-04-13" />

Anita Sarkeesian was named as one of ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine's list of the 30 most influential people on the Internet in March 2015, and later in the magazine's Top 100 Most Influential People of 2015, in recognition of her role in highlighting sexism in the video game community in the wake of the Gamergate controversy.{{sfnp|Salter|2017|pp=53–54}}<ref name="time 2015-03-05" /><ref name="time 2015-04-16" /> She was also highlighted as one of ''[[Cosmopolitan (magazine)|Cosmopolitan]]''{{'}}s fifty "Internet's Most Fascinating" in a 2015 list due to her efforts to curb online harassment.<ref name="cosmo"/>

An on-line abuse panel (itself the subject of controversy) at the 2016 [[SXSW]] festival said that there was no technological solution to the problem of harassment given human nature;<ref name="SXSW On-Line Harassment Panel" /> although policy changes have been made, the larger issue is more societal than platform-specific.<ref name="engadetSXSWSummit" /><ref name="RecodeSXSWSummit" /> Referring to the discussion at SXSW in a speech for [[Women's History Month]], [[President of the United States]] [[Barack Obama]] said that "We know that women gamers face harassment and stalking and threats of violence from other players. When they speak out about their experiences, they're attacked on Twitter and other social media outlets, even threatened in their homes."<ref name="obama" /> Obama urged targets of harassment to speak out, praising the courage of those who had resisted online harassment. "And what's brought these issues to light is that there are a lot of women out there, especially young women, who are speaking out bravely about their experiences, even when they know they'll be attacked for it".<ref name="obama"/><ref name="dailydot 2016-03-18"/>

==See also==
* [[Digital Games Research Association]]

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist|30em|refs=

<ref name="Parkin">{{cite web|url=http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest |title=Zoe Quinn's Depression Quest |first=Simon |last=Parkin |date=September 9, 2014 |accessdate=September 15, 2014 |work=[[The New Yorker]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140913190908/http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest |archivedate=September 13, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=Escapist4chan>{{cite web|url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137293-Exclusive-Zoe-Quinn-Posts-Chat-Logs-Debunking-GamerGate-4Chan-and-Quinn-Respond |title=Exclusive: 4Chan and Quinn Respond to Gamergate Chat Logs |last=Tito |first=Greg |work=[[The Escapist (magazine)|The Escapist]] |date=September 7, 2014 |accessdate=September 14, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140910220217/http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137293-Exclusive-Zoe-Quinn-Posts-Chat-Logs-Debunking-GamerGate-4Chan-and-Quinn-Respond |archivedate=September 10, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=WaPo>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/12/with-gamergate-the-video-game-industrys-growing-pains-go-viral/ |title=With #GamerGate, the video-game industry's growing pains go viral |first=Sarah |last=Kaplan |date=September 12, 2014 |accessdate=September 14, 2014 |work=[[The Washington Post]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140913163556/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/12/with-gamergate-the-video-game-industrys-growing-pains-go-viral/ |archivedate=September 13, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=dot>{{cite web|last1=Romano |first1=Aja |title=The sexist crusade to destroy game developer Zoe Quinn |url=http://www.dailydot.com/geek/zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal/ |work=[[The Daily Dot]] |date=August 20, 2014 |accessdate=September 2, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140902230229/http://www.dailydot.com/geek/zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal/ |archivedate=September 2, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wapost 8chan">{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/13/this-is-what-happens-when-you-create-an-online-community-without-any-rules/ |title=This is what happens when you create an online community without any rules |work=The Washington Post |first=Caitlin |last=Dewey |date=January 13, 2015 |accessdate=January 13, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150113222648/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/13/this-is-what-happens-when-you-create-an-online-community-without-any-rules/ |archivedate=January 13, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=BI>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/fed-up-game-developers-sign-open-letter-2014-9 |title=Game Developers Are Finally Stepping Up To Change Their Hate-Filled Industry |first1=Karyne |last1=Levy |work=[[Business Insider]] |date=September 2, 2014 |accessdate=September 7, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140905042227/http://www.businessinsider.com/fed-up-game-developers-sign-open-letter-2014-9 |archivedate=September 5, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Johnston September 2014">{{cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/ |title=Chat logs show how 4chan users created #GamerGate controversy |work=[[Ars Technica]] |date=September 9, 2014 |first=Casey |last=Johnston |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140913121615/http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/ |archivedate=September 13, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=Vox>{{cite web|last1=VanDerWerff |first1=Todd |title=#GamerGate: Here's why everybody in the video game world is fighting |url=https://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting |work=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] |accessdate=December 19, 2014 |date=October 13, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141218162300/http://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting |archivedate=December 18, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=Time>{{cite news|url=http://time.com/3274247/video-game-culture-war/ |title=Sexism, Lies, and Video Games: The Culture War Nobody Is Winning |last=Alexander |first=Leigh |authorlink=Leigh Alexander (journalist) |work=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=September 5, 2014 |accessdate=September 7, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140907004104/https://time.com/3274247/video-game-culture-war/ |archivedate=September 7, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=LATimes>{{cite web|url=http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/gamergate-related-controversy-reveals-ugly-side-of-gaming-community/ |title=Hero Complex: Gamergate-related controversy reveals ugly side of gaming community |last=Martens |first=Todd |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=September 6, 2014 |accessdate=September 7, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140906205443/http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/gamergate-related-controversy-reveals-ugly-side-of-gaming-community/ |archivedate=September 6, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=BBC>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29028236 |title=Gamers take a stand against misogyny after death threats |last=Rawlinson |first=Kevin |publisher=[[BBC News]] |date=September 2, 2014 |accessdate=September 7, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140907195908/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29028236 |archivedate=September 7, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=DailyDot>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailydot.com/geek/zoe-quinn-outs-4chan-behind-gamergate/ |title=Zoe Quinn claims 4chan was behind GamerGate the whole time |last=Romano |first=Aja |work=The Daily Dot |date=September 6, 2014 |accessdate=September 7, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140907080614/http://www.dailydot.com/geek/zoe-quinn-outs-4chan-behind-gamergate/ |archivedate=September 7, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="gs fish">{{cite web|url=http://www.gamespot.com/articles/phil-fish-selling-rights-to-fez-after-being-hacked/1100-6421882/ |title=Phil Fish Selling Rights to Fez After Being Hacked |work=[[GameSpot]] |publisher=[[CBS Interactive]] |date=August 23, 2014 |accessdate=September 6, 2014 |first=Emanuel |last=Maiberg |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140902025359/http://www.gamespot.com/articles/phil-fish-selling-rights-to-fez-after-being-hacked/1100-6421882/ |archivedate=September 2, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=GuardianJF>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/01/how-to-attack-a-woman-who-works-in-video-games |title=How to attack a woman who works in video gaming |first=Jenn |last=Frank |work=The Guardian |date=September 1, 2014 |accessdate=September 18, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140917083214/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/01/how-to-attack-a-woman-who-works-in-video-games |archivedate=September 17, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="EscapistSchubertInterview">{{cite interview|url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12390-Damion-Schubert-GamerGate-Interview |title="Damion Schubert" GamerGate Interview |last=Schubert |first=Damion |interviewer= |date=October 10, 2014 |work=The Escapist |accessdate=December 21, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141222091440/http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12390-Damion-Schubert-GamerGate-Interview |archivedate=December 22, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="telegraph">{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11082629/Gamergate-Misogyny-death-threats-and-a-mob-of-angry-trolls-Inside-the-dark-world-of-video-games.html |title=Misogyny, death threats and a mob of trolls: Inside the dark world of video games with Zoe Quinn — target of #GamerGate |first=Radhika |last=Sanghani |date=September 10, 2014 |accessdate=September 14, 2014 |work=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140913224532/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11082629/Gamergate-Misogyny-death-threats-and-a-mob-of-angry-trolls-Inside-the-dark-world-of-video-games.html |archivedate=September 13, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="TheStar">{{cite web|url=https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/07/10/gamer_campaign_against_anita_sarkeesian_catches_toronto_feminist_in_crossfire.html |work=[[Toronto Star]] |title=Gamer campaign against Anita Sarkeesian catches Toronto feminist in crossfire |first=Katherine |last=Fernandez-Blance |date=July 10, 2012 |accessdate=September 10, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140917052214/http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/07/10/gamer_campaign_against_anita_sarkeesian_catches_toronto_feminist_in_crossfire.html |archivedate=September 17, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="TorontoExclusive">{{cite web|url=http://www.torontostandard.com/technology/exclusive-anita-sarkeesian-responds-to-beat-up-game-online-harassment-and-stephanie-guthries-death-threats |publisher=[[Toronto Standard]] |title=Exclusive: Anita Sarkeesian Responds to Beat Up Game, Online Harassment, and Death Threats on Stephanie Guthrie |first=Sheena |last=Lyonnais |date=July 10, 2012 |accessdate=September 10, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131125223738/http://www.torontostandard.com/technology/exclusive-anita-sarkeesian-responds-to-beat-up-game-online-harassment-and-stephanie-guthries-death-threats |archivedate=November 25, 2013 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=PolygonFBI>{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/4/6105185/fbi-game-developer-harassment |title=FBI working with game developer association to combat online harassment |first=Brian |last=Crecente |date=September 4, 2014 |accessdate=September 15, 2014 |work=[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140908004144/http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/4/6105185/fbi-game-developer-harassment |archivedate=September 8, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=VoxConfuse>{{cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/15/6149965/gamergate-explained-short |title=The confusion around #GamerGate explained, in three short paragraphs |date=September 15, 2014 |accessdate=September 15, 2014 |first=Todd |last=VanDerWerff |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140917040345/http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/9/15/6149965/gamergate-explained-short |archivedate=September 17, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=VergeXOXO>{{cite web|last=Newton |first=Casey |url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/13/6145169/anita-sarkeesian-shares-the-most-radical-thing-you-can-do-to-support |title=Anita Sarkeesian shares the most radical thing you can do to support women online |date=September 13, 2014 |work=[[The Verge]] |accessdate=September 15, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140915030154/http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/13/6145169/anita-sarkeesian-shares-the-most-radical-thing-you-can-do-to-support |archivedate=September 15, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="gamesindustry women">{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-24-women-increasing-representation-among-us-gamers-esa |title=Women increasing representation among US gamers—ESA |work=[[GamesIndustry.biz]] |date=April 24, 2014 |accessdate=January 8, 2015 |first=Brendan |last=Sinclair |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150110213740/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-24-women-increasing-representation-among-us-gamers-esa |archivedate=January 10, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=goldman>{{cite news|url=http://www.onthemedia.org/story/my-attempt-write-about-gamergate/ |title=My Attempt To Write About "Gamergate" |first=Alex |last=Goldman |work=[[On the Media]] |publisher=[[WNYC]] |accessdate=September 15, 2014 |date=September 5, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140916104005/http://www.onthemedia.org/story/my-attempt-write-about-gamergate/ |archivedate=September 16, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=Vice>{{cite news|last1=Ringo |first1=Allegra |title=Meet the Female Gamer Mascot Born of Anti-Feminist Internet Drama |url=https://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-female-gamer-mascot-created-by-anti-feminists-828 |accessdate=September 16, 2014 |work=[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]] |date=August 28, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114083321/http://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-female-gamer-mascot-created-by-anti-feminists-828 |archivedate=January 14, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=ViceQuinn>{{cite web|url=https://www.vice.com/read/we-talked-to-zoe-quinn-about-whats-next-for-the-gaming-world-999 |title=Zoe Quinn Told Us What Being Targeted By Every Troll in the World Feels Like |first=Mike |last=Pearl |work=Vice |date=September 12, 2014 |accessdate=September 21, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140920221218/http://www.vice.com/read/we-talked-to-zoe-quinn-about-whats-next-for-the-gaming-world-999 |archivedate=September 20, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=Plunkett>{{cite news|last1=Plunkett |first1=Luke |title=We Might Be Witnessing The 'Death of An Identity' |url=http://kotaku.com/we-might-be-witnessing-the-death-of-an-identity-1628203079 |accessdate=September 22, 2014 |work=Kotaku |date=August 28, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140920224947/http://kotaku.com/we-might-be-witnessing-the-death-of-an-identity-1628203079 |archivedate=September 20, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Johnston August 2014">{{cite news |last=Johnston |first=Casey |title=The death of the "gamers" and the women who "killed" them |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-death-of-the-gamers-and-the-women-who-killed-them/ |accessdate=September 22, 2014 |work=Ars Technica |date=August 28, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140920200435/http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/08/the-death-of-the-gamers-and-the-women-who-killed-them/ |archivedate=September 20, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="ars swatting">{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/8chan-tries-swatting-gamergate-critic-sends-cops-to-an-old-address/ |title=8chan user offers to "swat" GamerGate critic, cops sent to an old address |first=Nathan |last=Mattise |date=January 4, 2015 |accessdate=January 13, 2015 |work=Ars Technica |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150112210635/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/8chan-tries-swatting-gamergate-critic-sends-cops-to-an-old-address/ |archivedate=January 12, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="guardian swatting">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/13/gamergate-hits-new-low-with-attempts-to-send-swat-teams-to-critics |title=Gamergate hits new low with attempts to send Swat teams to critics |work=The Guardian |date=January 13, 2015 |accessdate=January 13, 2015 |first=Alex |last=Hern |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150113170700/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/13/gamergate-hits-new-low-with-attempts-to-send-swat-teams-to-critics |archivedate=January 13, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=MetalEater2>{{cite web|url=http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/the-darker-side-of-gamergate |title=The Darker Side of GamerGate |last=Kerzner |first=Liana |work=MetalEater |date=September 29, 2014 |accessdate=September 30, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141003170400/http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/the-darker-side-of-gamergate |archivedate=October 3, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=TheWeek>{{cite web|last=Cooper |first=Ryan |url=http://theweek.com/article/index/267333/how-to-stop-misogynists-from-terrorizing-the-world-of-gamers |title=How to stop misogynists from terrorizing the world of gamers |work=[[The Week]] |date=September 2, 2014 |accessdate=October 1, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140930192756/http://theweek.com/article/index/267333/how-to-stop-misogynists-from-terrorizing-the-world-of-gamers |archivedate=September 30, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=IPR>{{cite web|last1=Kieffer |first1=Ben |last2=Woodbury |first2=Emily |url=http://iowapublicradio.org/post/engaging-gamergate-there-fear-going-it-woman |title=Engaging in #GamerGate: "There is that fear going into it, as a woman" |work=[[Iowa Public Radio]] |date=September 30, 2014 |accessdate=October 1, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141004055950/http://iowapublicradio.org/post/engaging-gamergate-there-fear-going-it-woman |archivedate=October 4, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=FishPaste>{{cite news|last1=Vorel |first1=Jim |title=Fez Creator Phil Fish and Polytron Corporation Hacked, Doxxed |url=http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/08/fez-creator-phil-fish-and-polytron-corporation-hac-1.html |accessdate=October 2, 2014 |work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]] |publisher=[[Wolfgang's Vault]] |date=August 22, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006084021/http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/08/fez-creator-phil-fish-and-polytron-corporation-hac-1.html |archivedate=October 6, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=DailyFish>{{cite news|last1=Romano |first1=Aja |title=4chan hacks and doxes Zoe Quinn's biggest supporter |url=http://www.dailydot.com/geek/4chan-hacks-phil-fish-over-his-defense-of-zoe-quinn/ |accessdate=October 2, 2014 |work=The Daily Dot |date=August 22, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006101042/http://www.dailydot.com/geek/4chan-hacks-phil-fish-over-his-defense-of-zoe-quinn/ |archivedate=October 6, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=NPR>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/24/349835297/-gamergate-controversy-fuels-debate-on-women-and-video-games |title=#Gamergate Controversy Fuels Debate on Women And Video Games |first=Nate |last=Rott |date=September 24, 2014 |accessdate=September 25, 2014 |work=[[All Things Considered]] |publisher=[[NPR]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140924215349/http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/24/349835297/-gamergate-controversy-fuels-debate-on-women-and-video-games |archivedate=September 24, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=DBMarcotte>{{cite news|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/gaming-misogyny-gets-infinite-lives-zoe-quinn-virtual-rape-and-sexism.html |title=Gaming Misogyny Gets Infinite Lives: Zoe Quinn, Virtual Rape, and Sexism |newspaper=The Daily Beast |publisher=The Newsweek Daily Beast Company |last=Marcotte |first=Amanda |date=August 22, 2014 |accessdate=October 2, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141007021843/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/22/gaming-misogyny-gets-infinite-lives-zoe-quinn-virtual-rape-and-sexism.html |archivedate=October 7, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="GIBizIntel">{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-10-03-game-devs-urge-you-to-write-intel-in-response-to-gamergate |title=Game devs urge you to write Intel in response to #GamerGate |first=James |last=Brightman |date=October 3, 2014 |accessdate=October 3, 2014 |work=GamesIndustry.biz |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141005194225/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-10-03-game-devs-urge-you-to-write-intel-in-response-to-gamergate |archivedate=October 5, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="VergeIntelStatement">{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/3/6906025/intel-issues-apology-after-backlash-from-gamergate-opponents |title=Intel issues apology after backlash from #GamerGate opponents |work=The Verge |date=October 3, 2014 |accessdate=October 3, 2014 |first=Kwame |last=Opam |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141004075640/http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/3/6906025/intel-issues-apology-after-backlash-from-gamergate-opponents |archivedate=October 4, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Ryan Cooper Week">{{cite web|url=http://theweek.com/article/index/269377/intels-awful-capitulation-to-gamergates-sexist-thugs |title=Intel's awful capitulation to #gamergate's sexist thugs |first=Ryan |last=Cooper |date=October 7, 2014 |accessdate=October 9, 2014 |work=The Week |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141008233018/http://theweek.com/article/index/269377/intels-awful-capitulation-to-gamergates-sexist-thugs |archivedate=October 8, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="nytimes usu threat">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html |title=Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in 'GamerGate' Campaign |first=Nick |last=Wingfield |date=October 15, 2014 |accessdate=October 24, 2014 |work=[[The New York Times]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024104532/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html |archivedate=October 24, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="metro what is gg">{{cite news|url=http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/15/gamergate-what-is-it-and-why-are-gamers-so-angry-4907102/ |title=GamerGate – what is it, and why are gamers so angry? |first=Rob |last=Waugh |date=October 15, 2014 |accessdate=October 24, 2014 |work=[[Metro (British newspaper)|Metro]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141022171558/http://metro.co.uk/2014/10/15/gamergate-what-is-it-and-why-are-gamers-so-angry-4907102/ |archivedate=October 22, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Ip 2014">{{cite news |url=http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/gamergate.php |title=How do we know what we know about #Gamergate? |work=[[Columbia Journalism Review]] |date=October 23, 2014 |first=Chris |last=Ip |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024081152/http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/gamergate.php |archivedate=October 24, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="AnitaUSUCNN">{{cite web|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/index.html |title=Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah State speech after threat |last1=Ahmed |first1=Saeed |first2=Tony |last2=Marco |date=October 15, 2014 |publisher=[[CNN]] |accessdate=October 25, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141019070251/http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/tech/utah-anita-sarkeesian-threat/index.html |archivedate=October 19, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=AnitaUSUBBC>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29626809 |title=Feminist video-games talk cancelled after massacre threat |publisher=BBC News |last=Kelion |first=Leo |date=October 15, 2014 |accessdate=October 25, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030164224/http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29626809 |archivedate=October 30, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=USUthreat>{{cite web|last1=Albrecht |first1=Stan L. |last2=Cockett |first2=Noelle |title=Letter from USU President Albrecht and Provost Cockett |url=http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180 |publisher=[[Utah State University]] |accessdate=February 3, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203055601/http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180 |archivedate=February 3, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=HJFBI>{{cite news|last=Opsahl |first=Kevin |url=http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/usu-awaits-fbi-report-on-sarkeesian-death-threat/article_87f4d88c-8332-11e4-80f4-5f738c57bca5.html |title=USU awaits FBI report on Sarkeesian death threat |work=[[The Herald Journal]] |location=Logan, Utah |date=December 13, 2014 |accessdate=January 5, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141222091422/http://news.hjnews.com/allaccess/usu-awaits-fbi-report-on-sarkeesian-death-threat/article_87f4d88c-8332-11e4-80f4-5f738c57bca5.html |archivedate=December 22, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="pcmag about gg">{{cite web|url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470723,00.asp |title=Everything You Never Wanted to Know About GamerGate |first=Chandra |last=Steele |date=October 21, 2014 |accessdate=October 24, 2014 |work=[[PC Magazine]] |publisher=[[Ziff Davis]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141023193242/http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2C2817%2C2470723%2C00.asp |archivedate=October 23, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=WuBoston>{{cite news|last=Caesar |first=Chris |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/10/11/video-game-developer-twitter-rape-death-threats-forced-from-home/FjC4cjeqwEDxWFeeVpyWSP/story.html |title=Video Game Developer: Twitter Rape, Death Threats Forced Me From Home |work=[[The Boston Globe]] |date=October 11, 2014 |accessdate=October 25, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141020162246/http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/10/11/video-game-developer-twitter-rape-death-threats-forced-from-home/FjC4cjeqwEDxWFeeVpyWSP/story.html |archivedate=October 20, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=DayGuardian>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate |title=Felicia Day's public details put online after she described Gamergate fears |first=Alex |last=Hern |work=The Guardian |accessdate=October 25, 2014 |date=October 23, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024184623/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate |archivedate=October 24, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=DayTime>{{cite news|url=http://time.com/3535619/felicia-day-writes-about-gamergate-gets-information-hacked/ |title=Felicia Day Writes About #GamerGate, Gets Information Hacked |first=Eliana |last=Dockterman |work=Time |date=October 23, 2014 |accessdate=October 25, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024235109/http://time.com/3535619/felicia-day-writes-about-gamergate-gets-information-hacked/ |archivedate=October 24, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=waposuccess>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/20/inside-gamergates-successful-attack-on-the-media/ |title=Inside Gamergate's (successful) attack on the media |work=The Washington Post |last=Dewey |first=Caitlin |date=October 20, 2014 |accessdate=October 25, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024234720/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/20/inside-gamergates-successful-attack-on-the-media/ |archivedate=October 24, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Singal September 2014">{{cite news |last=Singal |first=Jesse |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/09/20/gaming-summer-rage/VNMeHYTc5ZKoBixYHzi1JL/story.html |title=Gaming's summer of rage |work=The Boston Globe |date=September 20, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140924062400/http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/09/20/gaming-summer-rage/VNMeHYTc5ZKoBixYHzi1JL/story.html |archivedate=September 24, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Singal October 2014">{{cite magazine |url=http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html |title=Gamergate Should Stop Lying to Itself |last=Singal |first=Jesse |date=October 20, 2014 |magazine=[[New York (magazine)|New York]] |accessdate=October 25, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141023061146/http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html |archivedate=October 23, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=TeleStuart>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11180510/gamergate-misogynist-felicia-day-zoe-quinn-brianna-wu.html |title=#GamerGate: the misogynist movement blighting the video games industry — Telegraph |last=Stuart |first=Bob |date=October 24, 2014 |work=The Daily Telegraph |accessdate=October 25, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141025064836/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11180510/gamergate-misogynist-felicia-day-zoe-quinn-brianna-wu.html |archivedate=October 25, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wapost esa">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/15/the-game-industrys-top-trade-group-just-spoke-out-against-gamergate/ |title=The game industry's top trade group just spoke out against Gamergate |first=Hayley |last=Tsukayama |date=October 15, 2014 |accessdate=October 24, 2014 |work=The Washington Post |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024234742/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/15/the-game-industrys-top-trade-group-just-spoke-out-against-gamergate/ |archivedate=October 24, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=NYTSuellentrop>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/the-disheartening-gamergate-campaign.html |title=Can Video Games Survive? The Disheartening GamerGate Campaign |last=Suellentrop |first=Chris |date=October 26, 2014 |work=The New York Times |accessdate=October 25, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141026062144/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/the-disheartening-gamergate-campaign.html |archivedate=October 26, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="right wing">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance |title=Gamergate's vicious right-wing swell means there can be no neutral stance |last=Stone |first=Jon |date=October 13, 2014 |work=The Guardian |accessdate=October 26, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141026225832/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance |archivedate=October 26, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="OTMGrant">{{cite news|url=http://www.onthemedia.org/story/codemning-gamergate/ |title=Condemning #GamerGate |last=Garfield |first=Bob |author-link=Bob Garfield |work=On The Media |date=October 24, 2014 |access-date=October 27, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141027125640/http://www.onthemedia.org/story/codemning-gamergate/ |archivedate=October 27, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=GJPresponse>{{cite news|last1=Orland |first1=Kyle |title=Addressing allegations of "collusion" among gaming journalists |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/ |work=Ars Technica |date=September 18, 2014 |accessdate=October 28, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141029142528/http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/ |archivedate=October 29, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=Tsukayama>{{cite news|last1=Tsukayama |first1=Hayley |title=How some Gamergate supporters say the controversy could stop 'in one week' |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/ |accessdate=October 28, 2014 |work=The Washington Post |date=October 24, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141028014714/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/24/how-some-gamergate-supporters-say-the-controversy-could-stop-in-one-week/ |archivedate=October 28, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=Codd>{{cite news|last1=Codd|first1=Matthew|title=Gamergate supporter receives death threats|url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/games/62442166/gamergate-supporter-receives-death-threats.html|accessdate=October 28, 2014|publisher=[[Stuff.co.nz]]|date=October 15, 2014}}</ref>

<ref name=Diver>{{cite news|last1=Diver |first1=Mike |title=GamerGate Hate Affects Both Sides, So How About We End It? |url=https://www.vice.com/read/gamergate-hate-affects-both-sides-so-how-about-we-end-it |accessdate=October 28, 2014 |work=Vice |date=October 20, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141024043235/http://www.vice.com/read/gamergate-hate-affects-both-sides-so-how-about-we-end-it |archivedate=October 24, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Newsweek Brandwatch">{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736 |title=Is GamerGate About Media Ethics or Harassing Women? Harassment, the Data Shows |first=Taylor |last=Wofford |date=October 25, 2014 |accessdate=October 28, 2014 |work=[[Newsweek]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141028033210/http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736 |archivedate=October 28, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=GGJargon>{{cite news|last1=Johnson |first1=Eric |title=Understanding the Jargon of Gamergate |url=http://recode.net/2014/10/10/understanding-the-jargon-of-gamergate/ |accessdate=October 28, 2014 |publisher=Re/code |date=October 10, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160102031743/http://recode.net/2014/10/10/understanding-the-jargon-of-gamergate/ |archivedate=January 2, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=FudgeResponse>{{cite news|last1=Fudge|first1=James|title=Editorial: The Truth About GamerGate and GameJournoPros|url=http://gamepolitics.com/2014/10/15/editorial-truth-about-gamergate-and-gamejournpros/|accessdate=September 5, 2015|work=[[Gamepolitics.com]]|publisher=[[Entertainment Consumers Association]]|date=October 15, 2014|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141018000843/http://www.gamepolitics.com/2014/10/15/editorial-truth-about-gamergate-and-gamejournpros|archivedate=October 18, 2014|dead-url=yes}}</ref>

<ref name="bbc gg condemned">{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29821050 |title=Zoe Quinn: GamerGate must be condemned |first=Dave |last=Lee |date=October 30, 2014 |accessdate=October 30, 2014 |publisher=BBC |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030002347/http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29821050 |archivedate=October 30, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=BBCQuinnInterview>{{cite interview|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29821050 |title=Zoe Quinn: GamerGate must be condemned |publisher=BBC News |accessdate=October 31, 2014 |date=October 29, 2014 |last=Quinn |first=Zoë |interviewer=Dave Lee |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030184058/http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29821050 |archivedate=October 30, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=VergeDay>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/23/7047647/felicia-day-response-shows-why-good-gamergate-is-still-hurting-people |title=Gamergate can't stop being about harassment |last=Robertson |first=Adi |date=October 23, 2014 |work=The Verge |accessdate=October 31, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030120827/http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/23/7047647/felicia-day-response-shows-why-good-gamergate-is-still-hurting-people |archivedate=October 30, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=BBC1>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29642313 |title=Twitter and the poisoning of online debate |publisher=BBC News |date=October 16, 2014 |last=Cellan-Jones |first=Rory |accessdate=October 31, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030164220/http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29642313 |archivedate=October 30, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=VoxLose>{{cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/7044593/gamergate |title=#GamerGate has won a few battles. It will lose the war.—Vox |date=October 23, 2014 |work=Vox |last=VanDerWerff |first=Todd |accessdate=October 31, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141101045959/http://www.vox.com/2014/10/23/7044593/gamergate |archivedate=November 1, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=WiredHudson>{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2014/10/the-secret-about-gamergate-is-that-it-cant-stop-progress/ |title=Gamergate Goons Can Scream All They Want, But They Can't Stop Progress – Wired |journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |date=October 21, 2014 |last=Hudson |first=Laura |accessdate=October 31, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141030095626/http://www.wired.com/2014/10/the-secret-about-gamergate-is-that-it-cant-stop-progress |archivedate=October 30, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=WaPoRosenberg>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/10/29/gamergate-reopens-the-debate-over-video-games-as-art/ |title=Gamergate reopens the debate over video games as art |work=The Washington Post |date=October 29, 2014 |last=Rosenberg |first=Alyssa |accessdate=October 31, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141029161429/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/10/29/gamergate-reopens-the-debate-over-video-games-as-art/ |archivedate=October 29, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=Colbert>{{cite web|url=http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/video-playlists/j0zpbx/the-colbert-report-11015-highlights/wr7hqq |title=The Colbert Report 11015 Highlights – Video Clips |work=[[The Colbert Report]] |publisher=[[Comedy Central]] |date=October 29, 2014 |accessdate=October 31, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141031001013/http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/video-playlists/j0zpbx/the-colbert-report-11015-highlights/wr7hqq |archivedate=October 31, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="businessweek wu twitter">{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-14/a-no-gamergate-target-wants-twitter-to-make-harrassment-harder |title=A #GamerGate Target Wants Twitter to Make Harassment Harder |first=Joshua |last=Brustein |date=October 14, 2014 |accessdate=November 5, 2014 |work=[[Bloomberg BusinessWeek]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141110114631/http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-14/a-no-gamergate-target-wants-twitter-to-make-harrassment-harder |archivedate=November 10, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Meyer">{{cite magazine |ref=harv |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-existential-crisis-of-public-life-online/382017/ |title=The Existential Crisis of Public Life Online |first=Robinson |last=Meyer |date=October 30, 2014 |accessdate=November 5, 2014 |magazine=[[The Atlantic]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141105082131/http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/10/the-existential-crisis-of-public-life-online/382017/ |archivedate=November 5, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="gdc misogyny 2012">{{cite web|url=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-03-21-misogyny-racism-and-homophobia-where-do-video-games-stand |title=Misogyny, racism and homophobia: where do video games stand? |first=Robert |last=Purchase |date=March 21, 2014 |accessdate=November 5, 2014 |work=[[Eurogamer]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141106053346/http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-03-21-misogyny-racism-and-homophobia-where-do-video-games-stand |archivedate=November 6, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wu reward">{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-03-wu-offers-usd11k-for-harassment-conviction |title=Wu offers $11K for harassment conviction |first=Rachel |last=Weber |date=November 3, 2014 |accessdate=November 5, 2014 |work=GamesIndustry.biz |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141106033833/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-03-wu-offers-usd11k-for-harassment-conviction |archivedate=November 6, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="SLT ALberty101614">{{cite news|url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58529300-78/sarkeesian-threats-usu-austin.html.csp |title=Feminist media critic calls for boycott of Utah campuses |last=Alberty |first=Erin |date=October 16, 2014 |work=[[The Salt Lake Tribune]] |accessdate=November 2, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141021091458/http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58529300-78/sarkeesian-threats-usu-austin.html.csp |archivedate=October 21, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="CSM 2015-01-20">{{cite news|last=Mendoza |first=Jessica |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech-Culture/2015/0120/Online-harassment-targets-strike-back-against-abusers.-Will-it-work |title=Online harassment targets strike back against abusers. Will it work? |work=[[The Christian Science Monitor]] |date=January 20, 2015 |accessdate=January 21, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150121102436/http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech-Culture/2015/0120/Online-harassment-targets-strike-back-against-abusers.-Will-it-work |archivedate=January 21, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Verge 2015-01-17">{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/17/7628567/crash-override |title=Crash Override wants to help survivors of Gamergate and other online abuse |work=The Verge |date=January 17, 2015 |accessdate=January 17, 2015 |first=T.C. |last=Sottek |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150117152804/http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/17/7628567/crash-override |archivedate=January 17, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=VergeDead>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/30/7131931/gamergate-is-dead |title=Gamergate is Dead |first=Chris |last=Plante |work=The Verge |date=October 30, 2014 |accessdate=November 7, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141105184101/http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/30/7131931/gamergate-is-dead |archivedate=November 5, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=CNet>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnet.com/news/blizzard-on-online-harassment-its-tarnishing-our-reputation-as-gamers/ |title=Blizzard on online harassment: It's tarnishing our reputation as gamers |last=Sherr |first=Ian |publisher=[[CNET]] |date=November 7, 2014 |accessdate=November 7, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107220847/http://www.cnet.com/news/blizzard-on-online-harassment-its-tarnishing-our-reputation-as-gamers/ |archivedate=November 7, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=joystiqblizzcon>{{cite web|url=http://i.wow.joystiq.com/2014/11/07/blizzcon-opening-ceremony-liveblog/|title=BlizzCon Opening Ceremony liveblog|last=Ziebart|first=Alex|work=[[Joystiq]]|publisher=[[AOL]]|date=November 7, 2014|accessdate=November 7, 2014|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108000417/http://i.wow.joystiq.com/2014/11/07/blizzcon-opening-ceremony-liveblog/|archivedate=November 8, 2014 |dead-url=no}}</ref>

<ref name="develop harassment">{{cite magazine|url=http://www.develop-online.net/analysis/games-developers-must-fight-internet-abuse-together/0199849 |title=Games developers must fight internet abuse together |first=James |last=Batchelor |date=November 10, 2014 |accessdate=November 10, 2014 |work=[[Develop (magazine)|Develop]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141110233251/http://www.develop-online.net/analysis/games-developers-must-fight-internet-abuse-together/0199849 |archivedate=November 10, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="UWiscCulver">{{cite web|url=http://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2015/01/03/a-magical-putter-and-the-year-in-media-ethics/ |title=A Magical Putter and the Year in Media Ethics |last=Culver |first=Kathleen Bartzen |work=Center for Journalism Ethics |publisher=[[University of Wisconsin–Madison]] |date=January 3, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150114045642/http://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2015/01/03/a-magical-putter-and-the-year-in-media-ethics/ |archivedate=January 14, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=ColbertVerge>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/30/7130191/stephen-colbert-takes-on-gamergate-with-anita-sarkeesian |title=Stephen Colbert takes on Gamergate with Anita Sarkeesian |last=McCormick |first=Rich |work=The Verge |date=October 30, 2014 |accessdate=November 18, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141117195158/http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/30/7130191/stephen-colbert-takes-on-gamergate-with-anita-sarkeesian |archivedate=November 17, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=WaPoColbert>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/30/how-media-critic-anita-sarkeesian-turned-stephen-colbert-into-a-feminist/ |title=How media critic Anita Sarkeesian turned Stephen Colbert into a feminist |last=McDonald |first=Soraya Nadia |work=The Washington Post |date=October 30, 2014 |accessdate=November 18, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141112111813/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/30/how-media-critic-anita-sarkeesian-turned-stephen-colbert-into-a-feminist/ |archivedate=November 12, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=PCGamerMM>{{cite web|url=http://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-ceo-on-gamergate-they-are-tarnishing-our-reputations-as-gamers/ |title=Blizzard CEO on GamerGate: "They are tarnishing our reputations as gamers" |last=Wilde |first=Tyler |work=[[PC Gamer]] |date=November 6, 2014 |accessdate=November 18, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141111151822/http://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-ceo-on-gamergate-they-are-tarnishing-our-reputations-as-gamers/ |archivedate=November 11, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="sony response">{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-17-sonys-layden-harassment-completely-unacceptable |title=Sony's Layden: Harassment "completely unacceptable" |first=James |last=Brightman |date=November 17, 2014 |accessdate=November 17, 2014 |work=GamesIndustry.biz |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141120031310/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-11-17-sonys-layden-harassment-completely-unacceptable |archivedate=November 20, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="venture sony">{{cite interview|url=https://venturebeat.com/2014/11/17/sonys-north-american-playstation-chief-on-ps4s-dominance-1-year-anniversary-and-gamergate-interview/ |title=Sony's North American PlayStation chief on PS4's dominance, 1-year anniversary, and GamerGate (interview) |first=Shawn |last=Layden |date=November 17, 2014 |accessdate=November 18, 2014 |work=VentureBeat |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141118234126/http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/17/sonys-north-american-playstation-chief-on-ps4s-dominance-1-year-anniversary-and-gamergate-interview/ |archivedate=November 18, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Intel_Telegraph">{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11231892/Intel-reinstates-advertising-on-Gamasutra-after-Gamergate-campaign.html |title=Intel reinstates advertising on Gamasutra after 'Gamergate' campaign |first=Ian |last=Douglas |work=The Daily Telegraph |date=November 14, 2014 |accessdate=November 18, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141118095800/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/11231892/Intel-reinstates-advertising-on-Gamasutra-after-Gamergate-campaign.html |archivedate=November 18, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=csmonitor>{{cite web|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech-Culture/2014/1125/Gamergate-and-the-new-horde-of-digital-saboteurs |title=Gamergate and the new horde of digital saboteurs |last=Eördögh |first=Fruzsina |work=The Christian Science Monitor |date=November 25, 2014 |accessdate=November 25, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141125205855/http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Tech-Culture/2014/1125/Gamergate-and-the-new-horde-of-digital-saboteurs |archivedate=November 25, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="BusinessWeekSarkessian">{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment |title=The Gaming Industry's Greatest Adversary Is Just Getting Started |last=Kolhatkar |first=Sheelah |work=Bloomberg Businessweek |publisher=[[Bloomberg L.P.]] |date=November 26, 2014 |accessdate=November 26, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141126142636/http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment |archivedate=November 26, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="gibiz silver lining">{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-12-15-gamergates-silver-lining |title=GamerGate's silver lining |first=Brendan |last=Sinclair |date=December 15, 2014 |accessdate=December 18, 2014 |work=GamesIndustry.biz |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141218212556/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-12-15-gamergates-silver-lining |archivedate=December 18, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="westmanjournal">{{cite news |last=Wasilka |first=Jordan |url=http://www.westmanjournal.com/opinion/columnists/gamergate-righteous-riot-or-misogynist-movement-1.1585480 |title=GamerGate—righteous riot or misogynist movement? |work=[[Westman Journal]] |location=Brandon, Manitoba |date=November 13, 2014 }}</ref>

<ref name="newsweek FBI">{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-has-file-gamergate-293441 |title=The FBI Has a File on Gamergate |first=Taylor |last=Wofford |date=December 19, 2014 |accessdate=December 19, 2014 |work=Newsweek |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141219180713/http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-has-file-gamergate-293441 |archivedate=December 19, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=Macleans>{{cite web|url=http://www.macleans.ca/society/technology/gamergate-how-a-gamer-fight-turned-into-an-all-out-culture-war/ |title=How a gamer fight turned into an all-out culture war |work=[[Maclean's]] |date=December 8, 2014 |last=Weinman |first=Jamie |accessdate=December 20, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141222091450/http://www.macleans.ca/society/technology/gamergate-how-a-gamer-fight-turned-into-an-all-out-culture-war/ |archivedate=December 22, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Chu2014">{{cite news|url=http://www.salon.com/2014/11/23/from_stuff_white_people_like_to_notyourshield_how_irony_is_killing_activism/ |title=From Stuff White People Like to #NotYourShield: How irony is killing activism |last=Chu |first=Arthur |authorlink=Arthur Chu |date=November 23, 2014 |work=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |accessdate=December 20, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141219213650/http://www.salon.com/2014/11/23/from_stuff_white_people_like_to_notyourshield_how_irony_is_killing_activism/ |archivedate=December 19, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="GuardianQvist">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/dec/19/gamergate-swedish-gaming-companies-tackle-sexism-in-video-games |title=Gamergate: Swedish gaming companies tackle sexism in video games |last=Qvist |first=Bella |date=December 18, 2014 |work=The Guardian |accessdate=December 20, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220093019/http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/dec/19/gamergate-swedish-gaming-companies-tackle-sexism-in-video-games |archivedate=December 20, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="KernelMag">{{cite magazine|last=Romano |first=Aja |title=The battle of Gamergate and the future of video games |url=http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-issue-sections/11195/battle-of-gamergate-2014/ |magazine=The Kernel |publisher=The Daily Dot |date=December 21, 2014 |accessdate=December 22, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141223130742/http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-issue-sections/11195/battle-of-gamergate-2014/ |archivedate=December 23, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wapo 3 women">{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/12/31/janay-rice-anita-sarkeesian-and-jackie-three-women-who-made-us-get-mad-in-2014/ |title=Janay Rice, Anita Sarkeesian, and 'Jackie': Three women who made us get mad in 2014 |first=Joann |last=Weiner |date=December 31, 2014 |accessdate=January 6, 2015 |work=The Washington Post |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141231235517/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/12/31/janay-rice-anita-sarkeesian-and-jackie-three-women-who-made-us-get-mad-in-2014/ |archivedate=December 31, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Slate GG2014">{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/gaming/features/2014/video_game_club_2014/gamergate_and_the_year_in_video_gaming_2014.html |title=Entry 8: Gamergate is the most expansive real-world ARG in video game history. |first=Jenn |last=Frank |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=January 5, 2015 |accessdate=January 6, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150105194610/http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/gaming/features/2014/video_game_club_2014/gamergate_and_the_year_in_video_gaming_2014.html |archivedate=January 5, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="nightline">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/jumping-gamergate-turns-fearing-life/story?id=28230901&singlePage=true |title=When Jumping into Gamergate Turns into Fearing For Your Life |first1=Juju |last1=Chang |first2=Katie |last2=Yu |work=[[Nightline]] |date=January 14, 2015 |accessdate=January 14, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150115053315/http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/jumping-gamergate-turns-fearing-life/story?id=28230901&singlePage=true |archivedate=January 15, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Polygon Intel">{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/6/7506021/intel-300m-diversity-investment-support-women-minorities-gamergate |title=Intel pledges $300M investment to bolster women, minority workforce in wake of GamerGate |first=Michael |last=McWhertor |date=January 6, 2015 |accessdate=January 6, 2015 |work=Polygon |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150107045852/http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/6/7506021/intel-300m-diversity-investment-support-women-minorities-gamergate |archivedate=January 7, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="NYTimes Intel">{{cite news|last=Wingfield |first=Nick |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/technology/intel-budgets-300-million-for-diversity.html |title=Intel Budgets $300 Million for Diversity |work=The New York Times |date=January 6, 2015 |accessdate=January 7, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150107122321/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/technology/intel-budgets-300-million-for-diversity.html |archivedate=January 7, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="canadacom">{{cite news|last=O'Rourke |first=Patrick |url=http://o.canada.com/technology/gaming/gamergate-has-nothing-to-do-with-ethics-in-journalism |title=GamerGate has nothing to do with ethics in journalism |publisher=Canada.com |date=October 16, 2014 |accessdate=January 23, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141222022525/http://o.canada.com/technology/gaming/gamergate-has-nothing-to-do-with-ethics-in-journalism |archivedate=December 22, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="HeronBelford2014">{{cite journal|last1=Heron|first1=Michael James|last2=Belford|first2=Pauline|last3=Goker|first3=Ayse|title=Sexism in the circuitry|journal=ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society|volume=44|issue=4|year=2014|pages=18–29|issn=0095-2737|doi=10.1145/2695577.2695582}}</ref>

<ref name=stokesentinel>{{cite web|last1=Elks|first1=David|title=#GamerGate: Why can't both sides bury hatchet over ethics in video games row?|url=http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/GamerGate-t-sides-bury-hatchet-video-games-row/story-23613769-detail/story.html|work=[[The Sentinel (Staffordshire)|The Sentinel]]|accessdate=March 11, 2015|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151101090030/http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/GamerGate-t-sides-bury-hatchet-video-games-row/story-23613769-detail/story.html|archivedate=November 1, 2015}}</ref>

<ref name="ibtimes1">{{Cite news|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/what-gamergate-scandal-female-game-developer-flees-home-amid-online-threats-1704046 |title=What Is The GamerGate Scandal? Female Game Developer Flees Home Amid Online Threats |last=Elise |first=Abigail |date=October 13, 2014 |work=International Business Times |access-date=January 29, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141230153639/http://www.ibtimes.com/what-gamergate-scandal-female-game-developer-flees-home-amid-online-threats-1704046 |archivedate=December 30, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Jason">{{cite news |ref=harv |last=Jason |first=Zachary |url=http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2015/04/28/gamergate |title=Game of Fear |work=[[Boston (magazine)|Boston]] |issue=May 2015 issue |pages=102– |date=April 28, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150428095317/http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2015/04/28/gamergate/ |archivedate=April 28, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="nybooks 2015-06-25">{{cite journal|last=Massing |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Massing |date=June 2015 |title=Digital Journalism: The Next Generation |url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jun/25/digital-journalism-next-generation/ |journal=[[The New York Review of Books]] |issue=June 25, 2015 |access-date=June 16, 2015 |issn=0028-7504 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150614152227/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jun/25/digital-journalism-next-generation/ |archivedate=June 14, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="fastcodesign 2014-10-28">{{cite web|url=http://www.fastcodesign.com/3037713/infographic-of-the-day/analyzing-gamergate-on-twitter-polarized-debate-anonymous-voices |title=Visualizing The Two Sides Of #Gamergate's Twitter Debate |date=October 28, 2014 |website=Fast Company |last=O'Connell |first=Ainsley |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150131002255/http://www.fastcodesign.com/3037713/infographic-of-the-day/analyzing-gamergate-on-twitter-polarized-debate-anonymous-voices |archivedate=January 31, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="cosmo">{{cite web|url=http://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/a39908/anita-sarkeesian-internets-most-fascinating/ |title=Anita Sarkeesian Is Fighting to Make the Web Less Awful for Women – And Getting Death Threats in the Process |first=Jill |last=Filipovic |authorlink=Jill Filipovic |work=[[Cosmopolitan (magazine)|Cosmopolitan]] |date=June 8, 2015 |accessdate=June 8, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150609191417/http://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/a39908/anita-sarkeesian-internets-most-fascinating/ |archivedate=June 9, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="WashPostSarkeesian">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/ |title='Gamergate': Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah lecture after threat |date=October 15, 2014 |first=Soraya Nadia |last=McDonald |work=The Washington Post |accessdate=May 13, 2015 |quote=In August, the threats grew so severe that Sarkeesian was forced to flee her home |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150511213805/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/ |archivedate=May 11, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="montreal-massacre-threat-ctv">{{cite news|author= |title='Montreal Massacre' threat forces media critic to cancel video game talk |url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montreal-massacre-threat-forces-media-critic-to-cancel-video-game-talk-1.2054165 |accessdate=June 18, 2015 |agency=CTVNews.ca |date=October 15, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150929084046/http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montreal-massacre-threat-forces-media-critic-to-cancel-video-game-talk-1.2054165 |archivedate=September 29, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name=GlobeFeature>{{cite web|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2014/10/29/threatening-video-gaming-industry-movement-grows-arlington-game-developer-forced-flee-her-home/BRHwDSGjMsSnHquH9jYQIJ/story.html |title=GamerGate anger at women all too real for gamemaker |last1=Teitell |first1=Beth |first2=Callum |last2=Borchers |work=The Boston Globe |date=October 29, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150214221026/http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2014/10/29/threatening-video-gaming-industry-movement-grows-arlington-game-developer-forced-flee-her-home/BRHwDSGjMsSnHquH9jYQIJ/story.html |archivedate=February 14, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="polygon 2015-05-03">{{cite web|url=https://www.polygon.com/2015/5/3/8539733/gamergate-bomb-threat-washington-ggindc-milo-yiannopoulos-christina-hoff-summers |title=Bomb threat clears out GamerGate gathering in Washington D.C. |first=Owen S. |last=Good |date=May 3, 2015 |accessdate=May 3, 2015 |work=Polygon |publisher=[[Vox Media]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150503192033/http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/3/8539733/gamergate-bomb-threat-washington-ggindc-milo-yiannopoulos-christina-hoff-summers |archivedate=May 3, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="polygon 2015-08-16">{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/16/9161311/bomb-threat-shuts-down-spj-panel-discussing-gamergate |title=Bomb threat shuts down SPJ panel discussing GamerGate (Update) |first=Owen S. |last=Good |date=August 16, 2015 |accessdate=August 16, 2015 |work=Polygon |publisher=[[Vox Media]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150816144119/http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/16/9161311/bomb-threat-shuts-down-spj-panel-discussing-gamergate |archivedate=August 16, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wu pax">{{cite web|url=http://www.polygon.com/2015/2/19/8070269/brianna-wu-giant-spacekat-pulls-out-of-pax-east |title=Brianna Wu's studio, Giant Spacekat, pulls out of PAX East due to safety concerns |first=Megan |last=Farokhmanesh |date=February 19, 2015 |accessdate=February 19, 2015 |work=Polygon |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150219223226/http://www.polygon.com/2015/2/19/8070269/brianna-wu-giant-spacekat-pulls-out-of-pax-east |archivedate=February 19, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="venturebeat 2015-02-19">{{cite web|last=Takahashi |first=Dean |url=https://venturebeat.com/2015/02/19/giant-spacekat-pulls-out-of-pax-east-blames-gamergate-death-threats/ |title=Brianna Wu's Giant Spacekat pulls out of PAX East, blames GamerGate death threats |work=VentureBeat |date=February 19, 2015 |accessdate=February 20, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150221020923/http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/19/giant-spacekat-pulls-out-of-pax-east-blames-gamergate-death-threats/ |archivedate=February 21, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="bostonglobe 2015-02-24">{{cite news|last1=Borchers |first1=Callum |last2=Keohane |first2=Dennis |date=February 24, 2015 |title=Citing threats, game maker pulls her company from PAX East fest |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/24/pax-east-withdrawal-reveals-sexist-side-video-game-culture/SiRAzMnuI6iea0woo9ob6I/story.html |work=The Boston Globe |accessdate=February 24, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150224194408/http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/02/24/pax-east-withdrawal-reveals-sexist-side-video-game-culture/SiRAzMnuI6iea0woo9ob6I/story.html |archivedate=February 24, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="slate 2014-10-17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/17/gamergate_threats_why_it_s_so_hard_to_prosecute_the_people_targeting_zoe.html |title=A Former FBI Agent on Why It's So Hard to Prosecute Gamergate Trolls |first=Amanda |last=Hess |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=October 17, 2014 |accessdate=May 21, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518020807/http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/17/gamergate_threats_why_it_s_so_hard_to_prosecute_the_people_targeting_zoe.html |archivedate=May 18, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="psmag 2015-06-04">{{cite web|url=https://psmag.com/news/the-supreme-court-just-made-online-harassment-a-little-bit-easier |title=The Supreme Court Just Made Online Harassment a Little Bit Easier |first=Jared |last=Keller |date=June 2, 2015 |accessdate=June 4, 2015 |work=[[Pacific Standard]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150602173626/https://psmag.com/news/the-supreme-court-just-made-online-harassment-a-little-bit-easier |archivedate=June 2, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="fastcompany 2015-06-02">{{cite web|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/3046772/tech-forecast/why-online-harassment-is-still-ruining-lives-and-how-we-can-stop-it |title=Why Online Harassment Is Still Ruining Lives—And How We Can Stop It |work=[[Fast Company (magazine)|Fast Company]] |date=June 2, 2015 |accessdate=June 2, 2015 |first=Sarah |last=Kessler |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150604013611/http://www.fastcompany.com/3046772/tech-forecast/why-online-harassment-is-still-ruining-lives-and-how-we-can-stop-it |archivedate=June 4, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="ars 2015-05-21">{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/ |title=GamerGate critic posts death threat voicemail after inaction by prosecutor |first=Sam |last=Machkovech |date=May 20, 2015 |accessdate=May 21, 2015 |work=Ars Technica |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150520235848/http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/ |archivedate=May 20, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="verge 2015-03-11">{{cite web|title=Rep. Katherine Clark wants the FBI to crack down on Gamergate and online threats |url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/3/11/8191033/representative-katherine-clark-letter-congress-gamergate |first=Adi |last=Robinson |date=March 11, 2015 |accessdate=March 11, 2015 |work=The Verge |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150312033408/http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/11/8191033/representative-katherine-clark-letter-congress-gamergate |archivedate=March 12, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="polygon 2015-04-21">{{cite web|url=https://www.polygon.com/2015/4/21/8449291/gamergate-hate-group-domestic-violence-congressional-briefing |title=Domestic violence task force calls GamerGate a 'hate group' at congressional briefing |first=Charlie |last=Hall |work=Polygon |date=April 21, 2015 |accessdate=April 21, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150421193224/http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/21/8449291/gamergate-hate-group-domestic-violence-congressional-briefing |archivedate=April 21, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wgbh 2015-06-01">{{cite news|last=Bernstein |first=David S. |url=http://wgbhnews.org/post/gamergate-susan-collins-and-joe-kennedy-together-last-and-birth-control |title=GamerGate; Susan Collins And Joe Kennedy, Together at Last; And Birth Control |work=WGBH News |location=Boston |publisher=[[WGBH-TV]] |date=June 1, 2015 |accessdate=June 3, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150601093302/http://wgbhnews.org/post/gamergate-susan-collins-and-joe-kennedy-together-last-and-birth-control |archivedate=June 1, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Salon 2015-05-29">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2015/05/29/twitter_trolls_your_days_are_numbered_the_department_of_justice_is_finally_taking_online_harassment_like_gamergate_seriously/ |title=Twitter trolls, your days are numbered: The Department of Justice is finally taking online harassment like #Gamergate seriously |last=Williams |first=Mary Elizabeth |work=Salon |date=May 29, 2015 |accessdate=May 29, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150529201215/http://www.salon.com/2015/05/29/twitter_trolls_your_days_are_numbered_the_department_of_justice_is_finally_taking_online_harassment_like_gamergate_seriously/ |archivedate=May 29, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="metrowest 2015-06-04">{{cite news|last=Urban |first=Peter |url=http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20150604/NEWS/150608123 |title=U.S. Rep. Clark wants DOJ priority on cyber-threats |work=MetroWest Daily News |location=Framingham, MA |date=June 4, 2015 |accessdate=June 4, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150613024311/http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20150604/NEWS/150608123 |archivedate=June 13, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="H.R.2602">{{cite web | url = http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:H.R.+2602: | title = H.R.2602 -- Prioritizing Online Threat Enforcement Act of 2015 | publisher = [[Library of Congress]] | date = June 2, 2015 | accessdate = June 3, 2015 | deadurl = no | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20160204235133/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c114:H.R.+2602: | archivedate = February 4, 2016 | df = mdy-all }}</ref>

<ref name="wapo 2015-06-07">{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/06/07/online-abuse-is-a-real-problem-this-congresswoman-wants-the-fbi-to-treat-it-like-one/ |title=Online abuse is a real problem. This congresswoman wants the FBI to treat it like one. |last=Tsukayama |first=Hayley |work=The Washington Post |date=June 7, 2015 |accessdate=June 8, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150607142128/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/06/07/online-abuse-is-a-real-problem-this-congresswoman-wants-the-fbi-to-treat-it-like-one/ |archivedate=June 7, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="nordic">{{Cite journal |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |last=Antonsen |first=Marie |first2=Kristine |last2=Ask |first3=Henrik |last3=Karlstrøm |title=The many faces of engagement |journal=Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies |accessdate=January 26, 2015 |year=2014 |url=http://www.nordicsts.org/index.php/njsts/article/download/Editorial/pdf_4 |format=PDF |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150129222931/http://www.nordicsts.org/index.php/njsts/article/download/Editorial/pdf_4 |archivedate=January 29, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="bostonglobe 2015-06-12">{{cite web|last=Brodeur |first=Michael Andor |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2015/06/12/large/hOqlbvVXsgRjoPuN1qelvI/story.html |title=Signs of backlash to Internet trolls appearing |work=The Boston Globe |date=June 12, 2015 |accessdate=June 16, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150615003031/http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2015/06/12/large/hOqlbvVXsgRjoPuN1qelvI/story.html |archivedate=June 15, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="DipCour">{{cite journal|url=http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/security/2499-when-the-internet-breeds-hate |title=When the Internet Breeds Hate |first=Chrisella |last=Herzog |date=March 8, 2015 |journal=[[The Diplomatic Courier]] |accessdate=June 25, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150626105748/http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/security/2499-when-the-internet-breeds-hate |archivedate=June 26, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Chess 2015">{{cite journal|last1=Chess|first1=Shira|last2=Shaw|first2=Adrienne|title=A Conspiracy of Fishes, or, How We Learned to Stop Worrying About #GamerGate and Embrace Hegemonic Masculinity|journal=Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media|volume=59|issue=1|year=2015|pages=208–220|doi=10.1080/08838151.2014.999917}}</ref>

<ref name="paste 2015-04-20">{{cite web|url=http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/04/gamergate-and-the-balkanization-of-videogames.html |title=GamerGate and the Balkanization of Videogames |work=Paste |date=April 20, 2015 |accessdate=April 21, 2015 |author=L. Rhodes |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150420170819/http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/04/gamergate-and-the-balkanization-of-videogames.html |archivedate=April 20, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="ESPNMcManus">{{cite news|url=http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/11779442/why-gamergate-important |title=Why GamerGate Is Important |last=Jane McManus |date=October 29, 2014 |publisher=[[ESPN]] |accessdate=January 29, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150129075329/http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/11779442/why-gamergate-important |archivedate=January 29, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Internet Monitor 2014">{{Cite conference|last1=Gasser |first1=Urs |first2=Jonathan |last2=Zittrain |first3=Robert |last3=Faris |first4=Rebekah Heacock |last4=Jones |title=Internet Monitor 2014: Reflections on the Digital World: Platforms, Policy, Privacy, and Public Discourse |accessdate=January 26, 2015 |year=2014 |page=18 |url=http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/13632937/IM2014_ReflectionsontheDigitalWorld%5B1%5D.pdf?sequence=1 |format=PDF |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203011123/http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/13632937/IM2014_ReflectionsontheDigitalWorld%5B1%5D.pdf?sequence=1 |archivedate=February 3, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="fastcodesign 2014-11-03">{{cite web|url=http://www.fastcodesign.com/3037941/the-secret-meaning-behind-gamergates-branding |title=The Secret Meaning Behind GamerGate's Branding |date=November 3, 2014 |website=Fast Company |last=Melendez |first=Steven |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141107115746/http://www.fastcodesign.com/3037941/the-secret-meaning-behind-gamergates-branding |archivedate=November 7, 2014 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="eff 2015-01-08">{{cite web|last1=Kayyali |first1=Nadia |last2=O'Brien |first2=Danny |author2-link=Danny O'Brien (journalist) |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment |title=Facing the Challenge of Online Harassment |publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] |date=January 8, 2015 |accessdate=February 1, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150129194019/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/facing-challenge-online-harassment |archivedate=January 29, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="gamasutra 2015-06-14">{{cite web|url=http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/246125/The_ESA_clarifies_its_antiharassment_stance_future_of_E3.php |title=The ESA clarifies its anti-harassment stance, future of E3 |publisher=[[Gamasutra]] |date=June 14, 2015 |accessdate=June 22, 2015 |first=Christian |last=Nutt |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150623030801/http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/246125/The_ESA_clarifies_its_antiharassment_stance_future_of_E3.php |archivedate=June 23, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="guardian 2016-04-13">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/13/online-abuse-how-women-are-fighting-back |title=Online abuse: how women are fighting back |first=Alexander |last=Leigh |date=April 13, 2016 |accessdate=March 29, 2017 |work=The Guardian |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20161123175236/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/13/online-abuse-how-women-are-fighting-back |archivedate=November 23, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wired 2015-01-07">{{cite web|title=Intel announces fund for greater tech diversity |url=https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-01/07/intel-diversity |work=Wired |date=January 7, 2015 |last=Kamen |first=Matt |accessdate=February 5, 2015 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150225035112/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-01/07/intel-diversity |archivedate=February 25, 2015 }}</ref>

<ref name="RepresentationStrides">{{cite web|title=E3 2015 Showed Strides For Female Representation in Gamer Culture |url=http://www.techtimes.com/articles/61786/20150619/e3-2015-showed-strides-female-representation-gamer-culture.htm |date=June 19, 2015 |last=Reich |work=Tech Times |first=J.E. |accessdate=June 24, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150622224006/http://www.techtimes.com/articles/61786/20150619/e3-2015-showed-strides-female-representation-gamer-culture.htm |archivedate=June 22, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="GamergateFail">{{cite news|title=Gamergate Fail: The Rise of Ass-Kicking Women in Video Games |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/23/gamergate-fail-the-rise-of-ass-kicking-women-in-video-games.html |date=June 23, 2015 |last=Kubas-Meyer |first=Alec |newspaper=The Daily Beast |accessdate=June 24, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150623121530/http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/23/gamergate-fail-the-rise-of-ass-kicking-women-in-video-games.html |archivedate=June 23, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="BadassCharacters">{{cite web|title=E3 2015: Female Gamers Are Finally Getting The Badass Characters They Deserve |url=http://www.ibtimes.com/e3-2015-female-gamers-are-finally-getting-badass-characters-they-deserve-photos-1975636 |date=June 19, 2015 |last=Mueller |first=Saira |work=[[International Business Times]] |accessdate=June 24, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150624121736/http://www.ibtimes.com/e3-2015-female-gamers-are-finally-getting-badass-characters-they-deserve-photos-1975636 |archivedate=June 24, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="ars 2015-02-12">{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/02/law-order-svu-takes-on-gamergate-everyone-loses/ |title=Law & Order SVU takes on GamerGate, everyone loses |work=Ars Technica |date=February 12, 2015 |accessdate=February 12, 2015 |first=Sam |last=Machkovech |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212125909/http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/02/law-order-svu-takes-on-gamergate-everyone-loses/ |archivedate=February 12, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="washingtonpost 2015-02-12">{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/02/12/law-order-and-gamergates-legacy/ |title='Law & Order' and GamerGate's legacy |first=Alyssa |last=Rosenberg |work=The Washington Post |date=February 12, 2015 |accessdate=February 12, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150213020204/http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/02/12/law-order-and-gamergates-legacy/ |archivedate=February 13, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="time 2015-03-05">{{cite news|url=http://time.com/3732203/the-30-most-influential-people-on-the-internet/ |title=The 30 Most Influential People on the Internet |date=March 5, 2015 |accessdate=March 22, 2015 |work=Time |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150321233428/http://time.com/3732203/the-30-most-influential-people-on-the-internet/ |archivedate=March 21, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="time 2015-04-16">{{cite news|url=http://time.com/3822727/anita-sarkeesian-2015-time-100/ |title=Anita Sarkeesian |first=Wil |last=Wheaton |author-link=Wil Wheaton |date=April 16, 2015 |accessdate=April 18, 2015 |work=Time |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150417010023/http://time.com/3822727/anita-sarkeesian-2015-time-100/ |archivedate=April 17, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="atlantic 2015-04-09">{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/the-culture-wars-come-to-sci-fi/390012/ |title=Hijacking the Hugo Awards Won't Stifle Diversity in Science Fiction |first=Kameron |last=Hurley |work=The Atlantic |date=April 9, 2015 |accessdate=April 15, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150414045605/http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/the-culture-wars-come-to-sci-fi/390012/ |archivedate=April 14, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="nytimes 2015-03-08">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/movies/in-the-documentary-gtfo-female-video-gamers-fight-back.html |title=In the Documentary 'GTFO,' Female Video Gamers Fight Back |first=Robert |last=Ito |date=March 9, 2015 |accessdate=June 21, 2015 |work=The New York Times |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150618175601/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/movies/in-the-documentary-gtfo-female-video-gamers-fight-back.html |archivedate=June 18, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="LATimes 2015-03-13">{{cite web|last=Martens |first=Todd |url=http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/female-gamers-tell-their-stories-in-gtfo-which-tackles-sexism-in-gaming-industry/ |title=SXSW: Female gamers tell their stories in 'GTFO,' which tackles industry sexism |date=March 13, 2015 |work=Los Angeles Times |accessdate=June 22, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150626114431/http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/female-gamers-tell-their-stories-in-gtfo-which-tackles-sexism-in-gaming-industry/ |archivedate=June 26, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="time 2015-06-22">{{cite news|last=Locker |first=Melissa |url=http://time.com/3929724/john-oliver-internet-trolls-last-week-tonight/ |title=Watch John Oliver Take on Internet Trolls on Last Week Tonight |work=Time |date=June 22, 2015 |accessdate=June 22, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150622154429/http://time.com/3929724/john-oliver-internet-trolls-last-week-tonight/ |archivedate=June 22, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="clark 2015-03-10">{{cite web|url=http://katherineclark.house.gov/index.cfm/2015/3/clark-calls-for-investigation-and-prosecution-of-online-threats-against-women |title=Clark calls for investigation and prosecution of online threats against women |author= |publisher=house.gov |date=March 10, 2015 |accessdate=March 11, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150314214033/http://katherineclark.house.gov/index.cfm/2015/3/clark-calls-for-investigation-and-prosecution-of-online-threats-against-women |archivedate=March 14, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wam release">{{cite web|url=http://www.womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2014/11/Twitterprojectpressrelease-1.pdf |title=To combat the harassment of women online, Women, Action & the Media (WAM!) announces a new partnership with Twitter |author= |publisher=womenactionmedia.org |date=November 6, 2014 |accessdate=January 25, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150318140330/http://www.womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2014/11/Twitterprojectpressrelease-1.pdf |archivedate=March 18, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wam report">{{cite web|url=https://womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/05/wam-twitter-abuse-report.pdf |title=Reporting, Reviewing, and Responding to Harassment on Twitter. Women, Action, and the Media |publisher=Women, Action & the Media |date=May 13, 2015 |accessdate=June 25, 2015 |authors=Matias, J. N., Johnson, A., Boesel, W. E., Keegan, B., Friedman, J., & DeTar, C. |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528232457/http://womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/05/wam-twitter-abuse-report.pdf |archivedate=May 28, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="ArkhamKnightPolygon">{{cite web |url=https://www.polygon.com/2015/6/25/8846691/batman-gamergate-easter-egg-arkham-knight |title=Batman: Arkham Knight's Riddler is displeased with GamerGate (spoilers) |first=Charlie |last=Hall |date=June 25, 2015 |accessdate=July 21, 2015 |work=[[Polygon (website)|Polygon]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150722042953/http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/25/8846691/batman-gamergate-easter-egg-arkham-knight |archivedate=July 22, 2015 }}</ref>

<ref name="IBTBatman">{{cite web|url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/batman-arkham-knight-includes-reference-gamergate-1507896 |title=Batman: Arkham Knight includes reference to GamerGate |first=Ben |last=Skipper |date=June 25, 2015 |accessdate=June 25, 2015 |work=[[International Business Times]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150625194911/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/batman-arkham-knight-includes-reference-gamergate-1507896 |archivedate=June 25, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="fortune august2015">{{cite web|url=http://fortune.com/2015/08/06/video-game-developer-jobs/ |title=Despite industry growth, game developers worry about jobs |first=Chris |last=Morris |date=August 6, 2015 |accessdate=August 9, 2015 |work=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150808234535/http://fortune.com/2015/08/06/video-game-developer-jobs/ |archivedate=August 8, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="seattletimes">{{cite news|url=http://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/game-on-women-are-developing-new-video-games-and-a-new-culture/ |title='This has got to change': Women game developers fight sexism in industry |date=August 13, 2015 |accessdate=August 14, 2015 |work=[[The Seattle Times]] |first=Susan |last=Kelleher |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150813234908/http://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/game-on-women-are-developing-new-video-games-and-a-new-culture/ |archivedate=August 13, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="overland">{{cite journal|title=Hackers, gamers and cyborgs |journal=[[Overland (magazine)|Overland]] |date=Autumn 2015 |last=Keogh |first=Brendan |issue=218 |pages=17–22 |issn=0030-7416 |url=https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-218/feature-brendan-keogh/ |accessdate=August 18, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150823042249/https://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-218/feature-brendan-keogh/ |archivedate=August 23, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="willametteweek">{{cite news |last=Korfhage |first=Matthew |url=http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-25207-permalink.html |title=Gone Home and Portland's Connection to Video Games' Biggest Controversy |work=[[Willamette Week]] |date=August 12, 2015 |accessdate=August 18, 2015 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150815052904/http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-25207-permalink.html |archivedate=August 15, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="venturebeat mainstream">{{cite web|url=https://venturebeat.com/2014/10/31/the-deanbeat-like-it-or-hate-it-gamergate-isnt-losing-steam/ |title=The DeanBeat: Like it or hate it, #GamerGate isn't losing steam |first=Dean |last=Takahasi |date=October 31, 2014 |accessdate=August 18, 2015 |work=VentureBeat |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150804105637/http://venturebeat.com/2014/10/31/the-deanbeat-like-it-or-hate-it-gamergate-isnt-losing-steam/ |archivedate=August 4, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="guardian aug2015">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/29/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-jessica-valenti |title=Anita Sarkeesian interview: 'The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse' |date=August 29, 2015 |accessdate=August 29, 2015 |work=The Guardian |first=Jessica |last=Valenti |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150829103341/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/29/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-jessica-valenti |archivedate=August 29, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Massanari 2015">{{cite journal|last=Massanari |first=Adrienne |title=#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit's algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures |journal=[[New Media & Society]] |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=329–346 |year=2015 |issn=1461-4448 |doi=10.1177/1461444815608807 |url=http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/10/07/1461444815608807.full.pdf |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128005809/http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/10/07/1461444815608807.full.pdf |archivedate=January 28, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Mortensen2016">{{cite journal|last=Mortensen|first=Torill Elvira|title=Anger, Fear, and Games: The Long Event of #GamerGate|journal=[[Games and Culture]]|volume=13|issue=8|pages=787–806|year=2016|doi=10.1177/1555412016640408}}</ref>

<ref name="prominent 1">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wIr4CgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT166&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PT166#v=onepage&q=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&f=false |title=Gender at Work: Theory and Practice for 21st Century Organizations |quote=According to Anita Sarkeesian (2014), a prominent feminist critic of video games, [...]|deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102103216/https://books.google.com/books?id=wIr4CgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT166&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PT166 |archivedate=January 2, 2017 |df= |isbn=9781317437079 |author1=Rao |first1=Aruna |last2=Sandler |first2=Joanne |last3=Kelleher |first3=David |last4=Miller |first4=Carol |date=November 19, 2015 }}</ref>

<ref name="prominent 2">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zqHAAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA153&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&f=false |title=Digitized Lives: Culture, Power, and Social Change in the Internet Era |quote=Anita Sarkeesian, a prominent feminist pop culture critic |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170102072840/https://books.google.com/books?id=zqHAAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA153&dq=%22prominent%22%20anita%20sarkeesian&pg=PA153 |archivedate=January 2, 2017 |df= |isbn=9781136689963 |author1=Reed |first1=T.V |date=June 5, 2014 }}</ref>

<ref name="FBI 2017Jan27">{{cite web|url=https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate/Gamergate%20Part%2001%20of%2001/view |title=Gamergate - Part 01 of 01 |publisher=[[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] |website=FBI Vault |date=January 27, 2017 |accessdate=January 27, 2017 |pages=167–169 |format=[[PDF]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170126203826/https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate/Gamergate%20Part%2001%20of%2001/view |archivedate=January 26, 2017 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="verge fbi closed">{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14412594/fbi-gamergate-harassment-threat-investigation-records-release |title=The FBI has released its Gamergate investigation records |first=Adi |last=Robertson |date=January 27, 2017 |accessdate=January 27, 2017 |work=[[The Verge]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170127184556/http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14412594/fbi-gamergate-harassment-threat-investigation-records-release |archivedate=January 27, 2017 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="csm 20160411">{{cite web|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2016/0411/Rep.-Katherine-Clark-s-crusade-against-the-Internet-s-tormentors |title=Rep. Katherine Clark's crusade against the Internet's tormentors |first=Joshua |last=Eaton |date=April 11, 2016 |work=[[The Christian Science Monitor]] |accessdate=April 13, 2016 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160412211354/http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/2016/0411/Rep.-Katherine-Clark-s-crusade-against-the-Internet-s-tormentors |archivedate=April 12, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="inc">{{cite web | url = http://www.inc.com/magazine/201504/david-whitford/gamergate-why-would-anyone-want-to-kill-brianna-wu.html | title = Brianna Wu vs. the Troll Army | work = [[Inc. (magazine)|Inc.]] | date = April 2015 | accessdate = July 17, 2015 | first = David| last = Whitford }}</ref>

<ref name="seattletimes 2015-09-21">{{cite web|url=http://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/despite-the-threats-and-sexism-felicia-day-believes-in-the-gaming-world/ |title=Despite the threats and sexism, Felicia Day believes in the gaming world |date=August 21, 2015 |work=[[The Seattle Times]] |last=Brodeur |first=Nicole |accessdate=September 21, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151107190538/http://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/despite-the-threats-and-sexism-felicia-day-believes-in-the-gaming-world/ |archivedate=November 7, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="bbc3 2016-03-16">{{cite news|last1=Nandra |first1=Jatinder Singh |title=The dark side of gaming: "I've been called a curry muncher... " |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/9fe76f89-2d48-4393-bbdd-d6b15b0b0503 |accessdate=March 16, 2016 |work=[[BBC Three]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160316142534/http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/9fe76f89-2d48-4393-bbdd-d6b15b0b0503 |archivedate=March 16, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="NYTThielGawker">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/business/media/thiel-gawker-fight-raises-concerns-about-press-freedom.html |title=Thiel-Gawker Fight Raises Concerns About Press Freedom |first1=Katie |last1=Rogers |first2=John |last2=Herrman |work=[[New York Times]] |date=May 26, 2016 |accessdate=May 31, 2016 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160530105343/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/business/media/thiel-gawker-fight-raises-concerns-about-press-freedom.html |archivedate=May 30, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="verge 2015-06-10">{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/10/8761231/twitter-block-lists-share-import-export-social-media-trolls |title=Twitter is letting you and your friends join hands to block trolls and miscreants |publisher=[[The Verge]] |date=June 10, 2015 |accessdate=June 25, 2015 |first=Chris |last=Plante |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150626123841/http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/10/8761231/twitter-block-lists-share-import-export-social-media-trolls |archivedate=June 26, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="latimes 2015-08-24">{{cite web|url=http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-no-love-for-sad-puppies-hugo-awards-20150824-story.html |title='Sad Puppies' campaign fails to undermine sci-fi diversity at the Hugo Awards |last=Schaub |first=Michael |date=August 24, 2015 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |accessdate=August 24, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150824173721/http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-no-love-for-sad-puppies-hugo-awards-20150824-story.html |archivedate=August 24, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wired 2015-08-23">{{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2015/08/won-science-fictions-hugo-awards-matters/ |title=Who Won Science Fiction's Hugo Awards, and Why It Matters |date=August 23, 2015 |accessdate=September 3, 2015 |last=Wallace |first=Amy |journal=Wired|deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150902191631/http://www.wired.com/2015/08/won-science-fictions-hugo-awards-matters |archivedate=September 2, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="BurgessMatamoros-Fernández2016">{{cite journal|last1=Burgess|first1=Jean|last2=Matamoros-Fernández|first2=Ariadna|title=Mapping sociocultural controversies across digital media platforms: one week of #gamergate on Twitter, YouTube, and Tumblr|journal=Communication Research and Practice|volume=2|issue=1|year=2016|pages=79–96|issn=2204-1451|doi=10.1080/22041451.2016.1155338|quote=Our findings show that, even when initially approached from as partial a perspective as the 'gamergate' keyword and hashtag represents, GamerGate's issue publics are absolutely not concerned only or even primarily with 'ethics in games journalism'}}</ref>

<ref name="Alt-right Component">{{Cite news|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-alt-right-2016-8 |title=A deep look inside the 'alt-right,' the movement Hillary Clinton just excoriated in a major speech |last=Smith |first=Allan |date=August 25, 2016 |work=Business Insider |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160829180326/http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-alt-right-2016-8 |archivedate=August 29, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Alt-right precursor">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-alt-right-hate-trump |title=What Gamergate should have taught us about the 'alt-right' The 2014 online hate-storm presaged the tactics of the Trump-loving far right movement. Prominent critics of the president elect should take note |last=Matt |first=Lees |date=December 1, 2016 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20161225152539/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-alt-right-hate-trump |archivedate=December 25, 2016 |df= |newspaper=The Guardian }}</ref>

<ref name="From Video Games to Politics">{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/14/if-we-took-gamergate-harassment-seriously-pizzagate-might-never-have-happened/ |title=If we took 'Gamergate' harassment seriously, 'Pizzagate' might never have happened: When Internet conspiracy theorists went after women, the tech world mostly ignored it. |last=Jeong |first=Sarah |date=December 14, 2016 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20161225214027/https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/14/if-we-took-gamergate-harassment-seriously-pizzagate-might-never-have-happened/ |archivedate=December 25, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Old Racism, New Technology">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2016/aug/25/the-alt-right-is-old-racism-for-the-tech-savvy-generation |title=The alt right is old racism for the tech-savvy generation |last=Fraser |first=Giles |date=August 25, 2016 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170110093040/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2016/aug/25/the-alt-right-is-old-racism-for-the-tech-savvy-generation |archivedate=January 10, 2017 |df= |newspaper=The Guardian }}</ref>

<ref name="LATimesHollywoodGG">{{cite web|url=http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-hollywood-values-updates-how-will-gamergate-values-play-out-in-1483646871-htmlstory.html |title=Rally white men. Demean women. Mock the impact of misogyny. How will Gamergate values play out in Trump's America? |work=LA Times |date=January 7, 2017 |accessdate=January 9, 2017 |last=Martens |first=Todd |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170108134346/http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-hollywood-values-updates-how-will-gamergate-values-play-out-in-1483646871-htmlstory.html |archivedate=January 8, 2017 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="IBTimesTrudeauGG">{{cite web|last1=Skipper |first1=Ben |title=Canada's feminist Prime Minister Justin Trudeau targets GamerGate in anti-misogyny call to action |url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/canadas-feminist-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-targets-gamergate-anti-misogyny-call-action-1525176 |website=IB Times |accessdate=November 8, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151110031751/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/canadas-feminist-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-targets-gamergate-anti-misogyny-call-action-1525176 |archivedate=November 10, 2015 |df= |date=October 22, 2015 }}</ref>

<ref name="BostonGlobe Women Outside">{{cite web|last1=Burrows |first1=Leah |title=Women remain outsiders in video game industry |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/01/27/women-remain-outsiders-video-game-industry/275JKqy3rFylT7TxgPmO3K/story.html |website=The Boston Globe |accessdate=September 11, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151002182852/http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/01/27/women-remain-outsiders-video-game-industry/275JKqy3rFylT7TxgPmO3K/story.html |archivedate=October 2, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="inquisitr">{{cite web|last=Frye |first=Patrick |url=http://www.inquisitr.com/1548436/gamergate-movement-claims-their-female-lgbt-and-non-white-supporters-are-under-attack/ |title=Gamergate Movement Claims Their Female, LGBT, And Non-White Supporters Are Under Attack |work=Inquisitr |date=October 19, 2014 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303211923/http://www.inquisitr.com/1548436/gamergate-movement-claims-their-female-lgbt-and-non-white-supporters-are-under-attack/ |archivedate=March 3, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="vice 2015-02-13">{{cite web|url=https://www.vice.com/read/lets-call-female-online-harassment-what-it-really-is-gender-terrorism-481 |title=Let's Call Female Online Harassment What It Really Is: Terrorism |first=Anne |last=Thériault |date=February 13, 2015 |accessdate=July 15, 2015 |work=[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150716012409/http://www.vice.com/read/lets-call-female-online-harassment-what-it-really-is-gender-terrorism-481 |archivedate=July 16, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="gamesindustyFBIGG">{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-01-30-fbi-reveals-173-page-gamergate-file |title=FBI reveals 173-page Gamergate file |first=Christopher |last=Dring |date=January 30, 2017 |accessdate=January 30, 2017 |work=[[GamesIndustry.biz]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170130105730/http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-01-30-fbi-reveals-173-page-gamergate-file |archivedate=January 30, 2017 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Straumsheim2015">{{cite web|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/28/women-gaming-discuss-role-academics-understanding-gamergate |title=Gaming Beyond Gamergate |date=April 28, 2015 |accessdate=August 4, 2015 |first=Carl |last=Straumsheim |publisher=[[Inside Higher Ed]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150721113858/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/04/28/women-gaming-discuss-role-academics-understanding-gamergate |archivedate=July 21, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="newsweek 2015-05-31">{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/ellen-pao-kleiner-perkins-silicon-valley-twitter-facebook-318400 |title=After Pao: How Tech Views Asians and Women |first=Sean |last=Elder |work=[[Newsweek]] |date=March 31, 2015 |accessdate=August 4, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925070008/http://www.newsweek.com/ellen-pao-kleiner-perkins-silicon-valley-twitter-facebook-318400 |archivedate=September 25, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="vanityfair 2015-08-04">{{cite web|url=http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/03/jonathan-blow-the-witness |title=In the Wake of Gamergate, Jonathan Blow Is Still Out to Make Video Games Smarter |first=Laura |last=Parker |date=March 2, 2015 |accessdate=August 4, 2015 |work=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150816085724/http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/03/jonathan-blow-the-witness |archivedate=August 16, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="salon 2014-12-23">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/it%E2%80%99s_more_common_to_see_a_blue_hedgehog_than_a_person_of_color_as_a_protagonist_inside_the_whitewashed_world_of_video_games/ |title="It's more common to see a blue hedgehog than a person of color as a protagonist": Inside the whitewashed world of video games |work=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |date=December 23, 2014 |accessdate=July 27, 2015 |first=Arthur |last=Cho |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150705091856/http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/it%E2%80%99s_more_common_to_see_a_blue_hedgehog_than_a_person_of_color_as_a_protagonist_inside_the_whitewashed_world_of_video_games/ |archivedate=July 5, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="Evans, Janish 2015">{{cite journal |last= Evans |first= Sarah Beth |last2=Janish |first2=Elyse |year= 2015|title=#INeedDiverseGames: How the Queer Backlash to Gamergate Enables Nonbinary Coalition |journal=QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=125–150 |doi= 10.14321/qed.2.2.0125}}</ref>

<ref name="ibtimes 2015-02-23">{{cite web|url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sony-europe-ceo-jim-ryan-absolutely-horrible-gamergate-industry-equality-1489142 |title=Sony Europe CEO Jim Ryan on 'absolutely horrible' Gamergate and industry equality |first=Ben |last=Skipper |work=[[International Business Times]] |date=February 23, 2015 |accessdate=July 11, 2015 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150712045324/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sony-europe-ceo-jim-ryan-absolutely-horrible-gamergate-industry-equality-1489142 |archivedate=July 12, 2015 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="fortune 2015-09-04">{{cite journal|url=http://fortune.com/2015/09/04/ea-peter-moore-on-women-in-gaming/ |title=Electronic Arts' biggest games are being helmed by female developers |journal=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]] |last=Gaudiosi |first=John |date=September 4, 2015 |issn=0015-8259 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160220065450/http://fortune.com/2015/09/04/ea-peter-moore-on-women-in-gaming/ |archivedate=February 20, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="cnnmoney 2016-03-16">{{cite web|url=http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/technology/syfy-the-internet-ruined-my-life-gamergate-brianna-wu/ |title=One tweet ruined her life |work=[[CNN]] |date=March 16, 2016 |accessdate=March 17, 2016 |first=Sara Ashley |last=O'Brien |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160320015836/http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/technology/syfy-the-internet-ruined-my-life-gamergate-brianna-wu/ |archivedate=March 20, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="SXSW On-Line Harassment Panel">{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35752657 |title=SXSW 2016: Little impact from isolated online abuse summit |publisher=BBC |date=March 13, 2016 |accessdate=March 14, 2016 |last=Lee |first=Dave |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160313205234/http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35752657 |archivedate=March 13, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="engadetSXSWSummit">{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/2016/03/12/sxsw-online-harassment-summit/ |title=SXSW's online harassment summit was a peaceful look at an ugly problem |publisher=Endgadget |date=March 13, 2016 |accessdate=March 14, 2016 |last=Ingraham |first=Nathan |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160313194759/http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/12/sxsw-online-harassment-summit/ |archivedate=March 13, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="RecodeSXSWSummit">{{cite web|url=https://recode.net/2016/03/12/sxsw-online-harassment-summit-how-widespread-is-internet-hate-and-what-can-we-do-about-it/ |title=SXSW Online Harassment Summit: How Widespread Is Internet Hate and What Can We Do About It? |publisher=re/code |date=March 12, 2016 |accessdate=March 14, 2016 |last=Kulwin |first=Noah |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160314122958/http://recode.net/2016/03/12/sxsw-online-harassment-summit-how-widespread-is-internet-hate-and-what-can-we-do-about-it/ |archivedate=March 14, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="obama">{{cite speech|first=Barack |last=Obama |author-link=Barack Obama |title=Remarks by the President at Reception in Honor of Women's History Month |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/16/remarks-president-reception-honor-womens-history-month |location=Washington, DC |date=March 16, 2016 |accessdate=March 20, 2016 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160318203453/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/03/16/remarks-president-reception-honor-womens-history-month |archivedate=March 18, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="dailydot 2016-03-18">{{cite web|url=http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/troll-busters-online-harassment/ |title=Troll Busters helps protect women writers from online bullies |work=The Daily Dot |first=Marisa |last=Kabas |date=March 18, 2016 |accessdate=March 20, 2016 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160319233235/http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/troll-busters-online-harassment/ |archivedate=March 19, 2016 |df= }}</ref>

<ref name="wiredWAMTwitterHarassment">{{cite journal |url=https://www.wired.com/2015/05/wam-twitter-harassment/ |title=It'S Too Easy for Trolls to Game Twitter's Anti-Abuse Tools |journal=Wired |first=Issie |last=Lapowsky |date=May 13, 2015 |accessdate=June 19, 2017 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170622005142/https://www.wired.com/2015/05/wam-twitter-harassment/ |archivedate=June 22, 2017 }}</ref>

<ref name="TheVergeWAMTwitter">{{cite web |url=https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/7982099/twitter-ceo-sent-memo-taking-personal-responsibility-for-the |title=Twitter CEO: 'We suck at dealing with abuse' |work=[[The Verge]] |first=Nitasha |last=Tiku |date=May 13, 2015 |accessdate=June 19, 2017 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170601110350/https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/4/7982099/twitter-ceo-sent-memo-taking-personal-responsibility-for-the |archivedate=June 1, 2017 }}</ref>

<ref name="verge 2017-06-29">{{Cite web | url = https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/29/15888764/katherine-clark-online-safety-modernization-act-bill-announced | title = A new internet safety bill would ban swatting, doxxing, and sextortion all at once | first = Adi | last = Robertson | date = June 29, 2017 | accessdate = June 29, 2017 | work = [[The Verge]] | deadurl = no | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20170629160109/https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/29/15888764/katherine-clark-online-safety-modernization-act-bill-announced | archivedate = June 29, 2017 | df = mdy-all }}</ref>

<ref name="clark hr__2017">{{cite web | url = http://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/b1841244-4daa-49ce-bb95-2cdcf16bc5b2/online-safety-modernization-act.pdf | title = Online Safety Modernization Act of 2017 | date = June 27, 2017 | accessdate = June 29, 2017 | publisher = [[United States House of Representatives]] | deadurl = no | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20170831215300/http://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/b1841244-4daa-49ce-bb95-2cdcf16bc5b2/online-safety-modernization-act.pdf | archivedate = August 31, 2017 | df = mdy-all }}</ref>

<ref name="Malone">{{cite web |url=http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/zoe-quinn-surviving-gamergate.html |title=Zoë and the Trolls |last=Malone |first=Noreen |date=July 26, 2017 |work=[[New York (magazine)|New York]] |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170919213249/http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/zoe-quinn-surviving-gamergate.html |archivedate=September 19, 2017 }}</ref>

<ref name="Murray">{{cite book |ref=harv |last1=Murray |first1=Soraya |title=On Video Games: The Visual Politics of Race, Gender and Space |date=2018 |publisher=I.B.Tauris |location=London, UK |isbn=978-1-78-453741-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/On_Video_Games.html?id=ZDw7DwAAQBAJ&q=gamergate |pages=35–36}}</ref>

<ref name="Nieborg & Foxman">{{cite book |ref=harv |last1=Nieborg |first1=David |last2=Foxman |first2=Maxwell |editor1=Vickery, J.R. |editor2=Everbach, T. |title=Mediating Misogyny: Gender, Technology, and Harassment |date=2018 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=London, UK |isbn=978-3-31-972916-9 |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books/about/Mediating_Misogyny.html?id=rRBMDwAAQBAJ&q=gamergate |chapter=Mainstreaming Misogyny: The Beginning of the End and the End of the Beginning in Gamergate Coverage |page=116}}</ref>

<ref name="Salter">{{cite book |ref=harv |last1=Salter |first1=Michael |title=Crime, Justice and Social Media|date=2017 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=978-1-13-891966-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Crime_Justice_and_Social_Media.html?id=jDolDwAAQBAJ&q=gamergate |page=43}}</ref>

<ref name="Bray">{{cite news |last=Bray |first=Hiawatha |title=Brianna Wu makes stand at PAX East |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/08/brianna-appears-pax-east-videogame-convention/hEzlyb5ggIf03vKycUa2aL/story.html |work=The Boston Globe |date=March 8, 2015}}</ref>

<ref name="Nakamura">{{cite book |last=Nakamura |first=Lisa |editor1=Malkowski, J. |editor2=Russworm, T.M. |title=Gaming Representation: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in Video Games |date=2017 |publisher=Indiana University Press |isbn=978-0-25-302573-9 |page=248 |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books/about/Gaming_Representation.html?id=6hcxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA248&dq=gamergate+misogyny |chapter=Racism, Sexism, and Gaming's Cruel Optimism}}</ref>

<ref name="Merlan">{{cite news |last=Merlan |first=Anna |title=Rep. Katherine Clark: The FBI Needs to Make Gamergate 'A Priority' |url=http://jezebel.com/rep-katherine-clark-the-fbi-needs-to-make-gamergate-a-1690599361 |work=Jezebel |date=March 10, 2015}}</ref>

<ref name="Barnes">{{cite book |ref=harv |last=Barnes |first=Renee |title=Uncovering Online Commenting Culture: Trolls, Fanboys and Lurkers |date=2018 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=London, UK |isbn=978-3-31-970234-6 |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books/about/Uncovering_Online_Commenting_Culture.html?id=LYtHDwAAQBAJ&q=gamergate |chapter=Lessons from ''#Gamergate'' |page=100}}</ref>

<ref name="Jane">{{cite book |ref=harv |last=Jane |first=Emma A. |title=Misogyny Online: A Short (and Brutish) History |date=2017 |publisher=SAGE Publications |location=London, UK; Thousand Oaks, Calif. |isbn=978-1-47-391600-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Misogyny_Online.html?id=PxwZDQAAQBAJ&q=gamergaters |page=30}}</ref>

<ref name="Mantilla">{{cite book |ref=harv |last=Mantilla |first=Karla |title=Gendertrolling: How Misogyny Went Viral |date=2015 |publisher=Praeger |location=Santa Barbara, Calif. |isbn=978-1-44-083317-5 |page=83 |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Gendertrolling_How_Misogyny_Went_Viral.html?id=kKNZCgAAQBAJ&q=gamergate}}</ref>

<ref name="Massanari 2017">{{cite book |ref=harv |last=Massanari |first=Adrienne L. |editor=Lind, R.A. |title=Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture |date=2017 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |isbn=978-1-13-864010-8 |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books/about/Race_and_Gender_in_Electronic_Media.html?id=ptpRDQAAQBAJ&q=gamergate+ethical |chapter='Damseling For Dollars': Toxic Technocultures and Geek Masculinity |pages=316–7}}</ref>

<ref name="Hathaway">{{cite web |last=Hathaway |first=Jay |title=What Is Gamergate, and Why? An Explainer for Non-Geeks |url=http://gawker.com/what-is-gamergate-and-why-an-explainer-for-non-geeks-1642909080 |website=Gawker |date=October 10, 2014}}</ref>

<ref name="Kaufman">{{cite web |last=Kaufman |first=Scott |title=Actor Adam Baldwin: #GamerGate defeated the Left, but there will be no parade |url=https://www.rawstory.com/2014/11/actor-adam-baldwin-gamergate-defeated-the-left-but-there-will-be-no-parade/ |website=Raw Story |date=November 10, 2014}}</ref>

<ref name="Kidd & Turner">{{cite book |ref=harv |last1=Kidd |first1=Dustin |last2=Turner |first2=Amanda J. |editor1=Novak, Alison |editor2=El-Burki, Imaani J. |title=Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age |date=2016 |publisher=IGI Global |location=Hershey, Penn. |isbn=978-1-52-250212-8 |page=122 |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books/about/Defining_Identity_and_the_Changing_Scope.html?id=L9k6DAAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&dq=gamergate |chapter=The #GamerGate Files: Misogyny in the Media}}</ref>

<ref name="Musgrave">{{cite book |ref=harv |last=Musgrave |first=Megan L. |title=Digital Citizenship in Twenty-First-Century Young Adult Literature: Imaginary Activism |date=2016 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |location=New York, N.Y. |isbn=978-1-13-760272-5 |page=130 |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books/about/Digital_Citizenship_in_Twenty_First_Cent.html?id=MIY-DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&dq=gamergate |chapter=Gamer Girls: Going Online in the Age of Misogynist Terrorism}}</ref>

<ref name="Hanson">{{cite book |ref=harv |last=Hanson |first=Ralph E. |title=Mass Communication: Living in a Media World |date=2017 |edition=6th |publisher=SAGE Publications |isbn=978-1-50-634446-1 |page=375 |url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Mass_Communication.html?id=ZX5ZDwAAQBAJ&q=gamergate}}</ref>

<ref name="Guide to Gamergate">{{cite news |last=Dewey |first=Caitlin |title=The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/14/the-only-guide-to-gamergate-you-will-ever-need-to-read/ |work=The Washington Post |date=October 14, 2014}}</ref>

<ref name="Shaw & Chess 2016">{{cite book |ref=harv |last1=Shaw |first1=Adrienne |last2=Chess |first2=Shira |editor1=Willson, Michele |editor2=Leaver, Tama |title=Social, Casual and Mobile Games: The Changing Gaming Landscape |date=2016 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |location=New York, N.Y. |isbn=978-1-50-131060-7 |page=279 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Social_Casual_and_Mobile_Games.html?id=525yCwAAQBAJ&q=gamergate |chapter=Reflections on the casual games market in a post-GamerGate world}}</ref>

<ref name="Aghazadeh et al">{{cite book |ref=harv |last1=Aghazadeh |first1=S.A. |display-authors=etal |editor=Golbeck, Jennifer |title=Online Harassment |date=2018 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-31-978582-0 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books/about/Online_Harassment.html?id=6-1lDwAAQBAJ&q=gamergate |page=183 |chapter=GamerGate: A Case Study in Online Harassment}}</ref>

<ref name="Bernstein J">{{Cite web |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/lane-davis-ralph-retort-seattle4truth-alt-right |title=Alt-Right Troll To Father Killer: The Unraveling Of Lane Davis |last=Bernstein |first=Joseph |date=July 18, 2018 |website=Buzzfeed News |access-date=August 1, 2018}}</ref>

<ref name="Braithwaite">{{cite journal |last=Braithwaite |first=Andrea |title=It's About Ethics in Games Journalism? Gamergaters and Geek Masculinity |journal=Social Media + Society |date=October 7, 2016 |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=205630511667248 |doi=10.1177/2056305116672484 |quote=#Gamergate is also a site for articulating 'Gamergater' as a form of geek masculinity.}}</ref>

}}

{{authority control}}
{{portal bar|2010s|Feminism|Internet|Journalism|Video games}}
{{Gamergate controversy}}
{{Video game controversy}}

[[Category:2014 controversies]]
[[Category:2014 in video gaming]]
[[Category:2015 controversies]]
[[Category:2015 in video gaming]]
[[Category:2016 controversies]]
[[Category:2016 in video gaming]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theories]]
[[Category:Criticism of journalism]]
[[Category:Cyberbullying]]
[[Category:Hashtags]]
[[Category:Internet activism]]
[[Category:Internet culture]]
[[Category:Internet trolling]]
[[Category:Internet vigilantism]]
[[Category:Journalism ethics]]
[[Category:Misogyny]]
[[Category:Sexual harassment]]
[[Category:Video game controversies]]
[[Category:Video game journalism]]
[[Category:Women and video games]]
[[Category:4chan]]

Talk:Epidemiology of obesity

2019-01-13T16:58:16Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Contextualise Lead */ new section

{{WikiProject Medicine | class = start | importance = low}}
{{WikiProject Health and fitness}}

==Moved==
Moved to make more room for content. --[[User:Jmh649|'''Doc James''']] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== Obesity rates among men and women ==

In the US, as of 2007, 33% of men and 35% of women are obese.[23] The rates however are as high as 50% among African American women.[24]

I recommend changing the previous statement to: "In the US, 28% of men and 34% of women are obese, with the obesity rate being as much as 50% among African American women."

All of this information can be found in reference 24, making reference 23 unnecessary. Basically, reference 23 can be removed and replaced with reference 24. This makes additional sense because reference 23 is not a full-text article (just an abstract), whereas reference 24 is a full-text article.

[[Special:Contributions/68.63.209.192|68.63.209.192]] ([[User talk:68.63.209.192|talk]]) 17:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)AmateurObesityResearcher
:Sure, please feel free to [[wp:bold|be bold]] and make the changes. [[User:TastyCakes|TastyCakes]] ([[User talk:TastyCakes|talk]]) 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

==More coverage of United Kingdom data needed==
I live in the United Kingdom where, for most of the zeros, one can hardly escape hearing about the obesity epidemic. I wondered whether there would be a Wikipedia article entitled "obesity epidemic" but it seems to get redirected here. True, in recent years, scare stories about the obesity epidemic seem waning, but I still feel that a lot more coverage of the obesity epidemic in the United Kingdom is needed in this article (unless one starts a new article entitled "Obesity epidemic"). By the way, I am aware that we already have an article on [[childhood obesity]]. [[User:ACEOREVIVED|ACEOREVIVED]] ([[User talk:ACEOREVIVED|talk]]) 23:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

::There is also the article [[obesity]]. But feel free to expand on the epidemiology data regarding the UK.[[User:Jmh649|'''Doc James''']] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) 23:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I have just put in that the United Kingdom now has the second highest rate of obesity in the world as this was claimed on the television news on the night of January 6 2013 - I think it was on the [[ITV]] news, but if any one is skilful about finding website references to either the [[BBC]] or [[ITV]] news, s/he might be able to put in the reference for this. [[User:ACEOREVIVED|ACEOREVIVED]] ([[User talk:ACEOREVIVED|talk]]) 14:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

== Thousands of years ==

I'm confused about the opening sentence:
:For thousands of years obesity was rarely seen.
Why the "thousands" scale? Why not "millions"? Are we trying to avoid the implication that obesity wasn't prevalent in prehistory? ~ [[User:Booyabazooka|Booya Bazooka]] 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

== Excess Deaths in the United States ==

The 300.000,00 figure has been notoriously changed to 26.000,00 by CDC's Katherine Flegal and her team, so I just made this minor observation. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Normann Cohn|Normann Cohn]] ([[User talk:Normann Cohn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Normann Cohn|contribs]]) 19:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Epidemiology of obesity]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=801810762 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114202148/http://www.fao.org/statistics/compendium_2006/pdf/CPR_ESS_E.pdf to http://www.fao.org/statistics/compendium_2006/pdf/CPR_ESS_E.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''InternetArchiveBot''']] ([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 00:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

== Contextualise Lead ==

"In 2013, an estimated 2.1 billion adults were overweight, as compared with 857 million in 1980."

The global population of the world in 1980 was 4.5 billion, while it was 7.2 billion in 2013, information which seems important in contextualizing this growth, which mitigates the effects a bit. Obviously under OR I can't change this, but if anyone had a source which took this data into account, I believe the article would be improved.

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 16:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Perth Modern School

2018-10-14T23:08:54Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: Corrected formating

{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2014}}
{{Use Australian English|date=March 2014}}
{{Infobox school
| name = Perth Modern School
| logo =
| image = Perth Modern School, 2015 01.jpg
| motto = {{lang-fr|Savoir C'est Pouvoir}}
| motto_translation = Knowledge is Power
| city = [[Subiaco, Western Australia|Subiaco]]
| state = [[Western Australia|W.A]]
| country = [[Australia]]
| coordinates = {{coord|-31.9450|115.8377|type:edu_region:AU|display=inline,title}}
| type = [[Selective school|Selective]], Day & [[Boarding School]], [[Public school (government funded)|Public]]
| established = 1911
| principal = Lois Joll
| gender = [[Co-educational]]
| enrolment = 1381 (11 May 2017)<ref>{{cite web |url=https://apps.det.wa.edu.au/publicreports/SchoolsList0880.pdf |format=pdf |title= Alphabetical List of Western Australian Schools |publisher=Western Australian Department of Education |date=7 August 2014 |accessdate=10 Aug 2014 }}</ref>
| colours = {{color box|#2C2A7F}} {{color box|#F4B938}} {{color box|#AB2622}} Blue, Yellow and Red
| website = {{URL|http://perthmodern.wa.edu.au/}}
| imagesize = 250px
| campus = Urban
| module={{Infobox mapframe
|stroke-colour=#C60C30
|stroke-width=3
|marker=school
|marker-colour=#1F2F57
|zoom=13
}}
}}

'''Perth Modern School''' (colloquially known as '''Perth Mod''' or just "Mod") is an [[Selective school|academically selective]] [[co-educational]] [[Public school (government funded)|public]] [[high school]] located in [[Subiaco, Western Australia|Subiaco]], an inner city suburb of [[Perth, Western Australia|Perth]], [[Western Australia]]. The school, established in 1911, caters for students with high academic ability.

In 2010 ''[[The Age]]'' reported that Perth Modern ranked equal fourth among Australian schools based on the number of alumni who had received a top [[Order of Australia]] honour since 1975.<ref>{{cite news| first = Jewel| last = Topsfield| title = Ties that bind prove a private education has its awards| url = http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/ties-that-bind-prove-a-private-education-has-its-awards-20101203-18jx0.html?from=age_sb| publisher = ''The Age''| page = 11| date = 4 December 2010}}.</ref> Fourteen Perth Modernians have won Rhodes Scholarships from the [[University of Western Australia]].<ref name=Rhodes>{{cite web | url = http://www.secretariat.uwa.edu.au/home/rhodes?f=192731 | title = Western Australian Rhodes Scholars | accessdate = 26 April 2011 | format = doc | publisher = University of Western Australia | deadurl = yes | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110407231628/http://www.secretariat.uwa.edu.au/home/rhodes?f=192731 | archivedate = 7 April 2011 | df = dmy-all }}</ref>

Students of Perth Modern School are called "Perth Modernians" or "Modernians" or "Mods" for short.

==History==
Perth Modern School was the first government high school in [[Western Australia]] . The school opened in 1911. Students were prepared for entry to the [[University of Western Australia]], which opened in 1913. The school charged a fee of £6 a year. Demand for places at the school was high. Students came from all over Perth and Western Australia, many staying with relatives or boarding as near to the school as possible. In 1912, the school inaugurated a system of scholarships designed to encourage students of ability to attend regardless of the financial situation of their parents. Students studied comprehensive science and modern languages as part of their courses, in addition to classical subjects.<ref name=PMS>{{cite web
| title =Perth Modern School West Building including Main Hall
| publisher =Australian Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
| url = http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=town%3Dsubiaco%3Bstate%3DWA%3Bkeyword_PD%3Don%3Bkeyword_SS%3Don%3Bkeyword_PH%3Don%3Blatitude_1dir%3DS%3Blongitude_1dir%3DE%3Blongitude_2dir%3DE%3Blatitude_2dir%3DS%3Bin_region%3Dpart;place_id=10404
| accessdate = 23 January 2013 }}</ref>

Central to the establishment of the school was Cecil Andrews. As a young man, Andrews was Inspector General of Schools in Western Australia and he had the honour of naming the school and of directing the school curriculum. The first principal of the school, Ferdinand Granger Brown, helped the school to a start and he was succeeded in 1912 by [[Joseph Parsons]] who led the school until 1939.<ref name=PMS_Heritage>{{cite web
| title =Perth Modern School History and Tradition
| publisher =Australian Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
| url = http://WWW.PERTHMODERNSCHOOL.DET.WA.EDU.AU/ABOUT/HISTORYTRADITION/TABID/68/DEFAULT.ASPX
| accessdate = 2 February 2013 }}</ref>

Throughout its history the school has been at the forefront of state education. Perth Modern School pioneered two ''modern'' and entirely new concepts in Western Australian education. One was the concept of co-education and the other was that there was to be no corporal punishment, no detention, and no punishment arbitrary or authoritative.<ref name=PMS/>

The first concept provided co-education granting young women and young men access to the same higher education pathway. When Perth Modern School opened, it was rare to find women participating in the same endeavours on the same playing field as men. Prior to Perth Modern School, the only high schools in Western Australia were eight independent schools. These schools were sectarian, unisex, high fee paying schools, and only three of the eight schools catered for young women. The school educators helped raise the consciousness in generations of students who were ready, willing and able to advocate change for justice and equality based on merit, as they entered the world and pursued their careers.

The second concept charged each student with the knowledge the school would offer no discipline except self-discipline. Worldwide, it was accepted teachers would use arbitrary and often violent punishments to force students to conform to the will of authority. Perth Modern embraced a new motto, ''Savoir C’est Pouvoir'' (Knowledge is Power), and the [[Sphinx]], representing [[knowledge]] and [[wisdom]], was adopted as the school emblem. By recognizing and by raising higher reasoning in each student, the school educators imparted the gift of education as the key to future success, and this was the motivation for each student to work hard and to achieve the highest results possible.

In 1958 Perth Modern School became a comprehensive five year high school. In 1968 music became a focus of the school and the first of the music scholarships were awarded to 36 first year and 19 fourth year students. By 1970, the school orchestra was formed and the Joseph Parsons Memorial Library opened.<ref name=PMS_Heritage/>

The old Thomas Street Primary School, administered by Perth Modern School, became the home of English as a second language in Western Australia in 1990.<ref name=PMS_Heritage/>

In 2005, the Premier of WA, Geoff Gallop, announced the proposal for the school to once again become one of academic excellence. Funding was allocated to turn Perth Modern School into a selective high school for academic excellence.<ref name=PMS_Heritage/>

The school reverted to its original concept of a fully selective government school in 2007, recognising that gathering students of high ability in one school encourages students to "be themselves" with like-minded peers, which allows opportunity for the development of higher-order thinking skills and meets the social, emotional and educational needs of gifted students.<ref>{{cite web|title=Higher Order Thinking|url=http://www.popet.com.au/higher_order_thinking|website=Popet|accessdate=15 August 2017}}</ref><ref>[http://www.det.wa.edu.au/education/Gifttal/ "DET WA Gifted and Talented"]</ref> The gifted program is based on Francois Gagne's Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent.<ref>NSW AGTC: Francois Gagne's Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent [http://nswagtc.org.au/info/definitions/gagnemodel.html]</ref> In 2011, the centenary year, all students were once again academically selected.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/16/3140723.htm?site=perth | title = Perth Modern returns to its roots | accessdate = 22 February 2012 | last = Borrello | first = Eliza | date = 16 February 2011 | work = Australian Broadcasting Corporation}}</ref>

In 2017, the incoming [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] government made an [[election promise]] to move the academic school operating at Perth Modern into a high-rise building in Perth's CBD, while the current buildings would be repurposed for use as a local intake school.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Kagi|first1=Jacob|title=Perth Modern School relocation: Government leaves door open for rethink|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-30/labor-softens-perth-modern-school-stance/8573364|website=ABC News|accessdate=22 August 2017|language=en-AU|date=30 May 2017}}</ref> The [[Australian Labor Party|Labor]] government abandoned its plans after community backlash.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Powell|first1=Graeme|title=Perth Modern School: Community backlash sees Government abandon relocation plans|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-13/perth-modern-school-move-plan-abandoned-by-wa-government/8610540|website=ABC News|accessdate=22 August 2017|language=en-AU|date=13 June 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Gartry|first1=Laura|title=Perth CBD high-rise school: Parents at war with Labor over 'stifling, sterile' plan|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-27/perth-high-rise-school-parents-reject-labor-plan/8308370|website=ABC News|accessdate=22 August 2017|language=en-AU|date=27 February 2017}}</ref>

==Heritage trail==

'''West building and main hall (now Beasley Building)'''

By December 1907, the Western Australian Parliament allocated funds to build the first government high school on a site near the Thomas Street School in Subiaco. However, debate continued for some time, and it was not until 1909 that the west building and main hall contract was tendered.<ref name=Heritage>{{cite web
| url = http://register.heritage.wa.gov.au/PDF_Files/P-Q%20Reg/Perth%20Modern%20Schl%20%28P%29.PDF
| title = Perth Modern School
| accessdate = 14 April 2011
| date = 14 December 2001| format = PDF
| work = Register of Heritage Places - Assessment Documentation
| publisher = Heritage Council of Western Australia }}</ref>

The new school was built on land which was formerly part of the northern common in Subiaco. The land was set aside for education purposes. The site, of over 4 hectares (10 acres) in area, was located between Subiaco and Mueller Roads (renamed Roberts Road), west of Thomas Street in Subiaco. On 30 July 1909, S B Alexander was awarded the building contract for £11,637. The contract for the west building and main hall specified eight classrooms, art room, library, chemistry and physics laboratories, lecture rooms, as well as cookery and laundry classrooms. These facilities were grouped around the 27.4m by 14.3m (90 ft by 47 ft) central hall. The building was designed by [[Hillson Beasley]], [[Principal Architect (Western Australia)|Principal Architect]] of the [[Public Works Department, Western Australia]]. By 1911 the building was completed for the sum of £18,974.<ref name=PMS/>

Beasley’s design of the west building and main hall comprised three parallel two storey wings facing north and south with a courtyard to the west. The building was typical of Beasley's mixture of formality and informality, with interesting interiors serving ritualised assemblies and examinations. The building reflected many key characteristics of [[Federation Arts and Crafts]] architecture. It was constructed in red brick with a stone base facade. Decorative exterior features included white painted cement rending to all framing, quoins, and copings. The design and construction also featured a central landmark clock tower with a battlemented parapet, a tapering roof lantern and dormer windows. The roofs were designed and built with steeply pitched parapeted gables covered in tiles, and with prominent eaves and exposed ends to rafters. The main hall was set two storeys high with a jarrah ceiling. Carved sloped roof rafters were designed to give the interior of the building an ecclesiastical feel. The gallery was built spanning east and west on the first floor level with staircases at each end.<ref name=PMS/>

Other notable details of fine design and craftsmanship of west building included the stained glass transom windows and fanlights executed in [[Art Nouveau]] style at the north side of the building and inside the entrance foyer.<ref name=Heritage/>

The west building was refurbished during the late 1980s and the work was recognised by several awards. The building is a leading venue for chamber music and general ensemble performance in Perth. The west building is linked by a covered walkway to the third heritage listed wing which houses society and environment classes

The west building and main hall were interimly registered by the Heritage Council of Western Australia in 1992 and it entered the State Registry of Historical Places in 2001. The building was included on the bases of aesthetics and of the number of notable Australians who hailed from these doors.<ref name="Heritage"/>

'''War memorial'''

The Old Modernians War Memorial was unveiled in 1922 to commemorate the service of ex-students in [[World War I]]. The outbreak of WWI saw 177 Modernians enlist, 27 of whom lost their lives, though only 24 names are recorded on the monument. The memorial was designed by [[William Hardwick]], the [[Principal Architect (Western Australia)|Principal Architect]] of [[Western Australia]] in 1920, and it is located at the oval-side front door of the school.

'''East building and gymnasium (now Andrews Building)'''

The east building and gymnasium were built after the [[Second World War]]. Both buildings have been listed as well sited bearing a functionalist aesthetic. The design and construction have been recognised as fine examples of post-war [[International style (architecture)|International style]]. The new administration building joins and provides lift access to the east building.<ref name=Heritage/>

==Modern campus==

The school is demarcated by the following buildings and centres -

'''Andrews Building'''
* administration building
* east building
* 27 Maths and science classrooms
* Physical education office (formerly gymnasium, metal & woodworking rooms, and the old canteen)

'''Beasley Building'''
* auditorium
* humanities and social sciences
* music
* west Building and oval (original Perth Modern School, 1911)

'''Casey Drama Theatre'''
* drama theatre
* adjacent to The Graduate College of Dance

'''Embleton Music Centre'''
* music classrooms

'''Gardham Building'''
* design and technology

'''Mills Building'''
* visual arts, languages, food science, and multimedia/computer science

'''Parsons Building'''
* library and cafeteria (replaced Joseph Parsons Memorial Library, demolished 2009)
* lecture theatre

'''Stokes Building'''
* English (original Thomas Street Primary School, established 1904)

'''Tyler McCusker Sports Centre'''
* gymnasium (used for badminton, volleyball, netball etc.)
* basketball courts
* beach volleyball court
* assembly area

The school also has a campus-wide WI-FI network, reverse cycle air-conditioned classrooms and an oval located in the middle of the school.

==City Beach Residential College==
Students coming from regional, rural, remote and international areas attending the school can board nearby at City Beach Residential College located in Bold Park next to the International School of Western Australia (ISWA). It contains 72 beds and was funded by a grant from the government. Students have their own rooms, in 6-bed units, each with three bathrooms, a kitchen and recreation area with TV.

==Academic ranking, Western Australia==
Perth Modern students perform consistently well in the [[WACE]] school rankings. Since 2011, the Year-12 cohorts have produced the highest average ranking when compared to the rest of the schools in Western Australia.

'''WA school ATAR ranking'''

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Year
!Rank
!Median ATAR
!Eligible students
!Students with ATAR
!% students with ATAR
|-
| 2017<ref>{{cite web|url=https://bettereducation.com.au/Results/WA/wace.aspx|title=WA School Ranking - 2017|year=2017|accessdate=13 October 2018|publisher=Better Education}}</ref>|| 1 || 95.9 || 223||222 || 99.55
|-
| 2016<ref>{{cite web|url=https://bettereducation.com.au/Results/WA/wace.aspx|title=WA School Ranking - 2016|year=2016|accessdate=13 October 2018|publisher=Better Education}}</ref>|| 1 || 95.55 || 222||220 || 99.1
|-
|}
{{reflist|group=lower-roman}}

'''Year 12 student achievement data'''

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Year
!Rank{{efn-lr|Ranking of school compared to other schools in the state}}
!% +75 in WACE{{efn-lr|Based on the number of Stage 3 course enrolments in the school where a WACE course score of 75 or above was achieved}}
!Rank
!% +65 in WACE{{efn-lr|Based on the number of Stage 3 course enrolments in the school where a WACE course score of 65 or above was achieved}}
!% graduates{{efn-lr|Percentage of Year 12 cohort that graduated with a WACE certificate}}
|-
| 2015<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/74888/Year-12-School-Performance-Data-2015-WITH-STATISTICAL-DATA.pdf|title=Year 12 Student Achievement Data|year=2015|accessdate=31 December 2017|publisher=[[Government of Western Australia]]}}</ref>||2|| 40.62 || 3 || 66.73 || 100.00
|-
| 2014<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/YEAR%2012%20School%20Performance%20Data%202014_WITH%20STATISTICAL%20DATA.pdf|title=Year 12 Student Achievement Data|year=2014|accessdate=3 February 2015|publisher=[[Government of Western Australia]]|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150309085033/http://scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/YEAR%2012%20School%20Performance%20Data%202014_WITH%20STATISTICAL%20DATA.pdf|archivedate=9 March 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref>|| 2 || 35.89 || 1 || 68.89 || 99.43
|-
| 2013<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/2013%20Year%2012%20School%20Performance%20Data%20-%20complete.pdf|title=Year 12 Student Achievement Data|year=2013|accessdate=4 April 2014|publisher=[[Government of Western Australia]]|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150309085051/http://scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/2013%20Year%2012%20School%20Performance%20Data%20-%20complete.pdf|archivedate=9 March 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref>|| 3|| 32.22 || 3 || 63.01 || 99.47
|-
|-
| 2012<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/Year%2012%20Student%20achievement%20data%20-%202012.pdf.pdf|title=Year 12 Student Achievement Data|year=2012|accessdate=24 July 2013|publisher=[[Government of Western Australia]]|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140826115635/http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/Year%2012%20Student%20achievement%20data%20-%202012.pdf.pdf|archivedate=26 August 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref>|| 1 || 37.03 || 2 || 68.42 || 100
|-
|-
| 2011 <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/Year%2012%20Student%20achievement%20data%202011_communications_web%20version%20RELATE%20TO%202012_900.pdf|title=Year 12 Student Achievement Data|year=2011|accessdate=24 July 2013|publisher=Government of Western Australia|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140826161651/http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/Year%2012%20Student%20achievement%20data%202011_communications_web%20version%20RELATE%20TO%202012_900.pdf|archivedate=26 August 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref>|| 4|| 34.09 || 6 || 67.32 || 100
|-
|-
| 2010<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/Year%2012%20student%20achievement%20data%20and%20State%20statistics%20-%202010.pdf|title=Year 12 Student Achievement Data|year=2010|accessdate=24 July 2013|publisher=Government of Western Australia|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140826161245/http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/Year%2012%20student%20achievement%20data%20and%20State%20statistics%20-%202010.pdf|archivedate=26 August 2014|df=dmy-all}}</ref> || 15 || 21.32 || 18 || 59.01 || 97.1
|-
|-
| 2009 <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/Year%2012%20Student%20achievement%20data%20-%202009_web.pdf|title=Year 12 Student Achievement Data|year=2009|accessdate=24 July 2013|publisher=Government of Western Australia|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150309085152/http://scsa.wa.edu.au/internet/_Documents/Statistics/Year%2012%20Student%20achievement%20data%20-%202009_web.pdf|archivedate=9 March 2015|df=dmy-all}}</ref>|| 11 || 50.51 (>75% minimum of one subject) || 18 || 49.9 (64.6% or more) || 98.29
|-
|}
{{reflist|group=lower-roman}}

'''Beazley Medal winners'''

Each year, a [[Beazley Medal]] is presented to the top ranked academic student in Western Australia.

* 2016: Caitlin Revell
* 2015: Hui Min Tay
* 2014: Jamin Wu
* 2010: Michael Taran

==Performing arts==

===Dance===

Perth Modern School hosts the independent Graduate College of Dance, from which a number of acclaimed high-profile dancers have graduated.<ref>{{cite web
|title=ALUMNI & ACHIEVEMENTS / WHERE DID THEY GO?
|url=http://www.tgcd.com.au/alumni/
|website=The Graduate College of Dance
|publisher=The Graduate College of Dance
|accessdate=17 February 2017
|location=Perth, WA}}</ref> The Graduate College of Dance is a leading vocational [[dance school]] in Australia. The College prepares talented dancers aged 9 to 17 (year 5 to 12) for the dance profession. The college's comprehensive curriculum combines professional dance training with an academic education to [[Tertiary education|tertiary]] level. The college is a private organisation requiring fees from applicants, enrolled students
at Perth Modern School and private students from elsewhere. The Department of Education and Training previously accommodated the Graduate College of Dance at [[Shenton College|Swanbourne Senior High School]]. With the amalgamation of Swanbourne into Shenton College in 2000, the department offered the Graduate College of Dance accommodation at the Perth Modern School site due to the availability of appropriate space and suitable dance flooring.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Ravlich|first1=Ljiljanna| authorlink1 = Ljiljanna Ravlich| title=Perth Modern School - Music and Ballet Scholarship Programs |url=http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard%5Chansard.nsf/0/e7113ac1763798b1c825757000325b9a/$FILE/C37%20S1%2020060914%20p5984b-5984b.pdf|website=Hansard|publisher=Parliament of Western Australia|date= 14 September 2006|accessdate=23 March 2015|location=Perth, WA|format=pdf}}</ref>

===Music===

Perth Modern's music programme is selective and available to all enrolled students who complete an audition.

The programme encompasses the [[Kodály Method|Kodály methodology]] in its teachings. Most aural and theory concepts are taught with the aid of the philosophies of music by [[Zoltán Kodály]], in which hand signs are used as a way of representing musical notes by holding the hand in a certain position for each note.

The music programme places an emphasis on singing. It is a requirement that all students in the programme are in at least one vocal ensemble. The school has four wind [[orchestras]], three standard orchestras (two string and one symphony) and two [[classical guitar]] ensembles as well as various other instrumental groups, chamber choirs and [[jazz]] ensembles.

The Perth Modern School Symphony Orchestra has the longest tradition of any school ensemble in Western Australia, having been first formed in 1915.

==House system==
Perth Modern School was excluded by WA private schools from joining established interschool sporting competitions. In 1915, Mr Parsons separated the school into Red, Blue, Gold and Sphinx Factions to promote sporting rivalry.<ref name=PMS_Heritage/>

In 2007 Perth Modern School introduced a new house system to provide competition and recognition of achievement. The houses were named after four of the first five school principals with each house represented by the following colours:

{| class=wikitable

!House
|-
|{{color box|#0000CC}} Brown
|-
|{{color box|#FFCC00}} Downing
|-
|{{color box|#008F00||}} Parsons
|-
|{{color box|#FF0000||}} Sampson
|-
|}

Students can earn points from any activity and the school encourages students to take part in academic, sporting, arts or community events by awarding house points. Awards are given to students who meet the minimum number of required house points.

At the end of the year, the house with the highest accumulated total number of house points is awarded the house cup.

==Notable alumni==
{{main|List of Perth Modernians}}
Perth Modern School alumni are known as ''Perth Modernians''. They have received more top [[Order of Australia]] honours than the alumni of any other school in Western Australia.<ref name=AC>{{cite news| first = Jewel| last = Topsfield| title = Ties that bind prove a private education has its awards| url = http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/ties-that-bind-prove-a-private-education-has-its-awards-20101203-18jx0.html?from=age_sb| publisher = ''The Age''| page = 11| date = 4 December 2010}} The hard copy article also published a table of the schools which were ranked in the top ten places in Australia, as follows: (1st with 19 awards) [[Scotch College, Melbourne]], (2nd with 17 awards) [[Geelong Grammar School]], (3rd with 13 awards) [[Sydney Boys High School]], (equal 4th with 10 awards each) [[Fort Street High School]], Perth Modern School and [[St Peter's College, Adelaide]], (equal 7th with 9 awards each) [[Melbourne Grammar School]], [[North Sydney Boys High School]] and [[The King's School, Parramatta]], (equal 10th with 6 awards each) [[Launceston Church Grammar School|Launceston Grammar School]], [[Melbourne High School]], [[Wesley College, Melbourne]] and [[Xavier College]].</ref> Fourteen Perth Modernians have won Rhodes Scholarships from the University of Western Australia.<ref name="Rhodes"/> Notable Perth Modernians include:
{{colbegin}}
* Sir [[Garrick Agnew]] - Olympic swimmer, businessman
* [[Caitlin Bassett]] - [[Australian Netball Diamonds|Australian Netball Diamonds captain]]
* [[Margaret Battye]] – lawyer, female rights activist
* [[Kim Beazley Sr.|Kim Edward Beazley]] - Cabinet minister
* [[Joe Berinson]] - [[Attorney General]] of Western Australia
* Sir [[Phillip Bennett]] – first [[Chief of the Defence Force (Australia)|Chief of the Australian Defence Force]]
* [[Len Buckeridge]] - founder of [[Buckeridge Group of Companies]] (BGC)
* [[H. C. Coombs|H.C. "Nugget" Coombs]] – first [[Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia]]
* [[Rolf Harris]] – entertainer, artist
* Sir [[Paul Hasluck]] – 17th [[Governor-General of Australia]], Cabinet minister
* [[Bob Hawke]] – 23rd [[Prime Minister of Australia]], [[Australian Council of Trade Unions|ACTU]] President
* [[Ern Henfry]] - VFL footballer at [[Carlton Football Club|Carlton]], premiership captain
* [[Janet Holmes à Court]] – businesswoman, philanthropist
* [[Clarrie Isaacs]] – [[Australian Aboriginal]] rights activist
* [[Anthony Jones (Australian rules footballer)|Anthony Jones]] – AFL footballer at [[Fremantle Football Club|Fremantle]], [[Sandover Medal]] 2007
* [[Betty Judge|Betty Judge-Beazley]] - athletics world records holder
* [[Katherine Langford]] - actress
* [[Malcolm McCusker]] – 31st [[Governor of Western Australia]]
* [[Emma Matthews]] - lyric soprano, [[Opera Australia]]
* [[Ken Michael]] - 30th [[Governor of Western Australia]]
* [[Maxwell Newton]] – first editor ''[[The Australian]]''
* [[Lawrence O'Donnell (general)|Lawrence O'Donnell]] – [[Chief of Army (Australia)|Chief of the Australian Army]]
* [[Victor Sangiorgio]] - pianist
* [[Alan Seymour]] – playwright and author, ''[[The One Day of the Year]]''
* [[Ralph Slatyer]] - first [[Chief Scientist of Australia]]
* [[John Stone (Australian politician)|John Stone]] – [[Department of the Treasury (Australia)|Secretary to the Treasury]], Australian Senator
* [[Daryl Williams (politician)|Daryl Williams]] – Attorney General of Australia
* Sir [[Albert Wolff (Australian judge)|Albert Wolff]] – [[Chief Justice of Western Australia]]
* [[John La Nauze]] - Historian.
{{colend}}

==See also==
{{portal|Schools|Western Australia}}
* [[List of schools in Perth, Western Australia]]

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

===Further reading===
* {{cite book|author=Sphinx Foundation |title=Perth Modern School: The History and the Heritage|year=2005|publisher=B+G Resource Enterprises; Sphinx Foundation |location=Cottesloe, WA |isbn=9781920715953}}
* {{cite book|last1=Woodman |first1=Alison |last2=Staaden |first2=Ross |title=Past, Present & Future: Celebrating 100 Years of Exceptional Education at Perth Modern School (1911-2011) |year=2011|publisher=Perth Modern School P & C Association |location=Subiaco, WA |isbn=9780646557847}}

==External links==
{{commons category-inline|Perth Modern School}}

{{Public high schools in Western Australia}}

[[Category:Boarding schools in Australia]]
[[Category:Public schools in Western Australia]]
[[Category:Rock Eisteddfod Challenge participants]]
[[Category:High schools in Western Australia]]
[[Category:Educational institutions established in 1911]]
[[Category:Subiaco, Western Australia]]
[[Category:Schools in Perth, Western Australia]]
[[Category:State Register of Heritage Places]]

List of common misconceptions

2018-10-09T11:53:28Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: Entrapment misconception not on entrapment page; fails #3

{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2013}}


This is a '''list of common misconceptions'''. Each entry is formatted as a correction, and contains a link to the article where the misconception is described. The misconceptions themselves are implied rather than stated.

==Arts and culture==

===Food and cooking===
[[File:fortune cookie broken 20040628 223252 1.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|[[Fortune cookie]]s, despite being associated with Chinese cuisine, were actually invented in Japan<ref name="solving"/> and are almost never eaten in China, where they are seen as American.<ref name="snopesfortunecookie"/>]]

* [[Searing]] meat may cause it to lose moisture in comparison to an equivalent piece of meat cooking without searing. Generally, the value in searing meat is that it creates a brown crust with a rich flavor via the [[Maillard reaction]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cookthink.com/reference/7/Does_searing_meat_really_seal_in_moisture|title=Does searing meat really seal in moisture?|publisher=Cookthink.com |accessdate=August 29, 2009 |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20131214115343/http://www.cookthink.com/reference/7/Does_searing_meat_really_seal_in_moisture | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref name="McGee">{{cite book|author=McGee, Harold|title=On Food and Cooking |edition=Revised|publisher=Scribner|date=2004|isbn=978-0-684-80001-1|page=161}} "The Searing Question".</ref>
* [[Cooking with alcohol|Food containing wine or liquor]] retains alcohol even after cooking. According to the [[United States Department of Agriculture|USDA]], 75% of the alcohol remains after [[flambé]]ing, 25% after one hour of baking or simmering, and 10% after two hours of baking or simmering.<ref>{{cite web |title=USDA Table of Nutrient Retention Factors, Release 6 (2007)|url=https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/usda-table-nutrient-retention-factors-release-6-2007 |website=National Agricultural Library |publisher=United States Department of Agriculture |accessdate=4 June 2018 |language=en |date=2007}}</ref> However, the amount of alcohol consumed while eating a dish prepared with alcohol will rarely if ever be sufficient to cause even low levels of intoxication.<ref>{{cite web|last=Weil|title=Does Alcohol Really Cook Out of Food|url=http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400900/Does-Alcohol-Really-Cook-Out-of-Food.html|accessdate=August 20, 2011|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083559/http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400900/Does-Alcohol-Really-Cook-Out-of-Food.html|archivedate=April 27, 2014|deadurl=yes|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
* There is no consistent data supporting [[monosodium glutamate]] (MSG) as triggering [[migraine]] headache exacerbation or other symptoms of so-called [[Glutamate flavoring|Chinese restaurant syndrome]]. Although there have been reports of an MSG-sensitive subset of the population, this has not been demonstrated in [[Placebo-controlled study|placebo-controlled]] trials.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Tarasoff|first=L.|date=December 1993|title=Monosodium L-glutamate: A double-blind study and review|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027869159390012N|journal=Food and Chemical Toxicology|volume=31|issue=12|pages=1019–35|doi=10.1016/0278-6915(93)90012-N|pmid=8282275|accessdate=March 24, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Freeman |first=M. |date=October 2006 |title=Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: A literature review |url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x/abstract;jsessionid=A3A026C5731F72D5EA5F9216A245E447.d02t03 |journal=Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners |volume=18 |issue=10 |pages=482–86 |doi=10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x |pmid=16999713 |accessdate=March 24, 2012 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083105/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x/abstract%3Bjsessionid%3DA3A026C5731F72D5EA5F9216A245E447.d02t03 |archivedate=April 27, 2014 |deadurl=no }}</ref>
* [[Twinkie]]s have a [[shelf life]] of approximately 45 days<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/15/twinkies-release-smaller/2517709/|title=New Twinkies weigh less, have fewer calories|last=Choi|first=Candace|publisher=[[USA Today]]|date=July 15, 2013|accessdate=July 15, 2013}}</ref> (25 in their original formulation)—far shorter than the common (and somewhat jocular) myth that Twinkies are edible for decades or longer.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46062-2005Apr12.html |title=Twinkies, 75 Years and Counting |newspaper=The Washington Post |accessdate=August 30, 2011 |first=Candy |last=Sagon |date=April 13, 2005}}</ref> They generally remain on a store shelf for only 7 to 10 days.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/23/nyregion/twinkie-strike-afflicts-fans-with-snack-famine.html |title=Twinkie Strike Afflicts Fans With Snack Famine |last=Kelley |first=Tina |newspaper=New York Times |date=March 23, 2000| accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref>
* [[Fortune cookie]]s, despite being associated with [[American Chinese cuisine|Chinese cuisine in the United States]], were invented in Japan and introduced to the US by the Japanese.<ref name="solving">{{cite news|last=Lee|first=Jennifer|date=January 16, 2008|newspaper=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/dining/16fort.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all|title=Solving a Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside a Cookie|accessdate=May 10, 2012}}</ref> The cookies are extremely rare in China, where they are seen as symbols of American cuisine.<ref name="snopesfortunecookie">Barbara Mikkelson. [http://www.snopes.com/food/origins/fortune.asp Inscrutable Cookie]. Snopes.com.</ref>

====Microwave ovens====
* [[Microwave ovens]] do not heat food by operating at a special resonance of water molecules in the food. The functional principle of a microwave oven is [[dielectric heating]] rather than resonance frequencies of water, and microwave ovens can therefore operate at many frequencies. Water molecules are exposed to intense electromagnetic fields in strong non-resonant microwaves to create heat. The 22 GHz resonant frequency of isolated water molecules has a wavelength too short to penetrate common foodstuffs to useful depths. The typical oven frequency of [[ISM band|2.45 GHz]] was chosen partly due to its ability to penetrate a food object of reasonable size, and partly to avoid interference with communication frequencies in use when microwave ovens became commercially available.<ref name="microwave">{{cite web|author=Bloomfield, Louis |url=http://www.howeverythingworks.org/page1.php?QNum=1456 |title=Question 1456 |publisher=How Everything Works |accessdate=February 9, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131017005928/http://www.howeverythingworks.org/page1.php?QNum=1456 | archivedate = 2013-10-17| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* [[Microwave ovens]] do not cook food from the inside out. 2.45 GHz microwaves can only penetrate approximately {{convert|1|cm|sp=us}} into most foods. The inside portions of thicker foods are mainly heated by heat conducted from the outer portions.<ref name=Püschner>{{cite web |title=Microwave Technology Penetration Depths |url=http://www.pueschner.com/en/microwave-technology/penetration-depths |website=pueschner.com |publisher=Püschner GMBH + CO KG MicrowavePowerSystems |accessdate=1 June 2018 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="FDA">{{cite web |last1=Health |first1=Center for Devices and Radiological |title=Resources for You (Radiation-Emitting Products) - Microwave Oven Radiation |url=https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/ResourcesforYouRadiationEmittingProducts/ucm252762.htm |website=fda.gov |publisher=U.S. Food and Drug Administration |accessdate=1 June 2018 |language=en |date=12 December 2017}}</ref>

===Law, crime, and military===
* It is rarely necessary to wait 24 hours before filing a [[missing person]] report. In instances where there is evidence of violence or of an unusual absence, law enforcement agencies in the United States often stress the importance of beginning an investigation promptly.<ref name="missingperson">
* {{cite news
|title = Missing persons usually found
|author = Sparks, Preston
|author2 = Cox, Timothy
|date = November 17, 2008
|newspaper = [[Augusta Chronicle]]
|accessdate = May 21, 2011
|url = http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2008/11/17/met_483813.shtml
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214111833/http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2008/11/17/met_483813.shtml
|archivedate = December 14, 2013
|deadurl = no
|df = mdy
}}
* {{cite web
|url = http://www.missingpersons.gov.au/nmpcc/faqs.aspx#a1
|title = FAQs: Question: Do you need to wait 24 hours before reporting a person missing?
|publisher = National Missing Persons Coordination Center, [[Australian Federal Police]]
|accessdate = May 22, 2011
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214111833/http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2008/11/17/met_483813.shtml#a1
|archivedate = December 14, 2013
|deadurl = yes
}}
</ref> The UK government website says in large type, "You don't have to wait 24 hours before contacting the police".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/report-missing-person |title=UK government Web site: Report or find a missing person |publisher=Gov.uk |date=June 3, 2013 |accessdate=August 18, 2013| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140122170802/https://www.gov.uk/report-missing-person | archivedate = 2014-01-22| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* No one ever claimed in court that [[Twinkie defense|Twinkies made them commit a crime]]. In the murder trial of [[Dan White]], the defense attorneys successfully argued [[diminished capacity]] as a result of severe depression. While eating Twinkies was given as evidence of depression, it was never claimed to be the cause of the murders. Despite this, people often claim that White's attorneys argued that Twinkies made him commit the murders.<ref name="Twinkie">{{cite news |first=Carol |last=Pogash |title=Myth of the 'Twinkie defense' |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/23/INGRE343501.DTL |publisher=''[[San Francisco Chronicle]]'' |page=D-1 |date=2003-11-23 |accessdate=2007-03-20 }}</ref>
* The [[United States Armed Forces|US Armed Forces]] have generally forbidden [[deferred adjudication]], or military enlistment in lieu of jail, since the 1980s. [[United States Navy|US Navy]] protocols discourage the practice, while the other four branches have specific regulations against it.<ref>{{cite web|title=Can a Judge Order Someone to Join the Military or Go to Jail? |url=https://www.thebalance.com/join-the-military-or-go-to-jail-3354033|website=The Balance|accessdate=30 December 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Judge said Army or jail, but military doesn't want him |url=https://www.stripes.com/news/judge-said-army-or-jail-but-military-doesn-t-want-him-1.44417|website=Stars And Stripes|accessdate=30 December 2017}}</ref>
* [[Legal tender#United States|Legal tender laws]] in the United States do not state that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept cash for payment.<ref name=LTSFAQ>
{{Cite web
|title = Legal Tender Status
|work = Resource Center
|publisher = [[U.S. Department of the Treasury]]
|url = http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
|date = 4 January 2011
|accessdate = 27 January 2017
|deadurl = no
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20170124025750/https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
|archivedate = 24 January 2017
|df = dmy-all
}}
</ref><ref name="FRBFAQ">
{{cite web|title=FRB: Is it legal for a business in the United States to refuse cash as a form of payment?|url=https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm|website=Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System|publisher=[[Federal Reserve System]]|accessdate=27 January 2017|date=17 June 2011|deadurl=no|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170121155832/https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm|archivedate=21 January 2017|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>https://archive.is/stq46</ref>
* Sending a document to yourself in the mail does not give you additional copyright protection in the United States.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/history_of_innovation/2014/05/poor_man_s_copyright_mailing_something_to_yourself_doesn_t_work.html|title=The Poorest Man’s Copyright|last=Newman|first=Lily Hay|date=2014-05-02|work=Slate|access-date=2018-09-29|language=en-US|issn=1091-2339}}</ref>

===Literature===
{{See also|q:List of misquotations|l1=Wikiquote: List of misquotations}}

===Music===
{{see also|Mondegreen#In songs}}
* "[[Edelweiss (song)|Edelweiss]]" is not the national anthem of [[Austria]], but an original composition created for the musical ''[[The Sound of Music]]''.<ref>November 7, 2006. {{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/07_july/11/maria_facts.shtml|title=How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083144/http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/07_july/11/maria_facts.shtml|archivedate=2014-04-27|deadurl=no}} BBC.</ref> The Austrian national anthem is "[[Land der Berge, Land am Strome]]" ("Land of the Mountains, Land on the River").<ref name="Vilain2010">{{cite book|last=Vilain|first=Robert|authorlink=Robert Vilain|title=Words and Music|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9gNrhgXpPyYC&pg=PA24|year=2010|publisher=MHRA|isbn=978-1-907322-08-2|pages=24, 28}}</ref>
* "[[Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star]]" was not composed by [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] when he was 5 years old; he only composed [[Twelve Variations on "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman"|variations on the tune]], at the age of 25 or 26.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/classicalmusic101/qt/mozart_nursery_rhymes.htm |title=Mozart nursery rhymes| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140412120344/http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/classicalmusic101/qt/mozart_nursery_rhymes.htm | archivedate = 2014-04-12| deadurl=no}}</ref>

===Religion===

====Buddhism====
* The [[Gautama Buddha|historical Buddha]] was not obese. The "chubby Buddha" or "laughing Buddha" is a 10th-century Chinese folk hero by the name of [[Budai]]. In Chinese Buddhist culture, Budai came to be revered as an [[incarnation]] of [[Maitreya]], the [[Bodhisattva]] who will become a Buddha to restore Buddhism after the teachings of the historical Buddha, [[Gautama Buddha|Siddhārtha Gautama]], have been forgotten.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddha/a/laughingbuddha.htm|title=The Laughing Buddha|accessdate=January 6, 2011|publisher=about.com | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140412011304/http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddha/a/laughingbuddha.htm | archivedate = 2014-04-12| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* The Buddha is not a god. In early Buddhism, Siddhārtha Gautama possessed no [[Salvation|salvific]] powers and strongly encouraged "self-reliance, self-discipline and individual striving."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm|title=Buddhism – Major Differences |accessdate=January 6, 2011|publisher=Buddhanet.net | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131017021112/http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot01.htm | archivedate = 2013-10-17| deadurl=no}}</ref> However, in later developments of [[Mahayana|Mahāyāna Buddhism]], notably in the [[Pure Land Buddhism|Pure Land (Jìngtǔ)]] school of Chinese Buddhism, the [[Amitābha|Amitābha Buddha]] was thought to be a savior. Through faith in the Amitābha Buddha, one could be reborn in the [[Pure Land|western Pure Land]]. Although in Pure Land Buddhism the Buddha is considered a savior, he is still not considered a god in the common understanding of the term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/b3schchn.htm|title=The Chinese Buddhist Schools|accessdate=January 6, 2011|publisher=Buddhanet.net | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214105638/http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/b3schchn.htm | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=no}}</ref>

====Christianity and Judaism====
[[File:Jan_Brueghel_de_Oude_en_Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Het_aards_paradijs_met_de_zondeval_van_Adam_en_Eva.jpg|thumb|Often shown as an apple in art, the fruit in the [[Garden of Eden]] is not named in ''[[Book of Genesis|Genesis]]''.<ref name="Szpek"/>]]
* The [[forbidden fruit]] mentioned in the [[Book of Genesis]] is never identified as an [[apple]],<ref name="Szpek">{{cite book|title=Voices from the University: The Legacy of the Hebrew Bible|author=Szpek, Heidi|page=92|isbn=978-0-595-25619-8}}</ref> a misconception widely depicted in Western art. The original Hebrew texts mention only ''tree'' and ''fruit''. Early Latin translations use the word ''mali'', which can be taken to mean both "evil" and "apple". In early Germanic languages the word "apple" and its cognates usually meant simply "fruit". German and French artists commonly depict the fruit as an apple from the 12th century onwards, and [[John Milton]]'s ''[[Areopagitica]]'' from 1644 explicitly mentions the fruit as an apple.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Straight Dope: Was the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden an apple?|author=Adams, Cecil|url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2682/was-the-forbidden-fruit-in-the-garden-of-eden-an-apple|accessdate=January 15, 2010 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140401002830/http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2682/was-the-forbidden-fruit-in-the-garden-of-eden-an-apple | archivedate = 2014-04-01| deadurl=no}}</ref> Jewish scholars have suggested that the fruit could have been a grape, a fig, wheat, an apricot, or an [[etrog]].<ref name="forbidden">
* [[Babylonian Talmud]], [[Berakhot (Talmud)|Berakhot]], 40a
* [[Genesis Rabba]] 15 7
* {{cite web|author= Adams, Cecil |url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2682/was-the-forbidden-fruit-in-the-garden-of-eden-an-apple |title=Was the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden an apple? |publisher=The Straight Dope |date=November 24, 2006 |accessdate=February 9, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140401002830/http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2682/was-the-forbidden-fruit-in-the-garden-of-eden-an-apple | archivedate = 2014-04-01| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* There is no evidence that Jesus was born on December 25.<ref name="GoodNews">{{cite web|title=Biblical Evidence Shows Jesus Christ Wasn't Born on Dec. 25|url=http://www.ucg.org/doctrinal-beliefs/biblical-evidence-shows-jesus-christ-wasnt-born-dec-25/|publisher=United Church of God|work=gnmagazine.org|accessdate=November 24, 2014}}</ref> The Bible never claims a date of December 25 (he and his followers primarily used the [[Hebrew calendar]], which as a lunisolar calendar does not have a day-to-day correspondence to the fully solar Roman calendar nor its modern-day descendant [[Gregorian calendar]]); contextual clues may imply a date closer to September.<ref name="GoodNews" /> The fixed date is attributed to [[Pope Julius I|Pope Julius the First]] because in the year 350 CE he declared the twenty-fifth of December the official date of celebration.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.history.com/topics/christmas |title=Christmas – Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts |publisher=History.com |accessdate=December 23, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140307194348/http://www.history.com/topics/christmas | archivedate = 2014-03-07| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whychristmas.com/customs/25th.shtml |title=Why Christmas Celebrated on the 25th December? – Christmas Customs and Traditions |publisher=Whychristmas.com |accessdate=December 23, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131016040508/http://www.whychristmas.com/customs/25th.shtml | archivedate = 2013-10-16| deadurl=no}}</ref> The date may have initially been chosen to correspond with either the day exactly nine months after Christians believe [[Annunciation|Jesus to have been conceived]],<ref name="bib-arch.org">{{cite web |last=McGowan |first=Andrew |url=http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/ |title=How December 25 Became Christmas |magazine=Bible Review & Bible History Daily |publisher=[[Biblical Archaeology Society]] |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20121214085336/http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/ |archivedate=December 14, 2012 |deadurl=no}}</ref><ref name="Touchstone">{{cite journal |last1=Tighe |first1=William J. |title=Calculating Christmas |journal=[[Touchstone (magazine)|Touchstone]] |year=2003 |volume=16 |issue=10 |url=http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v}}</ref> the date of the [[Roman calendar|Roman]] [[winter solstice]],<ref name="Newton">Newton, Isaac, ''{{cite web |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16878/16878-h/16878-h.htm |title=Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120918001221/http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16878/16878-h/16878-h.htm | archivedate = 2012-09-18| deadurl=no}}'' (1733). Ch. XI. "''A sun connection is possible because Christians consider Jesus to be the "sun of righteousness" prophesied in Malachi 4:2.''"</ref> or one of various ancient [[List of winter festivals|winter festivals]] (especially ''[[Sol Invictus|Dies Natalis Solis Invicti]]'').<ref name="bib-arch.org" /><ref name="Roll">{{cite book |last=Roll |first=Susan K. | title=Toward the Origins of Christmas | publisher=Peeters | date=1995 | page=130 | url=https://books.google.com/?id=6MXPEMbpjoAC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA130|isbn=978-90-390-0531-6}}</ref>
* The Bible does not say that exactly three [[Biblical Magi|magi]] came to visit the baby Jesus, nor that they were kings, or rode on camels, or that their names were Casper, Melchior, and Balthazar. Three magi are supposed because three gifts are described, and [[Nativity of Jesus in art|artistic depictions of the nativity]] have almost always depicted three magi since the 3rd century.<ref>{{cite book|title=Iconography of Christian Art (English translation from German)|date=1971|volume=I|author=Schiller, G.|isbn=978-0-85331-270-3|page=96}}</ref> The Bible specifies no interval between the birth and the visit, and artistic depictions and the closeness of the traditional dates of December 25 and January 6 encourage the popular assumption that the visit took place in the same season as the birth, but later traditions varied, with the visit taken as occurring up to two years later.<ref>Schiller, Gertud, ''Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. I'', p. 96, 1971 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, {{ISBN|0853312702}}; ''The New Testament'' by Bart D. Ehrman 1999 {{ISBN|0-19-512639-4}} p. 109</ref>

[[File:R%C3%A9gnier_Penitent_Mary_Magdalene.jpg|thumb|upright|No Biblical or historical evidence supports [[Mary Magdalene]] having been a prostitute.<ref name="Ehrman2006">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=Tlvgp7WggvEC&pg=PA253&dq=Ehrman+%22to+you+as+apostles%22#v=onepage&q=Ehrman%20%22to%20you%20as%20apostles%22&f=false|title=Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend|last=Ehrman|first=Bart D.|date=2006|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-530013-0|location=Oxford, England|pages=189–190|ref=harv|authorlink=Bart D. Ehrman}}</ref>]]
* The idea that [[Mary Magdalene]] was a prostitute before she met Jesus is not found in the Bible or in any of the other earliest Christian writings. The misconception likely arose due to a conflation between Mary Magdalene, [[Mary of Bethany]] (who [[Anointing of Jesus|anoints Jesus's feet]] in {{bibleverse||John|11:1-12|9}}), and the unnamed "sinful woman" who anoints Jesus's feet in {{bibleverse||Luke|7:36-50|9}}.<ref name="Ehrman2006"/>
* [[Paul the Apostle]] did not change his name from Saul. He was born a Jew, with Roman citizenship inherited from his father, and thus carried both a Hebrew and a Latin name from birth. [[Luke the Evangelist|Luke]] indicates the coexistence of the names in {{Bibleref2|Acts|13:9}}: "...Saul, who also is called Paul...".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Marrow|first1=Stanley B.|title=Paul: His Letters and His Theology : an Introduction to Paul's Epistles|date=1 Jan 1986|publisher=Paulist Press|isbn=978-0809127443|pages=5, 7|url=https://books.google.com/?id=RPu1qx50HmgC&pg=PA5}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Why did God change Saul's name to Paul?|url=http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul|website=Catholic Answers|accessdate=31 August 2014|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030000303/http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-did-god-change-sauls-name-to-paul|archivedate=October 30, 2012|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
* The term "[[Immaculate Conception#Virginal conception|Immaculate Conception]]" was not coined to refer to the [[virgin birth of Jesus]], nor does it reference a supposed belief in the virgin birth of [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|Mary]], his mother. Instead, it denotes a Roman Catholic belief that Mary was not in a state of [[original sin]] from the moment of her own conception.<ref>{{cite web|title=Religion & Ethics – Beliefs: The Immaculate Conception|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/immaculateconception.shtml|date=2009|publisher=BBC| accessdate=January 5, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120124033136/http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/immaculateconception.shtml | archivedate = 2012-01-24| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* Roman Catholic [[dogma]] does not say that the pope is either [[Impeccability#Impeccability and the Pope|sinless]] or always infallible.<ref name="infallible">
* {{cite web
|url = http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4i.htm
|title = Infallibility versus Impeccability
|author = Rafe, Simon
|work = Saint Michael's Basic Training: Apologetics
|accessdate = June 17, 2011
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082422/http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=27151&highlight=impeccable
|archivedate = April 27, 2014
|deadurl = yes
|df = mdy
}}
* {{cite web
|url = http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_bishop_of_rome_primacy.htm#sinless
|title = Is the Pope Sinless?
|author = MacDonald, David
|author2 = Bonocore, Mark
|work = The Pope, Bishop of Rome Catholic and Orthodox relations
|publisher = CatholicBridge.com
|accessdate = June 17, 2011
|deadurl = yes
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110615202522/http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_bishop_of_rome_primacy.htm#sinless
|archivedate = June 15, 2011
|df = mdy-all
}}</ref> Catholic dogma since 1870 does state that a dogmatic teaching contained in [[divine revelation]] that is [[promulgation|promulgated]] by the pope (deliberately, and under certain very specific circumstances) is free from error, although official invocation of [[papal infallibility]] [[Papal infallibility#Instances of infallible declarations|is rare]]. While most theologians state that [[canonization]]s meet the requisites,<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm Camillo Beccari, "Beatification and Canonization" in ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (New York 1907)]</ref> aside from that, most recent popes have finished their reign without a single invocation of infallibility. Otherwise, even when speaking in his official capacity, dogma does not hold that he is free from error.
* [[Mormons]] who are members of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (LDS Church) no longer practice polygamy, although it was historically practiced in the LDS Church.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54959212-78/believe-bible-church-god.html.csp|title=Utah Local News – Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive |publisher= The Salt Lake Tribune|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/socialvalues/polygamy.shtml|title= Religions – Mormon: Polygamy|publisher=BBC|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/mormon-church-explains-polygamy-early-days |title=Mormon church explains polygamy in early days |work=The Big Story |accessdate=October 1, 2014 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006140330/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/mormon-church-explains-polygamy-early-days |archivedate=October 6, 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://mormon-polygamy.org/|title=Mormon Polygamy Misconceptions about Mormon Polygamy|work=Mormon Polygamy|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref> Currently, the LDS Church [[excommunicate]]s any members that practice polygamy within the organization.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mormon.org/faq/practice-of-polygamy|title=Do Mormons practice polygamy?|author=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints|work=mormon.org|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref> However, some [[Mormon fundamentalist]] [[List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement#Additional churches claiming lineage through Brigham Young and/or founded in the U.S. Intermountain West|sects]] still practice polygamy within their groups.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly2.htm|title=Current practice of polygamy in the Mormon movement|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/modern-polygamy-arizona-mormon-fundamentalists-seek-shed-stereotypes/story?id=19322087|title=Modern Polygamy: Arizona Mormon Fundamentalists Seek to Shed Stereotypes|work=ABC News|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref> For more details on this subject, see [[Mormonism and polygamy]].

====Islam====
* A [[fatwā]] is a non-binding legal opinion issued by an [[Ulema|Islamic scholar]] under [[Sharia|Islamic law]]; it is therefore commonplace for fatāwā from different authors to disagree. The popular misconception<ref>{{cite journal|last=Isbister|first=William H. |title=A "good" fatwa| journal=[[British Medical Journal]] |date=November 23, 2002|volume=325 |issue=7374 |page=1227 |pmc=1124693 |doi=10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1227}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Vultee |first=Fred|title=Fatwa on the Bunny|url=http://jci.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/4/319?ck=nck |journal=Journal of Communication Inquiry |date=October 2006 |volume=30|issue=4|pages= 319–36 |doi=10.1177/0196859906290919 |accessdate=December 19, 2009}}</ref> that the word means a death sentence probably stems from the fatwā issued by Ayatollah [[Ruhollah Khomeini]] of Iran in 1989 regarding the author [[Salman Rushdie]], whom he stated had earned a death sentence for [[blasphemy]]. This event led to fatāwā gaining widespread media attention in the West.<ref>{{cite news|title=In Depth: Islam, Fatwa FAQ|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/fatwa.html|publisher=CBC News Online | date=June 15, 2006|accessdate=April 8, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110714091706/http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/fatwa.html | archivedate = 2011-07-14| deadurl=yes}}</ref>
* The word "[[jihad]]" does not always mean "[[Religious war|holy war]]"; literally, the word in Arabic means "struggle". While there is such a thing as "[[Jihad#Warfare (Jihad bil Saif)|jihad bil saif]]", or jihad "by the sword",<ref>{{cite book|first=Majid |last=Khadduri |title=War and Peace in the Law of Islam |publisher=[[Johns Hopkins Press]] |date=1955 |pages=74–80 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UHWd6gLZsFIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA74|isbn=978-1-58477-695-6}}</ref> many modern Islamic scholars usually say that it implies an effort or struggle of a spiritual kind.<ref>{{cite book |first=Luke |last=Buckles|title=The Complete Idiot's Guide to World Religions|edition=3rd|page=157 |publisher=Alpha|date=2004| isbn=978-1-59257-222-9| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZPokHByS3N0C&pg=PA157}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1719934&Language=en|title=Western definition of "jihad" must be corrected – Italian expert |date=March 29, 2007|newspaper=[[Kuwait News Agency]] (KUNA) | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20111015041410/http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1719934&Language=en | archivedate = 2011-10-15| deadurl=no}}</ref> Scholar [[Louay Safi]] asserts that "misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the nature of war and peace in Islam are widespread in both the Muslim societies and the West", as much following [[September 11 attacks|9/11]] as before.<ref>{{cite book| title=Peace and the Limits of War: Transcending the Classical Conception of Jihad |first=Louay M. |last=Safi |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1_PFEicd5LkC&pg=PP9|publisher=[[International Institute of Islamic Thought]]| date=2003 |page=preface |isbn=978-1-56564-402-1}}</ref>
* The [[Quran]] does not promise martyrs 72 virgins in heaven. It does mention companions, [[houri]], to all people—martyr or not—in heaven, but no number is specified. The source for the 72 virgins is a [[hadith]] in [[Sunan al-Tirmidhi]] by [[Imam Tirmidhi]].<ref name="guardian72virgins">{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5 | location=London |work=The Guardian | first=Ibn | last=Warraq | title=Virgins? What virgins? | date=January 12, 2002 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20130622000632/http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5 | archivedate = 2013-06-22| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Urban Terrorism: Myths and Realities |page= 33 |author=Anjali Nirmal |publisher=Pointer Publishers |date=2009 |isbn= 978-81-7132-598-6 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8EqWnqdsgZMC&pg=PA33}}</ref> Hadiths are sayings and acts of the prophet Mohammed as reported by others, and as such they are not part of the Quran itself. Muslims are not meant to necessarily believe all hadiths, and that applies particularly to those hadiths that are weakly sourced, such as this one.<ref name="Salahuddin Yusuf">Salahuddin Yusuf, ''Riyadhus Salihin'', commentary on Nawawi, Chapter 372, Dar-us-Salam Publications (1999), {{ISBN|978-1-59144-053-6}} ,{{ISBN|978-1-59144-053-6}}</ref> Furthermore, the correct translation of this particular hadith is a matter of debate.<ref name="guardian72virgins" /> In the same collection of Sunni hadiths, however, the following is judged strong (''[[Hadith terminology|hasan sahih]]''): "There are six things with Allah for the [[Shahid|martyr]]. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood (he suffers), he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head—and its gems are better than the world and what is in it—he is married to seventy two wives among Al-Huril-'Ayn of Paradise, and he may intercede for seventy of his close relatives."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://sunnah.com/tirmidhi/22/46|title=Hadith – The Book on Virtues of Jihad – Jami` at-Tirmidhi – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) }}</ref>

===Sports===
[[File:Marcos black belt.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Marcos Torregrosa]] wearing a [[black belt (martial arts)|black belt]] with a red bar]]
* [[Doubleday myth|Abner Doubleday]] did not [[Origins of baseball|invent baseball]], nor did it originate in Cooperstown, New York. It is believed to have evolved from other bat-and-ball games such as [[cricket]] and [[rounders]] and first [[Knickerbocker Rules|took its modern form]] in New York City.<ref>{{cite news|last=Cole|first=Diane|url=https://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060806/14ball.htm|title=Contrary to myth, baseball may have had no single inventor|publisher=US News and World Report|date=October 4, 1990|accessdate=August 6, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214105928/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060806/14ball.htm | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=yes}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Fox|first=Butterfield|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/04/nyregion/cooperstown-hoboken-try-new-york-city.html|title=Cooperstown? Hoboken? Try New York City|work=The New York Times|date=October 4, 1990|accessdate=April 3, 2009 }}</ref>
* The [[black belt (martial arts)|black belt in martial arts]] does not necessarily indicate expert level or mastery. It was introduced for [[judo]] in the 1880s to indicate competency at all of the basic techniques of the sport. Promotion beyond black belt varies among different martial arts. In judo and some other Asian martial arts, holders of higher ranks are awarded belts with alternating red and white panels, and the highest ranks with solid red belts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://r25.jp/magazine/ranking_review/10002000/1112008051512.html|script-title=ja:柔道帯の最高位は、何と紅!? "紅帯"所持者に投げられてきた!|language=Japanese|publisher=R25.jp|date=May 15, 2008|accessdate=November 11, 2008 |archiveurl = https://archive.is/20080519163156/http://r25.jp/magazine/ranking_review/10002000/1112008051512.html |archivedate = May 19, 2008}}</ref>
* The use of [[triangular corner flags in English football]] is not a privilege reserved for those teams that have won an [[FA Cup]] in the past, despite a wide belief to the contrary<ref>{{cite web|last=Corrigan |first=James |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/fa-cup-countdown-1927-and-all-that-5336727.html |title=FA Cup countdown: 1927 and all that |work=The Independent |date= |accessdate=2018-04-08}}</ref> that inspired a scene in the film ''[[Twin Town]]''. The [[Football Association]]'s rules are silent on the subject, and often the decision over what shape flag to use has been up to the individual club's groundskeepers.<ref>{{cite web|first=Jack |last=Williams |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/sports/soccer/corner-flags-english-premier-league-champion.html |title=You Can Tell an F.A. Cup Champion by Its Corner Flags. Or Not. |work=The New York Times |date=2017-02-17 |accessdate=2018-04-08}}</ref>

===Words, phrases and languages===
{{Main|List of common false etymologies|Common English usage misconceptions}}
{{see also|List of common misconceptions about language learning}}
* Non-standard, slang or colloquial terms used by English speakers are sometimes alleged not to be real words, despite appearing in numerous dictionaries. All words in English became accepted by being commonly used for a certain period of time; thus there are many informal words currently regarded as "incorrect" in formal speech or writing, but the idea that they are not words is a misconception.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.michiganradio.org/post/irregardless-its-reputation-word-perseveres
|title="... "irregardless" is indeed a word. Anne Curzan, a professor of English at the University of Michigan, confirms its legitimacy..." Michigan Radio ''That's What They Say''
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082447/http://michiganradio.org/post/irregardless-its-reputation-word-perseveres
|archivedate=April 27, 2014
|deadurl=no
|df=mdy
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/mcintyre/blog/2011/02/dont_hang_the_lexicographers.html
|title=Don't hang the lexicographers
|first=John
|last=McIntyre
|date=2011
|accessdate=September 27, 2012
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082447/http://michiganradio.org/post/irregardless-its-reputation-word-perseveres
|archivedate=April 27, 2014
|deadurl=no
}}</ref> Examples of words that are sometimes alleged not to be words include "[[irregardless]]",<ref>"''Irregardless'' originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century... The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however." Merriam Webster Dictionary {{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless |title=Archived copy |accessdate=October 27, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140508042618/http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless |archivedate=May 8, 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://agency.nd.edu/resources-and-downloads/style-guide-introduction/|title=Style Guide|publisher=University of Notre Dame|accessdate=September 18, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121007042448/http://agency.nd.edu/resources-and-downloads/style-guide-introduction/|archive-date=October 7, 2012|dead-url=yes|df=mdy-all}}</ref> "conversate", "funnest",<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/is-funnest-a-word.aspx
|title=Is "Funnest" a Word?
|first=Mignon
|last=Fogarty
|date=September 12, 2008
|accessdate=September 25, 2012
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083003/http://bridgingtheunbridgeable.com/2012/03/21/thusly-is-not-a-word-2/
|archivedate=April 27, 2014
|deadurl=no
|df=mdy
}}</ref> "mentee", "impactful", and "thusly",<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://bridgingtheunbridgeable.com/2012/03/21/thusly-is-not-a-word-2/
|title=Thusly is not a Word?
|date=March 21, 2012
|accessdate=September 25, 2012
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083003/http://bridgingtheunbridgeable.com/2012/03/21/thusly-is-not-a-word-2/
|archivedate=April 27, 2014
|deadurl=no
}}</ref> all of which appear in numerous dictionaries as English words.<ref>* conversate: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conversate] [http://www.allwords.com/word-conversate.html] [http://www.lexic.us/definition-of/conversate]
* funnest: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/funnest] [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fun] [http://www.wordfind.com/word/funnest/] [http://www.allwords.com/word-funnest.html] [http://www.lexic.us/definition-of/funnest]
* impactful: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impactful] [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/impactful] [http://www.wordfind.com/word/impactful/] [http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/impactful] [http://www.lexic.us/definition-of/impactful]
* mentee: [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mentee] [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mentee] [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mentee] [http://www.yourdictionary.com/mentee] [http://www.wordfind.com/word/mentee/] [http://www.allwords.com/word-mentee.html] [http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mentee] [http://www.lexic.us/definition-of/mentee]
* thusly: [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thusly] [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thusly] [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/thusly] [http://www.yourdictionary.com/thusly] [http://www.wordfind.com/word/thusly/] [http://www.allwords.com/word-thusly.html] [http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/thusly] [http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/thusly] [http://www.lexic.us/definition-of/thusly]
</ref>
* The word "[[fuck]]" did not originate in [[Christianization of Anglo-Saxon England|Christianized Anglo-Saxon England]] (7th century CE) as an [[acronym]] for "[[Fornication]] Under Consent of King"; nor did it originate as an acronym for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", either as a sign posted above [[Adultery#Criminal penalties|adulterers]] in the [[stocks]], or as a [[criminal charge]] against members of the [[British Armed Forces]]; nor did it originate during the 15th-century [[Battle of Agincourt]] as a corruption of "pluck [[Taxus baccata|yew]]" (an idiom falsely attributed to the English for drawing a [[longbow]]).<ref name="longbow">
* {{cite web
|url=http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.asp
|title=What the Fuck?
|first=Barbara
|last=Mikkelson
|date=July 8, 2007
|publisher=[[Snopes.com]]
|accessdate=June 17, 2011
|archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/67BKzr94Z?url=http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.asp
|archivedate=April 25, 2012
|deadurl=no
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite web
|url=http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.asp
|title=Pluck Yew
|first=Barbara
|last=Mikkelson
|date=July 9, 2007
|publisher=[[Snopes.com]]
|accessdate=June 17, 2011
|archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/67BKzr94Z?url=http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.asp
|archivedate=2012-04-25
|deadurl=no
}}
*</ref> [[Modern English]] was not spoken until the 16th century, and words such as "fornication" and "consent" did not exist in any form in English until the [[Anglo-Norman language#The influence French had on English|influence of Anglo-Norman]] in the late 12th century. The earliest certain recorded use of "fuck" in English comes from {{circa}} 1475, in the poem "[[Flen flyys]]", where it is spelled ''fuccant'' (conjugated as if a [[Latin conjugation|Latin verb]] meaning "they fuck"). It is of [[Proto-Germanic language|Proto-Germanic]] origin, and is related to either [[Dutch language|Dutch]] ''fokken'' and German ''ficken'' or [[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] ''fukka''.<ref name="fukka">
* {{cite web
|url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fuck
|title=Fuck
|first=Douglas
|last=Harper
|date=2010
|work=[[Online Etymology Dictionary]]
|accessdate=June 17, 2011
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130929155906/http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fuck
|archivedate=September 29, 2013
|deadurl=no
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite encyclopedia
|date=2011
|title=Fuck
|encyclopedia=Merriam–Webster
|publisher=Merriam–Webster, Inc.
|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fuck
|accessdate=June 17, 2011
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130929155906/http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fuck
|archivedate=September 29, 2013
|deadurl=no
}}
*</ref>
* The word "crap" did not originate as a [[back-formation]] of British plumber [[Thomas Crapper]]'s surname, nor does his name originate from the word "crap", although the surname may have helped popularize the word.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/business/names/crapper.asp|title=Thomas Crapper|date=May 31, 2011|publisher=[[Snopes.com]]|accessdate=June 17, 2011}}</ref> The surname "Crapper" is a variant of "Cropper", which originally referred to someone who [[harvest]]ed crops.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crap|title=Crap|first=Douglas |last=Harper|date=2010|work=[[Online Etymology Dictionary]]|accessdate=June 17, 2011
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083257/http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crap |archivedate=2014-04-27|deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia|date=2003|title=Cropper|encyclopedia=Dictionary of American Family Names|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=http://www.ancestry.com/facts/cropper-family-history.ashx|accessdate=June 17, 2011|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111102185622/http://www.ancestry.com/facts/cropper-family-history.ashx |archivedate=2011-11-02|deadurl=no}}</ref> The word "crap" ultimately comes from [[Medieval Latin]] ''crappa'', meaning "[[chaff]]".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|date=2001 |title=Crap |encyclopedia=American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language |publisher=Houghton Mifflin |url=http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/crap |accessdate=June 17, 2011 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130121195235/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/crap |archivedate=January 21, 2013 |deadurl=yes }}</ref>
* The expression "[[rule of thumb]]" did not originate from a law allowing a man to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb, and there is no evidence that such a law ever existed.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Henry Ansgar Kelly |date=September 1994 |title=Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick |work=Journal of Legal Education |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=341–65}}</ref> The true origin of this phrase remains uncertain, but the false etymology has been broadly reported in media including ''[[The Washington Post]]'' (1989), [[CNN]] (1993), and ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine (1983).<ref>{{cite book|title=Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women|publisher=Simon and Schuster|date=1995|first=Christina Hoff |last=Sommers|authorlink=Christina Hoff Sommers|pages=203–07, 296–97|isbn=978-0-684-80156-8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EIUtJziqIqAC&pg=PA203}}</ref>
* The word "[[gringo]]" did not originate during the [[Mexican–American War]] (1846–48), the [[Venezuelan War of Independence]] (1811–23), the [[Mexican Revolution]] (1910–20), or in the [[American Old West]] ({{circa}} 1865–99) as a corruption of the lyrics "green grow" in either "[[Green Grow the Lilacs]]" or "[[Green Grow the Rushes, O]]" sung by [[United States Army|US-American soldiers]] or [[cowboy]]s;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/gringo.asp|title=Gringo|author=Mikkelson, Barbara|author2=David P.|last-author-amp=yes|date=April 13, 2011|publisher=[[Snopes.com]]|accessdate=June 17, 2011}}</ref> nor did it originate during any of these times as a corruption of "Green go home!", falsely said to have been shouted at green-clad American troops.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ask.yahoo.com/20000821.html|title=How Did the Term 'Gringo' Originate?|date=August 21, 2000|work=Ask Yahoo!|publisher=Yahoo! Inc.|accessdate=June 17, 2011|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117015326/http://ask.yahoo.com/20000821.html |archivedate=2012-11-17|deadurl=no}}</ref> The word originally simply meant "foreigner", and is probably a [[corruption (linguistics)|corruption]] of Spanish ''griego'', "Greek".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|date=2001|title=Gringo|encyclopedia=American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language|url=http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/gringo|accessdate=June 17, 2011|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514193349/http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/gringo|archivedate=May 14, 2013|deadurl=yes|df=mdy-all}}</ref> [[File:PostcardIBringYouAMerryXmas1910.jpg|thumb|upright|"Xmas," along with a modern Santa Claus, used on a Christmas postcard (1910)]]
* The [[anti-Italian]] slur [[wop]] is widely considered to have originated from an acronym for "without papers" or "without passport,"<ref name=IngTrifEtymonline>{{cite web|title=Ingenious Trifling|url=http://www.etymonline.com/baloney.php|website=Etymoline|accessdate=1 October 2015}}</ref><ref name=specious/><ref name=specious>{{cite book|last1=O'Conner|first1=Patricia T.|title=Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language|date=2009|publisher=[[Random House]]|location=[[New York City|New York]]|page=145|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hsu47CBwJPUC&lpg=PA145|isbn=9780812978100}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Will|authorlink=George Will|first1=George|title=Yogi Berra, an American Story|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424509/yogi-berra-obituary-eulogy|accessdate=1 October 2015|agency=[[Washington Post]]|publisher=[[National Review]]|date=September 23, 2015}}</ref> whereas it actually originated from the term ''[[guappo]]'' (roughly meaning ''thug'') in 1908,<ref name=DICTIONARY-Merriam-Webster>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wop Wop]. Merriam-webster.com. Retrieved on 2015-10-11.</ref><ref name="Dictionary.com">[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wop Wop]. Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved on 2015-10-11.</ref> predating modern immigration laws.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Your immigrant ancestors came here legally? Are you sure?|publisher=The Philadelphia Inquirer|author=Michael Matza|date=25 June 2017|accessdate=16 January 2018|url=http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/your-immigrant-ancestors-came-here-legally-are-you-sure-20170625.html}}</ref>
* "[[420 (cannabis culture)|420]]" did not originate from the Los Angeles [[police code|police]] or [[criminal code|penal code]] for [[marijuana]] use.<ref name="snopes420">{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/420.asp |title=420 |first=Barbara |last=Mikkelson |date=June 13, 2008 |publisher=[[Snopes.com]] |accessdate=June 17, 2011 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/65t2vzUoL?url=http://www.snopes.com/language/stories/420.asp |archivedate=March 3, 2012 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref> In California, Police Code 420 means "juvenile disturbance",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bearcat1.com/radioca.htm|title=Radio Codes & Signals – California|work=National Communications Magazine|accessdate=June 17, 2011|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130917162459/http://www.bearcat1.com/radioca.htm |archivedate=2013-09-17|deadurl=no}}</ref> and [[California Penal Code]] section 420 prohibits the obstruction of access to public land.<ref name="snopes420" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/420.html|title=California Penal Code Section 420|date=January 15, 2011|accessdate=June 17, 2011|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083515/http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/420.html |archivedate=2014-04-27|deadurl=no}}</ref> The use of "420" started in 1971 at [[San Rafael High School]], where it indicated the time, 4:20 pm, when a group of students would go to smoke under the statue of [[Louis Pasteur]].<ref name="snopes420" />
* The word "the" was never pronounced or spelled "ye" in [[Old English|Old]] or [[Middle English]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ye.html|title=Common Errors in English Usage – Ye|first=Paul |last=Brians|date=2011|work=Common Errors in English Usage|publisher=Washington State University|accessdate=June 24, 2011|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130531122316/http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ye.html |archivedate=2013-05-31|deadurl=no}}</ref> The confusion derives from the use of the character [[Thorn (letter)|thorn]] (þ) in abbreviations of the word "the", which in Middle English text ([[File:Middle English the.svg]]) looked similar to a ''y'' with a superscript ''e''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ye|title=Etymology Online|first=Douglas |last=Harper|date=2001–2010|work=Online Etymology Dictionary|publisher=Online Etymology Dictionary|accessdate=June 24, 2011
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082431/http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ye |archivedate=2014-04-27|deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0osmAAAAMAAJ|title=The Concise Usage and Abusage|first=Eric |last=Partridge|date=1961|work=The Concise Usage and Abusage|publisher=H. Hamilton}}</ref>
* "[[Xmas]]" did not originate as a secular plan to "take the Christ out of Christmas".<ref name="Random House">"The usual suggestion is that 'Xmas' is ... an attempt by the ungodly to x-out Jesus and banish religion from the holiday."{{cite book |title=Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language|last1=O'Conner|first1=Patricia T.|last2=Kellerman|first2=Stewart|date=2009|publisher=Random House|location=New York|isbn=978-1-4000-6660-5|page=77}}</ref> ''X'' stands for the Greek letter [[Chi (letter)|chi]], the starting letter of Χριστός (''Christos''), or "Christ" in Greek.<ref name="xmaschi">{{cite web |url=http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html |title=The Origin of "Xmas" |accessdate=June 10, 2011 |publisher=CRI / Voice, Institute |author=Bratcher, Dennis|date=December 3, 2007|ref=Bra07 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130530044125/http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html |archivedate=2013-05-30|deadurl=no}}</ref> The use of the word "Xmas" in English can be traced to the year 1021 when monks in Great Britain used the X as [[scribal abbreviation|abbreviation]] while transcribing classical manuscripts into Old English in place of "Christ".<ref name="Random House" /> The ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s "first recorded use of 'Xmas' for 'Christmas' dates to 1551."<ref>{{cite book |title=Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language|last1=O'Conner|first1=Patricia T.|last2=Kellerman|first2=Stewart|date=2009|publisher=Random House|location=New York|isbn=978-1-4000-6660-5|page=78}}</ref>
* The [[Phonological history of Spanish coronal fricatives|pronunciation of coronal fricatives in Spanish]] did not come around as imitation of a lisping king. Only one Spanish king, [[Peter of Castile]], is documented as having a lisp, and the current pronunciation originated two centuries after his death.<ref>{{cite news|title=QI: Quite interesting facts about Spain|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/qi/8495579/QI-Quite-interesting-facts-about-Spain.html|accessdate=29 March 2017|work=Telegraph|date=5 May 2011}}</ref>
* The [[Chevrolet Nova]] sold very well in Latin American markets; [[General Motors]] did not need to rename the car. While "''no va''" does mean "doesn't go" in Spanish, "''nova''" is understood as "new" and drivers in Mexico and Venezuela where it was first sold bought it eagerly. There was no need to change the model name,<ref name="Snopes Chevy Nova story">{{cite web |author=Mikkelson, Barbara and David |title=Don't Go Here |url=http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp|publisher=[[Snopes.com]]|date=March 19, 2011|accessdate=October 3, 2015}}</ref> despite claims to the contrary.<ref name="Transform magazine">{{cite web|last=Benady|first=David|title=A rose by any other name|url=http://www.transformmagazine.net/articles/2014/a-rose-by-any-other-name/|publisher=''Transform''|date=December 3, 2014|accessdate=October 3, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Interchanges Level 3">{{cite book|last1=Richards|first1=Jack C.|last2=Hull|first2=Jonathan|last3=Proctor|first3=Susan|title=Interchange Level 3 Student's Book B with Self-study DVD-ROM|date=December 6, 2012|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|isbn=978-1-107-65269-9|page=83|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7f7XAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA83}}</ref>
* [[Sign language]]s are not the same worldwide. Aside from the [[pidgin]] [[International Sign]], each country generally has its own native sign language, and some have more than one (although there are also substantial similarities among all sign languages).<ref>{{citation
|contribution = Deaf sign language
|title = Ethnologue: Languages of the World
|year = 2013
|edition = 17th
|publisher = SIL International
|accessdate = 2013-12-03
|editor1-last = Lewis
|editor1-first = M. Paul
|editor2-last = Simons
|editor2-first = Gary F.
|editor3-last = Fennig
|editor3-first = Charles D.
|url = http://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/deaf-sign-language
|deadurl = yes
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131126034146/http://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/deaf-sign-language
|archivedate = November 26, 2013
|df = mdy-all
}}</ref><ref name="Reilly2013">{{cite book|last1=Supalla|first1=Ted|authorlink1=Ted Supalla|last2=Webb|first2=Rebecca|editor1-last=Reilly|editor1-first=Judy Snitzer|editor2-last=Emmorey|editor2-first=Karen|title=Language, Gesture, and Space|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xAKXpO7mCE0C&pg=PA333|date=17 June 2013|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-1-134-77966-6|pages=333–52|chapter=The grammar of international sign: A new look at pidgin languages.}}</ref><ref name="Omar2009">{{cite book|last=Omar|first=Hasuria Che|title=The Sustainability of the Translation Field|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L38_jNlkADAC&pg=PA293|year=2009|publisher=ITBM|isbn=978-983-42179-6-9|page=293}}</ref>
*[[Eskimo]] tribes, such as the [[Inuit]] and [[Aleut]], do not have a [[Eskimo words for snow|disproportionate number of words representing snow]] in [[Eskimo–Aleut languages|their languages]]. The myth comes from a misconstruction of [[Franz Boas]]'s original statement noting that Eskimos had a variety of words for various snow-related concepts; Boas noted that the same was true of English.<ref name="Pullum's explanation">[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000405.html Geoffrey K. Pullum's explanation] in [[Language Log]]: ''The list of snow-referring roots to stick [suffixes] on isn't that long [in the Eskimoan language group]: ''qani''- for a snowflake, ''apu''- for snow considered as stuff lying on the ground and covering things up, a root meaning "slush", a root meaning "blizzard", a root meaning "drift", and a few others -- very roughly the same number of roots as in English. Nonetheless, the number of distinct words you can derive from them is not 50, or 150, or 1500, or a million, but simply unbounded. Only stamina sets a limit.''</ref><ref>The seven most common English words for snow are ''snow'', ''hail'', ''sleet'', ''ice'', ''icicle'', ''slush'', and ''snowflake''. English also has the related word ''glacier'' and the four common skiing terms ''pack'', ''powder'', ''crud'', and ''crust'', so one can say that at least 12 distinct words for snow exist in English.</ref>

==History==
===Ancient===
[[File:NAMABG-Aphaia Trojan Archer 3.JPG|thumb|upright|Ancient Greek sculptures were originally painted bright colors.<ref name="Brinkmann2008">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=2gQesgryr8oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ancient+Greek+sculptures+were+actually+brightly+painted#v=onepage&q=ancient%20Greek%20sculptures%20were%20actually%20brightly%20painted&f=false|title=The Color of Life: Polychromy in Sculpture from Antiquity to the Present|last=Brinkmann|first=Vinzenz|date=2008|publisher=The J. Paul Getty Museum and the Getty Research Institute|isbn=978-0-89-236-918-8|editor1-last=Panzanelli|editor1-first=Roberta|location=Los Angeles, California|pages=18–39|chapter=The Polychromy of Ancient Greek Sculpture|ref=harv|authorlink=Vinzenz Brinkmann|editor2-last=Schmidt|editor2-first=Eike D.|editor3-last=Lapatin|editor3-first=Kenneth}}</ref><ref name="Gurewitsch2006">{{cite web|url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/true-colors-17888/|title=True Colors: Archaeologist Vinzenz Brinkmann insists his eye-popping reproductions of ancient Greek sculptures are right on target|last1=Gurewitsch|first1=Matthew|date=July 2008|website=Smithsonian.com|publisher=Smithsonian Institute|accessdate=15 May 2018|ref=harv}}</ref><ref name="Prisco2017">{{cite news|url=https://www.cnn.com/style/article/gods-in-color-ancient-world-polychromy/index.html|title='Gods in Color' returns antiquities to their original, colorful grandeur|last1=Prisco|first1=Jacopo|date=30 November 2017|work=CNN style|accessdate=15 May 2018|publisher=CNN|agency=Cable News Network|ref=harv}}</ref>]]
[[File:Amphitheatre-Toulouse 2.JPG|thumb|upright|''[[Vomitorium]]'' to a Roman amphitheatre in [[Toulouse]]]]
* [[Ancient Greek sculpture]]s were [[Ancient Greek sculpture#Painting of sculpture|originally painted bright colors]]; they only appear white today because the original pigments have deteriorated. Some well-preserved statues still bear traces of their original coloration.<ref name="Brinkmann2008"/><ref name="Gurewitsch2006"/><ref name="Prisco2017"/>
* The ancient Greeks did not use the word "[[idiot]]" to disparage people who did not participate in civic life or who did not vote. An ἰδιώτης was simply a private citizen as opposed to a government official. Later, the word came to mean any sort of non-expert or layman, then someone uneducated or ignorant, and much later to mean stupid or mentally deficient.<ref>A.W. Sparkes, "Idiots, Ancient and Modern", ''Australian Journal of Political Science'' '''23''':1:101-102 (1988) {{doi|10.1080/00323268808402051}}</ref>
* Vomiting was not a regular part of [[Ancient Roman cuisine#Table culture|Roman dining customs]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Fass|first=Patrick|title=Around the Roman Table|date=1994|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-23347-5|pages=66–67|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YXGlAr17oekC|ref=harv}}</ref> In [[ancient Rome]], the architectural feature called a ''[[vomitorium]]'' was the entranceway through which crowds entered and exited a stadium, not a special room used for purging food during meals.<ref>{{cite book|last=McKeown|first=J.C.|title=A Cabinet of Roman Curiosities: Strange Tales and Surprising Facts from the World's Greatest Empire|date=2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-539375-0|pages=153–54|url=https://books.google.com/?id=YGYwlMZ3ursC&pg=PA153|ref=harv}}</ref>
* The death of Greek philosopher [[Hypatia|Hypatia of Alexandria]] at the hands of a mob of Christian monks in 415 was a result of her involvement in a bitter political feud between her close friend and student [[Orestes (prefect)|Orestes]], the Roman prefect of Alexandria, and the bishop [[Cyril of Alexandria|Cyril]], not her religious views.<ref>{{cite book|last=Wessel|first=Susan|date=2004|title=Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic|url=https://books.google.com/?id=YcgSDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cyril+of+Alexandria+and+the+Nestorian+controversy#v=onepage&q=Serapeum&f=false|location=Oxford, England|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=36–38|isbn=0-19-926846-0}}</ref><ref name="Watts2008">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/?id=MKolDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=City+and+School+in+Late+Antique+Athens+and+Alexandria#v=onepage&q=Hypatia&f=false|title=City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria|last=Watts|first=Edward J.|date=2008|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520258167|location=Berkeley and Los Angeles, California|pages=195–200}}</ref> Her death also had nothing to do with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria,<ref name="Theodore2016">{{cite book|last=Theodore|first=Jonathan|date=2016|title=The Modern Cultural Myth of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire|url=https://books.google.com/?id=3QPWDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA183&dq=Hypatia+of+Alexandria+astrolabe+discoveries#v=onepage&q=Hypatia%20of%20Alexandria%20astrolabe%20discoveries&f=false|location=Manchester, England|publisher=Palgrave, Macmillan|isbn=978-1-137-56997-4}}</ref> which had already ceased to exist centuries before Hypatia was born.<ref name="Theodore2016"/>
* The [[Library of Alexandria]] was not [[Destruction of the Library of Alexandria|destroyed]] by the Muslim Army during the [[Muslim conquest of Egypt|capture of the city]] in 641. Modern consensus suggests the library had likely already been destroyed centuries before this incident.<ref>{{cite book|last=Lewis|first=Bernard|title=What Happened to the Ancient Library of Alexandria?|date=2008|publisher=Brill Academic Pub|isbn=978-90-04-16545-8|page=213|url=https://books.google.com/?id=hNtcejI_IGkC&pg=PA213}}</ref><ref>[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/sep/27/the-vanished-library-2/ The Vanished Library], Bernard Lewis, in a letter to the New York Review of Books. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140405090823/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1990/sep/27/the-vanished-library-2/ |date=April 5, 2014 }}</ref> It is instead believed that the [[Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima|Library of Caesarea]], a key repository of Christian literature, was the library destroyed near this time.<ref>F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, "Pamphilus, St," in ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' (3rd ed. rev.; Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1221. "The large library [30,000 vols in A.D. 630 {O'Connor 1980:161}] survived at Caesarea until destroyed by the Arabs in the 7th cent."</ref>

===Middle Ages and Renaissance===
* It is true that [[life expectancy]] in the Middle Ages and earlier was low; however, one should not infer that people usually died around the age of 30.<ref>{{cite web|last=Laden |first=Greg |url=http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/01/falsehood-if-this-was-the-ston/ |title=Falsehood: "If this was the Stone Age, I'd be dead by now" – Greg Laden's Blog |publisher=Scienceblogs.com |date=May 1, 2011 |accessdate=December 23, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140330055100/http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/01/falsehood-if-this-was-the-ston/ | archivedate = 2014-03-30| deadurl=no}}</ref> In fact, earlier low life expectancies were very strongly influenced by high infant mortality, and the life expectancy of people who lived to adulthood was much higher. A 21-year-old man in medieval England, for example, could by one estimate expect to live to the age of 64.<ref name="apps.business.ualberta.ca">{{cite web |url=http://apps.business.ualberta.ca/rfield/lifeexpectancy.htm |title="Expectations of Life" by H.O. Lancaster as per | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120904043610/http://apps.business.ualberta.ca/rfield/lifeexpectancy.htm | archivedate = 2012-09-04| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* There is no evidence that [[Vikings]] wore [[Horned helmet|horns on their helmets]].<ref>{{cite book |title=World History: Societies of the Past |last=Kahn |first=Charles |date=2005 |publisher=Portage & Main Press |isbn=978-1-55379-045-7 |page=9 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=gEXCIH4tek8C|ref=harv }}</ref> In fact, the image of Vikings wearing horned helmets stems from the [[scenography]] of an 1876 production of the ''[[Der Ring des Nibelungen]]'' opera cycle by [[Richard Wagner]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Frank|first=F.|title=The Invention of the Viking Horned Helmet|date=2000|publisher=International Scandinavian and Medieval Studies in Memory of Gerd Wolfgang Weber|url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/51267328/Frank-Invention-of-Horned-Helmet|ref=harv| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140413142627/http://www.scribd.com/doc/51267328/Frank-Invention-of-Horned-Helmet | archivedate = 2014-04-13| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* Vikings did not [[Vikings#Use of skulls as drinking vessels|drink out of the skulls of vanquished enemies]]. This was based on a mistranslation of the [[skald]]ic poetic use of ''ór bjúgviðum hausa'' (branches of skulls) to refer to [[drinking horn]]s.<ref>E. W. Gordon, ''Introduction to Old Norse'' (2nd edition, Oxford 1962) pp. lxix–lxx.</ref>
* Vikings did not [[Names of Iceland|name Iceland]] "[[Iceland]]" as a ploy to discourage others from settling it. [[Naddodd]] and [[Hrafna-Flóki Vilgerðarson]] both saw snow and ice on the island when they traveled there, giving the island its name.<ref>Evans, Andrew. [https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/iceland-greenland-name-swap/ "Is Iceland Really Green and Greenland Really Icy?"], ''[[National Geographic]]'' (June 30, 2016).</ref>
* [[King Canute]] did not command the [[tide]] to reverse in a fit of delusional arrogance.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13524677 |title=Is King Canute misunderstood?|publisher= BBC |ref=harv|date=May 26, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140420145809/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13524677 | archivedate = 2014-04-20| deadurl=no}}</ref> His intent that day, if the incident even happened, was most likely to prove a point to members of his privy council that no man is all-powerful, and we all must bend to forces beyond our control, such as the tides.
* There is no evidence that [[Iron maiden (torture)|iron maidens]] were invented in the [[Middle Ages]] or even used for torture. Instead they were pieced together in the 18th century from several [[artifact (archaeology)|artifacts]] found in museums in order to create spectacular objects intended for (commercial) exhibition.<ref>{{cite book| first = Wolfgang| last = Schild| date = 2000| title = Die eiserne Jungfrau. Dichtung und Wahrheit (Schriftenreihe des Mittelalterlichen Kriminalmuseums Rothenburg o. d. Tauber Nr. 3)| location = Rothenburg ob der Tauber| ref=harv}}</ref>
* The [[plate armor]] of European soldiers did not stop soldiers from moving around or necessitate a crane to get them into a saddle. They would as a matter of course fight on foot and could mount and dismount without help. In fact, soldiers equipped with plate armor were more mobile than those with [[Mail (armour)|mail armor]] (chain armor), as mail was heavier and required stiff padding beneath due to its pliable nature.<ref>{{cite web|last=Breiding|first=Dirk|title=Department of Arms and Armor, The Metropolitan Museum of Art| url=http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm#weight_b|publisher=metmuseum.org|accessdate=February 23, 2012|ref=harv | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140426172847/http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm | archivedate = 2014-04-26| deadurl=no}}</ref> It is true that armor used in tournaments in the late Middle Ages was significantly heavier than that used in warfare,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://madeofwynn.net/2012/10/08/medieval-anachronisms-part-3-cranes-hoisting-armored-knights/ |title=Cranes hoisting armored knights| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131029210602/http://madeofwynn.net/2012/10/08/medieval-anachronisms-part-3-cranes-hoisting-armored-knights/ | archivedate = 2013-10-29| deadurl=no}}</ref> which may have contributed to this misconception.
* Whether [[chastity belt]]s, devices designed to prevent women from having [[sexual intercourse]], were invented in [[medieval]] times is disputed by modern historians. Most existing chastity belts are now thought to be deliberate fakes or anti-masturbatory devices from the 19th and early 20th centuries. The latter were made due to the [[History of masturbation#Health concerns|widespread belief that masturbation could lead to insanity]], and were mostly bought by parents for their teenage children.<ref>{{cite book|title=Misconceptions About the Middle Ages|last=Keyser|first=Linda Migl|date=2008|publisher=Routledge|editor-last=Harris|editor-first=Stephen J.|chapter=The Medieval Chastity Belt Unbuckled|ref=have|editor2-last=Grigsby|editor2-first=Bryon L.}}</ref>
[[File:Gossuin de Metz - L'image du monde - BNF Fr. 574 fo42 - miniature.jpg|thumb|upright|Medieval depiction of a spherical Earth.]]
* [[Medieval Europe]]ans [[Myth of the Flat Earth|did not believe Earth was flat]]. Scholars have known the [[spherical Earth|earth is spherical]] since at least 500 B.C.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html|title=Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref> This myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/resources/additional-resources/2010/05/science-versus-christianity|title=Science Versus Christianity?|website=www.patheos.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
:* [[Christopher Columbus]]'s efforts to obtain support for [[voyages of Christopher Columbus|his voyages]] were hampered not by belief in a flat Earth but by valid worries that the East Indies were farther than he realized.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | title=The Myth of the Flat Earth | encyclopedia=Misconceptions about the Middle Ages | publisher=Routledge | accessdate=26 January 2014 | author=Louise M. Bishop | editor=Stephen Harris | editor2=Bryon L. Grigsby | date=2010 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hdCTAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT149| isbn=9781135986667 }}</ref> In fact, Columbus grossly underestimated the earth's circumference because of two calculation errors.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/columbuss-geographical-miscalculations|title=Columbus’s Geographical Miscalculations|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|access-date=2018-10-03}}</ref> He and all of his crew would have died of starvation, thirst or scurvy had they not been lucky enough to bump into the uncharted continent of North America.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Coming of Age in the Milky Way|last=Ferris|first=Timothy|publisher=Harper Perennial|year=2003|isbn=978-0060535957|location=|pages=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.americanheritage.com/content/everything-you-need-know-about-columbus|title=Everything You Need To Know About Columbus {{!}} AMERICAN HERITAGE|website=www.americanheritage.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html|title=Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus|work=Live Science|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
:* The myth that Columbus proved the earth was round was propagated by authors like [[Washington Irving]] in ''[[A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus]]''.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://dhayton.haverford.edu/blog/2014/12/02/washington-irvings-columbus-and-the-flat-earth/|title=Washington Irving’s Columbus and the Flat Earth – Darin Hayton|website=dhayton.haverford.edu|language=en-US|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html|title=Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
* Columbus never reached any land that now forms part of the mainland United States of America; most of the landings Columbus made on [[Voyages of Christopher Columbus|his four voyages]], including the initial October 12, 1492 landing (the anniversary of which forms the basis of [[Columbus Day]]), were on Caribbean islands which today are independent countries. Columbus was also not the first European to visit the Americas: at least one explorer, [[Leif Ericson]], preceded him by reaching what is believed to be the island now known as [[Newfoundland (island)|Newfoundland]], part of modern Canada, though he never made it to the mainland.<ref name="Zeruvabel2003">{{cite book | title=Terra cognita: the mental discovery of America | author1=Eviatar Zerubavel | publisher=Transaction Publishers | date=2003 | isbn=978-0-7658-0987-2 | pages=90–91 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YkLCiKN0x4UC&pg=PA90}}</ref><ref>Sale, Kirkpatrick (1991). ''The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy''. {{ISBN|978-1-84511-154-0}}. pp. 204–09</ref>
* [[Marco Polo]] did not import pasta from China,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ilovepasta.org/faqs.html|title=National Pasta Association|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320211605/http://www.ilovepasta.org/faqs.html|archivedate=2012-03-20|deadurl=yes}} article ''FAQs'' section "Who "invented" pasta?"; "The story that it was Marco Polo who imported noodles to Italy and thereby gave birth to the country's pasta culture is the most pervasive myth in the history of Italian food." (Dickie 2008, p. 48).</ref> a misconception which originated with the ''Macaroni Journal'', published by an association of food industries with the goal of promoting the use of pasta in the United States.<ref>S. Serventi, F. Sabban ''La pasta. Storia e cultura di un cibo universale'', VII. Economica Laterza 2004</ref> Marco Polo describes a food similar to "lagana" in his ''[[The Travels of Marco Polo|Travels]]'', but he uses a term with which he was already familiar. [[Durum wheat]], and thus pasta as it is known today, was introduced by [[Arabs]] from Libya, during their conquest of [[Sicily]] in the late 7th century, according to the newsletter of the [[National Pasta Association|National Macaroni Manufacturers Association]],<ref name="Serventi 2002 10">{{cite book|title=Pasta: The Story of a Universal Food|last=Serventi|first=Silvano|date=2002|publisher=Columbia University Press|others=Trans. Antony Shugaar|isbn=978-0-231-12442-3|location=New York|page=10|postscript={{inconsistent citations}}|author2=Françoise Sabban}}</ref> thus predating Marco Polo's travels to China by about six centuries.

===Early modern===
* Contrary to the popular image of the [[Pilgrim Fathers]], the early settlers of the [[Plymouth Colony]] in North America did not wear all black, and their [[capotain]]s (hats) were shorter and rounder than the widely depicted tall hat with a buckle on it. Instead, their fashion was based on that of the late [[Elizabethan era]]: [[doublet (clothing)|doublets]], [[jerkin (garment)|jerkins]] and [[ruff (clothing)|ruffs]]. Both men and women wore the same style of shoes, stockings, capes, coats and hats in a range of colors including reds, yellows, purples, and greens.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://web.ccsd.k12.wy.us/techcurr/social%20studies/05/0101pilcloth.html |title=Plymouth Colony Clothing |publisher=Web.ccsd.k12.wy.us |accessdate=February 9, 2012 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131022032249/http://web.ccsd.k12.wy.us/techcurr/social%20studies/05/0101pilcloth.html |archivedate=October 22, 2013 |deadurl=yes |df=mdy-all }}</ref> According to [[Plimoth Plantation]] historian James W. Baker, the traditional image was formed in the 19th century when buckles were a kind of emblem of [[wikt:quaint|quaintness]].<ref>Schenone, Laura. ''A Thousand Years Over A Hot Stove: A History Of American Women Told Through Food, Recipes, And Remembrances''. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004: 118. {{ISBN|978-0-393-32627-7}}</ref><ref>Wilson, Susan. ''Literary Trail of Greater Boston''. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 200: 23. {{ISBN|978-0-618-05013-0}}</ref>
* The accused at the [[Salem witch trials]] in North America were not burned at the stake; about 15 died in prison, 19 were hanged and one was [[Crushing (execution)#Crushing under common law|pressed to death]].<ref>Rosenthal, Bernard. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=YNYyMV_huGAC&pg=PA209 Salem Story: Reading the Witch Trials of 1692]'', p. 209 (Cambridge University Press 1995).</ref><ref>Adams, Gretchen. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=wMIF3EFgnRsC&pg=PR22 The Specter of Salem: Remembering the Witch Trials in Nineteenth-Century America]'', p. xxii (ReadHowYouWant.com, 2010).</ref>
* [[Marie Antoinette]] did not say "[[let them eat cake]]" when she heard that the French peasantry were starving due to a shortage of bread. The phrase was first published in Rousseau's ''[[Confessions (Jean-Jacques Rousseau)|Confessions]]'' when Marie was only nine years old and most scholars believe that [[Rousseau]] coined it himself, or that it was said by [[Maria Theresa of Spain|Maria-Theresa]], the wife of [[Louis XIV]]. Even Rousseau (or Maria-Theresa) did not use the exact words but actually ''Qu'ils mangent de la brioche'', "Let them eat [[brioche]]" (a rich type of bread). Marie Antoinette was an unpopular ruler; therefore, people attribute the phrase "let them eat cake" to her, in keeping with her reputation as being hard-hearted and disconnected from her subjects.<ref>{{cite web|last=Keener|first=Candace|url=http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/top-5-marie-antoinette-scandals1.htm|title=HowStuffWorks "Let Them Eat Cake"|publisher=History.howstuffworks.com|accessdate=June 23, 2010 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120904040526/http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/top-5-marie-antoinette-scandals1.htm | archivedate = 2012-09-04| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* [[George Washington]] did not have wooden teeth. His dentures were made of gold, hippopotamus ivory, lead, animal teeth (including horse and donkey teeth),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6875436/ |title=Washington's False Teeth Not Wooden |publisher=MSNBC |date=January 27, 2005 |accessdate=August 29, 2009 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/61AEslghr?url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6875436/ |archivedate=August 23, 2011 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref> and probably human teeth purchased from slaves.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Thompson|first1=Mary V.|title=The Private Life of George Washington's Slaves|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/video/lives.html|accessdate=16 June 2014}}</ref>
* The signing of the [[United States Declaration of Independence]] did not occur on July 4, 1776. After the [[Second Continental Congress]] voted to declare independence on July 2, the final language of the document was approved on July 4, and it was printed and distributed on July 4–5.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html |title=Declaration of Independence – A History |accessdate=April 4, 2011 |work=archives.gov |publisher=U.S. National Archives and Records Administration |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5mr8D8v2a?url=http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html |archivedate=January 17, 2010 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref> However, the actual signing occurred on August 2, 1776.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx|date=July 6, 1999|title=New Poll Gauges Americans' General Knowledge Levels|first=Steve |last=Crabtree|quote=Fifty-five percent say it commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence (this is a common misconception, and close to being accurate; July 4th is actually the date in 1776 when the Continental Congress approved the Declaration, which was officially signed on August 2nd.) Another 32 percent give a more general answer, saying that July 4th celebrates Independence Day.|publisher=Gallup News Service|accessdate=January 13, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140327130003/http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/New-Poll-Gauges-Americans-General-Knowledge-Levels.aspx | archivedate = 2014-03-27| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* [[Benjamin Franklin]] did not propose that the [[wild turkey#Benjamin Franklin and the national bird suggestion|wild turkey]] be used as the symbol for the United States instead of the [[bald eagle]]. While he did serve on a commission that tried to design a seal after the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]], his proposal was an image of [[Moses]]. His objections to the eagle as a national symbol and preference for the turkey were stated in a 1784 letter to his daughter in response to the [[Society of the Cincinnati]]'s use of the former; he never expressed that sentiment publicly.<ref name="Franklin turkey proposal">{{cite news|last=Lund|first=Nicholas|title=Did Benjamin Franklin ''Really'' Say the National Symbol Should Be the Turkey?|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/holidays/2013/11/benjamin_franklin_turkey_symbol_why_he_hated_the_bald_eagle_for_the_great.html|newspaper=[[Slate (website)|Slate]]|date=November 21, 2013|accessdate=November 22, 2013| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083733/http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/holidays/2013/11/benjamin_franklin_turkey_symbol_why_he_hated_the_bald_eagle_for_the_great.html | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref name="AHS turkey page">{{cite web|last=McMillan|first=Joseph|url=http://americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=MMM.Turkey|title=The Arms of the United States: Benjamin Franklin and the Turkey|publisher=American Heraldry Society|date=May 18, 2007|accessdate=November 24, 2013|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082418/http://www.americanheraldry.org/pages/index.php?n=MMM.Turkey|archivedate=April 27, 2014|deadurl=yes|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
* There was never a bill to make [[German language|German]] the [[official language of the United States]] that was defeated by one vote in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], nor has one been proposed at the state level. In 1794, a petition from a group of German immigrants was put aside on a procedural vote of 42 to 41, that would have had the government publish some laws in German. This was the basis of the [[Muhlenberg legend]], named after the [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] at the time, [[Frederick Muhlenberg]], a speaker of German descent who abstained from this vote.<ref>{{cite book |title= Der Dativ ist dem Genetiv sein Tod |authorlink= Bastian Sick |first= Bastian |last= Sick |publisher=Kieperheuer & Witsch |date= 2004 |isbn= 978-3-462-03448-6 }}</ref><ref>[http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/kade/adams/chap7.html Willi Paul Adams: ''The German Americans.'' Chapter 7: ''German or English''] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100624133002/http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/kade/adams/chap7.html |date=June 24, 2010 }}</ref><ref>{{Citation |url= http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp |date=July 9, 2007 |title= The German Vote |publisher= [[Snopes.com]] }}</ref>

===Modern===
[[File:Eastlake - Napoleon on the Bellerophon.jpg|thumb|upright|''Napoleon on the Bellerophon'', a painting of Napoleon I by [[Charles Lock Eastlake]]. Napoleon was taller than his nickname, The Little Corporal, suggests.]]
{{see also|False memory#Commonly held false memories}}
* [[Napoleon|Napoleon Bonaparte]] was not short. He was actually slightly taller than the average Frenchman of his time.<ref name="WrongAnswer">{{cite book |title= Sorry, Wrong Answer: Trivia Questions That Even Know-It-Alls Get Wrong |authorlink= Rod L. Evans |first= Rod L. |last= Evans |publisher= Penguin Books |date= 2010 |isbn= 978-0-399-53586-4 |accessdate=December 31, 2011 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Q7CkHF7xTuYC&pg=PT116 |postscript= {{inconsistent citations}} }}</ref><ref name="CBS">{{cite journal |date= February 11, 2009 |title= Forget Napoleon – Height Rules |publisher= [[CBS News]] |accessdate=December 31, 2011 |url= http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/17/health/main578654.shtml |postscript= {{inconsistent citations | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20130702045955/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/17/health/main578654.shtml | archivedate = 2013-07-02| deadurl=no}} }}</ref> After his death in 1821, the French emperor's height was recorded as 5 feet 2 inches in [[Mesures usuelles|''French'' feet]], which in English measurements is {{Convert|1.69|m|order=flip}}.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.napoleon.org/en/essential_napoleon/faq/index.asp#ancre54|title=Fondation Napoléon|publisher=Napoleon.org|accessdate=August 29, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140417162738/http://www.napoleon.org/en/essential_napoleon/faq/index.asp | archivedate = 2014-04-17| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=La taille de Napoléon |url=http://www.napoleon.org/fr/salle_lecture/articles/files/Taillenapo_RIN_89_oct1963_2006.asp |language=French |accessdate=July 22, 2010 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5jk3XhZKJ?url=http://www.napoleon.org/fr/salle_lecture/articles/files/Taillenapo_RIN_89_oct1963_2006.asp |archivedate=September 12, 2009 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref> Some believe that he was nicknamed ''le Petit Caporal'' (The Little Corporal) as a term of affection.<ref>{{cite web|last=Wilde|first=Robert|title=Was Napoleon Bonaparte Short?|url=http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/bonapartenapoleon/a/napoleonheight.htm|work=European History|publisher=About.com|accessdate=April 5, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140213194649/http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/bonapartenapoleon/a/napoleonheight.htm | archivedate = 2014-02-13| deadurl=no}}</ref> Napoleon was often accompanied by his imperial guard, who were selected for their height<ref>{{cite web|title=Napoleon's Imperial Guard|url=http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/IMPERIAL_GUARD_infantry_1.htm| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082423/http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/IMPERIAL_GUARD_infantry_1.htm | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}}</ref>—this could have contributed to a perception that he was comparatively short.
* [[Cinco de Mayo]] is not [[Grito de Dolores|Mexico's Independence Day]], but the celebration of the Mexican Army's victory over the French in the [[Battle of Puebla]] on May 5, 1862. Mexico's Declaration of Independence from Spain in 1810 is celebrated on September 16.<ref name="NatGeo">{{cite web|url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0505_060505_cinco_de_mayo.html |work=National Geographic News |title=Cinco de Mayo, From Mexican Fiesta to Popular U.S. Holiday |first=Stefan |last=Lovgren |date=May 5, 2006 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5QBwlWfYP?url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0505_060505_cinco_de_mayo.html |archivedate=July 9, 2007 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref><ref name="DN">{{cite web |url=http://news.discovery.com/history/cinco-de-mayo-not-mexicos-independence-day.html |title=Cinco de Mayo: NOT Mexico's Independence Day |author=Lauren Effron |publisher=[[Discovery Channel]] |date=May 5, 2010 |accessdate=May 5, 2011 | archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321055147/http://news.discovery.com/history/cinco-de-mayo-not-mexicos-independence-day.html |archivedate=2012-03-21| deadurl=no}}</ref>

* [[Cowboy hat]]s were not initially popular in the [[American frontier|Western American frontier]], with [[bowler hat|derby or bowler hats]] being the typical headgear of choice.<ref>{{citation |title=The Hat That Won the West |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19571026&id=xQQpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PkgDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7036,5636283 |accessdate=2010-02-10}}</ref> Heavy marketing of the [[John B. Stetson Company|Stetson]] "[[Boss of the Plains]]" model in the years following the [[American Civil War]] was the primary driving force behind the cowboy hat's popularity, with its characteristic dented top not becoming standard until near the end of the 19th century.<ref>Snyder, Jeffrey B. (1997) ''Stetson Hats and the John B. Stetson Company 1865–1970''. p. 50 {{ISBN|0-7643-0211-6}}</ref>
* Despite being referenced commonly in culture<ref>{{cite web |title=Victorian-Era Orgasms and the Crisis of Peer Review |publisher=The Atlantic|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/09/victorian-vibrators-orgasms-doctors/569446/|accessdate=25 September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Why the Movie "Hysteria" Gets Its Vibrator History Wrong |publisher=Dildographer|url=https://dildographer.com/2012/05/04/why-the-movie-hysteria-gets-its-vibrator-history-wrong/|accessdate=25 September 2018}}</ref> and society at large,<ref>King, Helen ''Galen and the widow. Towards a history of therapeutic masturbation in ancient gynaecology''. Eugesta, Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity, 2011, p. 206-208</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Buzzkill: Vibrators and the Victorians (NSFW) |publisher=The Whores of Yore|url=https://www.thewhoresofyore.com/kates-journal/buzzkill-vibrators-and-the-victorians|accessdate=25 September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=No, no, no! Victorians didn't invent the vibrator |publisher=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/10/victorians-invent-vibrator-orgasms-women-doctors-fantasy|accessdate=25 September 2018}}</ref> the idea that Victorian Era doctors invented the vibrator to cure female 'hysteria' via triggering orgasm is a product of a single work<ref>{{cite web |title=Hysteria |publisher=Welcome Collection|url=https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/hysteria|accessdate=25 September 2018}}</ref> rejected by most historians.<ref>{{cite web |title=Victorian-Era Orgasms and the Crisis of Peer Review |publisher=The Atlantic|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/09/victorian-vibrators-orgasms-doctors/569446/|accessdate=25 September 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=No, no, no! Victorians didn't invent the vibrator |publisher=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/10/victorians-invent-vibrator-orgasms-women-doctors-fantasy|accessdate=25 September 2018}}</ref><ref>King, Helen ''Galen and the widow. Towards a history of therapeutic masturbation in ancient gynaecology''. Eugesta, Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity, 2011, p. 227-231</ref>
* The [[Great Chicago Fire]] of 1871 was not caused by [[Catherine O'Leary|Mrs. O'Leary]]'s cow kicking over a lantern. A newspaper reporter invented the story to make colorful copy.<ref>{{cite web |title=The O'Leary Legend |publisher=Chicago History Museum |url=http://www.chicagohistory.org/fire/oleary/essay-2.html |accessdate=March 18, 2007 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110110110402/http://www.chicagohistory.org/fire/oleary/essay-2.html |archivedate=January 10, 2011}}</ref>
* The claim that [[Frederic Remington]], on assignment to Cuba in 1897, telegraphed [[William Randolph Hearst]] that "There will be no [[Spanish–American War|war]]. I wish to return" and that Hearst responded, "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war" is unsubstantiated. This anecdote was originally included in a book by [[James Creelman]], though there is no evidence that the telegraph exchange ever happened, and substantial evidence that it did not.<ref name="GIW">{{cite book|last1=Campbell |first1=W. Joseph|title=Getting it Wrong: Ten of the Greatest Misreported Stories in American Journalism|date=2010|publisher=University of California Press|location=Berkeley|isbn=978-0-520-26209-6|pages=9–25}}</ref><ref name="Yellow">Campbell, W. Joseph (2003). [https://books.google.com/books?id=TflDlgzRtSYC&pg=PA72''Yellow Journalism: Puncturing the Myths, Defining the Legacies'']. [[Praeger Publishers|Praeger]]. p. 72. {{ISBN|978-0-275-98113-6}}</ref>
* Immigrants' last names were not Americanized (voluntarily, mistakenly, or otherwise) upon arrival at [[Ellis Island]]. Officials there kept no records other than checking ship manifests created at the point of origin, and there was simply no paperwork which would have created such an effect, let alone any law. At the time in New York, anyone could change the spelling of their name simply by using that new spelling.<ref name="Ellis Island">{{cite web|url=http://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/07/02/name-changes-ellis-island |title=Why Your Family Name Was Not Changed at Ellis Island (and One That Was) |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6dNXZP0bp?url=http://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/07/02/name-changes-ellis-island |archivedate=November 28, 2015 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref> These names are often referred to as an "[[Ellis Island Special]]".
* The common image of [[Santa Claus]] (Father Christmas) as a jolly old man in red robes was not created by [[The Coca-Cola Company]] as an advertising gimmick. Despite being historically represented with different characteristics in different colours of robes, Santa Claus had already taken his modern form in popular culture and seen extensive use in other companies' advertisements and other mass media at the time Coca-Cola began using his image in the 1930s.<ref name="Santa">
* {{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp |title=The Claus That Refreshes |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5mCN7QiUB?url=http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp |archivedate=December 22, 2009 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }} Snopes.com. Retrieved January 7, 2008.
* The White Rock Collectors Association, "{{cite web|url=http://www.whiterocking.org/santa.html#article |title=Did White Rock or The Coca-Cola Company create the modern Santa Claus Advertisement? |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5mCN7QiUB?url=http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp |archivedate=2009-12-22 |deadurl=no }}," whiterocking.org, 2001 Retrieved January 19, 2007.
* White Rock Beverages, "{{cite web|url=http://www.bevnet.com/news/2006/12-18-2006-white_rock_coke_santa_claus.asp |title=Coca-Cola's Santa Claus: Not The Real Thing! |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5mCN7QiUB?url=http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/santa/cocacola.asp |archivedate=2009-12-22 |deadurl=no }}," BevNET.com, December 18, 2006. Retrieved January 19, 2007.
* [[:File:Santa1902PuckCover.jpg|Santa Claus on the 1902 cover of Puck magazine]], [[:File:Santa1904PuckCover.jpg|Santa Claus on the 1904 cover of Puck magazine]], [[:File:Santa1905PuckCover.jpg|Santa Claus on the 1905 cover of Puck magazine]].
* {{cite book|last=Hoffman|first=Robert C.|title=Postcards from Santa Claus: Sights and Sentiments from the Last Century|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nQV6Dl334DEC|date=October 2001|publisher=Square One Publishers, Inc.|isbn=978-0-7570-0105-5}}
</ref>
* Italian dictator [[Benito Mussolini]] did not "make the trains run on time". Much of the repair work had been performed before Mussolini and the [[National Fascist Party|Fascists]] came to power in 1922. Accounts from the era also suggest that the Italian railways' legendary adherence to timetables was more propaganda than reality.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/rear-window-making-italy-work-did-mussolini-really-get-the-trains-running-on-time-1367688.html|title=Rear Window: Making Italy work: Did Mussolini really get the trains running on time|accessdate=2010-09-03 |work=The Independent |location=London |first=Brian|last=Cathcart|date=April 3, 1994 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120124072305/http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/rear-window-making-italy-work-did-mussolini-really-get-the-trains-running-on-time-1367688.html |archivedate=2012-01-24 |deadurl=no}}</ref>
* There was no widespread outbreak of panic across the United States in response to [[Orson Welles]]' 1938 [[The War of the Worlds (radio drama)|radio adaptation]] of [[H.G. Wells]]' ''[[The War of the Worlds (novel)|The War of the Worlds]]''. Only a very small share of the radio audience was even listening to it, and isolated reports of scattered incidents and increased call volume to emergency services were played up the next day by newspapers, eager to discredit radio as a competitor for advertising. Both Welles and CBS, which had initially reacted apologetically, later came to realize that the myth benefited them and actively embraced it in later years.<ref name="2013 Slate article">{{cite news|last1=Pooley|first1=Jefferson|last2=Socolow|first2=Michael|title=The Myth of the ''War of the Worlds'' Panic|url=http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/history/2013/10/orson_welles_war_of_the_worlds_panic_myth_the_infamous_radio_broadcast_did.html|newspaper=[[Slate (website)|Slate]]|date=October 28, 2013|accessdate=November 24, 2013| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140509160518/http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/history/2013/10/orson_welles_war_of_the_worlds_panic_myth_the_infamous_radio_broadcast_did.html | archivedate = 2014-05-09| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref name="Getting It Wrong">{{cite book | last1 = Campbell | first1 = W. Joseph. | title = Getting it wrong : ten of the greatest misreported stories in American Journalism |url=https://books.google.com/?id=SodvJ4EuTggC| date = 2010 | publisher = University of California Press | location = Berkeley | isbn = 978-0-520-26209-6 | pages =26–44}}</ref>
* There is no evidence of [[Polish cavalry]] mounting a brave but futile charge against German [[tank]]s using lances and sabres during the German [[invasion of Poland]] in 1939. This story may have originated from German propaganda efforts following the [[charge at Krojanty]], in which a Polish cavalry brigade surprised German infantry in the open, and successfully charged and dispersed them, until driven off by [[armoured car (military)|armoured cars]]. While Polish cavalry still carried the sabre for such opportunities, they were trained to fight as highly mobile, dismounted cavalry ([[dragoon]]s) and issued with light anti-tank weapons.<ref>{{cite web|last=Ankerstjerne|first=Christian|title=The myth of Polish cavalry charges|url=http://www.panzerworld.net/fallweiss.html#polish-cavalry-charges-against-tanks|publisher=Panzerworld|accessdate=April 5, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120804070934/http://www.panzerworld.net/fallweiss.html | archivedate = 2012-08-04| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.polamjournal.com/Library/APHistory/Cavalry_Myth/cavalry_myth.html |title=The Mythical Polish Cavalry Charge |work=Polish American Journal |publisher=Polamjournal.com |date=July 2008 |accessdate=February 9, 2012 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6AvQeRgCM?url=http://www.polamjournal.com/Library/APHistory/Cavalry_Myth/cavalry_myth.html |archivedate=September 24, 2012 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref>
* During the [[occupation of Denmark]] by the [[Nazi Germany|Nazis]] during World War II, King [[Christian X of Denmark]] did not thwart Nazi attempts to identify Jews by wearing a [[yellow badge|yellow star]] himself. Jews in Denmark were never forced to wear the Star of David. The [[Danish resistance movement|Danish resistance]] did [[Rescue of the Danish Jews|help most Jews flee the country]] before the end of the war.<ref name="DenmarkOccupation">
* {{cite web
|url=http://www.diis.dk/graphics/CVer/Personlige_CVer/Holocaust_and_Genocide/Publikationer/holocaust_DK_kap_5.pdf
|title=The King and the Star – Myths created during the Occupation of Denmark
|accessdate=April 5, 2011
|author=Vilhjálmur Örn Vilhjálmsson
|publisher=Danish institute for international studies
|deadurl=yes
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716022617/http://www.diis.dk/graphics/CVer/Personlige_CVer/Holocaust_and_Genocide/Publikationer/holocaust_DK_kap_5.pdf
|archivedate=July 16, 2011
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite web
|title=Some Essential Definitions & Myths Associated with the Holocaust
|url=http://www.chgs.umn.edu/histories/myths.html
|accessdate=April 5, 2011
|publisher=Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies – University of Minnesota
}}
* {{cite web
|title=King Christian and the Star of David
|url=http://www.natmus.dk/sw81068.asp
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928011038/http://www.natmus.dk/sw81068.asp
|archivedate=September 28, 2011
|deadurl=yes
|accessdate=February 21, 2017
|publisher=The National Museum of Denmark
}}</ref>
[[File:Albert_Einstein_as_a_child.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Albert Einstein]], photographed at 14, did not fail mathematics at school.]]
* [[Albert Einstein]] did not fail mathematics classes (never "flunked a math exam") in school. Upon seeing a column making this claim, Einstein said "I never failed in mathematics... Before I was fifteen I had mastered [[differential calculus|differential]] and [[integral calculus]]."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html |title=Making the Grade |work=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=5 April 2007 |accessdate=31 December 2013 |author=Isaacson, Walter |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140329164620/http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0%2C28804%2C1936731_1936743_1936758%2C00.html |archivedate=March 29, 2014 |deadurl=no }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Jones|first=Andrew Zimmerman|title=Physics Myth Month – Einstein Failed Mathematics?|url=http://physics.about.com/b/2007/09/19/physics-myth-month-einstein-failed-mathematics.htm|accessdate=May 4, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140412011826/http://physics.about.com/b/2007/09/19/physics-myth-month-einstein-failed-mathematics.htm | archivedate = 2014-04-12| deadurl=no}}</ref> Einstein did however fail his first entrance exam into the [[ETH Zurich|Swiss Federal Polytechnic School]] (ETH) in 1895, when he was two years younger than his fellow students but scored exceedingly well in the mathematics and science sections, then passed on his second attempt.<ref>{{cite web|last=Kruszelnicki |first=Karl |title=Einstein Failed School |url=http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/06/23/1115185.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience |accessdate=July 12, 2012 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082641/http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/06/23/1115185.htm?site=science%2Fgreatmomentsinscience |archivedate=April 27, 2014 |deadurl=no }}</ref>
* Actor [[Ronald Reagan]] was never seriously considered for the role of Rick Blaine in the 1942 film classic ''[[Casablanca (film)|Casablanca]]'', eventually played by [[Humphrey Bogart]]. This belief came from an early studio press release announcing the film's production that used his name to generate interest in the film. But by the time it had come out, [[Warner Brothers|Warner Bros.]] knew that Reagan was unavailable for any roles in the foreseeable future since he was no longer able to defer his entry into military service.<ref>{{cite book|last=Harmetz|first=Aljean|authorlink=Aljean Harmetz|title=Round Up the Usual Suspects: The Making of ''Casablanca'' – Bogart, Bergman, and World War II|date=1992|publisher=Hyperion|isbn=978-1-56282-761-8|page=72}}</ref> Studio records show that producer [[Hal B. Wallis]] had always wanted Bogart for the part.<ref>{{cite book|last=Sklar|first=Robert|title=City Boys: Cagney, Bogart, Garfield|date=1992|publisher=Princeton University Press|location=New Jersey|isbn=978-0-691-04795-9|page=135}}</ref><ref name="Snopes Reagan Casablanca page">{{cite web|last=Mikkelson|first=Barbara and David P.|title=The Blaine Truth|url=http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/reagan.asp|publisher=[[Snopes.com]]|date=August 17, 2007|accessdate=March 25, 2012 }}</ref>
* U.S. Senator [[George Smathers]] never gave a speech to a rural audience describing his opponent, [[Claude Pepper]], as an "[[wikt:extrovert|extrovert]]" whose sister was a "[[wikt:thespian|thespian]]", in the apparent hope they would confuse them with similar-sounding words like "pervert" and "lesbian". ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'', which is sometimes cited as the source, described the story of the purported speech as a "yarn" at the time,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,805369,00.html |work=Time |title=Florida: Anything Goes |date=April 17, 1950 |accessdate=May 3, 2010 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130624133711/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C805369%2C00.html |archivedate=June 24, 2013 |deadurl=no }}</ref> and no Florida newspaper reported such a speech during the campaign. The leading reporter who covered Smathers said he always gave the same boilerplate speech. Smathers had offered [[US$]]10,000 to anyone who could prove he had made the speech; it was never claimed.<ref name="SPTtimes Smathers story">{{cite news|last=Nohlgren|first=Stephen|title=A born winner, if not a native Floridian|url=http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/29/State/A_born_winner__if_not.shtml|newspaper=[[St. Petersburg Times]]|date=November 29, 2003|accessdate=October 8, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20121005062919/http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/29/State/A_born_winner__if_not.shtml | archivedate = 2012-10-05| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* [[John F. Kennedy]]'s words "{{lang|de|[[Ich bin ein Berliner]]}}" are standard German for "I am a Berliner."<ref>{{cite book|last=Daum|first=Andreas W.|title=Kennedy in Berlin|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=148–49|date=2007|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IrK1TG34vw8C&pg=PT148|isbn=3-506-71991-2}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Artikel/Gebrauch/ArtIndef.html|title=Gebrauch des unbestimmten Artikels (German, "Use of the indefinite article")|publisher=Canoo Engineering AG|accessdate=July 5, 2010 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140328165614/http://canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/Wort/Artikel/Gebrauch/ArtIndef.html | archivedate = 2014-03-28| deadurl=no}}</ref> An [[urban legend]] has it that due to his use of the indefinite article ''{{lang|de|ein}}'', ''{{lang|de|Berliner}}'' is translated as ''jelly donut'', and that the population of Berlin was amused by the supposed mistake. The word ''{{lang|de|Berliner}}'' is not commonly used in Berlin to refer to the ''{{lang|de|[[Berliner (pastry)|Berliner Pfannkuchen]]}}''; is usually called ''{{lang|de|ein Pfannkuchen}}''.<ref>{{cite web|title=German Myth 6: JFK a Jelly Doughnut? Berlin Speech 1963|url=http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth06.htm|work=German Misnomers, Myths and Mistakes|publisher=About.com|accessdate=April 5, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140209152717/http://german.about.com/library/blgermyth06.htm | archivedate = 2014-02-09| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* [[African American]] intellectual and activist [[W.E.B. Du Bois]] did not renounce his U.S. citizenship while living in [[Ghana]] shortly before [[W.E.B. Du Bois#Death in Africa|his death]],<ref name="Dubois controversy book">{{cite book|last1=Bass|first1=Amy|title=Those about Him Remained Silent: The Battle Over W.E.B. Du Bois|date=2009|publisher=[[University of Minnesota Press]]|isbn=9780816644957|page=155|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wn7B_04lNJkC&pg=PA155}}</ref> as is often claimed.<ref name="Fox news renunciation claim">{{cite news|title=Renouncing citizenship is usually all about the Benjamins, say experts|url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/11/renouncing-citizenship-is-usually-all-about-benjamins-say-experts/|newspaper=[[Fox News]]|date=May 11, 2012|accessdate=May 18, 2015}}</ref><ref name="HuffPost renunuciation claim">{{cite web|title=Celebrities Who Renounced Their Citizenship|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/celebrities-who-renounced-citizenship_n_2602099.html|work=[[Huffington Post]]|date=February 1, 2012|accessdate=May 18, 2015}}</ref><ref name="Harlem Renaissance Encyclopedia">{{cite book|last1=Aberjhani|first1=Sandra L. West|title=Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance|date=2003|publisher=Infobase Publishing|isbn=9781438130170|page=89|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XP48QWTmjyUC&pg=PA89}}</ref> In early 1963, due to his membership in the [[Communist Party of the United States|Communist Party]] and support for the Soviet Union, the [[U.S. State Department]] did not renew his [[United States passport|passport]] while he was already in Ghana overseeing the creation of the ''Encyclopedia Africana''. After leaving the embassy, he stated his intention to renounce his citizenship in protest. But while he took Ghanaian citizenship, he never went through the process of renouncing his American citizenship,<ref name="Lewis Du Bois bio">{{cite book|last1=Lewis|first1=David|title=W.E.B. Du Bois: A Biography|date=2009|publisher=MacMillan|isbn=9780805088052|page=841|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BU4vH95YySgC&pg=PA841}}</ref> and may not even have intended to.<ref name="Dubois controversy book" />
* When bartender [[Murder of Kitty Genovese|Kitty Genovese was murdered]] outside her [[Queens, New York|Queens]] apartment in 1964, 37 neighbors did not stand idly by and watch, not calling the police until after she was dead, as ''[[The New York Times]]'' initially reported<ref name="NYT Kitty Genovese story">{{cite web|last=Gansberg |first=Martin |url=http://www.37themovie.com/images/about/NYTimes_KittyGenoveseArticle.pdf |title=37 Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police |publisher=[[New York Times]]'' |date=March 27, 1964 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150807055841/http://www.37themovie.com/images/about/NYTimes_KittyGenoveseArticle.pdf |archivedate=August 7, 2015 }}</ref> to widespread public outrage that persisted for years. Later reporting established that the police report the ''Times'' had initially relied on was inaccurate, that Genovese had been attacked twice in different locations, and while the many witnesses heard the attack they only heard brief portions and did not realize what was occurring, with only six or seven actually reporting seeing anything. Some called police; one who said "I didn't want to get involved",{{Failed verification|date=September 2018}} an attitude which later came to be attributed to all the residents who saw or heard part of the attack.<ref name="American Heritage Genovese article">{{cite news|author= Rasenberger, Jim| url= http://www.americanheritage.com/content/nightmare-austin-street|title= Nightmare on Austin Street| work= [[American Heritage (magazine)|American Heritage]]| date= October 2006|accessdate=May 18, 2015}}</ref>
* The [[Rolling Stones]] were not performing "[[Sympathy for the Devil]]" at the 1969 [[Altamont Free Concert]] when [[Meredith Curly Hunter, Jr.|Meredith Hunter]] was stabbed to death by a member of the local [[Hells Angels]] chapter that was serving as security. While the incident that culminated in Hunter's death began while the band was performing the song, prompting a brief interruption before the Stones finished it, it concluded several songs later as the band was performing "[[Under My Thumb]]".<ref>{{citation |last=Cruickshank |first=Douglas |title=Sympathy for the Devil |website=Salon.com |url=http://www.salon.com/2002/01/14/sympathy/ |accessdate=June 25, 2006 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20160303203823/http://www.salon.com/2002/01/14/sympathy/ | archivedate = March 3, 2016| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Zentgraf |first=Nico |title=The Complete Works of the Rolling Stones 1962–2008 |url=http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/tcw/works1.htm |accessdate=February 23, 2008 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/66TBnfczo?url=http://www.nzentgraf.de/books/tcw/works1.htm |archivedate=March 27, 2012 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref> The misconception arose from mistaken reporting in ''[[Rolling Stone (magazine)|Rolling Stone]]''.<ref name="burks1970">{{cite web |last=Burks |first=John |title=Rock & Roll's Worst Day |work=Rolling Stone |date=February 7, 1970 |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5934386/rock__rolls_worst_day |accessdate=September 13, 2008 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20090422123137/http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5934386/rock__rolls_worst_day | archivedate = 2009-04-22| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* While it was praised by one architectural magazine prior to its construction as "the best high apartment of the year", the [[Pruitt–Igoe]] [[housing project]] in [[St. Louis, Missouri]], considered to epitomize the failures of [[urban renewal]] in American cities after it was demolished in the early 1970s, never won any awards for its design.<ref name="AIA Pruitt Igoe page">{{cite web|last=Cendón|first=Sara Fernández|title=Pruitt-Igoe 40 Years Later |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140314062237/http://www.aia.org/practicing/AIAB092656|publisher=[[American Institute of Architects]]|date=February 3, 2012|accessdate=December 31, 2014|quote=For example, Pruitt-Igoe is often cited as an AIA-award recipient, but the project never won any architectural awards. }}</ref> The architectural firm that designed the buildings did win an award for an earlier St. Louis project, which may have been confused with Pruitt–Igoe.<ref name="Pruitt Igoe Myth">{{cite journal|last=Bristol|first=Katharine|title=The Pruitt–Igoe Myth|journal=[[Journal of Architectural Education]]|date=May 1991|volume=44|issue=3|page=168|url=http://www.pruitt-igoe.com/temp/1991-bristol-pruitt-igoemyth.pdf|publisher=[[Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture]]|issn=1531-314X|doi=10.1111/j.1531-314X.2010.01093.x|quote=Though it is commonly accorded the epithet 'award-winning,"' Pruitt-Igoe never won any kind of architectural prize. An earlier St. Louis housing project by the same team of architects, the John Cochran Garden Apartments, did win two architectural awards. At some point this prize seems to have been incorrectly attributed to Pruitt-Igoe}}</ref>
* Although popularly known as the "red telephone", the [[Moscow–Washington hotline]] was never a telephone line, nor were red phones used. The first implementation of the hotline used [[Teleprinter|teletype]] equipment, which was replaced by [[Fax|facsimile]] (fax) machines in 1988. Since 2008, the hotline has been a secure computer link over which the two countries exchange [[email]]s.<ref name="richardson">Paul E. Richardson, "The hot line (is a Hollywood myth)", in: ''Russian Life'', September/October issue 2009, pp. 50–59.</ref> Moreover, the hotline links the [[Moscow Kremlin|Kremlin]] to the [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]], not the [[White House]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Clavin |first=Tom |title=There Never Was Such a Thing as a Red Phone in the White House |date=June 18, 2013 |magazine=[[Smithsonian (magazine)|Smithsonian]] |url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-such-a-thing-as-a-red-phone-in-the-white-house-1129598/ |accessdate=September 21, 2014}}</ref>

=={{anchor|Science}}Science and technology==
{{See also|Scientific misconceptions|Tornado myths|List of misconceptions about illegal drugs}}

===Astronomy===
[[File:Great Wall of China, Satellite image.jpeg|thumb|A satellite image of a section of the [[Great Wall of China]], running diagonally from lower left to upper right (not to be confused with the much more prominent river running from upper left to lower right). The region pictured is {{Convert|12|×|12|km}}.]]
* The [[Great Wall of China]] is not, as is claimed, the only [[Man-made structures visible from space|human-made object visible from space]] or from the Moon. None of the [[Project Apollo|Apollo]] astronauts reported seeing ''any'' specific human-made object from the Moon, and even earth-orbiting astronauts can barely see it. City lights, however, are easily visible on the night side of earth from orbit.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/24mar_noseprints/ |title=Space Station Astrophotography |publisher=NASA|date=March 24, 2003|accessdate=January 13, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140404162248/https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/24mar_noseprints/ | archivedate = 2014-04-04| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* [[Black hole]]s have the same gravitational effects as any other equal mass in their place. They will draw objects nearby towards them, just as any other planetary body does, except at very close distances to the black hole.<ref>{{cite book|last=Wolfson|first=Richard|title=Simply Einstein: relativity demystified|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|date=2002|page=261|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OUJWKdlFKeQC&pg=PA219|isbn=0-393-05154-4}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/06/an-astrophysicist-debunks-3-popular-misconceptions-about-black-holes/#27abd99d1b8e|title=An Astrophysicist Debunks 3 Popular Misconceptions About Black Holes|last=Quora|work=Forbes|access-date=2018-08-21|language=en}}</ref> If, for example, the Sun were replaced by a black hole of equal mass, the orbits of the planets would be essentially unaffected. A black hole ''can'' act like a "cosmic vacuum cleaner" and pull a substantial inflow of matter, but only if the star it forms from is already having a similar effect on surrounding matter.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://oyc.yale.edu/astronomy/astr-160/lecture-9#transcript |title=Frontiers And Controversies In Astrophysics Lecture 9 |publisher=[[Yale University]] |accessdate=April 26, 2011 }}</ref>
* Seasons are not caused by the [[Earth]] being closer to the [[Sun]] in the summer than in the winter, but by the Earth's 23.4-degree [[axial tilt]]. Each Hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun in its respective summer (July in the [[Northern Hemisphere]] and January in the [[Southern Hemisphere]]), resulting in longer days and more direct sunlight, with the opposite being true in the winter.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/education/resources/sunearth/section06i.shtml|publisher=Adler Planetarium |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071216004548/http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/education/resources/sunearth/section06i.shtml|archivedate=December 16, 2007|title=Sun-Earth Connection|accessdate=May 8, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/outreach/sunearthmiscons.html|title=Ten Things You Thought You Knew about Sun-Earth Science|publisher=NASA|accessdate=May 8, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20130221092931/http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/outreach/sunearthmiscons.html | archivedate = 2013-02-21| deadurl=no}}</ref> {{further|Effect of sun angle on climate}}
* When a meteor or spacecraft enters the atmosphere, [[Atmospheric entry#Real (equilibrium) gas model|the heat of entry]] is not (primarily) caused by friction, but by [[Adiabatic cooling|adiabatic compression of air]] in front of the object.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/faq-shuttleglass_prt.htm |title=Archived copy |accessdate=January 7, 2013 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090709055746/http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/faq-shuttleglass_prt.htm |archivedate=July 9, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/30/more-booming-fireballs/#.UOtPp6x9SHU |title=Archived copy |accessdate=January 7, 2013 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131215231308/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/30/more-booming-fireballs/ |archivedate=December 15, 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/14/meteor-propter-hoc/ |title=Meteor propter hoc |author=Phil Plait |date=December 14, 2008 |work=Bad Astronomy |publisher=Discover |accessdate=January 19, 2014| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140203034517/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/14/meteor-propter-hoc/ | archivedate = 2014-02-03| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* [[Egg balancing]] is possible on every day of the year, not just the vernal equinox,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.snopes.com/science/equinox.asp | title=Infernal Egguinox | work=[[Snopes.com]] | date=6 March 2012 | accessdate=29 January 2014}}</ref> and there is no relationship between astronomical phenomena and the ability to balance an egg.<ref name="AP">{{cite news|url=http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/Equinox-Returns-and-Eggs-Keep-Balancing/id-0cf1b28fd3bb7e0efa8f91da775ea6e8|title=Equinox Returns and Eggs Keep Balancing|author=Schmid, Randolph|date=20 September 1987|accessdate=29 January 2014|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427084100/http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/Equinox-Returns-and-Eggs-Keep-Balancing/id-0cf1b28fd3bb7e0efa8f91da775ea6e8|archivedate=2014-04-27|deadurl=no|agency=Associated Press}}</ref>

===Biology===
{{See also|Common misunderstandings of genetics}}

====Vertebrates====
[[File:10 - Cristina Sánchez.jpg|thumb|The color of a red cape does not enrage a bull]]
* Older elephants that are near death do not leave their herd and instinctively direct themselves toward a specific location known as an [[elephants' graveyard]] to die.<ref>{{cite news|last=Spanney|first=Laura|title=Not Many People Know That|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519625.100-not-many-people-know-that.html|accessdate=November 11, 2011|newspaper=New Scientist|date=January 28, 1995 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082329/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519625.100-not-many-people-know-that.html | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* Bulls are not enraged by the color red, used in capes by professional [[matador]]s. Cattle are [[Dichromacy|dichromats]], so red does not stand out as a bright color. It is not the color of the cape, but the perceived threat by the matador that incites it to charge.<ref name="matador">
* {{cite web
|url=http://www.itla.net/index.cfm?sec=Longhorn_Information&con=handling
|title=Longhorn_Information – handling
|first=Larry
|last=Smith II
|publisher=International Texas Longhorn Association
|date=2007
|accessdate=June 23, 2010
|deadurl=yes
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100511090201/http://www.itla.net/index.cfm?sec=Longhorn_Information&con=handling
|archivedate=May 11, 2010
}}
* {{cite web
|url=http://iacuc.tennessee.edu/pdf/Policies-AnimalCare/Cattle-BasicCare.pdf
|format=PDF
|title=Cattle – Basic Care
|first=A.
|last=Dario
|date=September 12, 2003
|publisher=[[IACUC]], [[University of Tennessee]]
|accessdate=June 23, 2010
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625012822/http://iacuc.tennessee.edu/pdf/Policies-AnimalCare/Cattle-BasicCare.pdf
|archivedate=June 25, 2008
|deadurl=yes
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite book
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GhmrNYJhcrIC&pg=PA45
|title=The Biology of Animal Stress
|editor=Moberg, Gary
|editor2=Mench, Joy A.
|chapter=Behavioral Principles of Handling Cattle and Other Grazing Animals under Extensive Conditions
|first=Temple
|last=Grandin
|page=45
|publisher=[[CAB International|CABI]]
|date=2007
|isbn=978-1-84593-219-0
}}</ref>
* Dogs do not sweat by [[salivation|salivating]].<ref>
* {{cite web|title=Cool Pet Facts - North Shore Animal League America.htm|url=http://www.animalleague.org/kids/cool_pet_facts.html|accessdate=May 22, 2011|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110725012738/http://www.animalleague.org/kids/cool_pet_facts.html|archivedate=July 25, 2011|df=mdy-all}}
* {{cite web|title=Dog noses – myths and facts about your dog's nose – weekly pet tips by Pets.ca|url=http://www.pets.ca/dogs/tips/dog-noses-facts-and-myths-pet-tip-115/|accessdate=May 22, 2011}}
* {{cite book|last=Varasdi|first=J. Allen|title=Myth Information|date=1989|publisher=Ballantine Books|isbn=978-0-345-35985-8|page=267|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Euz0P7x98z0C|quote=Dogs do not sweat with their tongues as most people believe. They do have some sweat glands, but the ones of most importance are on the pads, or soles, of their feet.}}
* {{cite book|last=Segaloff|first=Nat|title=The Everything tall tales, legends & outrageous lies book|date=2001|publisher=Adams Media Corp.|isbn=978-1-58062-514-2|page=265|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=03vYAAAAMAAJ|quote=Of course, dogs sweat. You would, too, if you had to wear a fur coat in hot weather. Dogs excrete moisture through the pads on their paws.}}
* {{cite book|last=Olien|first=Michael D.|title=The human myth : an introduction to anthropology|date=1978|publisher=Harper & Row|location=New York|isbn=978-0-06-044918-6|page=568|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mvFKAAAAYAAJ|quote=It is another folk tale that dogs do not sweat except through the tongue. This is an incorrect belief as dogs possess sweat glands all over the body.}}
* {{cite journal|last=Aoki|first=T.|author2=Wada, M.|title=Functional Activity of the Sweat Glands in the Hairy Skin of the Dog|journal=Science|date=August 2, 1951|volume=114|issue=2953|pages=123–24|doi=10.1126/science.114.2953.123|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/content/114/2953/123.short|accessdate=May 22, 2011|bibcode=1951Sci...114..123A|pmid=14854926}}
* {{cite journal|last=Creighton|first=C|title=Three cases of Tumour arising from Skin-glands in the Dog, showing the connection between disorder of the glandular structure and function, and cancerous invasion of the connective tissue|journal=Medico-Chirurgical Transactions|date=1882|volume=65|pages=53–70.3|pmid=20896600|pmc=2121351}}
* {{cite journal|title=British Medical Journal 1899 April 15|pmc=2462491 |quote=SOME time ago we received from a correspondent an inquiry as to whether the very prevalent belief that a dog perspires through the tongue was a vulgar error or well founded. ...whether the dog exudes fluid from the tongue of the some kind as that exuded from the human skin. To this question the answer is, No. The skin of the dog is abundantly furnished with glands, having the characteristic disposition and structure of those which in man produce sweat, ... in other words, the dog does not sweat by the tongue.|pages=921–28|volume=1|issue=1998|journal=British Medical Journal|doi=10.1136/bmj.1.1998.921|year=1899 }}</ref> Dogs actually do have [[sweat gland]]s and not only on their tongues; they sweat mainly through their footpads. However, dogs do primarily regulate their body temperature through [[thermoregulation|panting]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.petplace.com/dogs/how-do-dogs-sweat/page1.aspx |title=How Do Dogs Sweat|page=1 |publisher=Petplace.com |accessdate=February 9, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214113342/http://www.petplace.com/dogs/how-do-dogs-sweat/page1.aspx | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=no}}</ref> See also ''[[Dog anatomy#Temperature regulation|Dog anatomy]]''.
* [[Lemming]]s do not engage in mass suicidal dives off cliffs when migrating. This misconception was popularized by the [[Disney]] film ''[[White Wilderness (film)|White Wilderness]]'', which shot many of the migration scenes (also staged by using multiple shots of different groups of lemmings) on a large, snow-covered turntable in a studio. Photographers later pushed the lemmings off a cliff.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp|title=White Wilderness Lemmings Suicide|publisher=Snopes|date=August 19, 2007 |first=Barbara and David P. |last=Mikkelson|accessdate=August 29, 2009 }}</ref> The misconception itself is much older, dating back to at least the late 19th century.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Scott|first=W.|journal=The Monthly chronicle of North-country lore and legend|date=November 1891|title=The Monthly chronicle of North-country lore and legend: v.1–5; Mar. 1887–Dec. 1891|volume=5|page=523|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=W8rUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA523}}</ref>
* [[Bat]]s are not blind. While about 70 percent of bat species, mainly in the [[microbat]] family, use [[animal echolocation|echolocation]] to navigate, all bat species have eyes and are capable of sight. In addition, almost all bats in the [[megabat|megabat or fruit bat family]] cannot echolocate and have excellent night vision.<ref name="bats">
* {{cite web
|url=http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2003/American-Heritage-Animal-Cliches.aspx
|title=The Truth About Animal Clichés
|date=February 1, 2003
|first=Roger
|last=Di Silvestro
|publisher=National Wildlife Federation
|accessdate=October 31, 2011
}}
* {{cite web
|title=Blind as a Bat?
|format=Press release
|publisher=[[Hobart and William Smith Colleges]]
|location=Geneva, NY
|date=June 12, 2003
|url=http://www.collegenews.org/x2682.xml
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080607080055/http://www.collegenews.org/x2682.xml
|archivedate=June 7, 2008
|accessdate=April 7, 2009
|deadurl=yes
|df=mdy
}}</ref>
* [[Ostrich]]es do not stick their heads in the sand to hide from enemies.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/11/02/1777947.htm |title=Ostrich head in sand |author=Kruszelnicki, Karl S. |date=November 2, 2006 |work=Australian Broadcasting Corporation |accessdate=October 7, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082637/http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/11/02/1777947.htm | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}}</ref> This misconception was probably promulgated by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23–79 CE), who wrote that ostriches "imagine, when they have thrust their head and neck into a bush, that the whole of their body is concealed."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Maybe-ostriches-are-smarter-1370503.php |title=Maybe ostriches are smarter |author= Smith, Rex|date=May 8, 2011 |work=Albany Times-Union |accessdate=October 7, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082414/http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Maybe-ostriches-are-smarter-1370503.php | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* A duck's quack actually does [[Echo#Duck's quack|echo]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-08.html|title=Alcatraz Escape: Does a Duck's Quack Echo?|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121003151210/http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-08.html|archivedate=October 3, 2012|deadurl=yes|df=mdy-all}} [[MythBusters (2003 season)#Does a Duck's Quack Echo?|(Season 1, Episode 8)]]. ''[[MythBusters]]''. Discovery Channel. December 12, 2003.</ref> although the echo may be difficult to hear for humans under some circumstances.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/duck/|title=A Duck's Quack Doesn't Echo, and no-one knows the reason why?|publisher=University of Salford Acoustics |work=Acoustics.salford.ac.uk |accessdate=January 13, 2010 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131011174434/http://www.acoustics.salford.ac.uk/acoustics_info/duck/ | archivedate = 2013-10-11| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* [[Frog]]s die immediately when cast into boiling water, [[Boiling frog|rather than leaping out]]; furthermore, frogs will attempt to escape cold water that is slowly heated past their [[critical thermal maximum]].<ref name=fastcompany>{{Cite web |url=http://www.fastcompany.com/26455/next-time-what-say-we-boil-consultant| title= Next Time, What Say We Boil a Consultant| accessdate=February 29, 2016 |date=October 1995|work=Fast Company Issue 01 |ref=harv }}</ref>
* The notion that [[Goldfish#Intelligence|goldfish have a memory span]] of just a few seconds is false.<ref>{{cite web|last=Hipsley|first=Anna|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/19/2166204.htm|title=Goldfish three-second memory myth busted – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)|publisher=ABC |location=Australia |date=February 19, 2008|accessdate=August 29, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110625100621/http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/19/2166204.htm | archivedate = 2011-06-25| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-07.html |title=Sinking Titanic: Goldfish Memory |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5x6WICDFF?url=http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-07.html |archivedate=March 11, 2011 |deadurl=yes |df=mdy }}. [[MythBusters (2004 season)#Episode 12 – "Sinking Titanic, Goldfish Memory, Trombone Explosion"|2004 season, Episode 12]]. ''[[MythBusters]]''. Discovery.com. February 22, 2004.</ref> It is much longer, counted in months.
* [[Shark]]s can suffer from cancer. The misconception that sharks do not get cancer was spread by the 1992 [[Avery Publishing]] book ''Sharks Don't Get Cancer'' by I. William Lane and used to sell extracts of shark [[cartilage]] as cancer prevention treatments. Reports of [[carcinoma]]s in sharks exist, and current data do not allow any speculation about the incidence of tumors in sharks.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ostrander |first1=G. K. |last2=Cheng |first2=KC |last3=Wolf |first3=JC |last4=Wolfe |first4=MJ |title=Shark Cartilage, Cancer and the Growing Threat of Pseudoscience |journal=Cancer Research |volume=64 |issue=23 |pages=8485–91 |date=2004 |pmid=15574750 |doi=10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2260}}</ref>
* [[Great white shark]]s do not mistake human [[underwater diving|divers]] for [[pinniped]]s. Their [[shark attack|attack]] behaviors on humans and pinnipeds are very different: when attacking a seal, a great white shark surfaces quickly and violently attacks it. Attacks on humans, on the other hand, are more relaxed and slow: the shark charges at a normal pace, bites, and swims off. Great white sharks have efficient eyesight and [[color vision]]; the bite is not predatory, but rather for identification of an unfamiliar object.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0123_040123_tvgreatwhiteshark.html|title=Great White Shark Attacks: Defanging the Myths|work=nationalgeographic.com |author=Jennifer Hile |date=January 23, 2004}}</ref>
* There is no such thing as an "[[alpha (ethology)|alpha]]" in a [[wolf]] pack. An early study that coined the term "alpha wolf" had only observed unrelated adult wolves living in captivity. In the wild, wolf packs operate more like human families: there is no defined sense of rank, parents are in charge until the young grow up and start their own families, younger wolves do not overthrow an "alpha" to become the new leader, and social dominance fights are situational.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://apdt.com/pet-owners/choosing-a-trainer/dominance/ |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2017-01-30 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202064934/https://apdt.com/pet-owners/choosing-a-trainer/dominance/ |archivedate=February 2, 2017 |df=mdy-all }}<nowiki/></ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong-502754629|title=Why everything you know about wolf packs is wrong|last=Davis|first=Lauren|work=io9|access-date=2017-10-13|language=en-US}}</ref>

====Invertebrates====
[[File:AD2009Aug08 Bombus pratorum.jpg|thumb|''[[Bombus pratorum]]'' over an ''[[Echinacea purpurea]]'' inflorescence; a widespread misconception holds that bumblebees should be incapable of flight.]]
* [[Earthworm]]s do not become two worms when cut in half. Only a limited number of earthworm species<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1002/jez.1401170102|title=Simultaneous anterior and posterior regeneration and other growth phenomena in Maldanid polychaetes|date=1942|last1=Moment|first1=Gairdner B.|journal=Journal of Experimental Zoology|volume=117|pages=1–13}}</ref> are capable of anterior [[Earthworm#Regeneration|regeneration]]. When such earthworms are bisected, only the front half of the worm (where the mouth is located) can feed and survive, while the other half dies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/gardening_with_children/didyouknow_worms.shtml|title=Gardening with children – Worms|publisher=BBC|accessdate=August 29, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140428073719/http://www.bbc.co.uk/gardening/gardening_with_children/didyouknow_worms.shtml | archivedate = 2014-04-28| deadurl=no}}</ref> Some species of [[planarian]] [[flatworm]]s, however, actually ''do'' become two new planarians when bisected or split down the middle.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reddien |first1=Peter W. |last2=Alvarado |first2=Alejandro Sanchez |title=Fundamentals of planarian regeneration |journal=Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology |volume=20 |pages=725–57 |date=2004 |pmid=15473858 |doi=10.1146/annurev.cellbio.20.010403.095114}}</ref>
* [[Housefly|Houseflies]] have an average lifespan of 20 to 30 days, not 24 hours.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Housefly |url=http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/400-499/nb453.htm |newspaper=Forest Preserve District of Cook County (Illinois) |date=April 15, 1972 |accessdate=January 16, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20130301174011/http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/400-499/nb453.htm | archivedate = 2013-03-01| deadurl=no}}</ref> The misconception may arise from confusion with [[mayfly|mayflies]], which, in [[Dolania americana|some species]], have an adult lifespan of as little as 5 minutes.<ref name=Sweeney>{{cite journal |author1=Sweeney, Bernard W. |author2=Vannote, Robin L. |year=1982 |title=Population Synchrony in Mayflies: A Predator Satiation Hypothesis |journal=Evolution |volume=36 |issue=4 |pages=810–822 |doi=10.2307/2407894 |jstor=2407894 }}</ref> A housefly egg will hatch into a maggot within 24 hours of being laid.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://house-flies.net/ |title=House Fly |date=2010 |publisher=House-flies.net |accessdate=June 17, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140104001103/http://house-flies.net/ | archivedate = 2014-01-04| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* The daddy longlegs spider (''[[Pholcidae]]'') is not the most [[venom]]ous spider in the world, and they can indeed pierce human skin, though the tiny amount of venom they carry causes only a mild burning sensation for a few seconds.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-07.html |title=Buried in Concrete : Daddy Long Legs |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5x6WICDFF?url=http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/episode/episode-tab-07.html |archivedate=March 11, 2011 |deadurl=yes |df=mdy }}. [[MythBusters (2004 season)#Episode 13 – "Buried in Concrete, Daddy Long-legs, Jet Taxi"|(2004 Season, Episode 13)]]. ''[[MythBusters]]''. Discovery Channel. February 25, 2004.</ref> In addition, there is also confusion regarding the use of the name ''daddy longlegs'', because harvestmen (order ''[[Opiliones]]'', which are [[arachnid]]s, but not spiders), [[Crane fly|crane flies]] (which are insects), and male [[mosquito]]es (also insects) are also sometimes called ''daddy longlegs'' in regional dialects, and may occasionally share the misconception of being venomous.<ref>{{cite web|title=UCR Spider Site – Daddy Long Legs Myth|url=http://spiders.ucr.edu/daddylonglegs.html |publisher=[[University of California Riverside]] | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131104173738/http://spiders.ucr.edu/daddylonglegs.html | archivedate = 2013-11-04| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Spider Myths – If it could only bite |url=http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/myths/daddyvenom.html |date=2003 |publisher=Burke Museum of Natural History & Culture, University of Washington |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5QgD7DosN?url=http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/myths/daddyvenom.html |archivedate=July 28, 2007 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref>
* The flight mechanism and aerodynamics of the [[bumblebee]] (as well as other insects) are actually quite well understood, despite the urban legend that calculations show [[Bumblebee#Misconception about flight|that they should not be able to fly]]. In the 1930s, the French entomologist [[Antoine Magnan]] indeed postulated that bumblebees theoretically should not be able to fly in his book ''Le Vol des Insectes'' (''The Flight of Insects'').<ref name="bumblebee">
* Chatfield, Matthew (January 4, 2008). {{cite web |url=http://www.naturenet.net/blogs/2008/01/some-scientist-once-proved-that-bees-cant-fly |title=Some scientist once proved that bees can't fly...? }}. ''naturenet.net''. The Ranger's Blog.{{cite web | author = Ivars Peterson| date = September 13, 2004| title = Flight of the Bumblebee| work = Ivars Peterson's MathTrek| publisher = [[Mathematical Association of America]]| url = https://www.sciencenews.org/article/flight-bumblebee| accessdate =November 18, 2011}} The bumblebee story can be traced back to a 1934 book by the zoologist [[Antoine Magnan]], who refers to a calculation by his assistant André Sainte-Laguë, who was an engineer. The conclusion was presumably based on the fact that the maximum possible lift produced by aircraft wings as small as a bumblebee's wings and traveling as slowly as a bee in ﬂight would be much less than the weight of a bee. {{cite web |author=Michael Dickinson |title=Solving the Mystery of Insect Flight |publisher=Scientific American |date=June 2001 |page= 50 |url=http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v284/n6/pdf/scientificamerican0601-48.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref> Magnan later realized his error and retracted the suggestion. However, the hypothesis became generalized to the false notion that "scientists think that bumblebees should not be able to fly".
* The widespread urban legend that one swallows a high number of [[Cultural depictions of spiders|spiders]] during sleep in one's life has no basis in reality. A sleeping person causes all kinds of noise and vibrations by breathing, the beating heart, snoring etc. all of which warn spiders of danger.<ref>{{cite web|title=Spider Myths – Swallowing Spiders|url=http://www.burkemuseum.org/spidermyth/myths/whileyousleep.html|publisher=Burke Museum|accessdate=7 June 2015|date=2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Sneed|first1=Annie|title=Fact or Fiction? People Swallow 8 Spiders a Year While They Sleep|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-people-swallow-8-spiders-a-year-while-they-sleep1/|publisher=Scientific American|accessdate=7 June 2015|date=15 April 2014}}</ref>
* [[Earwig]]s are not known to purposefully climb into external ear canals, though there have been anecdotal reports of earwigs being found in the ear.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Fisher |first=JR |title=Earwig in the ear|journal=Western Journal of Medicine |year=1986|volume=145|issue=2|page=245|pmid=3765607|pmc=1306897 }}</ref> Entomologists suggest that the origin of the name is actually a reference to the appearance of the hindwings, which are unique and distinctive among insects, and resemble a human ear when unfolded.<ref>{{cite book|last=Costa|first=J.T.|title=The Other Insect Societies|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=United States, Harvard University|date=2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ento.csiro.au/education/insects/dermaptera.html|title=Dermaptera: earwigs|publisher=[[CSIRO]]|work=Insects and their Allies|accessdate=16 November 2015}}</ref>

====Plants====
[[File:Helianthus annuus sunflower.jpg|thumbnail|[[Sunflower]]s with the sun clearly visible ''behind'' them.]]
* [[Euphorbia pulcherrima#Rumoured toxicity|Poinsettias]] are not highly [[Toxicity|toxic]] to humans or cats. While it is true that they are mildly irritating to the skin or stomach,<ref name="southern">{{cite encyclopedia | title = Euphorbia | encyclopedia = The Southern Living Garden Book | editor-last = Bender | editor-first = Steve |date=January 2004 | edition = 2nd | isbn = 978-0-376-03910-1 | publisher = Oxmoor House | location = Birmingham, Alabama | page = 306}}</ref> and may sometimes cause [[diarrhea]] and vomiting if eaten,<ref name="fiction">{{cite web| url=http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55606| title= Are Poinsettia Plants Poisonous? Fact or Fiction? |publisher=MedicineNet|accessdate=December 21, 2007 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20130509062941/http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55606 | archivedate = 2013-05-09| deadurl=no}}</ref> an ''[[American Journal of Emergency Medicine]]'' study of 22,793 cases reported to the American Association of Poison Control Centers showed no fatalities and few cases requiring medical treatment.<ref name="ajem">{{cite journal |author=Krenzelok E.P. |author2=Jacobsen T.D. |author3=Aronis J. M. |title=Poinsettia exposures have good outcomes...just as we thought |journal=[[American Journal of Emergency Medicine|Am J Emerg Med]] |volume=14 |issue=7 |pages=671–74 |date=November 1996 |pmid=8906768 |doi=10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90086-8 }}</ref> According to the [[ASPCA]], poinsettias may cause light to mid-range gastrointestinal discomfort in felines, with diarrhea and vomiting as the most severe consequences of ingestion.<ref name="ASPCA">{{cite web|title=Ask the Expert: Poison Control > Poinsettia |url=http://www.aspca.org/Pet-care/ask-the-expert/ask-the-expert-poison-control/poinsettia.aspx |publisher=[[ASPCA]] |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110110210836/http://www.aspca.org/Pet-care/ask-the-expert/ask-the-expert-poison-control/poinsettia.aspx |archivedate=January 10, 2011 }}</ref>
* Flowering [[sunflower]]s point in a fixed direction (often east) all day long.<ref name="Gerard1597">Gerard, John (1597). {{cite web |url=http://www.botanicus.org/page/1956748 |title=Herball, or Generall Historie of Plantes | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083100/http://www.botanicus.org/page/1956748 | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}}. London: John Norton. pp. 612–14. Retrieved August 8, 2012. Popular botany book in 17th century England.</ref><ref name="Hangarter">"Many people are under the misconception that the flower heads of the cultivated sunflower (Helianthus annuus) track the sun... Immature flower buds of the sunflower do exhibit solar tracking and on sunny days the buds will track the sun across the sky from east to west... However, as the flower bud matures and blossoms, the stem stiffens and the flower becomes fixed facing the eastward direction."{{cite web|url=http://plantsinmotion.bio.indiana.edu/plantmotion/movements/tropism/solartrack/solartrack.html|title=Solar tracking: sunflower plants|last=Hangarter|first=Roger P|work=Plants-In-Motion website|publisher=Indiana University|accessdate=August 22, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131019131750/http://plantsinmotion.bio.indiana.edu/plantmotion/movements/tropism/solartrack/solartrack.html | archivedate = 2013-10-19| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref name="sunflowers">
* {{cite journal
| last =Polikarpov
| first =G.G.
| title =Sunflower's blooming floscule is a compass
| journal =Nature
| volume =272
| issue =5649
| page =122
| date =1978
| doi =10.1038/272122c0
| bibcode = 1978Natur.272..122P }}
* {{cite journal
|jstor=10.2307/2402749
|quote=Dinural E-W oscillations of the heads occurred initially but ceased as the flowers opened and anthesis commenced, leaving the heads facing east
|title=Movements of Helianthus annuus Leaves and Heads
|author=A.R.G. Lang
|author2=J.E. Begg
|journal=Journal of Applied Ecology
|date=1979
|volume=16
|pages=299–305
|url=http://www.flowers-org.com/helianthus-sunflower.html
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130523191033/http://www.flowers-org.com/helianthus-sunflower.html
|archivedate=May 23, 2013
|deadurl=yes
|accessdate=December 10, 2016
|doi=10.2307/2402749
|df=mdy
}}
*</ref> However, in an earlier developmental stage, before the appearance of flower heads, the immature buds ''do'' track the sun (a phenomenon called [[heliotropism]]) and the fixed alignment of the mature flowers toward a certain direction is often the result.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sunflowernsa.com/all-about/faq/#11 |title=When the plant is in the bud stage, it tends to track the movement of the sun across the horizon. Once the flower opens into the radiance of yellow petals, it faces east |publisher=National Sunflower Association | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131103083114/http://www.sunflowernsa.com/all-about/faq/ | archivedate = 2013-11-03| deadurl=no}}</ref>

====Evolution and palaeontology====
{{Further|Introduction to evolution|Objections to evolution}}
* The word ''[[theory]]'' in "the theory of [[evolution]]" does not imply scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of ''theory'' and ''hypothesis'' have specific meanings in a scientific context. While ''theory'' in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a ''[[scientific theory]]'' is a set of principles that explains ''observable phenomena'' in [[naturalism (philosophy)|natural]] terms.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_TeachingEvoNatureSci.pdf|format=PDF|title=Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation (TOC)|publisher=MSU.edu|work=Revised Proceedings of the BSCS, AIBS Symposium|date=November 2004|accessdate=January 13, 2011|pages=11–12}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0308/theo/index.html|title=It Is Not Just a Theory... It Is a Theory!|date=July 7, 2008|publisher=[[Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics]]|work=Chandra Chronicles|accessdate=April 8, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214120846/http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0308/theo/index.html | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=no}}</ref> "Scientific fact and theory are not categorically separable",<ref>{{cite book |title= The Structure of Scientific Revolutions|edition= Third|authorlink=Thomas S. Kuhn|last= Kuhn|first= Thomas S.|date= 1996|publisher= University of Chicago Press|location= Chicago|isbn= 978-0-226-45808-3|page= 7}}</ref> and evolution is a theory in the same sense as [[germ theory]] or the theory of [[gravitation]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/lessons/miscon.htm#3|title=Misconceptions about the Nature of Science|publisher=[[University of Montana]], Div. Biological Sciences|work=UMT.edu|accessdate=April 8, 2009|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111017233007/http://evoled.dbs.umt.edu/lessons/miscon.htm#3|archivedate=October 17, 2011|deadurl=yes|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
* Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life<ref>{{cite web|url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1 |title=Misconceptions about evolution |publisher=Evolution.berkeley.edu |accessdate=February 9, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131027002124/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php | archivedate = 2013-10-27| deadurl=no}}</ref> or the origin and development of the universe. The theory of evolution deals primarily with changes in successive generations over time after life has already originated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html |title=Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution |publisher=TalkOrigins |date=October 1, 2003 |accessdate=February 9, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131003174642/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html | archivedate = 2013-10-03| deadurl=no}}</ref> The scientific model concerned with the origin of the first organisms from organic or inorganic molecules is known as [[abiogenesis]], and the prevailing theory for explaining the early development of our universe is the [[Big Bang]] model.[[File:Aegyptopithecus NT.jpg|thumb|A reconstruction of ''[[Aegyptopithecus]]'', a primate predating the split between the human and [[Old World monkey]] lineages in [[human evolution]]]]
* Humans did not evolve from either of the living species of [[chimpanzee]]s ([[common chimpanzee]]s and [[bonobo]]s).<ref>{{cite journal|last=Johnson|first=N. A. |first2=J. J.|last2=Smith |first3=B.|last3=Pobiner |first4=C.|last4=Schrein |title=Why Are Chimps Still Chimps?|journal=The American Biology Teacher|date=Feb 2012|volume=74|issue=2 |pages=74–80|doi=10.1525/abt.2012.74.2.3|jstor=3738744 }}</ref> Humans and chimpanzees did, however, evolve from a ''[[Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor|common ancestor]]''.<ref>{{cite book|pages=124–26|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LavQGJVq5ScC&pg=PA124|title=Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution|isbn=978-0-674-01004-8|author1=De Waal|first1=Frans B. M|date=2002-10-15}}</ref><ref>William H. Calvin, 2002. "A Brain for All Seasons: Human Evolution and Abrupt Climate Change." University of Chicago Press. Chicago.</ref> The [[most recent common ancestor]] of humans and the other living chimpanzees lived between 5 and 8 million years ago.<ref name="pbs_evolution_faq">{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html#Q01|title=Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions|publisher=PBS.org|accessdate=August 29, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214115407/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* Evolution is not a progression from inferior to superior organisms, and it also does not necessarily result in an [[evolution of complexity|increase in complexity]]. A population can evolve to become simpler, having a smaller [[genome]], but biological ''[[devolution (biology)|devolution]]'' is a [[misnomer]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-human-race-evolvin |title=Is the human race evolving or devolving? |date=July 20, 1998 |work=[[Scientific American]] |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/68aoSPybe?url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-human-race-evolvin |archivedate=June 21, 2012 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }} see also [[biological devolution]].</ref><ref name="pmid11893328">{{cite journal |last1=Moran |first1=Nancy A. |title=Microbial MinimalismGenome Reduction in Bacterial Pathogens |journal=Cell |volume=108 |issue=5 |pages=583–86 |date=2002 |pmid=11893328 |doi=10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00665-7}}</ref>
* [[Teleology|Evolution does not "plan" to improve an organism's fitness]] to survive.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b1 |title=Misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation: ''Natural selection involves organisms 'trying' to adapt.'' |work=Misconceptions about evolution |publisher=University of California Museum of Paleontology | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131027002124/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php | archivedate = 2013-10-27| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b2|title=Misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation: ''Natural selection gives organisms what they 'need.' '' |work=Misconceptions about evolution |publisher=University of California Museum of Paleontology | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131027002124/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php | archivedate = 2013-10-27| deadurl=no}}</ref> The misconception is encouraged as it is common shorthand for biologists to [[Teleology#Teleology and science|speak of a purpose]] as a concise form of expression (sometimes called the "metaphor of purpose");<ref name="Hanke2004">{{cite book |date=2004 |author=Hanke, David |chapter=Teleology: The explanation that bedevils biology |pages=143–55 |title=Explanations: Styles of explanation in science |editor=John Cornwell |place=Oxford & New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-860778-6 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=ZWpq14vS7WQC&pg=PA143}}</ref> it is less cumbersome to say "Dinosaurs may have evolved feathers for courtship" than "Feathers may have been selected for when they arose as they gave dinosaurs a selective advantage over their non-feathered peers".<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22428-dinosaurs-may-have-evolved-feathers-for-courtship.htmlNew |title=Scientist: "Dinosaurs may have evolved feathers for courtship" |doi=10.1126/science.1225376 |publisher=Newscientist.com |date=October 25, 2012 |accessdate=August 18, 2013| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214120634/http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22428-dinosaurs-may-have-evolved-feathers-for-courtship.htmlNew | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=no | volume=338 |issue=6106 | journal=Science | pages=510–14 | pmid=23112330|bibcode = 2012Sci...338..510Z | author1=Zelenitsky DK | author2=Therrien F | author3=Erickson GM | author4=DeBuhr CL | author5=Kobayashi Y | author6=Eberth DA | author7=Hadfield F}}</ref>
* Humans and [[dinosaur]]s (other than [[bird]]s) did not coexist.<ref name="science_daily">{{cite web|url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm |title=American Adults Flunk Basic Science |work=[[Science Daily]]|date= March 13, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140402041004/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312115133.htm | archivedate = 2014-04-02| deadurl=no}}</ref> The last of the non-[[Bird|avian]] dinosaurs died {{period start|Paleogene}} million years ago in the course of the [[Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]], whereas the earliest members of genus ''[[Homo]]'' (humans) evolved between 2.3 and 2.4 million years ago. This places a 63-million-year expanse of time between the last non-bird dinosaurs and the earliest humans. Humans did coexist with [[woolly mammoth]]s and [[saber-toothed cat]]s—mammals which are often depicted alongside humans and dinosaurs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/history/why-did-the-woolly-mammoth-die-out.aspx|title=Why Did the Woolly Mammoth Die Out?|date=26 March 2011|website=National Geographic|access-date=2 August 2016}}</ref> [[File:Palais de la Decouverte Tyrannosaurus rex p1050042.jpg|thumb|''[[Tyrannosaurus rex]]''. Non-[[bird|avian]] dinosaurs died out in the [[Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]] at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period.]]
* Not all [[dinosaur]]s became extinct during the [[Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event]]. [[Origin of birds|Birds evolved]] from small feathered [[Theropoda|theropods]] in the [[Jurassic]], and while most dinosaur lineages were cut short at the end of the [[Cretaceous]], some birds survived. Consequently, dinosaurs are part of the modern fauna.<ref>{{cite book |author=Padian K. |author2=Chiappe L. M. |editor=Currie PJ |editor2=Padian K |title=Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs|date=1997|publisher=Academic Press|location=San Diego|pages=41–96|chapter=Bird Origins}}</ref>
* [[Mammal]]s did not evolve from any modern group of [[reptile]]s; rather, mammals and reptiles evolved from a common ancestor. Soon after the first reptile-like animals appeared, they split into two branches, the [[sauropsid]]s and the [[synapsid]]s.<ref>{{cite book|last=Cowen|first=R.|title=History of Life|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qvyBS4gwPF4C&pg=PA154|year=2000|publisher=[[Blackwell Science]]|location=Oxford, UK.|isbn=978-0-632-04444-3|page=154}}</ref> The line leading to mammals (the synapsids) diverged from the line leading to modern reptilian lines (the sauropsids) about 320 million years ago, in the mid-[[Carboniferous]] period. Only later (in the late Carboniferous or early [[Permian]]) did the modern reptilian groups ([[lepidosaur]]s, [[turtles]] and [[crocodile]]s) diverge. The mammals themselves are the only survivors of the synapsid line.<ref>[[Alfred Romer|Romer, A.S]]. & Parsons, T.S. (1977). ''The Vertebrate Body.'' 5th ed. Saunders, Philadelphia. (6th ed. 1985){{Page needed|date=October 2011}}</ref>

===Computing===
* Computers running [[macOS]] or [[Linux]] are not immune to [[malware]] such as [[Trojan horse (computing)|trojan horses]] or [[computer virus]]es.<ref name="malware">
* {{cite journal
|url=http://news.techworld.com/security/1798/mac-os-x-security-myth-exposed/
|title=Mac OS X Security Myth Exposed
|magazine=TechWorld
|first=Matthew
|last=Broersma
|date=June 24, 2004
|archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5yyPTKBhT?url=http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/05/fake-mac-defender-antivirus-app-scams-users-for-money-cc-numbers.ars
|archivedate=May 26, 2011
|deadurl=no
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite web
|url=https://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/05/fake-mac-defender-antivirus-app-scams-users-for-money-cc-numbers.ars
|title=Fake "MAC Defender" antivirus app scams users for money, CC numbers
|date=May 2, 2011
|first=Chris
|last=Foresman
|publisher=Ars Technica
|archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5yyPTKBhT?url=http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/05/fake-mac-defender-antivirus-app-scams-users-for-money-cc-numbers.ars
|archivedate=2011-05-26
|deadurl=no
}}
*
* [http://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/284124-myth-busting-is-linux-immune-to-viruses Myth Busting: Is Linux Immune to Viruses? | Linux.com] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140430080334/http://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/284124-myth-busting-is-linux-immune-to-viruses |date=April 30, 2014 }}</ref> While Microsoft Windows has a much larger number of viruses developed for it, this is a consequence of its extremely large market share<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/02/why_you_can_t_depend_on_antivirus_software_anymore.html |title=You Can’t Depend on Antivirus Software Anymore |last=Thornton |first=Michael |date=February 16, 2017 |website=Slate |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180609210756/http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/02/why_you_can_t_depend_on_antivirus_software_anymore.html |archive-date=June 9, 2018 |dead-url=no |access-date=June 28, 2018 |quote=Macs are generally at lower risk of infection due to Apple’s smaller market share}}</ref> – specialised malware designed to attack macOS and Linux systems has existed for many years.

===Human body and health===
[[File:Korean fans closeup.jpg|thumb|Electric fans in South Korea. A widely held misconception is that leaving fans on while asleep can be fatal.]]
* Waking [[sleepwalking|sleepwalkers]] does not harm them. While it is true that a person may be confused or disoriented for a short time after awakening, this does not cause them further harm. In contrast, sleepwalkers may injure themselves if they trip over objects or lose their balance while sleepwalking.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.medicinenet.com/sleepwalking/article.htm|title=Sleepwalking: Causes, Symptoms, and Treatments|publisher=MedicineNet, Inc| author1==Mersch, John |accessdate=May 10, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131026073747/http://www.medicinenet.com/sleepwalking/article.htm | archivedate = 2013-10-26| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/sleep-related-problems/sleepwalking|title=Sleepwalking|publisher=National Sleep Foundation|accessdate=May 10, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131229075629/http://www.sleepfoundation.org/article/sleep-related-problems/sleepwalking | archivedate = 2013-12-29| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* In [[South Korea]], it is commonly and incorrectly believed that sleeping in a closed room with an [[electric fan]] running can cause what is called [[fan death]]. According to the Korean government, "In some cases, a fan turned on too long can cause death from [[asphyxia|suffocation]], [[hypothermia]], or fire from overheating."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/q-and-a/a5522/korean-fan-death-0209/|title=Why Do Koreans Think Electric Fans Will Kill Them?|date=January 22, 2009|website=Esquire|access-date=2 August 2016}}</ref> The Korea Consumer Protection Board issued a consumer safety alert recommending that electric fans be set on timers, direction changed and doors left open. According to Yeon Dong-su, dean of [[Catholic Kwandong University|Kwandong University's]] medical school, "If it is completely sealed, then in the current of an electric fan, the temperature can drop low enough to cause a person to die of hypothermia."<ref name="Hypothermia" /> However, leaving a fan running in an unoccupied room will not cool it; rather, due to [[Energy conversion efficiency|energy losses]] from the motor and [[Viscosity|viscous dissipation]], a fan will slightly heat a room.
* Eating less than an hour before swimming does not increase the risk of experiencing muscle [[cramp]]s or drowning. One study shows a correlation between alcohol consumption and drowning, but there is no evidence cited regarding stomach cramps or the consumption of food.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/health/28real.html|title=The Claim: Never Swim After Eating |work=New York Times|date=June 28, 2005|accessdate=January 16, 2011|first=Anahad|last=O'Connor}}; {{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/oldwives/hourwait.asp|title=Hour Missed Brooks|publisher=Snopes|date=January 3, 2005|accessdate=January 16, 2011 }}</ref>
* [[Drowning]] is often inconspicuous to onlookers.<ref name="Vittone">{{cite journal|url=http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/On%20Scene/OSFall06.pdf|title=It Doesn't Look Like They're Drowning|last=Vittone|first=Mario|page=14|postscript={{inconsistent citations}}|journal=On Scene: The Journal of U.S. Coast Guard Search and Rescue}}</ref> In most cases, raising the arms and vocalising are impossible due to the [[instinctive drowning response]].<ref name="Vittone" /> Waving and yelling (known as "aquatic distress") is a sign of trouble, but not a dependable one: most victims demonstrating the instinctive drowning response do not show prior evidence of distress.<ref>{{cite book |last=Fletemeyer|first=John R. |title=Drowning: new perspectives on intervention and prevention |volume=1998|date=1999|page=234|url=https://books.google.com/?id=Xcnwm8zE24QC|author2=Pia (Chapter author)|chapter=Chapter 14 ("Reflections on Lifeguard surveillance programs")|isbn=978-1-57444-223-6}}</ref>

* Human blood in [[veins]] is not actually blue. [[Hemoglobin]] give blood its red color. Deoxygenated blood has a deep red color, and oxygenated blood has a light cherry-red color. The misconception probably arises for two reasons: 1) Veins below the skin appear blue or green. This is due to a variety of reasons only weakly dependent on the color of the blood, including [[subsurface scattering]] of light through the skin, and human color perception. 2) Many diagrams use colors to show the difference between veins (usually shown in blue) and [[arteries]] (usually shown in red).<ref name="blood">
* {{cite journal |last=Kienle|first=Alwin|author2=Lothar Lilge |author3=I. Alex Vitkin |author4=Michael S. Patterson |author5=Brian C. Wilson |author6=Raimund Hibst |author7=Rudolf Steiner |date= March 1, 1996|title=Why do veins appear blue? A new look at an old question|journal=Applied Optics |volume=35 |issue=7 |pages=1151–60 |url=http://www.imt.liu.se/edu/courses/TBMT36/pdf/blue.pdf|format=PDF
|doi=10.1364/AO.35.001151 |pmid=21085227|bibcode = 1996ApOpt..35.1151K }}
* {{cite web|title=Students' Misconceptions in Science: The Color of Blood|url=https://www.msu.edu/~kalinkat/professionalpages/TechMatrixMaterials/documentarybloodmisconceptions.htm|publisher=Michigan State University|accessdate=April 30, 2012 }}
* {{cite web|title=Home Articles Quick FacDe-oxygenated Blood Turns Dark Red, Not Blue|url=http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/09/de-oxygenated-blood-turns-dark-red-not-blue/|publisher=Today I Found Out|accessdate=April 30, 2012 }}</ref>
* Exposure to a [[vacuum]], or experiencing [[uncontrolled decompression]], does not cause the body to explode, or internal fluids to boil. (However, fluids in the mouth or lungs will boil at altitudes above the [[Armstrong limit]].) Instead, it would lead to a loss of [[consciousness]] once the body has depleted the supply of oxygen in the blood, followed by death from [[hypoxia (medical)|hypoxia]] within minutes.<ref name="hypoxia">
* {{cite web
|url=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html
|title=If you don't try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to damage your lungs, ... but theory predicts – and animal experiments confirm – that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness
|publisher=NASA ''Ask an Astrophysicist''
|archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/68Aef3glC?url=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html
|archivedate=June 4, 2012
|deadurl=no
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite web
|url=http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/04/07/1320013.htm
|title="...will we humans explode in the full vacuum of space, as urban legends claim? The answer is that we won't explode, and if the exposure is short enough, we can even survive." ''Exploding Body in Vacuum'' ABC Science
|archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/68Aef3glC?url=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html
|archivedate=2012-06-04
|deadurl=no
}}
*</ref>
* [[Exercise]]-induced [[Delayed onset muscle soreness|muscle soreness]] is not caused by [[lactic acid]] buildup.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kolata |first1=Gina |title=Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html |accessdate=11 September 2018 |publisher=The New York Times |date=16 May 2006 |language=en}}</ref> Muscular lactic acid levels during and after exercise do not correlate with soreness,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schwane |first1=James A. |last2=Watrous |first2=Bruce G. |last3=Johnson |first3=Scarlet R. |last4=Armstrong |first4=Robert B. |title=Is Lactic Acid Related to Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness? |journal=The Physician and Sportsmedicine |date=March 1983 |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=124–131 |doi=10.1080/00913847.1983.11708485 |pmid=27409551 |language=en |issn=0091-3847}}</ref> and stretching before or after exercise does not reduce soreness.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Henschke |first1=Nicholas |last2=Lin |first2=C. Christine |title=Stretching before or after exercise does not reduce delayed-onset muscle soreness |journal=Br J Sports Med |date=1 December 2011 |volume=45 |issue=15 |pages=1249–1250 |doi=10.1136/bjsports-2011-090599 |pmid=22006932 |url=https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/45/15/1249.full |accessdate=11 September 2018 |language=en |issn=0306-3674}}</ref> Exercise-induced muscle soreness is thought to be due to [[microtrauma]] from an unaccustomed or strenuous exercise, against which the body adapts with [[Delayed onset muscle soreness#Repeated-bout effect|repeated bouts of the same exercise]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McHugh |first1=Malachy P. |title=Recent advances in the understanding of the repeated bout effect: the protective effect against muscle damage from a single bout of eccentric exercise |journal=Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports |date=2003 |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=88–97 |issn=0905-7188|pmid=12641640 }}</ref>

====Senses====
[[File:Taste buds.svg|thumb|upright|An incorrect [[tongue map|map of the tongue]] showing zones which taste [[Bitter (taste)#Bitter|bitter]] (1), [[Sour#Sour|sour]] (2), [[Taste#Salty|salty]] (3) and [[Sweetness|sweet]] (4). In reality, all zones can sense all tastes.]]
* Infants can and do [[Pain management in children|feel pain]].<ref>{{cite book | last = Twycross | first = Alison | title = Managing pain in children : a clinical guide for nurses and healthcare professionals | publisher = Wiley Blackwell | location = Hoboken | year = 2014 | isbn = 9780470670545|page = 7 }}</ref><ref name=aap>{{cite journal|url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/3/793|title=The Assessment and Management of Acute Pain in Infants, Children, and Adolescents|first1=Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family|last1=Health|first2=Children|last2=Task Force on Pain in Infants|date=1 September 2001|journal=Pediatrics|volume=108|issue=3|pages=793–797|via=pediatrics.aappublications.org|doi=10.1542/peds.108.3.793|pmid=11533354}}</ref>
* All different [[taste]]s can be detected on all parts of the [[tongue]] by [[taste bud]]s,<ref>{{cite journal|author=Huang AL|title=The cells and logic for mammalian sour taste detection|journal=Nature|volume=442|issue=7105|pages=934–38|date=August 2006|pmid=16929298|pmc=1571047|doi=10.1038/nature05084|bibcode = 2006Natur.442..934H|name-list-format=vanc|author2=Chen X|author3=Hoon MA|display-authors=3|last4=Chandrashekar|first4=Jayaram|last5=Guo|first5=Wei|last6=Tränkner|first6=Dimitri|last7=Ryba|first7=Nicholas J. P.|last8=Zuker|first8=Charles S. }}</ref> with slightly increased sensitivities in different locations depending on the person, contrary to the popular belief that specific tastes only correspond to specific [[Tongue map|mapped sites on the tongue]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2002/021022/f021022a.htm|title=Beyond the Tongue Map|publisher=Asha.org|date=October 22, 2002|accessdate=August 29, 2009|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131214115137/http://www.asha.org/Publications/leader/2002/021022/f021022a.htm|archivedate=December 14, 2013|deadurl=yes|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
*There are 5 primary tastes, not 4. In addition to [[Bitter (taste)#Bitter|bitter]], [[Sour#Sour|sour]], [[Taste#Salty|salty]], and [[Sweetness|sweet]], humans have taste receptors for [[umami]], which is a savory or meaty taste.<ref name="taste">
*{{cite book|title=Food Science and Technology |last=Campbell-Platt |first=Geoffrey |url=https://books.google.com/?id=E7GXHploJasC&lpg=PA31&pg=PA31 |date=2009 |publisher=Wiley |isbn=978-0-632-06421-2 |page=31}}
*{{cite web|url=http://www.rtc.edu/programs/generaleducation/biology/biology220/files/Senses_notes.pdf |title=Senses Notes |accessdate=January 13, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720040515/http://www.rtc.edu/programs/generaleducation/biology/biology220/files/Senses_notes.pdf |archivedate=July 20, 2011 }}
*{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15819485 |title=Sweet, Sour, Salty, Bitter ... and Umami |author=Krulwich, Robert |date=November 5, 2007 |website=Krulwich Wonders, an NPR Science Blog |publisher=NPR |accessdate=January 13, 2011 }}</ref>
* Humans have more than the commonly cited five [[sense]]s. The number of senses in various categorizations ranges from 5 to more than 20. In addition to [[visual perception|sight]], [[olfaction|smell]], [[taste]], [[somatosensory system|touch]], and [[hearing (sense)|hearing]], which were the senses identified by [[Aristotle]], humans can sense [[Balance (ability)|balance]] and acceleration ([[equilibrioception]]), pain ([[nociception]]), body and limb position ([[proprioception]] or kinesthetic sense), and relative temperature ([[thermoception]]).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://harvardmedicine.hms.harvard.edu/fascinoma/fivesenses/beyond/extra.php |title=Extra Sensory Perceptions |author=Cerretani, Jessica |date=Spring 2010 |website=Harvard Medicine |publisher=Harvard College |accessdate=January 13, 2011| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120211190433/http://harvardmedicine.hms.harvard.edu/fascinoma/fivesenses/beyond/extra.php | archivedate = 2012-02-11| deadurl=yes}}</ref> Other senses sometimes identified are the sense of time, itching, pressure, hunger, thirst, fullness of the stomach, need to urinate, need to defecate, and blood [[carbon dioxide]] levels.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/perception/question242.htm |title=How many senses does a human being have? |website=Discovery Health |publisher=[[Discovery Communications Inc.]] |accessdate=January 13, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20111106034223/http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/human-nature/perception/question242.htm | archivedate = 2011-11-06| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Human-Senses.topicArticleId-8741,articleId-8725.html |title=Biology: Human Senses |website=CliffNotes |publisher=Wiley Publishing, Inc. |accessdate=January 13, 2011 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130429064356/http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Human-Senses.topicArticleId-8741%2CarticleId-8725.html |archivedate=April 29, 2013 |deadurl=yes }}</ref>

====Skin and hair====
* [[Prune skin|Water-induced wrinkles]] are not caused by the skin absorbing water and swelling.<ref>{{cite news|last=Botcharova|first=Maria|title=A gripping tale: scientists claim to have discovered why skin wrinkles in water|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/09/skin-wrinkle-water-grip?intcmp=239|accessdate=January 28, 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|date=January 10, 2013 }}</ref> They are caused by the [[autonomic nervous system]], which triggers localized [[vasoconstriction]] in response to wet skin, yielding a wrinkled appearance.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Changizi|first=Mark |last2=Weber|first2=Romann |last3=Kotecha|first3=Ritesh |last4=Palazzo|first4=Joseph |title=Are Wet-Induced Wrinkled Fingers Primate Rain Treads?|journal=Brain Behav. Evol.|date=2011|volume=77|pages=286–90|doi=10.1159/000328223|pmid=21701145|issue=4}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kareklas|first=Kyriacos|author2=Nettle, Daniel |author3=Smulders, Tom V. |title=Water-induced finger wrinkles improve handling of wet objects|journal=Biol. Lett.|date=April 23, 2013|volume=9|issue=2|doi=10.1098/rsbl.2012.0999|url=http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/2/20120999|accessdate=January 28, 2013|pmid=23302867|page=20120999|pmc=3639753}}</ref> A 2014 study showed no improvement in handling wet objects with wrinkled fingertips.<ref name=Haseleu>{{cite journal|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0084949|title=Water-Induced Finger Wrinkles Do Not Affect Touch Acuity or Dexterity in Handling Wet Objects|date=2014|editor1-last=Goldreich|editor1-first=Daniel|last1=Haseleu|first1=Julia|last2=Omerbašić|first2=Damir|last3=Frenzel|first3=Henning|last4=Gross|first4=Manfred|last5=Lewin|first5=Gary R.|journal=PLoS ONE|volume=9|issue=1|page=e84949|bibcode = 2014PLoSO...984949H|pmid=24416318|pmc=3885627}}</ref>
* [[Shaving]] does not cause [[terminal hair]] to grow back thicker (more dense) or darker. This belief is due to hair which has never been cut having a tapered end, whereas after cutting the edge is blunt and therefore thicker than the tapered ends; the cut hair appears to be thicker and feels coarser due to the sharper, unworn edges. The shorter hairs being less flexible than longer hairs also contributes to this effect.<ref name="shaving">
* {{cite web
|url=http://snopes.com/oldwives/hairgrow.asp
|title=Shaved Hair Grows Darker
|publisher=snopes.com
|accessdate=August 29, 2009
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140101222541/http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hair-removal/an00638
|archivedate=January 1, 2014
|deadurl=no
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite web
|url=http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hair-removal/an00638
|title=Does shaving make hair grow back thicker?
|publisher=Mayoclinic.com
|date=October 26, 2011
|accessdate=February 9, 2012
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140101222541/http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hair-removal/an00638
|archivedate=January 1, 2014
|deadurl=no
}}

* {{cite web
|url=http://www.webmd.com/skin-beauty/shaving-tips-girls?page=2
|title=Shaving Tips for Teen Girls
|publisher=Webmd.com
|accessdate=February 9, 2012
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140101222541/http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hair-removal/an00638
|archivedate=January 1, 2014
|deadurl=no
}}

*</ref>
* Hair and fingernails do not continue to grow after a person dies. Rather, the skin dries and shrinks away from the bases of hairs and nails, giving the appearance of growth.<ref>{{cite book|last=Graham-Brown|first=Robin|author2=Tony Burns |title=Lecture Notes on Dermatology|publisher=Blackwell|date=2007|page=6|isbn=978-1-4051-3977-9}}</ref>
* Hair care products cannot actually "repair" [[Trichoptilosis|split ends]] and damaged hair. They can prevent damage from occurring in the first place, and they can also smooth down the cuticle in a glue-like fashion so that it appears repaired, and generally make hair appear in better condition.<ref name="HairCare" />
* The [[red hair#Extinction hoax|redhead gene is not becoming extinct]] due to [[MC1R|the gene for red hair]] being [[recessive gene|recessive]], nor will the [[Disappearing blonde gene|gene for blond hair disappear]]. Although redheads and blonds may become more rare, they will not die out unless everyone who carries those genes dies or fails to reproduce.<ref>{{cite web|last=Silverman|first=Jacob|title=Are redheads going extinct?|url=http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/genetic/redhead-extinction.htm|publisher=HowStuffWorks|accessdate=July 15, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20121203143345/http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/genetic/redhead-extinction.htm | archivedate = 2012-12-03| deadurl=no}}</ref>

====Nutrition, food, and drink====
* Diet has little influence on the body's [[detoxification]], and [[Detoxification (alternative medicine)|detoxification diets]] "have no scientific basis",<ref name="Mayo Clinic Website">
Compare: {{cite web
| url = http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/detox-diets/AN01334
| title = Do detox diets offer any health benefits?
| publisher = [[Mayo Clinic]]
| last = Zeratsky
| first = Katherine
| date = 2012-04-21
| accessdate = 2015-05-09
| quote = [...T]here's little evidence that detox diets actually remove toxins from the body. Indeed, the kidneys and liver are generally quite effective at filtering and eliminating most ingested toxins.
}}
</ref> and are a "waste of time and money".<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4576574.stm
|publisher=[[BBC News]]
|title=Scientists dismiss detox schemes
|date=3 January 2006
|accessdate=5 May 2013
}}</ref> Despite this, there is a common misconception that specific diets aid this process or could remove substances that the body is unable to remove by itself.<ref name = Quackwatch>
{{cite web| url = http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/detox_overview.html
| title = 'Detoxification' Schemes and Scams | last = Barrett | first = Stephen
| authorlink = Stephen Barrett | publisher = [[Quackwatch]] | accessdate = 2014-06-18
| date = 2011-06-08}}</ref><ref name="WebMD">
{{cite web| url = http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/detox-diets-cleansing-body-feature | title = Detox Diets: Cleansing the Body | publisher = [[WebMD]] | accessdate = 23 June 2010 }}
</ref><ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.livescience.com/health/060808_bad_colon.html | title = Colon Cleansing: Money Down the Toilet | last = Wanjek | first = Christopher | authorlink = Christopher Wanjek | publisher = [[LiveScience]] | date = 8 August 2006 | accessdate = 10 November 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| publisher = [[WebMD]] | url = http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/colon-cleansers-are-they-safe | title = Colon Cleansers: Are They Safe? Experts discuss the safety and effectiveness of colon cleansers |accessdate = 23 June 2010 | date = 8 February 2007 | last = Kovacs | first = Jenny Stamos }}</ref> Toxins are removed from the body by the liver and kidneys.<ref name="Mayo Clinic Website">
Compare: {{cite web
| url = http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/detox-diets/AN01334
| title = Do detox diets offer any health benefits?
| publisher = [[Mayo Clinic]]
| last = Zeratsky
| first = Katherine
| date = 2012-04-21
| accessdate = 2015-05-09
| quote = [...T]here's little evidence that detox diets actually remove toxins from the body. Indeed, the kidneys and liver are generally quite effective at filtering and eliminating most ingested toxins.
}}
</ref>
* Eight glasses, or two to three liters, of water a day are not needed to maintain health.<ref name="Eightglasses">
* {{cite journal
|author=Valtin, Heinz
|title="Drink at least eight glasses of water a day." Really? Is there scientific evidence for "8 × 8"?
|journal=American Journal of Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology
|volume=283
|issue=5
|date=2002
|pages=R993–R1004
|url=http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/283/5/R993.short
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131214121522/http://www.health.com/health/article/0%2C%2C20411087%2C00.html
|archivedate=December 14, 2013
|deadurl=no
|doi=10.1152/ajpregu.00365.2002
|pmid=12376390
|df=mdy
}}
*
* {{citation
|title=Über den Durst
|publisher=Die Zeit
|url=http://www.zeit.de/2009/04/Stimmts
|language=German
|accessdate=April 7, 2012
}}
* {{citation
|title=Muss ich wirklich 3 Liter Wasser am Tag trinken?
|url=http://www.medipresse.de/muss-ich-wirklich-3-liter-wasser-am-tag-trinken-049.html
|language=German
|accessdate=April 7, 2012
}}</ref> The amount of water needed varies by person (weight), activity level, clothing, and environment (heat and humidity). Water actually need not be drunk in pure form, but can be derived from liquids such as juices, tea, milk, soups, etc., and from foods including fruits and vegetables.<ref name="Eightglasses" />
* [[Sugar]] does not cause [[Sugar and hyperactivity|hyperactivity]] in children.<ref name="festive myths">{{cite journal|author=Vreeman R. C. |author2=Carroll A.E.|title=Festive medical myths|journal=BMJ|volume=337|page=a2769|date=2008|pmid=19091758|doi=10.1136/bmj.a2769}}</ref><ref name="MedicalMythsUniversityOfArkansasMedicalSciences">{{cite web|url=http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=877&sid=1|title=Medical Myths |publisher=[[University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences]]|accessdate=February 10, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140109065139/http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=877&sid=1 | archivedate = 2014-01-09| deadurl=no}}</ref> [[Double-blind test|Double-blind trials]] have shown no difference in behavior between children given sugar-full or sugar-free diets, even in studies specifically looking at children with [[Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]] or those considered sensitive to sugar.<ref>{{cite book|last=Fullerton-Smith|first=Jill|title=The Truth About Food|publisher=Bloomsbury|date=2007|pages=115–17|isbn=978-0-7475-8685-2|quote=Most parents assume that children plus sugary foods equals raucous and uncontrollable behaviour. ... according to nutrition experts, the belief that children experience a 'sugar high' is a myth.}}</ref>
* [[Alcoholic beverage]]s do not make the entire body warmer.<ref name="AlcoholicBeverages">
* {{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kG5BAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QKkMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5953,3984482|title=Popular Misconceptions Regarding Intoxication|last=Brandstadt|first=William G.|date=December 19, 1967|work=Middlesboro Daily News|accessdate=January 13, 2011 }}
* {{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Y7QOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=voIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6314,2739204|title=Hypothermia main outdoors threat|last=Pierson|first=Rebecca|date=December 9, 2004|work=Elizabethton Star|accessdate=January 13, 2011 }}
* {{cite news|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AnRaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0kYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6238%2C1782448|title=Writer Tells Of Alcohol Dangers, Misconceptions|last=Seixas|first=Judy|date=April 15, 1977|work=The Virgin Islands Daily News|accessdate=January 13, 2011}}</ref> The reason that alcoholic drinks create the sensation of warmth is that they cause blood vessels to dilate and stimulate nerve endings near the surface of the skin with an influx of warm blood. This can actually result in making the core body temperature lower, as it allows for easier heat exchange with a cold external environment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://firstaid.about.com/od/heatcoldexposur1/f/07_alcohol_warm.htm|title=Alcohol for Warmth | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140413035244/http://firstaid.about.com/od/heatcoldexposur1/f/07_alcohol_warm.htm | archivedate = 2014-04-13| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* Alcohol does not necessarily kill brain cells.<ref name="StudyFindsAlcoholDoesntKillOffBrainCells">{{cite news|url=http://www.news.com.au/study-finds-alcohol-doesnt-kill-off-brain-cells/story-e6frfkp9-1111113923217|title=Study finds alcohol doesn't kill off brain cells | News.com.au|publisher=[[News Limited]]|accessdate=January 8, 2011|date=July 10, 2007 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110113134106/http://www.news.com.au/study-finds-alcohol-doesnt-kill-off-brain-cells/story-e6frfkp9-1111113923217 | archivedate = 2011-01-13| deadurl=no}}</ref> Alcohol can, however, lead ''indirectly'' to the death of brain cells in two ways: (1) In chronic, heavy alcohol users whose brains have adapted to the effects of alcohol, abrupt cessation following heavy use can cause [[excitotoxicity]] leading to cellular death in multiple areas of the brain.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Lovinger, D. M.|date=1993| title=Excitotoxicity and Alcohol-Related Brain Damage |journal=Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research |volume=17 |pages=19–27 |doi=10.1111/j.1530-0277.1993.tb00720.x}}</ref> (2) In alcoholics who get most of their daily calories from alcohol, a deficiency of [[thiamine]] can produce [[Korsakoff's syndrome]], which is associated with serious brain damage.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Kopelman M. D. |author2=Thomson A.D. |author3=Guerrini I. |author4=Marshall E.J. |title=The Korsakoff syndrome: clinical aspects, psychology and treatment |journal=Alcohol and Alcoholism |volume=44 |issue=2 |pages=148–54 |date=2009 |pmid=19151162 |doi=10.1093/alcalc/agn118}}</ref>
* A vegetarian or [[vegan]] diet can provide enough protein for adequate nutrition.<ref name="DefendingVeganDiet">{{cite journal | last = Webb | first = Densie | title = Defending Vegan Diets – RDs Aim to Clear Up Common Misconceptions About Vegan Diets | journal = Today's Dietician | page = 20 | date = September 2010 | url = http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/082510p20.shtml | accessdate =March 9, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214120735/http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/082510p20.shtml | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref name="vegan">{{cite web
|url=http://www.acefitness.org/blog/86/are-vegetarian-diets-safe/
|title=Are vegetarian diets safe?
|last=Matthews
|first=Jessica
|publisher=American Council on Exercise
|date=November 4, 2009
|accessdate=March 9, 2011
|website=Ask the Expert
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130106231722/http://www.acefitness.org/blog/86/are-vegetarian-diets-safe
|archivedate=January 6, 2013
|deadurl=no
|df=mdy
}}
*</ref> In fact, typical protein intakes of [[Ovo-lacto vegetarianism|ovo-lacto vegetarians]] and vegans meet and exceed requirements.<ref name="DieticiansGuide">{{cite book |title=The dietitian's guide to vegetarian diets |last=Messina |first=Virginia |author2=Reed Mangles |author3=Mark Messina |date=2004 |publisher=Jones and Bartlett Publishers |location=Sudbury, MA |isbn=978-0-7637-3241-7}}</ref> However, a vegan diet does require [[Dietary supplements|supplementation]] of [[vitamin B12|vitamin B12]] for optimal health.<ref name="DefendingVeganDiet" />
* [[Chewing gum#Swallowed gum|Swallowed chewing gum]] does not take seven years to digest. In fact, chewing gum is mostly indigestible, and passes through the digestive system at the same rate as other matter.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-chewing-gum-takes-seven-years-to-digest|title=Fact or Fiction?: Chewing Gum Takes Seven Years to Digest|publisher=Scientific American|first=John|last=Matson|date=October 11, 2007|accessdate=February 4, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140109065142/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-chewing-gum-takes-seven-years-to-digest | archivedate = 2014-01-09| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>"Claim: Chewing gum takes seven years to pass through the digestive system; FALSE http://www.snopes.com/oldwives/chewgum.asp</ref>
* Evidence does not support a significant role for spicy food or coffee in the development of [[peptic ulcers]].<ref>{{cite book |editor=Raphael Rubin |editor2=David S. Strayer |editor3=Emanuel Rubin |editor4=Gonzalo Aponte |title=Rubin's pathology : clinicopathologic foundations of medicine|date=2012|publisher=Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |location=Philadelphia, PA |isbn= 9781605479682|page=623|edition=Sixth|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wb2TzY9AgJ0C&pg=PA623}}</ref>
* While the [[beta-Carotene|beta carotene]] in [[carrot]]s can help improve [[night vision]] in those suffering from a [[Vitamin A deficiency|deficiency of vitamin A]], it does not enhance it beyond normal levels in those receiving an adequate amount.<ref name="Carrots and vitamin A">{{cite web|url=http://www.dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamina.asp |title=Fact sheet for health professionals: Vitamin A |date=3 June 2013 |accessdate=29 December 2016 |website=Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517093019/http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamina.asp |archivedate=May 17, 2008 }}</ref> The belief that it does originated from [[World War II]] British [[disinformation]] meant to explain the [[Royal Air Force]]'s improved success in night battles, which was actually due to [[radar]] and the use of red lights on instrument panels.<ref name="Carrots and British propaganda">{{cite web |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-carrots-improve-your-vision/ |title=Fact or Fiction?: Carrots Improve Your Vision |website=[[Scientific American]] |author=Maron DF|date=23 June 2014|accessdate=29 December 2016}}</ref>
* There is no evidence that [[obesity]] is related to slower [[Basal metabolic rate|resting metabolism]]. Resting metabolic rate doesn't vary much between people. Weight gain and loss are directly attributable to diet and activity. Overweight people tend to underestimate the amount of food they eat, and underweight people tend to overestimate.<ref name="obesity-and-metabolism">
* {{cite news|title=Does metabolism vary between two people?|url=https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people|newspaper=Examine.com|date=28 January 2013}}
* {{cite journal|first1=Kevin D.|last1=Hall|first2=Steven B.|last2=Heymsfield|first3=Joseph W.|last3=Kemnitz|first4=Samuel|last4=Klein|first5=Dale A.|last5=Schoeller|first6=John R.|last6=Speakman|title=Energy balance and its components: implications for body weight regulation|url=http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989|journal=The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition|date=1 April 2012|issn=1938-3207|pages=989–994|volume=95|issue=4|pmid=22434603|doi=10.3945/ajcn.112.036350|pmc=3302369}}
* {{cite news|title=The truth about slow metabolism|url=https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/expert-answers/slow-metabolism/faq-20058480|newspaper=Mayo Clinic}}
* {{cite news|first1=Tim|last1=Crowe|title=Monday's medical myth: 'my slow metabolism makes me fat'|url=http://theconversation.com/mondays-medical-myth-my-slow-metabolism-makes-me-fat-4962|newspaper=The Conversation}}
* {{cite journal|first1=Catharine|last1=Wang|first2=Elliot J.|last2=Coups|title=Causal beliefs about obesity and associated health behaviors: results from a population-based survey|journal=International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity|date=3 March 2010|issn=1479-5868|pages=19|volume=7|doi=10.1186/1479-5868-7-19|pmid=20199677|pmc=2842229}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Barry|first1=Colleen L.|last2=Brescoll|first2=Victoria L.|last3=Brownell|first3=Kelly D.|last4=Schlesinger|first4=Mark|title=Obesity Metaphors: How Beliefs about the Causes of Obesity Affect Support for Public Policy|journal=The Milbank Quarterly|date=2009|volume=87|issue=1|pages=7–47|pmid=19298414|doi=10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00546.x|pmc=2879183|citeseerx=10.1.1.175.4460}}
* {{cite journal|first1=J. Eric|last1=Oliver|first2=Taeku|last2=Lee|title=Public Opinion and the Politics of Obesity in America|url=http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/30/5/923|journal=Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law|date=1 October 2005|issn=0361-6878|pages=923–954|volume=30|issue=5|pmid=16477792|doi=10.1215/03616878-30-5-923}}
* {{cite journal|first1=C. R.|last1=Hankey|first2=S.|last2=Eley|first3=W. S.|last3=Leslie|first4=C. M.|last4=Hunter|first5=M. E. J.|last5=Lean|title=Eating habits, beliefs, attitudes and knowledge among health professionals regarding the links between obesity, nutrition and health|journal=Public Health Nutrition|date=2004|issn=1368-9800|pages=337–343|volume=7|issue=2|pmid=15003142|doi=10.1079/PHN2003526}}
*</ref>

====Human sexuality====
* There is no physiological basis for the belief that having sex in the days leading up to a sporting event or contest is detrimental to performance.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060609/full/news060605-16.html
|title=Sex before the big game?
|publisher=Nature
|date=June 9, 2006|accessdate=January 16, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20121104140935/http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060609/full/news060605-16.html |archivedate = 2012-11-04| deadurl=no}}</ref> In fact it has been suggested that sex prior to sports activity can elevate the levels of [[testosterone]] in males, which could potentially enhance their performance.<ref>{{cite web|title=Sex and Sports: Should Athletes Abstain Before Big Events?|url=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0222_060222_sex.html
|publisher=National Geographic|date=February 22, 2006|accessdate=January 16, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140301110507/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0222_060222_sex.html |archivedate = 2014-03-01| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* Pregnancies from sex between [[cousin marriage|first cousins]] do not carry a serious risk of birth defects:<ref name="kershaw">{{cite news |first = Sarah |last = Kershaw |url = https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/garden/26cousins.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 |title = Shaking Off the Shame |date = November 26, 2009 | work=The New York Times}}</ref> The risk is 5–6%, similar to that of a 40-year-old woman,<ref name="kershaw"/><ref name=Bennett>{{cite journal|last1=Bennett|first1=Robin L.|last2=Motulsky|first2=Arno G.|last3=Bittles|first3=Alan|last4=Hudgins|first4=Louanne|last5=Uhrich|first5=Stefanie|last6=Doyle|first6=Debra Lochner|last7=Silvey|first7=Kerry|last8=Scott|first8=C. Ronald|last9=Cheng|first9=Edith|last10=McGillivray|first10=Barbara|last11=Steiner|first11=Robert D.|last12=Olson|first12=Debra|title=Genetic Counseling and Screening of Consanguineous Couples and Their Offspring|journal=Journal of Genetic Counseling|date=2002|volume=11|issue=2|pages=97–119|doi=10.1023/A:1014593404915|pmid=26141656}}</ref> compared with a baseline risk of 3–4%.<ref name=Bennett/> The effects of [[inbreeding depression]], while still relatively small compared to other factors (and thus difficult to control for in a scientific experiment), become more noticeable if isolated and maintained for several generations.<ref name="ncbi.nlm.nih.gov">{{cite journal | pmc = 1377721 | pmid=9915962 | doi=10.1086/302198 | volume=64 | issue=1 | title=Inbreeding effects on fertility in humans: evidence for reproductive compensation | date=January 1999 | journal=Am. J. Hum. Genet. | pages=225–31 | last1 = Ober | first1 = C | last2 = Hyslop | first2 = T | last3 = Hauck | first3 = WW}}</ref><ref name="nature.com">http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v17/n5/full/ejhg2008237a.html</ref>

====Brain====
[[File:Gyrus Dentatus 40x.jpg|thumb|Golgi-stained [[neuron]]s in human hippocampal tissue. It is commonly believed that humans will not grow new brain cells, but research has shown that some neurons can reform in humans.]]
* Mental abilities are not absolutely separated into the left and right [[cerebral hemisphere]]s of the brain.<ref name="Westen 2006">Westen et al. 2006 "Psychology: Australian and New Zealand edition" John Wiley p. 107</ref> Some mental functions such as [[Speech communication|speech]] and [[language]] (e.g. [[Broca's area]], [[Wernicke's area]]) tend to activate [[lateralization of brain function|one hemisphere of the brain more than the other]], in some kinds of tasks. If one hemisphere is damaged at an early age, these functions can often be recovered in part or even in full by the other hemisphere (see [[Neuroplasticity]]). Other abilities such as [[somatic nervous system|motor control]], memory, and general reasoning are served equally by the two hemispheres.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Goswami |first1=U |title=Neuroscience and education: from research to practice? |journal=Nature Reviews. Neuroscience |volume=7 |issue=5 |pages=406–11 |date=2006 |pmid=16607400 |doi=10.1038/nrn1907}}</ref>
* It is not true that by the age of two years, humans have generated all of the brain cells they will ever have, a belief held by medical experts until 1998.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Eriksson, Gage | display-authors = etal | date = 1998 | title = Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus | journal = Nature Medicine | volume = 4 | issue = 11| pages = 1313–17 | doi = 10.1038/3305 | pmid=9809557}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author = Gross C. G. | date = 2000 | title = Neurogenesis in the adult brain: death of a dogma | journal = Nat Rev Neurosci | volume = 1 | issue = 1| pages = 67–73 | doi = 10.1038/35036235| pmid = 11252770 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|publisher=BrainFacts.org |website=Brain Briefings |date=2012 |title=Are you born with all your brain cells, or do you grow new ones? |url=http://www.brainfacts.org/about-neuroscience/ask-an-expert/articles/2012/are-you-born-with-all-your-brain-cells-or-do-you-grow-new-ones/ | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083400/http://www.brainfacts.org/about-neuroscience/ask-an-expert/articles/2012/are-you-born-with-all-your-brain-cells-or-do-you-grow-new-ones/ | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}}</ref> It is now understood that new [[neuron]]s can be created in some parts of the [[postnatal]] brain.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eriksson |first1=Peter S. |last2=Perfilieva |first2=Ekaterina |last3=Björk-Eriksson |first3=Thomas |last4=Alborn |first4=Ann-Marie |last5=Nordborg |first5=Claes |last6=Peterson |first6=Daniel A. |last7=Gage |first7=Fred H. |title=Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus |journal=Nature Medicine |volume=4 |issue=11 |pages=1313–17 |date=1998 |pmid=9809557 |doi=10.1038/3305}}</ref> A 2013 study showed that also in old age, about 700 new neurons are produced in the [[hippocampus]] daily.<ref name="harv">{{cite web|url=https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/can-you-grow-new-brain-cells|title=Can you grow new brain cells?|date=September 2016|publisher=[[Harvard Medical School]]|accessdate=28 April 2018}}</ref>
* [[Vaccine]]s do not cause [[autism]] or [[autism spectrum]] disorders. Although [[MMR vaccine controversy|fraudulent research]] by [[Andrew Wakefield]] claimed a connection, repeated attempts to [[Reproducibility|reproduce]] the results ended in failure, and the research was ultimately shown to have been manipulated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full|title=British Medical Journal: Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent|accessdate=January 5, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131111093448/http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full | archivedate = 2013-11-11| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* People do not use [[Ten percent of the brain myth|only ten percent of their brains]]. While it is true that a small minority of neurons in the brain are actively firing at any one time, the inactive neurons are important too.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp|title=Snopes on brains|publisher=Snopes.com|accessdate=August 29, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Radford|first=Benjamin|date=March–April 1999|title=The Ten-Percent Myth|journal=Skeptical Inquirer|issn=0194-6730|url=http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_ten-percent_myth/|accessdate=April 15, 2009|quote=It's the old myth heard time and again about how people use only ten percent of their brains | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131030034901/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_ten-percent_myth/ | archivedate = 2013-10-30| deadurl=no}}</ref> This misconception has been commonplace in American culture at least as far back as the start of the 20th century, and was attributed to [[William James]], who apparently used the expression metaphorically.<ref name="beyersteinbrain">{{cite book|last=Beyerstein|first=Barry L.|title=Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain|editor=Sergio Della Sala|publisher=Wiley|date=1999|pages=3–24|chapter=Whence Cometh the Myth that We Only Use 10% of our Brains?|isbn=978-0-471-98303-3}}</ref>
* All humans learn in fundamentally similar ways.<ref name=neuromyth>{{cite journal|last1=Howard-Jones|first1=Paul A.|title=Neuroscience and education: myths and messages|journal=Nature Reviews Neuroscience|date=1 December 2014|volume=15|issue=12|pages=817–24|doi=10.1038/nrn3817|url=http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n12/abs/nrn3817.html|accessdate=8 January 2016|issn=1471-003X|pmid=25315391}}</ref> In particular, there is no evidence that people have different [[learning style]]s,<ref name=neuromyth/> nor that catering teaching styles to purported learning styles improves information retention.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Coffield|first1=Frank|title=Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review|date=2004|publisher=Learning and Skills Research Centre|location=London|isbn=978-1853389184|pages=119–33|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232929341|accessdate=8 January 2016|display-authors=etal}}</ref>

====Disease====
{{see also|Misconceptions about HIV and AIDS}}
[[File:Bombina bombina 1 (Marek Szczepanek).jpg|thumb|The bumps on a toad are not warts, and therefore cannot cause warts on humans]]
* Drinking milk or consuming other [[dairy products]] does not increase [[mucus]] production.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pinnock |first1=CB |last2=Graham |first2=NM |last3=Mylvaganam |first3=A |last4=Douglas |first4=RM |title=Relationship between milk intake and mucus production in adult volunteers challenged with rhinovirus-2 |journal=The American Review of Respiratory Disease |volume=141 |issue=2 |pages=352–56 |date=1990 |pmid=2154152 |doi=10.1164/ajrccm/141.2.352}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Handbook of pediatric nutrition |author1=Patricia Queen Samour |author2=Kathy King Helm |publisher=Jones & Bartlett Learning |date=2005 |isbn=978-0-7637-8356-3 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=J8Xgyvr9038C&pg=PA337}}</ref> As a result, they do not need to be avoided by those with the flu or cold [[Nasal congestion|congestion]].
* Humans cannot catch warts from [[toad]]s or other animals; the bumps on a toad are not warts.<ref>http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/warts-faq-questions-answers#1</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.londondrugs.com/Cultures/en-US/FocusOnHealth/Fall2002/Warts.htm|title=Putting an End to Warts|publisher=Londondrugs.com|accessdate=August 29, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120609023506/http://www.londondrugs.com/Cultures/en-US/FocusOnHealth/Fall2002/Warts.htm | archivedate = 2012-06-09| deadurl=no}}</ref> [[Wart]]s on human skin are caused by [[human papillomavirus]], which is unique to humans.
* Neither [[cracking joints|cracking one's knuckles]] nor exercising while in good health causes [[osteoarthritis]].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Bosomworth NJ |title=Exercise and knee osteoarthritis: benefit or hazard? |journal=Can Fam Physician |volume=55 |issue=9 |pages=871–78 |date=September 2009 |pmid=19752252 |pmc=2743580}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Deweber|first=K|author2=Olszewski, M |author3=Ortolano, R |title=Knuckle cracking and hand osteoarthritis|journal=Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM|date=Mar–Apr 2011|volume=24|issue=2|pages=169–74|pmid=21383216|doi=10.3122/jabfm.2011.02.100156}}</ref>
* Eating nuts, popcorn, or seeds does not increase the risk of [[diverticulitis]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Atkins|first=William|title=Diverticulitis isn't anti-nut any more|url=http://discuss.itwire.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=6493|accessdate=July 1, 2011| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120404030039/http://discuss.itwire.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=6493 | archivedate = 2012-04-04| deadurl=yes}}</ref> These foods may actually have a protective effect.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Weisberger|first=L|author2=Jamieson, B |title=Clinical inquiries: How can you help prevent a recurrence of diverticulitis?|journal=The Journal of Family Practice|date=July 2009|volume=58|issue=7|pages=381–82|pmid=19607778}}</ref>
* [[Stress (psychological)|Stress]] plays a relatively [[Hypertension#Lifestyle modifications|minor role]] in [[hypertension]].<ref name="stress">{{cite journal|last=Marshall|first=IJ|author2=Wolfe, CD |author3=McKevitt, C |title=Lay perspectives on hypertension and drug adherence: systematic review of qualitative research|journal=BMJ |edition=Clinical research|date=July 9, 2012|volume=345|page=e3953|pmid=22777025|pmc=3392078|doi=10.1136/bmj.e3953}}</ref> Specific relaxation therapies are not supported by the evidence.<ref name="Relax2006">{{cite journal|last=Dickinson|first=HO|author2=Mason, JM |author3=Nicolson, DJ |author4=Campbell, F |author5=Beyer, FR |author6=Cook, JV |author7=Williams, B |author8= Ford, GA |title=Lifestyle interventions to reduce raised blood pressure: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials|journal=Journal of Hypertension|date=February 2006|volume=24|issue=2|pages=215–33|pmid=16508562|doi=10.1097/01.hjh.0000199800.72563.26}}</ref> ''Acute'' stress has been shown to ''temporarily'' increase blood-pressure levels.<ref name="stress" /> Evidence from observational studies has shown a possible association between chronic stress and a sustained rise in high blood-pressure.<ref name="stress" /> From the medical perspective, stress plays a small part in hypertension, whereas a recurring theme in studies of the attitudes of lay people was that stress was by far the most important cause.<ref name="stress" />
* In those with the [[common cold]], the color of the [[sputum]] or nasal secretion may vary from clear to yellow to green and does not indicate the class of agent causing the infection.<ref>{{cite book|editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Eccles |editor2-first=Olaf |editor2-last=Weber|title=Common cold|page=7|date=2009|publisher=Birkhäuser|location=Basel|isbn=978-3-7643-9894-1 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Rutter|first=Paul|title=Community pharmacy : symptoms, diagnosis and treatment |date=2009|publisher=Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone |location=Edinburgh |isbn=978-0-7020-2995-0 |page=7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MVLvW6qS2PAC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7|edition=2nd}}</ref>
* [[Vitamin C]] [[Vitamin C and the common cold|does not prevent]] the [[common cold]], although it may have a protective effect during intense cold-weather exercise and may slightly reduce the duration and severity of colds once infected.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/vitamin-c-for-common-cold |title=Vitamin C for the Common Cold |website=WebMD |accessdate=September 27, 2013 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5tnrUWK5U?url=http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/vitamin-c-for-common-cold |archivedate=October 27, 2010 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold |author=Harri Hemilä |author2=Elizabeth Chalker |journal=[[The Cochrane Library]] |date=Jan 2013 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000980.pub4 |pmid=23440782 |pmc = 1160577|volume=1 |issue=1 |page=CD000980 |deadurl=no }}</ref>
* In people with [[eczema]], bathing does not dry the skin and may in fact be beneficial.<ref>{{cite web|title=Daily Skin Care Essential to Control Atopic Dermatitis|publisher=[[American Academy of Dermatology]] | url=http://www.skincarephysicians.com/eczemanet/daily_care.html|accessdate=2009-03-24| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131017060636/http://www.skincarephysicians.com/eczemanet/daily_care.html | archivedate = 2013-10-17| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=McAleer|first=MA|author2=Flohr, C |author3=Irvine, AD |title=Management of difficult and severe eczema in childhood |journal=[[British Medical Journal]]|date=Jul 23, 2012|volume=345|page=e4770|pmid=22826585|doi=10.1136/bmj.e4770|hdl=2262/75991}}</ref>
* There are not, nor have there ever been, any programs that will provide access to [[dialysis]] machines in exchange for pull tabs on [[beverage can]]s.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.snopes.com/business/redeem/pulltabs.asp | title=Keeping Tabs | website=Snopes | date=24 March 2012 | accessdate=30 March 2014 | author=Mikkelson, Barbara}}</ref> This rumor has existed since at least the 1970s, and usually cites the [[National Kidney Foundation]] as the organization offering the program. However, the Foundation themselves have denied that this is the case, noting that 80 percent of the cost of dialysis in the United States is usually covered by [[Medicare (United States)|Medicare]].<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/newsitemArchive.cfm?id=100 | title=NKF Dispels Pull Tabs for Dialysis Time Rumor | publisher=National Kidney Foundation | date=1 June 1998 | accessdate=30 March 2014| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140407102004/https://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/newsitemArchive.cfm?id=100 | archivedate = 2014-04-07| deadurl=no}}</ref> However some charities, such as the Kansas City Ronald McDonald House Charities, will accept pull tab donations, which are then turned over to a local recycler for their scrap metal value.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.rmhckc.org/poptabs |title=POP TAB COLLECTION PROGRAM |author= |website=www.rmhckc.org |publisher=Ronald McDonald House Charities Kansas City Inc. |access-date=17 Dec 2016 |quote=Advantage Metals, our local recycler, buys the tabs at market rate and makes an additional charitable contribution. They generously donate their pick-up and handling services, so the income from pop tabs is pure profit.}}</ref>
* [[Rhinoceros#Horn trade and use|Rhinoceros horn]] in powdered form is not used as an [[aphrodisiac]] in [[traditional Chinese medicine]] as ''Cornu Rhinoceri Asiatici'' (犀角, ''xījiǎo'', "rhinoceros horn"). It is prescribed for fevers and convulsions,<ref>Bensky, Dan; Clavey, Steven; Stoger, Erich and Gamble, Andrew (2004) ''Chinese Herbal Medicine: Materia Medica'', 3rd Edition. Eastland Press. {{ISBN|0-939616-42-4}}</ref> a treatment not supported by [[evidence-based medicine]].
* [[Iron Oxide|Rust]] does not cause [[tetanus|tetanus infection]]. The ''Clostridium tetani'' bacterium is generally found in dirty environments. Since the same conditions that harbor tetanus bacteria also promote rusting of metal, many people associate rust with tetanus. ''C. tetani'' requires [[hypoxia (environmental)|anoxic]] conditions to reproduce and these are found in the permeable layers of rust that form on oxygen-absorbing, unprotected ironwork.<ref>{{cite web|title=Tetanus – Can a Rusty Nail Cause Tetanus?|url=http://www.ehso.com/disease/tetanus.php|website=Environmental Safety and Health Online|accessdate=9 November 2015}}</ref>

===Inventions===

* [[George Washington Carver]] did not invent [[peanut butter]], though he reputedly discovered three hundred uses for peanuts and hundreds more for soybeans, pecans, and sweet potatoes.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://peanut-butter.org/peanut-butter/History+of+Peanut+Butter |title=History of Peanut Butter |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727170350/http://peanut-butter.org/peanut-butter/History+of+Peanut+Butter |archivedate=July 27, 2011 |df=mdy-all }} Peanut-butter.org.</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-true-renaissance-man |title=A True Renaissance Man | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120319152901/http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-true-renaissance-man | archivedate = 2012-03-19| deadurl=no}}. [[American Scientist]].</ref>
* [[Thomas Crapper]] did not invent the [[flush toilet]];<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/business/names/crapper.asp|title=Thomas Crapper|work=[[Snopes]]|date=February 22, 2007|accessdate=December 13, 2008 }}</ref> flushing toilets were first used in the [[Indus Valley Civilization]], around the 26th century BCE.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sewerhistory.org/grfx/wh_region/indus1.htm|title=Sewer History: Photos and Graphics|accessdate=October 1, 2014}}</ref> The forerunner of the modern toilet was invented by the Elizabethan courtier [[John Harington (writer)#Invention of the modern toilet|Sir John Harington]], who was banished from court when his book on the subject poked fun at important people.<ref>{{Citation | author=Kinghorn, Jonathan | title=A Privvie in Perfection: Sir John Harrington's Water Closet | journal=Bath History | volume=1 | date=1986 | pages=173–88 | postscript=. }} {{ISBN|978-0-86299-294-1}}. Kinghorn supervised a modern reconstruction in 1981, based on the illustrated description by Harington's assistant Thomas Coombe in the ''New Discourse''.</ref> Crapper, however, did much to increase its popularity and introduced several innovations, including the 'valveless waste-water preventer', which allowed the toilet to flush effectively without leaving the flush water running for a long time.<ref>{{cite news|title=Thomas Crapper: Myth & Reality|url=https://theplumber.com/thomas-crapper-myth-reality/|work=Plumbing & Mechanical Magazine|publisher=BNP Media|date=1 June 1993}}</ref> The word ''crap'' is also not derived from his name (see the [[#Words, phrases and languages|Words, phrases and languages]] section above).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=crap&searchmode=term |title=Crap |last1=Harper |first1=Douglas |work=Online Eytmology Dictionary |accessdate=May 21, 2013| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083545/http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=crap&searchmode=term | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* [[Thomas Edison]] did not invent the [[light bulb]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Robert|first=Friedel|author2=Paul Israel |title=Edison's Electric Light: Biography of an Invention|location=New Brunswick, New Jersey|publisher=Rutgers University Press|pages=115–17|date=1987|isbn=978-0-8135-1118-4}}</ref> He did, however, develop the first ''practical'' light bulb in 1880 (employing a carbonized [[bamboo]] filament), shortly prior to [[Joseph Swan]], who invented an even more efficient bulb in 1881 (which used a cellulose filament).
* [[Henry Ford]] did not invent either the automobile or the [[assembly line]]. He did improve the assembly line process substantially, sometimes through his own engineering but more often through sponsoring the work of his employees.<ref name="Hounshell1984">{{Hounshell1984}}, pp. 15–47.</ref><ref name="Sorensen1956">{{cite book | last = Sorensen | first = Charles E.; with Williamson, Samuel T. | authorlink = Charles E. Sorensen | date = 1956 | title = My Forty Years with Ford | publisher = Norton | location = New York | isbn = 978-0-8143-3279-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fv9WPvAXpGMC&pg=PA128|page=128 | lccn = 56010854}}</ref> [[Karl Benz]] (co-founder of [[Mercedes-Benz]]) is credited with the invention of the first modern automobile,<ref>{{cite book
| title=The Automobile Book
| publisher=Paul Hamlyn Ltd
| date=1967
| author=Stein, Ralph
}}</ref> and the assembly line has existed [[Assembly line#History|throughout history]].
* [[Al Gore]] never said that he "invented" the Internet. What Gore actually said was, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet", in reference to his political work towards developing the Internet for widespread public use.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp|title=Al Gore on the invention of the internet|publisher=Snopes|accessdate=August 29, 2009 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=O'Carroll, Eoin |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0309/al-gore-joins-call-for-new-eco-internet-domain |title=Al Gore joins call for new .ECO Internet domain |publisher=CSmonitor.com |date=March 9, 2009 |accessdate=February 9, 2012 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214110208/http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0309/al-gore-joins-call-for-new-eco-internet-domain | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=no}}</ref> Gore was the original drafter of the [[High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991]], which provided significant funding for supercomputing centers,<ref name="cautionarytale"/> and this in turn led to upgrades of a major part of the already-existing early 1990s Internet backbone, the [[NSFNet]],<ref name="motherofgores">{{cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/2000/10/the-mother-of-gores-invention/|title=The Mother of Gore's Invention|publisher=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|date=October 17, 2000}}</ref> and development of [[NCSA Mosaic]], the [[web browser|browser]] that popularized the [[World Wide Web]].<ref name="cautionarytale">{{Cite news| last = Kessler| first = Glenn| title = A cautionary tale for politicians: Al Gore and the 'invention' of the Internet| publisher = Washington Post| date = November 4, 2013}}</ref> (See also [[Al Gore and information technology]].)
* [[James Watt]] did not invent the [[steam engine]],<ref name="JamesWatt" /> nor were his ideas on steam engine power inspired by a [[kettle]] lid pressured open by steam.<ref name="DPMiller">{{cite journal|title=True Myths: James Watt's Kettle, His Condenser, and His Chemistry|publisher=Science History Publication Ltd|date=2004|bibcode=2004HisSc..42..333M|author1=Miller|first1=David Philip|volume=42|issue=3|pages=333–60|journal=History of Science|doi=10.1177/007327530404200304}}</ref> Watt improved upon the already commercially successful [[Newcomen atmospheric engine]] in the 1760s and 1770s, making certain improvements critical to its future usage, particularly the external condenser, increasing its efficiency, and later the mechanism for transforming reciprocating motion into rotary motion; his new steam engine later gained huge fame as a result.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dspace.dsto.defence.gov.au/dspace/bitstream/1947/3295/1/DSTO-RR-0287%20PR.pdf|title=An Evolutionary Framework for Experimental Innovation|publisher=Australian Government Department of Defence Defence Science and Technology Organisation}}</ref>

===Materials science===
* [[Glass]] does not flow at [[room temperature]] as a high-[[viscosity]] [[liquid]].<ref name="Curtin">{{citation|last=Curtin |first=Ciara |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-fiction-glass-liquid |quote="Glass, however, is actually neither a liquid—supercooled or otherwise—nor a solid. It is an amorphous solid—a state somewhere between those two states of matter. And yet glass's liquidlike properties are not enough to explain the thicker-bottomed windows, because glass atoms move too slowly for changes to be visible." |title=Fact or Fiction?: Glass Is a (Supercooled) Liquid |magazine=[[Scientific American]] |date=February 2007 |deadurl=no |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20131214122430/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-fiction-glass-liquid |archivedate=December 14, 2013}}</ref> Although glass shares some molecular properties found in liquids, glass at room temperature is an [[amorphous solid]] that only begins to flow above the [[glass transition]] temperature,<ref name="Halem">{{cite web|author=Halem, Henry|url=http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html |title=Does Glass Flow|publisher=Glassnotes.com|date=May 30, 1998 |accessdate=August 29, 2009 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131022034746/http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html |archivedate = 2013-10-22| deadurl=no}}</ref> though the exact nature of the glass transition is not considered settled among scientists.<ref name="NYTglass">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/science/29glass.html|work=The New York Times|title=The Nature of Glass Remains Anything but Clear|first=Kenneth|last=Chang |date=July 29, 2008 |accessdate=April 4, 2010}}</ref> Panes of [[stained glass]] windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top, and this has been cited as an example of the slow flow of glass over centuries. However, this unevenness is due to the window manufacturing processes used at the time.<ref name="Halem" /><ref name="NYTglass" /> No such distortion is observed in other glass objects, such as sculptures or optical instruments, that are of similar or even greater age.<ref name="Halem" /><ref name="NYTglass" /><ref name="Zanotto">{{cite journal|last=Zanotto|first= E.D.|date=May 1998 |title=Do cathedral glasses flow? |journal=[[American Journal of Physics]]|volume=66 |issue= 5|page=392|doi=10.1119/1.19026 |bibcode = 1998AmJPh..66..392Z }}</ref>
* Most [[diamond]]s are not formed from highly compressed [[coal]]. More than 99 percent of diamonds ever mined have formed in the conditions of extreme heat and pressure about {{Convert|90|mi}} below the earth's surface. Coal is formed from prehistoric plants buried much closer to the surface, and is unlikely to migrate below {{Convert|2|mi}} through common geological processes. Most diamonds that have been dated are older than the first land plants, and are therefore older than coal. It is possible that diamonds can form from coal in [[subduction zone]]s and in [[meteoroid]] impacts, but diamonds formed in this way are rare and the carbon source is more likely carbonate rocks and organic carbon in sediments, rather than coal.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://geology.com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/
|title=How do diamonds form? They don't form from coal!
|first=Hobart |last=King
|date=2012
|work=geology.com
|publisher=geology.com
|accessdate=June 29, 2012
| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131030014537/http://geology.com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/ |archivedate = 2013-10-30| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>"10 common scientific misconceptions" Amelia Pak-Harvey CSMonitor Oct 31 2013 http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/1031/10-common-scientific-misconceptions/Diamonds-form-from-pressurized-coal</ref>

===Mathematics===
[[File:Kapitolinischer Pythagoras adjusted.jpg|thumb|[[Pythagoras]] was not credited with discovering the [[Pythagorean theorem]] until centuries after his death.<ref name="Riedweg"/><ref name="Kahn2001"/>]]

* Although the Greek philosopher [[Pythagoras]] is most famous today for his alleged mathematical discoveries,<ref name="Kahn2001">{{cite book|last=Kahn|first=Charles H.|date=2001|title=Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History|url=https://books.google.com/?id=GKUtAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=Pythagoreanism#v=onepage&q=Pythagoreanism&f=false|location=Indianapolis, Indiana and Cambridge, England|publisher=Hackett Publishing Company|isbn=978-0-87220-575-8|pages=1–3, 32–33|ref=harv}}</ref> classical historians dispute whether he himself ever actually made any significant contributions to the field.<ref name="Burkert1972">{{cite book|last=Burkert|first=Walter|author-link=Walter Burkert|date=1 June 1972|title=Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism|url=https://books.google.com/?id=0qqp4Vk1zG0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pythagoreanism#v=onepage&q=Pythagoreanism&f=false|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=0-674-53918-4|pages=428–433|ref=harv}}</ref><ref name="Kahn2001"/> Pythagoras cannot have been the first to discover the [[Pythagorean theorem]] because it was known and used by the [[Babylonia]]ns over a millennium before he was born<ref name="Kahn2001"/><ref name="Burkert1972"/><ref name="Riedweg">{{cite book|last=Riedweg|first=Christoph|date=2005|orig-year=2002|title=Pythagoras: His Life, Teachings, and Influence|url=https://books.google.com/?id=A8ixyQJA7_MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pythagoras#v=onepage&q=Pythagoras&f=false|location=Ithaca, New York|publisher=Cornell University Press|isbn=978-0-8014-7452-1|pages=26–27|ref=harv}}</ref> and the discovery of the theorem was not attributed to him until centuries after his death.<ref name="Riedweg"/><ref name="Kahn2001"/> The real, historical Pythagoras was probably a mystic sage who taught the doctrine of ''[[metempsychosis]]'' (reincarnation).<ref>{{cite book|last=Zhmud|first=Leonid|date=2012|title=Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans|url=https://books.google.com/?id=of-ghBD9q1QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pythagoras#v=onepage&q=Pythagoras&f=false|translator1-last=Windle|translator1-first=Kevin|translator2-last=Ireland|translator2-first=Rosh|location=Oxford, England|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-928931-8|page=232|ref=harv}}</ref>
* There is no evidence that the [[ancient Greeks]] deliberately designed the [[Parthenon]] to match the [[golden ratio]].<ref>{{cite web|author=Jesse Galef|url=http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/08/29/lies-and-legends-about-the-golden-ratio/|title=Lies and Debunked Legends about the Golden Ratio|date=August 29, 2011|accessdate=April 10, 2013 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083317/http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/08/29/lies-and-legends-about-the-golden-ratio/ | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>"Two other beliefs about [the golden ratio] are often mentioned in magazines and books: that the ancient Greeks believed it was the proportion of the rectangle the eye finds most pleasing and that they accordingly incorporated the rectangle in many of their buildings, including the famous Parthenon. These two equally persistent beliefs are likewise assuredly false and, in any case, are completely without any evidence." {{cite book|last=Devlin|first=Keith|title=The Unfinished Game: Pascal, Fermat, and the Seventeenth-Century Letter that Made the World Modern|date=2008|publisher=Basic Books|page=35}}</ref> The Parthenon was completed in 438 BCE, more than a century before the first recorded mention of the ratio by [[Euclid]]. Similarly, [[Leonardo da Vinci]]'s ''[[Vitruvian Man]]'' makes no mention of the golden ratio in its text, although it describes many other proportions.<ref>{{cite web |author=Donald E. Simanek |url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm |title=Fibonacci Flim-Flam |accessdate=April 9, 2013 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5nDtkyeKW?url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm |archivedate=February 1, 2010 |deadurl=yes |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>"Part of the process of becoming a mathematics writer is, it appears, learning that you cannot refer to the golden ratio without following the first mention by a phrase that goes something like 'which the ancient Greeks and others believed to have divine and mystical properties.' Almost as compulsive is the urge to add a second factoid along the lines of 'Leonardo Da Vinci believed that the human form displays the golden ratio.' There is not a shred of evidence to back up either claim, and every reason to assume they are both false. Yet both claims, along with various others in a similar vein, live on." {{cite web|author=Keith Devlin|url=http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_07.html|title=The Myth That Will Not Go Away|accessdate=April 10, 2013|date=May 2007 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20130701231044/http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_05_07.html | archivedate = 2013-07-01| deadurl=yes}}</ref>
*Within the realm of [[real numbers]], a [[repeating decimal]] [[0.999...|consisting of the digit 9 repeated infinitely]] represents exactly the same quantity as the number [[1 (number)|one]], despite appearing to be smaller at first glance. Within the realm of [[infinitesimal]]s, a distinction between the two forms can be of use.<ref>{{cite book|first=José Amado |last=Benardete |title=Infinity: An essay in metaphysics |publisher=Clarendon Press |year=1964 |page=279 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=wMgtAAAAMAAJ}}</ref>

===Physics===
[[File:Equal transit-time NASA wrong1.gif|thumb|upright=1.2|An illustration of the (incorrect) equal-transit-time explanation of aerofoil lift]]
* It is not true that [[Lift (force)|lift force]] is generated by the air taking the same time to travel above and below an aircraft's wing.<ref name="NASA_Incorrect_Theory1">{{cite web|url=http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html |title=Incorrect Lift Theory |publisher=NASA Glenn Research Center |work=grc.nasa.gov |date=July 28, 2008 |accessdate=January 13, 2011 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140427084226/http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html | archivedate = 2014-04-27| deadurl=no}} (Java applet).</ref> This misconception, sometimes called the [[equal transit-time fallacy]], is widespread among textbooks and non-technical reference books, and even appears in pilot training materials. In fact the air moving over the top of an aerofoil generating lift is always moving much faster than the equal transit theory would imply,<ref name="NASA_Incorrect_Theory1" /> as described in the [[Equal transit-time fallacy|incorrect]] and [[Lift (force)#Simplified physical explanations of lift on an airfoil|correct explanations]] of lift force.
* Blowing over a curved piece of paper does not demonstrate [[Bernoulli's principle#Misapplications of Bernoulli's principle in common classroom demonstrations|Bernoulli's principle]]. Although a common classroom experiment is often explained this way,<ref>* {{cite web
|url = http://makeprojects.com/Project/Origami-Flying-Disk/327/1
|title = This occurs because of Bernoulli's principle – fast-moving air has lower pressure than non-moving air
|publisher = Make Magazine
}}
* {{cite web
|url = http://www.physics.umn.edu/outreach/pforce/circus/Bernoulli.html
|title = " Faster-moving fluid, lower pressure. ... When the demonstrator holds the paper in front of his mouth and blows across the top, he is creating an area of faster-moving air." University of Minnesota School of Physics and Astronomy
|access-date = September 5, 2012
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120310190206/http://www.physics.umn.edu/outreach/pforce/circus/Bernoulli.html
|archive-date = March 10, 2012
|dead-url = yes
|df = mdy-all
}}
* "Bernoulli's Principle states that faster moving air has lower pressure... You can demonstrate Bernoulli's Principle by blowing over a piece of paper held horizontally across your lips." {{cite web
|url = http://www.tallshipschannelislands.com/PDFs/Educational_Packet.pdf
|title = Archived copy
|accessdate = 2012-06-25
|deadurl = yes
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131203014334/http://www.tallshipschannelislands.com/PDFs/Educational_Packet.pdf
|archivedate = December 3, 2013
|df = mdy
}}</ref> it is false to make a connection between the flow on the two sides of the paper using Bernoulli's equation since the air above and below are different flow fields and Bernoulli's principle only applies within a flow field.<ref>
* "If the lift in figure A were caused by "Bernoulli principle," then the paper in figure B should droop further when air is blown beneath it. However, as shown, it raises when the upward pressure gradient in downward-curving flow adds to atmospheric pressure at the paper lower surface." Gale M. Craig PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES OF WINGED FLIGHT http://www.regenpress.com/aerodynamics.pdf
* "In fact, the pressure in the air blown out of the lungs is equal to that of the surrounding air..." Babinsky http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/38/6/001/pdf/pe3_6_001.pdf
* "...air does not have a reduced lateral pressure (or static pressure...) simply because it is caused to move, the static pressure of free air does not decrease as the speed of the air increases, it misunderstanding Bernoulli's principle to suggest that this is what it tells us, and the behavior of the curved paper is explained by other reasoning than Bernoulli's principle." Peter Eastwell ''Bernoulli? Perhaps, but What About Viscosity?'' The Science Education Review, 6(1) 2007 [http://www.scienceeducationreview.com/open_access/eastwell-bernoulli.pdf PDF]
* "Make a strip of writing paper about 5 cm X 25 cm. Hold it in front of your lips so that it hangs out and down making a convex upward surface. When you blow across the top of the paper, it rises. Many books attribute this to the lowering of the air pressure on top solely to the Bernoulli effect. Now use your fingers to form the paper into a curve that it is slightly concave upward along its whole length and again blow along the top of this strip. The paper now bends downward...an often-cited experiment which is usually taken as demonstrating the common explanation of lift does not do so..." {{cite web |url=http://karmak.org/archive/2003/02/coanda_effect.html |title=Jef Raskin ''Coanda Effect: Understanding Why Wings Work'' }}
* "Blowing over a piece of paper does not demonstrate Bernoulli's equation. While it is true that a curved paper lifts when flow is applied on one side, this is not because air is moving at different speeds on the two sides... ''It is false to make a connection between the flow on the two sides of the paper using Bernoulli's equation.''" Holger Babinsky How Do Wings Work" Physics Education 38(6) http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/38/6/001/pdf/pe3_6_001.pdf
* "An explanation based on Bernoulli's principle is not applicable to this situation, because this principle has nothing to say about the interaction of air masses having different speeds... Also, while Bernoulli's principle allows us to compare fluid speeds and pressures along a single streamline and... along two different streamlines that originate under identical fluid conditions, using Bernoulli's principle to compare the air above and below the curved paper in Figure 1 is nonsensical; in this case, there aren't any streamlines at all below the paper!" Peter Eastwell ''Bernoulli? Perhaps, but What About Viscosity?'' The Science Education Review 6(1) 2007 http://www.scienceeducationreview.com/open_access/eastwell-bernoulli.pdf
* "The well-known demonstration of the phenomenon of lift by means of lifting a page cantilevered in one's hand by blowing horizontally along it is probably more a demonstration of the forces inherent in the Coanda effect than a demonstration of Bernoulli's law; for, here, an air jet issues from the mouth and attaches to a curved (and, in this case pliable) surface. The upper edge is a complicated vortex-laden mixing layer and the distant flow is quiescent, so that Bernoulli's law is hardly applicable." David Auerbach ''Why Aircreft Fly'' European Journal of Physics Vol 21 p 289 http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/21/4/302/pdf/0143-0807_21_4_302.pdf
* "Millions of children in science classes are being asked to blow over curved pieces of paper and observe that the paper "lifts"... They are then asked to believe that Bernoulli's theorem is responsible... Unfortunately, the "dynamic lift" involved...is not properly explained by Bernoulli's theorem." Norman F. Smith "Bernoulli and Newton in Fluid Mechanics" ''The Physics Teacher Nov 1972'' https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2352317</ref> The paper rises because the air follows the curve of the paper and a curved streamline will develop pressure differences perpendicular to the airflow.<ref name="airflow">
* "...if a streamline is curved, there must be a pressure gradient across the streamline, with the pressure increasing in the direction away from the centre of curvature." Babinsky http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/38/6/001/pdf/pe3_6_001.pdf
* {{cite journal |journal=School Science and Mathematics |url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1973.tb09040.x/pdf |title="The curved paper turns the stream of air downward, and this action produces the lift reaction that lifts the paper." Norman F. Smith ''Bernoulli, Newton, and Dynamic Lift Part II'' School Science and Mathematics |page=333 |issue=4 |volume=73 |date=17 March 2010 |doi=10.1111/j.1949-8594.1973.tb09040.x|last1=Smith |first1=Norman F }}
* "The curved surface of the tongue creates unequal air pressure and a lifting action. ... Lift is caused by air moving over a curved surface." ''AERONAUTICS An Educator's Guide with Activities in Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education'' by NASA p. 26 http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/58152main_Aeronautics.Educator.pdf</ref> Bernoulli's principle predicts that the decrease in pressure is associated with an increase in speed, i.e. that as the air passes over the paper it speeds up and moves faster than it was moving when it left the demonstrator's mouth. But this is not apparent from the demonstration.<ref>'"Demonstrations" of Bernoulli's principle are often given as demonstrations of the physics of lift. They are truly demonstrations of lift, but certainly not of Bernoulli's principle.' David F Anderson & Scott Eberhardt ''Understanding Flight'' p. 229 https://books.google.com/books?id=52Hfn7uEGSoC&pg=PA229
* "As an example, take the misleading experiment most often used to "demonstrate" Bernoulli's principle. Hold a piece of paper so that it curves over your finger, then blow across the top. The paper will rise. However most people do not realize that the paper would NOT rise if it was flat, even though you are blowing air across the top of it at a furious rate. Bernoulli's principle does not apply directly in this case. This is because the air on the two sides of the paper did not start out from the same source. The air on the bottom is ambient air from the room, but the air on the top came from your mouth where you actually increased its speed without decreasing its pressure by forcing it out of your mouth. As a result the air on both sides of the flat paper actually has the same pressure, even though the air on the top is moving faster. The reason that a curved piece of paper does rise is that the air from your mouth speeds up even more as it follows the curve of the paper, which in turn lowers the pressure according to Bernoulli." From The Aeronautics File By Max Feil
</ref>
* The [[Coriolis effect]] does not cause water to consistently drain from basins in a clockwise/counter-clockwise direction depending on the hemisphere. Rotation is determined by what ever minor rotation is initially present at the time the water starts to drain. The Coriolis force can impact the direction of the flow of water but only in rare circumstances. The water has to be so still that the effective rotation rate of the Earth is faster than that of the water relative to its container and the externally applied torques (such as might be caused by flow over an uneven bottom surface) have to be very small.
* [[Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics#Gyroscopic effects|Gyroscopic forces]] or [[Bicycle and motorcycle geometry#Trail|geometric trail]] are not required for a rider to [[bicycle and motorcycle dynamics#Other hypotheses|balance]] a bicycle or for it to demonstrate [[Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics#Self-stability|self-stability]].<ref name="KMPRS">{{cite journal
| journal = [[Science (journal)|Science]] | author = J. D. G. Kooijman | author2 = J. P. Meijaard | author3 = J. M. Papadopoulos| author4 = A. Ruina | author5 = A. L. Schwab | last-author-amp = yes | title = A bicycle can be self-stable without gyrosocpic or caster effects | url = http://bicycle.tudelft.nl/stablebicycle/StableBicyclev34Revised.pdf | volume = 332 | issue = 6027 | pages = 339–42 | doi = 10.1126/science.1201959 | format = PDF | date = April 15, 2011 | accessdate = January 22, 2013 | bibcode=2011Sci...332..339K}}</ref><ref name="BikeGyro" /> Although gyroscopic forces and trail can be contributing factors, it [[Two-mass-skate bicycle|has been demonstrated]] that those factors are neither required nor sufficient by themselves.<ref name="KMPRS" />
* The idea that [[lightning]] never strikes the same place twice is one of the oldest and best known [[superstition]]s about lightning. There is no reason that lightning would not be able to strike the same place twice; if there is a thunderstorm in a given area, then objects and places which are more prominent or conductive (and therefore minimize distance) are more likely to be struck. For instance, lightning strikes the [[Empire State Building]] in New York City about 100 times per year.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2005/ps_3.html|title=spinoff 2005 – Lightning Often Strikes Twice|publisher=Office of the Chief Technologist, NASA|work = Spinoff |date=March 25, 2010|accessdate=June 23, 2010 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120325015918/http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2005/ps_3.html | archivedate = 2012-03-25| deadurl=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Staff |url=http://weather.weatherbug.com/weather-news/weather-reports.html?story=6571 |title=Full weather report story from WeatherBug.com |publisher=Weather.weatherbug.com|date=May 17, 2010|accessdate=June 23, 2010 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140109065138/http://weather.weatherbug.com/weather-news/weather-reports.html?story=6571 | archivedate = 2014-01-09| deadurl=no}}</ref>
* A [[penny]] dropped from the Empire State Building will not kill a person or crack the sidewalk.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.misconceptionjunction.com/index.php/2010/10/dropping-a-penny-from-the-top-of-the-empire-state-building-isnt-dangerous/|title=Dropping A Penny From The Top Of The Empire State Building Isn't Dangerous|publisher=misconceptionjunction.com | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110928152107/http://www.misconceptionjunction.com/index.php/2010/10/dropping-a-penny-from-the-top-of-the-empire-state-building-isnt-dangerous/ | archivedate = 2011-09-28| deadurl=no}}</ref> The [[terminal velocity]] of a falling penny is about {{Convert|30|–|50|mph|sigfig=1}}, and the penny will not exceed that speed regardless of the height from which it is dropped. At that speed, its energy is not enough to penetrate a human skull or crack concrete, as demonstrated on [[MythBusters (2003 season)#Penny Drop|an episode of ''MythBusters'']]. As ''MythBusters'' noted, the Empire State Building is a particularly poor setting for this misconception, since its tapered shape would make it impossible to drop anything directly from the top to street level. ''MythBusters'' also pointed out that this doesn't mean that dropping coins from high altitude is safe. It might still cause harm.
* Using a [[programmable thermostat]]'s setback feature to limit heating or cooling in a temporarily unoccupied building does not waste as much energy as leaving the temperature constant. They actually save energy (five to fifteen percent) because [[heat transfer]] across the surface of the building is roughly proportional to the temperature difference between its inside and the outside. <ref>[https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/thermostats U.S. Department of Energy/energy.gov, Home » Thermostats]</ref><ref>[https://www.achrnews.com/articles/98114-programmable-thermostat-myths-know-the-facts-and-boost-your-profits Programmable thermostat myths: Know the facts and boost your profits, The Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration NEWS/achrnews.com]</ref>

===Economics===

===Psychology===
* [[Dyslexia]] is not a cognitive disorder characterized by the reversal of letters or words and mirror writing. It is a disorder of people who have at least average intelligence and who have difficulty in spelling words, reading quickly, writing words, "sounding out" words in the head, pronouncing words when reading aloud and understanding what they read. Although some dyslexics also have problems with letter reversal, that is not a symptom that is characteristic of dyslexia.<ref name="LilienfeldLynn2011">{{cite book|last1=Lilienfeld|first1=Scott O.|authorlink1=Scott Lilienfeld|last2=Lynn|first2=Steven Jay|last3=Ruscio|first3=John|last4=Beyerstein|first4=Barry L.|authorlink4=Barry Beyerstein|title=50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8DlS0gfO_QUC&pg=PT88|date=15 September 2011|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-4443-6074-5|pages=88–89}}</ref>
* There is no scientific evidence for the existence of "photographic" memory in adults (the ability to remember images with so high a precision as to mimic a camera),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/photographic-memory/|title=Photographic Memory|publisher=indianapublicmedia.org |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140427082738/http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/photographic-memory/ |archivedate=2014-04-27|deadurl=no}}</ref> but some young children have [[eidetic memory]].<ref name="Simola">{{cite book|author=Anthony Simola|title=The Roving Mind: A Modern Approach to Cognitive Enhancement|publisher=ST Press|isbn=069240905X|year=2015|page=117|accessdate=May 10, 2016|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p4ZMBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT117}}</ref> Many people have claimed to have a photographic memory, but those people have been shown to have good memories as a result of [[mnemonic|mnemonic devices]] rather than a natural capacity for detailed memory encoding.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/ |title=Kaavya Syndrome: The accused Harvard plagiarist doesn't have a photographic memory. No one does |author=Foer, Joshua |date=April 27, 2006 |work=Slate |accessdate=January 20, 2013 |archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/6Hne6im3E?url=http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/ |archivedate=July 2, 2013 |deadurl=no |df=mdy }}</ref> There are rare cases of individuals with [[exceptional memory]], but none of them have a memory that mimics a camera.
* [[Schizophrenia]] is not split or multiple personality disorder; that is, [[dissociative identity disorder]].<ref name="MultiplePersonalities" /> The term was coined from the Greek roots ''schizein'' and ''phrēn'', "to split" and "mind", in reference to a "splitting of mental functions" seen in schizophrenia, not a splitting of the personality.<ref>{{cite book |author= Baucum, Don |title= Psychology |year= 2006 |publisher= Barron's |location= Hauppauge, N.Y. |isbn= 9780764134210 |page= 182 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=iCVSdYdA36EC&pg=PA182 |edition= 2nd}}</ref>

===Transportation===
* Toilet waste is never intentionally jettisoned from an aircraft. All waste is collected in tanks which are emptied into [[Ground support equipment#Lavatory service vehicles|toilet waste vehicles]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/11/19/on-world-toilet-day-let-us-praise-the-airline-lav/|last=Philips|first=Matt|title=On World Toilet Day, Let Us Praise the Airline Lav|work=The Middle Seat Terminal (Wall Street Journal)|accessdate=April 2, 2009|date=November 19, 2008 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20131214105710/https://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2008/11/19/on-world-toilet-day-let-us-praise-the-airline-lav/ | archivedate = 2013-12-14| deadurl=no}}</ref> [[blue ice (aircraft)|Blue ice]] is caused by accidental leakage from the waste tank. Passenger trains, on the other hand, have indeed historically [[Passenger train toilets|flushed onto the tracks]]; modern trains usually have retention tanks on board and therefore do not dispose of waste in such a manner.
* [[automotive battery|Automotive batteries]] stored on a [[concrete]] floor do not discharge any faster than they would on other surfaces,<ref name="Snopes">{{Citation |url= http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/battery.asp |title= Battery Parked |work= [[Snopes.com]] |date= February 8, 2011 |accessdate= June 2, 2013 }}</ref> in spite of worry among Americans that concrete harms batteries.<ref name="example_list">Examples of car battery on concrete misconception in the US from 1983–2011:
* {{Citation |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=m9gDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22 |magazine=[[Popular Mechanics]] |date= December 1983 |first= Mort |last= Shulz |title= Car Clinic |page= 37 }}
* {{Citation |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=2hhPIyxe754C&pg=PA215 |page= 215 |title= How to Restore Your Ford Pick-Up |first= Tom |last= Brownell |publisher= MotorBooks International |date= 1993 |isbn= 978-1-61059-029-7 }}
* {{Citation |title= Popular Mechanics Complete Car Care Manual; Popular Mechanics Series |publisher= Hearst Books |date= 2005 |isbn= 978-1-58816-439-1 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=39xxTCsBjUAC&pg=PA289 |page= 289}}
* {{Citation |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=l_1ngoGACCUC&pg=PA210 |title= Ford Mustang Buyer's and Restoration Guide, 1964 1/2-2007 |first= Nilda |last= Sessler |publisher= Indy Tech Publishing |date= 2006 |isbn= 978-0-7906-1326-0 }}
* {{Citation |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=t5uTktdsu3AC&pg=PA30 |page= 30 |title= Advanced photovoltaic installations |first1= John |last1= Balfour |first2= Michael |last2= Shaw |first3= Nicole |last3= Bremer Nash |publisher= Jones & Bartlett Publishers |date= 2011 |isbn= 978-1-4496-2471-2 |accessdate= June 2, 2013 }}</ref> Early batteries might have been susceptible to moisture from floors due to leaky, porous cases, but for many years [[Lead–acid battery|lead–acid car batteries]] have had impermeable polypropylene cases.<ref>{{Citation |url= https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=k8BIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=94EMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2232,1623674 |title= No End to Battery Storage Debate |newspaper= The Vindicator |date= November 4, 1999 |first1= Tom |last1= Magliozzi |author1link= Tom Magliozzi |first2= Ray |last2= Magliozzi |author2-link= Ray Magliozzi |page= 37 }}</ref> While most modern automotive batteries are [[VRLA battery|sealed]], and do not leak battery acid when properly stored and maintained,<ref name="Cartalk">{{Citation |title= Ask Click and Clack: Answers from Car Talk |first1= Tom |last1= Magliozzi |author1link= Tom Magliozzi |first2= Ray |last2= Magliozzi |author2-link= Ray Magliozzi |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Z1nntWoIBp4C&pg=PA68 |pages=68–69 |publisher= Chronicle Books |date= 2008 |isbn= 978-0-8118-6477-0 |accessdate= June 2, 2013 }}</ref><ref name="PopMech2000">{{citation |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MxXlKb9wIe0C&pg=PA136 |title= Car Care Auto Clinic |magazine= [[Popular Mechanics]] |date= November 2000 |volume= 177 |issue= 11 |issn=0032-4558 |page=136 |accessdate= June 2, 2013 }}</ref> the sulfuric acid in conventional "flooded" lead-acid batteries can leak out and stain, etch, or corrode concrete floors.<ref>{{cite news|title=Use care in cleaning battery-acid stain|url=https://www.seattletimes.com/life/lifestyle/use-care-in-cleaning-battery-acid-stain/|website=The Seattle Times|accessdate=9 May 2018|date=4 October 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Managing Used Lead-Acid Batteries|url=http://www.gecap.org/pdf/lead-acid_batteries.pdf|website=Georgia Environmental Compliance Assistance Program|publisher=Georgia Tech Research Institute|accessdate=9 May 2018|date=July 2002}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Conventional wisdom]]
* [[Counterintuitive]]
* [[Factoid]]
* [[List of cognitive biases]]
* [[List of fallacies]]
* [[List of topics characterized as pseudoscience]]
* [[List of urban legends]]
* [[Old wives' tale]]
* [[Outline of public relations]]
* ''[[Pseudodoxia Epidemica]]''
* [[Pseudoscience]]
* ''[[QI]]''
* [[Stereotype]]
* [[The Straight Dope]]
* [[Urban legends about drugs]]
{{Div col end}}

==References==
{{Reflist|refs=

<ref name="Hypothermia">
* {{cite press release
|title=Beware of Summer Hazards!
|publisher=Korea Consumer Protection Board (KCPB)
|date=July 18, 2006
|url=http://english.cpb.or.kr/user/bbs/code02_detail.php?av_jbno=2006071800002
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051420/http://english.cpb.or.kr/user/bbs/code02_detail.php?av_jbno=2006071800002
|archivedate=September 27, 2007
|accessdate=September 5, 2009
|deadurl=yes
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite web
|last=Surridge
|first=Grant
|title=Newspapers fan belief in urban myth
|work=JoongAng Daily
|date=September 22, 2004
|url=http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200409/22/200409222123324579900091009101.html
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070110052746/http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200409/22/200409222123324579900091009101.html
|archivedate=January 10, 2007
|publisher=Chicago Reader, Inc.
|accessdate=August 2, 2007
|deadurl=yes
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite web
|last=Adams
|first=Cecil
|title=Will sleeping in a closed room with an electric fan cause death?
|work=The Straight Dope
|date=September 12, 1997
|url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1245/will-sleeping-in-a-closed-room-with-an-electric-fan-cause-death
|publisher=Chicago Reader, Inc.
|accessdate=August 2, 2007
}}
* {{cite web
|last=Adams
|first=Cecil
|url=http://www.esquire.com/style/answer-fella/korean-fan-death-0209
|title=Why Fan Death Is an Urban Myth
|accessdate=September 6, 2009
}}</ref>
<ref name="HairCare">* [http://beauty.about.com/library/bltips531.htm About.com Beauty.about.com] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101102162714/http://beauty.about.com/library/bltips531.htm |date=November 2, 2010 }}
* {{cite web
|title = disabled-world.com
|url = http://www.disabled-world.com/health/dermatology/hair/hair-care.php
|accessdate = April 13, 2009
|archiveurl = https://www.webcitation.org/5viIsSWgO?url=http://www.cbc.ca/streetcents/features/front_question_of_the_week.html
|archivedate = January 13, 2011
|deadurl = yes
|df = mdy
}}
* {{cite news
|url = http://www.cbc.ca/streetcents/features/front_question_of_the_week.html
|title = Question: What is up with colour-enhancing shampoos? Do they work?
|accessdate = January 13, 2010
|publisher = CBC News
|location = Canada
|archiveurl = https://www.webcitation.org/5viIsSWgO?url=http://www.cbc.ca/streetcents/features/front_question_of_the_week.html
|archivedate = 2011-01-13
|deadurl = yes
}}
*</ref>



<ref name="BikeGyro">
* {{cite book |title=Bicycling Science |edition=Second |last=Whitt |first=Frank R.|first2=David G. |last2=Wilson |date=1982 |publisher=Massachusetts Institute of Technology | isbn=978-0-262-23111-4 | pages=198–233}}
* {{cite web
|url=http://www.losethetrainingwheels.org/default.aspx?Lev=2&ID=34
|publisher=LoseTheTrainingWheels.org
|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20061010070125/http://www.losethetrainingwheels.org/default.aspx?Lev=2&ID=34
|archivedate=October 10, 2006
|title=Bicycle Science
|last=Klein
|first=Richard E.
|display-authors=etal
|accessdate=August 4, 2006
|deadurl=yes
|df=mdy
}}
* {{cite journal
|last1=Jones
|first1=David E. H.
|pages=34–40
|title=The Stability of the Bicycle
|volume=23
|journal=Physics Today
|date=1970
|url=http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Efajans/Teaching/MoreBikeFiles/JonesBikeBW.pdf
|doi=10.1063/1.3022064
|issue=4
|bibcode=1970PhT....23d..34J
}}</ref>

<ref name="MultiplePersonalities">''[[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|Citation overkill]]''
* {{cite web |url=http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Schizophrenia9&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=118290 |title=Schizophrenia |publisher=National Alliance on Mental Illness |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120504155431/http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Schizophrenia9&Template=%2FContentManagement%2FContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=118290 |archivedate=May 4, 2012 }}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.mha-oc.org/10myths.html |title=10 Myths About Mental Illness |publisher=Mental Health Association |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110519221144/http://www.mha-oc.org/10myths.html |archivedate=May 19, 2011 }}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.schizophreniasymptoms.com/dispelling_the_myths.php |title=Schizophrenia: Dispelling the Myths |publisher=schizophreniasymptoms.com |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://archive.is/20100924100206/http://www.schizophreniasymptoms.com/dispelling_the_myths.php |archivedate=September 24, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.academyofct.org/Library/InfoManage/Guide.asp?FolderID=1097&SessionID= |title=Schizophrenia and Cognitive Therapy |publisher=Academy of Cognitive Therapy |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110930233958/http://www.academyofct.org/Library/InfoManage/Guide.asp?FolderID=1097&SessionID= |archivedate=September 30, 2011 }}
* {{cite web |url=http://health.discovery.com/tv/psych-week/articles/myths-about-dissociative-identity-disorder.html |title=5 Myths About Dissociative Identity Disorder |publisher=discovery.com |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101228192015/http://health.discovery.com/tv/psych-week/articles/myths-about-dissociative-identity-disorder.html |archivedate=December 28, 2010 }}
* {{cite web |url=http://www.thebrainhealth.com/schizophrenia-vs-dissociative-identity-disorder.html |title=Schizophrenia vs. Dissociative Identity Disorder |publisher=thebrainhealth.com |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110402062303/http://www.thebrainhealth.com/schizophrenia-vs-dissociative-identity-disorder.html |archivedate=April 2, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}
* {{cite journal |author=Picchioni M. M. |author2=Murray R.M. |title=Schizophrenia |journal=BMJ |volume=335 |issue=7610 |pages=91–95 |date=July 2007 |pmid=17626963 |pmc=1914490 |doi=10.1136/bmj.39227.616447.BE}}</ref><ref name="JamesWatt">
* {{cite book|last=Rolt|first=L. T. C.|title=James Watt|date=1962|publisher=Batsford|isbn=978-1-163-47052-7|page=10|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VNrlAAAAIAAJ}}
* {{cite book|last=Carroll|first=John Millar|title=Designing interaction: psychology at the human-computer interface|date=1991|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-40056-5|page=76|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=coY6AAAAIAAJ}}
* {{cite book|last=Green|first=Joey|title=Contrary to Popular Belief: More Than 250 False Facts Revealed|date=2005|publisher=Broadway Books|isbn=978-0-7679-1992-0|page=20|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ew38DByz-DQC}}
* {{cite web|url=http://physicsworldarchive.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=3%2F12%2Fphwv3i12a41%40pwa-xml&qt=|title=Invention – Myth and Reality|publisher=Physics World|date=1990}}</ref>
}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book|last=Diefendorf|first=David|title=Amazing... But False!: Hundreds of "Facts" You Thought Were True, But Aren't|publisher=Sterling|date=2007|isbn=978-1-4027-3791-6}}
* {{cite book|last=Green|first=Joey|title=Contrary to Popular Belief: More than 250 False Facts Revealed|publisher=Broadway|date=2005|isbn=978-0-7679-1992-0}}
* {{cite book|last=Johnsen|first=Ferris|title=The Encyclopedia of Popular Misconceptions: The Ultimate Debunker's Guide to Widely Accepted Fallacies|publisher=Carol Publishing Group|date=1994|isbn=978-0-8065-1556-4}}
* {{cite book|last=Kruszelnicki|first=Karl|author2=Adam Yazxhi |title=Great Mythconceptions: The Science Behind the Myths|publisher=Andrews McMeel Publishing|date=2006|isbn=978-0-7407-5364-0}}
* {{cite book|last=Lloyd|first=John|author2=John Mitchinson |title=The Book of General Ignorance|publisher=Harmony Books|date=2006|isbn=978-0-307-39491-0}}
* {{cite book|last=Lloyd|first=John|author2=John Mitchinson |title=The Second Book Of General Ignorance|publisher=Faber and Faber|date=2010|isbn=978-0-571-26965-5}}
* {{cite book|title=Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language|last1=O'Conner|first1=Patricia T.|last2=Kellerman|first2=Stewart|date=2009|publisher=Random House|location=New York|isbn=978-1-4000-6660-5}}
* {{cite journal|last=Scudellari|first=Megan|title=The science myths that will not die|publisher=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|date=17 December 2015|url=http://www.nature.com/news/the-science-myths-that-will-not-die-1.19022?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews|doi=10.1038/528322a|pmid=26672537|volume=528|issue=7582|journal=Nature|pages=322–25|bibcode = 2015Natur.528..322S }}
* {{cite book|last=Tuleja|first=Tad|title=Fabulous Fallacies: More Than 300 Popular Beliefs That Are Not True|publisher=Galahad Books|date=1999|isbn=978-1-57866-065-0}}
* {{cite book|last=Varasdi|first=J. Allen|title=Myth Information: More Than 590 Popular Misconceptions, Fallacies, and Misbeliefs Explained!|publisher=Ballantine Books|date=1996|isbn=978-0-345-41049-8}}

==External links==
* [http://amasci.com/miscon/opphys.html List of children's misconceptions about science]
* [http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html Misconceptions taught by science textbooks]
* [http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/BadScience.html Bad Science]
* [http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/lehmannlab/badchemistry.html Bad Chemistry]
* [http://www.snopes.com/ Snopes – Urban Legend Reference]

{{DEFAULTSORT:List Of Common Misconceptions}}
[[Category:Society-related lists|Common misconceptions]]
[[Category:Misconceptions| ]]

Talk:List of common misconceptions

2018-10-05T05:13:41Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Food and Cooking Issues */ new section

{{Old AfD multi |date=26 September 2018 |result='''keep''' |page=List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=yes|bottom=yes}}
{{notice|header=Inclusion Criteria|A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following:
*The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.
*The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item ''and'' the fact that it is a common misconception.
*The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
*The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
If you propose an entry that does ''not'' fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please include your rationale for inclusion.
}}
{{ArticleHistory|action1=AFD
|action1date=18:42, 29 October 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=84390149

|action2=AFD
|action2date=9:29, 24 March 2009
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)
|action2result=keep
|action2oldid=279300637

|action3=AFD
|action3date=11:11, 8 February 2011
|action3link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination)
|action3result=no consensus
|action3oldid=412627218

|action4=FLC
|action4date=17:11, 25 April 2011
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of common misconceptions/archive1
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=425807313

|topic = history
|currentstatus=FFLC
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Lists |class=List |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Agriculture |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Biology |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject History |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Islam |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Judaism |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Literature |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=list |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Psychology |class=list |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=list|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sexuality |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sports |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Technology |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Popular Culture |class=B |importance=High}}
}}
{{Press
|author=
|title=The end of Wikipedia as we know it?
|org=''[[Irish Times]]'' (subscription required)
|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2011/0810/1224302179868.html
|date=8 August 2011
|quote=Here’s our Wikipedia Articles Worth Reading ''(first listed)''
|archiveurl=
|archivedate=
|accessdate = 2013-02-21

|author2=Toby Manhire
|title2=Common misconceptions: 10 of the best
|org2=''[[New Zealand Listener]]''
|url2= http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/common-misconceptions-10-of-the-best/
|date2= 14 February 2013
|quote2=... one of its best pages ...
|archiveurl2=http://www.webcitation.org/6EbkZJJwp
|archivedate2=2013-02-21
|accessdate2= 2013-02-21

|author3 = Alexis Kleinman, Maxwell Strachan
|subject3 = article
|title3 = The 49 Most Entertaining Wikipedia Entries Ever Created
|org3 = [[The Huffington Post]]
|url3 = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/strangest-wikipedia-entries_n_6463488.html
|date3 = 14 January 2015
|accessdate3 = 8 March 2015

|author4 = Douglas, Nick
|title4 = Get Smart With Wikipedia’s List of Common Misconceptions
|org4 = [[LifeHacker]]
|url4 = http://lifehacker.com/get-smart-with-wikipedia-s-list-of-common-misconception-1797840410
|date4 = 15 August 2017
|accessdate4 = 10 September 2017

|url5=https://www.buzzfeed.com/eleanorbate/wiki-pages-to-keep-you-awake-add-yours?utm_term=.jsNZDq7g0#.qpbQVmpXj
|title5=What Totally Fascinating Wikipedia Pages Have Kept You Reading All Night?
|org5=[[BuzzFeed]]
|author5=Ellie Bate
|date5=November 22, 2017
}}

{{high traffic
|date=4 January 2011 |site=xkcd |url=http://www.xkcd.com/843/
|date2=12 January 2011 |site2=Boing Boing |url2=http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/11/wikipedias-list-of-c.html
|date3=3 February 2011 |site3=i am bored |url3=http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=56483
|small=
}}
{{annual readership}}

{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=4 |units=weeks
|small=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive index
|mask=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 21
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(28d)
|archive = Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d
|small=
}}



== Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018 ==

{{edit semi-protected|List of common misconceptions|answered=yes}}
Change 'The word's true origin is unknown, but it existed in the Middle Scots period' to 'The word golf is thought to have originated from the old Dutch word for club or bat: "kolf."' Source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/golf [[User:Rdegregzz4004|Rdegregzz4004]] ([[User talk:Rdegregzz4004|talk]]) 16:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
:This is a reference to the [[golf]] misconception about it not being an acronym of "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden". Instead of doing that I just removed it. The phrase "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden" is mentioned in the article, but not the misconception, so fails inclusion criteria. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

== poverty ==

Global poverty has declined dramatically, but the overwhelming majority of people think it hasn't.<ref> HumanProgress, "What 19 in 20 Americans Don't Know About World Poverty," April 30, 2018</ref>

Where should this go? I'm kinda surprised there's no "economics" section. There are a lot of common misconceptions about economics. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 19:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:It would have to be a reliably sourced stable part of a link-able article. We got [[Poverty]], but it ain't stable ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty&type=revision&diff=856975366&oldid=856754037 its new]) and its not [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/human-progress/ reliably sourced]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

::Our World in Data is a very reliable source, right? But I'm trying to find the original source... [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 20:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it! <ref>https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty</ref> [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 20:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how useful mediabiasfactcheck.com is in determining reliability for Wikipedia, but for what it's worth, left right bias doesn't seem to be a problem here, since one source is left and one right. (And still, neither are extreme.) [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

:Linked source fails a bit in reliability because its more of a primary source paper, not the boiled down secondary source required (see [[WP:PST]]). It also does not seem to describe a misconception. For a list of "common misconceptions" there would have to be (several) main stream sources describing the misconception specifically. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

::Shouldn't it be okay in this case since it's not [[WP:SYNTH]]? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 23:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

:::We really haven't got past WP:V yet, let alone criteria #2. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

::::What do you mean, you don't think it's verifiable? I don't understand. Our World in Data is widely cited and has a reputation for producing high quality research. Do you really think they would just make something up? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 00:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::We have only one source claiming this is a misconception, HumanProgress... and yeah, they are known to make stuff up. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::Ballotpedia and CATO are two more secondary sources. But in this case, the data is clear, isn't it? There's no controversial or complicated analysis to make. Global absolute poverty is going down, and most people don't think so. These are facts. Do you really think that is in dispute? This is ridiculous. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 03:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::The problem is this is a list that lists Wikipedia articles that have a certain attribute, they enumerate a "common misconception". We don't make those assertions or those arguments here, no matter how well sourced. Its getting the cart before the horse. The place to discuss is [[Talk:Poverty]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Benjamin on this one. There is clearly a perception out there that global povery is as bad or worse than it was 50 to 100 years ago. I think the sources provided are certainly sufficient to show that it isn't correct. Though I agree, there isn't quite enough yet to support that it is, in fact, a misconception. I would add to that list <ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/29/29-uncomfortable-myths-about-soaring-poverty-in-america/#d1d28913963a</ref> and <ref>https://www.finca.org/campaign/world-poverty/</ref> and <ref>http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats</ref> all of which imply or openly state that global poverty is worse than it was (usually by using a misleading stat or a stat that isn't directly related to poverty like income disparity). [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 12:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
*I agree that this perception seems to exist. But we need sources showing it. We have sourcing showing that it's wrong, but we need sources showing that it exists. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
**How about this?<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j-4yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA7|title=Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think|last=Rosling|first=Hans|last2=Rönnlund|first2=Anna Rosling|last3=Rosling|first3=Ola|date=2018-04-03|publisher=Flatiron Books|isbn=9781250123817|language=en|page=7}}</ref> It verifies both that poverty has declined and that most people don't think it has. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 13:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::That source looks pretty good to me, and it supports both statements and the conclusion. Go for it. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 14:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

::::It should really be at [[Poverty]], well sourced, and stable, before its listed here. We should not front run these things. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::I'm not arguing with you, I'm just discussing where the discussion is taking place. Make the edit at [[Poverty]], and then give it a day or two. If no-one reverts, add it here. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Well, I wouldn't expect [[Poverty]] to have a section about misconceptions, that is more in this page's balliwick. If you review the section on absolute and relative poverty it does contain the same trends and statistics referenced above. That poverty is decreasing. Agree with Bryn that we don't want to get out ahead of other articles, but I'm not sure that where we would put a section about misperception in that article without making it unencylopedic. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::: I think the current wording is fine. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 13:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::::Benjamin, can you post the exact text you suggest for review? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 15:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::Cleaned up the wording in the "Global prevalence" section. I agree with [[u|Squatch347]] that making the language more encyclopedic (and looking over the sources re:what the study was and opposing views) this sounds more like peoples POV on poverty and/or their lack of awareness of a United Nations or World Bank report, not a "misconception". Also if claim has opposing viewpoints I don't think we can call it a "misconception" per [[WP:YESPOV]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::: What are you talking about? The survey question wasn't "What is your opinion of poverty?", or "Have you heard about this particular report?", it was simply, "Do you think extreme poverty has increased or decreased?". And I think the results are clear. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::: Also, to clarify, it is a fact that extreme poverty has declined. That much is not controversial. The controversial part is where exactly to set the threshold. But nevertheless, [https://ourworldindata.org/no-matter-what-global-poverty-line No matter what extreme poverty line you choose, the share of people below that poverty line has declined globally.] [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 12:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
{{OD}}
We can't get inside other peoples heads as to what they thought a question meant, hence the observation being made that making such a statement as "common misconception" in [[Poverty]] is beyond what an encyclopedia does, we just present facts and figures. That makes us fall short of listdef #3. The [[WP:SAL]]/[[WP:V]] "common misconception" would have to be a large number of sources stating directly that this is a "common misconception" to get us past listdef #2, [https://www.google.com/search?ei=XT-JW8OKGcmd5wLgtIDQCQ&q=%22extreme+poverty%22+misconception&oq=%22extreme+poverty%22+misconception&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.7534.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.UnUcx97HL9o not seeing that]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

: I think the sources are sufficient to establish the misconception. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gents, I think firm up the consensus developing and perhaps give Bryn a bit more assurance, Benjamin, can you paste here your recommended addition? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}
===Arbitrary break===

Given that Benjamin hasn't posted a recommended entry. I'll offer one: "It is a common perception that global poverty is increasing (references) both in scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined dramatically during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades (references).
[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:It strikes me as too strongly worded. I am totally on board with the notion that global poverty has gone down at a remarkable rate, almost certainly far more than most people would guess, but I'm not convinced that there are a large group of people that actually think it's gone up. I suspected something most people don't think about very often, so if we did a "man or woman in the street" survey, we did all lot of "I don't know", a few "about the same", a few" up maybe?", with the last group similar to the size of people who believe in ghosts. I think this is worthy of entry but we need to do more work on wordsmithing and I apologize for simply throwing rocks at your suggestion and not offering an improved alternative.--[[User:Sphilbrick|S Philbrick]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|(Talk)]] 18:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

::Don't worry about it, I threw it up there for people to throw rocks at. I think you are right that most people don't actually think about it much. The man on the street poll was what was discussed with the book citation referenced earlier. It seems to indicate that less than 10% of people correctly answered the question about poverty rate change, which seems somewhat dramatic. Maybe change the opening sentence to say something more like "When polled, few respondents could correctly identify that poverty rates have decreased, with a strong majority indicating they thought they had increased."

::Thoughts? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 18:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Are you referring to [https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/what-19-20-americans-dont-know-about-world-poverty this poll]?

:::That's a mildly frustrating article (unless I read it too quickly). I understand that when someone does a survey with lots of questions and lots of possible answers, it may be difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all the answers but in this case they asked one question with three possible answers. They provided the statistics for the people who got the correct answer (C), which is enough information to know the values for the sum of A and B, but they don't break out the responses for answer A. Your revised wording is correct only if you have evidence that the respondents who picked answer A are a strong majority. That doesn't appear to be in the link I provided — perhaps you have a link with more detail?--[[User:Sphilbrick|S Philbrick]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|(Talk)]] 21:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

::::That appears to be the same poll, though it came through in a different source (linked in this discussion). The conclusion that most respondents had overestimated was contained in the surrounding text. I did find this: https://globescan.com/increases-in-perceived-seriousness-of-poverty-and-homelessness-global-poll/ perhaps as another source. It also has its limitations as some of its earlier polls referenced conflate economic fairness with poverty rates. Still, it does seem to indicate that the perception of poverty as increasing is present in the country's surveyed. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 12:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some edits based on the feedback:

:: "When polled, a majority of people in most developed nations indicate they believe that global poverty is increasing [Human Progress][Forbes][Factfulness book] in both scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades [Human Progress][Our world in data][finca][globalissues][factfullness].

[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 16:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:Assuming your linked article is [[poverty]], it still fails #3, there is not a "common misconception" described at that article. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 17:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

::Both [[Poverty]] and [[Extreme poverty]] reference this as a misconception based on public opinion polls and reference the reduction. Given that, I think it qualifies fine. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 17:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
:::The benchmark here is "common misconception", not just that people think something else. That it is a common misconception needs to be hashed out at the linked article first (supposedly where the experts are), before its added here. In short you are proposing this change on the wrong talk page(s), i.e this should be discussed at [[Talk:Poverty]] and/or [[Talk:Extreme poverty]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

::::The fact that it is an incorrect belief that is widely held doesn't constitute a "common misconception?" The requirement is: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." The misconception is listed on that page and it has sources. There is nothing in there that says that we need to get a vote or consensus. It is on that page and listed with sources. Requirement met. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 19:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

{{od}}
Requirement #3 is "The ''common misconception'' is mentioned in its topic article with sources.", not "The ''misconception''"... Also the secondary sources have to state that it is common misconception, we can not do the WP:OR of comparing numbers and polls and drawing our own conclusion that it is a "common misconception". The claim is also contradicted by the very next citation in [[Poverty]], so we can not make an assertion that is is an "incorrect belief" per [[WP:YESPOV]] #2. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:That is a strained reading of that requirement at best. The common misconception is listed there. The item we are discussed is listed with secondary sources. If we were to adopt your definition, we would need to delete something around 75% of this page's content (I looked at the first 30 items and only about 6 would meet your standard, if that). Clearly the editors and admins who've been on this page haven't adopted your interpretation.

:Your statement about the next citation is also incorrect. There is disagreement (which is mentioned in the suggested text) on how to calculate poverty rate, not disagreement that it has decreased. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

::You are making a WP:OR statement that what is listed is a "common misconception", a secondary source has to make that assessment, not us. Per 75%: we have gone in a circle about that, other stuff existing is not a rational to add more, it is a rational for a cleanup. The last sentence in the proposed addition is WP:OR (we don't make statements based on tallying up different documents). The next source ends with "Moreover, defining poverty is not an exact science, experts say." - we can't hang a definitive statement on that. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:::[[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]], I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria. The source doesn't need to use the exact phrase "common misconception" in order to establish that it is indeed a common misconception. It could say "a bunch of people believe this thing that is incorrect", and that would be enough. "defining poverty is not an exact science" So what? It doesn't need to be. The social sciences in general are not exact sciences. And that is okay. And besides, it's not our job as editors to evaluate what is or isn't an exact science. All we do is listen to what the sources have to say. And in this case, it is clear that the sources support the proposed addition. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 19:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

::::If the sources don't make a specific statement we follow [[WP:V]]. If they differ, we follow [[WP:YESPOV]]. Please read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination) the current AfD] because there seems to be no support for a loose interpretation as to what a "common misconception" is. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::The difference between "X is a common misconception" and "most people think X, even though it is incorrect" is merely a difference of wording, not a different viewpoint. Could you highlight for me the comments that argue otherwise? The AfD entry has become cumbersome to read by this point. Thanks. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 21:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear that the sources adequately establish the misconception, and I find continued discussion a bit frustrating. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 22:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

:Agreed. We now have four editors in agreement here. That is clearly as close to consensus as we are going to get. The only editor in disagreement has been engaging in clear page ownership and reverted all edits not his own. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

::Sorry to come in late, but I think this is really a case of the bias towards pessimism. People always say that things are getting worse. In fact, according to most people, it's hard to criticise anything if you admit things have got better...--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I support including this item, even though I generally would categorize economic issues as "political" and exclude them because they are too intertwined with political identity (e.g. the left and the right have different ideas about tax policy, and they both will insist the other is deluded). But I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=861019565&oldid=861018310 this] suggested text is not in keeping with the direction we want to go with this page, since it's too wordy and too detailed. A lot of the disagreement here is over the fine details of the wording. We can "cheat" on ''List of common misconceptions'' by being vague. This article is like a navbox -- you're ''supposed'' to click through to get the full nuanced details. Our text here just be very short: ''Poverty has declined, not increased, over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries''. Boom. Done.What kind of poverty? How do you define it? Absolute poverty or relative poverty? All good questions, but the answers are found by clicking the links, not here.All of the entries here should be written like that. We all know this list is way too long. The phrasing "X is not Y, X is actually Z, and even though group G has often thought that X is Y, in fact, experts E and F have published data showing that X was Z all along!!!" Too many words!!! The very structure of this list ''always'' implies that "X is not Y, X is actually Z blah blah blah". Every entry repeats the same crap. The redundancy is what has bloated the page. Just say "X is not Y". Poverty has not increased, it has declined, during the 20th and 21s centuries."Many editors think you don't have permission to go over to the article [[poverty]] (or whatever) and expand or clarify the text so that it presents the common misconception with the proper nuance and qualifications. That is false. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Full stop. Read [[WP:Editing policy]]. You cannot arbitrarily forbid anyone from editing any article. That would be a [[WP:Topic ban|Topic ban]] and those are rare and applied in very specific cases after due process.Go fix up the other articles, as long as you respect consensus, work out agreeable wording with other editors over on the talk pages, don't edit war, and make sure you cite your sources and meet the verifiability requirements. The text ''should not'' read like the result of a long battle and endless lawyering and quibbling. It should be short and snappy and it should '''make the reader want to click the links'''. You could even call it clickbait, though we don't want to go that far. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 21:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 
 

So, do we have consensus for inclusion, or what? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 21:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

== Mayflies ==

There's a myth that [[Mayfly|mayflies]] only live 24 hours, when really that's just how long their adult stage lasts. It gets referenced here on the entry on houseflies, but I think it deserves its own bullet point. — [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] 20:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
:Per the inclusion criteria at the top of this talk page, the misconception should be mentioned in the article with citations. I do not see a misconception mentioned in the article. In fact the article seems to imply that the lifespan depends on the species and can be very short. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 05:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
:Surely this is just semantics, people taking the word "mayfly" to refer to the winged form, in the same way that most people take "butterfly" to mean [[:File:Monarch_In_May.jpg|this]] rather than [[:File:Monarch_Butterfly_Danaus_plexippus_Feeding_Down_3008px.jpg|this]]. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]]) 13:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

== Recently added then removed section Discussion ==

Fountains of Bryn Mawr removed the addition by an editor I've pasted below with the note that it fails criteria two and three. If I understand it correctly those are:

The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.

I'm not sure how it fails those two criteria. The Atlantic is a reliable source for this kind of misconception and it has sufficient evidence within the body of the article that it is a common misconception. Likewise it references it as a common misconception and references multiple examples within the body of the article. Given that, I recommend it for reinclusion.

* [[Women in the Victorian era]] suffering from [[Female hysteria|hysteria]] were not treated by doctors with [[Vibrator (sex toy)|vibrators]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Meyer |first1=Robinson |title=Victorian-Era Orgasms and the Crisis of Peer Review |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/09/victorian-vibrators-orgasms-doctors/569446/ |accessdate=6 September 2018 |date=7 September 2018}}</ref>

[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

::The entry (confusingly) linked three topic articles. [[Female hysteria|hysteria]] contains the wording "some historians dispute" and [[Vibrator (sex toy)|vibrators]] has the wording "historians disagree", so that fails #3, no misconception mentioned. The source being used is brand new, again equivocates "probably a myth", has no supporting sources for claims of "common misconception" other than anecdote, is a single source, and we will obviously have no further sourcing as to this being a "common misconception", a requirement re:reliable sourcing - so fails #2.

::We seem to still be at a disagreement amongst historians, which is not actually a misconception. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 11:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

::: I agree that the multiple article links does make it confusing. My take is that this is a matter of taste for wiki editors, some like to link any and all relevant subjects (which seems to be what is happening here) while some (like you, and I think correctly) choose to link only those directly relevant to the sentence or topic. I'd be happy to limit the linkages to other articles, but I imagine someone will put them back in.

::: The misconception is definitely mentioned in the article, so I think we can dispense with objections based on criteria three. Rather it seems your concern centers around criteria two. I think there are some sections of the article that address those concerns.

:::The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.

::::I'll assume we don't have any issues with the reliability of the Atlantic per se so I'll move on to whether or not the article discusses this as a common misperception. "And in the past few years, it has careened around popular culture. It’s given rise to a Tony-nominated play, a rom-com starring Maggie Gyllenhaal, and even a line of branded vibrators. Samantha Bee did a skit about it in March. A seemingly endless march of quirky news stories has instructed readers in its surprising but true quality, including in Vice, Mother Jones, and Psychology Today.

::::In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex. " This paragraph would seem to put forward that the misconception is, in fact, common. It references multiple sources referencing it, including from other journalists.

::::Your elaborated objection was based on whether it was, in fact, a misconception. I think the key phrase in the section you quote from the Hysteria article is, "some historians dispute Maine's claims about the prevelance..." The next sentence also details that Maine thinks the claim is a hypothesis, not a fact. We should also point out that there are more citations for the contrary position in that article than in the support.

::::If we are aiming at the historical consensus on this subject (which I think we are), we need to recognize that the only source of the vibrator hypothesis is Maines. Both the Atlantic and Wiki article only cite Maines as a reference. We have three dissenting sources in the wiki article, with an additional semi-dissent from Maines herself. There are five additional sources in the Atlantic article rejecting Maines' assertions.

::::Thus I think this entry does meet the criteria of being a misconception. Historians generally agree (with one exception) that victorians did not invent the vibrator due to female hysteria and we see that the belief that they did is common in culture.

::::[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::Not sure why we would consider sources pro/con on the claim itself, its not the topic of this article and disagreement amongst historians are covered by [[WP:YESPOV]], we don't take sides. Items on this list have to be "common misconceptions", so multiple sources are needed saying specifically "X is a common misconception". Up to (a few weeks ago?) this was not a misconception, just several opinions. I doubt any other sources have cropped up in that time couching this as a "common misconception". As for The Atlantic, works of journalism are not that high on the reliability scale, no way to check fact-checking or accuracy, unless they cite further sources, which they generally don't. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::: So, what you're saying is that the societal misconception itself needs to be more specifically sociologically studied in order to qualify? Or alternatively we need to see a few more articles like The Atlantic popping up on the topic? [[User:Deku-shrub|Deku-shrub]] ([[User talk:Deku-shrub|talk]]) 10:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
{{OD}}
It needs to be covered, period - we can't make a claim of "common misconception" based on one source. You kinda have it in a nutshell - its covered in the first sentence of [[WP:V]] - "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." We actually need to see many articles better than The Atlantic on the topic. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

:I think that is an artificially high standard. If we were to follow that inclusion criteria we would need to remove about 75% of what is on the page now. The criteria listed at the top of the talk page make no mention of needing a wide variety of sources. In this case, we have a secondary source that says the misconception is widespread and that it is false. We have additional research showing that it is false. That is plenty given the criteria on this page. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 10:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::Per [[WP:SALLEAD]] the List inclusion criteria is pretty clear, title "common misconceptions" and "erroneous beliefs that are currently '''widely held about notable topics'''". That would equal a very wide base of citations we can pull from about this being a misconception, so yeah... its a high standard. [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exist arguments are not considered very good criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If other items on this list are weak, they should be removed [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 14:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::: And none of the criteria mentioned in the lead require multiple sources for the misconception do they? As long as the source referenced expresses that it is a misconception widely used, that meets the criteria as I read them. Perhaps you could elaborate on which criteria you feel requires more than one source? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 14:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::::Unless we are reading from different dictionaries, "common misconception" and "widely held" are very clear. The source referenced has to be reliable for that claim (a single piece of journalism is not) and once removed there is an extra criteria to [[WP:BURDEN|prove]] that this is a "common misconception" i.e. more reliable sources making the statement. This list has many criteria (which I did not write) which seem to boil down to "do not unintentionally or intentionally [[WP:POVFORK]] claims here". Hence the requirement (which this item still fails) of it being covered in the linked article first. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::I'm a bit confused by your response. Are you under the impression that the Atlantic article's internal discussion about it is the only source referenced? IE when they reference the confusion that is all this comment relies on? If so, I think this is an easy fix. The Atlantic article references it being widely used. It references more than a half dozen uses in culture generally including several other journalistic entries. Does that help clarify the issue? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::: ''"If a reliable source says A (a claim is demonstratively false), and another reliable source says B (examples of that false claim's uses in culture), do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C (it is a common misconception)"'' (see [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]). So, no, we can not follow up those sources to support a conclusion. The Atlantic article is the only source referenced that draws a conclusion along the lines of a common misconception. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gone hunting for more misconception sources
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/10/victorians-invent-vibrator-orgasms-women-doctors-fantasy No, no, no! Victorians didn’t invent the vibrator],
* [https://eugesta-revue.univ-lille3.fr//pdf/2011/King.pdf Galen and the widow. Towards a history of therapeutic masturbation in ancient gynaecology] "Her “hypothesis” has become fact for many people",
* [https://www.thewhoresofyore.com/kates-journal/buzzkill-vibrators-and-the-victorians Buzzkill: Vibrators and the Victorians (NSFW)] "So, what can we salvage from this much loved and widespread myth?".
* [https://dildographer.com/2012/05/04/why-the-movie-hysteria-gets-its-vibrator-history-wrong/ Why the Movie “Hysteria” Gets Its Vibrator History Wrong]
* https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/hysteria "The source of this myth is Rachel Maines and her 1999 work The Technology of Orgasm"
I think these plus the Atlantic qualify things well, those are strong sources [[User:Deku-shrub|Deku-shrub]] ([[User talk:Deku-shrub|talk]]) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:Those would not be sources on a misconception because they predate the debunking of Maines re: they date 2014, 2011, 2017, 2012, 2015 respectively. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 22:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::Your response does not match the scenario. Rather, a reliable source (A) uses six other sources (some reliable, some not) as evidence of a misconception in widespread use. The same relaible source (A) also points out that that misconception is incorrect using relialbe sources (B,C,D). That isn't synthesis, it is directly pulling from the secondary source.

::The King reference is specifically rebutting Maines. Pgs 206-208 discuss, in part, how widespread the misconception is, though admittedly not with external sources.

::The Guardian article references two popular culture references for this misconception as well.

::That brings us up to three secondary sources with 10 references to this misconception in general use in the culture. That clearly satisfies the requirements for this page.

::[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:::"rebutting Maines" is a "disagreement amongst scholars" and a ''disagreement'' is not a ''misconception''. A misconception is ''a mistaken belief, a wrong idea'', and people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
:::: {{reply|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}} '''"people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read"''' An interesting epistemological position. According to Maines herself as well as subsequent academics and many popular commentators they did mistake what they read. However are we saying because the Maines paper was a RS at the time, citations built upon cannot even retrospectively be considered mistakes? This creates a very high barrier to overturn misconceptions based on reliable sources, which was in fact the whole point of the Atlantic article, the damage that academic mispublication can cause. Are there not precedents in Wikipedia for overturning RS's and derivatives previously agreed to be as such? [[User:Deku-shrub|Deku-shrub]] ([[User talk:Deku-shrub|talk]]) 19:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
::::You didn't address the fact that there are 10 separate references in the links offered citing this as widespread and a misconception. We have at least two editors here who feel comfortable with this addition. Perhaps you could help us understand, what kind of source, exactly, would serve as evidence in your mind? Can you cite a source for any misconception that you think meets your idea of what the criteria are? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 17:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
All of the sources, except one, predate this being a real misconception, so it doesn't matter how many of those you pile up, they do not make a statement this is a misconception, they describe a disagreement. Also 3 of those last sources describe it as a ''myth'' (a false story), not a ''misconception'' (a false belief). Those are two very different concepts and one is not covered in this list. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:That didn't really answer my question though. I'm trying to understand, conceptually, what kind of sources meet your standards. Can you give me an example?

:It also isn't accurate. You are conflating citation with reference. There is one citation (the Atlantic), but that citation offers six references related to the misconception being widespread. Additionally, the articles linked by Deku are post Maines' work, and deal with it being widely accepted, even if it was prior to it being rejected by the academic community, it is still a misconception. Geocentrism was still a misconception before Galileo.

:[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 19:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

::I am not discussing "meet(ing my) standards", they are Wikipedia standards - which I have covered several times, please scroll up. The standard here is a source that has the ability to say "this is a common misconception". Please see WP:V and WP:RS if that is not clear. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

:::Well no, the requirements for the page don't require multiple citations, which is what you are asking. That is solely your requirement. And the source offered contains six references as to this being a common misconception. It even ends one paragraph with: "In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex..." The need to have multiple sources, or to ignore some for this reason or that is coming from you, not from wikipedia. Unless you can show exactly where it requires multiple sources, I think we should move ahead with replacing the text given the status of the discussion. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 11:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to bump this with a suggestion of what text should be included. Feel free to make an edit or let me know if it is missing something.

::Despite being referenced commonly in culture [Atlantic Article][Why the movie...] and society at large [Galen and the widow link][Buzzkill Article][guardian], the idea that Victorian Era doctors invented the vibrator to cure female 'hysteria' via triggering orgasm is a product of a single work[welcome collection] rejected by most historians[Atlantic][Guardian][Galen and the widow].

[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 16:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
:I'm not sure why there's opposition to this; it seems a perfectly cromulent addition to me. I've found sources not listed here, and those sources listed here explicitly support the proposed addition. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 00:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::The problem is it has to be a "common misconception", a misconception so widespread and notable that it is already covered at the target Wikipedia article as a common misconception. We do not have that here. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 13:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
:::If so, that's a failing of ''that article'', not of this proposal. The sourcing presented here (as well as others I was very easily able to find) establish that this misconception is certainly [[WP:DUE]] for the main article. If it's not there, that's because editors haven't added it. Taking that as an excuse not to add it here is a blatant violation of [[WP:IAR]], which you might note is one of the five pillars. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 17:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::::Its a requirement of this list. If you disagree with the list criteria then start a discussion to change them. Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything. If you think something belongs in a main article, add it, see if it sticks - those editors should know the topic. That would keep us in line with [[WP:CFORK]] (Wikipedia policy). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything.}} Then you may lack the [[WP:CIR|competence]] to edit here: [[WP:IAR]] clearly states that '''any''' rule that prevents us from improving this project is to be ignored. Refusing to ignore a rule even though doing so is a blatant violation of that principle. Arguing that IAR itself should be ignored in order to follow a rule over improving the project is the very height of [[WP:LAWYER|wikilawyering]] and tantamount to announcing your own refusal to do anything except push your own interests. If your only objection is that this doesn't exist in other articles (and let's be clear: the rest of your objections above -such as claiming there's so RS support for the claim that this is a misconception, only that there's support for claiming this a s dispute among academics- are pure BS and barely worth responding to, so far removed from reality and rationality they are), then '''you''' should go add it to whatever article you feel most appropriate, instead of expecting good faith editors at ''this article'' to bend over backwards to accomplish goals which we both know won't change your mind, anyways. You are exhibiting clear [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of this article and have been for some time, and I will happily ask ANI to to tell you to knock it off if you don't do so of your own volition. There are now three editors telling you that you are wrong. Listen to them before you are ''forced'' to listen. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
You seem to skip the second part of [[WP:IAR]] "improving this project", hence why we have [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus discussions]] and even consensus criteria (like at the top of this page). As for all the name calling, maybe read [[WP:ETIQ]]. Despite what looks like [[WP:CANVAS]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMjolnirPants&type=revision&diff=861056847&oldid=861043654] (definitely not " neutrally worded") you should join in consensus discussion (and not just name call or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&curid=321956&diff=861207934&oldid=861185000 name call and revert]). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
:Are you even reading my comments? Adding a common misconceptions to the list of common misconceptions is, inarguably, an improvement to this project. Stop grasping at straws, stop trying to own the article. Also, do you even know what the phrase "name-calling" means? Are you capable of understanding the distinction between "your argument is shit" and "you are a shitty person"? [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 14:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Lead was not encyclopedic ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=859117588&oldid=859108714 Re-wrote] the List lead paragraph because it did not reflect the hidden list definition at the top of the page and read like [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. Selection criteria should be stated unambiguously in the lead for the reader as well as the editor ([[WP:SALLEAD]]). ''"notable topics"'' and ''"Each misconception and the corresponding facts have been discussed in published literature"'' is unnecessary, all Wikipedia content is notable and comes from published literature. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
:I appreciate the change away from "''This list ... corrects erroneous beliefs''". I'm not sure about "''that are described in Wikipedia articles''" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=859117588&oldid=859108714]). As I understand it, this list existed for a long time before that inclusion criterion was added, so there may be many items that fail it. Plus, other Wikipedia articles can be edited at any time without this list being updated. I see that inclusion criterion as being one that helps Wikipedians decide what belongs in this list, rather than something readers need to know about. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]]) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
::Two of the four selection criteria state that there has to be a related article. I really have not looked into where the list criteria came from but it seems to be in line with [[WP:LSC]] re: ''common sense''. List such as this are generally alternatives to Categories, being a list of articles that aids in navigation for someone who wants to find articles that cover a certain attribute - so - ''a list of articles''. Its a "List of common misconceptions", so each entry should be notable enough to be covered at that article - its "common". To avoid POVFORKing, if the claim is not at the article it should not be here. "that are described in Wikipedia articles" could probably be removed, the reader does not need that stated and an editor will see the hidden selection criteria telling them it is a requirement. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 15:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
*I'm just now reading this section and I also completely disagree with the addition of "that are described in Wikipedia articles", especially given that the same editor who added it immediately began using said addition to justify reverting any addition to this article. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 14:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

== Deletion discussion ==

I've started an AfD at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)]]. I've also requested that the protecting admin add the AfD template to the page. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
: Done. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 23:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

==Forbidden fruit==
The fruit of the tree that Eve touched in the Book of Genesis was not simply a fruit but the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. This article does not clarify this. [[User:Vorbee|Vorbee]] ([[User talk:Vorbee|talk]]) 06:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

==Edit request==
In the dinosaur section there is the sentence "Consequently, dinosaur descendants are part of the modern fauna". Since birds are dinosaurs, would suggest the word 'descendants' be removed and an 's' be added to the word 'dinosaur' so the sentence reads "Consequently, dinosaurs are part of the modern fauna". Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{done}} [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

== Criteria ==

First off, yes, I know about the AfD. I filed it. Let that run its course (which is looking like "no consensus" unless the closer really decides to completely disregard all [[WP:AADD]] arguments). This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article, so let's discuss improvements.

If this page is to be improved, we first have to examine the criteria given in the edit notice. Here are the current criteria outlined in the edit notice:
#The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
#The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
#The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
#The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
:This list was created when the article talk page was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&oldid=419482172#Inclusion_Criteria_in_Text_of_the_Article this] state. I've linked directly to the only "criteria" discussion, which you can see does not result in an agreement on this. So these criteria were imposed without consensus.

To wit, I'm suggesting a new list of criteria. Below, you can see it.
#The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
#It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
#An expert in the topic has identified it as a misconception.
I left out the "needs to be reliably sourced" one because duh; of course it needs to be reliably sourced. The new last one is intended to address the bickering over "common". There are plenty of sources that identify "common" misconceptions, but a lot of arguing over whether that's accurate. So instead of looking to a tertiary RS by some staff writer to claim "common misconception", let's look to secondary sources by experts that claim "misconception". It is a perfectly reasonable presumption that experts regularly discuss or are asked questions about the subject of their expertise by people lacking their expertise. In many cases, the very job of the expert is to have these discussions and answer these questions. So if such an expert feels the need to publish something that addresses this misconception, it should then go without saying that it's "common".

Thoughts? [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:Asking that each factoid listed here needs an article of its own to qualify sounds like it would cause the deletion of a high percentage of the page. So am I misunderstanding, and you mean section topic, or overall topics, and not each bit? The criteria seems fine regarding information being included within another article, and not specifically requiring each bit of information to have a full article. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::I think that's a phrasing problem of mine. No, what I'm saying is that, if you find some sources claiming that there's a common misconception about, for example, the [[suicide of Katelyn Davis]] (which was recently deleted as not notable here), you cannot add that. But you could certainly add a fourth or fifth entry about [[suicide]] in general with the right sources, because they all share the same "main" article.
::Another way to look at it is to say that each entry ought to be able to (but doesn't necessarily need to) have a wikilink to an article about the topic in the body of the entry. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 15:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::: Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable. And the fact that some expert chooses to address some topic doesn't necessarily mean it's to address a common misconception, so that would just result in the list getting even more subjective. We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic, which could be significantly more complicated than just showing that the source is reliable. Often, if a belief is especially stupid and/or troublesome, like [[modern flat earth societies|Flat earth theory]], experts will respond to it despite it not being particularly common. Other times, if it's common but relatively trivial (like Napoleon's height, which from an expert's perspective is not a major aspect of him), they may not respond to it at all. I guarantee you there are more experts responding to [[Birtherism]] than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs. Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is. Other than perhaps some metapsychology expert who studies how people perceive psychology, it's unlikely they'd be an expert in both their own field and in public perception of it. So I'm not sure this would solve the issues anyway. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 16:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable.}} That's why I'm proposing it (partially) as a criteria ''for this list''. If it were WP policy, I'd not need to propose it at all. Notice how I removed the bit about entries needing to be reliably sourced. Also, I'm not proposing that all sourcing be from experts; only that the entry have at least one expert source calling it a misconception.
::::{{tq|We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic}} No, that is the ''exact opposite'' of what this would mean. By simply having the requirement that an expert called it a misconception, we're ''explicitly'' avoiding any discussion about why they did so. They did so, and that's enough to satisfy the criteria. If you think there's a wording that would better convey this, please suggest it.
::::{{tq|Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is.}} I never suggested that an expert historian would be able to comment on a subject in physics, for example. When it comes to a physics misconception, the historian is decidedly ''not'' an expert. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 16:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::::This is in a separate comment because it's not that important.
::::{{tq|I guarantee you there are more experts responding to [[Birtherism]] than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs.}} You should spend some time in [[Southern United States|The South]]. It will quickly [[Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Opinion surveys|disabuse you of that notion]]. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

: I think I prefer the current criteria. Expert opinions are good, but we shouldn't prefer them over something like a study that shows a misconception is common. – [[User:FenixFeather|''FenixFeather'']] [[User talk:FenixFeather|(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/FenixFeather|(Contribs)]] 16:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::That would turn this article into a stub. Seriously, go count how many of the sources used ''actually'' have that quality. And the current criteria doesn't actually require that, anyways, so the current criteria comes no closer to meeting that standard.
::Finally: I think we can all agree that 90% is "common". But what about 30%? What about 1%? 1% of the population is hundreds of millions of people, and most of us will encounter at least one of them every day (though we may not be aware of it). So what about 0.1%? I know I run across a thousand people in a week. Most folk who don't live in rural areas do, too. Is that "common"?
::I don't think that even the studies you mention actually establish that something is "common", because the definition of "common" is subjective. So I think leaving it to an expert to at least imply that it's common by publishing a refutation is the only sensible way to reach a standard that we can all agree on whether or not it applies. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::: I disagree, I think the original criteria are more liberal, because they allow either an expert opinion or a study that shows a misconception is common. We don't have to decide the threshhold. As long as the source mentions it's common, it's fine. I'm just saying we shouldn't focus only on expert opinion. – [[User:FenixFeather|''FenixFeather'']] [[User talk:FenixFeather|(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/FenixFeather|(Contribs)]] 17:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nine "'''Keep'''" votes at the current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination) AfD] specifically noted the ''current'' inclusion criteria as a reason to keep the article. None recommended loosening the criteria. {{u|Pengo}} specifically noted:
*{{tq|"It's a summary article. References are not an issue as each fact is taken from another Wikipedia article. See the "official" criteria for inclusion on the talk page (and which also appears when you edit the article): "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." If the associated article doesn't also include the misconception with references, then its associated entry in this list should be removed."}}

Lists that index Wikipedia articles based on them having a certain attribute (such as requiring the attribute "U.S. citizens or nationals of French descent and heritage" to be in [[List of French Americans]]) is perfectly reasonable per [[WP:SAL]]. So, as Pengo points out, it makes it a dirt simple list - article has referenced text stating there is some kind of "common misconception"? - it goes in this list, you actually don't even need a citation at the List.

A list without a linked Article containing a common misconception would be an OR nightmare. Editors will simple google to find what ever they can and [[WP:SYNTH]] all those "hits" into "''Yep, lots of hits so its not just a myth or little known fact, my tally shows its a ''common'' misconception''". [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:I find it incredibly hilarious that you would perceive "content does not need to be duplicated from an existing article" to be mean "We can safely ignore our sitewide policies on this particular article". I mean, the sheer level of illogic that goes into that just alone is enough to make me laugh, not to mention the fact that it clearly stems from the same butthurt that's led you to make hypocritical personal attacks against me on at least two different pages. The rest of your comment isn't even about this proposal, so I'm ignoring it. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 20:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

For my part, I like the current criteria, mostly. I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities. Of course the topic needs to reliably sourced, but so does the fact that it's a common misconception. Omitting #3 would do no harm though... if a common misconception is added to this list with proper sourcing, it's trivial to add a mention to it in the topic article with similar sourcing. That's just good practice, not a criterion for inclusion. I ''disagree'' with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] ([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]]) 20:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{tq|I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities.}} I don't see how. Point 2 is merely the repetition of a site-wide policy.
:{{tq|I ''disagree'' with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient.}} I actually tend to agree, but I think that proposal cuts off all the arguing about whether it's a ''common'' misconception, which has been at the root of many of the problems on this talk page. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 20:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

===Summary so far===
So far, I have seen two editors opine that finding an expert in the topic of the entry to call it a misconception is not a good idea. So here's a revision, since no-one else seems interested in proposing any.
#The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
#It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
#An RS has identified it as a misconception.
I still haven't seen any reasonable argument for including the original #2: It's a site-wide policy already. I've seen the suggestion that sources need to include a survey showing it to be common, but I've not seen any suggestion as to what sort of result of said survey would be considered common, so I don't see how that solves anything. Furthermore, such surveys are bound to be exceedingly rare (there are none in the RSes cited in the article at present as far as I've seen), so I fail to see how that would even be workable. Further comments are welcome. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 21:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
* I oppose #1 "The topic of the misconception has an article of its own." As long as it is covered in [[WP:RS]] as myth, I think that is sufficient. I agree with the others that it should not necessarily require an expert to articulate it, but I would be okay with additional language that it is ''preferred'' that the myth is articulated by an expert or by a journalist referring to the work of experts.
:I would be open to trying to divide the material into multiple articles such as '''List of misquotations''', [[List of common misconceptions about language learning]], [[Tornado myths]], and then taking the top 3-5 of each subject area as ticklers to generate interest in the longer list of myths in that subject area. The history sections are a bit unwieldy. Unfortunately, articles like [[Tornado myths]], have a completely different format and do not have the nice bite-sized bits of information that makes this article interesting to peruse. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
:::So you would support an entry based on a single RS about the [[suicide of Katelyn Davis]], even though we have no article about that topic? That would require us to summarize the topic in this list, which would require additions RSes. RSes that don't exist, hence why that article does not exist. As for breaking this up into multiple articles, that might be a discussion worth having. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::: I think people are misunderstanding what criteria #1 means. To use the microwave oven example, we wouldn't necessarily need an article about [[Microwave ovens heating myth]], we would just need a [[Microwave oven]] article, which we have. Assuming that's what's meant by that, I have no issue with #1. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::[[Microwave oven]] wouldn't even need to exist. It would be enough to have an article on some other topic, that also included a well-sourced description of the existence of the microwave oven myth. In practice I don't think we have many cases like that; often there are two or more articles that each mention the myth. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::In theory, I agree with this, but I don't think there will be many cases where it applies. Smartyllama is spot on with their comment. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::: Keep in mind there are ''a lot'' of misconceptions that are covered in some random reliable source somewhere. Pretty much every college and university in the world has myths that, at least among those who have enough of a connection to the university to care, are fairly common misconceptions. There is a legend often repeated about my own alma mater, the [[University of Connecticut]], that the campus was modeled after some school in Texas that was designed as a wind tunnel to cool things off, but that of course this was quite unpleasant in the harsh New England winters. It's completely untrue, but has been covered in a number of reliable sources related to the university, and is fairly common among people who actually care. On the other hand, the vast majority of people ''don't'' care one way or the other, so is it really all that common? If it's a misconception about some obscure subject that the vast majority of people don't care about, can it really be all that common? I guess it depends on what is meant by "common", then. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 23:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::: To be fair, many people don't really care about much at all. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Smarty, I see what you're saying here. I could certainly get behind a "multiple sources" criteria, though I'm reluctant to set a number higher than 2 as the minimum, for obvious reasons. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::I agree about the need for "bite sized" entries. Some entries here are a bit too long and they all tend to launch into the debunk without stating what the misconception ''actually is''. The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk very, very briefly with a link to more details. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 22:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
* I think #1 could be weakened to say that it must be covered in another article but that it does not need to be a stand-alone article. So, for example, the ones about microwave ovens would be OK provided they are covered in the [[Microwave oven]] article in a way that meets the other two criteria. I am also wondering if #3 needs strengthening. I'm pretty sure that you can find something on the weaker end of RS to say that pretty much anything is a misconception almost as easily as you can find an RS uncritically repeating a misconception. I fear that we may have to form an opinion on what separates a genuine misconception from a matter of genuine controversy in a world where some people seem to believe that there are no settled facts at all, others believe that no fact is settled until their tribe has the final say and many would grasp at any opportunity to label the beliefs of their opponents as misconceptions. We do not wish to invite arguments with creationists and flat earthers. If we had a couple of different RS, each referring to expert opinion, then we would be better placed to tell any such people to go and pound sand. Also, let us not forget that the misconception needs to be common. No necessarily common the whole world over but we will need an RS describing it as common. We may need to set a criteria for that too. We don't want to include things that are commonly held misconceptions in one village but we also should not exclude misconceptions which are common outside the English speaking west. For example, belief in [[Blood type personality theory]] is common enough in Japan that it could merit inclusion here. (Although then I guess we would have to include things like [[Astrology]] too.) --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 22:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
::I see what you're saying. I could get behind that. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"3-An RS has identified it as a misconception" is incomparable with the list title "common misconceptions". That would would make this a trivia list of "Things somebody got wrong". [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:At this point, I'm pretty much writing off everything you say because none of it helps even a little bit, and very little of it even makes any sense. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

:I think that the addition "and is mentioned in the article with sources" is an important part of the quality control of the items anyone wants to add (the article about the topic of the misconception, that is). If every item on this list is required to be mentioned in another article, that means the great number of editors that watch those articles will help prune this article. Those who watch an article are generally interested and know more about the topic than the average editor on Wikipedia. Thus it's more likely that they will catch an addition to "their" article that e.g. misinterprets the source, is undue or uses a source that is outdated. [[User:Sjö|Sjö]] ([[User talk:Sjö|talk]]) 05:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::Well, I see that as part of our sitewide policy already, but I'm not immune to the number of people (at least 2 so far) who've opined that some repetition of sitewide policy might be in order. The next proposal I post will contain a reminder that ''all'' content must be reliably sourced, regardless of where it appears. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 12:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm mostly indifferent to the exact wording, but I'd like to see a few points clarified.

Are multiple sources necessarily required in all cases?

Does the source need to use the exact phrase "common misconception"?

[[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 17:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::I would say Yes and No, respectively. The latter is a frankly ridiculous criteria with no precedent anywhere else on this site. Conversely, the former would address Smartyllama's point above which you also replied to. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

:::It would depend on the quality of the sources, wouldn't it? I would think a reputable study with a large sample size would be sufficient on its own, for example. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Generally speaking, if a source does the research to establish exactly how widespread a belief something is, other RSes for it should abound, and thus it'd be trivial to find multiples for that entry. That being said, in the odd case that there's a widespread false belief that only one source covers (and that source is a very high quality one), I'd be inclined to support inclusion based on the quality of the source. And no criteria needs to be writ in stone: We're not establishing policy here, just a guideline as to what to include. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 18:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

{{tq|The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk}} - {{U|DanielRigal}} hit on something that I noticed to. It seems to me this List is formatted for a Daily Mail columnist on a deadline looking for something to copy and paste and not made for anyone else. Namely bad [[SEO]], nobody searching the web would ever hit on this article because they would be searching for something about a misconception, not searching for an unknown answer. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:Now '''this''' is worth responding to. You both raise a very good point, and it was one I intended to open another section on. I agree that we should be describing the misconceptions as well as debunking them. I suppose anyone who disagrees can do so here. I'm soon to write up another version of the criteria taking the helpful commentary from this section into account. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 19:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
*{{u|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}} Can you give me examples that you consider a problem? I can see some advantage of stating the misconception first in most cases, but I would probably oppose a hard-and-fast one-size-fits all rule for that. Some stories of misconceptions might flow better if there is lead in to the origin of the confusion. What makes good writing is a good ''true'' story. A boring set of facts all of exactly the same rigid format will be more likely to put the reader to sleep. I prefer we engage the reader with top notch writing that includes variety.
:Perhaps for some of the items you consider to be a problem, we could do some copy-editing and make them more interesting. Changing the rule may not solve the problem(s): The changes would still need to be made in the text of these items. That can be done without changing the rule. If editors are constantly adding items in a format that a consensus of us believes is objectionable and can be solved by a rule change, then I would be more likely to support a change in the rules. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::I have never looked on Wikipedia as engaging or a "read" (probably why I write crap articles). [https://www.google.com/search?q=searing+meat+before+grilling&ei=l5CzW8_sGPGkggettJeAAw&start=60&sa=N&biw=1110&bih=678] points to the problem - you won't see this List any time soon in that search. That this List is a bit of an internet WP:WG may make people who don't like it happy, not a problem because no ones going to find it. Stating the misconception may lead to a few deletions, some of these may sound a little silly once you read the actual misconception. Anyway, nothing I think is vital, just noticed an oddity about this list. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Oh. You mean this is about [[SEO|Search Engine Optimization (SEO)]]. I have no knowledge about that. When I read the comment, SEO sounds a bit like [[CEO]]. I thought it might the abbreviations of some person. I am open to learning about how changing the formatting of the myths could change the rank in a Google search. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 19:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

===Round three===
Taking the commentary from above into account, here's my third draft of the inclusion criteria:
*The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
*There are at least two references stating both the correction and that it is a misconception.
*It is current and not obsolete (i.e., no common beliefs from the middle ages.)
*It abides by all of our existing [[WP:P&G|policies and guidelines]].
If no-one objects to anything here (with a ''reasonable and articulate'' objection, please), then I'll post an edit request for a change to the edit notice. Otherwise, we can do another round of commentary and revisal. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 19:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I don't see this as an overall improvement over the current version. I see some things as better (more info. in #3: "no common beliefs from the middle ages" and possibly #4). But I do not prefer the new wording for #1, that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article. I don't exactly like the language of #1 in the original either. It seems to me that all misconceptions can fit within one or more topics.
:I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination)&type=revision&diff=862025330&oldid=862024052&diffmode=source]
:Also, I'm not sure what problem we are trying to address with the new rules. [added 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)]
:--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{tq|that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article}} I don't see how. It explicitly says "the '''topic''' of the misconception" not "the misconception". But if you would like to suggest a wording, I'm all ears.
::{{tq|I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it.}} I don't see any benefit to that. It would only drag things out longer. There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now, as opposed to making them wait until two RfCs have run their course. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect? That's what I'm looking for; information pointing out that non-notable subjects shouldn't have common misconceptions about them listed here. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Regarding #1: Proposed new wording: "The misconception is to be placed under a topic or subtopic heading it is related to." Possibly adding: "That topic or subtopic must have a dedicated Wikipedia article (e.g. [[Astronomy]], [[Biology]], [[History]], [[History of Science]])"
:::If you don't want to wait for an RfC to run, I understand. The advantage is that if the RfC closes with a clear consensus, the arguing can stop. Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement.
:::It's not clear to me what problem(s) you are trying to solve by changing the criteria. Is it because they are unclear? Because you want to make them stricter or looser? Without a clear agreed upon goal, I think it is all the more difficult to determine if the new language is an improvement. I do think the original language is confusing and vague. I would support making it clearer, but I would not support making the requirement for inclusion stricter.
:::--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement.}} You only cited one problem with the currently proposed criteria, then gave you approval to my suggested fix for that problem. That's progress, right there. Then, look at the objections above and how they've influenced both subsequent proposals. That's the definition of progress. The only problem is that Bryn keeps jumping in to disagree with anything I say, including going to such ridiculous extremes as claiming that a misconception is only common if "everyone everywhere" believes it, as you yourself have seen. So mentally subtract Bryn's re-occurring temper tantrum from this discussion and re-evaluate. It sure looks like it's getting somewhere then. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::I'd like to see more support than just you and me. What if someone else jumps in and sides with Bryn on something the two of us agree on? That's not progress. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::If other editor's can't be bothered to join in, that doesn't mean we should give up. And if you'll actually read through the section: you'll see most of them have ''explicitly'' supported most of the proposed changes. Only two editors have disagreed with more than one thing, and one of those is Bryn, who's disagreed with everything and said that any change to the criteria would be a license to ignore our policies on [[WP:OR]]. Oh, and those two aren't the entire "list of logically unhinged things Bryn has said on this talk page". I think they're about 1/3 of that list, at most. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn. The above paragraph is an example of what hinders progress, where you criticize Bryn in very harsh hyperbole and invite him to respond in kind. There's no need for that. No, I have not read everything on this page, but I have seen enough of the interaction between the two of you to know that both are about equally guilty of this kind of paragraph, and that if you would stop focusing on each other's behavior and try to find wider support for specific positions/proposals, we would get progress. The advantage of an RfC is that talking about editor behavior is almost verbotten, and that, I believe would help a lot. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn.}} Then maybe you and Bryn should shut the fuck up about it, eh? ;) I haven't been bringing it up all over the place. I've been actively trying to steer discussion to the ''article'', and away from that, even though I've made it clear that I think Bryn would come out far worse than me. But you keep bringing it back up, over and over. And there has been '''plenty''' of participation, despite your dire warning. At least 6 new editors have shown up to weigh in, mostly with helpful commentary. You can't expect a coflict to die down when ''you'' won't let it, can you? [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::*{{tq|What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect?}} That's fine. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::*{{tq|There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now.}} Nothing is stopping that. The problem is that the discussion on whether to include #3 can be separated from the discussion on the wording of #1. I know they are somewhat related, but I would prefer this not all get jumbled together in a big mess where it is hard to tell what editors want changed. I have no objection to running multiple RfC questions, as long as they are as discrete as possible. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria. Most editors mentioning the inclusion criteria at the AfD think its good as is (some recommend it be tougher). Current #3 is specifically recommended here and at AfD by multiple editors as a good "check" to make sure something is actually reliably sourced and "common". "#1 The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own" seems much less ambiguous re: "is related to" means it does not have to be an article about the misconception. Don't know why that one is a stumbler but it could always be reworded to remove any ambiguity. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 22:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{tq|There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria.}} That is not true. Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria, and the majority of the proposal I've made has been met with approval. You claim to the contrary is pure imagination. I guess you didn't read the "reasonable and articulate" part. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria.}} Can you give me some evidence of that, such as diffs and/or subject headings? If that's true, we could give a summary of these editors' comments, and make a proposal that addresses all of those concerns. If the concerns have enough in common I would think it should be easy to generate a wide consensus on new language that addresses the repeated concerns. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::David, there are only two ''possible'' pages to find those on, and this is not the only article on my watchlist. Just use your mousewheel and read the pages. It's really not that long. I will say that Randy Kryn, Smartyllama and Anachronist have all agreed with removing the original number 3 up above, It's been disparaged before in discussions higher up (and I believe, one below) and there were additional comments at the AfD disparaging it from multiple editors. I don't see the point in me spending a half hour collecting diffs just to save you 10 minutes of reading. Maybe if there were 4-5 pages to check, but with only two pages, you can read for yourself. I've yet to see anyone but Bryn defend it, for that matter. How can an inclusion criteria that is subject to the changing nature of other pages even be helpful, here? The only thing it boils down to is an excuse to edit war new content out of this article (which is exactly what set all of this off). [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 23:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::If what you say is true, that indicates a strong consensus opposing #3, then we should easily be able to get rid of it. Some ways to do that: (1) simply delete it from the criteria on the ground that consensus already exists on this talk page (2) make a straw poll here on deleting #3 to make the consensus more overt (3) running an RfC to delete #3. I am happy to do (2) or (3). If you want to try (1), I would probably back you up, unless another editor in addition to Bryn declared there is no such consensus for its removal. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::No. Criterion #3 is fine and we should keep it. A large number of words have been posted here, but nothing convincing. You are allowed to go to the subject article(s) and edit them to meet the criteria here. I know many editors say you can't, that it's somehow "backwards", but no such rule exists. If your change on the subject article gets reverted, well, then obviously you don't have consensus. But if you go to [[microwave oven]] and change it so that it clearly says a misconception exists and is commonly held, and that reaches something approximating stability, then you're all set to include it here. We need to assume that if the editors who regularly edit the subject article are happy with the addition, then it stands on solid ground to be added here.Anyway, no, there isn't consensus for criteria changes. As I said, the criteria aren't the source of the problem. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 00:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Dennis Bratland}} Thanks for letting me know. I have no intention on doing (1) unless I were to see evidence of the consensus Mjpants claims exists. I do think the rules are a bit confusing, and I am open to improving them, but believe the only way forward would be more discrete proposals, ideally no more than one sentence at a time. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I'm not convinced there is even a problem in need of solving. [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|Identifying reliable sources]] is an inherent part of editing any article. We already know how to establish consensus on a fact and don't need arbitrary criteria like "at least two sources". Some facts require ten sources, some need only one. It depends, and we already have structures in place to determine that.It's redundant to require following policies and guidelines. The need to even say "follow policy" arises from personal disputes; i.e. [[WP:POINT|making a point]], [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|axe grinding]].The individuals who have a problem with the rules of this list are locked in a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and are locked in mutual [[WP:STONEWALL]]ing. The problem lies with the individuals who are failing to assume good faith, to compromise, and recognize that their personal back-and-forth is disrupting the editing of everyone else. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)]], these inclusion criteria change proposals, and other attempts to move the goalposts are all have a [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|snowball's chance]] of going anywhere.It's time to either figure out how to collaborate and respect consensus, or drop it and work on something else. I predict an immanent interaction ban and topic ban for those who keep beating this dead horse. Let it go, guys. Let it go. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 23:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
*Yeah, fuck this noise. If I'm the only one willing to stop wallowing in drama, focus on the content and not simply ignore everything I don't want to hear, then I guess I'm on the wrong page. Apologies to {{u|Squatch347}}, {{u|TompaDompa}}, {{u|Benjaminikuta}} and anyone else who saw this hot mess for what it is, but I don't have the patience to deal with this level of bullshit anymore. You guys are on your own trying to fix this mess. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 00:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::Exactly the response I predicted. QED. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 02:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

===Question: Do we need to change the criteria?===
Question: Do we need to change the criteria? If so, what would you change? Are there any items in the current article you think are flawed partly as a direct result of problems with the current rules? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Neutral''' I'm not convinced there is a consensus to make any specific or general changes to the current rules. I am open to improving them if there is. I am also open to ''clarifying'' the rules to better reflect the historic defacto choices made in practice, especially if there is a discrepancy between the defacto rules and the stated rules. I do not feel the current rules are entirely clear, especially about what is meant by a "common" misconception. I would not support a change that created more rigid criteria for inclusion. I might support a less rigid set of rules. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

* '''No.''' Take six months off from rocking the boat. Go back to the regular business of editing one entry at at time, making it better, and seeking consensus on the talk page. After half a year or so (maybe a whole year, we have time), if you feel like things are going in the wrong direction, then present items that you think should have been added but weren't, or should have been deleted but weren't, due to some ''clear flaw'' in the criteria as written. If you can't point to several specific, real world examples of the system not working, then it's all [[WP:BEANS]]. If you can't cite any very compelling cases where the rules are failing, then the system is not broke, the problem is between the keyboard and the chair. IMHO, the problem is Wikipedia's collaborative editing process itself. Some can function in an environment that might sometimes might require treating [[Wikipedia:Randy in Boise|Randy in Boise]] with a modicum of respect, and some can't hack it. If you can't, then no rule change on a single list. will help you. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

* '''No.''' per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination) that]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

== Pruitt-Igoe ==

I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=861733806&oldid=861730351&diffmode=source this edit] by {{u|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}}, which has been in the article for almost four year [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=640344991&diffmode=source]. The argument to delete was:
:{{tq|Fails #3 - not at topic article. Fails #2 - PDF source "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo" in a single US housing project would not be a common misconception}}
However, [[Pruitt-Igoe]], [[Architecture]] and [[History]] are topic articles. Although, I am not an architect, I have studied enough architecture and seen documentaries that covered the demolition, that I held the "common misconception" that it had won awards before being demolished. That demolition is extremely significant because it "signaled the death of [[Modern architecture]]" [https://architecture.knoji.com/postmodernist-architecture-the-death-of-modernism/][https://books.google.com/books?id=d5ikDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=Charles+Jencks,+who+wrote+in+his+1977+book,+The+Language+of+Post-Modern+Architecture,+that+the+destruction+of+Pruitt-Igoe+was+%E2%80%9Cthe+day+Modern+architecture+died.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=m2ed5CfeOQ&sig=x3-G-7tkQH0SI6nQWEkB8FnXuL4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp4sPLmuHdAhVL7oMKHdGXCjgQ6AEwAnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Jencks%2C%20who%20wrote%20in%20his%201977%20book%2C%20The%20Language%20of%20Post-Modern%20Architecture%2C%20that%20the%20destruction%20of%20Pruitt-Igoe%20was%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20day%20Modern%20architecture%20died.%E2%80%9D&f=false][http://brandondonnelly.com/post/129877819493/the-day-modern-architecture-died][https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/feb/26/pruitt-igoe-myth-film-review][https://hyperallergic.com/20623/pruitt-igoe-myth/] and the birth of [[Postmodern architecture]]. It looks like there is enough [[WP:RS]] to create an article on "the death of Modern Architecture".
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
:You seem to be misunderstanding the list criteria. {{tq|#1 is "The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own"}} - The linked articles are [[Pruitt-Igoe]], [[housing project]], [[St. Louis, Missouri]] and [[urban renewal]]... confusing but [[Pruitt-Igoe]] seems to be the relevant one. #2 is {{tq|The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception}} - two sources state it was confused with another project that won an award but [https://rasmusbroennum.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/1991-bristol-pruitt-igoemyth.pdf the Katharine Bristol source] describes it as a "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo", so sourced, but the sources individually do not describe it as a ''common misconception'', and we can't just add them up (see [[WP:SYNTH]]). #3 is {{tq|The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources}} - we seem to have a ''fail'' there, no coverage at [[Pruitt-Igoe]] of a common misconception with sources. None of the extra links you provided describe a common misconception (the topic of this list). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::I do not support the removal of that section. The criteria you are [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] every other editor here with was implemented without consensus, ignored by the majority of editors and new criteria is being discussed above. Your continued inability to understand the sources properly is also not an sound argument for the removal. It is described as a "myth" which is functionally identical to a "misconception" in this context in the second source. The first source explicitly says "...and the ways the design community exaggerated the supposed design virtues of Pruitt-Igoe only to create a more poignant portrait of its failure. For example, Pruitt-Igoe is ''often cited'' as an AIA-award recipient, but the project never won any architectural awards." which is easily understood as "there is a common misconception that Pruit-Igoe is an AIA-award recipient." That is not interpretation, but simple [[summary]].
::You may be completely unaware of this, but we are supposed to ''summarize'' RSes, not quote them verbatim with all the cognitive facility of a photocopier. There is not, and never has been any requirement that a source use certain "magic phrases" before we can cite it for a given topic. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 02:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:* I mostly agree with MjolnirPants analysis (noting that I have not seen other similar removals). As for #3, we can easily add it to the article. I will do that. I hope you won't revert it simply to keep it out of this article. I do think requirement #3 is a bit odd FYI, and I might support removing it. For editorial purposes, I could see the misconception being significant without the need for it to be in the article on the subject. I see this page more like trivia, answering questions to a crossword, jeopardy questions, etc., but still what I would call "encyclopedic" knowledge. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::I added it to the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe&type=revision&diff=861806128&oldid=847754607&diffmode=source here]. Fortunately, the additional material is pretty seamless and flows well with the existing content. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception". List entries should follow criteria, including the list title. A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", something everyone everywhere general gets wrong. If its common it should already be described as such in the linked article, or be easy to cite and add without convoluted reasoning. Right now the entry reads "Some people at some time think a housing project in St. Louis, Missouri won an architecture prize when it was actually another housing project in St. Louis, Missouri that won it." That's not in any way a "common misconception". Please also note trivia is not considered "encyclopedic" (see [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] and related links). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception".}} Bullshit. I've already explained this to you. Your inability to understand or accept that explanation does not change what the source says. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 20:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::*{{tq|A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", '''something everyone everywhere general gets wrong.'''}} [emphasis added.] If that were the case, then there would be exactly zero items in the List of Common Misconceptions, because even the experts would get it wrong too and there would be no one who knew the truth.
:::::Our core differences of opinion appear to be: (1) what is meant by a "common misconception" and (2) whether the item in question meets the threshold of being a "common misconception". We will have to agree to disagree. I agree with Mjpants on (2), that it meets the threshold. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Items meet the threshold of being a "common misconception" when reliable sources say "its common misconception" (in so many words). Claiming "this source means this and that source means that and its all significant re: some context" is original research, we don't make those declarations. A "common misconception" is always going to be a sliding scale. ''Is already covered at an article as a common misconception with RS'' - top of the scale, we just index it. ''Is covered by significant RS as a common misconception but week or missing at an article'' - middle of the scale/borderline - add it to the article, if it sticks it stays here. ''Is not covered by significant RS as a common misconception, not in an article, and all we can say is some undefinable group of people get this wrong'' - bottom of the scale, doesn't meet the threshold. I think we are bottom of the scale here. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Once again, this has already explained to you, both in general terms as well as how it pertains to this particular instance. You've been told by two editors now that your insistence on requiring sources to use the exact wording of this article title does not fly. You've previously been told the same thing this by at least three other editors. You will not win any arguments by continuing to repeat yourself like this. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 22:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::: Apparently ''(in so many words)'' was not on someones vocabulary test. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::Obviously so, considering that I quoted one source saying so ''in so many words'' and you're still not listening. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::: Of course it doesn't have to use the exact wording in the title, that's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to start an AfD to prove a point about how ridiculous this is. This whole process is ridiculous and both of you need to remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not get into ridiculous squabbles with each other. I'd rather this not have to go to ANI a second time. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 23:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::The AfD was because ''three editors claimed the article should be deleted'' when I filed an ANI case over Bryn's irrational behavior. And I will further note that there are a large number of "delete" !votes, including from very experienced editors, even one former Arb that I noticed. Clearly, there are quite a few people of the opinion that the article should be deleted. So keep your comments about ridiculousness to subjects you know enough about to speak on, please. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

== Western Bias ==

I have a question on whether this article would have a western bias. An issue with identifying something as a common misconception is the people making this article, and the articles with the information from it, are likely western due to the English language the articles are written in. I'm not sure whether a lot of these are actually applicable to most of the world, which makes this article devolve into a list of misconceptions common to the United States. I'll do a breakdown of the article:

*Food and Culture section has 3 things out of 5 in it which seem to be exclusively American, or at least non-eastern at the least.
*Law, Crime and Government has 5 out of 7 applying only to the US, and only 1/7 seemingly applying to the whole world.
*Music section seems to be all western bias
*The religion section could be a universal list of misconceptions, or it could be western culture misunderstanding Eastern culture. I am not sure as a common misconception is often subjective without research.
*Sports includes 2/3 with western bias.
*The Words, Phrases and Languages section contains 12/13 misconceptions which appear to have a western bias. Almost all of these misconceptions are based in the English language, or at least English perceptions of other languages.
*Every misconception in the history section only applies to Western history.
*In the science section, while some misconceptions may appear universal, with a bit of digging, many are western, such as the Elephant's graveyard myth, with was popularised by the Tarzan films and another 1931 American film, or the lemmings suicide myth, which originated from a Disney film. There is a lot in here to analyse, but in the inventions section at least, it appears to all be exclusively western.

To improve this article to remove the western bias, it will have to be expanded to a much larger extent to include other cultures, or merely renamed to be 'List of common western misconceptions.' I may exclusively be viewing this as an issue, and I am interested in discussion.

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:Yes, adding entries from other cultures would be most welcome. ‘Fan death’ is one of the best ones here. I would probably hesitate to include too many items entirely specific to non-English languages, since English is supposed to be the language of en.wikipedia.org. Like if Germans assume a German word has an incorrect origin. There are probably thousands of such items for all the world’s languages. But then again, I reserve judgment until I see the proposed addition.Keep in mind that the list criteria preclude anything not in another article. Wikipedia as a whole has a western, English language and North American bias, as noted in [[WP:BIAS]]. This list merely reflects the state of all en.wikipedia, and we can’t fix that here. The list can only globalize about as much as the whole encyclopedia. —[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 17:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

* '''Yes. It does have a western bias.''' Perhaps, rather than trying to remove the bias, we change the title? Something like "List of common American misconceptions"? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::I think that would make the problem worse, not better. Making the bias explicit wouldn't remove any bias, but it would lead to the removal of the entries that ameliorate the bias. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 19:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

*We definitely don't want to narrow the scope geographically or linguistically. That is too arbitrary. Over on the AfD I suggested something we could add to the criteria to help guide globalisation. I'll paste it here with a few modifications.
:<blockquote>"Entries should not be restricted to small geographic areas. Generally, only misconceptions referenced as being common across multiple countries are potentially eligible for inclusion. Misconceptions which are only common in a single country, with any believers elsewhere consisting mainly of its expatriates, are generally not eligible. Misconceptions common in only one country may be eligible for large countries with high populations but such exceptions must be well referenced as being very common throughout that country. Editors of the English Wikipedia should take care not to give undue weight to the misconceptions common in English speaking countries. Examples: Misconceptions common across the English, French, Arabic or Spanish speaking worlds are equally eligible (assuming that they meet the other criteria). Misconceptions common across regions such as West Africa, South Asia, North America or Eastern Europe are equally eligible (assuming that they meet the other criteria). Misconceptions specific to large individual countries such as China, Russia or the USA are eligible only if very common throughout the whole country but generally are not. Misconceptions specific to smaller countries or to specific regions of large countries are not eligible. (Note: This means that misconceptions common in only a few states of the USA are not eligible.) This may mean that many interesting and/or amusing candidate entries are excluded. This is intentional. This is necessary to avoid trivial and excessive entries to maintain focus on the most common misconceptions globally."</blockquote>
:Now that's just my idea. Other people can build on it if they want to or they can propose something completely different. At least it gets the discussion started.
:Globalising the article will probably need two approaches. Removing trivial western entries and adding non-western entries. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
::If a current entry is trivial, that might be grounds for removal without considering systemic bias at all. But removing it because it's ''Western'' and kind of trivial is not helpful. We should apply the same bar of triviality to all entries, regardless of country. It only makes it worse if we have a double standard where Western entries need to be more significant than non-Western. Readers notice when you do that and it tends to decrease respect and acceptance for the cultures you're trying to spotlight. Rather than look around for Western entries to delete, it might be more helpful to go to the talk pages of WikiProjects for China or West Africa or wherever and ask editors there if they know of common misconceptions that are in existing articles that we could consider. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Indeed. But if most of the current trivial entries are western trivia then removing them helps address the imbalance as well as deal with the trivia issue. There is no need for a different standard for western entries which is why I didn't suggest one. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 19:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Yeah. "Just saying". Nice place you got here, be a shame if something happened to it. Several editors have a habit of bringing up the need to delete entries from this list in unrelated contexts. Which then precipitates an off-topic discussion about unrelated deletions. If you know of an entry that ought to be deleted, by all means, start a new discussion about that entry. It's unhelpful to harp on that everywhere else. It tends to create a common misconception of its own: that ''List of common misconceptions'' is filled with trivia. That argument has been made and rejected many times, such as the recent AfD, the fourth in a string of failed attempts to claim this list is filled with trivia and cruft. Consensus is against that opinion, and consider [[WP:IDHT]] as advice to heed consensus.Please post which entries are trivial in an appropriate place, or stop the hand waving allusions to theses supposedly trivial entries. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 19:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Break for bulk of text ===
I decided to go through other Wiki's article on this, thinking they would have their own misconceptions. I didn't go through them all, and the Korean and Iranian still have some I haven't transferred, but here are the ones that were not included in the English article. Obviously we don't have to add them all, but just for consideration that these are misconceptions that exist in other countries. Sources can be found (for most) on the Wiki's page.

https://ar.wikipedia.org
:The Declaration of Liberation issued by Abraham Lincoln in September 1862 did not free all American slaves directly, so that the areas under the southern secessionists ignored the resolution, and applied only in the areas under the control of the northerners at the time are South Louisiana, Tennessee and parts Of Virginia, [3] but the Thirteenth Amendment of 1865 abolished slavery altogether.
:Cooked and unopened oysters do not harm health.
:Louis Armstrong was not born on July 4, 1900. He was born August 4, 1901.

https://fr.wikipedia.org
:The Roman Catholic Church did not stifle scientific research during the Middle Ages.
:Most modern historians reject what we conceive as the Dark Ages as being that.
:[[Droit du seigneur]] was a myth. No one has found mention of it in French law, the customs of France, or the public archives of civil or fiscal litigation.
:Galileo was not sentenced to death for claiming the Earth was round. He was placed under house arrest for arguing the Earth was in motion.
:The law against shooting parachutists in wartime before they touch the ground concerns only isolated paratroopers, ie; the crew of an aircraft in distress.
:Adding oil to pasta while cooking does not prevent them from sticking. It is added to prevent water from overflowing or forming foam.
:Microwaves do not let out harmful waves. [This one requires a reference]
:The solstices and equinoxes do not necessarily fall on the 21st of the month.
:The hidden side of the moon receives on average as much light as the visible side.
:The phases of the moon have no impact on behaviour, the human metabolism or plant growth.
:Chameleons change colour mainly to regulate temperature and to communicate, not to camouflage. Some species use this ability to camouflage however.
:The Auk is a family of birds which can fly. They are often mistaken for penguins, due to two reasons. 1 - the similarity between penguins and the larger of the two auk species. In French, the word pingouin for it is also similar to the English word for penguin, the dutch word for penguin (Pinguin), the Spanish word for penguin (pinguino), and the german, italian, russian and portuguese words for penguin.
:Lemongrass does not repel mosquitos
:Sleeping in a room with Viridiplantae is not dangerous.
:Hydrogen peroxide is not a good antiseptic for treating wounds.
:Stress does not cause ulcers.
:Removing white hair does not make it appear more.
:Sugar cane fields are not burned before harvest to increase sugar levels but to expel poisonous snakes and facilitate cutting work.
:The Trendelenburg position does not treat hypotension or states of shock, and can be dangerous.
:Thales of Miletus did not come up with Thale's theorem
:Arabic numerals are of Indian, not Arab origin.
:The Big Bang does not provide an explanation of the origins of the universe, but explains the start of its evolution.
:Having small metal objects on a person does not make them attract lightning.
:Clouds consist not of gaseous water (water vapor), but small water droplets and ice crystals suspended in the air.
:The Earth's mantle consist of solid rock, not molten magma.
:The Mona Lisa, unlike its depiction in various media, notably cinema, is painted on a wooden panel, not canvas.
:The English horn is neither a horn nor English. It is a wood instrument.
:The harpsichord is not the piano's ancestor; they are not in the same family.
:There has never been a council on whether women have souls. See the article - Synod of Mâcon
:Original sin does not refer to sex, but the desire of men and women to be "like god", the equal of their creator.

https://ko.wikipedia.org
:The revolutionary spirit of the French Revolution is known as freedom, equality, and fraternity, but it is freedom, equality, and rights. The former only became the official ideology of the republic with the adoption of the 1875 Consistution.
:America did not enter WW1 due to unrestricted submarine warfare. They entered after a message was encoded in which the German foreign minister touted the benefits of invading the USA to the German ambassador in Mexico.

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 13:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

== Christopher Columbus and Flat Earth ==

I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=862183602&oldid=862123949&diffmode=source restored] the material [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=next&oldid=861990136&diffmode=source edited] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=861995945&oldid=861995144&diffmode=source deleted] by {{u|TompaDompa}}. I agree that it needs to be merged with an existing entry on Columbus. I moved the entry to be closer to the existing entry to make that easier. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

These are the two entries that need to be merged:
* [[Medieval Europe]]ans [[Myth of the Flat Earth|did not believe Earth was flat]]; in fact, from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]], belief in a [[spherical Earth]] remained almost universal among European intellectuals. As a result, [[Christopher Columbus]]'s efforts to obtain support for [[voyages of Christopher Columbus|his voyages]] were hampered not by belief in a flat Earth but by valid worries that the East Indies were farther than he realized.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | title=The Myth of the Flat Earth | encyclopedia=Misconceptions about the Middle Ages | publisher=Routledge | accessdate=26 January 2014 | author=Louise M. Bishop | editor=Stephen Harris | editor2=Bryon L. Grigsby | date=2010 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hdCTAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT149| isbn=9781135986667 }}</ref> If the Americas had not existed, he would surely have run out of supplies before reaching Asia.
* [[Christopher Columbus]] did not "prove" the earth was round. That had been known since at least 500 B.C.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html|title=Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref> This myth was propagated by authors like [[Washington Irving]] in ''[[A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus]]''.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://dhayton.haverford.edu/blog/2014/12/02/washington-irvings-columbus-and-the-flat-earth/|title=Washington Irving’s Columbus and the Flat Earth – Darin Hayton|website=dhayton.haverford.edu|language=en-US|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref> In fact, Columbus grossly underestimated the earth's circumference in order to justify his famous voyage of 1492. He and all of his crew would have died of starvation, thirst or scurvy had they not been lucky enough to bump into the uncharted continent of North America.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Coming of Age in the Milky Way|last=Ferris|first=Timothy|publisher=Harper Perennial|year=2003|isbn=978-0060535957|location=|pages=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.americanheritage.com/content/everything-you-need-know-about-columbus|title=Everything You Need To Know About Columbus {{!}} AMERICAN HERITAGE|website=www.americanheritage.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html|title=Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus|work=Live Science|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref> (See also [[Voyages of Christopher Columbus]].)
:Likewise it is also a myth that people of the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat (See: [[Myth of the flat Earth]]). This myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/resources/additional-resources/2010/05/science-versus-christianity|title=Science Versus Christianity?|website=www.patheos.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:I think the second one can simply be deleted; all the necessary information is in the first one. We should avoid making the entries overly detailed as that hampers readability. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::I prefer having more details, such as:
:::* "myth was propagated by authors like [[Washington Irving]] in ''[[A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus]]''"
:::* flat earth "myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings."
:::* additional [[WP:RS]] refs.
:: Some of the language in the second is preferable to the first--more interesting IMHO (of course, I did write it.) For example:
:::* "uncharted" is more active than "If the Americas had not existed".
:::* "crew [dying] of starvation, thirst or scurvy" is more interesting to visualize than "running out of supplies".
:::* "since at least 500 B.C." (reflecting [[Spherical Earth]]) is probably more accurate than "from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]], belief in a [[spherical Earth]] remained almost universal among European intellectuals", which lacks [[WP:RS]], may overstate universality of agreement, and gives more credit to [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] than they likely deserve, rather than intellectuals like [[Pythagoras]], [[Parmenides]], and [[Eratosthenes]] who appear to have had much greater influence in moving beliefs towards the spherical earth. It's not clear to me if there was a [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/step_change step-change] to acceptance of a spherical earth or if it was a gradual change over some centuries.
::--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC) (revised)
:::I think the extra details on the origins are unnecessary ''here''. They can go on the respective articles. I don't feel strongly about the different phrasings. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Okay. That leaves far less in dispute. How do you feel about including more [[WP:RS]] refs? I can make the changes in the older version to reflect my preferences on phrasings. I assume you would have no objection to that? As for the origins of the myths, we need input from at least one other editor to break the impasse on that. I am not certain if it is better to start the change in the article now, or wait for additional feedback. What do you think? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::As long as it doesn't reach [[WP:OVERCITE]] levels, more sources is fine. I say start editing now. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::I'm done with the merge/changes. Feel free to comment on my changes below. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}
===Revised / Merged Version #1 ===
I'm done making the changes/merge ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=862227780&oldid=862191008&diffmode=source 12 edits], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=862228671&oldid=862228378&diffmode=source 2 more edits]). Here is what I have ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&oldid=862228671#Middle_Ages_and_Renaissance permalink]):

* [[Medieval Europe]]ans [[Myth of the Flat Earth|did not believe Earth was flat]]. Scholars have known the [[spherical Earth|earth is spherical]] since at least 500 B.C. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html|title=Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref> This myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/resources/additional-resources/2010/05/science-versus-christianity|title=Science Versus Christianity?|website=www.patheos.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
:* [[Christopher Columbus]]'s efforts to obtain support for [[voyages of Christopher Columbus|his voyages]] were hampered not by belief in a flat Earth but by valid worries that the East Indies were farther than he realized.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | title=The Myth of the Flat Earth | encyclopedia=Misconceptions about the Middle Ages | publisher=Routledge | accessdate=26 January 2014 | author=Louise M. Bishop | editor=Stephen Harris | editor2=Bryon L. Grigsby | date=2010 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hdCTAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT149| isbn=9781135986667 }}</ref> In fact, Columbus grossly underestimated the earth's circumference because of two calculation errors.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/columbuss-geographical-miscalculations|title=Columbus’s Geographical Miscalculations|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|access-date=2018-10-03}}</ref> He and all of his crew would have died of starvation, thirst or scurvy had they not been lucky enough to bump into the uncharted continent of North America.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Coming of Age in the Milky Way|last=Ferris|first=Timothy|publisher=Harper Perennial|year=2003|isbn=978-0060535957|location=|pages=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.americanheritage.com/content/everything-you-need-know-about-columbus|title=Everything You Need To Know About Columbus {{!}} AMERICAN HERITAGE|website=www.americanheritage.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html|title=Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus|work=Live Science|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
:* The myth that Columbus proved the earth was round was propagated by authors like [[Washington Irving]] in ''[[A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus]]''.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://dhayton.haverford.edu/blog/2014/12/02/washington-irvings-columbus-and-the-flat-earth/|title=Washington Irving’s Columbus and the Flat Earth – Darin Hayton|website=dhayton.haverford.edu|language=en-US|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html|title=Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
I welcome feedback.
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

== Pre-ejaculate ==

Popular belief – dating to a 1966 Masters and Johnson study<ref>{{cite book|last=Masters|first=W.H.|title=Johnson, V.E.|year=1966|publisher=Little, Brown and Company|location=Boston, MA|page=211}}</ref> – stated that [[pre-ejaculate]] may contain sperm that can cause pregnancy, which is a common basis of argument against the use of [[coitus interruptus]] (withdrawal) as a contraceptive method. However, pre-ejaculate is ineffectual at causing pregnancy.<ref name=zukerman/><ref name="HIV">{{Cite journal| title=Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid | journal=Contraceptive Technology Update |date=October 1993 | volume=14 | issue=10 | pmid=12286905 | pages=154–156}}</ref>

[[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

* In theory an item like this could land on this list, but to me it looks like one of those cases where it's too hazy. Even if some newer studies make a strong statement, we will still have some reliable sources who continue to say the opposite. Many science and medical questions remain forever up for debate, even when most experts are in agreement. It's very much like political/economic questions.I can't figure out what [[Pre-ejaculate]] is trying to say here. Can you go to [[Talk:Pre-ejaculate]] and see if you can get consensus for some more definitive language? It kind of looks like that's not possible because you've got a handful of conflicting studies with lots of "may" and "might" conclusions. "Pre-ejaculate is ineffectual at causing pregnancy" is not the same as the statement "You can't get pregnant from pre-ejaculate". The article [[Coitus interruptus]] isn't very consistent with [[Pre-ejaculate]]. There would need to be consensus for a clearer statement in both articles, and the coitus interruptus article appears to say the sources are even more contradictory than the pre-ejaculate article.Aside from that, pre-ejaculate is only one of the reasons withdraw is an ineffective birth control method, and so even if one were to prove that pre-ejaculate contains zero sperm, ever, for anybody (unlikely) it's still kind of a meaningless point. There's a common misconception that pulling out works, and a common believe that it's bound to fail, and among those who believe it is poor birth control, there are varying opinions as to why it is ineffective. A "common misconception" requires a little more straightforward erroneous belief. People who are right about coitus interruptus, but for a mixture wrong reasons and right reasons, are still basically right. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 18:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

::Sources [https://www.google.com/search?ei=AQa1W6m6G8y9ggf6v5uABA&q=pre-ejaculatory+fluid+can+cause+pregnancy+misconceptions&oq=pre-ejaculatory+fluid+can+cause+pregnancy+miscon&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i21j33i160.925537.927834..930019...0.0..0.161.594.6j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i22i30.oqD4G1gjz-E disagree] so this would not be any kind of misconception. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

* IF it is reworded to accurately reflect the diversity of opinions in sources with [[WP:NPOV]] weight -AND- one or more sources says it is a myth, misconception or point of confusion, THEN I would support its inclusion. Assuming {{u|Dennis Bratland}}'s comment is correct, there is not general agreement that the probably of pregnancy from pre-ejaculate is basically 0%, but there may be a consensus that it is likely near 0%, with the common hedge words you see in scientific writing about cause and effect. I would agree then it's not entirely black/white.
:There is also the more straightforward question, "Does pre-ejaculate have sperm?" That might be the real myth.
:I'm not yet convinced there is no myth, but I believe the wording proposed above will need to be re-worked if it is to be included. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:::That's a fair way of putting it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr is right too, putting it succinctly. Some misconceptions could theoretically be on this list, but we exclude them because it's too difficult to sort out which sources to believe and to write the claim with enough qualifications to be correct. Since this list is long and difficult to maintain, we have to stick with entries that are clear and on solid ground. The low hanging fruit. Pre-ejaculate will constantly be challenged.Under the ''human sexuality'' heading, we only have two items and we could easily add four or five very strongly supported common misconceptions related to [[virginity]], [[virginity test]]s, the [[hymen]] and so on. Right in the lead of [[anal sex]] it says "While anal sex is commonly associated with male homosexuality, research shows that not all gay males engage in anal sex and that it is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships." There's plenty such of low hanging fruit for anyone who wants to expand the human sexuality topic. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 00:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

::::Misconceptions are black or white/right or wrong. If there is a "diversity of opinions" then we can not claim there is a "misconception" in Wikipedia's voice per [[WP:YESPOV]]---> ''Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.'' [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::That's an overstatement. The [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] policies don't go that far. The essay [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth|Verifiability, not truth]] presents a detailed argument for why we don't adhere to such a rigid definition of "fact" as equivalent to "The Truth". But perhaps for purposes this list that's one way of identifying what I was calling the "low hanging fruit", those misconceptions which are very unlikely to be seriously challenged. But such a strict standard is not how Wikipedia generally determines what can be stated as a fact in [[WP:WIKIVOICE|Wikipedia's voice]]. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Dennis Bratland's analysis. Few things are completely black/white, even in science. Just ask [https://www.britannica.com/science/uncertainty-principle Heisenberg]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::In my experience it's generally white.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 10:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::::Lol. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::: Things that are "gray" can be treated in Wikipedia explaining the different views and following Verifiability, not truth, but that should be done at another article, not on this List. This List has a statement of fact in its title so we are already making a POV statement (taking sides) just adding an item here. Things added here should be a "fact" or very, very, very close to a "fact" (only counter amounts to [[WP:FRINGE]]) i.e. "very low hanging fruit". [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 13:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tq|Things that are "gray" can be treated in Wikipedia...but that should be done at another article, not on this List.}} I strongly disagree. I see no problem with gray items. People can think something is gray that is black/white. People can think something is black/white that is gray. People can believe something is far more or less likely than it is. (gray vs. gray). (e.g. probability of lighting striking twice in the same place, probability of a dice roll being less likely if it already come up, or probability of winning a hand is increased or decreased if you just won or lost a hand, etc.) There are many myths about gambling based on faulty knowledge of probability, and there are equally many complicated betting strategies based on those myths. I might add some gambling myths in they aren't already in the article!
::::::::::{{tq|This List has a statement of fact in its title}} It does not. It's about misconceptions, which can be about the things I described in the above a paragraph. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::::There are facts that are not seriously contested at all, excluding the old 'fringe' loons, which we don't cite at all. Then there are facts which are seriously contested, so that we treat them as opinions. But in between the two, there are facts that are ''contested'' by reliable sources (not fringe, not lunatics) but nonetheless are not ''seriously contested''. We can acknowledge that not all reliable sources are 100% on board, without diminishing the level of consensus by misidentifying a ''fact'' as a mere ''opinion''. That's one way of thinking about the gray area.We do seem to agree about the pre-ejaculate question here, so there's no reason to bicker over it. And we know of many potential additions which are on very solid ground, without having to spend a lot of energy debating. Looking at the virginity related armistices I mentioned, there are a number of easy ones. If someone wants to make the effort to push through one of the harder ones in the gray areas, most of us here wouldn't reject it out of hand. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 04:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Friendship paradox ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox

The friendship paradox is the phenomenon first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991 that most people have fewer friends than their friends have, on average.[1] It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with greater numbers of friends have an increased likelihood of being observed among one's own friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have.[2]

[[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 21:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

:Would help if you supplied 4 or 5 reliable sources stating its a common misconception instead of keeping us guessing. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

::Read the article yourself. Also, stop trying to imply that some arbitrary number of sources is a requirement. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 22:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

:::Try reading WP:V some day. Anyway, fails #2 and #3 so far. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 23:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

::::Where exactly does it say that "4 or 5" sources are required? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 01:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

:::::How about one for starters? [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

::::It does not fail #2 or #3. #3 is easily met with [[Friendship paradox]]. #2 is met from ref [2] in the article. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
::::{{ping|MjolnirPants}} I am starting to understand the frustration you felt that led you to file the [[WP:AN/I]] complaint you did. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

* '''Okay to include''' -- Interesting stuff. Do you know if the ref. [2] was cited in other secondary psychology journal articles? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

*'''Support''' — Go ahead and add it to the list. If the wording or citations aren't quite perfect, we can always make some adjustments. This is a pretty good example of a [[WP:WIKIVOICE|fact]] that is "uncontested and uncontroversial". --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 04:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

== Lightning Striking Twice ==

Support for adding misconception about lighting striking twice, using [https://www.weather.gov/safety/lightning-myths], [https://www.britannica.com/story/can-lightning-strike-the-same-place-twice], [https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/myth-lightning-never-strikes-twice/19890] and linking to [[Lightning#In_culture_and_religion]]? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

:This misconception is already on the page. (JoshMuirWikipedia on mobile) [[Special:Contributions/1.127.105.227|1.127.105.227]] ([[User talk:1.127.105.227|talk]]) 04:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

::Ooops. I did a search on it, and it didn't come. My search must have been a typo. That was a lot of time wasted looking for the best sources! LOL. Maybe one of them is better than what's in the article... --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

== Food and Cooking Issues ==

Fortune Cookies:
:Source [2] - Snopes - On Wikipedia, generally if Snopes is used and lists sources, use the sources instead of just listing Snopes.

Searing Meats:
:Source [3] - Cookthink - :This source uses source [4], Harold McGee, as its source, so we are pretty much using source [4] twice. Cookthink is also a now defunct website which gave recipes based on user's cravings, hardly reliable.
:I know that the policy on this article is to format entries as corrections, implying the misconception, rather than stating them, this misconception raises an issue for me. This article is a 'list of common misconceptions', and by not stating the misconception, it does not serve its title. It is also difficult for readers, who come for a list of common misconceptions, and receive a correction for a misconception they do not know about.

Cooking Alcohol:
:Source [6] - Weil - This source comes from Dr Andrew Weil. He is a celebrity doctor who mainly deals with Alternative Medicine, thus medical information from him should not be considered mainstream. This source could, however, be used to identify it as a common misconception.
:The article linked to, [[Cooking with alcohol]], does not list this as a misconception.

Twinkies:
:[9] - USA Today - This article says the shelf life of Twinkies has increased from 26 days to 45. Source [10], which is what is used in the article, says the shelf life (which no-where says original) was 'more like' 25 days. Our article lists the 'original formulation' shelf life, which sources no-where mention, instead they just mention a formulation which has been used in the past, with no reference to whether this was the original formulation. Our article also lists this 'original' shelf life as 25, even though the source is vague about it being 25, with a more specific 26 listed in a source we already have.
:Most sources describe this belief as an urban legend, not a misconception. For the purposes of this article I'm not sure whether that means anything, but we should probably take it out as we do not want to start listing urban legends with the misconceptions. Alternatively the sources I have read may have been a minority, so multiple sources stating it is a misconception should be found.

Microwave Ovens Water Resonance:
:Only one source is listed for this, although it is a good source.

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 05:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions

2018-10-04T13:15:21Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Western Bias */ Added foreign Wiki's misconceptions

{{Old AfD multi |date=26 September 2018 |result='''keep''' |page=List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=yes|bottom=yes}}
{{notice|header=Inclusion Criteria|A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following:
*The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.
*The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item ''and'' the fact that it is a common misconception.
*The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
*The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
If you propose an entry that does ''not'' fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please include your rationale for inclusion.
}}
{{ArticleHistory|action1=AFD
|action1date=18:42, 29 October 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=84390149

|action2=AFD
|action2date=9:29, 24 March 2009
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)
|action2result=keep
|action2oldid=279300637

|action3=AFD
|action3date=11:11, 8 February 2011
|action3link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination)
|action3result=no consensus
|action3oldid=412627218

|action4=FLC
|action4date=17:11, 25 April 2011
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of common misconceptions/archive1
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=425807313

|topic = history
|currentstatus=FFLC
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Lists |class=List |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Agriculture |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Biology |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject History |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Islam |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Judaism |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Literature |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=list |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Psychology |class=list |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=list|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sexuality |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sports |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Technology |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Popular Culture |class=B |importance=High}}
}}
{{Press
|author=
|title=The end of Wikipedia as we know it?
|org=''[[Irish Times]]'' (subscription required)
|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2011/0810/1224302179868.html
|date=8 August 2011
|quote=Here’s our Wikipedia Articles Worth Reading ''(first listed)''
|archiveurl=
|archivedate=
|accessdate = 2013-02-21

|author2=Toby Manhire
|title2=Common misconceptions: 10 of the best
|org2=''[[New Zealand Listener]]''
|url2= http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/common-misconceptions-10-of-the-best/
|date2= 14 February 2013
|quote2=... one of its best pages ...
|archiveurl2=http://www.webcitation.org/6EbkZJJwp
|archivedate2=2013-02-21
|accessdate2= 2013-02-21

|author3 = Alexis Kleinman, Maxwell Strachan
|subject3 = article
|title3 = The 49 Most Entertaining Wikipedia Entries Ever Created
|org3 = [[The Huffington Post]]
|url3 = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/strangest-wikipedia-entries_n_6463488.html
|date3 = 14 January 2015
|accessdate3 = 8 March 2015

|author4 = Douglas, Nick
|title4 = Get Smart With Wikipedia’s List of Common Misconceptions
|org4 = [[LifeHacker]]
|url4 = http://lifehacker.com/get-smart-with-wikipedia-s-list-of-common-misconception-1797840410
|date4 = 15 August 2017
|accessdate4 = 10 September 2017

|url5=https://www.buzzfeed.com/eleanorbate/wiki-pages-to-keep-you-awake-add-yours?utm_term=.jsNZDq7g0#.qpbQVmpXj
|title5=What Totally Fascinating Wikipedia Pages Have Kept You Reading All Night?
|org5=[[BuzzFeed]]
|author5=Ellie Bate
|date5=November 22, 2017
}}

{{high traffic
|date=4 January 2011 |site=xkcd |url=http://www.xkcd.com/843/
|date2=12 January 2011 |site2=Boing Boing |url2=http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/11/wikipedias-list-of-c.html
|date3=3 February 2011 |site3=i am bored |url3=http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=56483
|small=
}}
{{annual readership}}

{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=4 |units=weeks
|small=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive index
|mask=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 21
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(28d)
|archive = Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d
|small=
}}



== Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018 ==

{{edit semi-protected|List of common misconceptions|answered=yes}}
Change 'The word's true origin is unknown, but it existed in the Middle Scots period' to 'The word golf is thought to have originated from the old Dutch word for club or bat: "kolf."' Source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/golf [[User:Rdegregzz4004|Rdegregzz4004]] ([[User talk:Rdegregzz4004|talk]]) 16:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
:This is a reference to the [[golf]] misconception about it not being an acronym of "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden". Instead of doing that I just removed it. The phrase "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden" is mentioned in the article, but not the misconception, so fails inclusion criteria. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

== poverty ==

Global poverty has declined dramatically, but the overwhelming majority of people think it hasn't.<ref> HumanProgress, "What 19 in 20 Americans Don't Know About World Poverty," April 30, 2018</ref>

Where should this go? I'm kinda surprised there's no "economics" section. There are a lot of common misconceptions about economics. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 19:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:It would have to be a reliably sourced stable part of a link-able article. We got [[Poverty]], but it ain't stable ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty&type=revision&diff=856975366&oldid=856754037 its new]) and its not [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/human-progress/ reliably sourced]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

::Our World in Data is a very reliable source, right? But I'm trying to find the original source... [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 20:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it! <ref>https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty</ref> [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 20:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how useful mediabiasfactcheck.com is in determining reliability for Wikipedia, but for what it's worth, left right bias doesn't seem to be a problem here, since one source is left and one right. (And still, neither are extreme.) [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

:Linked source fails a bit in reliability because its more of a primary source paper, not the boiled down secondary source required (see [[WP:PST]]). It also does not seem to describe a misconception. For a list of "common misconceptions" there would have to be (several) main stream sources describing the misconception specifically. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

::Shouldn't it be okay in this case since it's not [[WP:SYNTH]]? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 23:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

:::We really haven't got past WP:V yet, let alone criteria #2. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

::::What do you mean, you don't think it's verifiable? I don't understand. Our World in Data is widely cited and has a reputation for producing high quality research. Do you really think they would just make something up? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 00:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::We have only one source claiming this is a misconception, HumanProgress... and yeah, they are known to make stuff up. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::Ballotpedia and CATO are two more secondary sources. But in this case, the data is clear, isn't it? There's no controversial or complicated analysis to make. Global absolute poverty is going down, and most people don't think so. These are facts. Do you really think that is in dispute? This is ridiculous. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 03:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::The problem is this is a list that lists Wikipedia articles that have a certain attribute, they enumerate a "common misconception". We don't make those assertions or those arguments here, no matter how well sourced. Its getting the cart before the horse. The place to discuss is [[Talk:Poverty]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Benjamin on this one. There is clearly a perception out there that global povery is as bad or worse than it was 50 to 100 years ago. I think the sources provided are certainly sufficient to show that it isn't correct. Though I agree, there isn't quite enough yet to support that it is, in fact, a misconception. I would add to that list <ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/29/29-uncomfortable-myths-about-soaring-poverty-in-america/#d1d28913963a</ref> and <ref>https://www.finca.org/campaign/world-poverty/</ref> and <ref>http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats</ref> all of which imply or openly state that global poverty is worse than it was (usually by using a misleading stat or a stat that isn't directly related to poverty like income disparity). [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 12:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
*I agree that this perception seems to exist. But we need sources showing it. We have sourcing showing that it's wrong, but we need sources showing that it exists. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
**How about this?<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j-4yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA7|title=Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think|last=Rosling|first=Hans|last2=Rönnlund|first2=Anna Rosling|last3=Rosling|first3=Ola|date=2018-04-03|publisher=Flatiron Books|isbn=9781250123817|language=en|page=7}}</ref> It verifies both that poverty has declined and that most people don't think it has. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 13:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::That source looks pretty good to me, and it supports both statements and the conclusion. Go for it. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 14:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

::::It should really be at [[Poverty]], well sourced, and stable, before its listed here. We should not front run these things. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::I'm not arguing with you, I'm just discussing where the discussion is taking place. Make the edit at [[Poverty]], and then give it a day or two. If no-one reverts, add it here. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Well, I wouldn't expect [[Poverty]] to have a section about misconceptions, that is more in this page's balliwick. If you review the section on absolute and relative poverty it does contain the same trends and statistics referenced above. That poverty is decreasing. Agree with Bryn that we don't want to get out ahead of other articles, but I'm not sure that where we would put a section about misperception in that article without making it unencylopedic. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::: I think the current wording is fine. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 13:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::::Benjamin, can you post the exact text you suggest for review? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 15:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::Cleaned up the wording in the "Global prevalence" section. I agree with [[u|Squatch347]] that making the language more encyclopedic (and looking over the sources re:what the study was and opposing views) this sounds more like peoples POV on poverty and/or their lack of awareness of a United Nations or World Bank report, not a "misconception". Also if claim has opposing viewpoints I don't think we can call it a "misconception" per [[WP:YESPOV]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::: What are you talking about? The survey question wasn't "What is your opinion of poverty?", or "Have you heard about this particular report?", it was simply, "Do you think extreme poverty has increased or decreased?". And I think the results are clear. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::: Also, to clarify, it is a fact that extreme poverty has declined. That much is not controversial. The controversial part is where exactly to set the threshold. But nevertheless, [https://ourworldindata.org/no-matter-what-global-poverty-line No matter what extreme poverty line you choose, the share of people below that poverty line has declined globally.] [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 12:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
{{OD}}
We can't get inside other peoples heads as to what they thought a question meant, hence the observation being made that making such a statement as "common misconception" in [[Poverty]] is beyond what an encyclopedia does, we just present facts and figures. That makes us fall short of listdef #3. The [[WP:SAL]]/[[WP:V]] "common misconception" would have to be a large number of sources stating directly that this is a "common misconception" to get us past listdef #2, [https://www.google.com/search?ei=XT-JW8OKGcmd5wLgtIDQCQ&q=%22extreme+poverty%22+misconception&oq=%22extreme+poverty%22+misconception&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.7534.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.UnUcx97HL9o not seeing that]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

: I think the sources are sufficient to establish the misconception. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gents, I think firm up the consensus developing and perhaps give Bryn a bit more assurance, Benjamin, can you paste here your recommended addition? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}
===Arbitrary break===

Given that Benjamin hasn't posted a recommended entry. I'll offer one: "It is a common perception that global poverty is increasing (references) both in scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined dramatically during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades (references).
[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:It strikes me as too strongly worded. I am totally on board with the notion that global poverty has gone down at a remarkable rate, almost certainly far more than most people would guess, but I'm not convinced that there are a large group of people that actually think it's gone up. I suspected something most people don't think about very often, so if we did a "man or woman in the street" survey, we did all lot of "I don't know", a few "about the same", a few" up maybe?", with the last group similar to the size of people who believe in ghosts. I think this is worthy of entry but we need to do more work on wordsmithing and I apologize for simply throwing rocks at your suggestion and not offering an improved alternative.--[[User:Sphilbrick|S Philbrick]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|(Talk)]] 18:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

::Don't worry about it, I threw it up there for people to throw rocks at. I think you are right that most people don't actually think about it much. The man on the street poll was what was discussed with the book citation referenced earlier. It seems to indicate that less than 10% of people correctly answered the question about poverty rate change, which seems somewhat dramatic. Maybe change the opening sentence to say something more like "When polled, few respondents could correctly identify that poverty rates have decreased, with a strong majority indicating they thought they had increased."

::Thoughts? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 18:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Are you referring to [https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/what-19-20-americans-dont-know-about-world-poverty this poll]?

:::That's a mildly frustrating article (unless I read it too quickly). I understand that when someone does a survey with lots of questions and lots of possible answers, it may be difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all the answers but in this case they asked one question with three possible answers. They provided the statistics for the people who got the correct answer (C), which is enough information to know the values for the sum of A and B, but they don't break out the responses for answer A. Your revised wording is correct only if you have evidence that the respondents who picked answer A are a strong majority. That doesn't appear to be in the link I provided — perhaps you have a link with more detail?--[[User:Sphilbrick|S Philbrick]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|(Talk)]] 21:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

::::That appears to be the same poll, though it came through in a different source (linked in this discussion). The conclusion that most respondents had overestimated was contained in the surrounding text. I did find this: https://globescan.com/increases-in-perceived-seriousness-of-poverty-and-homelessness-global-poll/ perhaps as another source. It also has its limitations as some of its earlier polls referenced conflate economic fairness with poverty rates. Still, it does seem to indicate that the perception of poverty as increasing is present in the country's surveyed. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 12:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some edits based on the feedback:

:: "When polled, a majority of people in most developed nations indicate they believe that global poverty is increasing [Human Progress][Forbes][Factfulness book] in both scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades [Human Progress][Our world in data][finca][globalissues][factfullness].

[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 16:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:Assuming your linked article is [[poverty]], it still fails #3, there is not a "common misconception" described at that article. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 17:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

::Both [[Poverty]] and [[Extreme poverty]] reference this as a misconception based on public opinion polls and reference the reduction. Given that, I think it qualifies fine. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 17:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
:::The benchmark here is "common misconception", not just that people think something else. That it is a common misconception needs to be hashed out at the linked article first (supposedly where the experts are), before its added here. In short you are proposing this change on the wrong talk page(s), i.e this should be discussed at [[Talk:Poverty]] and/or [[Talk:Extreme poverty]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

::::The fact that it is an incorrect belief that is widely held doesn't constitute a "common misconception?" The requirement is: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." The misconception is listed on that page and it has sources. There is nothing in there that says that we need to get a vote or consensus. It is on that page and listed with sources. Requirement met. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 19:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

{{od}}
Requirement #3 is "The ''common misconception'' is mentioned in its topic article with sources.", not "The ''misconception''"... Also the secondary sources have to state that it is common misconception, we can not do the WP:OR of comparing numbers and polls and drawing our own conclusion that it is a "common misconception". The claim is also contradicted by the very next citation in [[Poverty]], so we can not make an assertion that is is an "incorrect belief" per [[WP:YESPOV]] #2. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:That is a strained reading of that requirement at best. The common misconception is listed there. The item we are discussed is listed with secondary sources. If we were to adopt your definition, we would need to delete something around 75% of this page's content (I looked at the first 30 items and only about 6 would meet your standard, if that). Clearly the editors and admins who've been on this page haven't adopted your interpretation.

:Your statement about the next citation is also incorrect. There is disagreement (which is mentioned in the suggested text) on how to calculate poverty rate, not disagreement that it has decreased. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

::You are making a WP:OR statement that what is listed is a "common misconception", a secondary source has to make that assessment, not us. Per 75%: we have gone in a circle about that, other stuff existing is not a rational to add more, it is a rational for a cleanup. The last sentence in the proposed addition is WP:OR (we don't make statements based on tallying up different documents). The next source ends with "Moreover, defining poverty is not an exact science, experts say." - we can't hang a definitive statement on that. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:::[[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]], I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria. The source doesn't need to use the exact phrase "common misconception" in order to establish that it is indeed a common misconception. It could say "a bunch of people believe this thing that is incorrect", and that would be enough. "defining poverty is not an exact science" So what? It doesn't need to be. The social sciences in general are not exact sciences. And that is okay. And besides, it's not our job as editors to evaluate what is or isn't an exact science. All we do is listen to what the sources have to say. And in this case, it is clear that the sources support the proposed addition. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 19:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

::::If the sources don't make a specific statement we follow [[WP:V]]. If they differ, we follow [[WP:YESPOV]]. Please read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination) the current AfD] because there seems to be no support for a loose interpretation as to what a "common misconception" is. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::The difference between "X is a common misconception" and "most people think X, even though it is incorrect" is merely a difference of wording, not a different viewpoint. Could you highlight for me the comments that argue otherwise? The AfD entry has become cumbersome to read by this point. Thanks. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 21:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear that the sources adequately establish the misconception, and I find continued discussion a bit frustrating. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 22:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

:Agreed. We now have four editors in agreement here. That is clearly as close to consensus as we are going to get. The only editor in disagreement has been engaging in clear page ownership and reverted all edits not his own. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

::Sorry to come in late, but I think this is really a case of the bias towards pessimism. People always say that things are getting worse. In fact, according to most people, it's hard to criticise anything if you admit things have got better...--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I support including this item, even though I generally would categorize economic issues as "political" and exclude them because they are too intertwined with political identity (e.g. the left and the right have different ideas about tax policy, and they both will insist the other is deluded). But I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=861019565&oldid=861018310 this] suggested text is not in keeping with the direction we want to go with this page, since it's too wordy and too detailed. A lot of the disagreement here is over the fine details of the wording. We can "cheat" on ''List of common misconceptions'' by being vague. This article is like a navbox -- you're ''supposed'' to click through to get the full nuanced details. Our text here just be very short: ''Poverty has declined, not increased, over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries''. Boom. Done.What kind of poverty? How do you define it? Absolute poverty or relative poverty? All good questions, but the answers are found by clicking the links, not here.All of the entries here should be written like that. We all know this list is way too long. The phrasing "X is not Y, X is actually Z, and even though group G has often thought that X is Y, in fact, experts E and F have published data showing that X was Z all along!!!" Too many words!!! The very structure of this list ''always'' implies that "X is not Y, X is actually Z blah blah blah". Every entry repeats the same crap. The redundancy is what has bloated the page. Just say "X is not Y". Poverty has not increased, it has declined, during the 20th and 21s centuries."Many editors think you don't have permission to go over to the article [[poverty]] (or whatever) and expand or clarify the text so that it presents the common misconception with the proper nuance and qualifications. That is false. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Full stop. Read [[WP:Editing policy]]. You cannot arbitrarily forbid anyone from editing any article. That would be a [[WP:Topic ban|Topic ban]] and those are rare and applied in very specific cases after due process.Go fix up the other articles, as long as you respect consensus, work out agreeable wording with other editors over on the talk pages, don't edit war, and make sure you cite your sources and meet the verifiability requirements. The text ''should not'' read like the result of a long battle and endless lawyering and quibbling. It should be short and snappy and it should '''make the reader want to click the links'''. You could even call it clickbait, though we don't want to go that far. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 21:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

== Mayflies ==

There's a myth that [[Mayfly|mayflies]] only live 24 hours, when really that's just how long their adult stage lasts. It gets referenced here on the entry on houseflies, but I think it deserves its own bullet point. — [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] 20:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
:Per the inclusion criteria at the top of this talk page, the misconception should be mentioned in the article with citations. I do not see a misconception mentioned in the article. In fact the article seems to imply that the lifespan depends on the species and can be very short. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 05:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
:Surely this is just semantics, people taking the word "mayfly" to refer to the winged form, in the same way that most people take "butterfly" to mean [[:File:Monarch_In_May.jpg|this]] rather than [[:File:Monarch_Butterfly_Danaus_plexippus_Feeding_Down_3008px.jpg|this]]. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]]) 13:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

== Recently added then removed section Discussion ==

Fountains of Bryn Mawr removed the addition by an editor I've pasted below with the note that it fails criteria two and three. If I understand it correctly those are:

The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.

I'm not sure how it fails those two criteria. The Atlantic is a reliable source for this kind of misconception and it has sufficient evidence within the body of the article that it is a common misconception. Likewise it references it as a common misconception and references multiple examples within the body of the article. Given that, I recommend it for reinclusion.

* [[Women in the Victorian era]] suffering from [[Female hysteria|hysteria]] were not treated by doctors with [[Vibrator (sex toy)|vibrators]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Meyer |first1=Robinson |title=Victorian-Era Orgasms and the Crisis of Peer Review |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/09/victorian-vibrators-orgasms-doctors/569446/ |accessdate=6 September 2018 |date=7 September 2018}}</ref>

[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

::The entry (confusingly) linked three topic articles. [[Female hysteria|hysteria]] contains the wording "some historians dispute" and [[Vibrator (sex toy)|vibrators]] has the wording "historians disagree", so that fails #3, no misconception mentioned. The source being used is brand new, again equivocates "probably a myth", has no supporting sources for claims of "common misconception" other than anecdote, is a single source, and we will obviously have no further sourcing as to this being a "common misconception", a requirement re:reliable sourcing - so fails #2.

::We seem to still be at a disagreement amongst historians, which is not actually a misconception. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 11:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

::: I agree that the multiple article links does make it confusing. My take is that this is a matter of taste for wiki editors, some like to link any and all relevant subjects (which seems to be what is happening here) while some (like you, and I think correctly) choose to link only those directly relevant to the sentence or topic. I'd be happy to limit the linkages to other articles, but I imagine someone will put them back in.

::: The misconception is definitely mentioned in the article, so I think we can dispense with objections based on criteria three. Rather it seems your concern centers around criteria two. I think there are some sections of the article that address those concerns.

:::The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.

::::I'll assume we don't have any issues with the reliability of the Atlantic per se so I'll move on to whether or not the article discusses this as a common misperception. "And in the past few years, it has careened around popular culture. It’s given rise to a Tony-nominated play, a rom-com starring Maggie Gyllenhaal, and even a line of branded vibrators. Samantha Bee did a skit about it in March. A seemingly endless march of quirky news stories has instructed readers in its surprising but true quality, including in Vice, Mother Jones, and Psychology Today.

::::In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex. " This paragraph would seem to put forward that the misconception is, in fact, common. It references multiple sources referencing it, including from other journalists.

::::Your elaborated objection was based on whether it was, in fact, a misconception. I think the key phrase in the section you quote from the Hysteria article is, "some historians dispute Maine's claims about the prevelance..." The next sentence also details that Maine thinks the claim is a hypothesis, not a fact. We should also point out that there are more citations for the contrary position in that article than in the support.

::::If we are aiming at the historical consensus on this subject (which I think we are), we need to recognize that the only source of the vibrator hypothesis is Maines. Both the Atlantic and Wiki article only cite Maines as a reference. We have three dissenting sources in the wiki article, with an additional semi-dissent from Maines herself. There are five additional sources in the Atlantic article rejecting Maines' assertions.

::::Thus I think this entry does meet the criteria of being a misconception. Historians generally agree (with one exception) that victorians did not invent the vibrator due to female hysteria and we see that the belief that they did is common in culture.

::::[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::Not sure why we would consider sources pro/con on the claim itself, its not the topic of this article and disagreement amongst historians are covered by [[WP:YESPOV]], we don't take sides. Items on this list have to be "common misconceptions", so multiple sources are needed saying specifically "X is a common misconception". Up to (a few weeks ago?) this was not a misconception, just several opinions. I doubt any other sources have cropped up in that time couching this as a "common misconception". As for The Atlantic, works of journalism are not that high on the reliability scale, no way to check fact-checking or accuracy, unless they cite further sources, which they generally don't. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::: So, what you're saying is that the societal misconception itself needs to be more specifically sociologically studied in order to qualify? Or alternatively we need to see a few more articles like The Atlantic popping up on the topic? [[User:Deku-shrub|Deku-shrub]] ([[User talk:Deku-shrub|talk]]) 10:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
{{OD}}
It needs to be covered, period - we can't make a claim of "common misconception" based on one source. You kinda have it in a nutshell - its covered in the first sentence of [[WP:V]] - "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." We actually need to see many articles better than The Atlantic on the topic. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

:I think that is an artificially high standard. If we were to follow that inclusion criteria we would need to remove about 75% of what is on the page now. The criteria listed at the top of the talk page make no mention of needing a wide variety of sources. In this case, we have a secondary source that says the misconception is widespread and that it is false. We have additional research showing that it is false. That is plenty given the criteria on this page. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 10:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::Per [[WP:SALLEAD]] the List inclusion criteria is pretty clear, title "common misconceptions" and "erroneous beliefs that are currently '''widely held about notable topics'''". That would equal a very wide base of citations we can pull from about this being a misconception, so yeah... its a high standard. [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exist arguments are not considered very good criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If other items on this list are weak, they should be removed [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 14:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::: And none of the criteria mentioned in the lead require multiple sources for the misconception do they? As long as the source referenced expresses that it is a misconception widely used, that meets the criteria as I read them. Perhaps you could elaborate on which criteria you feel requires more than one source? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 14:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::::Unless we are reading from different dictionaries, "common misconception" and "widely held" are very clear. The source referenced has to be reliable for that claim (a single piece of journalism is not) and once removed there is an extra criteria to [[WP:BURDEN|prove]] that this is a "common misconception" i.e. more reliable sources making the statement. This list has many criteria (which I did not write) which seem to boil down to "do not unintentionally or intentionally [[WP:POVFORK]] claims here". Hence the requirement (which this item still fails) of it being covered in the linked article first. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::I'm a bit confused by your response. Are you under the impression that the Atlantic article's internal discussion about it is the only source referenced? IE when they reference the confusion that is all this comment relies on? If so, I think this is an easy fix. The Atlantic article references it being widely used. It references more than a half dozen uses in culture generally including several other journalistic entries. Does that help clarify the issue? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::: ''"If a reliable source says A (a claim is demonstratively false), and another reliable source says B (examples of that false claim's uses in culture), do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C (it is a common misconception)"'' (see [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]). So, no, we can not follow up those sources to support a conclusion. The Atlantic article is the only source referenced that draws a conclusion along the lines of a common misconception. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gone hunting for more misconception sources
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/10/victorians-invent-vibrator-orgasms-women-doctors-fantasy No, no, no! Victorians didn’t invent the vibrator],
* [https://eugesta-revue.univ-lille3.fr//pdf/2011/King.pdf Galen and the widow. Towards a history of therapeutic masturbation in ancient gynaecology] "Her “hypothesis” has become fact for many people",
* [https://www.thewhoresofyore.com/kates-journal/buzzkill-vibrators-and-the-victorians Buzzkill: Vibrators and the Victorians (NSFW)] "So, what can we salvage from this much loved and widespread myth?".
* [https://dildographer.com/2012/05/04/why-the-movie-hysteria-gets-its-vibrator-history-wrong/ Why the Movie “Hysteria” Gets Its Vibrator History Wrong]
* https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/hysteria "The source of this myth is Rachel Maines and her 1999 work The Technology of Orgasm"
I think these plus the Atlantic qualify things well, those are strong sources [[User:Deku-shrub|Deku-shrub]] ([[User talk:Deku-shrub|talk]]) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:Those would not be sources on a misconception because they predate the debunking of Maines re: they date 2014, 2011, 2017, 2012, 2015 respectively. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 22:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::Your response does not match the scenario. Rather, a reliable source (A) uses six other sources (some reliable, some not) as evidence of a misconception in widespread use. The same relaible source (A) also points out that that misconception is incorrect using relialbe sources (B,C,D). That isn't synthesis, it is directly pulling from the secondary source.

::The King reference is specifically rebutting Maines. Pgs 206-208 discuss, in part, how widespread the misconception is, though admittedly not with external sources.

::The Guardian article references two popular culture references for this misconception as well.

::That brings us up to three secondary sources with 10 references to this misconception in general use in the culture. That clearly satisfies the requirements for this page.

::[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:::"rebutting Maines" is a "disagreement amongst scholars" and a ''disagreement'' is not a ''misconception''. A misconception is ''a mistaken belief, a wrong idea'', and people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
:::: {{reply|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}} '''"people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read"''' An interesting epistemological position. According to Maines herself as well as subsequent academics and many popular commentators they did mistake what they read. However are we saying because the Maines paper was a RS at the time, citations built upon cannot even retrospectively be considered mistakes? This creates a very high barrier to overturn misconceptions based on reliable sources, which was in fact the whole point of the Atlantic article, the damage that academic mispublication can cause. Are there not precedents in Wikipedia for overturning RS's and derivatives previously agreed to be as such? [[User:Deku-shrub|Deku-shrub]] ([[User talk:Deku-shrub|talk]]) 19:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
::::You didn't address the fact that there are 10 separate references in the links offered citing this as widespread and a misconception. We have at least two editors here who feel comfortable with this addition. Perhaps you could help us understand, what kind of source, exactly, would serve as evidence in your mind? Can you cite a source for any misconception that you think meets your idea of what the criteria are? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 17:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
All of the sources, except one, predate this being a real misconception, so it doesn't matter how many of those you pile up, they do not make a statement this is a misconception, they describe a disagreement. Also 3 of those last sources describe it as a ''myth'' (a false story), not a ''misconception'' (a false belief). Those are two very different concepts and one is not covered in this list. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:That didn't really answer my question though. I'm trying to understand, conceptually, what kind of sources meet your standards. Can you give me an example?

:It also isn't accurate. You are conflating citation with reference. There is one citation (the Atlantic), but that citation offers six references related to the misconception being widespread. Additionally, the articles linked by Deku are post Maines' work, and deal with it being widely accepted, even if it was prior to it being rejected by the academic community, it is still a misconception. Geocentrism was still a misconception before Galileo.

:[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 19:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

::I am not discussing "meet(ing my) standards", they are Wikipedia standards - which I have covered several times, please scroll up. The standard here is a source that has the ability to say "this is a common misconception". Please see WP:V and WP:RS if that is not clear. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

:::Well no, the requirements for the page don't require multiple citations, which is what you are asking. That is solely your requirement. And the source offered contains six references as to this being a common misconception. It even ends one paragraph with: "In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex..." The need to have multiple sources, or to ignore some for this reason or that is coming from you, not from wikipedia. Unless you can show exactly where it requires multiple sources, I think we should move ahead with replacing the text given the status of the discussion. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 11:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to bump this with a suggestion of what text should be included. Feel free to make an edit or let me know if it is missing something.

::Despite being referenced commonly in culture [Atlantic Article][Why the movie...] and society at large [Galen and the widow link][Buzzkill Article][guardian], the idea that Victorian Era doctors invented the vibrator to cure female 'hysteria' via triggering orgasm is a product of a single work[welcome collection] rejected by most historians[Atlantic][Guardian][Galen and the widow].

[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 16:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
:I'm not sure why there's opposition to this; it seems a perfectly cromulent addition to me. I've found sources not listed here, and those sources listed here explicitly support the proposed addition. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 00:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::The problem is it has to be a "common misconception", a misconception so widespread and notable that it is already covered at the target Wikipedia article as a common misconception. We do not have that here. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 13:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
:::If so, that's a failing of ''that article'', not of this proposal. The sourcing presented here (as well as others I was very easily able to find) establish that this misconception is certainly [[WP:DUE]] for the main article. If it's not there, that's because editors haven't added it. Taking that as an excuse not to add it here is a blatant violation of [[WP:IAR]], which you might note is one of the five pillars. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 17:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::::Its a requirement of this list. If you disagree with the list criteria then start a discussion to change them. Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything. If you think something belongs in a main article, add it, see if it sticks - those editors should know the topic. That would keep us in line with [[WP:CFORK]] (Wikipedia policy). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything.}} Then you may lack the [[WP:CIR|competence]] to edit here: [[WP:IAR]] clearly states that '''any''' rule that prevents us from improving this project is to be ignored. Refusing to ignore a rule even though doing so is a blatant violation of that principle. Arguing that IAR itself should be ignored in order to follow a rule over improving the project is the very height of [[WP:LAWYER|wikilawyering]] and tantamount to announcing your own refusal to do anything except push your own interests. If your only objection is that this doesn't exist in other articles (and let's be clear: the rest of your objections above -such as claiming there's so RS support for the claim that this is a misconception, only that there's support for claiming this a s dispute among academics- are pure BS and barely worth responding to, so far removed from reality and rationality they are), then '''you''' should go add it to whatever article you feel most appropriate, instead of expecting good faith editors at ''this article'' to bend over backwards to accomplish goals which we both know won't change your mind, anyways. You are exhibiting clear [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of this article and have been for some time, and I will happily ask ANI to to tell you to knock it off if you don't do so of your own volition. There are now three editors telling you that you are wrong. Listen to them before you are ''forced'' to listen. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
You seem to skip the second part of [[WP:IAR]] "improving this project", hence why we have [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus discussions]] and even consensus criteria (like at the top of this page). As for all the name calling, maybe read [[WP:ETIQ]]. Despite what looks like [[WP:CANVAS]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMjolnirPants&type=revision&diff=861056847&oldid=861043654] (definitely not " neutrally worded") you should join in consensus discussion (and not just name call or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&curid=321956&diff=861207934&oldid=861185000 name call and revert]). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
:Are you even reading my comments? Adding a common misconceptions to the list of common misconceptions is, inarguably, an improvement to this project. Stop grasping at straws, stop trying to own the article. Also, do you even know what the phrase "name-calling" means? Are you capable of understanding the distinction between "your argument is shit" and "you are a shitty person"? [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 14:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Lead was not encyclopedic ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=859117588&oldid=859108714 Re-wrote] the List lead paragraph because it did not reflect the hidden list definition at the top of the page and read like [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. Selection criteria should be stated unambiguously in the lead for the reader as well as the editor ([[WP:SALLEAD]]). ''"notable topics"'' and ''"Each misconception and the corresponding facts have been discussed in published literature"'' is unnecessary, all Wikipedia content is notable and comes from published literature. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
:I appreciate the change away from "''This list ... corrects erroneous beliefs''". I'm not sure about "''that are described in Wikipedia articles''" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=859117588&oldid=859108714]). As I understand it, this list existed for a long time before that inclusion criterion was added, so there may be many items that fail it. Plus, other Wikipedia articles can be edited at any time without this list being updated. I see that inclusion criterion as being one that helps Wikipedians decide what belongs in this list, rather than something readers need to know about. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]]) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
::Two of the four selection criteria state that there has to be a related article. I really have not looked into where the list criteria came from but it seems to be in line with [[WP:LSC]] re: ''common sense''. List such as this are generally alternatives to Categories, being a list of articles that aids in navigation for someone who wants to find articles that cover a certain attribute - so - ''a list of articles''. Its a "List of common misconceptions", so each entry should be notable enough to be covered at that article - its "common". To avoid POVFORKing, if the claim is not at the article it should not be here. "that are described in Wikipedia articles" could probably be removed, the reader does not need that stated and an editor will see the hidden selection criteria telling them it is a requirement. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 15:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
*I'm just now reading this section and I also completely disagree with the addition of "that are described in Wikipedia articles", especially given that the same editor who added it immediately began using said addition to justify reverting any addition to this article. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 14:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

== Deletion discussion ==

I've started an AfD at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)]]. I've also requested that the protecting admin add the AfD template to the page. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
: Done. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 23:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

==Forbidden fruit==
The fruit of the tree that Eve touched in the Book of Genesis was not simply a fruit but the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. This article does not clarify this. [[User:Vorbee|Vorbee]] ([[User talk:Vorbee|talk]]) 06:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

==Edit request==
In the dinosaur section there is the sentence "Consequently, dinosaur descendants are part of the modern fauna". Since birds are dinosaurs, would suggest the word 'descendants' be removed and an 's' be added to the word 'dinosaur' so the sentence reads "Consequently, dinosaurs are part of the modern fauna". Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{done}} [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

== Criteria ==

First off, yes, I know about the AfD. I filed it. Let that run its course (which is looking like "no consensus" unless the closer really decides to completely disregard all [[WP:AADD]] arguments). This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article, so let's discuss improvements.

If this page is to be improved, we first have to examine the criteria given in the edit notice. Here are the current criteria outlined in the edit notice:
#The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
#The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
#The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
#The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
:This list was created when the article talk page was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&oldid=419482172#Inclusion_Criteria_in_Text_of_the_Article this] state. I've linked directly to the only "criteria" discussion, which you can see does not result in an agreement on this. So these criteria were imposed without consensus.

To wit, I'm suggesting a new list of criteria. Below, you can see it.
#The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
#It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
#An expert in the topic has identified it as a misconception.
I left out the "needs to be reliably sourced" one because duh; of course it needs to be reliably sourced. The new last one is intended to address the bickering over "common". There are plenty of sources that identify "common" misconceptions, but a lot of arguing over whether that's accurate. So instead of looking to a tertiary RS by some staff writer to claim "common misconception", let's look to secondary sources by experts that claim "misconception". It is a perfectly reasonable presumption that experts regularly discuss or are asked questions about the subject of their expertise by people lacking their expertise. In many cases, the very job of the expert is to have these discussions and answer these questions. So if such an expert feels the need to publish something that addresses this misconception, it should then go without saying that it's "common".

Thoughts? [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:Asking that each factoid listed here needs an article of its own to qualify sounds like it would cause the deletion of a high percentage of the page. So am I misunderstanding, and you mean section topic, or overall topics, and not each bit? The criteria seems fine regarding information being included within another article, and not specifically requiring each bit of information to have a full article. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::I think that's a phrasing problem of mine. No, what I'm saying is that, if you find some sources claiming that there's a common misconception about, for example, the [[suicide of Katelyn Davis]] (which was recently deleted as not notable here), you cannot add that. But you could certainly add a fourth or fifth entry about [[suicide]] in general with the right sources, because they all share the same "main" article.
::Another way to look at it is to say that each entry ought to be able to (but doesn't necessarily need to) have a wikilink to an article about the topic in the body of the entry. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 15:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::: Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable. And the fact that some expert chooses to address some topic doesn't necessarily mean it's to address a common misconception, so that would just result in the list getting even more subjective. We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic, which could be significantly more complicated than just showing that the source is reliable. Often, if a belief is especially stupid and/or troublesome, like [[modern flat earth societies|Flat earth theory]], experts will respond to it despite it not being particularly common. Other times, if it's common but relatively trivial (like Napoleon's height, which from an expert's perspective is not a major aspect of him), they may not respond to it at all. I guarantee you there are more experts responding to [[Birtherism]] than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs. Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is. Other than perhaps some metapsychology expert who studies how people perceive psychology, it's unlikely they'd be an expert in both their own field and in public perception of it. So I'm not sure this would solve the issues anyway. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 16:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable.}} That's why I'm proposing it (partially) as a criteria ''for this list''. If it were WP policy, I'd not need to propose it at all. Notice how I removed the bit about entries needing to be reliably sourced. Also, I'm not proposing that all sourcing be from experts; only that the entry have at least one expert source calling it a misconception.
::::{{tq|We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic}} No, that is the ''exact opposite'' of what this would mean. By simply having the requirement that an expert called it a misconception, we're ''explicitly'' avoiding any discussion about why they did so. They did so, and that's enough to satisfy the criteria. If you think there's a wording that would better convey this, please suggest it.
::::{{tq|Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is.}} I never suggested that an expert historian would be able to comment on a subject in physics, for example. When it comes to a physics misconception, the historian is decidedly ''not'' an expert. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 16:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::::This is in a separate comment because it's not that important.
::::{{tq|I guarantee you there are more experts responding to [[Birtherism]] than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs.}} You should spend some time in [[Southern United States|The South]]. It will quickly [[Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Opinion surveys|disabuse you of that notion]]. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

: I think I prefer the current criteria. Expert opinions are good, but we shouldn't prefer them over something like a study that shows a misconception is common. – [[User:FenixFeather|''FenixFeather'']] [[User talk:FenixFeather|(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/FenixFeather|(Contribs)]] 16:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::That would turn this article into a stub. Seriously, go count how many of the sources used ''actually'' have that quality. And the current criteria doesn't actually require that, anyways, so the current criteria comes no closer to meeting that standard.
::Finally: I think we can all agree that 90% is "common". But what about 30%? What about 1%? 1% of the population is hundreds of millions of people, and most of us will encounter at least one of them every day (though we may not be aware of it). So what about 0.1%? I know I run across a thousand people in a week. Most folk who don't live in rural areas do, too. Is that "common"?
::I don't think that even the studies you mention actually establish that something is "common", because the definition of "common" is subjective. So I think leaving it to an expert to at least imply that it's common by publishing a refutation is the only sensible way to reach a standard that we can all agree on whether or not it applies. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::: I disagree, I think the original criteria are more liberal, because they allow either an expert opinion or a study that shows a misconception is common. We don't have to decide the threshhold. As long as the source mentions it's common, it's fine. I'm just saying we shouldn't focus only on expert opinion. – [[User:FenixFeather|''FenixFeather'']] [[User talk:FenixFeather|(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/FenixFeather|(Contribs)]] 17:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nine "'''Keep'''" votes at the current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination) AfD] specifically noted the ''current'' inclusion criteria as a reason to keep the article. None recommended loosening the criteria. {{u|Pengo}} specifically noted:
*{{tq|"It's a summary article. References are not an issue as each fact is taken from another Wikipedia article. See the "official" criteria for inclusion on the talk page (and which also appears when you edit the article): "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." If the associated article doesn't also include the misconception with references, then its associated entry in this list should be removed."}}

Lists that index Wikipedia articles based on them having a certain attribute (such as requiring the attribute "U.S. citizens or nationals of French descent and heritage" to be in [[List of French Americans]]) is perfectly reasonable per [[WP:SAL]]. So, as Pengo points out, it makes it a dirt simple list - article has referenced text stating there is some kind of "common misconception"? - it goes in this list, you actually don't even need a citation at the List.

A list without a linked Article containing a common misconception would be an OR nightmare. Editors will simple google to find what ever they can and [[WP:SYNTH]] all those "hits" into "''Yep, lots of hits so its not just a myth or little known fact, my tally shows its a ''common'' misconception''". [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:I find it incredibly hilarious that you would perceive "content does not need to be duplicated from an existing article" to be mean "We can safely ignore our sitewide policies on this particular article". I mean, the sheer level of illogic that goes into that just alone is enough to make me laugh, not to mention the fact that it clearly stems from the same butthurt that's led you to make hypocritical personal attacks against me on at least two different pages. The rest of your comment isn't even about this proposal, so I'm ignoring it. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 20:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

For my part, I like the current criteria, mostly. I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities. Of course the topic needs to reliably sourced, but so does the fact that it's a common misconception. Omitting #3 would do no harm though... if a common misconception is added to this list with proper sourcing, it's trivial to add a mention to it in the topic article with similar sourcing. That's just good practice, not a criterion for inclusion. I ''disagree'' with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] ([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]]) 20:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{tq|I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities.}} I don't see how. Point 2 is merely the repetition of a site-wide policy.
:{{tq|I ''disagree'' with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient.}} I actually tend to agree, but I think that proposal cuts off all the arguing about whether it's a ''common'' misconception, which has been at the root of many of the problems on this talk page. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 20:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

===Summary so far===
So far, I have seen two editors opine that finding an expert in the topic of the entry to call it a misconception is not a good idea. So here's a revision, since no-one else seems interested in proposing any.
#The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
#It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
#An RS has identified it as a misconception.
I still haven't seen any reasonable argument for including the original #2: It's a site-wide policy already. I've seen the suggestion that sources need to include a survey showing it to be common, but I've not seen any suggestion as to what sort of result of said survey would be considered common, so I don't see how that solves anything. Furthermore, such surveys are bound to be exceedingly rare (there are none in the RSes cited in the article at present as far as I've seen), so I fail to see how that would even be workable. Further comments are welcome. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 21:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
* I oppose #1 "The topic of the misconception has an article of its own." As long as it is covered in [[WP:RS]] as myth, I think that is sufficient. I agree with the others that it should not necessarily require an expert to articulate it, but I would be okay with additional language that it is ''preferred'' that the myth is articulated by an expert or by a journalist referring to the work of experts.
:I would be open to trying to divide the material into multiple articles such as '''List of misquotations''', [[List of common misconceptions about language learning]], [[Tornado myths]], and then taking the top 3-5 of each subject area as ticklers to generate interest in the longer list of myths in that subject area. The history sections are a bit unwieldy. Unfortunately, articles like [[Tornado myths]], have a completely different format and do not have the nice bite-sized bits of information that makes this article interesting to peruse. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
:::So you would support an entry based on a single RS about the [[suicide of Katelyn Davis]], even though we have no article about that topic? That would require us to summarize the topic in this list, which would require additions RSes. RSes that don't exist, hence why that article does not exist. As for breaking this up into multiple articles, that might be a discussion worth having. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::: I think people are misunderstanding what criteria #1 means. To use the microwave oven example, we wouldn't necessarily need an article about [[Microwave ovens heating myth]], we would just need a [[Microwave oven]] article, which we have. Assuming that's what's meant by that, I have no issue with #1. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::[[Microwave oven]] wouldn't even need to exist. It would be enough to have an article on some other topic, that also included a well-sourced description of the existence of the microwave oven myth. In practice I don't think we have many cases like that; often there are two or more articles that each mention the myth. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::In theory, I agree with this, but I don't think there will be many cases where it applies. Smartyllama is spot on with their comment. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::: Keep in mind there are ''a lot'' of misconceptions that are covered in some random reliable source somewhere. Pretty much every college and university in the world has myths that, at least among those who have enough of a connection to the university to care, are fairly common misconceptions. There is a legend often repeated about my own alma mater, the [[University of Connecticut]], that the campus was modeled after some school in Texas that was designed as a wind tunnel to cool things off, but that of course this was quite unpleasant in the harsh New England winters. It's completely untrue, but has been covered in a number of reliable sources related to the university, and is fairly common among people who actually care. On the other hand, the vast majority of people ''don't'' care one way or the other, so is it really all that common? If it's a misconception about some obscure subject that the vast majority of people don't care about, can it really be all that common? I guess it depends on what is meant by "common", then. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 23:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::: To be fair, many people don't really care about much at all. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Smarty, I see what you're saying here. I could certainly get behind a "multiple sources" criteria, though I'm reluctant to set a number higher than 2 as the minimum, for obvious reasons. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::I agree about the need for "bite sized" entries. Some entries here are a bit too long and they all tend to launch into the debunk without stating what the misconception ''actually is''. The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk very, very briefly with a link to more details. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 22:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
* I think #1 could be weakened to say that it must be covered in another article but that it does not need to be a stand-alone article. So, for example, the ones about microwave ovens would be OK provided they are covered in the [[Microwave oven]] article in a way that meets the other two criteria. I am also wondering if #3 needs strengthening. I'm pretty sure that you can find something on the weaker end of RS to say that pretty much anything is a misconception almost as easily as you can find an RS uncritically repeating a misconception. I fear that we may have to form an opinion on what separates a genuine misconception from a matter of genuine controversy in a world where some people seem to believe that there are no settled facts at all, others believe that no fact is settled until their tribe has the final say and many would grasp at any opportunity to label the beliefs of their opponents as misconceptions. We do not wish to invite arguments with creationists and flat earthers. If we had a couple of different RS, each referring to expert opinion, then we would be better placed to tell any such people to go and pound sand. Also, let us not forget that the misconception needs to be common. No necessarily common the whole world over but we will need an RS describing it as common. We may need to set a criteria for that too. We don't want to include things that are commonly held misconceptions in one village but we also should not exclude misconceptions which are common outside the English speaking west. For example, belief in [[Blood type personality theory]] is common enough in Japan that it could merit inclusion here. (Although then I guess we would have to include things like [[Astrology]] too.) --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 22:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
::I see what you're saying. I could get behind that. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"3-An RS has identified it as a misconception" is incomparable with the list title "common misconceptions". That would would make this a trivia list of "Things somebody got wrong". [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:At this point, I'm pretty much writing off everything you say because none of it helps even a little bit, and very little of it even makes any sense. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

:I think that the addition "and is mentioned in the article with sources" is an important part of the quality control of the items anyone wants to add (the article about the topic of the misconception, that is). If every item on this list is required to be mentioned in another article, that means the great number of editors that watch those articles will help prune this article. Those who watch an article are generally interested and know more about the topic than the average editor on Wikipedia. Thus it's more likely that they will catch an addition to "their" article that e.g. misinterprets the source, is undue or uses a source that is outdated. [[User:Sjö|Sjö]] ([[User talk:Sjö|talk]]) 05:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::Well, I see that as part of our sitewide policy already, but I'm not immune to the number of people (at least 2 so far) who've opined that some repetition of sitewide policy might be in order. The next proposal I post will contain a reminder that ''all'' content must be reliably sourced, regardless of where it appears. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 12:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm mostly indifferent to the exact wording, but I'd like to see a few points clarified.

Are multiple sources necessarily required in all cases?

Does the source need to use the exact phrase "common misconception"?

[[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 17:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::I would say Yes and No, respectively. The latter is a frankly ridiculous criteria with no precedent anywhere else on this site. Conversely, the former would address Smartyllama's point above which you also replied to. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

:::It would depend on the quality of the sources, wouldn't it? I would think a reputable study with a large sample size would be sufficient on its own, for example. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Generally speaking, if a source does the research to establish exactly how widespread a belief something is, other RSes for it should abound, and thus it'd be trivial to find multiples for that entry. That being said, in the odd case that there's a widespread false belief that only one source covers (and that source is a very high quality one), I'd be inclined to support inclusion based on the quality of the source. And no criteria needs to be writ in stone: We're not establishing policy here, just a guideline as to what to include. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 18:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

{{tq|The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk}} - {{U|DanielRigal}} hit on something that I noticed to. It seems to me this List is formatted for a Daily Mail columnist on a deadline looking for something to copy and paste and not made for anyone else. Namely bad [[SEO]], nobody searching the web would ever hit on this article because they would be searching for something about a misconception, not searching for an unknown answer. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:Now '''this''' is worth responding to. You both raise a very good point, and it was one I intended to open another section on. I agree that we should be describing the misconceptions as well as debunking them. I suppose anyone who disagrees can do so here. I'm soon to write up another version of the criteria taking the helpful commentary from this section into account. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 19:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
*{{u|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}} Can you give me examples that you consider a problem? I can see some advantage of stating the misconception first in most cases, but I would probably oppose a hard-and-fast one-size-fits all rule for that. Some stories of misconceptions might flow better if there is lead in to the origin of the confusion. What makes good writing is a good ''true'' story. A boring set of facts all of exactly the same rigid format will be more likely to put the reader to sleep. I prefer we engage the reader with top notch writing that includes variety.
:Perhaps for some of the items you consider to be a problem, we could do some copy-editing and make them more interesting. Changing the rule may not solve the problem(s): The changes would still need to be made in the text of these items. That can be done without changing the rule. If editors are constantly adding items in a format that a consensus of us believes is objectionable and can be solved by a rule change, then I would be more likely to support a change in the rules. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::I have never looked on Wikipedia as engaging or a "read" (probably why I write crap articles). [https://www.google.com/search?q=searing+meat+before+grilling&ei=l5CzW8_sGPGkggettJeAAw&start=60&sa=N&biw=1110&bih=678] points to the problem - you won't see this List any time soon in that search. That this List is a bit of an internet WP:WG may make people who don't like it happy, not a problem because no ones going to find it. Stating the misconception may lead to a few deletions, some of these may sound a little silly once you read the actual misconception. Anyway, nothing I think is vital, just noticed an oddity about this list. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Oh. You mean this is about [[SEO|Search Engine Optimization (SEO)]]. I have no knowledge about that. When I read the comment, SEO sounds a bit like [[CEO]]. I thought it might the abbreviations of some person. I am open to learning about how changing the formatting of the myths could change the rank in a Google search. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 19:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

===Round three===
Taking the commentary from above into account, here's my third draft of the inclusion criteria:
*The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
*There are at least two references stating both the correction and that it is a misconception.
*It is current and not obsolete (i.e., no common beliefs from the middle ages.)
*It abides by all of our existing [[WP:P&G|policies and guidelines]].
If no-one objects to anything here (with a ''reasonable and articulate'' objection, please), then I'll post an edit request for a change to the edit notice. Otherwise, we can do another round of commentary and revisal. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 19:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I don't see this as an overall improvement over the current version. I see some things as better (more info. in #3: "no common beliefs from the middle ages" and possibly #4). But I do not prefer the new wording for #1, that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article. I don't exactly like the language of #1 in the original either. It seems to me that all misconceptions can fit within one or more topics.
:I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination)&type=revision&diff=862025330&oldid=862024052&diffmode=source]
:Also, I'm not sure what problem we are trying to address with the new rules. [added 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)]
:--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{tq|that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article}} I don't see how. It explicitly says "the '''topic''' of the misconception" not "the misconception". But if you would like to suggest a wording, I'm all ears.
::{{tq|I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it.}} I don't see any benefit to that. It would only drag things out longer. There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now, as opposed to making them wait until two RfCs have run their course. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect? That's what I'm looking for; information pointing out that non-notable subjects shouldn't have common misconceptions about them listed here. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Regarding #1: Proposed new wording: "The misconception is to be placed under a topic or subtopic heading it is related to." Possibly adding: "That topic or subtopic must have a dedicated Wikipedia article (e.g. [[Astronomy]], [[Biology]], [[History]], [[History of Science]])"
:::If you don't want to wait for an RfC to run, I understand. The advantage is that if the RfC closes with a clear consensus, the arguing can stop. Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement.
:::It's not clear to me what problem(s) you are trying to solve by changing the criteria. Is it because they are unclear? Because you want to make them stricter or looser? Without a clear agreed upon goal, I think it is all the more difficult to determine if the new language is an improvement. I do think the original language is confusing and vague. I would support making it clearer, but I would not support making the requirement for inclusion stricter.
:::--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement.}} You only cited one problem with the currently proposed criteria, then gave you approval to my suggested fix for that problem. That's progress, right there. Then, look at the objections above and how they've influenced both subsequent proposals. That's the definition of progress. The only problem is that Bryn keeps jumping in to disagree with anything I say, including going to such ridiculous extremes as claiming that a misconception is only common if "everyone everywhere" believes it, as you yourself have seen. So mentally subtract Bryn's re-occurring temper tantrum from this discussion and re-evaluate. It sure looks like it's getting somewhere then. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::I'd like to see more support than just you and me. What if someone else jumps in and sides with Bryn on something the two of us agree on? That's not progress. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::If other editor's can't be bothered to join in, that doesn't mean we should give up. And if you'll actually read through the section: you'll see most of them have ''explicitly'' supported most of the proposed changes. Only two editors have disagreed with more than one thing, and one of those is Bryn, who's disagreed with everything and said that any change to the criteria would be a license to ignore our policies on [[WP:OR]]. Oh, and those two aren't the entire "list of logically unhinged things Bryn has said on this talk page". I think they're about 1/3 of that list, at most. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn. The above paragraph is an example of what hinders progress, where you criticize Bryn in very harsh hyperbole and invite him to respond in kind. There's no need for that. No, I have not read everything on this page, but I have seen enough of the interaction between the two of you to know that both are about equally guilty of this kind of paragraph, and that if you would stop focusing on each other's behavior and try to find wider support for specific positions/proposals, we would get progress. The advantage of an RfC is that talking about editor behavior is almost verbotten, and that, I believe would help a lot. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn.}} Then maybe you and Bryn should shut the fuck up about it, eh? ;) I haven't been bringing it up all over the place. I've been actively trying to steer discussion to the ''article'', and away from that, even though I've made it clear that I think Bryn would come out far worse than me. But you keep bringing it back up, over and over. And there has been '''plenty''' of participation, despite your dire warning. At least 6 new editors have shown up to weigh in, mostly with helpful commentary. You can't expect a coflict to die down when ''you'' won't let it, can you? [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::*{{tq|What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect?}} That's fine. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::*{{tq|There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now.}} Nothing is stopping that. The problem is that the discussion on whether to include #3 can be separated from the discussion on the wording of #1. I know they are somewhat related, but I would prefer this not all get jumbled together in a big mess where it is hard to tell what editors want changed. I have no objection to running multiple RfC questions, as long as they are as discrete as possible. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria. Most editors mentioning the inclusion criteria at the AfD think its good as is (some recommend it be tougher). Current #3 is specifically recommended here and at AfD by multiple editors as a good "check" to make sure something is actually reliably sourced and "common". "#1 The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own" seems much less ambiguous re: "is related to" means it does not have to be an article about the misconception. Don't know why that one is a stumbler but it could always be reworded to remove any ambiguity. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 22:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{tq|There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria.}} That is not true. Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria, and the majority of the proposal I've made has been met with approval. You claim to the contrary is pure imagination. I guess you didn't read the "reasonable and articulate" part. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria.}} Can you give me some evidence of that, such as diffs and/or subject headings? If that's true, we could give a summary of these editors' comments, and make a proposal that addresses all of those concerns. If the concerns have enough in common I would think it should be easy to generate a wide consensus on new language that addresses the repeated concerns. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::David, there are only two ''possible'' pages to find those on, and this is not the only article on my watchlist. Just use your mousewheel and read the pages. It's really not that long. I will say that Randy Kryn, Smartyllama and Anachronist have all agreed with removing the original number 3 up above, It's been disparaged before in discussions higher up (and I believe, one below) and there were additional comments at the AfD disparaging it from multiple editors. I don't see the point in me spending a half hour collecting diffs just to save you 10 minutes of reading. Maybe if there were 4-5 pages to check, but with only two pages, you can read for yourself. I've yet to see anyone but Bryn defend it, for that matter. How can an inclusion criteria that is subject to the changing nature of other pages even be helpful, here? The only thing it boils down to is an excuse to edit war new content out of this article (which is exactly what set all of this off). [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 23:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::If what you say is true, that indicates a strong consensus opposing #3, then we should easily be able to get rid of it. Some ways to do that: (1) simply delete it from the criteria on the ground that consensus already exists on this talk page (2) make a straw poll here on deleting #3 to make the consensus more overt (3) running an RfC to delete #3. I am happy to do (2) or (3). If you want to try (1), I would probably back you up, unless another editor in addition to Bryn declared there is no such consensus for its removal. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::No. Criterion #3 is fine and we should keep it. A large number of words have been posted here, but nothing convincing. You are allowed to go to the subject article(s) and edit them to meet the criteria here. I know many editors say you can't, that it's somehow "backwards", but no such rule exists. If your change on the subject article gets reverted, well, then obviously you don't have consensus. But if you go to [[microwave oven]] and change it so that it clearly says a misconception exists and is commonly held, and that reaches something approximating stability, then you're all set to include it here. We need to assume that if the editors who regularly edit the subject article are happy with the addition, then it stands on solid ground to be added here.Anyway, no, there isn't consensus for criteria changes. As I said, the criteria aren't the source of the problem. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 00:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Dennis Bratland}} Thanks for letting me know. I have no intention on doing (1) unless I were to see evidence of the consensus Mjpants claims exists. I do think the rules are a bit confusing, and I am open to improving them, but believe the only way forward would be more discrete proposals, ideally no more than one sentence at a time. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I'm not convinced there is even a problem in need of solving. [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|Identifying reliable sources]] is an inherent part of editing any article. We already know how to establish consensus on a fact and don't need arbitrary criteria like "at least two sources". Some facts require ten sources, some need only one. It depends, and we already have structures in place to determine that.It's redundant to require following policies and guidelines. The need to even say "follow policy" arises from personal disputes; i.e. [[WP:POINT|making a point]], [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|axe grinding]].The individuals who have a problem with the rules of this list are locked in a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and are locked in mutual [[WP:STONEWALL]]ing. The problem lies with the individuals who are failing to assume good faith, to compromise, and recognize that their personal back-and-forth is disrupting the editing of everyone else. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)]], these inclusion criteria change proposals, and other attempts to move the goalposts are all have a [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|snowball's chance]] of going anywhere.It's time to either figure out how to collaborate and respect consensus, or drop it and work on something else. I predict an immanent interaction ban and topic ban for those who keep beating this dead horse. Let it go, guys. Let it go. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 23:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
*Yeah, fuck this noise. If I'm the only one willing to stop wallowing in drama, focus on the content and not simply ignore everything I don't want to hear, then I guess I'm on the wrong page. Apologies to {{u|Squatch347}}, {{u|TompaDompa}}, {{u|Benjaminikuta}} and anyone else who saw this hot mess for what it is, but I don't have the patience to deal with this level of bullshit anymore. You guys are on your own trying to fix this mess. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 00:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::Exactly the response I predicted. QED. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 02:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

===Question: Do we need to change the criteria?===
Question: Do we need to change the criteria? If so, what would you change? Are there any items in the current article you think are flawed partly as a direct result of problems with the current rules? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Neutral''' I'm not convinced there is a consensus to make any specific or general changes to the current rules. I am open to improving them if there is. I am also open to ''clarifying'' the rules to better reflect the historic defacto choices made in practice, especially if there is a discrepancy between the defacto rules and the stated rules. I do not feel the current rules are entirely clear, especially about what is meant by a "common" misconception. I would not support a change that created more rigid criteria for inclusion. I might support a less rigid set of rules. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

* '''No.''' Take six months off from rocking the boat. Go back to the regular business of editing one entry at at time, making it better, and seeking consensus on the talk page. After half a year or so (maybe a whole year, we have time), if you feel like things are going in the wrong direction, then present items that you think should have been added but weren't, or should have been deleted but weren't, due to some ''clear flaw'' in the criteria as written. If you can't point to several specific, real world examples of the system not working, then it's all [[WP:BEANS]]. If you can't cite any very compelling cases where the rules are failing, then the system is not broke, the problem is between the keyboard and the chair. IMHO, the problem is Wikipedia's collaborative editing process itself. Some can function in an environment that might sometimes might require treating [[Wikipedia:Randy in Boise|Randy in Boise]] with a modicum of respect, and some can't hack it. If you can't, then no rule change on a single list. will help you. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

* '''No.''' per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination) that]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

== Pruitt-Igoe ==

I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=861733806&oldid=861730351&diffmode=source this edit] by {{u|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}}, which has been in the article for almost four year [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=640344991&diffmode=source]. The argument to delete was:
:{{tq|Fails #3 - not at topic article. Fails #2 - PDF source "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo" in a single US housing project would not be a common misconception}}
However, [[Pruitt-Igoe]], [[Architecture]] and [[History]] are topic articles. Although, I am not an architect, I have studied enough architecture and seen documentaries that covered the demolition, that I held the "common misconception" that it had won awards before being demolished. That demolition is extremely significant because it "signaled the death of [[Modern architecture]]" [https://architecture.knoji.com/postmodernist-architecture-the-death-of-modernism/][https://books.google.com/books?id=d5ikDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=Charles+Jencks,+who+wrote+in+his+1977+book,+The+Language+of+Post-Modern+Architecture,+that+the+destruction+of+Pruitt-Igoe+was+%E2%80%9Cthe+day+Modern+architecture+died.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=m2ed5CfeOQ&sig=x3-G-7tkQH0SI6nQWEkB8FnXuL4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp4sPLmuHdAhVL7oMKHdGXCjgQ6AEwAnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Jencks%2C%20who%20wrote%20in%20his%201977%20book%2C%20The%20Language%20of%20Post-Modern%20Architecture%2C%20that%20the%20destruction%20of%20Pruitt-Igoe%20was%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20day%20Modern%20architecture%20died.%E2%80%9D&f=false][http://brandondonnelly.com/post/129877819493/the-day-modern-architecture-died][https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/feb/26/pruitt-igoe-myth-film-review][https://hyperallergic.com/20623/pruitt-igoe-myth/] and the birth of [[Postmodern architecture]]. It looks like there is enough [[WP:RS]] to create an article on "the death of Modern Architecture".
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
:You seem to be misunderstanding the list criteria. {{tq|#1 is "The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own"}} - The linked articles are [[Pruitt-Igoe]], [[housing project]], [[St. Louis, Missouri]] and [[urban renewal]]... confusing but [[Pruitt-Igoe]] seems to be the relevant one. #2 is {{tq|The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception}} - two sources state it was confused with another project that won an award but [https://rasmusbroennum.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/1991-bristol-pruitt-igoemyth.pdf the Katharine Bristol source] describes it as a "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo", so sourced, but the sources individually do not describe it as a ''common misconception'', and we can't just add them up (see [[WP:SYNTH]]). #3 is {{tq|The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources}} - we seem to have a ''fail'' there, no coverage at [[Pruitt-Igoe]] of a common misconception with sources. None of the extra links you provided describe a common misconception (the topic of this list). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::I do not support the removal of that section. The criteria you are [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] every other editor here with was implemented without consensus, ignored by the majority of editors and new criteria is being discussed above. Your continued inability to understand the sources properly is also not an sound argument for the removal. It is described as a "myth" which is functionally identical to a "misconception" in this context in the second source. The first source explicitly says "...and the ways the design community exaggerated the supposed design virtues of Pruitt-Igoe only to create a more poignant portrait of its failure. For example, Pruitt-Igoe is ''often cited'' as an AIA-award recipient, but the project never won any architectural awards." which is easily understood as "there is a common misconception that Pruit-Igoe is an AIA-award recipient." That is not interpretation, but simple [[summary]].
::You may be completely unaware of this, but we are supposed to ''summarize'' RSes, not quote them verbatim with all the cognitive facility of a photocopier. There is not, and never has been any requirement that a source use certain "magic phrases" before we can cite it for a given topic. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 02:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:* I mostly agree with MjolnirPants analysis (noting that I have not seen other similar removals). As for #3, we can easily add it to the article. I will do that. I hope you won't revert it simply to keep it out of this article. I do think requirement #3 is a bit odd FYI, and I might support removing it. For editorial purposes, I could see the misconception being significant without the need for it to be in the article on the subject. I see this page more like trivia, answering questions to a crossword, jeopardy questions, etc., but still what I would call "encyclopedic" knowledge. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::I added it to the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe&type=revision&diff=861806128&oldid=847754607&diffmode=source here]. Fortunately, the additional material is pretty seamless and flows well with the existing content. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception". List entries should follow criteria, including the list title. A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", something everyone everywhere general gets wrong. If its common it should already be described as such in the linked article, or be easy to cite and add without convoluted reasoning. Right now the entry reads "Some people at some time think a housing project in St. Louis, Missouri won an architecture prize when it was actually another housing project in St. Louis, Missouri that won it." That's not in any way a "common misconception". Please also note trivia is not considered "encyclopedic" (see [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] and related links). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception".}} Bullshit. I've already explained this to you. Your inability to understand or accept that explanation does not change what the source says. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 20:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::*{{tq|A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", '''something everyone everywhere general gets wrong.'''}} [emphasis added.] If that were the case, then there would be exactly zero items in the List of Common Misconceptions, because even the experts would get it wrong too and there would be no one who knew the truth.
:::::Our core differences of opinion appear to be: (1) what is meant by a "common misconception" and (2) whether the item in question meets the threshold of being a "common misconception". We will have to agree to disagree. I agree with Mjpants on (2), that it meets the threshold. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Items meet the threshold of being a "common misconception" when reliable sources say "its common misconception" (in so many words). Claiming "this source means this and that source means that and its all significant re: some context" is original research, we don't make those declarations. A "common misconception" is always going to be a sliding scale. ''Is already covered at an article as a common misconception with RS'' - top of the scale, we just index it. ''Is covered by significant RS as a common misconception but week or missing at an article'' - middle of the scale/borderline - add it to the article, if it sticks it stays here. ''Is not covered by significant RS as a common misconception, not in an article, and all we can say is some undefinable group of people get this wrong'' - bottom of the scale, doesn't meet the threshold. I think we are bottom of the scale here. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Once again, this has already explained to you, both in general terms as well as how it pertains to this particular instance. You've been told by two editors now that your insistence on requiring sources to use the exact wording of this article title does not fly. You've previously been told the same thing this by at least three other editors. You will not win any arguments by continuing to repeat yourself like this. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 22:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::: Apparently ''(in so many words)'' was not on someones vocabulary test. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::Obviously so, considering that I quoted one source saying so ''in so many words'' and you're still not listening. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::: Of course it doesn't have to use the exact wording in the title, that's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to start an AfD to prove a point about how ridiculous this is. This whole process is ridiculous and both of you need to remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not get into ridiculous squabbles with each other. I'd rather this not have to go to ANI a second time. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 23:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::The AfD was because ''three editors claimed the article should be deleted'' when I filed an ANI case over Bryn's irrational behavior. And I will further note that there are a large number of "delete" !votes, including from very experienced editors, even one former Arb that I noticed. Clearly, there are quite a few people of the opinion that the article should be deleted. So keep your comments about ridiculousness to subjects you know enough about to speak on, please. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

== Western Bias ==

I have a question on whether this article would have a western bias. An issue with identifying something as a common misconception is the people making this article, and the articles with the information from it, are likely western due to the English language the articles are written in. I'm not sure whether a lot of these are actually applicable to most of the world, which makes this article devolve into a list of misconceptions common to the United States. I'll do a breakdown of the article:

*Food and Culture section has 3 things out of 5 in it which seem to be exclusively American, or at least non-eastern at the least.
*Law, Crime and Government has 5 out of 7 applying only to the US, and only 1/7 seemingly applying to the whole world.
*Music section seems to be all western bias
*The religion section could be a universal list of misconceptions, or it could be western culture misunderstanding Eastern culture. I am not sure as a common misconception is often subjective without research.
*Sports includes 2/3 with western bias.
*The Words, Phrases and Languages section contains 12/13 misconceptions which appear to have a western bias. Almost all of these misconceptions are based in the English language, or at least English perceptions of other languages.
*Every misconception in the history section only applies to Western history.
*In the science section, while some misconceptions may appear universal, with a bit of digging, many are western, such as the Elephant's graveyard myth, with was popularised by the Tarzan films and another 1931 American film, or the lemmings suicide myth, which originated from a Disney film. There is a lot in here to analyse, but in the inventions section at least, it appears to all be exclusively western.

To improve this article to remove the western bias, it will have to be expanded to a much larger extent to include other cultures, or merely renamed to be 'List of common western misconceptions.' I may exclusively be viewing this as an issue, and I am interested in discussion.

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:Yes, adding entries from other cultures would be most welcome. ‘Fan death’ is one of the best ones here. I would probably hesitate to include too many items entirely specific to non-English languages, since English is supposed to be the language of en.wikipedia.org. Like if Germans assume a German word has an incorrect origin. There are probably thousands of such items for all the world’s languages. But then again, I reserve judgment until I see the proposed addition.Keep in mind that the list criteria preclude anything not in another article. Wikipedia as a whole has a western, English language and North American bias, as noted in [[WP:BIAS]]. This list merely reflects the state of all en.wikipedia, and we can’t fix that here. The list can only globalize about as much as the whole encyclopedia. —[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 17:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

* '''Yes. It does have a western bias.''' Perhaps, rather than trying to remove the bias, we change the title? Something like "List of common American misconceptions"? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::I think that would make the problem worse, not better. Making the bias explicit wouldn't remove any bias, but it would lead to the removal of the entries that ameliorate the bias. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 19:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

*We definitely don't want to narrow the scope geographically or linguistically. That is too arbitrary. Over on the AfD I suggested something we could add to the criteria to help guide globalisation. I'll paste it here with a few modifications.
:<blockquote>"Entries should not be restricted to small geographic areas. Generally, only misconceptions referenced as being common across multiple countries are potentially eligible for inclusion. Misconceptions which are only common in a single country, with any believers elsewhere consisting mainly of its expatriates, are generally not eligible. Misconceptions common in only one country may be eligible for large countries with high populations but such exceptions must be well referenced as being very common throughout that country. Editors of the English Wikipedia should take care not to give undue weight to the misconceptions common in English speaking countries. Examples: Misconceptions common across the English, French, Arabic or Spanish speaking worlds are equally eligible (assuming that they meet the other criteria). Misconceptions common across regions such as West Africa, South Asia, North America or Eastern Europe are equally eligible (assuming that they meet the other criteria). Misconceptions specific to large individual countries such as China, Russia or the USA are eligible only if very common throughout the whole country but generally are not. Misconceptions specific to smaller countries or to specific regions of large countries are not eligible. (Note: This means that misconceptions common in only a few states of the USA are not eligible.) This may mean that many interesting and/or amusing candidate entries are excluded. This is intentional. This is necessary to avoid trivial and excessive entries to maintain focus on the most common misconceptions globally."</blockquote>
:Now that's just my idea. Other people can build on it if they want to or they can propose something completely different. At least it gets the discussion started.
:Globalising the article will probably need two approaches. Removing trivial western entries and adding non-western entries. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 18:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
::If a current entry is trivial, that might be grounds for removal without considering systemic bias at all. But removing it because it's ''Western'' and kind of trivial is not helpful. We should apply the same bar of triviality to all entries, regardless of country. It only makes it worse if we have a double standard where Western entries need to be more significant than non-Western. Readers notice when you do that and it tends to decrease respect and acceptance for the cultures you're trying to spotlight. Rather than look around for Western entries to delete, it might be more helpful to go to the talk pages of WikiProjects for China or West Africa or wherever and ask editors there if they know of common misconceptions that are in existing articles that we could consider. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Indeed. But if most of the current trivial entries are western trivia then removing them helps address the imbalance as well as deal with the trivia issue. There is no need for a different standard for western entries which is why I didn't suggest one. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 19:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Yeah. "Just saying". Nice place you got here, be a shame if something happened to it. Several editors have a habit of bringing up the need to delete entries from this list in unrelated contexts. Which then precipitates an off-topic discussion about unrelated deletions. If you know of an entry that ought to be deleted, by all means, start a new discussion about that entry. It's unhelpful to harp on that everywhere else. It tends to create a common misconception of its own: that ''List of common misconceptions'' is filled with trivia. That argument has been made and rejected many times, such as the recent AfD, the fourth in a string of failed attempts to claim this list is filled with trivia and cruft. Consensus is against that opinion, and consider [[WP:IDHT]] as advice to heed consensus.Please post which entries are trivial in an appropriate place, or stop the hand waving allusions to theses supposedly trivial entries. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 19:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

=== Break for bulk of text ===
I decided to go through other Wiki's article on this, thinking they would have their own misconceptions. I didn't go through them all, and the Korean and Iranian still have some I haven't transferred, but here are the ones that were not included in the English article. Obviously we don't have to add them all, but just for consideration that these are misconceptions that exist in other countries. Sources can be found (for most) on the Wiki's page.

https://ar.wikipedia.org
:The Declaration of Liberation issued by Abraham Lincoln in September 1862 did not free all American slaves directly, so that the areas under the southern secessionists ignored the resolution, and applied only in the areas under the control of the northerners at the time are South Louisiana, Tennessee and parts Of Virginia, [3] but the Thirteenth Amendment of 1865 abolished slavery altogether.
:Cooked and unopened oysters do not harm health.
:Louis Armstrong was not born on July 4, 1900. He was born August 4, 1901.

https://fr.wikipedia.org
:The Roman Catholic Church did not stifle scientific research during the Middle Ages.
:Most modern historians reject what we conceive as the Dark Ages as being that.
:[[Droit du seigneur]] was a myth. No one has found mention of it in French law, the customs of France, or the public archives of civil or fiscal litigation.
:Galileo was not sentenced to death for claiming the Earth was round. He was placed under house arrest for arguing the Earth was in motion.
:The law against shooting parachutists in wartime before they touch the ground concerns only isolated paratroopers, ie; the crew of an aircraft in distress.
:Adding oil to pasta while cooking does not prevent them from sticking. It is added to prevent water from overflowing or forming foam.
:Microwaves do not let out harmful waves. [This one requires a reference]
:The solstices and equinoxes do not necessarily fall on the 21st of the month.
:The hidden side of the moon receives on average as much light as the visible side.
:The phases of the moon have no impact on behaviour, the human metabolism or plant growth.
:Chameleons change colour mainly to regulate temperature and to communicate, not to camouflage. Some species use this ability to camouflage however.
:The Auk is a family of birds which can fly. They are often mistaken for penguins, due to two reasons. 1 - the similarity between penguins and the larger of the two auk species. In French, the word pingouin for it is also similar to the English word for penguin, the dutch word for penguin (Pinguin), the Spanish word for penguin (pinguino), and the german, italian, russian and portuguese words for penguin.
:Lemongrass does not repel mosquitos
:Sleeping in a room with Viridiplantae is not dangerous.
:Hydrogen peroxide is not a good antiseptic for treating wounds.
:Stress does not cause ulcers.
:Removing white hair does not make it appear more.
:Sugar cane fields are not burned before harvest to increase sugar levels but to expel poisonous snakes and facilitate cutting work.
:The Trendelenburg position does not treat hypotension or states of shock, and can be dangerous.
:Thales of Miletus did not come up with Thale's theorem
:Arabic numerals are of Indian, not Arab origin.
:The Big Bang does not provide an explanation of the origins of the universe, but explains the start of its evolution.
:Having small metal objects on a person does not make them attract lightning.
:Clouds consist not of gaseous water (water vapor), but small water droplets and ice crystals suspended in the air.
:The Earth's mantle consist of solid rock, not molten magma.
:The Mona Lisa, unlike its depiction in various media, notably cinema, is painted on a wooden panel, not canvas.
:The English horn is neither a horn nor English. It is a wood instrument.
:The harpsichord is not the piano's ancestor; they are not in the same family.
:There has never been a council on whether women have souls. See the article - Synod of Mâcon
:Original sin does not refer to sex, but the desire of men and women to be "like god", the equal of their creator.

https://ko.wikipedia.org
:The revolutionary spirit of the French Revolution is known as freedom, equality, and fraternity, but it is freedom, equality, and rights. The former only became the official ideology of the republic with the adoption of the 1875 Consistution.
:America did not enter WW1 due to unrestricted submarine warfare. They entered after a message was encoded in which the German foreign minister touted the benefits of invading the USA to the German ambassador in Mexico.

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 13:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

== Christopher Columbus and Flat Earth ==

I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=862183602&oldid=862123949&diffmode=source restored] the material [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=next&oldid=861990136&diffmode=source edited] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=861995945&oldid=861995144&diffmode=source deleted] by {{u|TompaDompa}}. I agree that it needs to be merged with an existing entry on Columbus. I moved the entry to be closer to the existing entry to make that easier. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

These are the two entries that need to be merged:
* [[Medieval Europe]]ans [[Myth of the Flat Earth|did not believe Earth was flat]]; in fact, from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]], belief in a [[spherical Earth]] remained almost universal among European intellectuals. As a result, [[Christopher Columbus]]'s efforts to obtain support for [[voyages of Christopher Columbus|his voyages]] were hampered not by belief in a flat Earth but by valid worries that the East Indies were farther than he realized.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | title=The Myth of the Flat Earth | encyclopedia=Misconceptions about the Middle Ages | publisher=Routledge | accessdate=26 January 2014 | author=Louise M. Bishop | editor=Stephen Harris | editor2=Bryon L. Grigsby | date=2010 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hdCTAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT149| isbn=9781135986667 }}</ref> If the Americas had not existed, he would surely have run out of supplies before reaching Asia.
* [[Christopher Columbus]] did not "prove" the earth was round. That had been known since at least 500 B.C.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html|title=Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref> This myth was propagated by authors like [[Washington Irving]] in ''[[A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus]]''.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://dhayton.haverford.edu/blog/2014/12/02/washington-irvings-columbus-and-the-flat-earth/|title=Washington Irving’s Columbus and the Flat Earth – Darin Hayton|website=dhayton.haverford.edu|language=en-US|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref> In fact, Columbus grossly underestimated the earth's circumference in order to justify his famous voyage of 1492. He and all of his crew would have died of starvation, thirst or scurvy had they not been lucky enough to bump into the uncharted continent of North America.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Coming of Age in the Milky Way|last=Ferris|first=Timothy|publisher=Harper Perennial|year=2003|isbn=978-0060535957|location=|pages=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.americanheritage.com/content/everything-you-need-know-about-columbus|title=Everything You Need To Know About Columbus {{!}} AMERICAN HERITAGE|website=www.americanheritage.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html|title=Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus|work=Live Science|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref> (See also [[Voyages of Christopher Columbus]].)
:Likewise it is also a myth that people of the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat (See: [[Myth of the flat Earth]]). This myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/resources/additional-resources/2010/05/science-versus-christianity|title=Science Versus Christianity?|website=www.patheos.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:I think the second one can simply be deleted; all the necessary information is in the first one. We should avoid making the entries overly detailed as that hampers readability. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 19:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::I prefer having more details, such as:
:::* "myth was propagated by authors like [[Washington Irving]] in ''[[A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus]]''"
:::* flat earth "myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings."
:::* additional [[WP:RS]] refs.
:: Some of the language in the second is preferable to the first--more interesting IMHO (of course, I did write it.) For example:
:::* "uncharted" is more active than "If the Americas had not existed".
:::* "crew [dying] of starvation, thirst or scurvy" is more interesting to visualize than "running out of supplies".
:::* "since at least 500 B.C." (reflecting [[Spherical Earth]]) is probably more accurate than "from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]], belief in a [[spherical Earth]] remained almost universal among European intellectuals", which lacks [[WP:RS]], may overstate universality of agreement, and gives more credit to [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] than they likely deserve, rather than intellectuals like [[Pythagoras]], [[Parmenides]], and [[Eratosthenes]] who appear to have had much greater influence in moving beliefs towards the spherical earth. It's not clear to me if there was a [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/step_change step-change] to acceptance of a spherical earth or if it was a gradual change over some centuries.
::--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC) (revised)
:::I think the extra details on the origins are unnecessary ''here''. They can go on the respective articles. I don't feel strongly about the different phrasings. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Okay. That leaves far less in dispute. How do you feel about including more [[WP:RS]] refs? I can make the changes in the older version to reflect my preferences on phrasings. I assume you would have no objection to that? As for the origins of the myths, we need input from at least one other editor to break the impasse on that. I am not certain if it is better to start the change in the article now, or wait for additional feedback. What do you think? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::As long as it doesn't reach [[WP:OVERCITE]] levels, more sources is fine. I say start editing now. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::I'm done with the merge/changes. Feel free to comment on my changes below. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}
===Revised / Merged Version #1 ===
I'm done making the changes/merge ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=862227780&oldid=862191008&diffmode=source 12 edits], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=862228671&oldid=862228378&diffmode=source 2 more edits]). Here is what I have ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&oldid=862228671#Middle_Ages_and_Renaissance permalink]):

* [[Medieval Europe]]ans [[Myth of the Flat Earth|did not believe Earth was flat]]. Scholars have known the [[spherical Earth|earth is spherical]] since at least 500 B.C. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html|title=Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref> This myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic teachings.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/resources/additional-resources/2010/05/science-versus-christianity|title=Science Versus Christianity?|website=www.patheos.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
:* [[Christopher Columbus]]'s efforts to obtain support for [[voyages of Christopher Columbus|his voyages]] were hampered not by belief in a flat Earth but by valid worries that the East Indies were farther than he realized.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | title=The Myth of the Flat Earth | encyclopedia=Misconceptions about the Middle Ages | publisher=Routledge | accessdate=26 January 2014 | author=Louise M. Bishop | editor=Stephen Harris | editor2=Bryon L. Grigsby | date=2010 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hdCTAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT149| isbn=9781135986667 }}</ref> In fact, Columbus grossly underestimated the earth's circumference because of two calculation errors.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/at-work/test-and-measurement/columbuss-geographical-miscalculations|title=Columbus’s Geographical Miscalculations|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|access-date=2018-10-03}}</ref> He and all of his crew would have died of starvation, thirst or scurvy had they not been lucky enough to bump into the uncharted continent of North America.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Coming of Age in the Milky Way|last=Ferris|first=Timothy|publisher=Harper Perennial|year=2003|isbn=978-0060535957|location=|pages=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.americanheritage.com/content/everything-you-need-know-about-columbus|title=Everything You Need To Know About Columbus {{!}} AMERICAN HERITAGE|website=www.americanheritage.com|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.livescience.com/16468-christopher-columbus-myths-flat-earth-discovered-americas.html|title=Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus|work=Live Science|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
:* The myth that Columbus proved the earth was round was propagated by authors like [[Washington Irving]] in ''[[A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus]]''.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://dhayton.haverford.edu/blog/2014/12/02/washington-irvings-columbus-and-the-flat-earth/|title=Washington Irving’s Columbus and the Flat Earth – Darin Hayton|website=dhayton.haverford.edu|language=en-US|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html|title=Busting a myth about Columbus and a flat Earth|website=Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-09-29}}</ref>
I welcome feedback.
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

== Pre-ejaculate ==

Popular belief – dating to a 1966 Masters and Johnson study<ref>{{cite book|last=Masters|first=W.H.|title=Johnson, V.E.|year=1966|publisher=Little, Brown and Company|location=Boston, MA|page=211}}</ref> – stated that [[pre-ejaculate]] may contain sperm that can cause pregnancy, which is a common basis of argument against the use of [[coitus interruptus]] (withdrawal) as a contraceptive method. However, pre-ejaculate is ineffectual at causing pregnancy.<ref name=zukerman/><ref name="HIV">{{Cite journal| title=Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid | journal=Contraceptive Technology Update |date=October 1993 | volume=14 | issue=10 | pmid=12286905 | pages=154–156}}</ref>

[[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

* In theory an item like this could land on this list, but to me it looks like one of those cases where it's too hazy. Even if some newer studies make a strong statement, we will still have some reliable sources who continue to say the opposite. Many science and medical questions remain forever up for debate, even when most experts are in agreement. It's very much like political/economic questions.I can't figure out what [[Pre-ejaculate]] is trying to say here. Can you go to [[Talk:Pre-ejaculate]] and see if you can get consensus for some more definitive language? It kind of looks like that's not possible because you've got a handful of conflicting studies with lots of "may" and "might" conclusions. "Pre-ejaculate is ineffectual at causing pregnancy" is not the same as the statement "You can't get pregnant from pre-ejaculate". The article [[Coitus interruptus]] isn't very consistent with [[Pre-ejaculate]]. There would need to be consensus for a clearer statement in both articles, and the coitus interruptus article appears to say the sources are even more contradictory than the pre-ejaculate article.Aside from that, pre-ejaculate is only one of the reasons withdraw is an ineffective birth control method, and so even if one were to prove that pre-ejaculate contains zero sperm, ever, for anybody (unlikely) it's still kind of a meaningless point. There's a common misconception that pulling out works, and a common believe that it's bound to fail, and among those who believe it is poor birth control, there are varying opinions as to why it is ineffective. A "common misconception" requires a little more straightforward erroneous belief. People who are right about coitus interruptus, but for a mixture wrong reasons and right reasons, are still basically right. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 18:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

::Sources [https://www.google.com/search?ei=AQa1W6m6G8y9ggf6v5uABA&q=pre-ejaculatory+fluid+can+cause+pregnancy+misconceptions&oq=pre-ejaculatory+fluid+can+cause+pregnancy+miscon&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i21j33i160.925537.927834..930019...0.0..0.161.594.6j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i22i30.oqD4G1gjz-E disagree] so this would not be any kind of misconception. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

* IF it is reworded to accurately reflect the diversity of opinions in sources with [[WP:NPOV]] weight -AND- one or more sources says it is a myth, misconception or point of confusion, THEN I would support its inclusion. Assuming {{u|Dennis Bratland}}'s comment is correct, there is not general agreement that the probably of pregnancy from pre-ejaculate is basically 0%, but there may be a consensus that it is likely near 0%, with the common hedge words you see in scientific writing about cause and effect. I would agree then it's not entirely black/white.
:There is also the more straightforward question, "Does pre-ejaculate have sperm?" That might be the real myth.
:I'm not yet convinced there is no myth, but I believe the wording proposed above will need to be re-worked if it is to be included. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 00:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:::That's a fair way of putting it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr is right too, putting it succinctly. Some misconceptions could theoretically be on this list, but we exclude them because it's too difficult to sort out which sources to believe and to write the claim with enough qualifications to be correct. Since this list is long and difficult to maintain, we have to stick with entries that are clear and on solid ground. The low hanging fruit. Pre-ejaculate will constantly be challenged.Under the ''human sexuality'' heading, we only have two items and we could easily add four or five very strongly supported common misconceptions related to [[virginity]], [[virginity test]]s, the [[hymen]] and so on. Right in the lead of [[anal sex]] it says "While anal sex is commonly associated with male homosexuality, research shows that not all gay males engage in anal sex and that it is not uncommon in heterosexual relationships." There's plenty such of low hanging fruit for anyone who wants to expand the human sexuality topic. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 00:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

::::Misconceptions are black or white/right or wrong. If there is a "diversity of opinions" then we can not claim there is a "misconception" in Wikipedia's voice per [[WP:YESPOV]]---> ''Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.'' [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::That's an overstatement. The [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]] policies don't go that far. The essay [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth|Verifiability, not truth]] presents a detailed argument for why we don't adhere to such a rigid definition of "fact" as equivalent to "The Truth". But perhaps for purposes this list that's one way of identifying what I was calling the "low hanging fruit", those misconceptions which are very unlikely to be seriously challenged. But such a strict standard is not how Wikipedia generally determines what can be stated as a fact in [[WP:WIKIVOICE|Wikipedia's voice]]. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Dennis Bratland's analysis. Few things are completely black/white, even in science. Just ask [https://www.britannica.com/science/uncertainty-principle Heisenberg]. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::In my experience it's generally white.--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 10:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::: Things that are "gray" can be treated in Wikipedia explaining the different views and following Verifiability, not truth, but that should be done at another article, not on this List. This List has a statement of fact in its title so we are already making a POV statement (taking sides) just adding an item here. Things added here should be a "fact" or very, very, very close to a "fact" (only counter amounts to [[WP:FRINGE]]) i.e. "very low hanging fruit". [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 13:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Talk:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-10-04T10:21:24Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Music Tracklisting */ /Re

{{Vital article|topic=Art|level=5|class=C}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Film|class=C|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=no|B-Class-5=yes|American-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Romance|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|class=C|importance=High}}
}}

==References to use==

:''Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.''
*{{cite book | editor-last=Grau | editor-first=Christopher | year=2009 | title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind | series=Philosophers on Film | publisher=Routledge | isbn=0415774659 }}
*{{cite book | last=Harbidge | first=Lesley | year=2009 | chapter=A New Direction in Comedian Comedy?: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', ''Punch-Drunk Love'' and the Post-Comedian Rom-Com | title=Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema | publisher=I. B. Tauris | pages=176–189 | isbn=1845117719 }}
*{{cite book | last=Miah | first=Andy | year=2009 | chapter='Blessed Are the Forgetful': The Ethics of Memory Deletion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' | title=Bioethics at the Movies | editor-last=Shapshay | editor-first=Sandra | publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]] | pages=137–155 | isbn=0801890772 }}
*{{cite book | last=Nungesser | first=Verena-Susanna | year=2009 | chapter=I Forgot to Remember (to Forget): Personal Memories in ''Memento'' (2000) and ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' (2004) | title=Mediation, Remediation, and the Dynamics of Cultural Memory | series=Media and Cultural Memory | publisher=Walter de Gruyter | isbn=3110204444 }}
*{{cite book | last=Walters | first=James | year=2008 | chapter=Return to Innocence: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' (Michael Gondry, 2004) | title=Alternative Worlds in Hollywood Cinema | publisher=Intellect Ltd | pages=81–104 | isbn=1841502022 }}
*{{cite book | last=Wartenberg | first=Thomas E. | year=2007 | chapter=Arguing against utilitarianism: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' | title=Thinking on Screen: Film as Philosophy | publisher=Routledge | pages=76–93 | isbn=0415774314 }}

==Clean-up==
===Cleaned up several sections===

There were several minor errors in various sections and some clunky prose that I cleaned up. There was also a bit of unnecessary detail IMHO about the scene where Joel and Clementine were watching a circus parade that didn't really fit in with that section about deleted and dropped scenes.[[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]]) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

===Reverted major changes that were made to the page without discussion===

It was my understanding that people shouldn't do major edits (like bagging an entire section and rewriting another) without explaining what they are doing here. I'm referring to the detailed linear chronology section and the plot one. IMHO, those two sections were fine the way they were and were in place for four years when someone decided to change them. So I'm changing them back. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 05:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 

===Tweaked the discussion about the looped ending===

Somebody really went out on a limb with an interpretation of the scene of Joel and Clementine playing in the snow meant "and they lived happily ever after"...With respect to that person, it's a nice interpretation, but it isn't supported by shooting script or comments made by Gondry or Kaufmann. So I got rid of that. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.252.102.65|71.252.102.65]] ([[User talk:71.252.102.65|talk]]) 03:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 

===Did a few more tweaks on the linear chronology===

I noticed that the chronology got shortened down some and for the most part, I think it looks better than when I last saw it. I did do a number of tweaks and added a bit more description of the final scenes.

===Did some tweaks on the analysis of the end===

I did a bit of editing on the last paragraph of the end section. I thought it was a bit too speculative in its interpretation of the snow scene. I am willing to discuss this with whoever made the change. But I really do think that it's better to say that this is one interpretation (based on the fact that we saw a snow-memory of Joel's getting erased and the hair color thing).

Frankly, I think when the snow scene during the credits took place is not terribly important. But at the same time, I've seen some people come along and deride this page for having content that extrapolates too much, and I figure that the paragraph as it was originally worded is like waving a red flag to a bull. But let me stress, I am willing to discuss this.

===Did Joel really overlook the skeleton drawing?===

I just watched the movie and my memory is that Joel didn't overlook his drawing of Clem as a skeleton when he gathered up things to bring to Lacuna. Don't we actually see him pull out the drawing during the "gathering things to bring to Lacuna" scene? That would imply he brought it. And the second time we see it is after Joel openshis file and is listening to the tape, so I assumed the drawing was part of his file (for some reason it wasn't among the items Patrick stole). I'm not sure about this so I won't change the page. I'm not going to go watch the movie again to check it, but I'm sure someone here is willing to watch for this next time they watch the movie.

:I've seen the movie a bunch of times, and I think that implication was clearly that Joel simply overlooked the sketch when he was clearing out Clementine's effects. He wasn't exactly going about it in a slow, methodical way, and I find it easy to believe that he could have overlooked it in the state that he was in. God knows that I've forgotten things when I have been distraught like Joel was.

::I agree with the first person. I believe that drawing of Clem with the body of the skeleton was part of the file that Joel received in the mail and not something that he forgot to bring with him to Lacuna. One reason is the color of Clem's hair. After Joel had the procedure and he met Clem (again) for the first time her hair was Blue. She must have changed it from orange to blue sometime between the last time Joel saw her before she had the procedure and when he met her again in Montauk. The color of her hair in the drawing was red. Red was the color her hair was before she dyed it orange. If he just happened to see that drawing the day he got his file from Lacuna in the mail then how was he was supposed to know it was a drawing of Clem? He had met Clem only two days before that (after his procedure) and he knew her with blue hair. It makes sense to think that drawing was something that was returned to him in the mail. Not everything that he brought with him to Lacuna was returned because Patrick stole most of it but that drawing was one of them. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I respectfully disagree with the people who think that the painting was in the file (does it really matter that much anyway?). Joel said to Clementine, "Look what I found" (indicating the painting). Moreover, he had obviously been tearing his apartment apart looking for evidence of their relationship. If he had just gotten the painting in the mail, he would have said something like, "Look at what was in my envelope." Besides, all their respective mementos were a lot more than what could be stuffed in a large envelope. But then, does it really matter? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.75.6.24|72.75.6.24]] ([[User talk:72.75.6.24|talk]]) 03:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

------I really feel in some odd way it does matter. First of all, I know that the people who made this movie emphasized certain things in a certain way for viewers to take notice. There is a purpose. It lets your imagination soar and think of those things and their significance/meaning/relevance, and the endless possibilities and combinations that we can create with our minds. It is also somehow clever because in the end you're STILL left wondering. I feel like there is a everlasting impression, in which I want to know the actual ending to their relationship but I will never know (and in turn, joel and clementine, as they are presented in the end, also wonder about the future of them as a couple. Despite those doubts, they do it anyway). This movie was based on the idea of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus"(according to my philosophy teacher)and therefore, a philosophical movie.The point of philosophy is to make you think. And this is exactly what this movie did.

*What i also found interesting was the fact that almost every character is left wondering about SOMETHING. Joel wonders what will happen, knowing that in the past they just broke up! Clem thinks the same. Dr. Howard is left wondering, thinking what if I did pursue this relationship with her instead of my wife? I wonder did anyone think about that, in general? It's crazy though (the idea) . And that's why i LOVE this movie even more now. All thanks to my class.
As he's cleaning he comes across a few letters and pauses and you know that he is reading them. You have to feel his anger. He seems ANGRY that he doesn't understand WHYY! and the fact that he's going crazy because of this. But yet, he's sad and just feels completely helpless. He looks at her baby picture and REMEMBERS to look at the back to see this signature or a note from Clem, or just the fact that he wanted to see her handwriting for the last time. But the fact that he does send this very powerful message through such a small/quick emphasis on a tiny detail! (an example..)

*To just comment on the first msg, I don't think that they showed anything of the skeleton painting. I think i didn't catch it, but it is the part when he's cleaning out stuff that reminds him of her, am i correct? I am really confused as to what you are talking about. I know it's the skeleton picture but where is it when he's cleaning?.
-angela
------
* <s>Why is Angelas' text (above) going off the right side of the page? :Please fix it. I dont't know how! (''Yet'')</s>
Fixed (hope its ok to have done so Angela) N.b. It was caused by a single '''''space''''' at the start of your sentence.
*Why aren't people signing? **Four 'tildes' remember?

[[Special:Contributions/220.101.28.25|220.101.28.25]] ([[User talk:220.101.28.25|talk]]) 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-----

===someone's question about memory scenes being correct===

someone posted a question about the memory scenes section asking if they were correct. I think the answer is pretty much yes (although I suppose there is always room for "happy" to "glad" type word changes

===Cleaned up the section on Joel's childhood===

I took a crack at cleaning up the language in the "Joel's childhood" section (moving part of it to the section about how erased memories appear and hopefully clarifying the lead-in sentences that someone added to the section.

===Science catching up to fiction...===

Memories Selectively, Safely Erased In Mice: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081022135801.htm —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JaffaCakeLover|JaffaCakeLover]] ([[User talk:JaffaCakeLover|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JaffaCakeLover|contribs]]) 11:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 

===Quick question===

... anyone else think Stan's a bit of an idiot because he's had his memory erased a few times? It IS brain damage, and I'm sure the good doctor wouldn't think twice to tweak his employees' brains rather than pay unemployment, or get sued, etc. Just a thought. I actually like the article. [[User:Phoenix frou|Phoenix frou]] 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's an interesting thought, but I figure that there's no evidence to suggest that. I suppose it would be something that Gondry or Kaufmann could answer.

::I don't believe Stan was like that because he had his memory erased a few times. First of all if the doctor wanted to, "tweak his employees' brains rather than pay unemployment, or get sued, etc," then Stan would have had to ''submit'' to the procedure. There's no way that the doctor could've done the procedure to anyone without their consent and no way that he could've ''tricked'' anyone into erasing their memory. Even if Stan wanted to erase some of his memories about something else the doctor couldn't have "''gone behind his back''" and erased different memories. All the memories that were to be erased had to be "mapped" before the procedure. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I got the impression that Stan was a bit of a stoner...smokes dope, drinks (maybe heavily), listens to really loud music, etc. You could get that way without having your memory zapped.

I don't know if the movie has inspired any fanfic, but I suppose someone who was into that could use that as a theme.

===and more===

actually i'm not really taking you into consideration. you're the problem here, one which i couldn't be bothered dealing with.

===constructive criticism===

Frankly, statements like "this tripe does not belong in Wikipedia" aren't terribly helpful. I assume that Wikipedia's amorphous standards call for people to say things like, "this section needs to be changed because..." or "this could be written in a format that consists of..." instead of things like "this sucks, and I'm not going to bother to tell you specifically why."

And as far as claims that I'm acting like I "own it," that is untrue. I have not objected to substantive alterations to the input that I have provided to it over the last two years. For example, I had no problems with someone reformatting most of my input from an "FAQ" that I did for the imdb.com site into something that looked a lot better and apparently conforms to wikipedia standards.

I'm just not willing to agree to deleting huge sections of the page without the person making such demands providing detailed reasons why such changes should be made.

===ergh===

Extremely poorly written. No, that is not subjective. It's just terrible. You're acting like you own this page. This tripe does not belong in wikipedia.

===hey, hey, hey===

The article has been pretty much the way it without anyone else objecting to its structure for over two years. I think "extremely poorly written" is pretty much a matter of opinion. I also think that trying to compress a movie as complex as ESOTSM into a one paragraph summation is not realistic and would pretty much moot the whole point of providing a "detailed chronology" (that readers are entirely free to skip). I also think that it's worth looking at how long the page for the movie "Memento" is as well. The chronology there is pretty long too.

This being said, I will take another look at the chronology and see if I can winnow it down some. However, I don't think that it's realistic to demand/ask/suggest what you're asking/demanding/suggesting. I'm more than willing to debate and discuss how this chronology can be improved. However, to do that, you've got to be specific in your criticisms (i.e. "get rid of all of it" is a pretty sweeping demand).

Also, I will remove the sentence that you find objectionable about why Clementine knew Patrick was a creep. I think it is not such an unreasonable inference to draw, but it is not worth getting in a fight over.

===hey, "hey, "alteration""===

The entire plot of the movie is far from encyclopaedic. I do agree that as its narrative is far from linear an outline of the chronological plot may be in order, but what we have here is overkill. I stress also that the material in question is incredibly poorly written. The fact that the entire plot is there isn't the problem, it's all of the extra bits and pieces that are thrown in - these are clear to see but I put down a few examples previously. You could coherently some up the chronological plot in a relatively small paragraph, this just isn't necessary.

If anybody with any authority in wikipedia was to stumble upon this apparently inactive article I'm quite sure they would agree with me.

Ergh. And I notice that extra bit has been put back in. I'm not going to remove it, what's the point. I might as well delete the whole damn thing. Seriously, this is ''poorly written'' material that does ''not belong in Wikipedia''. Move it to your website and add a link at the bottom for all our sakes.
I see you've repeated in response to me the same text as begins the entire thing (confusion on imdb), so I assume you're the original author. Move it to your website.

===hey, "alteration"===

I don't have a problem with you removing the speculation about why Clementine told Patrick to get away from her. But I DO have a problem with any changes to the synopsis of the film. YOU may find it rambling. But I do not, and I suspect a lot of other people do not either.

As for the level of detail, if you read the imdb.com postings about this, you would have been amazed at how much confusion that there was over the sequence of events in this movie. The detailed synopsis of the plot was designed to answer people's questions about what happened.

==alteration==

I deleted '(a logical explanation for that being that she had read his name in her file and realized that he was involved in the memory erasure process)' for two reasons. The first is that this is not a good explanation at all - would clementine really have sat down and read the file through in her injured state after the confrontation in Joel's car? The second is that either way we don't know, so let's not bother including anything on that matter.

I might add that this synopsis of the film is ''highly'' speculative. It rambles on and at points isn't as coherent as a wikipedia article should be. It strikes me as something which should go on the original authors website - it should be removed from this article.

Infact I'll take a few quotes to illustrate this:

'Patrick approaches Clementine on the steps to her building, but she angrily tells him to "get the fuck" away from her.' / 'Meanwhile, Mary has come over ostensibly to help Stan and Patrick with the procedure. However, given the fact that she and Stan kiss each other, it is obvious that she is there more to see Stan than to do any work.' / 'They travel back on the same train, and both find themselves --for them-- mysteriously drawn to each other.'

This is a poorly written and subjective blow by blow recount of the entire story and does not belong here.

// I agree with the fact that it is a poorly written summary of this movie. As the person above me said, it is meant to make you think (which is what philosophy is all about)...it's very broad, if you watch what happens...it's open for discussion...anything it possible. if you look at what I said in the section about Clems skeleton pic being over looked, i wrote that this film was based on the idea of Albert Camus' "Myth of Sisyphus", which was, Yes to life! You embrace it and to embrace your life, you must embrace both the good and the bad. And though you embrace it, at the same time, life is pointless and repetitive (just as if someone is working and they do it over and over and over, there is a reason! the reason is to make money...but what happens after? it is inevitable that death is going to come. and our bodies die. so the idea is simply put: what is the point of actions, if we are going to just die? that's how it is pointless and repetitive).
In simpler terms, Joel got what he asked for. He chose his fate. The moment he agreed to delete her from his mind, his fate was inevitable, and in a way sort of predestined just because it was inevitable, whether you're conscious of it or not.
My final point is that you cannot absolutely not write this summary in the way of YOUR vIEWS. And i'm not saying this to be mean or to tell you you're wrong, i'm saying this only because it will harm the thoughts of others who have not seen this movie...you can give your opinion but you must state that it is YOUR opinion and not the RIGHT way of thinking or anything like that. You should just give a very extremely brief explanation of what happens, not in detail.

Try not to state your opinion unless you have another article of text or an idea that proves your opinion/judgments/argument/idea, then you must compare and state how your evidence justifies your argument. until then do not mess this movie up for others. On top of that i agree that you didn't even give the correct details! at least be correct in what happens...it might be an interpretation of what you though but you shouldn't. it will influence others. and in a bad way too.
=angela

==speaking as the author of the dearly departed faq==

I have to really disagree with the the poster below who thinks the interpretation of the ending needs to be changed. He or she needs to read the interview in the back of the "script book" which quotes Kaufman as saying, more or less, "the hallway scene marked the end of the story and that it is up to the viewers to decide what happened." I agree that the passage below that states "Clementine" feels the same way is too speculative. But I stick to my guns that the way Joel said, "Okay" meant "I don't care." And if you look at the very end of the scene, and you study the expression on Winslet's face, its undeniable that at first, she's confused by what Joel said, and then she nods her head. Then they both start to laugh. How speculative is it to conclude that both characters were laughing because, "this is weird, weird, weird"? I don't think it is speculative at all. What is a bit more speculative is the conclusion that I drew that they had decided to live in the moment and not worry about what is preordained.

I really do believe as I stated before on the IMDB comments of this movie, that ESOTSM is sort of a psychological rohrschach test (inkblots). People who are pessimistic are likely to see a darker ending. People who aren't are more inclined to see a happier one. I think I take the middle course and say that it was a "hopeful" ending.

==overly specualtive interpretation of the ending, NEEDS to be changed==

This article speculates that joel and Clementine get back together at the end, even though the movie leaves it ambiguous. Although the last shot in the film is of the couple frolicking in the snow, Gondry and Kaufman both admit on the DVD commentary that this could be an earlier scene of the two, and does not neccesarily mean that they are back together. That information, taken with the fact that the WHOLE movie is out-of-order chronologically, means that you can't definitively say that they do get back together.

I'll quote what the wiki article says:

"Clementine...tells Joel that their relationship is bound to fail. Joel shrugs and says 'Okay' in a tone which indicates that he accepts that it will likely fail, but still wants to experience it. Clementine feels the same way. Both of them begin to laugh over the absurdity of the situation and with relief that they aren't going to walk away from what may turn out to be a rewarding relationship"

I think the whole "Clementine feels the same way" and "relief that they aren't going to walk away from what may turn out to be a rewarding relationship" part of this entry is bullshit and speculative. How does the author of this entry know how Kate Winslet's character feels at this point in the movie? And does Joel's "tone" of voice really indicate as much as this entry's author speculates?

This is all one person's interpretation of the film, when I saw it I thought the opposite, that they did not get back together. The last shot of them together in Montauk could be from any time in their relationship. But I don't insist that my interpretation is right and present it that way, as this page's author(s) did. The article should note the ambiguous nature of the ending and state that the film leaves it to the viewer to figure it out. If a registered user doesn't make those changes, I might just edit the page myself.

:I agree; go ahead and see what you can do. There is a lot of speculation about this film; most of it is very amateurish, anyway, and is not supported by the film. As Roger Ebert says, if it's not in the film, it doesn't exist. [[User:Paul Klenk|paul klenk]] [[User talk:Paul Klenk|talk]] 23:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

===more comments on the ending...===

Probably disrupting some compromise here but I think it has to be said... Currently the article states:

". Clementine tells Joel that their relationship is bound to fail, based on what they now know about it. However, Joel just shrugs and says "Okay" (indicating that he doesn't care about what may happen in the future)."

We don't actually know what the "okay" means, so... saying that it indicates that he doesn't care about what may happen in the future doesn't actually add anything to the article. There are three main scenarios as I see it. 1) "Okay" means that he doesn't care about what happens in the future and wants to give it a go in case it doesn't fail 2) it means that he doesn't care about what happens in the future so it's worth them getting back together even if it does fail or 3) that he's agreeing with her, it's bound to fail and they shouldn't get back together, indicating that he does care about what happens in the future. Not all the scenarios envisage him not caring about what may happen in the future so... that part should be deleted. In any case it's not for a Wikipedia article to imagine what a character in a film might possibly be thinking...

If no-one disagrees I will remove the bracketed line...?

-- [[User:Lochaber|Lochaber]] 00:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHOA. What's the deal with this "FAQ"? Is that encyclopedic?-[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 02:37, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

It could certainly be edited to make it so. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 04:22, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So--shall it be done? I'd be happy to start in on it... --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 04:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:I think my biggest problem with it isn't that it's in FAQ format — that's easy enough to fix — but that it's mostly just interpretation, and I'm wary of including that in an article, even with (or maybe especially with) a "some people think" tag at the front. -[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 06:56, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well--in the cases where the particular interpretation is widely accepted by critics and the like, I think it's appropriate. I'll look into it. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 19:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are all of those FAQ questions and answers your own work? [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 00:07, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Is your question directed to me? If so, the answer is no--I would have posted it under my own name. If your question is directed to the anon poster, I can't speak for him, but I believe it was his own work. I met him on the IMDb board for the movie, and invited him to incorporate his FAQ into the Wikipedia article. He posted it (without registering) but didn't integrate it, so rather than have it deleted, I thought I'd help with the process. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 00:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-Gah, the FAQ is annoying and should go.
:This article was good and in-depth until I came across the FAQ. Come on, this is a silly Q&A: "Did Joel slit his throat in one scene?" The FAQ should be made into a paragraph called trivia or something because there is some nice trivia such as the elephant parade scene for people that haven't watch/hear the DVD features. --[[User:Anonymous Cow|Anonymous Cow]] 21:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
----

I think the plot needs the part about how Mary finds out about the affair and the subsequent memory erasure right before Joel wakes up on Valentine's Day. Because this event served as a catalyst for how Joel and Clementine find out that each of their memories has been altered (Mary breaks into harold's office and sends all the former patients their info). I would do it but my memory is sketchy about the details. (no irony intended with that statement) [[User:Mimsie|Mimsie]] 00:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:It's there, in the linear chronology section. [[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 00:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

----

"Since this happened before Mary mailed out all of Lacuna's files and tapes to Mierzwiak's patients, there is no way that the cassette could have been either of the ones that Joel or Clementine made denouncing each other immediately prior to having their memories erased." - This doesn't necessarily have to be true... The discussion about the original intention for the credits being to show the cyclic nature of their relationship, I suppose it could possibly be that when we see Joel throw out the cassette, it wasn't in the first iteration of their relationship. However, I'll confess that this didn't occur to me until after reading this article and it's more likely just a solution looking for a problem...

I think it's overly specualtive to think they didn't get back together, or to think anything else in a movie like this, I do think that the page should say that they COULD have gotten back together, but to simply deny it completely is just stupid.

== Lacuna ==

Is the Lacuna link at the bottom of the page supposed to be a joke? Is this treatment real?

:It's a promotional website for the movie that was put up a few months before its release. The treatment is definitely not real. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 16:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Huckleberry Hound ==

This article states that the second time (chronologically) that Joel meets Clementine, he says he doesn't know the song "Clementine" or anything about Huckleberry Hound. It explains the fact that he knew about both the first time he met Clementine by saying that knowledge was too closely tied in with the relationship and so was deleted from his mind. I think it is much more likely that Joel decides not to say he knows the "Clementine" or Huckleberry Hound. Why he might decide to do this, however, is very much unclear.
:I think Joel honestly doesn't remember the song. Why do you think he does remember it? Oh, you say the reason is unclear. Well in that case, let me urge you to reconsider the position that he does not remember it, because at least this position has a clear reason; the memory was deleted. When Joel first mentions the song, he also mentions that his mother used to sing it to him. At another point of the movie, they actually show a scene where his mother is singing the song to him, and then show the scene get deleted. It's not only the obvious conclusion that the song was deleted, it's more or less explicit. -[[User:Lethe/sig|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe/sig|Talk]] 22:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

:It's pretty clear Joel doesn't consciously remember neither Clementine nor the song at that point in the movie. They have been erased. Why would he lie, anyway? [[User:Andran|Andran]] 07:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
::It seemed to me that the significance of his not remembering the references was to further the notion that memories are more deeply linked than we might expect; rather than just reflecting on his former girlfriend, his memories of her also tie into many other parts of his consciousness. He couldn't remove her without removing other things significantly tied to his personality.
:::But that is not the only interpretation. First of all, I think it's safe to assume that the only memories that got deleted were the ones that we saw got deleted. We saw the entire process from beginning to end (or rather from end to beginning). Also, I don't think that if what Joel said on the beach was true, that it was his favorite doll when was little and that his mom used to sing that song to him all the time, then I don't think that the one memory of his mom bathing him in the sink would have been the ''only'' memory he had about Huckleberry Hound or the Clementine song. So even if that one memory of his mom bathing him in the sink was erased then I don't think that would have caused him to forget all about Huckleberry Hound or the doll. Someone asked why would he lie about not knowing about it? Well, maybe it was because she just got finished telling him that she didn't want to hear any jokes about her name. Maybe he said he didn't know any because he was trying to get her to like him and he didn't want to make fun of her. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I do think that is a way too speculative theory. As it is a movie it has its temporal limitations, thus it can’t show every single time Joel was thinking of Huckleberry Hound. Joel’s memories of Huckleberry Hound are connected to his memories of Clementine – as she interferes with his childhood memories. Nothing what so ever suggests he is lying to Clementine, everything in the plot suggests that those memories were deleted. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.107.76.118|62.107.76.118]] ([[User talk:62.107.76.118|talk]]) 14:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) 

Arthy: I think in chronologically first time, we have no way of knowing whether he knew the song or not - because what we are seeing is Joel's casting of his mind - it could be well that he learnt it from the present and tried to be smarter in his memory.. like he did in another occasion - i.e., letting her know that patrick is stealing his identity - which he ofcourse didnt know in the past! — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.228.112.22|216.228.112.22]] ([[User talk:216.228.112.22|talk]]) 00:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC) 

== Deleted FAQ ==
That FAQ was annoying me so I fucking deleted it.

That is all. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:67.23.58.96|67.23.58.96]] ([[User talk:67.23.58.96|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.23.58.96|contribs]]) 02:43, 30 March 2005

:Your actions were pretty rude and probably vandalism. But you know...? I kinda don't like the FAQ either. -[[User:Lethe/sig|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe/sig|Talk]] 03:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

== Montauk next day ==
Both Joel and Clem go back to Montauk the very next day and I found that peculiar while watching it. However, they did account for it if you think about the chronology. Clem whispers in Joel's ear, in the final memory to be erased "maybe in Montauk", which could be construed as a subliminal message still left behind about something wonderful happening there.

Similarly, Clem is reliving some of her experiences with Patrick, who's using Joel's and Clem's memories. This may have served to reawaken in her some memories of Montauk as well, and cause her to go there. Do you think this bears mentioning in the article? Otherwise, forget it. --[[User:70.50.113.170|70.50.113.170]] 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Did Clem say in the final memory to be erased "maybe in Montauk" or did she say "meet me in Montauk"? [[User:Rhallanger|Rhallanger]] 05:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think she clearly said "Meet me in Montauk". -CGK

== Lacuna (the word) ==

I don't know where in the article to put this, but the word 'lacuna' is italian for 'empty' or 'gap', and I think the significance of that word choice is worth noting. It might also be worth stating a reference to the band [[Lacuna Coil]], the title of which translates to 'empty spiral'.

[[User:SonOfNothing|SonOfNothing]] 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:In might be worth noting just in case someone doesn't know the word. It's originally Latin for pit or hole, and the Oxford English Dictionary defines "lacuna" as
:* 1. In a manuscript, an inscription, the text of an author: A hiatus, blank, missing portion.
:* 2. Chiefly in physical science: A gap, an empty space, spot, or cavity.
:--[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 17:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

::It could go under trivia, no?
::[[User:OrisDeInferi|Inferi]] 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

== Huckleberry Hound and Joel being an active part of memories ==

Here is what I interpreted about the Huckleberry Hound motif:

Joel never connect Clementine's name with Huckleberry Hound unless she prompts him to. That is to say, when they're on the train, he doesn't make the connection until she tells him "don't make fun of my name." Whether or not he's aware of Huckleberry Hound doesn't matter.
The reason why he sings it during the memory of the party at Montauk is because this is one of the memories that he takes an active role in while it is being erased. Remember how Clementine says "This is it...etc." This shows that this memory is the type that the article calls number 4, "Memories in which Joel is a participant but can "break character" and change the way the scene turns out." He knows the Huckleberry Hound reference already, and he brings it up. However, when he's on the train, he doesn't make the connection, because, obviously, he doesn't know her.

:Your interpretation doesn't work, and the movie makes this thing pretty clear: when Joel is in the train with Clem he doesn't remember the song because it's been already erased by Lacuna employees. ''He does know the song'', he just cannot remember it. However, when he met Clementine for the first time, back in the beach house, he did remember the song because it was from Huckleberry Hound, a cartoon from his childhood. No need for him to "break character"... that part of his memory is just as it happened the first time :-) It's not because he "knows the reference" from the train, which would be impossible since the train meeting hasn't happened yet! [[User:Andran|Andran]] 07:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with the above poster; that interpretation does not work, and the movie makes it clear as crystal. --[[User:Shinramen1313|Shinramen1313]] 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::That's not fair, you are basically saying that his interpretation is wrong because you already have an interpretation. There could very well be more than one way to intrepret the movie. What does, "he does know the song, he just can't remember it," mean? You said that there was no "need" for him to break character but that doesn't mean that he ''couldn't'' have broken character. In fact, he was ''already'' breaking character and actively participating in that memory long before they got to the house. Remember when he was talking about her sweater, the one that he'd "grow to love, then eventually hate"? At that point he was talking about things that happened long after the memory he was in at that time. Just because your interpretation makes sense to you that doesn't mean another one would be impossible. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::One more thing. I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, I'm just saying that the other one is possible too. And also, I don't think that the first person meant that "he knew the reference ''from the train''" because obviously you are right, that part hadn't happened yet. But still, at that point, Joel had just gotten out of a relationship with her after two years, so he could've remembered the song from the time he spent with her. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Script trivia ==

Not sure where to include it in the article, but the original script called for a follow-up scene showing an elderly Clementine going in for a memory erasure. The implication being that the two had gone through this dozens of times over their lifetimes.

==Summary addition==
This article seems fairly complete, but for some reason I confused it with another one, so had thought of a sentence and wonder if it is worth fitting in. "This poses the question that if, given the chance to make the same choice afresh, whose outcome which we regard in hindsight as a mistake, we make the same choice, can we really regard the original choice as a mistake?" Bit verbose and untidy, yep, but it made sense to me at the time! [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

== Split proposal for "movie soundtrack" section ==

I added it because although it relates to a movie and music, this article currently has 37K and the main article and its soundtrack section need ''splitting'' issues. [[User:69.227.173.21|69.227.173.21]] 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
:I support the spilt. [[User:58.170.77.140|58.170.77.140]] 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:I support the split, as well. The movie and the soundtrack are definitely related, but they ought to have their own articles.--[[User:Evadb|Evadb]] 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
:+1 for the split --[[User:Emc2|Emc²]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emc2&action=edit&section=new Contact me] [[Image:Nuvola_apps_email.png|16px]]) 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:This looks like a consensus to me. And over a month has passed with no objections. I'm making the split. [[User:Elvrum|Elvrum]] 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:I recently added an edit to this section concerning the synchronization of this movie to an album- I'm not terribly familiar with wikipedia's formatting/sectioning rules, so I put it where I thought it would most be appropriate. It, however, is not related to the soundtrack of the movie itself. [[User:71.126.59.133|71.126.59.133]] 06:32, 8 July 2006 (EST)

== Just Fixed The Image ==

I Know the poster was a canidate for speedy deletion, so I speedily uploaded another one and cited my sources, if anyone fixes the other one, feel free to put it back in the article
[[User:KaufmanIsAwesome|KaufmanIsAwesome]] 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

== Props ==
Not NPOV, and certainly not correct tone for an encyclopedia. [[User:FerventDove|FerventDove]] 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

==Problems with General focus of the article==
While a large proportion of the article is fine, much of it is rife with [[WP:OR]] [[WP:CITE|unsourced]] analysis. There are a lot of sentences that start with 'this might mean', 'is appears that' and the like. None of this is within the scope of a wikipedia article on a movie. ALL analysis must be sourced to a 3rd party. I'm going to start chopped large chunks of text that are, in my opinion, impossible to successfully edit to conform to WP standards. [[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup tag ==

I added a clean up tag, because the article is unfocused and disorganised. It needs asserted work on tone, sourcing, order, detail (more in some areas, less in others) and less opinion statements. I am willing to help, but it probably needs a few heads together. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==Chopped memory reconsolidation section==
I chopped this section, because, although it is interesting and has cites, there is no cite linking the research to the movie, making it OR.

:''===Consistence with theories about memory [[reconsolidation]]===
:Several aspects of the method for memory erasure are actually in good agreement with recent scientific findings. It was found, that [[consolidation]] of [[memories]] does not necessarily lead to a permanent fixation. Rather, retrieval of a memory can render it susceptible to several amnestic agents such as protein synthesis inhibition (PSI) <ref>Nader, K., G.E. Schafe, and J.E. Le Doux, Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature, 2000. 406(6797): p. 722-6 </ref> and [[electroconvulsive shock]] (ECS)<ref>Misanin, J.R., R.R. Miller, and D.J. Lewis, Retrograde amnesia produced by electroconvulsive shock after reactivation of a consolidated memory trace. Science, 1968. 160(827): p. 554-5</ref>. After initial training, these agents become more and more ineffective as the memory is consolidated unless the memory is retrieved. Retrieval obviously induces a state of lability which needs a process termed reconsolidation in order to refix the labile memory. Further research elucidated, that recently established memories can be disrupted more easily (with lower doses of amnestic agent or fewer retrieval trials) than older ones<ref>Suzuki, A., et al., Memory reconsolidation and extinction have distinct temporal and biochemical signatures. J Neurosci, 2004. 24(20): p. 4787-95</ref>. Ongoing research now aims at the therapeutical application of the reconsolidation phenomenon for treatment of maladaptive memories such as [[PTSD]]. It was found that the drug [[propranolol]], a β-adrenergic receptor antagonist, can disrupt reconsolidation of auditory fear conditioning in mice<ref>Debiec, J. and J.E. Ledoux, Disruption of reconsolidation but not consolidation of auditory fear conditioning by noradrenergic blockade in the amygdala. Neuroscience, 2004. 129(2): p. 267-72</ref>.
''
[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 10:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
* Good call Ashmoo. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
** I don't understand how that makes it original research. I thought original research meant that it wasn't cited. You can say that it's not specifically about the movie itself but that's not the same thing as [[WP:OR|OR]]. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

***Unsourced means that its not cited. Original research means that it is an original idea that is not "academically" notable or significantly represented in secondary sources. Inclusion on this article, given that it is not specifically about the movie, makes it original research. Ie, original research that the topics outlined relate to this movie. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== Chopped Lacuna Inc section==
I have also chopped the following section, as it seem to just be a reiteration of details that have previously been mentioned (twice) in the plot section.

<blockquote>
===Lacuna, Inc.===
The fictional Lacuna Inc. was the brainchild of Dr. Howard Mierzwiak who after years of [[neurobiology|neurobiological]] research developed a painless method for identifying and erasing specific memories. [http://www.lacunainc.com/ Lacuna Inc] was founded to provide a research facility for the development of this procedure. Over the years, the project has progressed from a mere idea into a full-blown medical service.

After a patient decides what memory it is going to have erased, there is some initial preparation that goes into a successful procedure. The patient is instructed to collect any items or mementos that have any ties to the memory or memories being targeted. These items will be used by the Lacuna team during and disposed of following the procedure. This is to ensure that the patient will not have any inexplicable items after the memory erasure.

While connected to a [[brain]] scanning device, the patient is instructed to look at the items, and while reexperiencing the unwanted memories technicians scan brain activity, allowing them to chart and record where the memories are located. The team of Lacuna technicians will use the information they have received from the patient to construct a map of the memory. They will then use this map to extract the memory from the patient's mind.

Following the map created specifically for every patient, that patient takes a [[sedative]]. A team then uses a device that systematically retriggers all the memories they have recorded. As they are retriggered, the targeted memories gradually dissolve while the device erases them. The procedure works on a reverse time-line, which means it begins with the most recent memories and goes backwards in time. This approach is designed to target the psychological core that every memory builds on. By eradicating the core, Lacuna technicians are able to make the entire memory dissolve. When the patient wakes from the surgery, they remember nothing.

In addition, Lacuna Inc. sends a letter to the friends and family of the patient, explaining that the patient is erasing the memory of a particular human and asking the recipients to never mention that human to the patient again.
</blockquote>

[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

==Chopped 'childhood' and 'Mary Sveno' sections==
I've chopped some more text. These, while interesting, as totally unsourced and simply commentaries on possible interpretations of the film. They would be better suited to someone's personal fan page on the film. I think we need to keep the article as encyclopediac as possible.

<blockquote>
===Joel's childhood===
The memory of Clementine that Joel's subconscious interacts with suggests that he somehow hid her in other memories in which she did not belong. The apparent idea behind this was that this would preserve Joel's memories of Clementine from the erasure procedure. Joel therefore conjures memories from his early childhood (the scenes in his mother's kitchen), and when this tactic fails, his memory of Clementine urges him to hide her "in his humiliation."

These turn out to be scenes in which his mother walks in on him masturbating and where bullies pressure him into hitting a dead bird with a hammer. The latter scene was meant to express a common early memory, when children are forced by others to do things they don't want to, something Jim Carrey revealed in an interview included as an extra on the DVD.

Hiding Clementine causes problems with the memory-erasing procedure, and leads Dr. Mierzwiak to come over to Joel's apartment to help Stan, which leads to Mary's discovery of her past relationship with the doctor. In turn, this precipitates Mary's decision to mail to all of Lacuna's clients their files (which leads to Joel and Clementine discovering that they have had a tumultuous past relationship).

===Mary Svevo===
There are several hints early in the movie that foreshadow Mary's previous relationship with Mierzwiak. The first is the way that she looks and acts around him when Joel first comes into the clinic. Then, when she comes over to see Stan during Joel's procedure, she speaks flatteringly of Mierzwiak's intellect, saying that he should be quoted in [[Bartlett's]]. Stan gives a look of exasperation at her fawning over the doctor. When Mierzwiak does come over, she proceeds to fawn over him and mentions some obscure quotes, apparently ones she had used on the doctor before her memory erasure, since Mierzwiak is familiar with them.

Late in the movie, Mary makes her feelings known to the doctor, and they eventually kiss. Mrs. Mierzwiak shows up and in the confrontation that follows, Mary learns that she had had a relationship with Mierzwiak, and she let him erase her memory of it. Devastated, Mary goes to the Lacuna office and listens to her tape. (In a deleted portion of this scene, there is a bit of dialogue in which we learn that Mary had a natal abortion in the wake of the affair.) Mary clears out her desk, steals all Lacuna's files and tapes, and mails them to their clients, on the grounds that the procedure is a mistake.

It is unclear what Stan knew about Mary's relationship with Mierzwiak or her undergoing the memory-erasure procedure. At the end of the movie, he emphatically claims that he didn't, that he only saw the two together one night, and that she looked "happy with a secret", but that he only had suspicions. However, when Mierzwiak comes over, Stan is noticeably agitated, not just because of Joel's procedure being a mess, but of Mary being there. He also honks his van's horn when Mrs. Mierzwiak arrives to warn the two former lovers of her arrival.
</blockquote>
[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

::The subplot of Mary's prior relationship with Mierzwiak is pretty important, though. It's clear from the tape that there was a degree of coercion involved in having her memory wiped; it not only provides a plot mechanic for Joel and Clementine to discover their original memories, it also is part of a chain of abuses of the procedure you see throughout the film (Paul, Stan and Mary's partying, Paul's attempt to use details of her memories to seduce her), culminating in Joel's attempt to resist the wipe. Her re-awakened feelings echoes the cycle of memory and forgetfulness in the rest of the movie. [[Special:Contributions/71.56.127.236|71.56.127.236]] ([[User talk:71.56.127.236|talk]]) 04:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

== True Ending? Joel cried and thrown away the tape? ==

I'd like to raise a discussion on the true ending of the film.

Just after showing the credits in the beginning of the film, Joel cried and thrown away a tape. Is it chronologically after the 'okay' scene near the end of the film? If no, when did it happen? If no, where did this tape come from?

Please keep this discussed. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Llf|Llf]] ([[User talk:Llf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Llf|contribs]]) 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 
:I think that scene is just before he gets his memory erased, and the tape he's listening to is a mixtape you can hear playing in the background in another scene. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

== Connections to the song meet me in montauk ==

Even though it was not confirmed by the band circa survive should it be put on this article? [[Special:Contributions/98.73.10.215|98.73.10.215]] ([[User talk:98.73.10.215|talk]]) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

== Special Features ==

Is there a need to describe the contents of the DVD in that much detail? [[User:Farslayer|Farslayer]] ([[User talk:Farslayer|talk]]) 10:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:No. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 12:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== Question about "Meet me in Montauk" ==

I don't understand how the plot allowed Clementine to whisper that 'message' to Joel during his attempt to escape the erasure process. Was "meet me in Montauk" a preserved memory or a brand new thought? It's the only thing that still confuses me!! [[User:Adambisset|Adambisset]] ([[User talk:Adambisset|talk]]) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
==Real life memory erasure==
I added the following:
:The journal [[Nature Neuroscience]] reported in February 2009 that beta blockers can erase memories. Beta blockers interferes with this re-creation of the stressful memory - and prevents the brain renewing it. Wide-scale use of the drug was a long way off.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Derbyshire|first=David |date=16th February 2009|title=Pill to erase bad memories: Ethical furore over drugs 'that threaten human identity' |journal=[[Daily Mail]]|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145777/Pill-erase-bad-memories-Ethical-furore-drugs-threaten-human-identity.html|accessdate=16th February 2009}}</ref>
[[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

== young bully ==

Is it Paulie Litt or Josh Flitter that plays the 'young bully' character, as on this pagge it says Paulie Litt, but on the Josh Flitter page it says he played it. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.246.201.101|84.246.201.101]] ([[User talk:84.246.201.101|talk]]) 10:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 

== Hey, let's discuss this thing about the chronology ==

I don't know why the linear chronology --which has been up for the last few years without controversy-- seems to make people want to delete it without any discussion. It was my understanding that people on Wikipedia are supposed to discuss and negotiate major changes on this page and not just do them.

So let's talk about the linear chronology. It's my position that it's essential to understand the plot of the movie. I can't count the number of times I've seen people asking questions about what happened and getting important facts about the story wrong. I don't think that simply stating the sequence of events in a chronological statement constitutes "original research"...If I had interviewed Gondry and Kaufman and posted my interview there without publishing it elsewhere, it would be original research, but why is simply stating the events as shown "original research"?

I did move it further down the page since I can see why some people might find it too long to be at the top.

:per [[WP:PLOT]], our coverage of fiction works should be a ''brief'' summary/synopsis of the work, which the current plot does fine. A scene-by-scene description is not appropriate, and is also boarding on [[WP:OR|original research]] since some of these facts are not specifically made clear by the movie and only hint at what may have been possibilities. Now, arguably the linear chronology is not a scene-by-scene but its close enough to fall in area of things we don't include. Now, if you can show through sources that this chronology is critical to the work, then we can probably keep it, but I've not seen anything like that. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I don't see myself just saying, "Well, Masem says so it must be so." That chronology was up for years before you came along. Can't we compromise here? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 00:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 

Look life is short...How about this, I post the chronology on my blog and we include it as one additional resource? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 

:We already have a chronology - that's the plot summary which is told in the same order as the attempted detailed chronology. Sure, it doesn't attempt the level of detail for the specifics, but it follows along as it's supposed to, instead of trying to follow the scene-for-scene aspects of the work (which are out of chronological order). Our goal on WP is to inform the general reader - one who may never have seen or will likely seen - the work in question, so we don't go into such detail. A detailed examination of the work is uncalled for, unless that work has received significant critical analysis to merit that (something like [[MacBeth]] or [[Hamlet]]. Without sourcing beyond the primary work, any further details about the movie are excessive and potentially violating other policies like [[WP:OR]].
:As for using your blog, well, that's not a reliable source, so we can't include it as a resource, but that's not stopping the inclusion of a reliable source that details the plot of the movie to be used instead. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, there's nothing wrong with listing as a source a movie review or what not that has errors in it, but listing as a source someone who has studied the film is. Sigh, there's no point in debating this. I disagree with you, but you're an administrator, so I know I'm not going to win. Congratulations.[[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]]) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, that's how we source things - mind you, if there's obvious errors in a review, we ignore those, but if its intepretive errors, there's not much we can do about that. But don't despair that easily. Look at [[Memento (film)|Memento]] (a similarly convoluted presentation in terms of chronology); the first reference from Salon.com is a detailed analysis of the film. That's the type of source that would be useful to include here if someone has done a similar approach. This film had similar praise, so it may be a matter of just looking for the right sources (don't forget google books and scholar! there's plenty of hits that a spot check shows, I just don't know how details and which ones are more about the origin of the title vs the movie itself). --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

== Frames of reference - wrong example ==
In the Frames of reference section the article says: "5. Memories in which Joel relives various moments of his childhood with Clementine in the place of one of the people in the memory (e.g., Joel masturbating)." This example is not very good as there is no clear indication of Clementine replacing someone else in this scene. A better and clearer example of this would be when Joel is playing under the kitchen table and Clementine replaces the role of Miss. Hailin (or something), his mother's friend.

:Please don't remove my topic just because I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor. The example I am mentioning above is misleading and must be changed.

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=756742856 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813151310/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''InternetArchiveBot''']] ([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 15:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

== To Do on this Article ==

I will make the following changes (unless people have other ideas) in about two months. If others in the meantime can contribute these changes I would be very grateful.

INFOBOX
*<s>Find who designed the poster for its caption</s> unnecessary as it is a still.

LEAD
*Expand to include details on production, television show
*3 paragraphs is a good amount to aim for
*<s>Remove excess sources for non-controversial points</s>

PLOT
*<s>Complete a better plot summary if possible</s>
*<s>Replace some excessive words, such as "Joel was devastated"</s>
*<s>Add a Wikilink for Montauk train station</s>

CAST
*<s>Attempt to find a good source for Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet being on set for narration over their younger selves lines</s> Could not find anything on this, apart from [[https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/66498531968715168/?lp=true|this]] picture.
*<s>Attempt to find a good source for Mary's abortion</s> found a website, which I had previously written off as not a reliable source due to it's name (Bitchflicks). However, while the website itself obviously has it's feminist agenda, the information is directly from the directors commentary, so it does not show bias.
*<s>Find any information on Elijah Wood</s> could not find any information on Wood, except for [[http://www.aboutfilm.com/features/eternalsunshine/wood.htm|this]], which contains more trivial information than encyclopedic.

PRODUCTION
*<s>Try to find more information on the editing process, as it being in the production section seems a bit dubious, being that it already is in a section called Production. If more information can be found on the editing, there can be a section on Principle photography and Post-production</s> Changed title of section, per article on [[Departures (2008 film)|Departures]].
*<s>Find when production on Human Nature began, or at least when Gondry and Kaufman meet. This is as the script to Eternal Sunshine was sold in 1998, while Human Nature was released in 2001. However, Human Nature's script was developed in 1996, and Kaufman and Gondry could have met then, or Gondry could have started his directorial role later.</s> I honestly think it's impossible to know without asking those involved, as there are no sources relating to it. On one hand, the pitch was purchased in June 1998. It's a safe bet to say Gondry and Kaufman would have been working on this for less than six months, given that in numerous interviews Kaufman has stated the pitch was easy, and it was writing the script that was difficult. This means they would have got together in early 1998. Steven Soderbergh was originally attached to direct Human Nature, but he dropped it for Out of Sight. Out of Sight was released in October of 1998, so it can be safe to assume that Soderbergh was first attached in mid-1997, thus Gondry would have been attached soon after, in late 1997. Thus is too close too call, and is venturing into original research, and into [[wp:RGR]], and I will be leaving the claim in the article as it is supported by reliable sources.
*<s>Remove some blank space on the quotes section</s>

RELEASE
*<s>Focus reviews on different areas of acclaim; cinematography, music, portrayals, script.</s>
*<s>Gondry's experience in music videos could be moved to an analysis section</s>
*<s>Make a table for the accolades section, such as in [[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001's page]], or [[Prometheus (2012 film)|Prometheus's page]]</s>

ANALYSIS
*Add this section into the page. There are many sources to include here, which a contributor has placed [[Talk:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind#References to use|here]
*Place this section below the music section, as this will stop the album's infobox influencing the references
*Stills from the film can be added to this section under fair use

SEE ALSO SECTION
*<s>Psychological Thriller is a bit redundant.</s>

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 17:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

== Music Tracklisting ==

Hi {{U|Theironminer}},

I placed in the infobox and tracklisting for the music subsection based on the soundtrack subsection in the FA [[The Mummy (1999 film)|The Mummy]]. Can I ask why you changed this, as I might have not read a policy regarding this.

Thankyou, [[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

: Just because The Mummy did it does not mean that film pages need them, ESPECIALLY since the soundtrack already has its own page with the same lists. Also, I've taken a look at that section for The Mummy, and the film's soundtrack does not have its own page; therefore, the listings are best suited for the section. Not to mention that the entire page for ESOTSM has been messy and unorganized for some time now, and the Music section was just one of its problems. - [[User:Theironminer|Theironminer]] ([[User talk:Theironminer|talk]]) 19:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

:: Ah thanks, it looks better, I was just wondering whether there was a specific reason why it didn't apply and you answered it, so thanks! [[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 10:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-10-02T16:42:43Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: Fixed the strikethrough effect

Talk:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-10-02T16:39:51Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Music Tracklisting */ new section

{{Vital article|topic=Art|level=5|class=C}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Film|class=C|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=no|B-Class-5=yes|American-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Romance|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|class=C|importance=High}}
}}

==References to use==

:''Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.''
*{{cite book | editor-last=Grau | editor-first=Christopher | year=2009 | title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind | series=Philosophers on Film | publisher=Routledge | isbn=0415774659 }}
*{{cite book | last=Harbidge | first=Lesley | year=2009 | chapter=A New Direction in Comedian Comedy?: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', ''Punch-Drunk Love'' and the Post-Comedian Rom-Com | title=Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema | publisher=I. B. Tauris | pages=176–189 | isbn=1845117719 }}
*{{cite book | last=Miah | first=Andy | year=2009 | chapter='Blessed Are the Forgetful': The Ethics of Memory Deletion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' | title=Bioethics at the Movies | editor-last=Shapshay | editor-first=Sandra | publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]] | pages=137–155 | isbn=0801890772 }}
*{{cite book | last=Nungesser | first=Verena-Susanna | year=2009 | chapter=I Forgot to Remember (to Forget): Personal Memories in ''Memento'' (2000) and ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' (2004) | title=Mediation, Remediation, and the Dynamics of Cultural Memory | series=Media and Cultural Memory | publisher=Walter de Gruyter | isbn=3110204444 }}
*{{cite book | last=Walters | first=James | year=2008 | chapter=Return to Innocence: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' (Michael Gondry, 2004) | title=Alternative Worlds in Hollywood Cinema | publisher=Intellect Ltd | pages=81–104 | isbn=1841502022 }}
*{{cite book | last=Wartenberg | first=Thomas E. | year=2007 | chapter=Arguing against utilitarianism: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' | title=Thinking on Screen: Film as Philosophy | publisher=Routledge | pages=76–93 | isbn=0415774314 }}

==Clean-up==
===Cleaned up several sections===

There were several minor errors in various sections and some clunky prose that I cleaned up. There was also a bit of unnecessary detail IMHO about the scene where Joel and Clementine were watching a circus parade that didn't really fit in with that section about deleted and dropped scenes.[[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]]) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

===Reverted major changes that were made to the page without discussion===

It was my understanding that people shouldn't do major edits (like bagging an entire section and rewriting another) without explaining what they are doing here. I'm referring to the detailed linear chronology section and the plot one. IMHO, those two sections were fine the way they were and were in place for four years when someone decided to change them. So I'm changing them back. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 05:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 

===Tweaked the discussion about the looped ending===

Somebody really went out on a limb with an interpretation of the scene of Joel and Clementine playing in the snow meant "and they lived happily ever after"...With respect to that person, it's a nice interpretation, but it isn't supported by shooting script or comments made by Gondry or Kaufmann. So I got rid of that. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.252.102.65|71.252.102.65]] ([[User talk:71.252.102.65|talk]]) 03:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 

===Did a few more tweaks on the linear chronology===

I noticed that the chronology got shortened down some and for the most part, I think it looks better than when I last saw it. I did do a number of tweaks and added a bit more description of the final scenes.

===Did some tweaks on the analysis of the end===

I did a bit of editing on the last paragraph of the end section. I thought it was a bit too speculative in its interpretation of the snow scene. I am willing to discuss this with whoever made the change. But I really do think that it's better to say that this is one interpretation (based on the fact that we saw a snow-memory of Joel's getting erased and the hair color thing).

Frankly, I think when the snow scene during the credits took place is not terribly important. But at the same time, I've seen some people come along and deride this page for having content that extrapolates too much, and I figure that the paragraph as it was originally worded is like waving a red flag to a bull. But let me stress, I am willing to discuss this.

===Did Joel really overlook the skeleton drawing?===

I just watched the movie and my memory is that Joel didn't overlook his drawing of Clem as a skeleton when he gathered up things to bring to Lacuna. Don't we actually see him pull out the drawing during the "gathering things to bring to Lacuna" scene? That would imply he brought it. And the second time we see it is after Joel openshis file and is listening to the tape, so I assumed the drawing was part of his file (for some reason it wasn't among the items Patrick stole). I'm not sure about this so I won't change the page. I'm not going to go watch the movie again to check it, but I'm sure someone here is willing to watch for this next time they watch the movie.

:I've seen the movie a bunch of times, and I think that implication was clearly that Joel simply overlooked the sketch when he was clearing out Clementine's effects. He wasn't exactly going about it in a slow, methodical way, and I find it easy to believe that he could have overlooked it in the state that he was in. God knows that I've forgotten things when I have been distraught like Joel was.

::I agree with the first person. I believe that drawing of Clem with the body of the skeleton was part of the file that Joel received in the mail and not something that he forgot to bring with him to Lacuna. One reason is the color of Clem's hair. After Joel had the procedure and he met Clem (again) for the first time her hair was Blue. She must have changed it from orange to blue sometime between the last time Joel saw her before she had the procedure and when he met her again in Montauk. The color of her hair in the drawing was red. Red was the color her hair was before she dyed it orange. If he just happened to see that drawing the day he got his file from Lacuna in the mail then how was he was supposed to know it was a drawing of Clem? He had met Clem only two days before that (after his procedure) and he knew her with blue hair. It makes sense to think that drawing was something that was returned to him in the mail. Not everything that he brought with him to Lacuna was returned because Patrick stole most of it but that drawing was one of them. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I respectfully disagree with the people who think that the painting was in the file (does it really matter that much anyway?). Joel said to Clementine, "Look what I found" (indicating the painting). Moreover, he had obviously been tearing his apartment apart looking for evidence of their relationship. If he had just gotten the painting in the mail, he would have said something like, "Look at what was in my envelope." Besides, all their respective mementos were a lot more than what could be stuffed in a large envelope. But then, does it really matter? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.75.6.24|72.75.6.24]] ([[User talk:72.75.6.24|talk]]) 03:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

------I really feel in some odd way it does matter. First of all, I know that the people who made this movie emphasized certain things in a certain way for viewers to take notice. There is a purpose. It lets your imagination soar and think of those things and their significance/meaning/relevance, and the endless possibilities and combinations that we can create with our minds. It is also somehow clever because in the end you're STILL left wondering. I feel like there is a everlasting impression, in which I want to know the actual ending to their relationship but I will never know (and in turn, joel and clementine, as they are presented in the end, also wonder about the future of them as a couple. Despite those doubts, they do it anyway). This movie was based on the idea of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus"(according to my philosophy teacher)and therefore, a philosophical movie.The point of philosophy is to make you think. And this is exactly what this movie did.

*What i also found interesting was the fact that almost every character is left wondering about SOMETHING. Joel wonders what will happen, knowing that in the past they just broke up! Clem thinks the same. Dr. Howard is left wondering, thinking what if I did pursue this relationship with her instead of my wife? I wonder did anyone think about that, in general? It's crazy though (the idea) . And that's why i LOVE this movie even more now. All thanks to my class.
As he's cleaning he comes across a few letters and pauses and you know that he is reading them. You have to feel his anger. He seems ANGRY that he doesn't understand WHYY! and the fact that he's going crazy because of this. But yet, he's sad and just feels completely helpless. He looks at her baby picture and REMEMBERS to look at the back to see this signature or a note from Clem, or just the fact that he wanted to see her handwriting for the last time. But the fact that he does send this very powerful message through such a small/quick emphasis on a tiny detail! (an example..)

*To just comment on the first msg, I don't think that they showed anything of the skeleton painting. I think i didn't catch it, but it is the part when he's cleaning out stuff that reminds him of her, am i correct? I am really confused as to what you are talking about. I know it's the skeleton picture but where is it when he's cleaning?.
-angela
------
* <s>Why is Angelas' text (above) going off the right side of the page? :Please fix it. I dont't know how! (''Yet'')</s>
Fixed (hope its ok to have done so Angela) N.b. It was caused by a single '''''space''''' at the start of your sentence.
*Why aren't people signing? **Four 'tildes' remember?

[[Special:Contributions/220.101.28.25|220.101.28.25]] ([[User talk:220.101.28.25|talk]]) 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-----

===someone's question about memory scenes being correct===

someone posted a question about the memory scenes section asking if they were correct. I think the answer is pretty much yes (although I suppose there is always room for "happy" to "glad" type word changes

===Cleaned up the section on Joel's childhood===

I took a crack at cleaning up the language in the "Joel's childhood" section (moving part of it to the section about how erased memories appear and hopefully clarifying the lead-in sentences that someone added to the section.

===Science catching up to fiction...===

Memories Selectively, Safely Erased In Mice: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081022135801.htm —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JaffaCakeLover|JaffaCakeLover]] ([[User talk:JaffaCakeLover|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JaffaCakeLover|contribs]]) 11:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 

===Quick question===

... anyone else think Stan's a bit of an idiot because he's had his memory erased a few times? It IS brain damage, and I'm sure the good doctor wouldn't think twice to tweak his employees' brains rather than pay unemployment, or get sued, etc. Just a thought. I actually like the article. [[User:Phoenix frou|Phoenix frou]] 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's an interesting thought, but I figure that there's no evidence to suggest that. I suppose it would be something that Gondry or Kaufmann could answer.

::I don't believe Stan was like that because he had his memory erased a few times. First of all if the doctor wanted to, "tweak his employees' brains rather than pay unemployment, or get sued, etc," then Stan would have had to ''submit'' to the procedure. There's no way that the doctor could've done the procedure to anyone without their consent and no way that he could've ''tricked'' anyone into erasing their memory. Even if Stan wanted to erase some of his memories about something else the doctor couldn't have "''gone behind his back''" and erased different memories. All the memories that were to be erased had to be "mapped" before the procedure. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I got the impression that Stan was a bit of a stoner...smokes dope, drinks (maybe heavily), listens to really loud music, etc. You could get that way without having your memory zapped.

I don't know if the movie has inspired any fanfic, but I suppose someone who was into that could use that as a theme.

===and more===

actually i'm not really taking you into consideration. you're the problem here, one which i couldn't be bothered dealing with.

===constructive criticism===

Frankly, statements like "this tripe does not belong in Wikipedia" aren't terribly helpful. I assume that Wikipedia's amorphous standards call for people to say things like, "this section needs to be changed because..." or "this could be written in a format that consists of..." instead of things like "this sucks, and I'm not going to bother to tell you specifically why."

And as far as claims that I'm acting like I "own it," that is untrue. I have not objected to substantive alterations to the input that I have provided to it over the last two years. For example, I had no problems with someone reformatting most of my input from an "FAQ" that I did for the imdb.com site into something that looked a lot better and apparently conforms to wikipedia standards.

I'm just not willing to agree to deleting huge sections of the page without the person making such demands providing detailed reasons why such changes should be made.

===ergh===

Extremely poorly written. No, that is not subjective. It's just terrible. You're acting like you own this page. This tripe does not belong in wikipedia.

===hey, hey, hey===

The article has been pretty much the way it without anyone else objecting to its structure for over two years. I think "extremely poorly written" is pretty much a matter of opinion. I also think that trying to compress a movie as complex as ESOTSM into a one paragraph summation is not realistic and would pretty much moot the whole point of providing a "detailed chronology" (that readers are entirely free to skip). I also think that it's worth looking at how long the page for the movie "Memento" is as well. The chronology there is pretty long too.

This being said, I will take another look at the chronology and see if I can winnow it down some. However, I don't think that it's realistic to demand/ask/suggest what you're asking/demanding/suggesting. I'm more than willing to debate and discuss how this chronology can be improved. However, to do that, you've got to be specific in your criticisms (i.e. "get rid of all of it" is a pretty sweeping demand).

Also, I will remove the sentence that you find objectionable about why Clementine knew Patrick was a creep. I think it is not such an unreasonable inference to draw, but it is not worth getting in a fight over.

===hey, "hey, "alteration""===

The entire plot of the movie is far from encyclopaedic. I do agree that as its narrative is far from linear an outline of the chronological plot may be in order, but what we have here is overkill. I stress also that the material in question is incredibly poorly written. The fact that the entire plot is there isn't the problem, it's all of the extra bits and pieces that are thrown in - these are clear to see but I put down a few examples previously. You could coherently some up the chronological plot in a relatively small paragraph, this just isn't necessary.

If anybody with any authority in wikipedia was to stumble upon this apparently inactive article I'm quite sure they would agree with me.

Ergh. And I notice that extra bit has been put back in. I'm not going to remove it, what's the point. I might as well delete the whole damn thing. Seriously, this is ''poorly written'' material that does ''not belong in Wikipedia''. Move it to your website and add a link at the bottom for all our sakes.
I see you've repeated in response to me the same text as begins the entire thing (confusion on imdb), so I assume you're the original author. Move it to your website.

===hey, "alteration"===

I don't have a problem with you removing the speculation about why Clementine told Patrick to get away from her. But I DO have a problem with any changes to the synopsis of the film. YOU may find it rambling. But I do not, and I suspect a lot of other people do not either.

As for the level of detail, if you read the imdb.com postings about this, you would have been amazed at how much confusion that there was over the sequence of events in this movie. The detailed synopsis of the plot was designed to answer people's questions about what happened.

==alteration==

I deleted '(a logical explanation for that being that she had read his name in her file and realized that he was involved in the memory erasure process)' for two reasons. The first is that this is not a good explanation at all - would clementine really have sat down and read the file through in her injured state after the confrontation in Joel's car? The second is that either way we don't know, so let's not bother including anything on that matter.

I might add that this synopsis of the film is ''highly'' speculative. It rambles on and at points isn't as coherent as a wikipedia article should be. It strikes me as something which should go on the original authors website - it should be removed from this article.

Infact I'll take a few quotes to illustrate this:

'Patrick approaches Clementine on the steps to her building, but she angrily tells him to "get the fuck" away from her.' / 'Meanwhile, Mary has come over ostensibly to help Stan and Patrick with the procedure. However, given the fact that she and Stan kiss each other, it is obvious that she is there more to see Stan than to do any work.' / 'They travel back on the same train, and both find themselves --for them-- mysteriously drawn to each other.'

This is a poorly written and subjective blow by blow recount of the entire story and does not belong here.

// I agree with the fact that it is a poorly written summary of this movie. As the person above me said, it is meant to make you think (which is what philosophy is all about)...it's very broad, if you watch what happens...it's open for discussion...anything it possible. if you look at what I said in the section about Clems skeleton pic being over looked, i wrote that this film was based on the idea of Albert Camus' "Myth of Sisyphus", which was, Yes to life! You embrace it and to embrace your life, you must embrace both the good and the bad. And though you embrace it, at the same time, life is pointless and repetitive (just as if someone is working and they do it over and over and over, there is a reason! the reason is to make money...but what happens after? it is inevitable that death is going to come. and our bodies die. so the idea is simply put: what is the point of actions, if we are going to just die? that's how it is pointless and repetitive).
In simpler terms, Joel got what he asked for. He chose his fate. The moment he agreed to delete her from his mind, his fate was inevitable, and in a way sort of predestined just because it was inevitable, whether you're conscious of it or not.
My final point is that you cannot absolutely not write this summary in the way of YOUR vIEWS. And i'm not saying this to be mean or to tell you you're wrong, i'm saying this only because it will harm the thoughts of others who have not seen this movie...you can give your opinion but you must state that it is YOUR opinion and not the RIGHT way of thinking or anything like that. You should just give a very extremely brief explanation of what happens, not in detail.

Try not to state your opinion unless you have another article of text or an idea that proves your opinion/judgments/argument/idea, then you must compare and state how your evidence justifies your argument. until then do not mess this movie up for others. On top of that i agree that you didn't even give the correct details! at least be correct in what happens...it might be an interpretation of what you though but you shouldn't. it will influence others. and in a bad way too.
=angela

==speaking as the author of the dearly departed faq==

I have to really disagree with the the poster below who thinks the interpretation of the ending needs to be changed. He or she needs to read the interview in the back of the "script book" which quotes Kaufman as saying, more or less, "the hallway scene marked the end of the story and that it is up to the viewers to decide what happened." I agree that the passage below that states "Clementine" feels the same way is too speculative. But I stick to my guns that the way Joel said, "Okay" meant "I don't care." And if you look at the very end of the scene, and you study the expression on Winslet's face, its undeniable that at first, she's confused by what Joel said, and then she nods her head. Then they both start to laugh. How speculative is it to conclude that both characters were laughing because, "this is weird, weird, weird"? I don't think it is speculative at all. What is a bit more speculative is the conclusion that I drew that they had decided to live in the moment and not worry about what is preordained.

I really do believe as I stated before on the IMDB comments of this movie, that ESOTSM is sort of a psychological rohrschach test (inkblots). People who are pessimistic are likely to see a darker ending. People who aren't are more inclined to see a happier one. I think I take the middle course and say that it was a "hopeful" ending.

==overly specualtive interpretation of the ending, NEEDS to be changed==

This article speculates that joel and Clementine get back together at the end, even though the movie leaves it ambiguous. Although the last shot in the film is of the couple frolicking in the snow, Gondry and Kaufman both admit on the DVD commentary that this could be an earlier scene of the two, and does not neccesarily mean that they are back together. That information, taken with the fact that the WHOLE movie is out-of-order chronologically, means that you can't definitively say that they do get back together.

I'll quote what the wiki article says:

"Clementine...tells Joel that their relationship is bound to fail. Joel shrugs and says 'Okay' in a tone which indicates that he accepts that it will likely fail, but still wants to experience it. Clementine feels the same way. Both of them begin to laugh over the absurdity of the situation and with relief that they aren't going to walk away from what may turn out to be a rewarding relationship"

I think the whole "Clementine feels the same way" and "relief that they aren't going to walk away from what may turn out to be a rewarding relationship" part of this entry is bullshit and speculative. How does the author of this entry know how Kate Winslet's character feels at this point in the movie? And does Joel's "tone" of voice really indicate as much as this entry's author speculates?

This is all one person's interpretation of the film, when I saw it I thought the opposite, that they did not get back together. The last shot of them together in Montauk could be from any time in their relationship. But I don't insist that my interpretation is right and present it that way, as this page's author(s) did. The article should note the ambiguous nature of the ending and state that the film leaves it to the viewer to figure it out. If a registered user doesn't make those changes, I might just edit the page myself.

:I agree; go ahead and see what you can do. There is a lot of speculation about this film; most of it is very amateurish, anyway, and is not supported by the film. As Roger Ebert says, if it's not in the film, it doesn't exist. [[User:Paul Klenk|paul klenk]] [[User talk:Paul Klenk|talk]] 23:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

===more comments on the ending...===

Probably disrupting some compromise here but I think it has to be said... Currently the article states:

". Clementine tells Joel that their relationship is bound to fail, based on what they now know about it. However, Joel just shrugs and says "Okay" (indicating that he doesn't care about what may happen in the future)."

We don't actually know what the "okay" means, so... saying that it indicates that he doesn't care about what may happen in the future doesn't actually add anything to the article. There are three main scenarios as I see it. 1) "Okay" means that he doesn't care about what happens in the future and wants to give it a go in case it doesn't fail 2) it means that he doesn't care about what happens in the future so it's worth them getting back together even if it does fail or 3) that he's agreeing with her, it's bound to fail and they shouldn't get back together, indicating that he does care about what happens in the future. Not all the scenarios envisage him not caring about what may happen in the future so... that part should be deleted. In any case it's not for a Wikipedia article to imagine what a character in a film might possibly be thinking...

If no-one disagrees I will remove the bracketed line...?

-- [[User:Lochaber|Lochaber]] 00:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHOA. What's the deal with this "FAQ"? Is that encyclopedic?-[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 02:37, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

It could certainly be edited to make it so. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 04:22, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So--shall it be done? I'd be happy to start in on it... --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 04:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:I think my biggest problem with it isn't that it's in FAQ format — that's easy enough to fix — but that it's mostly just interpretation, and I'm wary of including that in an article, even with (or maybe especially with) a "some people think" tag at the front. -[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 06:56, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well--in the cases where the particular interpretation is widely accepted by critics and the like, I think it's appropriate. I'll look into it. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 19:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are all of those FAQ questions and answers your own work? [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 00:07, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Is your question directed to me? If so, the answer is no--I would have posted it under my own name. If your question is directed to the anon poster, I can't speak for him, but I believe it was his own work. I met him on the IMDb board for the movie, and invited him to incorporate his FAQ into the Wikipedia article. He posted it (without registering) but didn't integrate it, so rather than have it deleted, I thought I'd help with the process. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 00:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-Gah, the FAQ is annoying and should go.
:This article was good and in-depth until I came across the FAQ. Come on, this is a silly Q&A: "Did Joel slit his throat in one scene?" The FAQ should be made into a paragraph called trivia or something because there is some nice trivia such as the elephant parade scene for people that haven't watch/hear the DVD features. --[[User:Anonymous Cow|Anonymous Cow]] 21:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
----

I think the plot needs the part about how Mary finds out about the affair and the subsequent memory erasure right before Joel wakes up on Valentine's Day. Because this event served as a catalyst for how Joel and Clementine find out that each of their memories has been altered (Mary breaks into harold's office and sends all the former patients their info). I would do it but my memory is sketchy about the details. (no irony intended with that statement) [[User:Mimsie|Mimsie]] 00:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:It's there, in the linear chronology section. [[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 00:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

----

"Since this happened before Mary mailed out all of Lacuna's files and tapes to Mierzwiak's patients, there is no way that the cassette could have been either of the ones that Joel or Clementine made denouncing each other immediately prior to having their memories erased." - This doesn't necessarily have to be true... The discussion about the original intention for the credits being to show the cyclic nature of their relationship, I suppose it could possibly be that when we see Joel throw out the cassette, it wasn't in the first iteration of their relationship. However, I'll confess that this didn't occur to me until after reading this article and it's more likely just a solution looking for a problem...

I think it's overly specualtive to think they didn't get back together, or to think anything else in a movie like this, I do think that the page should say that they COULD have gotten back together, but to simply deny it completely is just stupid.

== Lacuna ==

Is the Lacuna link at the bottom of the page supposed to be a joke? Is this treatment real?

:It's a promotional website for the movie that was put up a few months before its release. The treatment is definitely not real. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 16:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Huckleberry Hound ==

This article states that the second time (chronologically) that Joel meets Clementine, he says he doesn't know the song "Clementine" or anything about Huckleberry Hound. It explains the fact that he knew about both the first time he met Clementine by saying that knowledge was too closely tied in with the relationship and so was deleted from his mind. I think it is much more likely that Joel decides not to say he knows the "Clementine" or Huckleberry Hound. Why he might decide to do this, however, is very much unclear.
:I think Joel honestly doesn't remember the song. Why do you think he does remember it? Oh, you say the reason is unclear. Well in that case, let me urge you to reconsider the position that he does not remember it, because at least this position has a clear reason; the memory was deleted. When Joel first mentions the song, he also mentions that his mother used to sing it to him. At another point of the movie, they actually show a scene where his mother is singing the song to him, and then show the scene get deleted. It's not only the obvious conclusion that the song was deleted, it's more or less explicit. -[[User:Lethe/sig|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe/sig|Talk]] 22:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

:It's pretty clear Joel doesn't consciously remember neither Clementine nor the song at that point in the movie. They have been erased. Why would he lie, anyway? [[User:Andran|Andran]] 07:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
::It seemed to me that the significance of his not remembering the references was to further the notion that memories are more deeply linked than we might expect; rather than just reflecting on his former girlfriend, his memories of her also tie into many other parts of his consciousness. He couldn't remove her without removing other things significantly tied to his personality.
:::But that is not the only interpretation. First of all, I think it's safe to assume that the only memories that got deleted were the ones that we saw got deleted. We saw the entire process from beginning to end (or rather from end to beginning). Also, I don't think that if what Joel said on the beach was true, that it was his favorite doll when was little and that his mom used to sing that song to him all the time, then I don't think that the one memory of his mom bathing him in the sink would have been the ''only'' memory he had about Huckleberry Hound or the Clementine song. So even if that one memory of his mom bathing him in the sink was erased then I don't think that would have caused him to forget all about Huckleberry Hound or the doll. Someone asked why would he lie about not knowing about it? Well, maybe it was because she just got finished telling him that she didn't want to hear any jokes about her name. Maybe he said he didn't know any because he was trying to get her to like him and he didn't want to make fun of her. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I do think that is a way too speculative theory. As it is a movie it has its temporal limitations, thus it can’t show every single time Joel was thinking of Huckleberry Hound. Joel’s memories of Huckleberry Hound are connected to his memories of Clementine – as she interferes with his childhood memories. Nothing what so ever suggests he is lying to Clementine, everything in the plot suggests that those memories were deleted. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.107.76.118|62.107.76.118]] ([[User talk:62.107.76.118|talk]]) 14:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) 

Arthy: I think in chronologically first time, we have no way of knowing whether he knew the song or not - because what we are seeing is Joel's casting of his mind - it could be well that he learnt it from the present and tried to be smarter in his memory.. like he did in another occasion - i.e., letting her know that patrick is stealing his identity - which he ofcourse didnt know in the past! — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.228.112.22|216.228.112.22]] ([[User talk:216.228.112.22|talk]]) 00:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC) 

== Deleted FAQ ==
That FAQ was annoying me so I fucking deleted it.

That is all. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:67.23.58.96|67.23.58.96]] ([[User talk:67.23.58.96|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.23.58.96|contribs]]) 02:43, 30 March 2005

:Your actions were pretty rude and probably vandalism. But you know...? I kinda don't like the FAQ either. -[[User:Lethe/sig|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe/sig|Talk]] 03:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

== Montauk next day ==
Both Joel and Clem go back to Montauk the very next day and I found that peculiar while watching it. However, they did account for it if you think about the chronology. Clem whispers in Joel's ear, in the final memory to be erased "maybe in Montauk", which could be construed as a subliminal message still left behind about something wonderful happening there.

Similarly, Clem is reliving some of her experiences with Patrick, who's using Joel's and Clem's memories. This may have served to reawaken in her some memories of Montauk as well, and cause her to go there. Do you think this bears mentioning in the article? Otherwise, forget it. --[[User:70.50.113.170|70.50.113.170]] 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Did Clem say in the final memory to be erased "maybe in Montauk" or did she say "meet me in Montauk"? [[User:Rhallanger|Rhallanger]] 05:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think she clearly said "Meet me in Montauk". -CGK

== Lacuna (the word) ==

I don't know where in the article to put this, but the word 'lacuna' is italian for 'empty' or 'gap', and I think the significance of that word choice is worth noting. It might also be worth stating a reference to the band [[Lacuna Coil]], the title of which translates to 'empty spiral'.

[[User:SonOfNothing|SonOfNothing]] 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:In might be worth noting just in case someone doesn't know the word. It's originally Latin for pit or hole, and the Oxford English Dictionary defines "lacuna" as
:* 1. In a manuscript, an inscription, the text of an author: A hiatus, blank, missing portion.
:* 2. Chiefly in physical science: A gap, an empty space, spot, or cavity.
:--[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 17:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

::It could go under trivia, no?
::[[User:OrisDeInferi|Inferi]] 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

== Huckleberry Hound and Joel being an active part of memories ==

Here is what I interpreted about the Huckleberry Hound motif:

Joel never connect Clementine's name with Huckleberry Hound unless she prompts him to. That is to say, when they're on the train, he doesn't make the connection until she tells him "don't make fun of my name." Whether or not he's aware of Huckleberry Hound doesn't matter.
The reason why he sings it during the memory of the party at Montauk is because this is one of the memories that he takes an active role in while it is being erased. Remember how Clementine says "This is it...etc." This shows that this memory is the type that the article calls number 4, "Memories in which Joel is a participant but can "break character" and change the way the scene turns out." He knows the Huckleberry Hound reference already, and he brings it up. However, when he's on the train, he doesn't make the connection, because, obviously, he doesn't know her.

:Your interpretation doesn't work, and the movie makes this thing pretty clear: when Joel is in the train with Clem he doesn't remember the song because it's been already erased by Lacuna employees. ''He does know the song'', he just cannot remember it. However, when he met Clementine for the first time, back in the beach house, he did remember the song because it was from Huckleberry Hound, a cartoon from his childhood. No need for him to "break character"... that part of his memory is just as it happened the first time :-) It's not because he "knows the reference" from the train, which would be impossible since the train meeting hasn't happened yet! [[User:Andran|Andran]] 07:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with the above poster; that interpretation does not work, and the movie makes it clear as crystal. --[[User:Shinramen1313|Shinramen1313]] 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::That's not fair, you are basically saying that his interpretation is wrong because you already have an interpretation. There could very well be more than one way to intrepret the movie. What does, "he does know the song, he just can't remember it," mean? You said that there was no "need" for him to break character but that doesn't mean that he ''couldn't'' have broken character. In fact, he was ''already'' breaking character and actively participating in that memory long before they got to the house. Remember when he was talking about her sweater, the one that he'd "grow to love, then eventually hate"? At that point he was talking about things that happened long after the memory he was in at that time. Just because your interpretation makes sense to you that doesn't mean another one would be impossible. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::One more thing. I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, I'm just saying that the other one is possible too. And also, I don't think that the first person meant that "he knew the reference ''from the train''" because obviously you are right, that part hadn't happened yet. But still, at that point, Joel had just gotten out of a relationship with her after two years, so he could've remembered the song from the time he spent with her. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Script trivia ==

Not sure where to include it in the article, but the original script called for a follow-up scene showing an elderly Clementine going in for a memory erasure. The implication being that the two had gone through this dozens of times over their lifetimes.

==Summary addition==
This article seems fairly complete, but for some reason I confused it with another one, so had thought of a sentence and wonder if it is worth fitting in. "This poses the question that if, given the chance to make the same choice afresh, whose outcome which we regard in hindsight as a mistake, we make the same choice, can we really regard the original choice as a mistake?" Bit verbose and untidy, yep, but it made sense to me at the time! [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

== Split proposal for "movie soundtrack" section ==

I added it because although it relates to a movie and music, this article currently has 37K and the main article and its soundtrack section need ''splitting'' issues. [[User:69.227.173.21|69.227.173.21]] 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
:I support the spilt. [[User:58.170.77.140|58.170.77.140]] 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:I support the split, as well. The movie and the soundtrack are definitely related, but they ought to have their own articles.--[[User:Evadb|Evadb]] 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
:+1 for the split --[[User:Emc2|Emc²]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emc2&action=edit&section=new Contact me] [[Image:Nuvola_apps_email.png|16px]]) 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:This looks like a consensus to me. And over a month has passed with no objections. I'm making the split. [[User:Elvrum|Elvrum]] 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:I recently added an edit to this section concerning the synchronization of this movie to an album- I'm not terribly familiar with wikipedia's formatting/sectioning rules, so I put it where I thought it would most be appropriate. It, however, is not related to the soundtrack of the movie itself. [[User:71.126.59.133|71.126.59.133]] 06:32, 8 July 2006 (EST)

== Just Fixed The Image ==

I Know the poster was a canidate for speedy deletion, so I speedily uploaded another one and cited my sources, if anyone fixes the other one, feel free to put it back in the article
[[User:KaufmanIsAwesome|KaufmanIsAwesome]] 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

== Props ==
Not NPOV, and certainly not correct tone for an encyclopedia. [[User:FerventDove|FerventDove]] 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

==Problems with General focus of the article==
While a large proportion of the article is fine, much of it is rife with [[WP:OR]] [[WP:CITE|unsourced]] analysis. There are a lot of sentences that start with 'this might mean', 'is appears that' and the like. None of this is within the scope of a wikipedia article on a movie. ALL analysis must be sourced to a 3rd party. I'm going to start chopped large chunks of text that are, in my opinion, impossible to successfully edit to conform to WP standards. [[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup tag ==

I added a clean up tag, because the article is unfocused and disorganised. It needs asserted work on tone, sourcing, order, detail (more in some areas, less in others) and less opinion statements. I am willing to help, but it probably needs a few heads together. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==Chopped memory reconsolidation section==
I chopped this section, because, although it is interesting and has cites, there is no cite linking the research to the movie, making it OR.

:''===Consistence with theories about memory [[reconsolidation]]===
:Several aspects of the method for memory erasure are actually in good agreement with recent scientific findings. It was found, that [[consolidation]] of [[memories]] does not necessarily lead to a permanent fixation. Rather, retrieval of a memory can render it susceptible to several amnestic agents such as protein synthesis inhibition (PSI) <ref>Nader, K., G.E. Schafe, and J.E. Le Doux, Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature, 2000. 406(6797): p. 722-6 </ref> and [[electroconvulsive shock]] (ECS)<ref>Misanin, J.R., R.R. Miller, and D.J. Lewis, Retrograde amnesia produced by electroconvulsive shock after reactivation of a consolidated memory trace. Science, 1968. 160(827): p. 554-5</ref>. After initial training, these agents become more and more ineffective as the memory is consolidated unless the memory is retrieved. Retrieval obviously induces a state of lability which needs a process termed reconsolidation in order to refix the labile memory. Further research elucidated, that recently established memories can be disrupted more easily (with lower doses of amnestic agent or fewer retrieval trials) than older ones<ref>Suzuki, A., et al., Memory reconsolidation and extinction have distinct temporal and biochemical signatures. J Neurosci, 2004. 24(20): p. 4787-95</ref>. Ongoing research now aims at the therapeutical application of the reconsolidation phenomenon for treatment of maladaptive memories such as [[PTSD]]. It was found that the drug [[propranolol]], a β-adrenergic receptor antagonist, can disrupt reconsolidation of auditory fear conditioning in mice<ref>Debiec, J. and J.E. Ledoux, Disruption of reconsolidation but not consolidation of auditory fear conditioning by noradrenergic blockade in the amygdala. Neuroscience, 2004. 129(2): p. 267-72</ref>.
''
[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 10:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
* Good call Ashmoo. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
** I don't understand how that makes it original research. I thought original research meant that it wasn't cited. You can say that it's not specifically about the movie itself but that's not the same thing as [[WP:OR|OR]]. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

***Unsourced means that its not cited. Original research means that it is an original idea that is not "academically" notable or significantly represented in secondary sources. Inclusion on this article, given that it is not specifically about the movie, makes it original research. Ie, original research that the topics outlined relate to this movie. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== Chopped Lacuna Inc section==
I have also chopped the following section, as it seem to just be a reiteration of details that have previously been mentioned (twice) in the plot section.

<blockquote>
===Lacuna, Inc.===
The fictional Lacuna Inc. was the brainchild of Dr. Howard Mierzwiak who after years of [[neurobiology|neurobiological]] research developed a painless method for identifying and erasing specific memories. [http://www.lacunainc.com/ Lacuna Inc] was founded to provide a research facility for the development of this procedure. Over the years, the project has progressed from a mere idea into a full-blown medical service.

After a patient decides what memory it is going to have erased, there is some initial preparation that goes into a successful procedure. The patient is instructed to collect any items or mementos that have any ties to the memory or memories being targeted. These items will be used by the Lacuna team during and disposed of following the procedure. This is to ensure that the patient will not have any inexplicable items after the memory erasure.

While connected to a [[brain]] scanning device, the patient is instructed to look at the items, and while reexperiencing the unwanted memories technicians scan brain activity, allowing them to chart and record where the memories are located. The team of Lacuna technicians will use the information they have received from the patient to construct a map of the memory. They will then use this map to extract the memory from the patient's mind.

Following the map created specifically for every patient, that patient takes a [[sedative]]. A team then uses a device that systematically retriggers all the memories they have recorded. As they are retriggered, the targeted memories gradually dissolve while the device erases them. The procedure works on a reverse time-line, which means it begins with the most recent memories and goes backwards in time. This approach is designed to target the psychological core that every memory builds on. By eradicating the core, Lacuna technicians are able to make the entire memory dissolve. When the patient wakes from the surgery, they remember nothing.

In addition, Lacuna Inc. sends a letter to the friends and family of the patient, explaining that the patient is erasing the memory of a particular human and asking the recipients to never mention that human to the patient again.
</blockquote>

[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

==Chopped 'childhood' and 'Mary Sveno' sections==
I've chopped some more text. These, while interesting, as totally unsourced and simply commentaries on possible interpretations of the film. They would be better suited to someone's personal fan page on the film. I think we need to keep the article as encyclopediac as possible.

<blockquote>
===Joel's childhood===
The memory of Clementine that Joel's subconscious interacts with suggests that he somehow hid her in other memories in which she did not belong. The apparent idea behind this was that this would preserve Joel's memories of Clementine from the erasure procedure. Joel therefore conjures memories from his early childhood (the scenes in his mother's kitchen), and when this tactic fails, his memory of Clementine urges him to hide her "in his humiliation."

These turn out to be scenes in which his mother walks in on him masturbating and where bullies pressure him into hitting a dead bird with a hammer. The latter scene was meant to express a common early memory, when children are forced by others to do things they don't want to, something Jim Carrey revealed in an interview included as an extra on the DVD.

Hiding Clementine causes problems with the memory-erasing procedure, and leads Dr. Mierzwiak to come over to Joel's apartment to help Stan, which leads to Mary's discovery of her past relationship with the doctor. In turn, this precipitates Mary's decision to mail to all of Lacuna's clients their files (which leads to Joel and Clementine discovering that they have had a tumultuous past relationship).

===Mary Svevo===
There are several hints early in the movie that foreshadow Mary's previous relationship with Mierzwiak. The first is the way that she looks and acts around him when Joel first comes into the clinic. Then, when she comes over to see Stan during Joel's procedure, she speaks flatteringly of Mierzwiak's intellect, saying that he should be quoted in [[Bartlett's]]. Stan gives a look of exasperation at her fawning over the doctor. When Mierzwiak does come over, she proceeds to fawn over him and mentions some obscure quotes, apparently ones she had used on the doctor before her memory erasure, since Mierzwiak is familiar with them.

Late in the movie, Mary makes her feelings known to the doctor, and they eventually kiss. Mrs. Mierzwiak shows up and in the confrontation that follows, Mary learns that she had had a relationship with Mierzwiak, and she let him erase her memory of it. Devastated, Mary goes to the Lacuna office and listens to her tape. (In a deleted portion of this scene, there is a bit of dialogue in which we learn that Mary had a natal abortion in the wake of the affair.) Mary clears out her desk, steals all Lacuna's files and tapes, and mails them to their clients, on the grounds that the procedure is a mistake.

It is unclear what Stan knew about Mary's relationship with Mierzwiak or her undergoing the memory-erasure procedure. At the end of the movie, he emphatically claims that he didn't, that he only saw the two together one night, and that she looked "happy with a secret", but that he only had suspicions. However, when Mierzwiak comes over, Stan is noticeably agitated, not just because of Joel's procedure being a mess, but of Mary being there. He also honks his van's horn when Mrs. Mierzwiak arrives to warn the two former lovers of her arrival.
</blockquote>
[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

::The subplot of Mary's prior relationship with Mierzwiak is pretty important, though. It's clear from the tape that there was a degree of coercion involved in having her memory wiped; it not only provides a plot mechanic for Joel and Clementine to discover their original memories, it also is part of a chain of abuses of the procedure you see throughout the film (Paul, Stan and Mary's partying, Paul's attempt to use details of her memories to seduce her), culminating in Joel's attempt to resist the wipe. Her re-awakened feelings echoes the cycle of memory and forgetfulness in the rest of the movie. [[Special:Contributions/71.56.127.236|71.56.127.236]] ([[User talk:71.56.127.236|talk]]) 04:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

== True Ending? Joel cried and thrown away the tape? ==

I'd like to raise a discussion on the true ending of the film.

Just after showing the credits in the beginning of the film, Joel cried and thrown away a tape. Is it chronologically after the 'okay' scene near the end of the film? If no, when did it happen? If no, where did this tape come from?

Please keep this discussed. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Llf|Llf]] ([[User talk:Llf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Llf|contribs]]) 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 
:I think that scene is just before he gets his memory erased, and the tape he's listening to is a mixtape you can hear playing in the background in another scene. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

== Connections to the song meet me in montauk ==

Even though it was not confirmed by the band circa survive should it be put on this article? [[Special:Contributions/98.73.10.215|98.73.10.215]] ([[User talk:98.73.10.215|talk]]) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

== Special Features ==

Is there a need to describe the contents of the DVD in that much detail? [[User:Farslayer|Farslayer]] ([[User talk:Farslayer|talk]]) 10:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:No. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 12:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== Question about "Meet me in Montauk" ==

I don't understand how the plot allowed Clementine to whisper that 'message' to Joel during his attempt to escape the erasure process. Was "meet me in Montauk" a preserved memory or a brand new thought? It's the only thing that still confuses me!! [[User:Adambisset|Adambisset]] ([[User talk:Adambisset|talk]]) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
==Real life memory erasure==
I added the following:
:The journal [[Nature Neuroscience]] reported in February 2009 that beta blockers can erase memories. Beta blockers interferes with this re-creation of the stressful memory - and prevents the brain renewing it. Wide-scale use of the drug was a long way off.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Derbyshire|first=David |date=16th February 2009|title=Pill to erase bad memories: Ethical furore over drugs 'that threaten human identity' |journal=[[Daily Mail]]|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145777/Pill-erase-bad-memories-Ethical-furore-drugs-threaten-human-identity.html|accessdate=16th February 2009}}</ref>
[[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

== young bully ==

Is it Paulie Litt or Josh Flitter that plays the 'young bully' character, as on this pagge it says Paulie Litt, but on the Josh Flitter page it says he played it. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.246.201.101|84.246.201.101]] ([[User talk:84.246.201.101|talk]]) 10:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 

== Hey, let's discuss this thing about the chronology ==

I don't know why the linear chronology --which has been up for the last few years without controversy-- seems to make people want to delete it without any discussion. It was my understanding that people on Wikipedia are supposed to discuss and negotiate major changes on this page and not just do them.

So let's talk about the linear chronology. It's my position that it's essential to understand the plot of the movie. I can't count the number of times I've seen people asking questions about what happened and getting important facts about the story wrong. I don't think that simply stating the sequence of events in a chronological statement constitutes "original research"...If I had interviewed Gondry and Kaufman and posted my interview there without publishing it elsewhere, it would be original research, but why is simply stating the events as shown "original research"?

I did move it further down the page since I can see why some people might find it too long to be at the top.

:per [[WP:PLOT]], our coverage of fiction works should be a ''brief'' summary/synopsis of the work, which the current plot does fine. A scene-by-scene description is not appropriate, and is also boarding on [[WP:OR|original research]] since some of these facts are not specifically made clear by the movie and only hint at what may have been possibilities. Now, arguably the linear chronology is not a scene-by-scene but its close enough to fall in area of things we don't include. Now, if you can show through sources that this chronology is critical to the work, then we can probably keep it, but I've not seen anything like that. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I don't see myself just saying, "Well, Masem says so it must be so." That chronology was up for years before you came along. Can't we compromise here? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 00:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 

Look life is short...How about this, I post the chronology on my blog and we include it as one additional resource? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 

:We already have a chronology - that's the plot summary which is told in the same order as the attempted detailed chronology. Sure, it doesn't attempt the level of detail for the specifics, but it follows along as it's supposed to, instead of trying to follow the scene-for-scene aspects of the work (which are out of chronological order). Our goal on WP is to inform the general reader - one who may never have seen or will likely seen - the work in question, so we don't go into such detail. A detailed examination of the work is uncalled for, unless that work has received significant critical analysis to merit that (something like [[MacBeth]] or [[Hamlet]]. Without sourcing beyond the primary work, any further details about the movie are excessive and potentially violating other policies like [[WP:OR]].
:As for using your blog, well, that's not a reliable source, so we can't include it as a resource, but that's not stopping the inclusion of a reliable source that details the plot of the movie to be used instead. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, there's nothing wrong with listing as a source a movie review or what not that has errors in it, but listing as a source someone who has studied the film is. Sigh, there's no point in debating this. I disagree with you, but you're an administrator, so I know I'm not going to win. Congratulations.[[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]]) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, that's how we source things - mind you, if there's obvious errors in a review, we ignore those, but if its intepretive errors, there's not much we can do about that. But don't despair that easily. Look at [[Memento (film)|Memento]] (a similarly convoluted presentation in terms of chronology); the first reference from Salon.com is a detailed analysis of the film. That's the type of source that would be useful to include here if someone has done a similar approach. This film had similar praise, so it may be a matter of just looking for the right sources (don't forget google books and scholar! there's plenty of hits that a spot check shows, I just don't know how details and which ones are more about the origin of the title vs the movie itself). --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

== Frames of reference - wrong example ==
In the Frames of reference section the article says: "5. Memories in which Joel relives various moments of his childhood with Clementine in the place of one of the people in the memory (e.g., Joel masturbating)." This example is not very good as there is no clear indication of Clementine replacing someone else in this scene. A better and clearer example of this would be when Joel is playing under the kitchen table and Clementine replaces the role of Miss. Hailin (or something), his mother's friend.

:Please don't remove my topic just because I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor. The example I am mentioning above is misleading and must be changed.

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=756742856 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813151310/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''InternetArchiveBot''']] ([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 15:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

== To Do on this Article ==

I will make the following changes (unless people have other ideas) in about two months. If others in the meantime can contribute these changes I would be very grateful.

INFOBOX
*<s>Find who designed the poster for its caption</s> unnecessary as it is a still.

LEAD
*Expand to include details on production, television show
*3 paragraphs is a good amount to aim for
*<s>Remove excess sources for non-controversial points</s>

PLOT
*<s>Complete a better plot summary if possible</s>
*<s>Replace some excessive words, such as "Joel was devastated"</s>
*<s>Add a Wikilink for Montauk train station</s>

CAST
*<s>Attempt to find a good source for Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet being on set for narration over their younger selves lines</s> Could not find anything on this, apart from [[https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/66498531968715168/?lp=true|this]] picture.
*<s>Attempt to find a good source for Mary's abortion</s> found a website, which I had previously written off as not a reliable source due to it's name (Bitchflicks). However, while the website itself obviously has it's feminist agenda, the information is directly from the directors commentary, so it does not show bias.
*<s>Find any information on Elijah Wood</s> could not find any information on Wood, except for [[http://www.aboutfilm.com/features/eternalsunshine/wood.htm|this]], which contains more trivial information than encyclopedic.

PRODUCTION
*<s>Try to find more information on the editing process, as it being in the production section seems a bit dubious, being that it already is in a section called Production. If more information can be found on the editing, there can be a section on Principle photography and Post-production</s> Changed title of section, per article on [[Departures (2008 film)|Departures]].
*<s>Find when production on Human Nature began, or at least when Gondry and Kaufman meet. This is as the script to Eternal Sunshine was sold in 1998, while Human Nature was released in 2001. However, Human Nature's script was developed in 1996, and Kaufman and Gondry could have met then, or Gondry could have started his directorial role later.<s> I honestly think it's impossible to know without asking those involved, as there are no sources relating to it. On one hand, the pitch was purchased in June 1998. It's a safe bet to say Gondry and Kaufman would have been working on this for less than six months, given that in numerous interviews Kaufman has stated the pitch was easy, and it was writing the script that was difficult. This means they would have got together in early 1998. Steven Soderbergh was originally attached to direct Human Nature, but he dropped it for Out of Sight. Out of Sight was released in October of 1998, so it can be safe to assume that Soderbergh was first attached in mid-1997, thus Gondry would have been attached soon after, in late 1997. Thus is too close too call, and is venturing into original research, and into [[wp:RGR]], and I will be leaving the claim in the article as it is supported by reliable sources.
*<s>Remove some blank space on the quotes section</s>

RELEASE
*Focus reviews on different areas of acclaim; cinematography, music, portrayals, script.
*Gondry's experience in music videos could be moved to an analysis section
*<s>Make a table for the accolades section, such as in [[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001's page]], or [[Prometheus (2012 film)|Prometheus's page]]</s>

ANALYSIS
*Add this section into the page. There are many sources to include here, which a contributor has placed [[Talk:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind#References to use|here]
*Place this section below the music section, as this will stop the album's infobox influencing the references
*Stills from the film can be added to this section under fair use

SEE ALSO SECTION
*<s>Psychological Thriller is a bit redundant.</s>

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 17:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

== Music Tracklisting ==

Hi {{U|Theironminer}},

I placed in the infobox and tracklisting for the music subsection based on the soundtrack subsection in the FA [[The Mummy (1999 film)|The Mummy]]. Can I ask why you changed this, as I might have not read a policy regarding this.

Thankyou, [[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions

2018-10-02T15:57:31Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Western Bias */ new section

{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=yes|bottom=yes}}
{{notice|header=Inclusion Criteria|A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached, but any proposed new entries to the article must at least fulfill the following:
*The common misconception's main topic has an article of its own.
*The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item ''and'' the fact that it is a common misconception.
*The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
*The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
If you propose an entry that does ''not'' fulfill these criteria but you still think should be included, please include your rationale for inclusion.
}}
{{ArticleHistory|action1=AFD
|action1date=18:42, 29 October 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misconceptions
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=84390149

|action2=AFD
|action2date=9:29, 24 March 2009
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)
|action2result=keep
|action2oldid=279300637

|action3=AFD
|action3date=11:11, 8 February 2011
|action3link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination)
|action3result=no consensus
|action3oldid=412627218

|action4=FLC
|action4date=17:11, 25 April 2011
|action4link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of common misconceptions/archive1
|action4result=not promoted
|action4oldid=425807313

|topic = history
|currentstatus=FFLC
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Lists |class=List |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Agriculture |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Biology |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Evolutionary biology |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Food and drink |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject History |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Islam |class=list |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Judaism |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Literature |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=list |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Psychology |class=list |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=list|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sexuality |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sports |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Technology |class=list |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Popular Culture |class=B |importance=High}}
}}
{{Press
|author=
|title=The end of Wikipedia as we know it?
|org=''[[Irish Times]]'' (subscription required)
|url=http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2011/0810/1224302179868.html
|date=8 August 2011
|quote=Here’s our Wikipedia Articles Worth Reading ''(first listed)''
|archiveurl=
|archivedate=
|accessdate = 2013-02-21

|author2=Toby Manhire
|title2=Common misconceptions: 10 of the best
|org2=''[[New Zealand Listener]]''
|url2= http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/common-misconceptions-10-of-the-best/
|date2= 14 February 2013
|quote2=... one of its best pages ...
|archiveurl2=http://www.webcitation.org/6EbkZJJwp
|archivedate2=2013-02-21
|accessdate2= 2013-02-21

|author3 = Alexis Kleinman, Maxwell Strachan
|subject3 = article
|title3 = The 49 Most Entertaining Wikipedia Entries Ever Created
|org3 = [[The Huffington Post]]
|url3 = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/strangest-wikipedia-entries_n_6463488.html
|date3 = 14 January 2015
|accessdate3 = 8 March 2015

|author4 = Douglas, Nick
|title4 = Get Smart With Wikipedia’s List of Common Misconceptions
|org4 = [[LifeHacker]]
|url4 = http://lifehacker.com/get-smart-with-wikipedia-s-list-of-common-misconception-1797840410
|date4 = 15 August 2017
|accessdate4 = 10 September 2017

|url5=https://www.buzzfeed.com/eleanorbate/wiki-pages-to-keep-you-awake-add-yours?utm_term=.jsNZDq7g0#.qpbQVmpXj
|title5=What Totally Fascinating Wikipedia Pages Have Kept You Reading All Night?
|org5=[[BuzzFeed]]
|author5=Ellie Bate
|date5=November 22, 2017
}}

{{high traffic
|date=4 January 2011 |site=xkcd |url=http://www.xkcd.com/843/
|date2=12 January 2011 |site2=Boing Boing |url2=http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/11/wikipedias-list-of-c.html
|date3=3 February 2011 |site3=i am bored |url3=http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=56483
|small=
}}
{{annual readership}}

{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=4 |units=weeks
|small=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive index
|mask=Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 21
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(28d)
|archive = Talk:List of common misconceptions/Archive %(counter)d
|small=
}}



== Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018 ==

{{edit semi-protected|List of common misconceptions|answered=yes}}
Change 'The word's true origin is unknown, but it existed in the Middle Scots period' to 'The word golf is thought to have originated from the old Dutch word for club or bat: "kolf."' Source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/golf [[User:Rdegregzz4004|Rdegregzz4004]] ([[User talk:Rdegregzz4004|talk]]) 16:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
:This is a reference to the [[golf]] misconception about it not being an acronym of "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden". Instead of doing that I just removed it. The phrase "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden" is mentioned in the article, but not the misconception, so fails inclusion criteria. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 04:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

== poverty ==

Global poverty has declined dramatically, but the overwhelming majority of people think it hasn't.<ref> HumanProgress, "What 19 in 20 Americans Don't Know About World Poverty," April 30, 2018</ref>

Where should this go? I'm kinda surprised there's no "economics" section. There are a lot of common misconceptions about economics. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 19:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:It would have to be a reliably sourced stable part of a link-able article. We got [[Poverty]], but it ain't stable ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty&type=revision&diff=856975366&oldid=856754037 its new]) and its not [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/human-progress/ reliably sourced]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

::Our World in Data is a very reliable source, right? But I'm trying to find the original source... [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 20:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it! <ref>https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty</ref> [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 20:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how useful mediabiasfactcheck.com is in determining reliability for Wikipedia, but for what it's worth, left right bias doesn't seem to be a problem here, since one source is left and one right. (And still, neither are extreme.) [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

:Linked source fails a bit in reliability because its more of a primary source paper, not the boiled down secondary source required (see [[WP:PST]]). It also does not seem to describe a misconception. For a list of "common misconceptions" there would have to be (several) main stream sources describing the misconception specifically. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

::Shouldn't it be okay in this case since it's not [[WP:SYNTH]]? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 23:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

:::We really haven't got past WP:V yet, let alone criteria #2. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

::::What do you mean, you don't think it's verifiable? I don't understand. Our World in Data is widely cited and has a reputation for producing high quality research. Do you really think they would just make something up? [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 00:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::We have only one source claiming this is a misconception, HumanProgress... and yeah, they are known to make stuff up. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::Ballotpedia and CATO are two more secondary sources. But in this case, the data is clear, isn't it? There's no controversial or complicated analysis to make. Global absolute poverty is going down, and most people don't think so. These are facts. Do you really think that is in dispute? This is ridiculous. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 03:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::The problem is this is a list that lists Wikipedia articles that have a certain attribute, they enumerate a "common misconception". We don't make those assertions or those arguments here, no matter how well sourced. Its getting the cart before the horse. The place to discuss is [[Talk:Poverty]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Benjamin on this one. There is clearly a perception out there that global povery is as bad or worse than it was 50 to 100 years ago. I think the sources provided are certainly sufficient to show that it isn't correct. Though I agree, there isn't quite enough yet to support that it is, in fact, a misconception. I would add to that list <ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/29/29-uncomfortable-myths-about-soaring-poverty-in-america/#d1d28913963a</ref> and <ref>https://www.finca.org/campaign/world-poverty/</ref> and <ref>http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats</ref> all of which imply or openly state that global poverty is worse than it was (usually by using a misleading stat or a stat that isn't directly related to poverty like income disparity). [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 12:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
*I agree that this perception seems to exist. But we need sources showing it. We have sourcing showing that it's wrong, but we need sources showing that it exists. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 13:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
**How about this?<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j-4yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA7|title=Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think|last=Rosling|first=Hans|last2=Rönnlund|first2=Anna Rosling|last3=Rosling|first3=Ola|date=2018-04-03|publisher=Flatiron Books|isbn=9781250123817|language=en|page=7}}</ref> It verifies both that poverty has declined and that most people don't think it has. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 13:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::That source looks pretty good to me, and it supports both statements and the conclusion. Go for it. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 14:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

::::It should really be at [[Poverty]], well sourced, and stable, before its listed here. We should not front run these things. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::I'm not arguing with you, I'm just discussing where the discussion is taking place. Make the edit at [[Poverty]], and then give it a day or two. If no-one reverts, add it here. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Well, I wouldn't expect [[Poverty]] to have a section about misconceptions, that is more in this page's balliwick. If you review the section on absolute and relative poverty it does contain the same trends and statistics referenced above. That poverty is decreasing. Agree with Bryn that we don't want to get out ahead of other articles, but I'm not sure that where we would put a section about misperception in that article without making it unencylopedic. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::: I think the current wording is fine. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 13:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

::::::::Benjamin, can you post the exact text you suggest for review? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 15:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::Cleaned up the wording in the "Global prevalence" section. I agree with [[u|Squatch347]] that making the language more encyclopedic (and looking over the sources re:what the study was and opposing views) this sounds more like peoples POV on poverty and/or their lack of awareness of a United Nations or World Bank report, not a "misconception". Also if claim has opposing viewpoints I don't think we can call it a "misconception" per [[WP:YESPOV]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::: What are you talking about? The survey question wasn't "What is your opinion of poverty?", or "Have you heard about this particular report?", it was simply, "Do you think extreme poverty has increased or decreased?". And I think the results are clear. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 09:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::: Also, to clarify, it is a fact that extreme poverty has declined. That much is not controversial. The controversial part is where exactly to set the threshold. But nevertheless, [https://ourworldindata.org/no-matter-what-global-poverty-line No matter what extreme poverty line you choose, the share of people below that poverty line has declined globally.] [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 12:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
{{OD}}
We can't get inside other peoples heads as to what they thought a question meant, hence the observation being made that making such a statement as "common misconception" in [[Poverty]] is beyond what an encyclopedia does, we just present facts and figures. That makes us fall short of listdef #3. The [[WP:SAL]]/[[WP:V]] "common misconception" would have to be a large number of sources stating directly that this is a "common misconception" to get us past listdef #2, [https://www.google.com/search?ei=XT-JW8OKGcmd5wLgtIDQCQ&q=%22extreme+poverty%22+misconception&oq=%22extreme+poverty%22+misconception&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.7534.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.UnUcx97HL9o not seeing that]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 14:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

: I think the sources are sufficient to establish the misconception. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Gents, I think firm up the consensus developing and perhaps give Bryn a bit more assurance, Benjamin, can you paste here your recommended addition? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}
===Arbitrary break===

Given that Benjamin hasn't posted a recommended entry. I'll offer one: "It is a common perception that global poverty is increasing (references) both in scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined dramatically during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades (references).
[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:It strikes me as too strongly worded. I am totally on board with the notion that global poverty has gone down at a remarkable rate, almost certainly far more than most people would guess, but I'm not convinced that there are a large group of people that actually think it's gone up. I suspected something most people don't think about very often, so if we did a "man or woman in the street" survey, we did all lot of "I don't know", a few "about the same", a few" up maybe?", with the last group similar to the size of people who believe in ghosts. I think this is worthy of entry but we need to do more work on wordsmithing and I apologize for simply throwing rocks at your suggestion and not offering an improved alternative.--[[User:Sphilbrick|S Philbrick]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|(Talk)]] 18:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

::Don't worry about it, I threw it up there for people to throw rocks at. I think you are right that most people don't actually think about it much. The man on the street poll was what was discussed with the book citation referenced earlier. It seems to indicate that less than 10% of people correctly answered the question about poverty rate change, which seems somewhat dramatic. Maybe change the opening sentence to say something more like "When polled, few respondents could correctly identify that poverty rates have decreased, with a strong majority indicating they thought they had increased."

::Thoughts? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 18:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Are you referring to [https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/what-19-20-americans-dont-know-about-world-poverty this poll]?

:::That's a mildly frustrating article (unless I read it too quickly). I understand that when someone does a survey with lots of questions and lots of possible answers, it may be difficult to provide an exhaustive list of all the answers but in this case they asked one question with three possible answers. They provided the statistics for the people who got the correct answer (C), which is enough information to know the values for the sum of A and B, but they don't break out the responses for answer A. Your revised wording is correct only if you have evidence that the respondents who picked answer A are a strong majority. That doesn't appear to be in the link I provided — perhaps you have a link with more detail?--[[User:Sphilbrick|S Philbrick]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|(Talk)]] 21:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

::::That appears to be the same poll, though it came through in a different source (linked in this discussion). The conclusion that most respondents had overestimated was contained in the surrounding text. I did find this: https://globescan.com/increases-in-perceived-seriousness-of-poverty-and-homelessness-global-poll/ perhaps as another source. It also has its limitations as some of its earlier polls referenced conflate economic fairness with poverty rates. Still, it does seem to indicate that the perception of poverty as increasing is present in the country's surveyed. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 12:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some edits based on the feedback:

:: "When polled, a majority of people in most developed nations indicate they believe that global poverty is increasing [Human Progress][Forbes][Factfulness book] in both scope and scale. However, absolute and relative poverty (link to concepts) have both declined during the 20th and 21st Centuries. While estimates differ based on the methodology of defining poverty, most estimates range between 20 and 40 in the last two decades [Human Progress][Our world in data][finca][globalissues][factfullness].

[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 16:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:Assuming your linked article is [[poverty]], it still fails #3, there is not a "common misconception" described at that article. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 17:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

::Both [[Poverty]] and [[Extreme poverty]] reference this as a misconception based on public opinion polls and reference the reduction. Given that, I think it qualifies fine. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 17:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
:::The benchmark here is "common misconception", not just that people think something else. That it is a common misconception needs to be hashed out at the linked article first (supposedly where the experts are), before its added here. In short you are proposing this change on the wrong talk page(s), i.e this should be discussed at [[Talk:Poverty]] and/or [[Talk:Extreme poverty]]. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

::::The fact that it is an incorrect belief that is widely held doesn't constitute a "common misconception?" The requirement is: "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." The misconception is listed on that page and it has sources. There is nothing in there that says that we need to get a vote or consensus. It is on that page and listed with sources. Requirement met. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 19:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

{{od}}
Requirement #3 is "The ''common misconception'' is mentioned in its topic article with sources.", not "The ''misconception''"... Also the secondary sources have to state that it is common misconception, we can not do the WP:OR of comparing numbers and polls and drawing our own conclusion that it is a "common misconception". The claim is also contradicted by the very next citation in [[Poverty]], so we can not make an assertion that is is an "incorrect belief" per [[WP:YESPOV]] #2. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:That is a strained reading of that requirement at best. The common misconception is listed there. The item we are discussed is listed with secondary sources. If we were to adopt your definition, we would need to delete something around 75% of this page's content (I looked at the first 30 items and only about 6 would meet your standard, if that). Clearly the editors and admins who've been on this page haven't adopted your interpretation.

:Your statement about the next citation is also incorrect. There is disagreement (which is mentioned in the suggested text) on how to calculate poverty rate, not disagreement that it has decreased. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 20:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

::You are making a WP:OR statement that what is listed is a "common misconception", a secondary source has to make that assessment, not us. Per 75%: we have gone in a circle about that, other stuff existing is not a rational to add more, it is a rational for a cleanup. The last sentence in the proposed addition is WP:OR (we don't make statements based on tallying up different documents). The next source ends with "Moreover, defining poverty is not an exact science, experts say." - we can't hang a definitive statement on that. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

:::[[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]], I disagree with your interpretation of the criteria. The source doesn't need to use the exact phrase "common misconception" in order to establish that it is indeed a common misconception. It could say "a bunch of people believe this thing that is incorrect", and that would be enough. "defining poverty is not an exact science" So what? It doesn't need to be. The social sciences in general are not exact sciences. And that is okay. And besides, it's not our job as editors to evaluate what is or isn't an exact science. All we do is listen to what the sources have to say. And in this case, it is clear that the sources support the proposed addition. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 19:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

::::If the sources don't make a specific statement we follow [[WP:V]]. If they differ, we follow [[WP:YESPOV]]. Please read [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination) the current AfD] because there seems to be no support for a loose interpretation as to what a "common misconception" is. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::The difference between "X is a common misconception" and "most people think X, even though it is incorrect" is merely a difference of wording, not a different viewpoint. Could you highlight for me the comments that argue otherwise? The AfD entry has become cumbersome to read by this point. Thanks. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 21:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear that the sources adequately establish the misconception, and I find continued discussion a bit frustrating. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 22:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

:Agreed. We now have four editors in agreement here. That is clearly as close to consensus as we are going to get. The only editor in disagreement has been engaging in clear page ownership and reverted all edits not his own. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

::Sorry to come in late, but I think this is really a case of the bias towards pessimism. People always say that things are getting worse. In fact, according to most people, it's hard to criticise anything if you admit things have got better...--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 08:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I support including this item, even though I generally would categorize economic issues as "political" and exclude them because they are too intertwined with political identity (e.g. the left and the right have different ideas about tax policy, and they both will insist the other is deluded). But I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=861019565&oldid=861018310 this] suggested text is not in keeping with the direction we want to go with this page, since it's too wordy and too detailed. A lot of the disagreement here is over the fine details of the wording. We can "cheat" on ''List of common misconceptions'' by being vague. This article is like a navbox -- you're ''supposed'' to click through to get the full nuanced details. Our text here just be very short: ''Poverty has declined, not increased, over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries''. Boom. Done.What kind of poverty? How do you define it? Absolute poverty or relative poverty? All good questions, but the answers are found by clicking the links, not here.All of the entries here should be written like that. We all know this list is way too long. The phrasing "X is not Y, X is actually Z, and even though group G has often thought that X is Y, in fact, experts E and F have published data showing that X was Z all along!!!" Too many words!!! The very structure of this list ''always'' implies that "X is not Y, X is actually Z blah blah blah". Every entry repeats the same crap. The redundancy is what has bloated the page. Just say "X is not Y". Poverty has not increased, it has declined, during the 20th and 21s centuries."Many editors think you don't have permission to go over to the article [[poverty]] (or whatever) and expand or clarify the text so that it presents the common misconception with the proper nuance and qualifications. That is false. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Full stop. Read [[WP:Editing policy]]. You cannot arbitrarily forbid anyone from editing any article. That would be a [[WP:Topic ban|Topic ban]] and those are rare and applied in very specific cases after due process.Go fix up the other articles, as long as you respect consensus, work out agreeable wording with other editors over on the talk pages, don't edit war, and make sure you cite your sources and meet the verifiability requirements. The text ''should not'' read like the result of a long battle and endless lawyering and quibbling. It should be short and snappy and it should '''make the reader want to click the links'''. You could even call it clickbait, though we don't want to go that far. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 21:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

== Mayflies ==

There's a myth that [[Mayfly|mayflies]] only live 24 hours, when really that's just how long their adult stage lasts. It gets referenced here on the entry on houseflies, but I think it deserves its own bullet point. — [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] 20:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
:Per the inclusion criteria at the top of this talk page, the misconception should be mentioned in the article with citations. I do not see a misconception mentioned in the article. In fact the article seems to imply that the lifespan depends on the species and can be very short. [[User:Richard-of-Earth|Richard-of-Earth]] ([[User talk:Richard-of-Earth|talk]]) 05:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
:Surely this is just semantics, people taking the word "mayfly" to refer to the winged form, in the same way that most people take "butterfly" to mean [[:File:Monarch_In_May.jpg|this]] rather than [[:File:Monarch_Butterfly_Danaus_plexippus_Feeding_Down_3008px.jpg|this]]. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]]) 13:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

== Recently added then removed section Discussion ==

Fountains of Bryn Mawr removed the addition by an editor I've pasted below with the note that it fails criteria two and three. If I understand it correctly those are:

The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.

I'm not sure how it fails those two criteria. The Atlantic is a reliable source for this kind of misconception and it has sufficient evidence within the body of the article that it is a common misconception. Likewise it references it as a common misconception and references multiple examples within the body of the article. Given that, I recommend it for reinclusion.

* [[Women in the Victorian era]] suffering from [[Female hysteria|hysteria]] were not treated by doctors with [[Vibrator (sex toy)|vibrators]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Meyer |first1=Robinson |title=Victorian-Era Orgasms and the Crisis of Peer Review |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/09/victorian-vibrators-orgasms-doctors/569446/ |accessdate=6 September 2018 |date=7 September 2018}}</ref>

[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

::The entry (confusingly) linked three topic articles. [[Female hysteria|hysteria]] contains the wording "some historians dispute" and [[Vibrator (sex toy)|vibrators]] has the wording "historians disagree", so that fails #3, no misconception mentioned. The source being used is brand new, again equivocates "probably a myth", has no supporting sources for claims of "common misconception" other than anecdote, is a single source, and we will obviously have no further sourcing as to this being a "common misconception", a requirement re:reliable sourcing - so fails #2.

::We seem to still be at a disagreement amongst historians, which is not actually a misconception. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 11:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

::: I agree that the multiple article links does make it confusing. My take is that this is a matter of taste for wiki editors, some like to link any and all relevant subjects (which seems to be what is happening here) while some (like you, and I think correctly) choose to link only those directly relevant to the sentence or topic. I'd be happy to limit the linkages to other articles, but I imagine someone will put them back in.

::: The misconception is definitely mentioned in the article, so I think we can dispense with objections based on criteria three. Rather it seems your concern centers around criteria two. I think there are some sections of the article that address those concerns.

:::The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.

::::I'll assume we don't have any issues with the reliability of the Atlantic per se so I'll move on to whether or not the article discusses this as a common misperception. "And in the past few years, it has careened around popular culture. It’s given rise to a Tony-nominated play, a rom-com starring Maggie Gyllenhaal, and even a line of branded vibrators. Samantha Bee did a skit about it in March. A seemingly endless march of quirky news stories has instructed readers in its surprising but true quality, including in Vice, Mother Jones, and Psychology Today.

::::In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex. " This paragraph would seem to put forward that the misconception is, in fact, common. It references multiple sources referencing it, including from other journalists.

::::Your elaborated objection was based on whether it was, in fact, a misconception. I think the key phrase in the section you quote from the Hysteria article is, "some historians dispute Maine's claims about the prevelance..." The next sentence also details that Maine thinks the claim is a hypothesis, not a fact. We should also point out that there are more citations for the contrary position in that article than in the support.

::::If we are aiming at the historical consensus on this subject (which I think we are), we need to recognize that the only source of the vibrator hypothesis is Maines. Both the Atlantic and Wiki article only cite Maines as a reference. We have three dissenting sources in the wiki article, with an additional semi-dissent from Maines herself. There are five additional sources in the Atlantic article rejecting Maines' assertions.

::::Thus I think this entry does meet the criteria of being a misconception. Historians generally agree (with one exception) that victorians did not invent the vibrator due to female hysteria and we see that the belief that they did is common in culture.

::::[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::Not sure why we would consider sources pro/con on the claim itself, its not the topic of this article and disagreement amongst historians are covered by [[WP:YESPOV]], we don't take sides. Items on this list have to be "common misconceptions", so multiple sources are needed saying specifically "X is a common misconception". Up to (a few weeks ago?) this was not a misconception, just several opinions. I doubt any other sources have cropped up in that time couching this as a "common misconception". As for The Atlantic, works of journalism are not that high on the reliability scale, no way to check fact-checking or accuracy, unless they cite further sources, which they generally don't. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 21:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::: So, what you're saying is that the societal misconception itself needs to be more specifically sociologically studied in order to qualify? Or alternatively we need to see a few more articles like The Atlantic popping up on the topic? [[User:Deku-shrub|Deku-shrub]] ([[User talk:Deku-shrub|talk]]) 10:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
{{OD}}
It needs to be covered, period - we can't make a claim of "common misconception" based on one source. You kinda have it in a nutshell - its covered in the first sentence of [[WP:V]] - "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." We actually need to see many articles better than The Atlantic on the topic. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 17:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

:I think that is an artificially high standard. If we were to follow that inclusion criteria we would need to remove about 75% of what is on the page now. The criteria listed at the top of the talk page make no mention of needing a wide variety of sources. In this case, we have a secondary source that says the misconception is widespread and that it is false. We have additional research showing that it is false. That is plenty given the criteria on this page. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 10:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::Per [[WP:SALLEAD]] the List inclusion criteria is pretty clear, title "common misconceptions" and "erroneous beliefs that are currently '''widely held about notable topics'''". That would equal a very wide base of citations we can pull from about this being a misconception, so yeah... its a high standard. [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] exist arguments are not considered very good criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If other items on this list are weak, they should be removed [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 14:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::: And none of the criteria mentioned in the lead require multiple sources for the misconception do they? As long as the source referenced expresses that it is a misconception widely used, that meets the criteria as I read them. Perhaps you could elaborate on which criteria you feel requires more than one source? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 14:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::::Unless we are reading from different dictionaries, "common misconception" and "widely held" are very clear. The source referenced has to be reliable for that claim (a single piece of journalism is not) and once removed there is an extra criteria to [[WP:BURDEN|prove]] that this is a "common misconception" i.e. more reliable sources making the statement. This list has many criteria (which I did not write) which seem to boil down to "do not unintentionally or intentionally [[WP:POVFORK]] claims here". Hence the requirement (which this item still fails) of it being covered in the linked article first. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::I'm a bit confused by your response. Are you under the impression that the Atlantic article's internal discussion about it is the only source referenced? IE when they reference the confusion that is all this comment relies on? If so, I think this is an easy fix. The Atlantic article references it being widely used. It references more than a half dozen uses in culture generally including several other journalistic entries. Does that help clarify the issue? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 19:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:::::: ''"If a reliable source says A (a claim is demonstratively false), and another reliable source says B (examples of that false claim's uses in culture), do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C (it is a common misconception)"'' (see [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]). So, no, we can not follow up those sources to support a conclusion. The Atlantic article is the only source referenced that draws a conclusion along the lines of a common misconception. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gone hunting for more misconception sources
* [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/10/victorians-invent-vibrator-orgasms-women-doctors-fantasy No, no, no! Victorians didn’t invent the vibrator],
* [https://eugesta-revue.univ-lille3.fr//pdf/2011/King.pdf Galen and the widow. Towards a history of therapeutic masturbation in ancient gynaecology] "Her “hypothesis” has become fact for many people",
* [https://www.thewhoresofyore.com/kates-journal/buzzkill-vibrators-and-the-victorians Buzzkill: Vibrators and the Victorians (NSFW)] "So, what can we salvage from this much loved and widespread myth?".
* [https://dildographer.com/2012/05/04/why-the-movie-hysteria-gets-its-vibrator-history-wrong/ Why the Movie “Hysteria” Gets Its Vibrator History Wrong]
* https://wellcomecollection.org/articles/hysteria "The source of this myth is Rachel Maines and her 1999 work The Technology of Orgasm"
I think these plus the Atlantic qualify things well, those are strong sources [[User:Deku-shrub|Deku-shrub]] ([[User talk:Deku-shrub|talk]]) 21:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

:Those would not be sources on a misconception because they predate the debunking of Maines re: they date 2014, 2011, 2017, 2012, 2015 respectively. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 22:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

::Your response does not match the scenario. Rather, a reliable source (A) uses six other sources (some reliable, some not) as evidence of a misconception in widespread use. The same relaible source (A) also points out that that misconception is incorrect using relialbe sources (B,C,D). That isn't synthesis, it is directly pulling from the secondary source.

::The King reference is specifically rebutting Maines. Pgs 206-208 discuss, in part, how widespread the misconception is, though admittedly not with external sources.

::The Guardian article references two popular culture references for this misconception as well.

::That brings us up to three secondary sources with 10 references to this misconception in general use in the culture. That clearly satisfies the requirements for this page.

::[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 13:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:::"rebutting Maines" is a "disagreement amongst scholars" and a ''disagreement'' is not a ''misconception''. A misconception is ''a mistaken belief, a wrong idea'', and people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
:::: {{reply|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}} '''"people who read and believed there was a vibrator/hysteria connection, stories based on Maines' supporting scholarly paper, did not "mistake" what they read"''' An interesting epistemological position. According to Maines herself as well as subsequent academics and many popular commentators they did mistake what they read. However are we saying because the Maines paper was a RS at the time, citations built upon cannot even retrospectively be considered mistakes? This creates a very high barrier to overturn misconceptions based on reliable sources, which was in fact the whole point of the Atlantic article, the damage that academic mispublication can cause. Are there not precedents in Wikipedia for overturning RS's and derivatives previously agreed to be as such? [[User:Deku-shrub|Deku-shrub]] ([[User talk:Deku-shrub|talk]]) 19:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
::::You didn't address the fact that there are 10 separate references in the links offered citing this as widespread and a misconception. We have at least two editors here who feel comfortable with this addition. Perhaps you could help us understand, what kind of source, exactly, would serve as evidence in your mind? Can you cite a source for any misconception that you think meets your idea of what the criteria are? [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 17:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
All of the sources, except one, predate this being a real misconception, so it doesn't matter how many of those you pile up, they do not make a statement this is a misconception, they describe a disagreement. Also 3 of those last sources describe it as a ''myth'' (a false story), not a ''misconception'' (a false belief). Those are two very different concepts and one is not covered in this list. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:That didn't really answer my question though. I'm trying to understand, conceptually, what kind of sources meet your standards. Can you give me an example?

:It also isn't accurate. You are conflating citation with reference. There is one citation (the Atlantic), but that citation offers six references related to the misconception being widespread. Additionally, the articles linked by Deku are post Maines' work, and deal with it being widely accepted, even if it was prior to it being rejected by the academic community, it is still a misconception. Geocentrism was still a misconception before Galileo.

:[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 19:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

::I am not discussing "meet(ing my) standards", they are Wikipedia standards - which I have covered several times, please scroll up. The standard here is a source that has the ability to say "this is a common misconception". Please see WP:V and WP:RS if that is not clear. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

:::Well no, the requirements for the page don't require multiple citations, which is what you are asking. That is solely your requirement. And the source offered contains six references as to this being a common misconception. It even ends one paragraph with: "In short, the tale has become a commonplace one in how people think about Victorian sex..." The need to have multiple sources, or to ignore some for this reason or that is coming from you, not from wikipedia. Unless you can show exactly where it requires multiple sources, I think we should move ahead with replacing the text given the status of the discussion. [[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 11:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to bump this with a suggestion of what text should be included. Feel free to make an edit or let me know if it is missing something.

::Despite being referenced commonly in culture [Atlantic Article][Why the movie...] and society at large [Galen and the widow link][Buzzkill Article][guardian], the idea that Victorian Era doctors invented the vibrator to cure female 'hysteria' via triggering orgasm is a product of a single work[welcome collection] rejected by most historians[Atlantic][Guardian][Galen and the widow].

[[User:Squatch347|Squatch347]] ([[User talk:Squatch347|talk]]) 16:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
:I'm not sure why there's opposition to this; it seems a perfectly cromulent addition to me. I've found sources not listed here, and those sources listed here explicitly support the proposed addition. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 00:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::The problem is it has to be a "common misconception", a misconception so widespread and notable that it is already covered at the target Wikipedia article as a common misconception. We do not have that here. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 13:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
:::If so, that's a failing of ''that article'', not of this proposal. The sourcing presented here (as well as others I was very easily able to find) establish that this misconception is certainly [[WP:DUE]] for the main article. If it's not there, that's because editors haven't added it. Taking that as an excuse not to add it here is a blatant violation of [[WP:IAR]], which you might note is one of the five pillars. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 17:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::::Its a requirement of this list. If you disagree with the list criteria then start a discussion to change them. Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything. If you think something belongs in a main article, add it, see if it sticks - those editors should know the topic. That would keep us in line with [[WP:CFORK]] (Wikipedia policy). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 18:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|Not sure how I can commit a "blatant violation" of guideline that states ignore everything.}} Then you may lack the [[WP:CIR|competence]] to edit here: [[WP:IAR]] clearly states that '''any''' rule that prevents us from improving this project is to be ignored. Refusing to ignore a rule even though doing so is a blatant violation of that principle. Arguing that IAR itself should be ignored in order to follow a rule over improving the project is the very height of [[WP:LAWYER|wikilawyering]] and tantamount to announcing your own refusal to do anything except push your own interests. If your only objection is that this doesn't exist in other articles (and let's be clear: the rest of your objections above -such as claiming there's so RS support for the claim that this is a misconception, only that there's support for claiming this a s dispute among academics- are pure BS and barely worth responding to, so far removed from reality and rationality they are), then '''you''' should go add it to whatever article you feel most appropriate, instead of expecting good faith editors at ''this article'' to bend over backwards to accomplish goals which we both know won't change your mind, anyways. You are exhibiting clear [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of this article and have been for some time, and I will happily ask ANI to to tell you to knock it off if you don't do so of your own volition. There are now three editors telling you that you are wrong. Listen to them before you are ''forced'' to listen. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
{{od}}
You seem to skip the second part of [[WP:IAR]] "improving this project", hence why we have [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus discussions]] and even consensus criteria (like at the top of this page). As for all the name calling, maybe read [[WP:ETIQ]]. Despite what looks like [[WP:CANVAS]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMjolnirPants&type=revision&diff=861056847&oldid=861043654] (definitely not " neutrally worded") you should join in consensus discussion (and not just name call or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&curid=321956&diff=861207934&oldid=861185000 name call and revert]). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
:Are you even reading my comments? Adding a common misconceptions to the list of common misconceptions is, inarguably, an improvement to this project. Stop grasping at straws, stop trying to own the article. Also, do you even know what the phrase "name-calling" means? Are you capable of understanding the distinction between "your argument is shit" and "you are a shitty person"? [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 14:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

== Lead was not encyclopedic ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=859117588&oldid=859108714 Re-wrote] the List lead paragraph because it did not reflect the hidden list definition at the top of the page and read like [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS]]. Selection criteria should be stated unambiguously in the lead for the reader as well as the editor ([[WP:SALLEAD]]). ''"notable topics"'' and ''"Each misconception and the corresponding facts have been discussed in published literature"'' is unnecessary, all Wikipedia content is notable and comes from published literature. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
:I appreciate the change away from "''This list ... corrects erroneous beliefs''". I'm not sure about "''that are described in Wikipedia articles''" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=859117588&oldid=859108714]). As I understand it, this list existed for a long time before that inclusion criterion was added, so there may be many items that fail it. Plus, other Wikipedia articles can be edited at any time without this list being updated. I see that inclusion criterion as being one that helps Wikipedians decide what belongs in this list, rather than something readers need to know about. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]]) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
::Two of the four selection criteria state that there has to be a related article. I really have not looked into where the list criteria came from but it seems to be in line with [[WP:LSC]] re: ''common sense''. List such as this are generally alternatives to Categories, being a list of articles that aids in navigation for someone who wants to find articles that cover a certain attribute - so - ''a list of articles''. Its a "List of common misconceptions", so each entry should be notable enough to be covered at that article - its "common". To avoid POVFORKing, if the claim is not at the article it should not be here. "that are described in Wikipedia articles" could probably be removed, the reader does not need that stated and an editor will see the hidden selection criteria telling them it is a requirement. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 15:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
*I'm just now reading this section and I also completely disagree with the addition of "that are described in Wikipedia articles", especially given that the same editor who added it immediately began using said addition to justify reverting any addition to this article. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 14:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

== Deletion discussion ==

I've started an AfD at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)]]. I've also requested that the protecting admin add the AfD template to the page. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
: Done. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 23:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

==Forbidden fruit==
The fruit of the tree that Eve touched in the Book of Genesis was not simply a fruit but the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. This article does not clarify this. [[User:Vorbee|Vorbee]] ([[User talk:Vorbee|talk]]) 06:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

==Edit request==
In the dinosaur section there is the sentence "Consequently, dinosaur descendants are part of the modern fauna". Since birds are dinosaurs, would suggest the word 'descendants' be removed and an 's' be added to the word 'dinosaur' so the sentence reads "Consequently, dinosaurs are part of the modern fauna". Thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 13:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{done}} [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

== Criteria ==

First off, yes, I know about the AfD. I filed it. Let that run its course (which is looking like "no consensus" unless the closer really decides to completely disregard all [[WP:AADD]] arguments). This talk page is for discussing improvements to this article, so let's discuss improvements.

If this page is to be improved, we first have to examine the criteria given in the edit notice. Here are the current criteria outlined in the edit notice:
#The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
#The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
#The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
#The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
:This list was created when the article talk page was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions&oldid=419482172#Inclusion_Criteria_in_Text_of_the_Article this] state. I've linked directly to the only "criteria" discussion, which you can see does not result in an agreement on this. So these criteria were imposed without consensus.

To wit, I'm suggesting a new list of criteria. Below, you can see it.
#The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
#It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
#An expert in the topic has identified it as a misconception.
I left out the "needs to be reliably sourced" one because duh; of course it needs to be reliably sourced. The new last one is intended to address the bickering over "common". There are plenty of sources that identify "common" misconceptions, but a lot of arguing over whether that's accurate. So instead of looking to a tertiary RS by some staff writer to claim "common misconception", let's look to secondary sources by experts that claim "misconception". It is a perfectly reasonable presumption that experts regularly discuss or are asked questions about the subject of their expertise by people lacking their expertise. In many cases, the very job of the expert is to have these discussions and answer these questions. So if such an expert feels the need to publish something that addresses this misconception, it should then go without saying that it's "common".

Thoughts? [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:Asking that each factoid listed here needs an article of its own to qualify sounds like it would cause the deletion of a high percentage of the page. So am I misunderstanding, and you mean section topic, or overall topics, and not each bit? The criteria seems fine regarding information being included within another article, and not specifically requiring each bit of information to have a full article. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::I think that's a phrasing problem of mine. No, what I'm saying is that, if you find some sources claiming that there's a common misconception about, for example, the [[suicide of Katelyn Davis]] (which was recently deleted as not notable here), you cannot add that. But you could certainly add a fourth or fifth entry about [[suicide]] in general with the right sources, because they all share the same "main" article.
::Another way to look at it is to say that each entry ought to be able to (but doesn't necessarily need to) have a wikilink to an article about the topic in the body of the entry. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 15:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::: Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable. And the fact that some expert chooses to address some topic doesn't necessarily mean it's to address a common misconception, so that would just result in the list getting even more subjective. We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic, which could be significantly more complicated than just showing that the source is reliable. Often, if a belief is especially stupid and/or troublesome, like [[modern flat earth societies|Flat earth theory]], experts will respond to it despite it not being particularly common. Other times, if it's common but relatively trivial (like Napoleon's height, which from an expert's perspective is not a major aspect of him), they may not respond to it at all. I guarantee you there are more experts responding to [[Birtherism]] than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs. Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is. Other than perhaps some metapsychology expert who studies how people perceive psychology, it's unlikely they'd be an expert in both their own field and in public perception of it. So I'm not sure this would solve the issues anyway. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 16:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Except that Wikipedia does not, and never has, required that all sources be from experts, only that they be reliable.}} That's why I'm proposing it (partially) as a criteria ''for this list''. If it were WP policy, I'd not need to propose it at all. Notice how I removed the bit about entries needing to be reliably sourced. Also, I'm not proposing that all sourcing be from experts; only that the entry have at least one expert source calling it a misconception.
::::{{tq|We'd be forced to analyze why the expert was addressing this topic}} No, that is the ''exact opposite'' of what this would mean. By simply having the requirement that an expert called it a misconception, we're ''explicitly'' avoiding any discussion about why they did so. They did so, and that's enough to satisfy the criteria. If you think there's a wording that would better convey this, please suggest it.
::::{{tq|Not to mention that being an expert in, say, chemistry, doesn't necessarily make you an expert in how common a certain belief is.}} I never suggested that an expert historian would be able to comment on a subject in physics, for example. When it comes to a physics misconception, the historian is decidedly ''not'' an expert. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 16:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::::This is in a separate comment because it's not that important.
::::{{tq|I guarantee you there are more experts responding to [[Birtherism]] than to many of the entries in this article, but there aren't very many people who actually believe Obama was born in Kenya, just a lot of really vocal ones who have greatly influenced American politics with their beliefs.}} You should spend some time in [[Southern United States|The South]]. It will quickly [[Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Opinion surveys|disabuse you of that notion]]. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 16:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

: I think I prefer the current criteria. Expert opinions are good, but we shouldn't prefer them over something like a study that shows a misconception is common. – [[User:FenixFeather|''FenixFeather'']] [[User talk:FenixFeather|(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/FenixFeather|(Contribs)]] 16:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::That would turn this article into a stub. Seriously, go count how many of the sources used ''actually'' have that quality. And the current criteria doesn't actually require that, anyways, so the current criteria comes no closer to meeting that standard.
::Finally: I think we can all agree that 90% is "common". But what about 30%? What about 1%? 1% of the population is hundreds of millions of people, and most of us will encounter at least one of them every day (though we may not be aware of it). So what about 0.1%? I know I run across a thousand people in a week. Most folk who don't live in rural areas do, too. Is that "common"?
::I don't think that even the studies you mention actually establish that something is "common", because the definition of "common" is subjective. So I think leaving it to an expert to at least imply that it's common by publishing a refutation is the only sensible way to reach a standard that we can all agree on whether or not it applies. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::: I disagree, I think the original criteria are more liberal, because they allow either an expert opinion or a study that shows a misconception is common. We don't have to decide the threshhold. As long as the source mentions it's common, it's fine. I'm just saying we shouldn't focus only on expert opinion. – [[User:FenixFeather|''FenixFeather'']] [[User talk:FenixFeather|(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/FenixFeather|(Contribs)]] 17:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nine "'''Keep'''" votes at the current [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination) AfD] specifically noted the ''current'' inclusion criteria as a reason to keep the article. None recommended loosening the criteria. {{u|Pengo}} specifically noted:
*{{tq|"It's a summary article. References are not an issue as each fact is taken from another Wikipedia article. See the "official" criteria for inclusion on the talk page (and which also appears when you edit the article): "The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources." If the associated article doesn't also include the misconception with references, then its associated entry in this list should be removed."}}

Lists that index Wikipedia articles based on them having a certain attribute (such as requiring the attribute "U.S. citizens or nationals of French descent and heritage" to be in [[List of French Americans]]) is perfectly reasonable per [[WP:SAL]]. So, as Pengo points out, it makes it a dirt simple list - article has referenced text stating there is some kind of "common misconception"? - it goes in this list, you actually don't even need a citation at the List.

A list without a linked Article containing a common misconception would be an OR nightmare. Editors will simple google to find what ever they can and [[WP:SYNTH]] all those "hits" into "''Yep, lots of hits so its not just a myth or little known fact, my tally shows its a ''common'' misconception''". [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:I find it incredibly hilarious that you would perceive "content does not need to be duplicated from an existing article" to be mean "We can safely ignore our sitewide policies on this particular article". I mean, the sheer level of illogic that goes into that just alone is enough to make me laugh, not to mention the fact that it clearly stems from the same butthurt that's led you to make hypocritical personal attacks against me on at least two different pages. The rest of your comment isn't even about this proposal, so I'm ignoring it. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 20:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

For my part, I like the current criteria, mostly. I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities. Of course the topic needs to reliably sourced, but so does the fact that it's a common misconception. Omitting #3 would do no harm though... if a common misconception is added to this list with proper sourcing, it's trivial to add a mention to it in the topic article with similar sourcing. That's just good practice, not a criterion for inclusion. I ''disagree'' with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] ([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]]) 20:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{tq|I disagree with the proposer that point 2 is unnecessary; omitting #2 introduces too many ambiguities.}} I don't see how. Point 2 is merely the repetition of a site-wide policy.
:{{tq|I ''disagree'' with adding the requirement that an "expert" must identify something as a misconception. Reliable sources are sufficient.}} I actually tend to agree, but I think that proposal cuts off all the arguing about whether it's a ''common'' misconception, which has been at the root of many of the problems on this talk page. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 20:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

===Summary so far===
So far, I have seen two editors opine that finding an expert in the topic of the entry to call it a misconception is not a good idea. So here's a revision, since no-one else seems interested in proposing any.
#The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
#It is current, and not obsolete (so that we're not commenting on widespread false beliefs of the middle ages, for example).
#An RS has identified it as a misconception.
I still haven't seen any reasonable argument for including the original #2: It's a site-wide policy already. I've seen the suggestion that sources need to include a survey showing it to be common, but I've not seen any suggestion as to what sort of result of said survey would be considered common, so I don't see how that solves anything. Furthermore, such surveys are bound to be exceedingly rare (there are none in the RSes cited in the article at present as far as I've seen), so I fail to see how that would even be workable. Further comments are welcome. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 21:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
* I oppose #1 "The topic of the misconception has an article of its own." As long as it is covered in [[WP:RS]] as myth, I think that is sufficient. I agree with the others that it should not necessarily require an expert to articulate it, but I would be okay with additional language that it is ''preferred'' that the myth is articulated by an expert or by a journalist referring to the work of experts.
:I would be open to trying to divide the material into multiple articles such as '''List of misquotations''', [[List of common misconceptions about language learning]], [[Tornado myths]], and then taking the top 3-5 of each subject area as ticklers to generate interest in the longer list of myths in that subject area. The history sections are a bit unwieldy. Unfortunately, articles like [[Tornado myths]], have a completely different format and do not have the nice bite-sized bits of information that makes this article interesting to peruse. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
:::So you would support an entry based on a single RS about the [[suicide of Katelyn Davis]], even though we have no article about that topic? That would require us to summarize the topic in this list, which would require additions RSes. RSes that don't exist, hence why that article does not exist. As for breaking this up into multiple articles, that might be a discussion worth having. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::: I think people are misunderstanding what criteria #1 means. To use the microwave oven example, we wouldn't necessarily need an article about [[Microwave ovens heating myth]], we would just need a [[Microwave oven]] article, which we have. Assuming that's what's meant by that, I have no issue with #1. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::[[Microwave oven]] wouldn't even need to exist. It would be enough to have an article on some other topic, that also included a well-sourced description of the existence of the microwave oven myth. In practice I don't think we have many cases like that; often there are two or more articles that each mention the myth. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::In theory, I agree with this, but I don't think there will be many cases where it applies. Smartyllama is spot on with their comment. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::: Keep in mind there are ''a lot'' of misconceptions that are covered in some random reliable source somewhere. Pretty much every college and university in the world has myths that, at least among those who have enough of a connection to the university to care, are fairly common misconceptions. There is a legend often repeated about my own alma mater, the [[University of Connecticut]], that the campus was modeled after some school in Texas that was designed as a wind tunnel to cool things off, but that of course this was quite unpleasant in the harsh New England winters. It's completely untrue, but has been covered in a number of reliable sources related to the university, and is fairly common among people who actually care. On the other hand, the vast majority of people ''don't'' care one way or the other, so is it really all that common? If it's a misconception about some obscure subject that the vast majority of people don't care about, can it really be all that common? I guess it depends on what is meant by "common", then. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 23:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::: To be fair, many people don't really care about much at all. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Smarty, I see what you're saying here. I could certainly get behind a "multiple sources" criteria, though I'm reluctant to set a number higher than 2 as the minimum, for obvious reasons. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::I agree about the need for "bite sized" entries. Some entries here are a bit too long and they all tend to launch into the debunk without stating what the misconception ''actually is''. The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk very, very briefly with a link to more details. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 22:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
* I think #1 could be weakened to say that it must be covered in another article but that it does not need to be a stand-alone article. So, for example, the ones about microwave ovens would be OK provided they are covered in the [[Microwave oven]] article in a way that meets the other two criteria. I am also wondering if #3 needs strengthening. I'm pretty sure that you can find something on the weaker end of RS to say that pretty much anything is a misconception almost as easily as you can find an RS uncritically repeating a misconception. I fear that we may have to form an opinion on what separates a genuine misconception from a matter of genuine controversy in a world where some people seem to believe that there are no settled facts at all, others believe that no fact is settled until their tribe has the final say and many would grasp at any opportunity to label the beliefs of their opponents as misconceptions. We do not wish to invite arguments with creationists and flat earthers. If we had a couple of different RS, each referring to expert opinion, then we would be better placed to tell any such people to go and pound sand. Also, let us not forget that the misconception needs to be common. No necessarily common the whole world over but we will need an RS describing it as common. We may need to set a criteria for that too. We don't want to include things that are commonly held misconceptions in one village but we also should not exclude misconceptions which are common outside the English speaking west. For example, belief in [[Blood type personality theory]] is common enough in Japan that it could merit inclusion here. (Although then I guess we would have to include things like [[Astrology]] too.) --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 22:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
::I see what you're saying. I could get behind that. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 02:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"3-An RS has identified it as a misconception" is incomparable with the list title "common misconceptions". That would would make this a trivia list of "Things somebody got wrong". [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 20:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:At this point, I'm pretty much writing off everything you say because none of it helps even a little bit, and very little of it even makes any sense. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

:I think that the addition "and is mentioned in the article with sources" is an important part of the quality control of the items anyone wants to add (the article about the topic of the misconception, that is). If every item on this list is required to be mentioned in another article, that means the great number of editors that watch those articles will help prune this article. Those who watch an article are generally interested and know more about the topic than the average editor on Wikipedia. Thus it's more likely that they will catch an addition to "their" article that e.g. misinterprets the source, is undue or uses a source that is outdated. [[User:Sjö|Sjö]] ([[User talk:Sjö|talk]]) 05:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::Well, I see that as part of our sitewide policy already, but I'm not immune to the number of people (at least 2 so far) who've opined that some repetition of sitewide policy might be in order. The next proposal I post will contain a reminder that ''all'' content must be reliably sourced, regardless of where it appears. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 12:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm mostly indifferent to the exact wording, but I'd like to see a few points clarified.

Are multiple sources necessarily required in all cases?

Does the source need to use the exact phrase "common misconception"?

[[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 17:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::I would say Yes and No, respectively. The latter is a frankly ridiculous criteria with no precedent anywhere else on this site. Conversely, the former would address Smartyllama's point above which you also replied to. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 18:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

:::It would depend on the quality of the sources, wouldn't it? I would think a reputable study with a large sample size would be sufficient on its own, for example. [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::Generally speaking, if a source does the research to establish exactly how widespread a belief something is, other RSes for it should abound, and thus it'd be trivial to find multiples for that entry. That being said, in the odd case that there's a widespread false belief that only one source covers (and that source is a very high quality one), I'd be inclined to support inclusion based on the quality of the source. And no criteria needs to be writ in stone: We're not establishing policy here, just a guideline as to what to include. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 18:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

{{tq|The best format is to state the misconception and the then give the debunk}} - {{U|DanielRigal}} hit on something that I noticed to. It seems to me this List is formatted for a Daily Mail columnist on a deadline looking for something to copy and paste and not made for anyone else. Namely bad [[SEO]], nobody searching the web would ever hit on this article because they would be searching for something about a misconception, not searching for an unknown answer. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:Now '''this''' is worth responding to. You both raise a very good point, and it was one I intended to open another section on. I agree that we should be describing the misconceptions as well as debunking them. I suppose anyone who disagrees can do so here. I'm soon to write up another version of the criteria taking the helpful commentary from this section into account. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 19:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
*{{u|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}} Can you give me examples that you consider a problem? I can see some advantage of stating the misconception first in most cases, but I would probably oppose a hard-and-fast one-size-fits all rule for that. Some stories of misconceptions might flow better if there is lead in to the origin of the confusion. What makes good writing is a good ''true'' story. A boring set of facts all of exactly the same rigid format will be more likely to put the reader to sleep. I prefer we engage the reader with top notch writing that includes variety.
:Perhaps for some of the items you consider to be a problem, we could do some copy-editing and make them more interesting. Changing the rule may not solve the problem(s): The changes would still need to be made in the text of these items. That can be done without changing the rule. If editors are constantly adding items in a format that a consensus of us believes is objectionable and can be solved by a rule change, then I would be more likely to support a change in the rules. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

===Round three===
Taking the commentary from above into account, here's my third draft of the inclusion criteria:
*The topic of the misconception has an article of its own.
*There are at least two references stating both the correction and that it is a misconception.
*It is current and not obsolete (i.e., no common beliefs from the middle ages.)
*It abides by all of our existing [[WP:P&G|policies and guidelines]].
If no-one objects to anything here (with a ''reasonable and articulate'' objection, please), then I'll post an edit request for a change to the edit notice. Otherwise, we can do another round of commentary and revisal. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 19:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' I don't see this as an overall improvement over the current version. I see some things as better (more info. in #3: "no common beliefs from the middle ages" and possibly #4). But I do not prefer the new wording for #1, that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article. I don't exactly like the language of #1 in the original either. It seems to me that all misconceptions can fit within one or more topics.
:I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_common_misconceptions_(4th_nomination)&type=revision&diff=862025330&oldid=862024052&diffmode=source]
:Also, I'm not sure what problem we are trying to address with the new rules. [added 22:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)]
:--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 21:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{tq|that gives the impression that the misconception must have its own article}} I don't see how. It explicitly says "the '''topic''' of the misconception" not "the misconception". But if you would like to suggest a wording, I'm all ears.
::{{tq|I recommend working on one sentence at a time, as I stated at the AfD, possibly even having one or more RfC's on it.}} I don't see any benefit to that. It would only drag things out longer. There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now, as opposed to making them wait until two RfCs have run their course. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect? That's what I'm looking for; information pointing out that non-notable subjects shouldn't have common misconceptions about them listed here. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::Regarding #1: Proposed new wording: "The misconception is to be placed under a topic or subtopic heading it is related to." Possibly adding: "That topic or subtopic must have a dedicated Wikipedia article (e.g. [[Astronomy]], [[Biology]], [[History]], [[History of Science]])"
:::If you don't want to wait for an RfC to run, I understand. The advantage is that if the RfC closes with a clear consensus, the arguing can stop. Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement.
:::It's not clear to me what problem(s) you are trying to solve by changing the criteria. Is it because they are unclear? Because you want to make them stricter or looser? Without a clear agreed upon goal, I think it is all the more difficult to determine if the new language is an improvement. I do think the original language is confusing and vague. I would support making it clearer, but I would not support making the requirement for inclusion stricter.
:::--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Right now, I don't see any progress towards ending the disagreement.}} You only cited one problem with the currently proposed criteria, then gave you approval to my suggested fix for that problem. That's progress, right there. Then, look at the objections above and how they've influenced both subsequent proposals. That's the definition of progress. The only problem is that Bryn keeps jumping in to disagree with anything I say, including going to such ridiculous extremes as claiming that a misconception is only common if "everyone everywhere" believes it, as you yourself have seen. So mentally subtract Bryn's re-occurring temper tantrum from this discussion and re-evaluate. It sure looks like it's getting somewhere then. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::I'd like to see more support than just you and me. What if someone else jumps in and sides with Bryn on something the two of us agree on? That's not progress. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::If other editor's can't be bothered to join in, that doesn't mean we should give up. And if you'll actually read through the section: you'll see most of them have ''explicitly'' supported most of the proposed changes. Only two editors have disagreed with more than one thing, and one of those is Bryn, who's disagreed with everything and said that any change to the criteria would be a license to ignore our policies on [[WP:OR]]. Oh, and those two aren't the entire "list of logically unhinged things Bryn has said on this talk page". I think they're about 1/3 of that list, at most. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn. The above paragraph is an example of what hinders progress, where you criticize Bryn in very harsh hyperbole and invite him to respond in kind. There's no need for that. No, I have not read everything on this page, but I have seen enough of the interaction between the two of you to know that both are about equally guilty of this kind of paragraph, and that if you would stop focusing on each other's behavior and try to find wider support for specific positions/proposals, we would get progress. The advantage of an RfC is that talking about editor behavior is almost verbotten, and that, I believe would help a lot. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|I've explained why others don't join in: They are not interested in getting in the middle of your back-and-forths with Bryn.}} Then maybe you and Bryn should shut the fuck up about it, eh? ;) I haven't been bringing it up all over the place. I've been actively trying to steer discussion to the ''article'', and away from that, even though I've made it clear that I think Bryn would come out far worse than me. But you keep bringing it back up, over and over. And there has been '''plenty''' of participation, despite your dire warning. At least 6 new editors have shown up to weigh in, mostly with helpful commentary. You can't expect a coflict to die down when ''you'' won't let it, can you? [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::*{{tq|What do you think of "The entry must be able to link to a WP page that gives more information about the subject" or something to that effect?}} That's fine. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::*{{tq|There's no reason not to let an editor who only cares about #3, for example, discuss that right now.}} Nothing is stopping that. The problem is that the discussion on whether to include #3 can be separated from the discussion on the wording of #1. I know they are somewhat related, but I would prefer this not all get jumbled together in a big mess where it is hard to tell what editors want changed. I have no objection to running multiple RfC questions, as long as they are as discrete as possible. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria. Most editors mentioning the inclusion criteria at the AfD think its good as is (some recommend it be tougher). Current #3 is specifically recommended here and at AfD by multiple editors as a good "check" to make sure something is actually reliably sourced and "common". "#1 The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own" seems much less ambiguous re: "is related to" means it does not have to be an article about the misconception. Don't know why that one is a stumbler but it could always be reworded to remove any ambiguity. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 22:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::{{tq|There is no consensus for radically changing the inclusion criteria.}} That is not true. Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria, and the majority of the proposal I've made has been met with approval. You claim to the contrary is pure imagination. I guess you didn't read the "reasonable and articulate" part. [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 22:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Almost every editor who's commented on this page has disparaged the "repeated in another article" criteria.}} Can you give me some evidence of that, such as diffs and/or subject headings? If that's true, we could give a summary of these editors' comments, and make a proposal that addresses all of those concerns. If the concerns have enough in common I would think it should be easy to generate a wide consensus on new language that addresses the repeated concerns. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::David, there are only two ''possible'' pages to find those on, and this is not the only article on my watchlist. Just use your mousewheel and read the pages. It's really not that long. I will say that Randy Kryn, Smartyllama and Anachronist have all agreed with removing the original number 3 up above, It's been disparaged before in discussions higher up (and I believe, one below) and there were additional comments at the AfD disparaging it from multiple editors. I don't see the point in me spending a half hour collecting diffs just to save you 10 minutes of reading. Maybe if there were 4-5 pages to check, but with only two pages, you can read for yourself. I've yet to see anyone but Bryn defend it, for that matter. How can an inclusion criteria that is subject to the changing nature of other pages even be helpful, here? The only thing it boils down to is an excuse to edit war new content out of this article (which is exactly what set all of this off). [[User:MPants at work|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MPants at work|Tell me all about it.]] 23:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::If what you say is true, that indicates a strong consensus opposing #3, then we should easily be able to get rid of it. Some ways to do that: (1) simply delete it from the criteria on the ground that consensus already exists on this talk page (2) make a straw poll here on deleting #3 to make the consensus more overt (3) running an RfC to delete #3. I am happy to do (2) or (3). If you want to try (1), I would probably back you up, unless another editor in addition to Bryn declared there is no such consensus for its removal. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::No. Criterion #3 is fine and we should keep it. A large number of words have been posted here, but nothing convincing. You are allowed to go to the subject article(s) and edit them to meet the criteria here. I know many editors say you can't, that it's somehow "backwards", but no such rule exists. If your change on the subject article gets reverted, well, then obviously you don't have consensus. But if you go to [[microwave oven]] and change it so that it clearly says a misconception exists and is commonly held, and that reaches something approximating stability, then you're all set to include it here. We need to assume that if the editors who regularly edit the subject article are happy with the addition, then it stands on solid ground to be added here.Anyway, no, there isn't consensus for criteria changes. As I said, the criteria aren't the source of the problem. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 00:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|Dennis Bratland}} Thanks for letting me know. I have no intention on doing (1) unless I were to see evidence of the consensus Mjpants claims exists. I do think the rules are a bit confusing, and I am open to improving them, but believe the only way forward would be more discrete proposals, ideally no more than one sentence at a time. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' I'm not convinced there is even a problem in need of solving. [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|Identifying reliable sources]] is an inherent part of editing any article. We already know how to establish consensus on a fact and don't need arbitrary criteria like "at least two sources". Some facts require ten sources, some need only one. It depends, and we already have structures in place to determine that.It's redundant to require following policies and guidelines. The need to even say "follow policy" arises from personal disputes; i.e. [[WP:POINT|making a point]], [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|axe grinding]].The individuals who have a problem with the rules of this list are locked in a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] and are locked in mutual [[WP:STONEWALL]]ing. The problem lies with the individuals who are failing to assume good faith, to compromise, and recognize that their personal back-and-forth is disrupting the editing of everyone else. [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination)]], these inclusion criteria change proposals, and other attempts to move the goalposts are all have a [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|snowball's chance]] of going anywhere.It's time to either figure out how to collaborate and respect consensus, or drop it and work on something else. I predict an immanent interaction ban and topic ban for those who keep beating this dead horse. Let it go, guys. Let it go. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 23:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
*Yeah, fuck this noise. If I'm the only one willing to stop wallowing in drama, focus on the content and not simply ignore everything I don't want to hear, then I guess I'm on the wrong page. Apologies to {{u|Squatch347}}, {{u|TompaDompa}}, {{u|Benjaminikuta}} and anyone else who saw this hot mess for what it is, but I don't have the patience to deal with this level of bullshit anymore. You guys are on your own trying to fix this mess. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 00:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::Exactly the response I predicted. QED. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 02:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

===Question: Do we need to change the criteria?===
Question: Do we need to change the criteria? If so, what would you change? Are there any items in the current article you think are flawed partly as a direct result of problems with the current rules? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
* '''Neutral''' I'm not convinced there is a consensus to make any specific or general changes to the current rules. I am open to improving them if there is. I am also open to ''clarifying'' the rules to better reflect the historic defacto choices made in practice, especially if there is a discrepancy between the defacto rules and the stated rules. I do not feel the current rules are entirely clear, especially about what is meant by a "common" misconception. I would not support a change that created more rigid criteria for inclusion. I might support a less rigid set of rules. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 03:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

* '''No.''' Take six months off from rocking the boat. Go back to the regular business of editing one entry at at time, making it better, and seeking consensus on the talk page. After half a year or so (maybe a whole year, we have time), if you feel like things are going in the wrong direction, then present items that you think should have been added but weren't, or should have been deleted but weren't, due to some ''clear flaw'' in the criteria as written. If you can't point to several specific, real world examples of the system not working, then it's all [[WP:BEANS]]. If you can't cite any very compelling cases where the rules are failing, then the system is not broke, the problem is between the keyboard and the chair. IMHO, the problem is Wikipedia's collaborative editing process itself. Some can function in an environment that might sometimes might require treating [[Wikipedia:Randy in Boise|Randy in Boise]] with a modicum of respect, and some can't hack it. If you can't, then no rule change on a single list. will help you. --[[User:Dennis Bratland|Dennis Bratland]] ([[User talk:Dennis Bratland|talk]]) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

== Pruitt-Igoe ==

I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&type=revision&diff=861733806&oldid=861730351&diffmode=source this edit] by {{u|Fountains of Bryn Mawr}}, which has been in the article for almost four year [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_common_misconceptions&diff=prev&oldid=640344991&diffmode=source]. The argument to delete was:
:{{tq|Fails #3 - not at topic article. Fails #2 - PDF source "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo" in a single US housing project would not be a common misconception}}
However, [[Pruitt-Igoe]], [[Architecture]] and [[History]] are topic articles. Although, I am not an architect, I have studied enough architecture and seen documentaries that covered the demolition, that I held the "common misconception" that it had won awards before being demolished. That demolition is extremely significant because it "signaled the death of [[Modern architecture]]" [https://architecture.knoji.com/postmodernist-architecture-the-death-of-modernism/][https://books.google.com/books?id=d5ikDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=Charles+Jencks,+who+wrote+in+his+1977+book,+The+Language+of+Post-Modern+Architecture,+that+the+destruction+of+Pruitt-Igoe+was+%E2%80%9Cthe+day+Modern+architecture+died.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=m2ed5CfeOQ&sig=x3-G-7tkQH0SI6nQWEkB8FnXuL4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp4sPLmuHdAhVL7oMKHdGXCjgQ6AEwAnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Jencks%2C%20who%20wrote%20in%20his%201977%20book%2C%20The%20Language%20of%20Post-Modern%20Architecture%2C%20that%20the%20destruction%20of%20Pruitt-Igoe%20was%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20day%20Modern%20architecture%20died.%E2%80%9D&f=false][http://brandondonnelly.com/post/129877819493/the-day-modern-architecture-died][https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/feb/26/pruitt-igoe-myth-film-review][https://hyperallergic.com/20623/pruitt-igoe-myth/] and the birth of [[Postmodern architecture]]. It looks like there is enough [[WP:RS]] to create an article on "the death of Modern Architecture".
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
:You seem to be misunderstanding the list criteria. {{tq|#1 is "The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own"}} - The linked articles are [[Pruitt-Igoe]], [[housing project]], [[St. Louis, Missouri]] and [[urban renewal]]... confusing but [[Pruitt-Igoe]] seems to be the relevant one. #2 is {{tq|The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception}} - two sources state it was confused with another project that won an award but [https://rasmusbroennum.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/1991-bristol-pruitt-igoemyth.pdf the Katharine Bristol source] describes it as a "memory lapse on the part of architects in their discussions of Pruitt-Igo", so sourced, but the sources individually do not describe it as a ''common misconception'', and we can't just add them up (see [[WP:SYNTH]]). #3 is {{tq|The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources}} - we seem to have a ''fail'' there, no coverage at [[Pruitt-Igoe]] of a common misconception with sources. None of the extra links you provided describe a common misconception (the topic of this list). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 01:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::I do not support the removal of that section. The criteria you are [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] every other editor here with was implemented without consensus, ignored by the majority of editors and new criteria is being discussed above. Your continued inability to understand the sources properly is also not an sound argument for the removal. It is described as a "myth" which is functionally identical to a "misconception" in this context in the second source. The first source explicitly says "...and the ways the design community exaggerated the supposed design virtues of Pruitt-Igoe only to create a more poignant portrait of its failure. For example, Pruitt-Igoe is ''often cited'' as an AIA-award recipient, but the project never won any architectural awards." which is easily understood as "there is a common misconception that Pruit-Igoe is an AIA-award recipient." That is not interpretation, but simple [[summary]].
::You may be completely unaware of this, but we are supposed to ''summarize'' RSes, not quote them verbatim with all the cognitive facility of a photocopier. There is not, and never has been any requirement that a source use certain "magic phrases" before we can cite it for a given topic. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 02:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:* I mostly agree with MjolnirPants analysis (noting that I have not seen other similar removals). As for #3, we can easily add it to the article. I will do that. I hope you won't revert it simply to keep it out of this article. I do think requirement #3 is a bit odd FYI, and I might support removing it. For editorial purposes, I could see the misconception being significant without the need for it to be in the article on the subject. I see this page more like trivia, answering questions to a crossword, jeopardy questions, etc., but still what I would call "encyclopedic" knowledge. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::I added it to the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe&type=revision&diff=861806128&oldid=847754607&diffmode=source here]. Fortunately, the additional material is pretty seamless and flows well with the existing content. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception". List entries should follow criteria, including the list title. A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", something everyone everywhere general gets wrong. If its common it should already be described as such in the linked article, or be easy to cite and add without convoluted reasoning. Right now the entry reads "Some people at some time think a housing project in St. Louis, Missouri won an architecture prize when it was actually another housing project in St. Louis, Missouri that won it." That's not in any way a "common misconception". Please also note trivia is not considered "encyclopedic" (see [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] and related links). [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 19:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|The article entry still fails #3 because the linked article text does not claim there is some sort of "common misconception".}} Bullshit. I've already explained this to you. Your inability to understand or accept that explanation does not change what the source says. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 20:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::*{{tq|A misconception has to be significant to the point of being "common", '''something everyone everywhere general gets wrong.'''}} [emphasis added.] If that were the case, then there would be exactly zero items in the List of Common Misconceptions, because even the experts would get it wrong too and there would be no one who knew the truth.
:::::Our core differences of opinion appear to be: (1) what is meant by a "common misconception" and (2) whether the item in question meets the threshold of being a "common misconception". We will have to agree to disagree. I agree with Mjpants on (2), that it meets the threshold. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::: Items meet the threshold of being a "common misconception" when reliable sources say "its common misconception" (in so many words). Claiming "this source means this and that source means that and its all significant re: some context" is original research, we don't make those declarations. A "common misconception" is always going to be a sliding scale. ''Is already covered at an article as a common misconception with RS'' - top of the scale, we just index it. ''Is covered by significant RS as a common misconception but week or missing at an article'' - middle of the scale/borderline - add it to the article, if it sticks it stays here. ''Is not covered by significant RS as a common misconception, not in an article, and all we can say is some undefinable group of people get this wrong'' - bottom of the scale, doesn't meet the threshold. I think we are bottom of the scale here. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Once again, this has already explained to you, both in general terms as well as how it pertains to this particular instance. You've been told by two editors now that your insistence on requiring sources to use the exact wording of this article title does not fly. You've previously been told the same thing this by at least three other editors. You will not win any arguments by continuing to repeat yourself like this. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 22:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::: Apparently ''(in so many words)'' was not on someones vocabulary test. [[User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|Fountains of Bryn Mawr]] ([[User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr|talk]]) 00:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::Obviously so, considering that I quoted one source saying so ''in so many words'' and you're still not listening. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::::: Of course it doesn't have to use the exact wording in the title, that's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to start an AfD to prove a point about how ridiculous this is. This whole process is ridiculous and both of you need to remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not get into ridiculous squabbles with each other. I'd rather this not have to go to ANI a second time. [[User:Smartyllama|Smartyllama]] ([[User talk:Smartyllama|talk]]) 23:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::The AfD was because ''three editors claimed the article should be deleted'' when I filed an ANI case over Bryn's irrational behavior. And I will further note that there are a large number of "delete" !votes, including from very experienced editors, even one former Arb that I noticed. Clearly, there are quite a few people of the opinion that the article should be deleted. So keep your comments about ridiculousness to subjects you know enough about to speak on, please. [[User:MjolnirPants|'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants''']] [[User_talk:MjolnirPants|Tell me all about it.]] 01:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

== Western Bias ==

I have a question on whether this article would have a western bias. An issue with identifying something as a common misconception is the people making this article, and the articles with the information from it, are likely western due to the English language the articles are written in. I'm not sure whether a lot of these are actually applicable to most of the world, which makes this article devolve into a list of misconceptions common to the United States. I'll do a breakdown of the article:

*Food and Culture section has 3 things out of 5 in it which seem to be exclusively American, or at least non-eastern at the least.
*Law, Crime and Government has 5 out of 7 applying only to the US, and only 1/7 seemingly applying to the whole world.
*Music section seems to be all western bias
*The religion section could be a universal list of misconceptions, or it could be western culture misunderstanding Eastern culture. I am not sure as a common misconception is often subjective without research.
*Sports includes 2/3 with western bias.
*The Words, Phrases and Languages section contains 12/13 misconceptions which appear to have a western bias. Almost all of these misconceptions are based in the English language, or at least English perceptions of other languages.
*Every misconception in the history section only applies to Western history.
*In the science section, while some misconceptions may appear universal, with a bit of digging, many are western, such as the Elephant's graveyard myth, with was popularised by the Tarzan films and another 1931 American film, or the lemmings suicide myth, which originated from a Disney film. There is a lot in here to analyse, but in the inventions section at least, it appears to all be exclusively western.

To improve this article to remove the western bias, it will have to be expanded to a much larger extent to include other cultures, or merely renamed to be 'List of common western misconceptions.' I may exclusively be viewing this as an issue, and I am interested in discussion.

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-29T16:04:21Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: Completed review section - dry read, will come back to later

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox film
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| image = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.png
| alt = A man and a woman lying on a sheet of ice, there is a large crack in the ice beside them.
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Michel Gondry]]
| producer = {{ubl|[[Steve Golin]]|Anthony Bregman}}
| screenplay = [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| story = {{ubl|Charlie Kaufman|Michel Gondry|[[Pierre Bismuth]]}}
| starring = {{Plainlist|
* [[Jim Carrey]]
* [[Kate Winslet]]
* [[Kirsten Dunst]]
* [[Mark Ruffalo]]
* [[Elijah Wood]]
* [[Tom Wilkinson]]
}}
| music = [[Jon Brion]]
| cinematography = [[Ellen Kuras]]
| editing = [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| studio = {{ubl|[[Anonymous Content]]|[[This is that corporation|This is That]]}}
| distributor = [[Focus Features]]
| released = {{Film date|2004|03|19}}
| runtime = 108 minutes
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $20 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |title = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind |work = [[Box Office Mojo]] |url = http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm }}</ref>
| gross = $72.3 million<ref name="BOM" />
}}

'''''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''''' is a 2004 American [[science fiction]] [[romantic comedy]] film written by [[Charlie Kaufman]] and directed by [[Michel Gondry]]. It follows an estranged couple who have erased each other from their memories, then, started dating again. [[Pierre Bismuth]] created the story with Kaufman and Gondry. The [[ensemble cast]] includes [[Jim Carrey]], [[Kate Winslet]], [[Kirsten Dunst]], [[Mark Ruffalo]], [[Elijah Wood]], and [[Tom Wilkinson]]. The title of the film is a quotation from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].

The film uses elements of the [[psychological thriller]] and a [[nonlinear narrative]] to explore the nature of [[memory]] and [[romantic love]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|work=Slant Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 25, 2004}}</ref> It opened in [[North America]] to wide acclaim on March 19, 2004, and grossed over $70 million worldwide. It won the [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay]], and Winslet received a nomination for [[Academy Award for Best Actress]]. The film developed a [[cult following]] in the years after its release and many critics now regard it as one of the greatest films of the 21st century.<ref>The film was ranked #6 on the [[BBC]]'s list of the 100 best films of the 21st century, compiled from a survey of 177 film critics. {{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films |title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films |date=August 23, 2016 |website=[[BBC]] |accessdate=August 16, 2017}} See also {{cite web|last1=Dargis|first1=Manohla|last2=Scott|first2=A.O. |title=The 25 Best Films of the 21st Century...So Far |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html |date=Jun 9, 2017 |website=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2017}}</ref>

==Plot==
[[File:Montauk LIRR train station.jpg|thumb|Train station of Montauk where Joel and Clementine meet each other again after erasing of their memories.|alt=]]
Shy, soft-spoken Joel Barish and unrestrained free spirit Clementine Kruczynski begin a relationship on a [[Long Island Rail Road]] train from [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]] to [[Rockville Centre, New York|Rockville Centre]]. Joel and Clementine almost immediately connect, feeling drawn to each other despite their contrasting personalities, and both had felt the need to travel to Montauk that day. Although they do not realize it, they are former lovers, now separated after having dated for two years.

After a fight a few days earlier, Clementine hires the New York City firm Lacuna, Inc. to [[Memory erasure|erase all of her memories]] of their relationship. Upon discovering this from his friends Rob and Carrie, Joel is saddened and decides to undergo the procedure himself, a process that takes place while he sleeps.

Much of the film subsequently takes place in Joel's mind, during this memory erasure procedure. Joel finds himself revisiting his memories of Clementine [[reverse chronology|in reverse]], starting from the disintegration of their relationship. As he comes across happier, positive memories of Clementine early in his relationship, he decides to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her, trying to evade the procedure by taking his idealized memory of Clementine into [[False memory|memories not linked to her]] or waking up to stop the process. Despite his efforts, the technicians steadily erase his memories. He comes to the last remaining memory of Clementine, the day he had first met her at a beach house in Montauk. As this memory disintegrates around them, she tells him, "Meet me in Montauk."

The film features separate, but related, story arcs revolving around the employees of Lacuna during Joel's memory erasure. Patrick, one of the Lacuna technicians performing the erasure, uses Joel's memories and mannerisms to seduce and romance Clementine. Mary, the Lacuna receptionist, is dating the other memory-erasing technician, Stan, but has feelings for Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, a married doctor and the head of Lacuna. During Joel's memory wipe, Mary discovers she had previously had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and agreed to have this erased from her memory when Dr. Mierzwiak's wife found out. On learning this, she asks Stan whether he knew about this, to which he claims that he did not. Mary then quits her job and steals the company's records, mailing them to all of Lacuna's customers.

The film returns to the present after Joel and Clementine have met at the [[Montauk station|train station of Montauk]]. They both come upon their Lacuna records later that day, and react with shock and bewilderment – they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel pleads with Clementine to restart their relationship; Clementine initially resists, pointing out it could go the same way. Joel accepts this, and they decide to try anyway.

==Cast==
{{multiple image
| direction = vertical
| width = 175
| footer = Top to bottom: [[Jim Carrey]] and [[Kate Winslet]] play Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski respectively
| image1 = Jim Carrey 2008.jpg
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Kate Winslet by Andrea Raffin.jpg
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
}}

* [[Jim Carrey]] as Joel Barish: An introvert who enters a two-year relationship with Clementine Kruczynski. After their relationship ends, Clementine erases Joel from her memory, and he erases her from his mind in response. [[Charlie Kaufman]] wrote Joel with autobiographical personality traits.<ref name=":11" /> Producers cast Carrey against type for his role as Joel,<ref name=":11" /> selecting him for his regular appearance, as well as his comedic ability. According to Gondry, this was as "It's hard to be funny. It's far easier to take someone really funny and bring them down than do the opposite."<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/michel-gondry-on-mood-indigo-kanye-west-and-the-10th-anniversary-of-eternal-sunshine|title=Michel Gondry on ‘Mood Indigo,’ Kanye West, and the 10th Anniversary of ‘Eternal Sunshine’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=July 19, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> To make Carrey, an actor who typically portrayed high-energy roles, play a restrained character, Gondry prevented him from improvising, a restriction he did not place on the other members of the cast. Carrey did not like this.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/undercover-indies-what-makes-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-so-unforgettable/|title=Undercover Indies: What Makes ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ So Unforgettable?|last=Placa|first=Kaia|date=March 31, 2017|website=Film Independent|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry would also put Carrey off balance by giving wrong orders or by rolling the camera at the wrong time. Gondry believed this would make Carrey forget what he should do to be Joel, allowing him to go in character.<ref name=":11" /> In the 2017 [[Netflix]] documentary ''[[Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond|Jim & Andy]]'', Carrey mentions a conversation with Gondry one year before shooting began for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', shortly after Carrey had a breakup with an unspecified woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrey-life-is-too-beautiful/|title=Carrey: 'Life Is Too Beautiful'|last=Leung|first=Rebecca|date=November 18, 2004|website=CBS News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry saw that Carrey's emotional state at the time was "so beautiful, so broken" and asked him to stay that way for one year to fit the character. In the documentary, Carrey commented, "That's how fucked up this business is."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wtop.com/entertainment/2017/11/review-jim-carrey-possessed-by-andy-kaufman-in-documentary-jim-andy/|title=Review: ‘Jim & Andy’ documents Jim Carrey’s journey into his own ‘Tru-Man’|last=Fraley|first=Jason|date=November 30, 2017|website=wtop.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/jim-andy-great-beyond-venice-2017-1035248|title='Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond': Film Review {{!}} Venice 2017|last=Rooney|first=David|date=September 5, 2017|website=The Hollywood Reporter|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> [[Nicolas Cage]] was Gondry's original choice to play Joel,<ref name=":12" /> but Cage was unable to do the role as he was in high demand from independent directors after his performance in ''[[Leaving Las Vegas]]''.<ref name=":14" />
:* Ryan Whitney as young Joel
* [[Kate Winslet]] as Clementine Kruczynski: A spontaneous extrovert who, after breaking up with Joel Barish after a two-year relationship, erases him from her mind. Producers cast Winslet against type for her part as Clementine,<ref name=":11" /> as Winslet had previously featured heavily in period pieces.<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/kate-winslet-on-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2419277|title=No Corsets for Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"|last=Murray|first=Rebecca|date=|website=ThoughtCo.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> She received the role after she was the only actress to offer criticism on the script instead of pandering to the writers.<ref name=":14" /> After another actor won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Oscar]], the studio attempted to make Gondry use her instead of Winslet for the role of Clementine, but Gondry threatened to walk from the project if that occurred.<ref name=":14" /> During filming, Gondry took Winslet to separate rooms to coach her,<ref name=":14" /> and she wore wigs instead of dying her hair.<ref name=":15" /> Some commentators note how Clementine's character criticizes the [[Manic Pixie Dream Girl]] [[stock character]] several years before film critic Nathan Rubin coined the phrase. Most commentators discuss one particular example to demonstrate this criticism, wherein Clementine warns Joel she is flawed: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a9285/manic-pixie-dream-girl-characters/|title=Remembering Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 10 Years Later|last=Gould|first=Hallie|date=March 20, 2014|website=Marie Claire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://flavorwire.com/446166/eternal-sunshine-destroyed-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-stereotype-before-it-even-existed|title=‘Eternal Sunshine’ Destroyed the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype Before It Even Existed|last=Herman|first=Alison|date=March 19, 2014|website=FlavorWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> With her impulsiveness, emotion intensity (extreme mood changes), alcohol dependence, turbulent relationships, reckless behavior, and hasty idealization/devaluation of Joel, Clementine seems to exhibit traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, although it is not clear whether Kaufman wrote her character with this specific diagnosis in mind.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://themighty.com/2017/11/movies-borderline-personality-disorder-bpd/|title=6 Movies That Got Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms (Mostly) Right|work=The Mighty|access-date=2018-08-17|language=en-US}}</ref>

:* Lola Daehler as young Clementine
* [[Kirsten Dunst]] as Mary Svevo: The receptionist for Lacuna who, while dating Stan Fink, has a crush on Howard Mierzwiak. While erasing Joel's memory, Howard's wife catches her kissing Howard. Howard's wife reveals Mary previously had a relationship with Howard, which Howard erased from her mind. She reacts to this information by quitting her job and mailing Lacuna's company records to its customers. In the script, Mary and Howard's relationship resulted in an unplanned pregnancy, leading to Howard pressuring Mary into an abortion, which Howard also erased from her memory.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.btchflcks.com/2012/07/women-in-science-fiction-week-mary-svevo-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-minds-other-strong-female-character.html#.W68aQGgzaUk|title=Women in Science Fiction Week: Mary Svevo: ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’s Other Strong Female Character|last=Civitello|first=Amanda|date=July 25, 2012|website=Bitch Flicks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Mark Ruffalo]] as Stan Fink: A technician for Lacuna who is in a relationship with Mary Svevo until the reveal of her previous relationship with Howard Mierzwiak. Ruffalo received the role of Stan after providing an "unexpected take on the role" to Gondry when he suggested Stan be a fan of [[The Clash]] and look like [[Joe Strummer]].<ref name=":14" />
* [[Elijah Wood]] as Patrick: Patrick is a technician for Lacuna who enters a relationship with Clementine by imitating Joel. They break up when Joel and Clementine begin dating for the second time.
* [[Tom Wilkinson]] as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak: Howard runs Lacuna. Before the film's events, he had an affair with Mary, which ended with the relationship's erasure from her mind. Wilkinson reportedly did not enjoy the shooting of the film and frequently disagreed with Gondry.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-ruffalo-blasts-iraqs-gop-warmongers-talks-begin-again-and-avengers|title=Mark Ruffalo Blasts Iraq’s GOP Warmongers, Talks ‘Begin Again’ and ‘Avengers’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=June 30, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Jane Adams (actress)|Jane Adams]] as Carrie Eakin: Joel Barish's friend. She is in a troubled relationship with Rob Eakin.
* [[David Cross]] as Rob Eakin: Joel Barish's friend. In a troubled relationship with Carrie Eakin.
* [[Deirdre O'Connell (actress)|Deirdre O'Connell]] as Hollis Mierzwiak: Howard Mierzwiak's wife
* [[Thomas Jay Ryan]] as Frank: Joel Barish's neighbor
* Debbon Ayer as Joel Barish's mother

==Production==
=== Development ===
The concept of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' came from 1998 conversations between [[Michel Gondry]] and the film's co-writer [[Pierre Bismuth]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scriptmag.com/features/script-screen-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=From Script to Screen: ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’|last=Cohen|first=David S.|date=February 17, 2016|website=Script Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> The pair had met and become friends in the early 1980s during Gondry's drumming career in the French pop group ''[[Oui Oui]]''.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/06/1|title=Eraserhead|last=Lack|first=Jessica|date=September 6, 2008|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth had conceived of the idea of erasing certain people from people's minds in response to a friend complaining about her boyfriend; when he asked her if she would erase that boyfriend from her memory, she said yes.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-unforgettable-heartbreaking-exploration-love-human-beings-nature-memory/|title=‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’: An Unforgettable and Heartbreaking Exploration of Love, Human Beings and the Nature of Memory|last=|first=|date=|website=Cinephilia & Beyond|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth originally was going to conduct an art experiment involving sending cards to people saying someone they knew had erased the card’s recipient from their memory.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19247/1/a-secret-history-of-michel-gondry|title=Ten years of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Mansfield|first=Matt|date=March 13, 2014|website=Dazed Digital|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> When he mentioned this to Gondry, they developed it into a story based on the situations that would arise if it were scientifically possible.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> Bismuth never carried out his experiment idea.<ref name=":6" />

Gondry approached [[Charlie Kaufman]] with this concept, the two having worked previously together for Kaufman's [[Human Nature (film)|''Human Nature'']].<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":6" /> Gondry and Kaufman together further developed the story a short pitch.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.avclub.com/michel-gondry-charlie-kaufman-1798208337|title=Interview - Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman|last=Tobias|first=Scott|date=March 17, 2004|website=AV Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> While the writers did not believe the concept to be marketable, a small bidding war began over the idea.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/charlie-kaufman-anomaslisa-c-v-r.html|title=In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman|last=Sternbergh|first=Adam|date=December 16, 2015|website= [[New York (magazine)#Digital expansion and blogs|Vulture]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> [[Steve Golin]] of [[Propaganda Films]] purchased it on June 12, 1998, for a low seven-figure sum.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/charlie_kaufman.html|title=Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry - Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind|last=Kleinman|first=Geoffrey|date=|website=DVD Talk|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/1998/film/news/pic-pitch-plays-at-propaganda-1117471841/|title=Pic pitch plays at Propaganda|last=Madigan|first=Nick|date=June 15, 1998|work=Variety|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Kaufman, who was responsible for writing the screenplay, did not begin immediately, instead opting to suspend writing while he was working on ''[[Adaptation (film)|Adaptation]]'', ''[[Confessions of a Dangerous Mind]]'' and ''Human Nature''.<ref name=":7" /> During this time, filmmaker [[Christopher Nolan]] released his film ''[[Memento (film)|Memento]]'', which similarly deals with memory. Due to the similarities, Kaufman became worried and tried to pull out of the project, but Golin made him complete it.<ref name=":11" /> During writing, the pitch's ownership changed several times thus Kaufman did not have to deal with the studios until the end of the scriptwriting process.<ref name=":7" /> The final script made the studios nervous.<ref name=":7" />

{{Quote box
| quote = <poem>How happy is the blameless vestal's lot?
The world forgetting, by the world forgot:
'''Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!'''
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;</poem>
| author = [[Alexander Pope]]
| source = ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'', 207-10
| width = 20%
| align = right
| quoted = 1
}}
Kaufman did not want to make the film a thriller and wanted to downplay the science fiction aspects of memory erasure, focusing on the relationship.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":10" /> He had an "enormous struggle" with the script, particularly encountering two problems while writing the script: showing "the memories, Joel's reactions to the memories, and Joel interacting with Clementine outside of the memories in the memories," and the fact that characters could refer in later scenes to already erased memories.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman resolved the first problem by making Joel lucid and able to comment on his memories and solved the second by making the memories degrade instead of immediately erasing, with complete erasure occurring at awakening.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman's original name for the screenplay was 18 words long, as he had wanted a title that "you couldn't possibly fit on a marquee,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3664683.stm|title=Inside screenwriter Kaufman's Mind|last=Smith|first=Neil|date=April 28, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> however, he eventually decided on ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', a title originating from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/film-charlie-kaufman-s-critique-of-pure-comedy.html|title=Charlie Kaufman's Critique of Pure Comedy|last=Scott|first=A. O.|date=April 4, 2004|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

=== Filming and post-production ===
The shooting of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' began in mid-January 2003 after six weeks of preparation,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/20/news1|title=In brief: Elijah Wood joins Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=December 20, 2002|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://variety.com/2002/film/markets-festivals/ruffalo-springs-for-eternal-1117877087/|title=Ruffalo springs for ‘Eternal’|last=Feiwell|first=Jill|date=December 8, 2002|website=Variety|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Pavlus|first=John|date=April 2004|title=Forget Me Not|url=https://theasc.com/magazine/april04/cover/|journal=The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques|volume=85|pages=1-3|via=}}</ref> lasting for three months on a budget of $20 million mostly in and around [[New York City]].<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /> The production crew, however, recreated some key scenes, such as Joel's [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] apartment and the 1950s-style kitchen, in a [[New Jersey]] former U.S. Navy base.<ref name=":13" /> The shoot was difficult, sometimes shooting for seventeen hours per day in harsh environments.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/video/11693635868/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Jim-Carrey-a|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet interview|last=|first=|date=April 18, 2004|website=[[Special Broadcasting Service | SBS]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref>

The shoot was challenging for cinematographer [[Ellen Kuras]], due to the difficulty of filming Gondry's vision for the film, which aimed to "blend location-shoot authenticity with unpredictable flashes of whimsy." According to this vision, Gondry wanted [[available light]] used exclusively for the shoot. Kuras disagreed with this choice and would get around it by lighting the room instead of the actors and by hiding light bulbs around the set to increase light levels.<ref name=":13" /> Another issue the cinematographers encountered was due to the frequent improvisation, the lack of marks and the few rehearsals completed, the cinematographers often did not know where the actors would be. Two [[Hand-held camera|handheld cameras]] filmed near 360-degree footage at all times, shooting 36 000 feet of film a day to deal with this.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":13" /> Gondry called back to the work of famed [[French New Wave]] director [[Jean-Luc Godard]] by filming using wheelchairs as well as using sled and chariot dollies instead of [[Camera dolly|traditional dollies]]. When using wheelchairs, the shot was not consistently smooth, however as Kuras liked the aesthetic of the low-angle, wobbly movement, the final film contains the footage.<ref name=":13" />

The film used minimal [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]], with many effects accomplished [[In-camera effect|in-camera]], through [[Forced perspective|forced perspectives]], hidden space, spotlighting, unsynchronized sound, split focus and [[continuity editing]].<ref name=":6" /> A notable example is the ocean washing away the house in [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]]; the production team accomplished this by building the corner of a house on the beach and allowing the tide to rise.<ref name=":12" /> Executing this effect was difficult as the special team hired to place the set in the water refused due to perceived dangers. Gondry in response fired the team and had the production team, including the actors and producers, place the set in the water. In retaliation for Gondry's actions, the chief of the union reprimanded Gondry in front of the crew.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://the-talks.com/interview/michel-gondry/|title=Michel Gondry: "I Believe in Utopia"|last=|first=|date=July 27, 2011|website=The Talks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Kaufman rewrote some of the script during production; thus, several discrepancies exist between the production script and the final film.<ref name=":9" /> A fundamental difference is that in the production script, with the erasure of each memory, Clementine behaves increasingly robotic.<ref name=":7" /> In the final film, Winslet plays Clementine straight, and degradation of settings and the intrusion of settings upon each other establish memory degradation visually. Another script component that did not make it into the final film was the appearance of Naomi, Joel's girlfriend. Against Kaufman's insistence on Naomi’s inclusion, the production team cut her already filmed scenes.<ref name=":7" />

Icelandic editor [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]] [[Film editing|edited]] the film, and she reportedly conflicted with Gondry during editing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/heroines-of-cinema-valdis-oskarsdottir-and-the-invisible-art-of-editing-44254/|title=Heroines of Cinema: Valdis Oskarsdottir, and the ‘Invisible Art’ of Editing|last=Hammett Knott|first=Matthew|date=October 11, 2012|website=IndieWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Charlie Kaufman was also very involved in the [[Film editing|editing]] of the film. Editing was a long process as there was no requirement to rush it.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":9" /> There were a few [[Test screening|test screenings]] of the film, which elicited positive reactions.<ref name=":9" />

== Release ==

=== Box office ===
Produced on a budget of $20 million, ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' opened on March 19, 2004, in the United States, earning $8,175,198 in its opening weekend in 1,353 theaters. The film placed seventh in the weekend's box office, and remained in theaters for 19 weeks, earning $34,400,301 in the United States and $37,857,825 in international markets for a total of $72,258,126 worldwide.<ref name="BOXTotal">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Film)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|accessdate=June 30, 2018|date=|website=|last=|first=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' is, as of June 2018, Kaufman's most profitable and Gondry's second most profitable film.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=charliekaufman.htm|title=Charlie Kaufman (Writer)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michelgondry.htm|title=Michel Gondry (Director)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating, based on 238 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Propelled by [[Charlie Kaufman]]'s smart, imaginative script and Michel Gondry's equally daring directorial touch, ''Eternal Sunshine'' is a twisty yet heartfelt look at relationships and heartache."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 89 out of 100, based on 41 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Metacritic]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title=CinemaScore|work=cinemascore.com}}</ref> [[Roger Ebert]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' in his initial 2004 review gave the film 3½ out of a possible 4.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Original Review|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=March 19, 2004|website=RogerEbert.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> He revisited the film in 2010 when he referred to Kaufman as "the most gifted screenwriter of the 2000s" and revised the rating to a full four stars, adding it to his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004-1|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|author=Ebert|first=Roger|authorlink=Roger Ebert|date=January 2, 2010|website=Rogerebert.suntimes.com|type=Review; 2010 review|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised the film for being "cerebral, formally and conceptually complicated, dense with literary allusions and as unabashedly romantic as any movie you'll ever see".<ref>{{cite web |last= Murphy |first= Mekado |url= http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/critics-picks-video-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/ |title = Critics' Picks Video: 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'|work=[[The New York Times]] |date = February 15, 2011 |accessdate = 2013-03-27 }}</ref> ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'' summed up their review by saying, "the formidable Gondry/Kaufman/Carrey axis works marvel after marvel in expressing the bewildering beauty and existential horror of being trapped inside one's own addled mind, and in allegorising the self-preserving amnesia of a broken but hopeful heart."<ref>[https://www.timeout.com/london/film/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind movie review – Film – Time Out London]</ref>

Winslet and Carrey received acclaim for their performances. Winslet's performance as Clementine received acclaim and multiple award nominations, including an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Academy Award nomination for Best Actress]],<ref name=":21" /> and [[Premiere (magazine)|''Premiere'' magazine]] placed it 81st in their 2008 list of the 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|title=The 100 Greatest Performances of All Time: 100–75|last=|first=|date=December 3, 2008|work=Premiere|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|archivedate=March 31, 2009|deadurl=yes|accessdate=July 7, 2018|df=}}</ref> Claudia Puig in a review for ''[[USA Today]]'' said of her performance "Winslet is wonderful as a free spirit whose hair color changes along with her moods. She hasn't had such a meaty role in a while, and she plays it just right,"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-03-18-eternal-sunshine_x.htm|title=Soak up 'Eternal Sunshine,' and you'll feel warm all over|last=Puig|first=Claudia|date=March 18, 2004|work=[[USA Today]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> while [[Ann Hornaday]] in a review for ''[[The Washington Post]]'' said "Even when forced to wear costumes and wigs that make her look like Pippi Longstocking after an acid-fueled trip to the thrift market, Winslet maintains a reassuring equilibrium. It takes an actor of her steadiness to play someone this unhinged."<ref name=":22">{{Cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/03/19/AR2005033113008.html|title=Head Over Heels in Love|last=Hornaday|first=Ann|date=March 19, 2004|website=[[The Washington Post]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> Carrey's performance as Joel also received acclaim and multiple award nominations, with many reviewers noting his casting against type. Jason Killingsworth in a review for [[Paste (magazine)|''Paste'' magazine]] said of his performance "Carrey nails the part, winning audience sympathy from the opening moments of the film".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2004/06/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Killingsworth|first=Jason|date=June 1, 2004|website=Paste Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Moira MacDonald in a review for [[The Seattle Times|''The Seattle Times'']] stated "[Jim Carrey is] not bad at all — in fact, it's the most honest, vulnerable work he's ever done",<ref name=":23">{{Cite web|url=http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?slug=eternal19&date=20040319|title='Eternal Sunshine' is a rocket-ship ride to highs and lows of love|last=Macdonald|first=Moira|date=March 19, 2004|website=[[The Seattle Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> while David Edelstein of [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] said "It's rarely a compliment when I refer to an actor as "straitjacketed," but the straitjacketing of Jim Carrey is fiercely poignant. You see all that manic comic energy imprisoned in this ordinary man, with the anarchism peeking out and trying to find a way to express itself."<ref name=":24">{{Cite web|url=http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?slug=eternal19&date=20040319|title=Forget Me Not|last=Edelstein|first=David|date=March 18, 2004|website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> The supporting cast also received acclaim, with several reviews, such as Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post and Rick Groen of The Globe and Mail singling out Ruffalo's performance for praise.<ref name=":22" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/anatomy-of-a-lovers-mind/article742495/|title=Anatomy of a lover's mind|last=Groen|first=Rick|date=March 19, 2004|website=The Globe and Mail|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref>

Critics heavily praised Kaufman and his ambition, and he won numerous awards for his efforts, including an Academy Award and a BAFTA for Best Original Screenplay.<ref name=":21" /><ref name=":25" /> In Slate, David Edelstein claimed Kaufman had "move[d] the boundary posts of romantic comedy,"<ref name=":24" /> and Moira MacDonald of The Seattle Times called Kaufman "one of the few creative screenwriters working today."<ref name=":23" /> However, Kaufman's writing also was the recipient of some criticism, with some, including John Powers of the ''[[LA Weekly]]'', claiming it lacked passion<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.laweekly.com/film/about-a-boy-2137933|title=About a Boy|last=Powers|first=John|date=March 18, 2004|website=[[LA Weekly]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> and Andrew Sarris of ''Observer'' criticizing the film's "nonexistent character development."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://observer.com/2004/03/eternal-sunshine-left-my-mind-spotless/|title=Eternal Sunshine Left My Mind Spotless|last=Sarris|first=Andrew|date=March 29, 2004|website=Observer|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> Gondry, like Kaufman, also received large amounts of praise, with ''The Washington Post'' acclaiming "the results [of Gondry using primarily live-action effects], in their intricate detail and execution," as "nothing short of brilliant."<ref name=":22" /> Likewise, ''The Seattle Times'' in their review stated "Gondry… makes it all a melancholy fun house, with camera work and visual tricks that rival the screenplay in invention."<ref name=":23" /> Cinematographer Ellen Kuras similarly received praise for her work on the film, such as in a [[Salon (website)|''Salon'' magazine]], where, in an overall negative review of the film, reviewer Stephanie Zacharek praised Kuras for her giving "the movie a look of dreamy urgency that's perfect for the story."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2004/03/19/eternal_sunshine/|title=Brilliant mistake|last=Zacharek|first=Stephanie|date=March 19, 2004|website=Salon|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref>

== Accolades and honors ==
{{Main|List of accolades received by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
|-
!scope="col"| Award
!scope="col"| Award category
!scope="col"| Recipients and nominees
!scope="col"| Result
!scope="col"| {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="2"|[[77th Academy Awards|Academy Awards]]
|[[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]]
|[[Kate Winslet]]
|{{nom}}
!scope ="row" rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;"|<ref name=":21">{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2005|title=Nominees & Winners for the 77th Academy Awards|last=|first=|date=|year=2005|work=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]]
|[[Pierre Bismuth]], [[Michel Gondry]] and [[Charlie Kaufman]]
|{{won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="6"|[[58th British Academy Film Awards|British Academy Film Awards]] (BAFTA)
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role|Best Actor in a Leading Role]]
|[[Jim Carrey]]
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan="6" style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4180423.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The nominations|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref> <ref name=":25">{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4260929.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The winners|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role|Best Actress in a Leading Role]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Direction|Best Director]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Editing|Best Editing]]
|[[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
|{{won}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]]
|[[Likely Story|Anthony Bregman]] and [[Steve Golin]]
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{Won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="4"|[[62nd Golden Globe Awards|Golden Globe Awards]]
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy|Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Jim Carrey
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan=4 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=/year/2005|title=The 62nd Annual Golden Globe Awards (2005)|year=2005|work=[[Golden Globe Award]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical|Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy|Best Film - Musical or Comedy]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay|Best Screenplay]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{nom}}
|-
!scope="row"|[[Hugo Award|Hugo Awards]]
|[[Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation|Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form]]
|Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Bierre Bismuth
|{{nom}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/|title=2005 Hugo Awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[National Board of Review Awards 2004|National Board of Review]]
|[[National Board of Review Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
! rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/award-years/2004/|title=2004 Award Winners|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[Writers Guild of America Awards 2004|Writers Guild of America]]
|[[Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Pierre Bismuth, Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4281705.stm|title=Quirky movies win script awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|}

=== Home media ===

Universal Home Entertainment released ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' on [[DVD]] on September 28, 2004.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind#tab=summary|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)|last=|first=|date=|website=The Numbers|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> A [[Blu-ray]] edition release occurred in the U.S. on January 25, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Blu-ray/16770/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=blu-ray.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

== Analysis ==
In the autumn 2008 issue of [[Screen (journal)|Screen Journal]], Carol Vernallis argued that Gondry's experience in directing [[music video]]s contributed to the film's [[Mise en scène|mise-en-scène]] and sound design. Vernallis describes some threads of the visual, aural and musical motifs throughout the film, and how some motifs can work in [[counterpoint]].<ref>Vernallis, Carol. "Music video, songs, sound: experience, technique and emotion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''". ''Screen''. 49.3. (2008) pp.277–97.</ref>

==Music==
{{Anchor|Music|Soundtrack|Score}}{{Infobox album
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| type = Soundtrack
| artist = Jon Brion
| cover = Eternal sunshine CD cover.jpg
| alt =
| released = March 16, 2004
| recorded =
| venue =
| studio =
| genre = Soundtrack
| length = 56:08
| label = [[Hollywood Records|Hollywood]]
| producer = Kathy Nelson (executive producer) [[Tim DeLaughter]] (track 4) [[Jon Brion]] (track 9) Don Nelson (tracks 11 and 20) Ethan Johns (track 18)
| chronology = [[Jon Brion]]
| prev_title = [[Punch-Drunk Love (soundtrack)|Punch-Drunk Love]]
| prev_year = 2002
| next_title = [[I Heart Huckabees (soundtrack)|I ♥ Huckabees]]
| next_year = 2004
}}
{{Main|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (soundtrack)}}{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| collapsed = yes
| extra_column = Artist
| total_length = 56:08
| title1 = Theme
| extra1 = [[Jon Brion]]
| length1 = 2:24
| title2 = [[Mr. Blue Sky]]
| extra2 = [[Electric Light Orchestra]]
| length2 = 5:03
| title3 = Collecting Things
| extra3 = Jon Brion
| length3 = 1:13
| title4 = [[Light & Day]]
| extra4 = [[The Polyphonic Spree]]
| length4 = 3:03
| title5 = Bookstore
| extra5 = Jon Brion
| length5 = 0:52
| title6 = It's the Sun
| note6 = [[KCRW]] [[Morning Becomes Eclectic]] version
| extra6 = The Polyphonic Spree
| length6 = 5:33
| title7 = Wada Na Tod, Mera Man Tera Pyasa
| extra7 = [[Lata Mangeshkar]], [[Mohammed Rafi]]
| length7 = 5:54
| title8 = Showtime
| extra8 = Jon Brion
| length8 = 0:55
| title9 = [[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]
| note9 = [[The Korgis]] cover
| extra9 = [[Beck]]
| length9 = 5:54
| title10 = Sidewalk Flight
| extra10 = Jon Brion
| length10 = 0:31
| title11 = Some Kinda Shuffle
| extra11 = Don Nelson
| length11 = 2:11
| title12 = Howard Makes It All Go Away
| extra12 = Jon Brion
| length12 = 0:14
| title13 = Something
| extra13 = [[The Willowz]]
| length13 = 2:23
| title14 = Postcard
| extra14 = Jon Brion
| length14 = 0:23
| title15 = I Wonder
| extra15 = The Willowz
| length15 = 2:56
| title16 = Peer Pressure
| extra16 = Jon Brion
| length16 = 1:12
| title17 = A Dream Upon Waking
| extra17 = Jon Brion
| length17 = 3:36
| title18 = Strings That Tie to You
| extra18 = Jon Brion
| length18 = 2:33
| title19 = Phone Call
| extra19 = Jon Brion
| length19 = 1:03
| title20 = Nola's Bounce
| extra20 = Don Nelson
| length20 = 1:56
| title21 = Down The Drain
| extra21 = Jon Brion
| length21 = 0:56
| title22 = Row
| extra22 = Jon Brion
| length22 = 1:00
| title23 = Drive In
| extra23 = Jon Brion
| length23 = 2:19
| title24 = Main Title
| extra24 = Jon Brion
| length24 = 1:23
| title25 = Spotless Mind
| extra25 = Jon Brion
| length25 = 1:12
| title26 = Elephant Parade
| extra26 = Jon Brion
| length26 = 0:28
}}{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1score = {{Rating|4|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev2 = [[IGN]]
| rev2Score = 7/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2004/03/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original-soundtrack|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Original Soundtrack - IGN Review|date=March 18, 2004|website=IGN.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
| rev3 = [[Filmtracks.com|Filmtracks]]
| rev3Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=January 21, 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev4 = [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]
| rev4Score = 7.5/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
}}

The [[soundtrack]] album for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' was composed by Los Angeles musician [[Jon Brion]], also featuring songs from artists including [[The Polyphonic Spree]], [[The Willowz]], and Don Nelson. [[Hollywood Records]] released the soundtrack on March 16, 2004.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040225005925/en/Beck-Polyphonic-Spree-Headline-Hollywood-Records-Eternal|title=Beck and The Polyphonic Spree Headline Hollywood Records' "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' Soundtrack|last=Ferraro|first=Kris|date=February 25, 2004|website=Business Wire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> A [[cover version]] of [[The Korgis]]' "[[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]" with instrumentation by Brion and vocals by [[Beck]] operates as the soundtrack's centerpiece, setting the film's tone in the opening credits, and closing the film.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://consequenceofsound.net/2009/12/cinema-sounds-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Cinema Sounds: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=O'Shoney|first=Carson|date=December 18, 2009|website=Consequence of Sound|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's'' soundtrack received generally positive reviews. [[AllMusic]] described it as "nearly as deft", and described Brion's score as "intimate" and "evocative of love and memories".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Other positive reviews noted the [[Ambient music|ambient]] nature of the music and lauded Beck's cover of "Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> On the other hand, the soundtrack's detractors criticized the album's lack of identity and its depressive atmosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=21 January 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Even among the detractors, however, the score's ability to mesh with the plot was lauded, an appraisal common to many reviews.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-losers-the-rare-but-beautiful-film-scores-of-jon-brion-deserve-an-oscar-2b29438a926e/|title=The Losers: The Rare But Beautiful Film Scores of Jon Brion Deserve an Oscar|last=Belletto|first=Adam|date=February 17, 2015|website=Film School Rejects|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

== Legacy ==

=== Television series ===
In October 2016, [[Anonymous Content]] announced they would be working with [[Universal Cable Productions]] to produce a television series based on the film. Kaufman is not involved in writing the show. The project is still in planning stages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-tv-933163|title='Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' TV Series in the Works (Exclusive)|last1=Sandberg|first1=Byran Elise|last2=Kit|first2=Borys|date=October 7, 2016|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

===Media recognition===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Presenter
! Title
! Rank
! Notes
|-
| 2005
| align=center | ''[[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]]''
| align=center | 101 Greatest Screenplays
| align=center | 24
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays|title=101 Greatest Screenplays|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=101 Greatest Screenplays Full List|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2008
| align=center | ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time]]
| align=center | 73
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|title=The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|last=|first=|date=November 2008|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|archive-date=October 21, 2013|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=5 | 2009
| align=center | ''[[Time Out (magazine)#Time Out New York|Time Out New York]]''
| align=center | The TONY Top 50 Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 3
|<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=November 26 – December 2, 2009|title=The TONY top 50 movies of the decade|url=https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-tony-top-50-movies-of-the-decade#tab_panel_5|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]|volume=|issue=739|pages=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|via=}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Slant Magazine]]''
| align=center | The 100 Best Films of the Aughts
| align=center | 86
|<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_2|title=The 100 Best Films of the Aughts|last=|first=|date=February 7, 2010|work=[[Slant Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=February 10, 2010}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]''
| align=center | The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)
| align=center | 5
|<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=2|title=The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009)|last=|first=|date=November 3, 2009|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| align=center | The Best Films of the '00s
| align=center | 1
|<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/|title=The Best Films of the '00s|last=Murray|first=Noel|last2=Rabin|first2=Nathan|date=December 3, 2009|website=The A.V. Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|last3=Phipps|first3=Keith|last4=Robinson|first4=Tasha|last5=Tobias|first5=Scott}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Metacritic]]''
| align=center | Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 2
|<ref name=":20">{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-pick-the-best-movies-of-the-decade|title=Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade|last=|first=|date=January 3, 2010|work=Metacritic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2016
| align=center | ''[[BBC]]''
| align=center |[[BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century|The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films]]
| align=center | 6
|<ref name="BBC">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films|title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films|last=|first=|date=August 23, 2016|website=|publisher=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=2 | 2018
| align=center | ''Empire''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 100 Greatest Movies|The 100 Greatest Movies]]
| align=center | 41
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|title=The 100 Greatest Movies|last=|first=|date=March 20, 2018|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706075658/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|archive-date=July 6, 2018|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''They Shoot Pictures Don't They''
| align=center | The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films
| align=center | 5
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_rankinghistory.htm|title=The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films (Ranking History)|last=|first=|date=|website=They Shoot Pictures Don't They|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|}

==See also==

* [[Lucid dream]]
* ''[[Inception]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{Official website|http://www.eternalsunshine.com}}
* {{IMDb title|0338013|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Allmovie title|278676|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Mojo title|eternalsunshine|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/REVIEWS/403190302/1023 ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''] review by [[Roger Ebert]]

{{Michel Gondry}}
{{Charlie Kaufman}}
{{Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film 1991–2010}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind}}
[[Category:2004 films]]
[[Category:Science fiction drama films]]
[[Category:2000s romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American independent films]]
[[Category:American comedy-drama films]]
[[Category:American romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American romantic fantasy films]]
[[Category:Comedy of remarriage films]]
[[Category:Mad scientist films]]
[[Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction]]
[[Category:Nonlinear narrative films]]
[[Category:American psychological films]]
[[Category:Films about altered memories]]
[[Category:Films set in Long Island]]
[[Category:Films set in Manhattan]]
[[Category:Films shot in New York (state)]]
[[Category:Films shot in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Films directed by Michel Gondry]]
[[Category:Films scored by Jon Brion]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Charlie Kaufman]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]]
[[Category:Focus Features films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay BAFTA Award]]
[[Category:Films produced by Steve Golin]]

Talk:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-29T10:38:06Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* To Do on this Article */ updated what i've completed

{{Vital article|topic=Art|level=5|class=C}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Film|class=C|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=no|B-Class-5=yes|American-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Romance|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|class=C|importance=High}}
}}

==References to use==

:''Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.''
*{{cite book | editor-last=Grau | editor-first=Christopher | year=2009 | title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind | series=Philosophers on Film | publisher=Routledge | isbn=0415774659 }}
*{{cite book | last=Harbidge | first=Lesley | year=2009 | chapter=A New Direction in Comedian Comedy?: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', ''Punch-Drunk Love'' and the Post-Comedian Rom-Com | title=Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema | publisher=I. B. Tauris | pages=176–189 | isbn=1845117719 }}
*{{cite book | last=Miah | first=Andy | year=2009 | chapter='Blessed Are the Forgetful': The Ethics of Memory Deletion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' | title=Bioethics at the Movies | editor-last=Shapshay | editor-first=Sandra | publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]] | pages=137–155 | isbn=0801890772 }}
*{{cite book | last=Nungesser | first=Verena-Susanna | year=2009 | chapter=I Forgot to Remember (to Forget): Personal Memories in ''Memento'' (2000) and ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' (2004) | title=Mediation, Remediation, and the Dynamics of Cultural Memory | series=Media and Cultural Memory | publisher=Walter de Gruyter | isbn=3110204444 }}
*{{cite book | last=Walters | first=James | year=2008 | chapter=Return to Innocence: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' (Michael Gondry, 2004) | title=Alternative Worlds in Hollywood Cinema | publisher=Intellect Ltd | pages=81–104 | isbn=1841502022 }}
*{{cite book | last=Wartenberg | first=Thomas E. | year=2007 | chapter=Arguing against utilitarianism: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' | title=Thinking on Screen: Film as Philosophy | publisher=Routledge | pages=76–93 | isbn=0415774314 }}

==Clean-up==
===Cleaned up several sections===

There were several minor errors in various sections and some clunky prose that I cleaned up. There was also a bit of unnecessary detail IMHO about the scene where Joel and Clementine were watching a circus parade that didn't really fit in with that section about deleted and dropped scenes.[[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]]) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

===Reverted major changes that were made to the page without discussion===

It was my understanding that people shouldn't do major edits (like bagging an entire section and rewriting another) without explaining what they are doing here. I'm referring to the detailed linear chronology section and the plot one. IMHO, those two sections were fine the way they were and were in place for four years when someone decided to change them. So I'm changing them back. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 05:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 

===Tweaked the discussion about the looped ending===

Somebody really went out on a limb with an interpretation of the scene of Joel and Clementine playing in the snow meant "and they lived happily ever after"...With respect to that person, it's a nice interpretation, but it isn't supported by shooting script or comments made by Gondry or Kaufmann. So I got rid of that. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.252.102.65|71.252.102.65]] ([[User talk:71.252.102.65|talk]]) 03:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 

===Did a few more tweaks on the linear chronology===

I noticed that the chronology got shortened down some and for the most part, I think it looks better than when I last saw it. I did do a number of tweaks and added a bit more description of the final scenes.

===Did some tweaks on the analysis of the end===

I did a bit of editing on the last paragraph of the end section. I thought it was a bit too speculative in its interpretation of the snow scene. I am willing to discuss this with whoever made the change. But I really do think that it's better to say that this is one interpretation (based on the fact that we saw a snow-memory of Joel's getting erased and the hair color thing).

Frankly, I think when the snow scene during the credits took place is not terribly important. But at the same time, I've seen some people come along and deride this page for having content that extrapolates too much, and I figure that the paragraph as it was originally worded is like waving a red flag to a bull. But let me stress, I am willing to discuss this.

===Did Joel really overlook the skeleton drawing?===

I just watched the movie and my memory is that Joel didn't overlook his drawing of Clem as a skeleton when he gathered up things to bring to Lacuna. Don't we actually see him pull out the drawing during the "gathering things to bring to Lacuna" scene? That would imply he brought it. And the second time we see it is after Joel openshis file and is listening to the tape, so I assumed the drawing was part of his file (for some reason it wasn't among the items Patrick stole). I'm not sure about this so I won't change the page. I'm not going to go watch the movie again to check it, but I'm sure someone here is willing to watch for this next time they watch the movie.

:I've seen the movie a bunch of times, and I think that implication was clearly that Joel simply overlooked the sketch when he was clearing out Clementine's effects. He wasn't exactly going about it in a slow, methodical way, and I find it easy to believe that he could have overlooked it in the state that he was in. God knows that I've forgotten things when I have been distraught like Joel was.

::I agree with the first person. I believe that drawing of Clem with the body of the skeleton was part of the file that Joel received in the mail and not something that he forgot to bring with him to Lacuna. One reason is the color of Clem's hair. After Joel had the procedure and he met Clem (again) for the first time her hair was Blue. She must have changed it from orange to blue sometime between the last time Joel saw her before she had the procedure and when he met her again in Montauk. The color of her hair in the drawing was red. Red was the color her hair was before she dyed it orange. If he just happened to see that drawing the day he got his file from Lacuna in the mail then how was he was supposed to know it was a drawing of Clem? He had met Clem only two days before that (after his procedure) and he knew her with blue hair. It makes sense to think that drawing was something that was returned to him in the mail. Not everything that he brought with him to Lacuna was returned because Patrick stole most of it but that drawing was one of them. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I respectfully disagree with the people who think that the painting was in the file (does it really matter that much anyway?). Joel said to Clementine, "Look what I found" (indicating the painting). Moreover, he had obviously been tearing his apartment apart looking for evidence of their relationship. If he had just gotten the painting in the mail, he would have said something like, "Look at what was in my envelope." Besides, all their respective mementos were a lot more than what could be stuffed in a large envelope. But then, does it really matter? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.75.6.24|72.75.6.24]] ([[User talk:72.75.6.24|talk]]) 03:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

------I really feel in some odd way it does matter. First of all, I know that the people who made this movie emphasized certain things in a certain way for viewers to take notice. There is a purpose. It lets your imagination soar and think of those things and their significance/meaning/relevance, and the endless possibilities and combinations that we can create with our minds. It is also somehow clever because in the end you're STILL left wondering. I feel like there is a everlasting impression, in which I want to know the actual ending to their relationship but I will never know (and in turn, joel and clementine, as they are presented in the end, also wonder about the future of them as a couple. Despite those doubts, they do it anyway). This movie was based on the idea of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus"(according to my philosophy teacher)and therefore, a philosophical movie.The point of philosophy is to make you think. And this is exactly what this movie did.

*What i also found interesting was the fact that almost every character is left wondering about SOMETHING. Joel wonders what will happen, knowing that in the past they just broke up! Clem thinks the same. Dr. Howard is left wondering, thinking what if I did pursue this relationship with her instead of my wife? I wonder did anyone think about that, in general? It's crazy though (the idea) . And that's why i LOVE this movie even more now. All thanks to my class.
As he's cleaning he comes across a few letters and pauses and you know that he is reading them. You have to feel his anger. He seems ANGRY that he doesn't understand WHYY! and the fact that he's going crazy because of this. But yet, he's sad and just feels completely helpless. He looks at her baby picture and REMEMBERS to look at the back to see this signature or a note from Clem, or just the fact that he wanted to see her handwriting for the last time. But the fact that he does send this very powerful message through such a small/quick emphasis on a tiny detail! (an example..)

*To just comment on the first msg, I don't think that they showed anything of the skeleton painting. I think i didn't catch it, but it is the part when he's cleaning out stuff that reminds him of her, am i correct? I am really confused as to what you are talking about. I know it's the skeleton picture but where is it when he's cleaning?.
-angela
------
* <s>Why is Angelas' text (above) going off the right side of the page? :Please fix it. I dont't know how! (''Yet'')</s>
Fixed (hope its ok to have done so Angela) N.b. It was caused by a single '''''space''''' at the start of your sentence.
*Why aren't people signing? **Four 'tildes' remember?

[[Special:Contributions/220.101.28.25|220.101.28.25]] ([[User talk:220.101.28.25|talk]]) 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-----

===someone's question about memory scenes being correct===

someone posted a question about the memory scenes section asking if they were correct. I think the answer is pretty much yes (although I suppose there is always room for "happy" to "glad" type word changes

===Cleaned up the section on Joel's childhood===

I took a crack at cleaning up the language in the "Joel's childhood" section (moving part of it to the section about how erased memories appear and hopefully clarifying the lead-in sentences that someone added to the section.

===Science catching up to fiction...===

Memories Selectively, Safely Erased In Mice: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081022135801.htm —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JaffaCakeLover|JaffaCakeLover]] ([[User talk:JaffaCakeLover|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JaffaCakeLover|contribs]]) 11:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 

===Quick question===

... anyone else think Stan's a bit of an idiot because he's had his memory erased a few times? It IS brain damage, and I'm sure the good doctor wouldn't think twice to tweak his employees' brains rather than pay unemployment, or get sued, etc. Just a thought. I actually like the article. [[User:Phoenix frou|Phoenix frou]] 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's an interesting thought, but I figure that there's no evidence to suggest that. I suppose it would be something that Gondry or Kaufmann could answer.

::I don't believe Stan was like that because he had his memory erased a few times. First of all if the doctor wanted to, "tweak his employees' brains rather than pay unemployment, or get sued, etc," then Stan would have had to ''submit'' to the procedure. There's no way that the doctor could've done the procedure to anyone without their consent and no way that he could've ''tricked'' anyone into erasing their memory. Even if Stan wanted to erase some of his memories about something else the doctor couldn't have "''gone behind his back''" and erased different memories. All the memories that were to be erased had to be "mapped" before the procedure. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I got the impression that Stan was a bit of a stoner...smokes dope, drinks (maybe heavily), listens to really loud music, etc. You could get that way without having your memory zapped.

I don't know if the movie has inspired any fanfic, but I suppose someone who was into that could use that as a theme.

===and more===

actually i'm not really taking you into consideration. you're the problem here, one which i couldn't be bothered dealing with.

===constructive criticism===

Frankly, statements like "this tripe does not belong in Wikipedia" aren't terribly helpful. I assume that Wikipedia's amorphous standards call for people to say things like, "this section needs to be changed because..." or "this could be written in a format that consists of..." instead of things like "this sucks, and I'm not going to bother to tell you specifically why."

And as far as claims that I'm acting like I "own it," that is untrue. I have not objected to substantive alterations to the input that I have provided to it over the last two years. For example, I had no problems with someone reformatting most of my input from an "FAQ" that I did for the imdb.com site into something that looked a lot better and apparently conforms to wikipedia standards.

I'm just not willing to agree to deleting huge sections of the page without the person making such demands providing detailed reasons why such changes should be made.

===ergh===

Extremely poorly written. No, that is not subjective. It's just terrible. You're acting like you own this page. This tripe does not belong in wikipedia.

===hey, hey, hey===

The article has been pretty much the way it without anyone else objecting to its structure for over two years. I think "extremely poorly written" is pretty much a matter of opinion. I also think that trying to compress a movie as complex as ESOTSM into a one paragraph summation is not realistic and would pretty much moot the whole point of providing a "detailed chronology" (that readers are entirely free to skip). I also think that it's worth looking at how long the page for the movie "Memento" is as well. The chronology there is pretty long too.

This being said, I will take another look at the chronology and see if I can winnow it down some. However, I don't think that it's realistic to demand/ask/suggest what you're asking/demanding/suggesting. I'm more than willing to debate and discuss how this chronology can be improved. However, to do that, you've got to be specific in your criticisms (i.e. "get rid of all of it" is a pretty sweeping demand).

Also, I will remove the sentence that you find objectionable about why Clementine knew Patrick was a creep. I think it is not such an unreasonable inference to draw, but it is not worth getting in a fight over.

===hey, "hey, "alteration""===

The entire plot of the movie is far from encyclopaedic. I do agree that as its narrative is far from linear an outline of the chronological plot may be in order, but what we have here is overkill. I stress also that the material in question is incredibly poorly written. The fact that the entire plot is there isn't the problem, it's all of the extra bits and pieces that are thrown in - these are clear to see but I put down a few examples previously. You could coherently some up the chronological plot in a relatively small paragraph, this just isn't necessary.

If anybody with any authority in wikipedia was to stumble upon this apparently inactive article I'm quite sure they would agree with me.

Ergh. And I notice that extra bit has been put back in. I'm not going to remove it, what's the point. I might as well delete the whole damn thing. Seriously, this is ''poorly written'' material that does ''not belong in Wikipedia''. Move it to your website and add a link at the bottom for all our sakes.
I see you've repeated in response to me the same text as begins the entire thing (confusion on imdb), so I assume you're the original author. Move it to your website.

===hey, "alteration"===

I don't have a problem with you removing the speculation about why Clementine told Patrick to get away from her. But I DO have a problem with any changes to the synopsis of the film. YOU may find it rambling. But I do not, and I suspect a lot of other people do not either.

As for the level of detail, if you read the imdb.com postings about this, you would have been amazed at how much confusion that there was over the sequence of events in this movie. The detailed synopsis of the plot was designed to answer people's questions about what happened.

==alteration==

I deleted '(a logical explanation for that being that she had read his name in her file and realized that he was involved in the memory erasure process)' for two reasons. The first is that this is not a good explanation at all - would clementine really have sat down and read the file through in her injured state after the confrontation in Joel's car? The second is that either way we don't know, so let's not bother including anything on that matter.

I might add that this synopsis of the film is ''highly'' speculative. It rambles on and at points isn't as coherent as a wikipedia article should be. It strikes me as something which should go on the original authors website - it should be removed from this article.

Infact I'll take a few quotes to illustrate this:

'Patrick approaches Clementine on the steps to her building, but she angrily tells him to "get the fuck" away from her.' / 'Meanwhile, Mary has come over ostensibly to help Stan and Patrick with the procedure. However, given the fact that she and Stan kiss each other, it is obvious that she is there more to see Stan than to do any work.' / 'They travel back on the same train, and both find themselves --for them-- mysteriously drawn to each other.'

This is a poorly written and subjective blow by blow recount of the entire story and does not belong here.

// I agree with the fact that it is a poorly written summary of this movie. As the person above me said, it is meant to make you think (which is what philosophy is all about)...it's very broad, if you watch what happens...it's open for discussion...anything it possible. if you look at what I said in the section about Clems skeleton pic being over looked, i wrote that this film was based on the idea of Albert Camus' "Myth of Sisyphus", which was, Yes to life! You embrace it and to embrace your life, you must embrace both the good and the bad. And though you embrace it, at the same time, life is pointless and repetitive (just as if someone is working and they do it over and over and over, there is a reason! the reason is to make money...but what happens after? it is inevitable that death is going to come. and our bodies die. so the idea is simply put: what is the point of actions, if we are going to just die? that's how it is pointless and repetitive).
In simpler terms, Joel got what he asked for. He chose his fate. The moment he agreed to delete her from his mind, his fate was inevitable, and in a way sort of predestined just because it was inevitable, whether you're conscious of it or not.
My final point is that you cannot absolutely not write this summary in the way of YOUR vIEWS. And i'm not saying this to be mean or to tell you you're wrong, i'm saying this only because it will harm the thoughts of others who have not seen this movie...you can give your opinion but you must state that it is YOUR opinion and not the RIGHT way of thinking or anything like that. You should just give a very extremely brief explanation of what happens, not in detail.

Try not to state your opinion unless you have another article of text or an idea that proves your opinion/judgments/argument/idea, then you must compare and state how your evidence justifies your argument. until then do not mess this movie up for others. On top of that i agree that you didn't even give the correct details! at least be correct in what happens...it might be an interpretation of what you though but you shouldn't. it will influence others. and in a bad way too.
=angela

==speaking as the author of the dearly departed faq==

I have to really disagree with the the poster below who thinks the interpretation of the ending needs to be changed. He or she needs to read the interview in the back of the "script book" which quotes Kaufman as saying, more or less, "the hallway scene marked the end of the story and that it is up to the viewers to decide what happened." I agree that the passage below that states "Clementine" feels the same way is too speculative. But I stick to my guns that the way Joel said, "Okay" meant "I don't care." And if you look at the very end of the scene, and you study the expression on Winslet's face, its undeniable that at first, she's confused by what Joel said, and then she nods her head. Then they both start to laugh. How speculative is it to conclude that both characters were laughing because, "this is weird, weird, weird"? I don't think it is speculative at all. What is a bit more speculative is the conclusion that I drew that they had decided to live in the moment and not worry about what is preordained.

I really do believe as I stated before on the IMDB comments of this movie, that ESOTSM is sort of a psychological rohrschach test (inkblots). People who are pessimistic are likely to see a darker ending. People who aren't are more inclined to see a happier one. I think I take the middle course and say that it was a "hopeful" ending.

==overly specualtive interpretation of the ending, NEEDS to be changed==

This article speculates that joel and Clementine get back together at the end, even though the movie leaves it ambiguous. Although the last shot in the film is of the couple frolicking in the snow, Gondry and Kaufman both admit on the DVD commentary that this could be an earlier scene of the two, and does not neccesarily mean that they are back together. That information, taken with the fact that the WHOLE movie is out-of-order chronologically, means that you can't definitively say that they do get back together.

I'll quote what the wiki article says:

"Clementine...tells Joel that their relationship is bound to fail. Joel shrugs and says 'Okay' in a tone which indicates that he accepts that it will likely fail, but still wants to experience it. Clementine feels the same way. Both of them begin to laugh over the absurdity of the situation and with relief that they aren't going to walk away from what may turn out to be a rewarding relationship"

I think the whole "Clementine feels the same way" and "relief that they aren't going to walk away from what may turn out to be a rewarding relationship" part of this entry is bullshit and speculative. How does the author of this entry know how Kate Winslet's character feels at this point in the movie? And does Joel's "tone" of voice really indicate as much as this entry's author speculates?

This is all one person's interpretation of the film, when I saw it I thought the opposite, that they did not get back together. The last shot of them together in Montauk could be from any time in their relationship. But I don't insist that my interpretation is right and present it that way, as this page's author(s) did. The article should note the ambiguous nature of the ending and state that the film leaves it to the viewer to figure it out. If a registered user doesn't make those changes, I might just edit the page myself.

:I agree; go ahead and see what you can do. There is a lot of speculation about this film; most of it is very amateurish, anyway, and is not supported by the film. As Roger Ebert says, if it's not in the film, it doesn't exist. [[User:Paul Klenk|paul klenk]] [[User talk:Paul Klenk|talk]] 23:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

===more comments on the ending...===

Probably disrupting some compromise here but I think it has to be said... Currently the article states:

". Clementine tells Joel that their relationship is bound to fail, based on what they now know about it. However, Joel just shrugs and says "Okay" (indicating that he doesn't care about what may happen in the future)."

We don't actually know what the "okay" means, so... saying that it indicates that he doesn't care about what may happen in the future doesn't actually add anything to the article. There are three main scenarios as I see it. 1) "Okay" means that he doesn't care about what happens in the future and wants to give it a go in case it doesn't fail 2) it means that he doesn't care about what happens in the future so it's worth them getting back together even if it does fail or 3) that he's agreeing with her, it's bound to fail and they shouldn't get back together, indicating that he does care about what happens in the future. Not all the scenarios envisage him not caring about what may happen in the future so... that part should be deleted. In any case it's not for a Wikipedia article to imagine what a character in a film might possibly be thinking...

If no-one disagrees I will remove the bracketed line...?

-- [[User:Lochaber|Lochaber]] 00:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHOA. What's the deal with this "FAQ"? Is that encyclopedic?-[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 02:37, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

It could certainly be edited to make it so. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 04:22, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So--shall it be done? I'd be happy to start in on it... --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 04:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:I think my biggest problem with it isn't that it's in FAQ format — that's easy enough to fix — but that it's mostly just interpretation, and I'm wary of including that in an article, even with (or maybe especially with) a "some people think" tag at the front. -[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 06:56, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well--in the cases where the particular interpretation is widely accepted by critics and the like, I think it's appropriate. I'll look into it. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 19:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are all of those FAQ questions and answers your own work? [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 00:07, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Is your question directed to me? If so, the answer is no--I would have posted it under my own name. If your question is directed to the anon poster, I can't speak for him, but I believe it was his own work. I met him on the IMDb board for the movie, and invited him to incorporate his FAQ into the Wikipedia article. He posted it (without registering) but didn't integrate it, so rather than have it deleted, I thought I'd help with the process. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 00:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-Gah, the FAQ is annoying and should go.
:This article was good and in-depth until I came across the FAQ. Come on, this is a silly Q&A: "Did Joel slit his throat in one scene?" The FAQ should be made into a paragraph called trivia or something because there is some nice trivia such as the elephant parade scene for people that haven't watch/hear the DVD features. --[[User:Anonymous Cow|Anonymous Cow]] 21:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
----

I think the plot needs the part about how Mary finds out about the affair and the subsequent memory erasure right before Joel wakes up on Valentine's Day. Because this event served as a catalyst for how Joel and Clementine find out that each of their memories has been altered (Mary breaks into harold's office and sends all the former patients their info). I would do it but my memory is sketchy about the details. (no irony intended with that statement) [[User:Mimsie|Mimsie]] 00:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:It's there, in the linear chronology section. [[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 00:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

----

"Since this happened before Mary mailed out all of Lacuna's files and tapes to Mierzwiak's patients, there is no way that the cassette could have been either of the ones that Joel or Clementine made denouncing each other immediately prior to having their memories erased." - This doesn't necessarily have to be true... The discussion about the original intention for the credits being to show the cyclic nature of their relationship, I suppose it could possibly be that when we see Joel throw out the cassette, it wasn't in the first iteration of their relationship. However, I'll confess that this didn't occur to me until after reading this article and it's more likely just a solution looking for a problem...

I think it's overly specualtive to think they didn't get back together, or to think anything else in a movie like this, I do think that the page should say that they COULD have gotten back together, but to simply deny it completely is just stupid.

== Lacuna ==

Is the Lacuna link at the bottom of the page supposed to be a joke? Is this treatment real?

:It's a promotional website for the movie that was put up a few months before its release. The treatment is definitely not real. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 16:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Huckleberry Hound ==

This article states that the second time (chronologically) that Joel meets Clementine, he says he doesn't know the song "Clementine" or anything about Huckleberry Hound. It explains the fact that he knew about both the first time he met Clementine by saying that knowledge was too closely tied in with the relationship and so was deleted from his mind. I think it is much more likely that Joel decides not to say he knows the "Clementine" or Huckleberry Hound. Why he might decide to do this, however, is very much unclear.
:I think Joel honestly doesn't remember the song. Why do you think he does remember it? Oh, you say the reason is unclear. Well in that case, let me urge you to reconsider the position that he does not remember it, because at least this position has a clear reason; the memory was deleted. When Joel first mentions the song, he also mentions that his mother used to sing it to him. At another point of the movie, they actually show a scene where his mother is singing the song to him, and then show the scene get deleted. It's not only the obvious conclusion that the song was deleted, it's more or less explicit. -[[User:Lethe/sig|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe/sig|Talk]] 22:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

:It's pretty clear Joel doesn't consciously remember neither Clementine nor the song at that point in the movie. They have been erased. Why would he lie, anyway? [[User:Andran|Andran]] 07:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
::It seemed to me that the significance of his not remembering the references was to further the notion that memories are more deeply linked than we might expect; rather than just reflecting on his former girlfriend, his memories of her also tie into many other parts of his consciousness. He couldn't remove her without removing other things significantly tied to his personality.
:::But that is not the only interpretation. First of all, I think it's safe to assume that the only memories that got deleted were the ones that we saw got deleted. We saw the entire process from beginning to end (or rather from end to beginning). Also, I don't think that if what Joel said on the beach was true, that it was his favorite doll when was little and that his mom used to sing that song to him all the time, then I don't think that the one memory of his mom bathing him in the sink would have been the ''only'' memory he had about Huckleberry Hound or the Clementine song. So even if that one memory of his mom bathing him in the sink was erased then I don't think that would have caused him to forget all about Huckleberry Hound or the doll. Someone asked why would he lie about not knowing about it? Well, maybe it was because she just got finished telling him that she didn't want to hear any jokes about her name. Maybe he said he didn't know any because he was trying to get her to like him and he didn't want to make fun of her. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I do think that is a way too speculative theory. As it is a movie it has its temporal limitations, thus it can’t show every single time Joel was thinking of Huckleberry Hound. Joel’s memories of Huckleberry Hound are connected to his memories of Clementine – as she interferes with his childhood memories. Nothing what so ever suggests he is lying to Clementine, everything in the plot suggests that those memories were deleted. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.107.76.118|62.107.76.118]] ([[User talk:62.107.76.118|talk]]) 14:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) 

Arthy: I think in chronologically first time, we have no way of knowing whether he knew the song or not - because what we are seeing is Joel's casting of his mind - it could be well that he learnt it from the present and tried to be smarter in his memory.. like he did in another occasion - i.e., letting her know that patrick is stealing his identity - which he ofcourse didnt know in the past! — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.228.112.22|216.228.112.22]] ([[User talk:216.228.112.22|talk]]) 00:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC) 

== Deleted FAQ ==
That FAQ was annoying me so I fucking deleted it.

That is all. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:67.23.58.96|67.23.58.96]] ([[User talk:67.23.58.96|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.23.58.96|contribs]]) 02:43, 30 March 2005

:Your actions were pretty rude and probably vandalism. But you know...? I kinda don't like the FAQ either. -[[User:Lethe/sig|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe/sig|Talk]] 03:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

== Montauk next day ==
Both Joel and Clem go back to Montauk the very next day and I found that peculiar while watching it. However, they did account for it if you think about the chronology. Clem whispers in Joel's ear, in the final memory to be erased "maybe in Montauk", which could be construed as a subliminal message still left behind about something wonderful happening there.

Similarly, Clem is reliving some of her experiences with Patrick, who's using Joel's and Clem's memories. This may have served to reawaken in her some memories of Montauk as well, and cause her to go there. Do you think this bears mentioning in the article? Otherwise, forget it. --[[User:70.50.113.170|70.50.113.170]] 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Did Clem say in the final memory to be erased "maybe in Montauk" or did she say "meet me in Montauk"? [[User:Rhallanger|Rhallanger]] 05:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think she clearly said "Meet me in Montauk". -CGK

== Lacuna (the word) ==

I don't know where in the article to put this, but the word 'lacuna' is italian for 'empty' or 'gap', and I think the significance of that word choice is worth noting. It might also be worth stating a reference to the band [[Lacuna Coil]], the title of which translates to 'empty spiral'.

[[User:SonOfNothing|SonOfNothing]] 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:In might be worth noting just in case someone doesn't know the word. It's originally Latin for pit or hole, and the Oxford English Dictionary defines "lacuna" as
:* 1. In a manuscript, an inscription, the text of an author: A hiatus, blank, missing portion.
:* 2. Chiefly in physical science: A gap, an empty space, spot, or cavity.
:--[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 17:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

::It could go under trivia, no?
::[[User:OrisDeInferi|Inferi]] 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

== Huckleberry Hound and Joel being an active part of memories ==

Here is what I interpreted about the Huckleberry Hound motif:

Joel never connect Clementine's name with Huckleberry Hound unless she prompts him to. That is to say, when they're on the train, he doesn't make the connection until she tells him "don't make fun of my name." Whether or not he's aware of Huckleberry Hound doesn't matter.
The reason why he sings it during the memory of the party at Montauk is because this is one of the memories that he takes an active role in while it is being erased. Remember how Clementine says "This is it...etc." This shows that this memory is the type that the article calls number 4, "Memories in which Joel is a participant but can "break character" and change the way the scene turns out." He knows the Huckleberry Hound reference already, and he brings it up. However, when he's on the train, he doesn't make the connection, because, obviously, he doesn't know her.

:Your interpretation doesn't work, and the movie makes this thing pretty clear: when Joel is in the train with Clem he doesn't remember the song because it's been already erased by Lacuna employees. ''He does know the song'', he just cannot remember it. However, when he met Clementine for the first time, back in the beach house, he did remember the song because it was from Huckleberry Hound, a cartoon from his childhood. No need for him to "break character"... that part of his memory is just as it happened the first time :-) It's not because he "knows the reference" from the train, which would be impossible since the train meeting hasn't happened yet! [[User:Andran|Andran]] 07:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with the above poster; that interpretation does not work, and the movie makes it clear as crystal. --[[User:Shinramen1313|Shinramen1313]] 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::That's not fair, you are basically saying that his interpretation is wrong because you already have an interpretation. There could very well be more than one way to intrepret the movie. What does, "he does know the song, he just can't remember it," mean? You said that there was no "need" for him to break character but that doesn't mean that he ''couldn't'' have broken character. In fact, he was ''already'' breaking character and actively participating in that memory long before they got to the house. Remember when he was talking about her sweater, the one that he'd "grow to love, then eventually hate"? At that point he was talking about things that happened long after the memory he was in at that time. Just because your interpretation makes sense to you that doesn't mean another one would be impossible. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::One more thing. I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, I'm just saying that the other one is possible too. And also, I don't think that the first person meant that "he knew the reference ''from the train''" because obviously you are right, that part hadn't happened yet. But still, at that point, Joel had just gotten out of a relationship with her after two years, so he could've remembered the song from the time he spent with her. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Script trivia ==

Not sure where to include it in the article, but the original script called for a follow-up scene showing an elderly Clementine going in for a memory erasure. The implication being that the two had gone through this dozens of times over their lifetimes.

==Summary addition==
This article seems fairly complete, but for some reason I confused it with another one, so had thought of a sentence and wonder if it is worth fitting in. "This poses the question that if, given the chance to make the same choice afresh, whose outcome which we regard in hindsight as a mistake, we make the same choice, can we really regard the original choice as a mistake?" Bit verbose and untidy, yep, but it made sense to me at the time! [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

== Split proposal for "movie soundtrack" section ==

I added it because although it relates to a movie and music, this article currently has 37K and the main article and its soundtrack section need ''splitting'' issues. [[User:69.227.173.21|69.227.173.21]] 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
:I support the spilt. [[User:58.170.77.140|58.170.77.140]] 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:I support the split, as well. The movie and the soundtrack are definitely related, but they ought to have their own articles.--[[User:Evadb|Evadb]] 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
:+1 for the split --[[User:Emc2|Emc²]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emc2&action=edit&section=new Contact me] [[Image:Nuvola_apps_email.png|16px]]) 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:This looks like a consensus to me. And over a month has passed with no objections. I'm making the split. [[User:Elvrum|Elvrum]] 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:I recently added an edit to this section concerning the synchronization of this movie to an album- I'm not terribly familiar with wikipedia's formatting/sectioning rules, so I put it where I thought it would most be appropriate. It, however, is not related to the soundtrack of the movie itself. [[User:71.126.59.133|71.126.59.133]] 06:32, 8 July 2006 (EST)

== Just Fixed The Image ==

I Know the poster was a canidate for speedy deletion, so I speedily uploaded another one and cited my sources, if anyone fixes the other one, feel free to put it back in the article
[[User:KaufmanIsAwesome|KaufmanIsAwesome]] 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

== Props ==
Not NPOV, and certainly not correct tone for an encyclopedia. [[User:FerventDove|FerventDove]] 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

==Problems with General focus of the article==
While a large proportion of the article is fine, much of it is rife with [[WP:OR]] [[WP:CITE|unsourced]] analysis. There are a lot of sentences that start with 'this might mean', 'is appears that' and the like. None of this is within the scope of a wikipedia article on a movie. ALL analysis must be sourced to a 3rd party. I'm going to start chopped large chunks of text that are, in my opinion, impossible to successfully edit to conform to WP standards. [[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup tag ==

I added a clean up tag, because the article is unfocused and disorganised. It needs asserted work on tone, sourcing, order, detail (more in some areas, less in others) and less opinion statements. I am willing to help, but it probably needs a few heads together. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==Chopped memory reconsolidation section==
I chopped this section, because, although it is interesting and has cites, there is no cite linking the research to the movie, making it OR.

:''===Consistence with theories about memory [[reconsolidation]]===
:Several aspects of the method for memory erasure are actually in good agreement with recent scientific findings. It was found, that [[consolidation]] of [[memories]] does not necessarily lead to a permanent fixation. Rather, retrieval of a memory can render it susceptible to several amnestic agents such as protein synthesis inhibition (PSI) <ref>Nader, K., G.E. Schafe, and J.E. Le Doux, Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature, 2000. 406(6797): p. 722-6 </ref> and [[electroconvulsive shock]] (ECS)<ref>Misanin, J.R., R.R. Miller, and D.J. Lewis, Retrograde amnesia produced by electroconvulsive shock after reactivation of a consolidated memory trace. Science, 1968. 160(827): p. 554-5</ref>. After initial training, these agents become more and more ineffective as the memory is consolidated unless the memory is retrieved. Retrieval obviously induces a state of lability which needs a process termed reconsolidation in order to refix the labile memory. Further research elucidated, that recently established memories can be disrupted more easily (with lower doses of amnestic agent or fewer retrieval trials) than older ones<ref>Suzuki, A., et al., Memory reconsolidation and extinction have distinct temporal and biochemical signatures. J Neurosci, 2004. 24(20): p. 4787-95</ref>. Ongoing research now aims at the therapeutical application of the reconsolidation phenomenon for treatment of maladaptive memories such as [[PTSD]]. It was found that the drug [[propranolol]], a β-adrenergic receptor antagonist, can disrupt reconsolidation of auditory fear conditioning in mice<ref>Debiec, J. and J.E. Ledoux, Disruption of reconsolidation but not consolidation of auditory fear conditioning by noradrenergic blockade in the amygdala. Neuroscience, 2004. 129(2): p. 267-72</ref>.
''
[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 10:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
* Good call Ashmoo. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
** I don't understand how that makes it original research. I thought original research meant that it wasn't cited. You can say that it's not specifically about the movie itself but that's not the same thing as [[WP:OR|OR]]. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

***Unsourced means that its not cited. Original research means that it is an original idea that is not "academically" notable or significantly represented in secondary sources. Inclusion on this article, given that it is not specifically about the movie, makes it original research. Ie, original research that the topics outlined relate to this movie. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== Chopped Lacuna Inc section==
I have also chopped the following section, as it seem to just be a reiteration of details that have previously been mentioned (twice) in the plot section.

<blockquote>
===Lacuna, Inc.===
The fictional Lacuna Inc. was the brainchild of Dr. Howard Mierzwiak who after years of [[neurobiology|neurobiological]] research developed a painless method for identifying and erasing specific memories. [http://www.lacunainc.com/ Lacuna Inc] was founded to provide a research facility for the development of this procedure. Over the years, the project has progressed from a mere idea into a full-blown medical service.

After a patient decides what memory it is going to have erased, there is some initial preparation that goes into a successful procedure. The patient is instructed to collect any items or mementos that have any ties to the memory or memories being targeted. These items will be used by the Lacuna team during and disposed of following the procedure. This is to ensure that the patient will not have any inexplicable items after the memory erasure.

While connected to a [[brain]] scanning device, the patient is instructed to look at the items, and while reexperiencing the unwanted memories technicians scan brain activity, allowing them to chart and record where the memories are located. The team of Lacuna technicians will use the information they have received from the patient to construct a map of the memory. They will then use this map to extract the memory from the patient's mind.

Following the map created specifically for every patient, that patient takes a [[sedative]]. A team then uses a device that systematically retriggers all the memories they have recorded. As they are retriggered, the targeted memories gradually dissolve while the device erases them. The procedure works on a reverse time-line, which means it begins with the most recent memories and goes backwards in time. This approach is designed to target the psychological core that every memory builds on. By eradicating the core, Lacuna technicians are able to make the entire memory dissolve. When the patient wakes from the surgery, they remember nothing.

In addition, Lacuna Inc. sends a letter to the friends and family of the patient, explaining that the patient is erasing the memory of a particular human and asking the recipients to never mention that human to the patient again.
</blockquote>

[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

==Chopped 'childhood' and 'Mary Sveno' sections==
I've chopped some more text. These, while interesting, as totally unsourced and simply commentaries on possible interpretations of the film. They would be better suited to someone's personal fan page on the film. I think we need to keep the article as encyclopediac as possible.

<blockquote>
===Joel's childhood===
The memory of Clementine that Joel's subconscious interacts with suggests that he somehow hid her in other memories in which she did not belong. The apparent idea behind this was that this would preserve Joel's memories of Clementine from the erasure procedure. Joel therefore conjures memories from his early childhood (the scenes in his mother's kitchen), and when this tactic fails, his memory of Clementine urges him to hide her "in his humiliation."

These turn out to be scenes in which his mother walks in on him masturbating and where bullies pressure him into hitting a dead bird with a hammer. The latter scene was meant to express a common early memory, when children are forced by others to do things they don't want to, something Jim Carrey revealed in an interview included as an extra on the DVD.

Hiding Clementine causes problems with the memory-erasing procedure, and leads Dr. Mierzwiak to come over to Joel's apartment to help Stan, which leads to Mary's discovery of her past relationship with the doctor. In turn, this precipitates Mary's decision to mail to all of Lacuna's clients their files (which leads to Joel and Clementine discovering that they have had a tumultuous past relationship).

===Mary Svevo===
There are several hints early in the movie that foreshadow Mary's previous relationship with Mierzwiak. The first is the way that she looks and acts around him when Joel first comes into the clinic. Then, when she comes over to see Stan during Joel's procedure, she speaks flatteringly of Mierzwiak's intellect, saying that he should be quoted in [[Bartlett's]]. Stan gives a look of exasperation at her fawning over the doctor. When Mierzwiak does come over, she proceeds to fawn over him and mentions some obscure quotes, apparently ones she had used on the doctor before her memory erasure, since Mierzwiak is familiar with them.

Late in the movie, Mary makes her feelings known to the doctor, and they eventually kiss. Mrs. Mierzwiak shows up and in the confrontation that follows, Mary learns that she had had a relationship with Mierzwiak, and she let him erase her memory of it. Devastated, Mary goes to the Lacuna office and listens to her tape. (In a deleted portion of this scene, there is a bit of dialogue in which we learn that Mary had a natal abortion in the wake of the affair.) Mary clears out her desk, steals all Lacuna's files and tapes, and mails them to their clients, on the grounds that the procedure is a mistake.

It is unclear what Stan knew about Mary's relationship with Mierzwiak or her undergoing the memory-erasure procedure. At the end of the movie, he emphatically claims that he didn't, that he only saw the two together one night, and that she looked "happy with a secret", but that he only had suspicions. However, when Mierzwiak comes over, Stan is noticeably agitated, not just because of Joel's procedure being a mess, but of Mary being there. He also honks his van's horn when Mrs. Mierzwiak arrives to warn the two former lovers of her arrival.
</blockquote>
[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

::The subplot of Mary's prior relationship with Mierzwiak is pretty important, though. It's clear from the tape that there was a degree of coercion involved in having her memory wiped; it not only provides a plot mechanic for Joel and Clementine to discover their original memories, it also is part of a chain of abuses of the procedure you see throughout the film (Paul, Stan and Mary's partying, Paul's attempt to use details of her memories to seduce her), culminating in Joel's attempt to resist the wipe. Her re-awakened feelings echoes the cycle of memory and forgetfulness in the rest of the movie. [[Special:Contributions/71.56.127.236|71.56.127.236]] ([[User talk:71.56.127.236|talk]]) 04:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

== True Ending? Joel cried and thrown away the tape? ==

I'd like to raise a discussion on the true ending of the film.

Just after showing the credits in the beginning of the film, Joel cried and thrown away a tape. Is it chronologically after the 'okay' scene near the end of the film? If no, when did it happen? If no, where did this tape come from?

Please keep this discussed. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Llf|Llf]] ([[User talk:Llf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Llf|contribs]]) 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 
:I think that scene is just before he gets his memory erased, and the tape he's listening to is a mixtape you can hear playing in the background in another scene. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

== Connections to the song meet me in montauk ==

Even though it was not confirmed by the band circa survive should it be put on this article? [[Special:Contributions/98.73.10.215|98.73.10.215]] ([[User talk:98.73.10.215|talk]]) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

== Special Features ==

Is there a need to describe the contents of the DVD in that much detail? [[User:Farslayer|Farslayer]] ([[User talk:Farslayer|talk]]) 10:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:No. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 12:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== Question about "Meet me in Montauk" ==

I don't understand how the plot allowed Clementine to whisper that 'message' to Joel during his attempt to escape the erasure process. Was "meet me in Montauk" a preserved memory or a brand new thought? It's the only thing that still confuses me!! [[User:Adambisset|Adambisset]] ([[User talk:Adambisset|talk]]) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
==Real life memory erasure==
I added the following:
:The journal [[Nature Neuroscience]] reported in February 2009 that beta blockers can erase memories. Beta blockers interferes with this re-creation of the stressful memory - and prevents the brain renewing it. Wide-scale use of the drug was a long way off.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Derbyshire|first=David |date=16th February 2009|title=Pill to erase bad memories: Ethical furore over drugs 'that threaten human identity' |journal=[[Daily Mail]]|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145777/Pill-erase-bad-memories-Ethical-furore-drugs-threaten-human-identity.html|accessdate=16th February 2009}}</ref>
[[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

== young bully ==

Is it Paulie Litt or Josh Flitter that plays the 'young bully' character, as on this pagge it says Paulie Litt, but on the Josh Flitter page it says he played it. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.246.201.101|84.246.201.101]] ([[User talk:84.246.201.101|talk]]) 10:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 

== Hey, let's discuss this thing about the chronology ==

I don't know why the linear chronology --which has been up for the last few years without controversy-- seems to make people want to delete it without any discussion. It was my understanding that people on Wikipedia are supposed to discuss and negotiate major changes on this page and not just do them.

So let's talk about the linear chronology. It's my position that it's essential to understand the plot of the movie. I can't count the number of times I've seen people asking questions about what happened and getting important facts about the story wrong. I don't think that simply stating the sequence of events in a chronological statement constitutes "original research"...If I had interviewed Gondry and Kaufman and posted my interview there without publishing it elsewhere, it would be original research, but why is simply stating the events as shown "original research"?

I did move it further down the page since I can see why some people might find it too long to be at the top.

:per [[WP:PLOT]], our coverage of fiction works should be a ''brief'' summary/synopsis of the work, which the current plot does fine. A scene-by-scene description is not appropriate, and is also boarding on [[WP:OR|original research]] since some of these facts are not specifically made clear by the movie and only hint at what may have been possibilities. Now, arguably the linear chronology is not a scene-by-scene but its close enough to fall in area of things we don't include. Now, if you can show through sources that this chronology is critical to the work, then we can probably keep it, but I've not seen anything like that. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I don't see myself just saying, "Well, Masem says so it must be so." That chronology was up for years before you came along. Can't we compromise here? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 00:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 

Look life is short...How about this, I post the chronology on my blog and we include it as one additional resource? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 

:We already have a chronology - that's the plot summary which is told in the same order as the attempted detailed chronology. Sure, it doesn't attempt the level of detail for the specifics, but it follows along as it's supposed to, instead of trying to follow the scene-for-scene aspects of the work (which are out of chronological order). Our goal on WP is to inform the general reader - one who may never have seen or will likely seen - the work in question, so we don't go into such detail. A detailed examination of the work is uncalled for, unless that work has received significant critical analysis to merit that (something like [[MacBeth]] or [[Hamlet]]. Without sourcing beyond the primary work, any further details about the movie are excessive and potentially violating other policies like [[WP:OR]].
:As for using your blog, well, that's not a reliable source, so we can't include it as a resource, but that's not stopping the inclusion of a reliable source that details the plot of the movie to be used instead. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, there's nothing wrong with listing as a source a movie review or what not that has errors in it, but listing as a source someone who has studied the film is. Sigh, there's no point in debating this. I disagree with you, but you're an administrator, so I know I'm not going to win. Congratulations.[[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]]) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, that's how we source things - mind you, if there's obvious errors in a review, we ignore those, but if its intepretive errors, there's not much we can do about that. But don't despair that easily. Look at [[Memento (film)|Memento]] (a similarly convoluted presentation in terms of chronology); the first reference from Salon.com is a detailed analysis of the film. That's the type of source that would be useful to include here if someone has done a similar approach. This film had similar praise, so it may be a matter of just looking for the right sources (don't forget google books and scholar! there's plenty of hits that a spot check shows, I just don't know how details and which ones are more about the origin of the title vs the movie itself). --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

== Frames of reference - wrong example ==
In the Frames of reference section the article says: "5. Memories in which Joel relives various moments of his childhood with Clementine in the place of one of the people in the memory (e.g., Joel masturbating)." This example is not very good as there is no clear indication of Clementine replacing someone else in this scene. A better and clearer example of this would be when Joel is playing under the kitchen table and Clementine replaces the role of Miss. Hailin (or something), his mother's friend.

:Please don't remove my topic just because I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor. The example I am mentioning above is misleading and must be changed.

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=756742856 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813151310/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''InternetArchiveBot''']] ([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 15:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

== To Do on this Article ==

I will make the following changes (unless people have other ideas) in about two months. If others in the meantime can contribute these changes I would be very grateful.

INFOBOX
*<s>Find who designed the poster for its caption</s> unnecessary as it is a still.

LEAD
*Expand to include details on production, television show
*3 paragraphs is a good amount to aim for
*<s>Remove excess sources for non-controversial points</s>

PLOT
*<s>Complete a better plot summary if possible</s>
*<s>Replace some excessive words, such as "Joel was devastated"</s>
*<s>Add a Wikilink for Montauk train station</s>

CAST
*<s>Attempt to find a good source for Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet being on set for narration over their younger selves lines</s> Could not find anything on this, apart from [[https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/66498531968715168/?lp=true|this]] picture.
*<s>Attempt to find a good source for Mary's abortion</s> found a website, which I had previously written off as not a reliable source due to it's name (Bitchflicks). However, while the website itself obviously has it's feminist agenda, the information is directly from the directors commentary, so it does not show bias.
*<s>Find any information on Elijah Wood</s> could not find any information on Wood, except for [[http://www.aboutfilm.com/features/eternalsunshine/wood.htm|this]], which contains more trivial information than encyclopedic.

PRODUCTION
*<s>Try to find more information on the editing process, as it being in the production section seems a bit dubious, being that it already is in a section called Production. If more information can be found on the editing, there can be a section on Principle photography and Post-production</s> Changed title of section, per article on [[Departures (2008 film)|Departures]].
*<s>Find when production on Human Nature began, or at least when Gondry and Kaufman meet. This is as the script to Eternal Sunshine was sold in 1998, while Human Nature was released in 2001. However, Human Nature's script was developed in 1996, and Kaufman and Gondry could have met then, or Gondry could have started his directorial role later.<s> I honestly think it's impossible to know without asking those involved, as there are no sources relating to it. On one hand, the pitch was purchased in June 1998. It's a safe bet to say Gondry and Kaufman would have been working on this for less than six months, given that in numerous interviews Kaufman has stated the pitch was easy, and it was writing the script that was difficult. This means they would have got together in early 1998. Steven Soderbergh was originally attached to direct Human Nature, but he dropped it for Out of Sight. Out of Sight was released in October of 1998, so it can be safe to assume that Soderbergh was first attached in mid-1997, thus Gondry would have been attached soon after, in late 1997. Thus is too close too call, and is venturing into original research, and into [[wp:RGR]], and I will be leaving the claim in the article as it is supported by reliable sources.
*<s>Remove some blank space on the quotes section</s>

RELEASE
*Focus reviews on different areas of acclaim; cinematography, music, portrayals, script.
*Gondry's experience in music videos could be moved to an analysis section
*<s>Make a table for the accolades section, such as in [[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001's page]], or [[Prometheus (2012 film)|Prometheus's page]]</s>

ANALYSIS
*Add this section into the page. There are many sources to include here, which a contributor has placed [[Talk:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind#References to use|here]
*Place this section below the music section, as this will stop the album's infobox influencing the references
*Stills from the film can be added to this section under fair use

SEE ALSO SECTION
*<s>Psychological Thriller is a bit redundant.</s>

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 17:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-29T10:37:58Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: ce+

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox film
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| image = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.png
| alt = A man and a woman lying on a sheet of ice, there is a large crack in the ice beside them.
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Michel Gondry]]
| producer = {{ubl|[[Steve Golin]]|Anthony Bregman}}
| screenplay = [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| story = {{ubl|Charlie Kaufman|Michel Gondry|[[Pierre Bismuth]]}}
| starring = {{Plainlist|
* [[Jim Carrey]]
* [[Kate Winslet]]
* [[Kirsten Dunst]]
* [[Mark Ruffalo]]
* [[Elijah Wood]]
* [[Tom Wilkinson]]
}}
| music = [[Jon Brion]]
| cinematography = [[Ellen Kuras]]
| editing = [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| studio = {{ubl|[[Anonymous Content]]|[[This is that corporation|This is That]]}}
| distributor = [[Focus Features]]
| released = {{Film date|2004|03|19}}
| runtime = 108 minutes
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $20 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |title = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind |work = [[Box Office Mojo]] |url = http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm }}</ref>
| gross = $72.3 million<ref name="BOM" />
}}

'''''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''''' is a 2004 American [[science fiction]] [[romantic comedy]] film written by [[Charlie Kaufman]] and directed by [[Michel Gondry]]. It follows an estranged couple who have erased each other from their memories, then, started dating again. [[Pierre Bismuth]] created the story with Kaufman and Gondry. The [[ensemble cast]] includes [[Jim Carrey]], [[Kate Winslet]], [[Kirsten Dunst]], [[Mark Ruffalo]], [[Elijah Wood]], and [[Tom Wilkinson]]. The title of the film is a quotation from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].

The film uses elements of the [[psychological thriller]] and a [[nonlinear narrative]] to explore the nature of [[memory]] and [[romantic love]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|work=Slant Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 25, 2004}}</ref> It opened in [[North America]] to wide acclaim on March 19, 2004, and grossed over $70 million worldwide. It won the [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay]], and Winslet received a nomination for [[Academy Award for Best Actress]]. The film developed a [[cult following]] in the years after its release and many critics now regard it as one of the greatest films of the 21st century.<ref>The film was ranked #6 on the [[BBC]]'s list of the 100 best films of the 21st century, compiled from a survey of 177 film critics. {{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films |title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films |date=August 23, 2016 |website=[[BBC]] |accessdate=August 16, 2017}} See also {{cite web|last1=Dargis|first1=Manohla|last2=Scott|first2=A.O. |title=The 25 Best Films of the 21st Century...So Far |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html |date=Jun 9, 2017 |website=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2017}}</ref>

==Plot==
[[File:Montauk LIRR train station.jpg|thumb|Train station of Montauk where Joel and Clementine meet each other again after erasing of their memories.|alt=]]
Shy, soft-spoken Joel Barish and unrestrained free spirit Clementine Kruczynski begin a relationship on a [[Long Island Rail Road]] train from [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]] to [[Rockville Centre, New York|Rockville Centre]]. Joel and Clementine almost immediately connect, feeling drawn to each other despite their contrasting personalities, and both had felt the need to travel to Montauk that day. Although they do not realize it, they are former lovers, now separated after having dated for two years.

After a fight a few days earlier, Clementine hires the New York City firm Lacuna, Inc. to [[Memory erasure|erase all of her memories]] of their relationship. Upon discovering this from his friends Rob and Carrie, Joel is saddened and decides to undergo the procedure himself, a process that takes place while he sleeps.

Much of the film subsequently takes place in Joel's mind, during this memory erasure procedure. Joel finds himself revisiting his memories of Clementine [[reverse chronology|in reverse]], starting from the disintegration of their relationship. As he comes across happier, positive memories of Clementine early in his relationship, he decides to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her, trying to evade the procedure by taking his idealized memory of Clementine into [[False memory|memories not linked to her]] or waking up to stop the process. Despite his efforts, the technicians steadily erase his memories. He comes to the last remaining memory of Clementine, the day he had first met her at a beach house in Montauk. As this memory disintegrates around them, she tells him, "Meet me in Montauk."

The film features separate, but related, story arcs revolving around the employees of Lacuna during Joel's memory erasure. Patrick, one of the Lacuna technicians performing the erasure, uses Joel's memories and mannerisms to seduce and romance Clementine. Mary, the Lacuna receptionist, is dating the other memory-erasing technician, Stan, but has feelings for Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, a married doctor and the head of Lacuna. During Joel's memory wipe, Mary discovers she had previously had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and agreed to have this erased from her memory when Dr. Mierzwiak's wife found out. On learning this, she asks Stan whether he knew about this, to which he claims that he did not. Mary then quits her job and steals the company's records, mailing them to all of Lacuna's customers.

The film returns to the present after Joel and Clementine have met at the [[Montauk station|train station of Montauk]]. They both come upon their Lacuna records later that day, and react with shock and bewilderment – they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel pleads with Clementine to restart their relationship; Clementine initially resists, pointing out it could go the same way. Joel accepts this, and they decide to try anyway.

==Cast==
{{multiple image
| direction = vertical
| width = 175
| footer = Top to bottom: [[Jim Carrey]] and [[Kate Winslet]] play Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski respectively
| image1 = Jim Carrey 2008.jpg
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Kate Winslet by Andrea Raffin.jpg
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
}}

* [[Jim Carrey]] as Joel Barish: An introvert who enters a two-year relationship with Clementine Kruczynski. After their relationship ends, Clementine erases Joel from her memory, and he erases her from his mind in response. [[Charlie Kaufman]] wrote Joel with autobiographical personality traits.<ref name=":11" /> Producers cast Carrey against type for his role as Joel,<ref name=":11" /> selecting him for his regular appearance, as well as his comedic ability. According to Gondry, this was as "It's hard to be funny. It's far easier to take someone really funny and bring them down than do the opposite."<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/michel-gondry-on-mood-indigo-kanye-west-and-the-10th-anniversary-of-eternal-sunshine|title=Michel Gondry on ‘Mood Indigo,’ Kanye West, and the 10th Anniversary of ‘Eternal Sunshine’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=July 19, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> To make Carrey, an actor who typically portrayed high-energy roles, play a restrained character, Gondry prevented him from improvising, a restriction he did not place on the other members of the cast. Carrey did not like this.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/undercover-indies-what-makes-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-so-unforgettable/|title=Undercover Indies: What Makes ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ So Unforgettable?|last=Placa|first=Kaia|date=March 31, 2017|website=Film Independent|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry would also put Carrey off balance by giving wrong orders or by rolling the camera at the wrong time. Gondry believed this would make Carrey forget what he should do to be Joel, allowing him to go in character.<ref name=":11" /> In the 2017 [[Netflix]] documentary ''[[Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond|Jim & Andy]]'', Carrey mentions a conversation with Gondry one year before shooting began for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', shortly after Carrey had a breakup with an unspecified woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrey-life-is-too-beautiful/|title=Carrey: 'Life Is Too Beautiful'|last=Leung|first=Rebecca|date=November 18, 2004|website=CBS News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry saw that Carrey's emotional state at the time was "so beautiful, so broken" and asked him to stay that way for one year to fit the character. In the documentary, Carrey commented, "That's how fucked up this business is."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wtop.com/entertainment/2017/11/review-jim-carrey-possessed-by-andy-kaufman-in-documentary-jim-andy/|title=Review: ‘Jim & Andy’ documents Jim Carrey’s journey into his own ‘Tru-Man’|last=Fraley|first=Jason|date=November 30, 2017|website=wtop.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/jim-andy-great-beyond-venice-2017-1035248|title='Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond': Film Review {{!}} Venice 2017|last=Rooney|first=David|date=September 5, 2017|website=The Hollywood Reporter|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> [[Nicolas Cage]] was Gondry's original choice to play Joel,<ref name=":12" /> but Cage was unable to do the role as he was in high demand from independent directors after his performance in ''[[Leaving Las Vegas]]''.<ref name=":14" />
:* Ryan Whitney as young Joel
* [[Kate Winslet]] as Clementine Kruczynski: A spontaneous extrovert who, after breaking up with Joel Barish after a two-year relationship, erases him from her mind. Producers cast Winslet against type for her part as Clementine,<ref name=":11" /> as Winslet had previously featured heavily in period pieces.<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/kate-winslet-on-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2419277|title=No Corsets for Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"|last=Murray|first=Rebecca|date=|website=ThoughtCo.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> She received the role after she was the only actress to offer criticism on the script instead of pandering to the writers.<ref name=":14" /> After another actor won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Oscar]], the studio attempted to make Gondry use her instead of Winslet for the role of Clementine, but Gondry threatened to walk from the project if that occurred.<ref name=":14" /> During filming, Gondry took Winslet to separate rooms to coach her,<ref name=":14" /> and she wore wigs instead of dying her hair.<ref name=":15" /> Some commentators note how Clementine's character criticizes the [[Manic Pixie Dream Girl]] [[stock character]] several years before film critic Nathan Rubin coined the phrase. Most commentators discuss one particular example to demonstrate this criticism, wherein Clementine warns Joel she is flawed: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a9285/manic-pixie-dream-girl-characters/|title=Remembering Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 10 Years Later|last=Gould|first=Hallie|date=March 20, 2014|website=Marie Claire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://flavorwire.com/446166/eternal-sunshine-destroyed-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-stereotype-before-it-even-existed|title=‘Eternal Sunshine’ Destroyed the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype Before It Even Existed|last=Herman|first=Alison|date=March 19, 2014|website=FlavorWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> With her impulsiveness, emotion intensity (extreme mood changes), alcohol dependence, turbulent relationships, reckless behavior, and hasty idealization/devaluation of Joel, Clementine seems to exhibit traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, although it is not clear whether Kaufman wrote her character with this specific diagnosis in mind.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://themighty.com/2017/11/movies-borderline-personality-disorder-bpd/|title=6 Movies That Got Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms (Mostly) Right|work=The Mighty|access-date=2018-08-17|language=en-US}}</ref>

:* Lola Daehler as young Clementine
* [[Kirsten Dunst]] as Mary Svevo: The receptionist for Lacuna who, while dating Stan Fink, has a crush on Howard Mierzwiak. While erasing Joel's memory, Howard's wife catches her kissing Howard. Howard's wife reveals Mary previously had a relationship with Howard, which Howard erased from her mind. She reacts to this information by quitting her job and mailing Lacuna's company records to its customers. In the script, Mary and Howard's relationship resulted in an unplanned pregnancy, leading to Howard pressuring Mary into an abortion, which Howard also erased from her memory.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.btchflcks.com/2012/07/women-in-science-fiction-week-mary-svevo-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-minds-other-strong-female-character.html#.W68aQGgzaUk|title=Women in Science Fiction Week: Mary Svevo: ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’s Other Strong Female Character|last=Civitello|first=Amanda|date=July 25, 2012|website=Bitch Flicks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Mark Ruffalo]] as Stan Fink: A technician for Lacuna who is in a relationship with Mary Svevo until the reveal of her previous relationship with Howard Mierzwiak. Ruffalo received the role of Stan after providing an "unexpected take on the role" to Gondry when he suggested Stan be a fan of [[The Clash]] and look like [[Joe Strummer]].<ref name=":14" />
* [[Elijah Wood]] as Patrick: Patrick is a technician for Lacuna who enters a relationship with Clementine by imitating Joel. They break up when Joel and Clementine begin dating for the second time.
* [[Tom Wilkinson]] as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak: Howard runs Lacuna. Before the film's events, he had an affair with Mary, which ended with the relationship's erasure from her mind. Wilkinson reportedly did not enjoy the shooting of the film and frequently disagreed with Gondry.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-ruffalo-blasts-iraqs-gop-warmongers-talks-begin-again-and-avengers|title=Mark Ruffalo Blasts Iraq’s GOP Warmongers, Talks ‘Begin Again’ and ‘Avengers’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=June 30, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Jane Adams (actress)|Jane Adams]] as Carrie Eakin: Joel Barish's friend. She is in a troubled relationship with Rob Eakin.
* [[David Cross]] as Rob Eakin: Joel Barish's friend. In a troubled relationship with Carrie Eakin.
* [[Deirdre O'Connell (actress)|Deirdre O'Connell]] as Hollis Mierzwiak: Howard Mierzwiak's wife
* [[Thomas Jay Ryan]] as Frank: Joel Barish's neighbor
* Debbon Ayer as Joel Barish's mother

==Production==
=== Development ===
The concept of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' came from 1998 conversations between [[Michel Gondry]] and the film's co-writer [[Pierre Bismuth]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scriptmag.com/features/script-screen-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=From Script to Screen: ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’|last=Cohen|first=David S.|date=February 17, 2016|website=Script Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> The pair had met and become friends in the early 1980s during Gondry's drumming career in the French pop group ''[[Oui Oui]]''.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/06/1|title=Eraserhead|last=Lack|first=Jessica|date=September 6, 2008|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth had conceived of the idea of erasing certain people from people's minds in response to a friend complaining about her boyfriend; when he asked her if she would erase that boyfriend from her memory, she said yes.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-unforgettable-heartbreaking-exploration-love-human-beings-nature-memory/|title=‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’: An Unforgettable and Heartbreaking Exploration of Love, Human Beings and the Nature of Memory|last=|first=|date=|website=Cinephilia & Beyond|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth originally was going to conduct an art experiment involving sending cards to people saying someone they knew had erased the card’s recipient from their memory.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19247/1/a-secret-history-of-michel-gondry|title=Ten years of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Mansfield|first=Matt|date=March 13, 2014|website=Dazed Digital|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> When he mentioned this to Gondry, they developed it into a story based on the situations that would arise if it were scientifically possible.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> Bismuth never carried out his experiment idea.<ref name=":6" />

Gondry approached [[Charlie Kaufman]] with this concept, the two having worked previously together for Kaufman's [[Human Nature (film)|''Human Nature'']].<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":6" /> Gondry and Kaufman together further developed the story a short pitch.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.avclub.com/michel-gondry-charlie-kaufman-1798208337|title=Interview - Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman|last=Tobias|first=Scott|date=March 17, 2004|website=AV Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> While the writers did not believe the concept to be marketable, a small bidding war began over the idea.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/charlie-kaufman-anomaslisa-c-v-r.html|title=In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman|last=Sternbergh|first=Adam|date=December 16, 2015|website= [[New York (magazine)#Digital expansion and blogs|Vulture]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> [[Steve Golin]] of [[Propaganda Films]] purchased it on June 12, 1998, for a low seven-figure sum.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/charlie_kaufman.html|title=Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry - Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind|last=Kleinman|first=Geoffrey|date=|website=DVD Talk|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/1998/film/news/pic-pitch-plays-at-propaganda-1117471841/|title=Pic pitch plays at Propaganda|last=Madigan|first=Nick|date=June 15, 1998|work=Variety|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Kaufman, who was responsible for writing the screenplay, did not begin immediately, instead opting to suspend writing while he was working on ''[[Adaptation (film)|Adaptation]]'', ''[[Confessions of a Dangerous Mind]]'' and ''Human Nature''.<ref name=":7" /> During this time, filmmaker [[Christopher Nolan]] released his film ''[[Memento (film)|Memento]]'', which similarly deals with memory. Due to the similarities, Kaufman became worried and tried to pull out of the project, but Golin made him complete it.<ref name=":11" /> During writing, the pitch's ownership changed several times thus Kaufman did not have to deal with the studios until the end of the scriptwriting process.<ref name=":7" /> The final script made the studios nervous.<ref name=":7" />

{{Quote box
| quote = <poem>How happy is the blameless vestal's lot?
The world forgetting, by the world forgot:
'''Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!'''
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;</poem>
| author = [[Alexander Pope]]
| source = ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'', 207-10
| width = 20%
| align = right
| quoted = 1
}}
Kaufman did not want to make the film a thriller and wanted to downplay the science fiction aspects of memory erasure, focusing on the relationship.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":10" /> He had an "enormous struggle" with the script, particularly encountering two problems while writing the script: showing "the memories, Joel's reactions to the memories, and Joel interacting with Clementine outside of the memories in the memories," and the fact that characters could refer in later scenes to already erased memories.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman resolved the first problem by making Joel lucid and able to comment on his memories and solved the second by making the memories degrade instead of immediately erasing, with complete erasure occurring at awakening.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman's original name for the screenplay was 18 words long, as he had wanted a title that "you couldn't possibly fit on a marquee,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3664683.stm|title=Inside screenwriter Kaufman's Mind|last=Smith|first=Neil|date=April 28, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> however, he eventually decided on ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', a title originating from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/film-charlie-kaufman-s-critique-of-pure-comedy.html|title=Charlie Kaufman's Critique of Pure Comedy|last=Scott|first=A. O.|date=April 4, 2004|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

=== Filming and post-production ===
The shooting of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' began in mid-January 2003 after six weeks of preparation,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/20/news1|title=In brief: Elijah Wood joins Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=December 20, 2002|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://variety.com/2002/film/markets-festivals/ruffalo-springs-for-eternal-1117877087/|title=Ruffalo springs for ‘Eternal’|last=Feiwell|first=Jill|date=December 8, 2002|website=Variety|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Pavlus|first=John|date=April 2004|title=Forget Me Not|url=https://theasc.com/magazine/april04/cover/|journal=The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques|volume=85|pages=1-3|via=}}</ref> lasting for three months on a budget of $20 million mostly in and around [[New York City]].<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /> The production crew, however, recreated some key scenes, such as Joel's [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] apartment and the 1950s-style kitchen, in a [[New Jersey]] former U.S. Navy base.<ref name=":13" /> The shoot was difficult, sometimes shooting for seventeen hours per day in harsh environments.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/video/11693635868/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Jim-Carrey-a|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet interview|last=|first=|date=April 18, 2004|website=[[Special Broadcasting Service | SBS]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref>

The shoot was challenging for cinematographer [[Ellen Kuras]], due to the difficulty of filming Gondry's vision for the film, which aimed to "blend location-shoot authenticity with unpredictable flashes of whimsy." According to this vision, Gondry wanted [[available light]] used exclusively for the shoot. Kuras disagreed with this choice and would get around it by lighting the room instead of the actors and by hiding light bulbs around the set to increase light levels.<ref name=":13" /> Another issue the cinematographers encountered was due to the frequent improvisation, the lack of marks and the few rehearsals completed, the cinematographers often did not know where the actors would be. Two [[Hand-held camera|handheld cameras]] filmed near 360-degree footage at all times, shooting 36 000 feet of film a day to deal with this.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":13" /> Gondry called back to the work of famed [[French New Wave]] director [[Jean-Luc Godard]] by filming using wheelchairs as well as using sled and chariot dollies instead of [[Camera dolly|traditional dollies]]. When using wheelchairs, the shot was not consistently smooth, however as Kuras liked the aesthetic of the low-angle, wobbly movement, the final film contains the footage.<ref name=":13" />

The film used minimal [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]], with many effects accomplished [[In-camera effect|in-camera]], through [[Forced perspective|forced perspectives]], hidden space, spotlighting, unsynchronized sound, split focus and [[continuity editing]].<ref name=":6" /> A notable example is the ocean washing away the house in [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]]; the production team accomplished this by building the corner of a house on the beach and allowing the tide to rise.<ref name=":12" /> Executing this effect was difficult as the special team hired to place the set in the water refused due to perceived dangers. Gondry in response fired the team and had the production team, including the actors and producers, place the set in the water. In retaliation for Gondry's actions, the chief of the union reprimanded Gondry in front of the crew.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://the-talks.com/interview/michel-gondry/|title=Michel Gondry: "I Believe in Utopia"|last=|first=|date=July 27, 2011|website=The Talks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Kaufman rewrote some of the script during production; thus, several discrepancies exist between the production script and the final film.<ref name=":9" /> A fundamental difference is that in the production script, with the erasure of each memory, Clementine behaves increasingly robotic.<ref name=":7" /> In the final film, Winslet plays Clementine straight, and degradation of settings and the intrusion of settings upon each other establish memory degradation visually. Another script component that did not make it into the final film was the appearance of Naomi, Joel's girlfriend. Against Kaufman's insistence on Naomi’s inclusion, the production team cut her already filmed scenes.<ref name=":7" />

Icelandic editor [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]] [[Film editing|edited]] the film, and she reportedly conflicted with Gondry during editing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/heroines-of-cinema-valdis-oskarsdottir-and-the-invisible-art-of-editing-44254/|title=Heroines of Cinema: Valdis Oskarsdottir, and the ‘Invisible Art’ of Editing|last=Hammett Knott|first=Matthew|date=October 11, 2012|website=IndieWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Charlie Kaufman was also very involved in the [[Film editing|editing]] of the film. Editing was a long process as there was no requirement to rush it.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":9" /> There were a few [[Test screening|test screenings]] of the film, which elicited positive reactions.<ref name=":9" />

== Release ==

=== Box office ===
Produced on a budget of $20 million, ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' opened on March 19, 2004, in the United States, earning $8,175,198 in its opening weekend in 1,353 theaters. The film placed seventh in the weekend's box office, and remained in theaters for 19 weeks, earning $34,400,301 in the United States and $37,857,825 in international markets for a total of $72,258,126 worldwide.<ref name="BOXTotal">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Film)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|accessdate=June 30, 2018|date=|website=|last=|first=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' is, as of June 2018, Kaufman's most profitable and Gondry's second most profitable film.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=charliekaufman.htm|title=Charlie Kaufman (Writer)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michelgondry.htm|title=Michel Gondry (Director)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating, based on 238 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Propelled by [[Charlie Kaufman]]'s smart, imaginative script and Michel Gondry's equally daring directorial touch, ''Eternal Sunshine'' is a twisty yet heartfelt look at relationships and heartache."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 89 out of 100, based on 41 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Metacritic]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title=CinemaScore|work=cinemascore.com}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' in his initial 2004 review gave the film 3½ out of a possible 4.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Original Review|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=March 19, 2004|website=RogerEbert.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> He revisited the film in 2010 when he referred to Kaufman as "the most gifted screenwriter of the 2000s" and revised the rating to a full four stars, adding it to his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004-1|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|author=Ebert|first=Roger|authorlink=Roger Ebert|date=January 2, 2010|website=Rogerebert.suntimes.com|type=Review; 2010 review|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised the film for being "cerebral, formally and conceptually complicated, dense with literary allusions and as unabashedly romantic as any movie you'll ever see".<ref>{{cite web |last= Murphy |first= Mekado |url= http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/critics-picks-video-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/ |title = Critics' Picks Video: 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'|work=[[The New York Times]] |date = February 15, 2011 |accessdate = 2013-03-27 }}</ref> ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'' summed up their review by saying, "the formidable Gondry/Kaufman/Carrey axis works marvel after marvel in expressing the bewildering beauty and existential horror of being trapped inside one's own addled mind, and in allegorising the self-preserving amnesia of a broken but hopeful heart."<ref>[https://www.timeout.com/london/film/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind movie review – Film – Time Out London]</ref>

Winslet and Carrey received acclaim for their performances. Winslet's performance as Clementine received multiple award nominations, including an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Academy Award nomination for Best Actress]], and [[Premiere (magazine)|''Premiere'' magazine]] placed it 81st in their 2008 list of the 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|title=The 100 Greatest Performances of All Time: 100–75|last=|first=|date=December 3, 2008|work=Premiere|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|archivedate=March 31, 2009|deadurl=yes|accessdate=July 7, 2018|df=}}</ref> Claudia Puig in a review for ''[[USA Today]]'' said of her performance "Winslet is wonderful as a free spirit whose hair color changes along with her moods. She hasn't had such a meaty role in a while, and she plays it just right."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-03-18-eternal-sunshine_x.htm|title=Soak up 'Eternal Sunshine,' and you'll feel warm all over|last=Puig|first=Claudia|date=March 18, 2004|work=[[USA Today]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Carrey's performance as Joel also received multiple award nominations. Jason Killingsworth in a review for [[Paste (magazine)|Paste magazine]] said of his performance "Carrey nails the part, winning audience sympathy from the opening moments of the film".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2004/06/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Killingsworth|first=Jason|date=June 1, 2004|website=Paste Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref>

In the autumn 2008 issue of [[Screen (journal)|Screen Journal]], Carol Vernallis argued that Gondry's experience in directing [[music video]]s contributed to the film's [[Mise en scène|mise-en-scène]] and sound design. Vernallis describes some threads of the visual, aural and musical motifs throughout the film, and how some motifs can work in [[counterpoint]].<ref>Vernallis, Carol. "Music video, songs, sound: experience, technique and emotion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''". ''Screen''. 49.3. (2008) pp.277–97.</ref>

===Accolades and honors===
{{Main|List of accolades received by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
|-
!scope="col"| Award
!scope="col"| Award category
!scope="col"| Recipients and nominees
!scope="col"| Result
!scope="col"| {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="2"|[[77th Academy Awards|Academy Awards]]
|[[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]]
|[[Kate Winslet]]
|{{nom}}
!scope ="row" rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2005|title=Nominees & Winners for the 77th Academy Awards|last=|first=|date=|year=2005|work=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]]
|[[Pierre Bismuth]], [[Michel Gondry]] and [[Charlie Kaufman]]
|{{won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="6"|[[58th British Academy Film Awards|British Academy Film Awards]] (BAFTA)
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role|Best Actor in a Leading Role]]
|[[Jim Carrey]]
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan="6" style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4180423.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The nominations|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4260929.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The winners|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role|Best Actress in a Leading Role]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Direction|Best Director]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Editing|Best Editing]]
|[[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
|{{won}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]]
|[[Likely Story|Anthony Bregman]] and [[Steve Golin]]
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{Won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="4"|[[62nd Golden Globe Awards|Golden Globe Awards]]
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy|Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Jim Carrey
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan=4 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=/year/2005|title=The 62nd Annual Golden Globe Awards (2005)|year=2005|work=[[Golden Globe Award]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical|Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy|Best Film - Musical or Comedy]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay|Best Screenplay]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{nom}}
|-
!scope="row"|[[Hugo Award|Hugo Awards]]
|[[Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation|Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form]]
|Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Bierre Bismuth
|{{nom}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/|title=2005 Hugo Awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[National Board of Review Awards 2004|National Board of Review]]
|[[National Board of Review Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
! rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/award-years/2004/|title=2004 Award Winners|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[Writers Guild of America Awards 2004|Writers Guild of America]]
|[[Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Pierre Bismuth, Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4281705.stm|title=Quirky movies win script awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|}

=== Home media ===

Universal Home Entertainment released ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' on [[DVD]] on September 28, 2004.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind#tab=summary|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)|last=|first=|date=|website=The Numbers|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> A [[Blu-ray]] edition release occurred in the U.S. on January 25, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Blu-ray/16770/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=blu-ray.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

==Music==
{{Anchor|Music|Soundtrack|Score}}{{Infobox album
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| type = Soundtrack
| artist = Jon Brion
| cover = Eternal sunshine CD cover.jpg
| alt =
| released = March 16, 2004
| recorded =
| venue =
| studio =
| genre = Soundtrack
| length = 56:08
| label = [[Hollywood Records|Hollywood]]
| producer = Kathy Nelson (executive producer) [[Tim DeLaughter]] (track 4) [[Jon Brion]] (track 9) Don Nelson (tracks 11 and 20) Ethan Johns (track 18)
| chronology = [[Jon Brion]]
| prev_title = [[Punch-Drunk Love (soundtrack)|Punch-Drunk Love]]
| prev_year = 2002
| next_title = [[I Heart Huckabees (soundtrack)|I ♥ Huckabees]]
| next_year = 2004
}}
{{Main|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (soundtrack)}}{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| collapsed = yes
| extra_column = Artist
| total_length = 56:08
| title1 = Theme
| extra1 = [[Jon Brion]]
| length1 = 2:24
| title2 = [[Mr. Blue Sky]]
| extra2 = [[Electric Light Orchestra]]
| length2 = 5:03
| title3 = Collecting Things
| extra3 = Jon Brion
| length3 = 1:13
| title4 = [[Light & Day]]
| extra4 = [[The Polyphonic Spree]]
| length4 = 3:03
| title5 = Bookstore
| extra5 = Jon Brion
| length5 = 0:52
| title6 = It's the Sun
| note6 = [[KCRW]] [[Morning Becomes Eclectic]] version
| extra6 = The Polyphonic Spree
| length6 = 5:33
| title7 = Wada Na Tod, Mera Man Tera Pyasa
| extra7 = [[Lata Mangeshkar]], [[Mohammed Rafi]]
| length7 = 5:54
| title8 = Showtime
| extra8 = Jon Brion
| length8 = 0:55
| title9 = [[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]
| note9 = [[The Korgis]] cover
| extra9 = [[Beck]]
| length9 = 5:54
| title10 = Sidewalk Flight
| extra10 = Jon Brion
| length10 = 0:31
| title11 = Some Kinda Shuffle
| extra11 = Don Nelson
| length11 = 2:11
| title12 = Howard Makes It All Go Away
| extra12 = Jon Brion
| length12 = 0:14
| title13 = Something
| extra13 = [[The Willowz]]
| length13 = 2:23
| title14 = Postcard
| extra14 = Jon Brion
| length14 = 0:23
| title15 = I Wonder
| extra15 = The Willowz
| length15 = 2:56
| title16 = Peer Pressure
| extra16 = Jon Brion
| length16 = 1:12
| title17 = A Dream Upon Waking
| extra17 = Jon Brion
| length17 = 3:36
| title18 = Strings That Tie to You
| extra18 = Jon Brion
| length18 = 2:33
| title19 = Phone Call
| extra19 = Jon Brion
| length19 = 1:03
| title20 = Nola's Bounce
| extra20 = Don Nelson
| length20 = 1:56
| title21 = Down The Drain
| extra21 = Jon Brion
| length21 = 0:56
| title22 = Row
| extra22 = Jon Brion
| length22 = 1:00
| title23 = Drive In
| extra23 = Jon Brion
| length23 = 2:19
| title24 = Main Title
| extra24 = Jon Brion
| length24 = 1:23
| title25 = Spotless Mind
| extra25 = Jon Brion
| length25 = 1:12
| title26 = Elephant Parade
| extra26 = Jon Brion
| length26 = 0:28
}}{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1score = {{Rating|4|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev2 = [[IGN]]
| rev2Score = 7/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2004/03/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original-soundtrack|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Original Soundtrack - IGN Review|date=March 18, 2004|website=IGN.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
| rev3 = [[Filmtracks.com|Filmtracks]]
| rev3Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=January 21, 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev4 = [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]
| rev4Score = 7.5/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
}}

The [[soundtrack]] album for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' was composed by Los Angeles musician [[Jon Brion]], also featuring songs from artists including [[The Polyphonic Spree]], [[The Willowz]], and Don Nelson. [[Hollywood Records]] released the soundtrack on March 16, 2004.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040225005925/en/Beck-Polyphonic-Spree-Headline-Hollywood-Records-Eternal|title=Beck and The Polyphonic Spree Headline Hollywood Records' "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' Soundtrack|last=Ferraro|first=Kris|date=February 25, 2004|website=Business Wire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> A [[cover version]] of [[The Korgis]]' "[[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]" with instrumentation by Brion and vocals by [[Beck]] operates as the soundtrack's centerpiece, setting the film's tone in the opening credits, and closing the film.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://consequenceofsound.net/2009/12/cinema-sounds-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Cinema Sounds: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=O'Shoney|first=Carson|date=December 18, 2009|website=Consequence of Sound|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's'' soundtrack received generally positive reviews. [[AllMusic]] described it as "nearly as deft", and described Brion's score as "intimate" and "evocative of love and memories".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Other positive reviews noted the [[Ambient music|ambient]] nature of the music and lauded Beck's cover of "Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> On the other hand, the soundtrack's detractors criticized the album's lack of identity and its depressive atmosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=21 January 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Even among the detractors, however, the score's ability to mesh with the plot was lauded, an appraisal common to many reviews.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-losers-the-rare-but-beautiful-film-scores-of-jon-brion-deserve-an-oscar-2b29438a926e/|title=The Losers: The Rare But Beautiful Film Scores of Jon Brion Deserve an Oscar|last=Belletto|first=Adam|date=February 17, 2015|website=Film School Rejects|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

== Legacy ==

=== Television series ===
In October 2016, [[Anonymous Content]] announced they would be working with [[Universal Cable Productions]] to produce a television series based on the film. Kaufman is not involved in writing the show. The project is still in planning stages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-tv-933163|title='Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' TV Series in the Works (Exclusive)|last1=Sandberg|first1=Byran Elise|last2=Kit|first2=Borys|date=October 7, 2016|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

===Media recognition===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Presenter
! Title
! Rank
! Notes
|-
| 2005
| align=center | ''[[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]]''
| align=center | 101 Greatest Screenplays
| align=center | 24
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays|title=101 Greatest Screenplays|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=101 Greatest Screenplays Full List|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2008
| align=center | ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time]]
| align=center | 73
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|title=The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|last=|first=|date=November 2008|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|archive-date=October 21, 2013|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=5 | 2009
| align=center | ''[[Time Out (magazine)#Time Out New York|Time Out New York]]''
| align=center | The TONY Top 50 Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 3
|<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=November 26 – December 2, 2009|title=The TONY top 50 movies of the decade|url=https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-tony-top-50-movies-of-the-decade#tab_panel_5|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]|volume=|issue=739|pages=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|via=}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Slant Magazine]]''
| align=center | The 100 Best Films of the Aughts
| align=center | 86
|<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_2|title=The 100 Best Films of the Aughts|last=|first=|date=February 7, 2010|work=[[Slant Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=February 10, 2010}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]''
| align=center | The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)
| align=center | 5
|<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=2|title=The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009)|last=|first=|date=November 3, 2009|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| align=center | The Best Films of the '00s
| align=center | 1
|<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/|title=The Best Films of the '00s|last=Murray|first=Noel|last2=Rabin|first2=Nathan|date=December 3, 2009|website=The A.V. Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|last3=Phipps|first3=Keith|last4=Robinson|first4=Tasha|last5=Tobias|first5=Scott}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Metacritic]]''
| align=center | Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 2
|<ref name=":20">{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-pick-the-best-movies-of-the-decade|title=Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade|last=|first=|date=January 3, 2010|work=Metacritic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2016
| align=center | ''[[BBC]]''
| align=center |[[BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century|The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films]]
| align=center | 6
|<ref name="BBC">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films|title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films|last=|first=|date=August 23, 2016|website=|publisher=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=2 | 2018
| align=center | ''Empire''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 100 Greatest Movies|The 100 Greatest Movies]]
| align=center | 41
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|title=The 100 Greatest Movies|last=|first=|date=March 20, 2018|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706075658/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|archive-date=July 6, 2018|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''They Shoot Pictures Don't They''
| align=center | The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films
| align=center | 5
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_rankinghistory.htm|title=The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films (Ranking History)|last=|first=|date=|website=They Shoot Pictures Don't They|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|}

==See also==

* [[Lucid dream]]
* ''[[Inception]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{Official website|http://www.eternalsunshine.com}}
* {{IMDb title|0338013|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Allmovie title|278676|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Mojo title|eternalsunshine|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/REVIEWS/403190302/1023 ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''] review by [[Roger Ebert]]

{{Michel Gondry}}
{{Charlie Kaufman}}
{{Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film 1991–2010}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind}}
[[Category:2004 films]]
[[Category:Science fiction drama films]]
[[Category:2000s romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American independent films]]
[[Category:American comedy-drama films]]
[[Category:American romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American romantic fantasy films]]
[[Category:Comedy of remarriage films]]
[[Category:Mad scientist films]]
[[Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction]]
[[Category:Nonlinear narrative films]]
[[Category:American psychological films]]
[[Category:Films about altered memories]]
[[Category:Films set in Long Island]]
[[Category:Films set in Manhattan]]
[[Category:Films shot in New York (state)]]
[[Category:Films shot in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Films directed by Michel Gondry]]
[[Category:Films scored by Jon Brion]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Charlie Kaufman]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]]
[[Category:Focus Features films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay BAFTA Award]]
[[Category:Films produced by Steve Golin]]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-29T08:05:39Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: ce +

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox film
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| image = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.png
| alt = A man and a woman lying on a sheet of ice, there is a large crack in the ice beside them.
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Michel Gondry]]
| producer = {{ubl|[[Steve Golin]]|Anthony Bregman}}
| screenplay = [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| story = {{ubl|Charlie Kaufman|Michel Gondry|[[Pierre Bismuth]]}}
| starring = {{Plainlist|
* [[Jim Carrey]]
* [[Kate Winslet]]
* [[Kirsten Dunst]]
* [[Mark Ruffalo]]
* [[Elijah Wood]]
* [[Tom Wilkinson]]
}}
| music = [[Jon Brion]]
| cinematography = [[Ellen Kuras]]
| editing = [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| studio = {{ubl|[[Anonymous Content]]|[[This is that corporation|This is That]]}}
| distributor = [[Focus Features]]
| released = {{Film date|2004|03|19}}
| runtime = 108 minutes
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $20 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |title = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind |work = [[Box Office Mojo]] |url = http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm }}</ref>
| gross = $72.3 million<ref name="BOM" />
}}

'''''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''''' is a 2004 American [[science fiction]] [[romantic comedy]] film written by [[Charlie Kaufman]] and directed by [[Michel Gondry]]. It follows an estranged couple who have erased each other from their memories, then, started dating again. [[Pierre Bismuth]] created the story with Kaufman and Gondry. The [[ensemble cast]] includes [[Jim Carrey]], [[Kate Winslet]], [[Kirsten Dunst]], [[Mark Ruffalo]], [[Elijah Wood]], and [[Tom Wilkinson]]. The title of the film is a quotation from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].

The film uses elements of the [[psychological thriller]] and a [[nonlinear narrative]] to explore the nature of [[memory]] and [[romantic love]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|work=Slant Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 25, 2004}}</ref> It opened in [[North America]] to wide acclaim on March 19, 2004, and grossed over $70 million worldwide. It won the [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay]], and Winslet received a nomination for [[Academy Award for Best Actress]]. The film developed a [[cult following]] in the years after its release and many critics now regard it as one of the greatest films of the 21st century.<ref>The film was ranked #6 on the [[BBC]]'s list of the 100 best films of the 21st century, compiled from a survey of 177 film critics. {{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films |title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films |date=August 23, 2016 |website=[[BBC]] |accessdate=August 16, 2017}} See also {{cite web|last1=Dargis|first1=Manohla|last2=Scott|first2=A.O. |title=The 25 Best Films of the 21st Century...So Far |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html |date=Jun 9, 2017 |website=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2017}}</ref>

==Plot==
[[File:Montauk LIRR train station.jpg|thumb|Train station of Montauk where Joel and Clementine meet each other again after erasing of their memories.|alt=]]
Shy, soft-spoken Joel Barish and unrestrained free spirit Clementine Kruczynski begin a relationship on a [[Long Island Rail Road]] train from [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]] to [[Rockville Centre, New York|Rockville Centre]]. Joel and Clementine almost immediately connect, feeling drawn to each other despite their contrasting personalities, and both had felt the need to travel to Montauk that day. Although they do not realize it, they are former lovers, now separated after having dated for two years.

After a fight a few days earlier, Clementine hires the New York City firm Lacuna, Inc. to [[Memory erasure|erase all of her memories]] of their relationship. Upon discovering this from his friends Rob and Carrie, Joel is saddened and decides to undergo the procedure himself, a process that takes place while he sleeps.

Much of the film subsequently takes place in Joel's mind, during this memory erasure procedure. Joel finds himself revisiting his memories of Clementine [[reverse chronology|in reverse]], starting from the disintegration of their relationship. As he comes across happier, positive memories of Clementine early in his relationship, he decides to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her, trying to evade the procedure by taking his idealized memory of Clementine into [[False memory|memories not linked to her]] or waking up to stop the process. Despite his efforts, the technicians steadily erase his memories. He comes to the last remaining memory of Clementine, the day he had first met her at a beach house in Montauk. As this memory disintegrates around them, she tells him, "Meet me in Montauk."

The film features separate, but related, story arcs revolving around the employees of Lacuna during Joel's memory erasure. Patrick, one of the Lacuna technicians performing the erasure, uses Joel's memories and mannerisms to seduce and romance Clementine. Mary, the Lacuna receptionist, is dating the other memory-erasing technician, Stan, but has feelings for Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, a married doctor and the head of Lacuna. During Joel's memory wipe, Mary discovers she had previously had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and agreed to have this erased from her memory when Dr. Mierzwiak's wife found out. On learning this, she asks Stan whether he knew about this, to which he claims that he did not. Mary then quits her job and steals the company's records, mailing them to all of Lacuna's customers.

The film returns to the present after Joel and Clementine have met at the [[Montauk station|train station of Montauk]]. They both come upon their Lacuna records later that day, and react with shock and bewilderment – they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel pleads with Clementine to restart their relationship; Clementine initially resists, pointing out it could go the same way. Joel accepts this, and they decide to try anyway.

==Cast==
{{multiple image
| direction = vertical
| width = 175
| footer = Top to bottom: [[Jim Carrey]] and [[Kate Winslet]] play Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski respectively
| image1 = Jim Carrey 2008.jpg
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Kate Winslet by Andrea Raffin.jpg
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
}}

* [[Jim Carrey]] as Joel Barish: Joel is an introvert who enters a two-year relationship with Clementine Kruczynski. After their relationship ends, Clementine erases Joel from her memory, and he erases her from his mind in response. [[Charlie Kaufman]] wrote Joel with autobiographical personality traits.<ref name=":11" /> Producers cast Carrey against type for his role as Joel,<ref name=":11" /> selecting him for his regular appearance, as well as his comedic ability. According to Gondry, this was as "It's hard to be funny. It's far easier to take someone really funny and bring them down than do the opposite."<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/michel-gondry-on-mood-indigo-kanye-west-and-the-10th-anniversary-of-eternal-sunshine|title=Michel Gondry on ‘Mood Indigo,’ Kanye West, and the 10th Anniversary of ‘Eternal Sunshine’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=July 19, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> To make Carrey, an actor who typically portrayed high-energy roles, play a restrained character, Gondry prevented him from improvising, a restriction he did not place on the other members of the cast. Carrey did not like this.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/undercover-indies-what-makes-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-so-unforgettable/|title=Undercover Indies: What Makes ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ So Unforgettable?|last=Placa|first=Kaia|date=March 31, 2017|website=Film Independent|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry would also put Carrey off balance by giving wrong orders or by rolling the camera at the wrong time. Gondry believed this would make Carrey forget what he should do to be Joel, allowing him to go in character.<ref name=":11" /> In the 2017 [[Netflix]] documentary ''[[Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond|Jim & Andy]]'', Carrey mentions a conversation with Gondry one year before shooting began for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', shortly after Carrey had a breakup with an unspecified woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrey-life-is-too-beautiful/|title=Carrey: 'Life Is Too Beautiful'|last=Leung|first=Rebecca|date=November 18, 2004|website=CBS News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry saw that Carrey's emotional state at the time was "so beautiful, so broken" and asked him to stay that way for one year to fit the character. In the documentary, Carrey commented, "That's how fucked up this business is."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wtop.com/entertainment/2017/11/review-jim-carrey-possessed-by-andy-kaufman-in-documentary-jim-andy/|title=Review: ‘Jim & Andy’ documents Jim Carrey’s journey into his own ‘Tru-Man’|last=Fraley|first=Jason|date=November 30, 2017|website=wtop.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/jim-andy-great-beyond-venice-2017-1035248|title='Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond': Film Review {{!}} Venice 2017|last=Rooney|first=David|date=September 5, 2017|website=The Hollywood Reporter|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> [[Nicolas Cage]] was Gondry's original choice to play Joel,<ref name=":12" /> but Cage was unable to do the role as he was in high demand from independent directors after his performance in ''[[Leaving Las Vegas]]''.<ref name=":14" />
:* Ryan Whitney as young Joel
* [[Kate Winslet]] as Clementine Kruczynski: Clementine is a spontaneous extrovert who, after breaking up with Joel Barish after a two-year relationship, erases him from her mind. Producers cast Winslet against type for her part as Clementine,<ref name=":11" /> as Winslet had previously featured heavily in period pieces.<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/kate-winslet-on-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2419277|title=No Corsets for Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"|last=Murray|first=Rebecca|date=|website=ThoughtCo.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> She received the role after she was the only actress to offer criticism on the script instead of pandering to the writers.<ref name=":14" /> After another actor won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Oscar]], the studio attempted to make Gondry use her instead of Winslet for the role of Clementine, but Gondry threatened to walk from the project if that occurred.<ref name=":14" /> During filming, Gondry took Winslet to separate rooms to coach her,<ref name=":14" /> and she wore wigs instead of dying her hair.<ref name=":15" /> Some commentators note how Clementine's character criticizes the [[Manic Pixie Dream Girl]] [[stock character]] several years before film critic Nathan Rubin coined the phrase. Most commentators discuss one particular example to demonstrate this criticism, wherein Clementine warns Joel she is flawed: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a9285/manic-pixie-dream-girl-characters/|title=Remembering Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 10 Years Later|last=Gould|first=Hallie|date=March 20, 2014|website=Marie Claire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://flavorwire.com/446166/eternal-sunshine-destroyed-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-stereotype-before-it-even-existed|title=‘Eternal Sunshine’ Destroyed the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype Before It Even Existed|last=Herman|first=Alison|date=March 19, 2014|website=FlavorWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> With her impulsiveness, emotion intensity (extreme mood changes), alcohol dependence, turbulent relationships, reckless behavior, and hasty idealization/devaluation of Joel, Clementine seems to exhibit traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, although it is not clear whether Kaufman wrote her character with this specific diagnosis in mind.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://themighty.com/2017/11/movies-borderline-personality-disorder-bpd/|title=6 Movies That Got Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms (Mostly) Right|work=The Mighty|access-date=2018-08-17|language=en-US}}</ref>

:* Lola Daehler as young Clementine
* [[Kirsten Dunst]] as Mary Svevo: Mary is the receptionist for Lacuna who, while dating Stan Fink, has a crush on Howard Mierzwiak. While erasing Joel's memory, Howard's wife catches her kissing Howard. Howard's wife reveals Mary previously had a relationship with Howard, which Howard erased from her mind. She reacts to this information by quitting her job and mailing Lacuna's company records to its customers. In the script, Mary and Howard's relationship resulted in an unplanned pregnancy, leading to Howard pressuring Mary into an abortion, which Howard also erased from her memory.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.btchflcks.com/2012/07/women-in-science-fiction-week-mary-svevo-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-minds-other-strong-female-character.html#.W68aQGgzaUk|title=Women in Science Fiction Week: Mary Svevo: ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’s Other Strong Female Character|last=Civitello|first=Amanda|date=July 25, 2012|website=Bitch Flicks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Mark Ruffalo]] as Stan Fink: Stan is a technician for Lacuna who is in a relationship with Mary until the reveal of her previous relationship with Howard. Ruffalo received the role of Stan after providing an "unexpected take on the role" to Gondry when he suggested Stan be a fan of [[The Clash]] and look like [[Joe Strummer]].<ref name=":14" />
* [[Elijah Wood]] as Patrick: Patrick is a technician for Lacuna who enters a relationship with Clementine by imitating Joel. They break up when Joel and Clementine begin dating for the second time.
* [[Tom Wilkinson]] as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak: Howard runs Lacuna. Before the film's events, he had an affair with Mary, which ended with the relationship's erasure from her mind. Wilkinson reportedly did not enjoy the shooting of the film and frequently disagreed with Gondry.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-ruffalo-blasts-iraqs-gop-warmongers-talks-begin-again-and-avengers|title=Mark Ruffalo Blasts Iraq’s GOP Warmongers, Talks ‘Begin Again’ and ‘Avengers’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=June 30, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Jane Adams (actress)|Jane Adams]] as Carrie Eakin: Joel's friend. She is in a troubled relationship with Rob.
* [[David Cross]] as Rob Eakin: Joel's friend. He is in a troubled relationship with Carrie.
* [[Deirdre O'Connell (actress)|Deirdre O'Connell]] as Hollis Mierzwiak: Howard's wife
* [[Thomas Jay Ryan]] as Frank: Joel's neighbor
* Debbon Ayer as Joel's mother

==Production==
=== Development ===
The concept of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' came from 1998 conversations between [[Michel Gondry]] and the film's co-writer [[Pierre Bismuth]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scriptmag.com/features/script-screen-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=From Script to Screen: ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’|last=Cohen|first=David S.|date=February 17, 2016|website=Script Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> The pair had met and become friends in the early 1980s during Gondry's drumming career in the French pop group ''[[Oui Oui]]''.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/06/1|title=Eraserhead|last=Lack|first=Jessica|date=September 6, 2008|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth had conceived of the idea of erasing certain people from people's minds in response to a friend complaining about her boyfriend; when he asked her if she would erase that boyfriend from her memory, she said yes.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-unforgettable-heartbreaking-exploration-love-human-beings-nature-memory/|title=‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’: An Unforgettable and Heartbreaking Exploration of Love, Human Beings and the Nature of Memory|last=|first=|date=|website=Cinephilia & Beyond|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth originally was going to conduct an art experiment involving sending cards to people saying someone they knew had erased the card’s recipient from their memory.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19247/1/a-secret-history-of-michel-gondry|title=Ten years of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Mansfield|first=Matt|date=March 13, 2014|website=Dazed Digital|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> When he mentioned this to Gondry, they developed it into a story based on the situations that would arise if it were scientifically possible.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> Bismuth never conducted the experiment.<ref name=":6" />

Gondry approached [[Charlie Kaufman]] with this concept, the two having worked previously together for Kaufman's [[Human Nature (film)|''Human Nature'']].<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":6" /> Gondry and Kaufman together further developed the story a short pitch.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.avclub.com/michel-gondry-charlie-kaufman-1798208337|title=Interview - Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman|last=Tobias|first=Scott|date=March 17, 2004|website=AV Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> While the writers did not believe the concept to be marketable, a small bidding war began over the idea.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/charlie-kaufman-anomaslisa-c-v-r.html|title=In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman|last=Sternbergh|first=Adam|date=December 16, 2015|website= [[New York (magazine)#Digital expansion and blogs|Vulture]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> [[Steve Golin]] of [[Propaganda Films]] purchased it on June 12, 1998, for a low seven-figure sum.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/charlie_kaufman.html|title=Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry - Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind|last=Kleinman|first=Geoffrey|date=|website=DVD Talk|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/1998/film/news/pic-pitch-plays-at-propaganda-1117471841/|title=Pic pitch plays at Propaganda|last=Madigan|first=Nick|date=June 15, 1998|work=Variety|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Kaufman, who was responsible for writing the screenplay, did not begin immediately, instead opting to suspend writing while he was working on ''[[Adaptation (film)|Adaptation]]'', ''[[Confessions of a Dangerous Mind]]'' and ''Human Nature''.<ref name=":7" /> During this time, filmmaker [[Christopher Nolan]] released his film ''[[Memento (film)|Memento]]'', which similarly deals with memory. Due to the similarities, Kaufman became worried and tried to pull out of the project, but Golin made him complete it.<ref name=":11" /> During writing, the pitch's ownership changed several times thus Kaufman did not have to deal with the studios until the end of the scriptwriting process.<ref name=":7" /> The final script made the studios nervous.<ref name=":7" />

{{Quote box
| quote = <poem>How happy is the blameless vestal's lot?
The world forgetting, by the world forgot:
'''Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!'''
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;</poem>
| author = [[Alexander Pope]]
| source = ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'', 207-10
| width = 20%
| align = right
| quoted = 1
}}
Kaufman did not want to make the film a thriller and wanted to downplay the science fiction aspects of memory erasure, focusing on the relationship.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":10" /> He had an "enormous struggle" with the script, particularly encountering two problems while writing the script: showing "the memories, Joel's reactions to the memories, and Joel interacting with Clementine outside of the memories in the memories," and the fact that characters could refer in later scenes to a memory that had already been erased.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman solved the first problem by making Joel lucid and able to comment on his memories and solved the second by making the memories degrade instead of immediately erasing, with complete erasure occurring at awakening.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman's original title for the screenplay was 18 words long, as he had wanted a title that "you couldn't possibly fit on a marquee,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3664683.stm|title=Inside screenwriter Kaufman's Mind|last=Smith|first=Neil|date=April 28, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> however, he eventually decided on ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', a title coming from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/film-charlie-kaufman-s-critique-of-pure-comedy.html|title=Charlie Kaufman's Critique of Pure Comedy|last=Scott|first=A. O.|date=April 4, 2004|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

=== Filming and post-production ===
The shooting of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' began in mid-January 2003 after six weeks of preparation,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/20/news1|title=In brief: Elijah Wood joins Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=December 20, 2002|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://variety.com/2002/film/markets-festivals/ruffalo-springs-for-eternal-1117877087/|title=Ruffalo springs for ‘Eternal’|last=Feiwell|first=Jill|date=December 8, 2002|website=Variety|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Pavlus|first=John|date=April 2004|title=Forget Me Not|url=https://theasc.com/magazine/april04/cover/|journal=The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques|volume=85|pages=1-3|via=}}</ref> lasting for three months on a budget of $20 million mostly in and around [[New York City]].<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /> The production crew, however, recreated some key scenes, such as Joel's [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] apartment and the 1950s-style kitchen, in a [[New Jersey]] former U.S. Navy base.<ref name=":13" /> The shoot was difficult, sometimes shooting for seventeen hours per day in harsh environments.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/video/11693635868/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Jim-Carrey-a|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet interview|last=|first=|date=April 18, 2004|website=[[Special Broadcasting Service | SBS]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref>

The shoot was challenging for cinematographer [[Ellen Kuras]], due to the difficulty of filming Gondry's vision for the film, which aimed to "blend location-shoot authenticity with unpredictable flashes of whimsy." According to this vision, Gondry wanted [[available light]] used exclusively for the shoot. Kuras disagreed with this choice and would get around it by lighting the room instead of the actors and by hiding light bulbs around the set to increase light levels.<ref name=":13" /> Another issue encountered by the cinematographers was the frequent improvisation, the lack of marks and the few rehearsals completed, meaning the cinematographers often did not know where the actors would be. Two [[Hand-held camera|handheld cameras]] filmed near 360-degree footage at all times, shooting 36 000 feet of film a day to deal with this.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":13" /> Gondry called back to the work of famed [[French New Wave]] director [[Jean-Luc Godard]] by filming using wheelchairs as well as using sled and chariot dollies instead of [[Camera dolly|traditional dollies]]. When using wheelchairs, the shot was not consistently smooth, however as Kuras liked the aesthetic of the low-angle, wobbly movement, the final film contains the footage.<ref name=":13" />

The film used minimal [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]], with many effects accomplished [[In-camera effect|in-camera]], through [[Forced perspective|forced perspectives]], hidden space, spotlighting, unsynchronized sound, split focus and [[continuity editing]].<ref name=":6" /> A notable example is the ocean washing away the house in [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]]; the production team accomplished this by building the corner of a house on the shore and allowing the tide to come in.<ref name=":12" /> Carrying out this effect was difficult as the special team hired to place the set in the water refused, citing dangers. Gondry in response fired the team and had the production team, including the actors and producers, place the set in the water. In retaliation for Gondry's actions, the chief of the union reprimanded Gondry in front of the crew.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://the-talks.com/interview/michel-gondry/|title=Michel Gondry: "I Believe in Utopia"|last=|first=|date=July 27, 2011|website=The Talks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Kaufman engaged in script rewriting during production; thus, several discrepancies exist between the production script and the final film.<ref name=":9" /> A fundamental difference is that in the production script, with the erasure of each memory, Clementine behaves increasingly robotic.<ref name=":7" /> In the final film, Winslet plays Clementine straight, and degradation of settings and the intrusion of settings upon each other establish memory degradation visually. Another script component that did not make it into the final film was the appearance of Naomi, Joel's girlfriend. Despite Kaufman's insistence on Naomi’s inclusion, the production cut her already filmed scenes.<ref name=":7" />

Icelandic editor [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]] [[Film editing|edited]] the film, and she reportedly conflicted with Gondry during editing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/heroines-of-cinema-valdis-oskarsdottir-and-the-invisible-art-of-editing-44254/|title=Heroines of Cinema: Valdis Oskarsdottir, and the ‘Invisible Art’ of Editing|last=Hammett Knott|first=Matthew|date=October 11, 2012|website=IndieWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Charlie Kaufman was also very involved in the [[Film editing|editing]] of the film. Editing was a long process as there was no requirement to rush it.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":9" /> There were a few [[Test screening|test screenings]] of the film, which elicited positive reactions.<ref name=":9" />

== Release ==

=== Box office ===
Produced on a budget of $20 million, ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' opened on March 19, 2004, in the United States, earning $8,175,198 in its opening weekend in 1,353 theaters. The film placed seventh in the weekend's box office, and remained in theaters for 19 weeks, earning $34,400,301 in the United States and $37,857,825 in international markets for a total of $72,258,126 worldwide.<ref name="BOXTotal">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Film)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|accessdate=June 30, 2018|date=|website=|last=|first=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' is, as of June 2018, Kaufman's most profitable and Gondry's second most profitable film.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=charliekaufman.htm|title=Charlie Kaufman (Writer)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michelgondry.htm|title=Michel Gondry (Director)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating, based on 238 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Propelled by [[Charlie Kaufman]]'s smart, imaginative script and Michel Gondry's equally daring directorial touch, ''Eternal Sunshine'' is a twisty yet heartfelt look at relationships and heartache."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 89 out of 100, based on 41 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Metacritic]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title=CinemaScore|work=cinemascore.com}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' in his initial 2004 review gave the film 3½ out of a possible 4.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Original Review|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=March 19, 2004|website=RogerEbert.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> He revisited the film in 2010 when he referred to Kaufman as "the most gifted screenwriter of the 2000s" and revised the rating to a full four stars, adding it to his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004-1|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|author=Ebert|first=Roger|authorlink=Roger Ebert|date=January 2, 2010|website=Rogerebert.suntimes.com|type=Review; 2010 review|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised the film for being "cerebral, formally and conceptually complicated, dense with literary allusions and as unabashedly romantic as any movie you'll ever see".<ref>{{cite web |last= Murphy |first= Mekado |url= http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/critics-picks-video-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/ |title = Critics' Picks Video: 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'|work=[[The New York Times]] |date = February 15, 2011 |accessdate = 2013-03-27 }}</ref> ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'' summed up their review by saying, "the formidable Gondry/Kaufman/Carrey axis works marvel after marvel in expressing the bewildering beauty and existential horror of being trapped inside one's own addled mind, and in allegorising the self-preserving amnesia of a broken but hopeful heart."<ref>[https://www.timeout.com/london/film/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind movie review – Film – Time Out London]</ref>

Winslet and Carrey received acclaim for their performances. Winslet's performance as Clementine received multiple award nominations, including an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Academy Award nomination for Best Actress]], and [[Premiere (magazine)|''Premiere'' magazine]] placed it 81st in their 2008 list of the 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|title=The 100 Greatest Performances of All Time: 100–75|last=|first=|date=December 3, 2008|work=Premiere|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|archivedate=March 31, 2009|deadurl=yes|accessdate=July 7, 2018|df=}}</ref> Claudia Puig in a review for ''[[USA Today]]'' said of her performance "Winslet is wonderful as a free spirit whose hair color changes along with her moods. She hasn't had such a meaty role in a while, and she plays it just right."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-03-18-eternal-sunshine_x.htm|title=Soak up 'Eternal Sunshine,' and you'll feel warm all over|last=Puig|first=Claudia|date=March 18, 2004|work=[[USA Today]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Carrey's performance as Joel also received multiple award nominations. Jason Killingsworth in a review for [[Paste (magazine)|Paste magazine]] said of his performance "Carrey nails the part, winning audience sympathy from the opening moments of the film".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2004/06/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Killingsworth|first=Jason|date=June 1, 2004|website=Paste Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref>

In the autumn 2008 issue of [[Screen (journal)|Screen Journal]], Carol Vernallis argued that Gondry's experience in directing [[music video]]s contributed to the film's [[Mise en scène|mise-en-scène]] and sound design. Vernallis describes some threads of the visual, aural and musical motifs throughout the film, and how some motifs can work in [[counterpoint]].<ref>Vernallis, Carol. "Music video, songs, sound: experience, technique and emotion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''". ''Screen''. 49.3. (2008) pp.277–97.</ref>

===Accolades and honors===
{{Main|List of accolades received by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
|-
!scope="col"| Award
!scope="col"| Award category
!scope="col"| Recipients and nominees
!scope="col"| Result
!scope="col"| {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="2"|[[77th Academy Awards|Academy Awards]]
|[[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]]
|[[Kate Winslet]]
|{{nom}}
!scope ="row" rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2005|title=Nominees & Winners for the 77th Academy Awards|last=|first=|date=|year=2005|work=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]]
|[[Pierre Bismuth]], [[Michel Gondry]] and [[Charlie Kaufman]]
|{{won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="6"|[[58th British Academy Film Awards|British Academy Film Awards]] (BAFTA)
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role|Best Actor in a Leading Role]]
|[[Jim Carrey]]
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan="6" style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4180423.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The nominations|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4260929.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The winners|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role|Best Actress in a Leading Role]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Direction|Best Director]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Editing|Best Editing]]
|[[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
|{{won}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]]
|[[Likely Story|Anthony Bregman]] and [[Steve Golin]]
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{Won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="4"|[[62nd Golden Globe Awards|Golden Globe Awards]]
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy|Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Jim Carrey
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan=4 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=/year/2005|title=The 62nd Annual Golden Globe Awards (2005)|year=2005|work=[[Golden Globe Award]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical|Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy|Best Film - Musical or Comedy]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay|Best Screenplay]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{nom}}
|-
!scope="row"|[[Hugo Award|Hugo Awards]]
|[[Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation|Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form]]
|Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Bierre Bismuth
|{{nom}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/|title=2005 Hugo Awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[National Board of Review Awards 2004|National Board of Review]]
|[[National Board of Review Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
! rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/award-years/2004/|title=2004 Award Winners|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[Writers Guild of America Awards 2004|Writers Guild of America]]
|[[Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Pierre Bismuth, Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4281705.stm|title=Quirky movies win script awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|}

=== Home media ===

Universal Home Entertainment released ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' on [[DVD]] on September 28, 2004.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind#tab=summary|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)|last=|first=|date=|website=The Numbers|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> A [[Blu-ray]] edition release occurred in the U.S. on January 25, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Blu-ray/16770/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=blu-ray.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

==Music==
{{Anchor|Music|Soundtrack|Score}}{{Infobox album
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| type = Soundtrack
| artist = Jon Brion
| cover = Eternal sunshine CD cover.jpg
| alt =
| released = March 16, 2004
| recorded =
| venue =
| studio =
| genre = Soundtrack
| length = 56:08
| label = [[Hollywood Records|Hollywood]]
| producer = Kathy Nelson (executive producer) [[Tim DeLaughter]] (track 4) [[Jon Brion]] (track 9) Don Nelson (tracks 11 and 20) Ethan Johns (track 18)
| chronology = [[Jon Brion]]
| prev_title = [[Punch-Drunk Love (soundtrack)|Punch-Drunk Love]]
| prev_year = 2002
| next_title = [[I Heart Huckabees (soundtrack)|I ♥ Huckabees]]
| next_year = 2004
}}
{{Main|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (soundtrack)}}{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| collapsed = yes
| extra_column = Artist
| total_length = 56:08
| title1 = Theme
| extra1 = [[Jon Brion]]
| length1 = 2:24
| title2 = [[Mr. Blue Sky]]
| extra2 = [[Electric Light Orchestra]]
| length2 = 5:03
| title3 = Collecting Things
| extra3 = Jon Brion
| length3 = 1:13
| title4 = [[Light & Day]]
| extra4 = [[The Polyphonic Spree]]
| length4 = 3:03
| title5 = Bookstore
| extra5 = Jon Brion
| length5 = 0:52
| title6 = It's the Sun
| note6 = [[KCRW]] [[Morning Becomes Eclectic]] version
| extra6 = The Polyphonic Spree
| length6 = 5:33
| title7 = Wada Na Tod, Mera Man Tera Pyasa
| extra7 = [[Lata Mangeshkar]], [[Mohammed Rafi]]
| length7 = 5:54
| title8 = Showtime
| extra8 = Jon Brion
| length8 = 0:55
| title9 = [[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]
| note9 = [[The Korgis]] cover
| extra9 = [[Beck]]
| length9 = 5:54
| title10 = Sidewalk Flight
| extra10 = Jon Brion
| length10 = 0:31
| title11 = Some Kinda Shuffle
| extra11 = Don Nelson
| length11 = 2:11
| title12 = Howard Makes It All Go Away
| extra12 = Jon Brion
| length12 = 0:14
| title13 = Something
| extra13 = [[The Willowz]]
| length13 = 2:23
| title14 = Postcard
| extra14 = Jon Brion
| length14 = 0:23
| title15 = I Wonder
| extra15 = The Willowz
| length15 = 2:56
| title16 = Peer Pressure
| extra16 = Jon Brion
| length16 = 1:12
| title17 = A Dream Upon Waking
| extra17 = Jon Brion
| length17 = 3:36
| title18 = Strings That Tie to You
| extra18 = Jon Brion
| length18 = 2:33
| title19 = Phone Call
| extra19 = Jon Brion
| length19 = 1:03
| title20 = Nola's Bounce
| extra20 = Don Nelson
| length20 = 1:56
| title21 = Down The Drain
| extra21 = Jon Brion
| length21 = 0:56
| title22 = Row
| extra22 = Jon Brion
| length22 = 1:00
| title23 = Drive In
| extra23 = Jon Brion
| length23 = 2:19
| title24 = Main Title
| extra24 = Jon Brion
| length24 = 1:23
| title25 = Spotless Mind
| extra25 = Jon Brion
| length25 = 1:12
| title26 = Elephant Parade
| extra26 = Jon Brion
| length26 = 0:28
}}{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1score = {{Rating|4|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev2 = [[IGN]]
| rev2Score = 7/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2004/03/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original-soundtrack|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Original Soundtrack - IGN Review|date=March 18, 2004|website=IGN.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
| rev3 = [[Filmtracks.com|Filmtracks]]
| rev3Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=January 21, 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev4 = [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]
| rev4Score = 7.5/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
}}

The [[soundtrack]] album for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' was composed by Los Angeles musician [[Jon Brion]], also featuring songs from artists including [[The Polyphonic Spree]], [[The Willowz]], and Don Nelson. [[Hollywood Records]] released the soundtrack on March 16, 2004.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040225005925/en/Beck-Polyphonic-Spree-Headline-Hollywood-Records-Eternal|title=Beck and The Polyphonic Spree Headline Hollywood Records' "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' Soundtrack|last=Ferraro|first=Kris|date=February 25, 2004|website=Business Wire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> A [[cover version]] of [[The Korgis]]' "[[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]" with instrumentation by Brion and vocals by [[Beck]] operates as the soundtrack's centerpiece, setting the film's tone in the opening credits, and closing the film.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://consequenceofsound.net/2009/12/cinema-sounds-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Cinema Sounds: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=O'Shoney|first=Carson|date=December 18, 2009|website=Consequence of Sound|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's'' soundtrack received generally positive reviews. [[AllMusic]] described it as "nearly as deft", and described Brion's score as "intimate" and "evocative of love and memories".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Other positive reviews noted the [[Ambient music|ambient]] nature of the music and lauded Beck's cover of "Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> On the other hand, the soundtrack's detractors criticized the album's lack of identity and its depressive atmosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=21 January 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Even among the detractors, however, the score's ability to mesh with the plot was lauded, an appraisal common to many reviews.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-losers-the-rare-but-beautiful-film-scores-of-jon-brion-deserve-an-oscar-2b29438a926e/|title=The Losers: The Rare But Beautiful Film Scores of Jon Brion Deserve an Oscar|last=Belletto|first=Adam|date=February 17, 2015|website=Film School Rejects|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

== Legacy ==

=== Television series ===
In October 2016, [[Anonymous Content]] announced they would be working with [[Universal Cable Productions]] to produce a television series based on the film. Kaufman is not involved in writing the show. The project is still in planning stages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-tv-933163|title='Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' TV Series in the Works (Exclusive)|last1=Sandberg|first1=Byran Elise|last2=Kit|first2=Borys|date=October 7, 2016|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

===Media recognition===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Presenter
! Title
! Rank
! Notes
|-
| 2005
| align=center | ''[[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]]''
| align=center | 101 Greatest Screenplays
| align=center | 24
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays|title=101 Greatest Screenplays|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=101 Greatest Screenplays Full List|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2008
| align=center | ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time]]
| align=center | 73
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|title=The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|last=|first=|date=November 2008|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|archive-date=October 21, 2013|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=5 | 2009
| align=center | ''[[Time Out (magazine)#Time Out New York|Time Out New York]]''
| align=center | The TONY Top 50 Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 3
|<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=November 26 – December 2, 2009|title=The TONY top 50 movies of the decade|url=https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-tony-top-50-movies-of-the-decade#tab_panel_5|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]|volume=|issue=739|pages=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|via=}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Slant Magazine]]''
| align=center | The 100 Best Films of the Aughts
| align=center | 86
|<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_2|title=The 100 Best Films of the Aughts|last=|first=|date=February 7, 2010|work=[[Slant Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=February 10, 2010}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]''
| align=center | The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)
| align=center | 5
|<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=2|title=The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009)|last=|first=|date=November 3, 2009|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| align=center | The Best Films of the '00s
| align=center | 1
|<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/|title=The Best Films of the '00s|last=Murray|first=Noel|last2=Rabin|first2=Nathan|date=December 3, 2009|website=The A.V. Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|last3=Phipps|first3=Keith|last4=Robinson|first4=Tasha|last5=Tobias|first5=Scott}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Metacritic]]''
| align=center | Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 2
|<ref name=":20">{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-pick-the-best-movies-of-the-decade|title=Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade|last=|first=|date=January 3, 2010|work=Metacritic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2016
| align=center | ''[[BBC]]''
| align=center |[[BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century|The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films]]
| align=center | 6
|<ref name="BBC">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films|title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films|last=|first=|date=August 23, 2016|website=|publisher=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=2 | 2018
| align=center | ''Empire''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 100 Greatest Movies|The 100 Greatest Movies]]
| align=center | 41
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|title=The 100 Greatest Movies|last=|first=|date=March 20, 2018|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706075658/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|archive-date=July 6, 2018|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''They Shoot Pictures Don't They''
| align=center | The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films
| align=center | 5
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_rankinghistory.htm|title=The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films (Ranking History)|last=|first=|date=|website=They Shoot Pictures Don't They|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|}

==See also==

* [[Lucid dream]]
* ''[[Inception]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{Official website|http://www.eternalsunshine.com}}
* {{IMDb title|0338013|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Allmovie title|278676|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Mojo title|eternalsunshine|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/REVIEWS/403190302/1023 ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''] review by [[Roger Ebert]]

{{Michel Gondry}}
{{Charlie Kaufman}}
{{Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film 1991–2010}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind}}
[[Category:2004 films]]
[[Category:Science fiction drama films]]
[[Category:2000s romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American independent films]]
[[Category:American comedy-drama films]]
[[Category:American romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American romantic fantasy films]]
[[Category:Comedy of remarriage films]]
[[Category:Mad scientist films]]
[[Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction]]
[[Category:Nonlinear narrative films]]
[[Category:American psychological films]]
[[Category:Films about altered memories]]
[[Category:Films set in Long Island]]
[[Category:Films set in Manhattan]]
[[Category:Films shot in New York (state)]]
[[Category:Films shot in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Films directed by Michel Gondry]]
[[Category:Films scored by Jon Brion]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Charlie Kaufman]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]]
[[Category:Focus Features films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay BAFTA Award]]
[[Category:Films produced by Steve Golin]]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-27T16:30:19Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: ce

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox film
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| image = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.png
| alt = A man and a woman lying on a sheet of ice, there is a large crack in the ice beside them.
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Michel Gondry]]
| producer = {{ubl|[[Steve Golin]]|Anthony Bregman}}
| screenplay = [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| story = {{ubl|Charlie Kaufman|Michel Gondry|[[Pierre Bismuth]]}}
| starring = {{Plainlist|
* [[Jim Carrey]]
* [[Kate Winslet]]
* [[Kirsten Dunst]]
* [[Mark Ruffalo]]
* [[Elijah Wood]]
* [[Tom Wilkinson]]
}}
| music = [[Jon Brion]]
| cinematography = [[Ellen Kuras]]
| editing = [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| studio = {{ubl|[[Anonymous Content]]|[[This is that corporation|This is That]]}}
| distributor = [[Focus Features]]
| released = {{Film date|2004|03|19}}
| runtime = 108 minutes
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $20 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |title = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind |work = [[Box Office Mojo]] |url = http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm }}</ref>
| gross = $72.3 million<ref name="BOM" />
}}

'''''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''''' is a 2004 American [[science fiction]] [[romantic comedy]] film written by [[Charlie Kaufman]] and directed by [[Michel Gondry]]. It follows an estranged couple who have erased each other from their memories, then, started dating again. [[Pierre Bismuth]] created the story with Kaufman and Gondry. The [[ensemble cast]] includes [[Jim Carrey]], [[Kate Winslet]], [[Kirsten Dunst]], [[Mark Ruffalo]], [[Elijah Wood]], and [[Tom Wilkinson]]. The title of the film is a quotation from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].

The film uses elements of the [[psychological thriller]] and a [[nonlinear narrative]] to explore the nature of [[memory]] and [[romantic love]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|work=Slant Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 25, 2004}}</ref> It opened in [[North America]] to wide acclaim on March 19, 2004, and grossed over $70 million worldwide. It won the [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay]], and Winslet received a nomination for [[Academy Award for Best Actress]]. The film developed a [[cult following]] in the years after its release and many critics now regard it as one of the greatest films of the 21st century.<ref>The film was ranked #6 on the [[BBC]]'s list of the 100 best films of the 21st century, compiled from a survey of 177 film critics. {{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films |title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films |date=August 23, 2016 |website=[[BBC]] |accessdate=August 16, 2017}} See also {{cite web|last1=Dargis|first1=Manohla|last2=Scott|first2=A.O. |title=The 25 Best Films of the 21st Century...So Far |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html |date=Jun 9, 2017 |website=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2017}}</ref>

==Plot==
[[File:Montauk LIRR train station.jpg|thumb|Train station of Montauk where Joel and Clementine meet each other again after erasing of their memories.|alt=]]
Shy, soft-spoken Joel Barish and unrestrained free spirit Clementine Kruczynski begin a relationship on a [[Long Island Rail Road]] train from [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]] to [[Rockville Centre, New York|Rockville Centre]]. They are almost immediately drawn to each other, despite their contrasting personalities, and both had felt the need to travel to Montauk that day. Although they do not realize it, Joel and Clementine are former lovers, now separated after having spent two years together.

After a fight, Clementine hires the New York City firm Lacuna, Inc. to [[Memory erasure|erase all her memories]] of their relationship. Upon discovering this from his friends Rob and Carrie, Joel is saddened and decides to undergo the procedure himself, a process that takes place while he sleeps.

Much of the film subsequently takes place in Joel's mind, during this memory erasure procedure. Joel finds himself revisiting his memories of Clementine [[reverse chronology|in reverse]], starting from the disintegration of their relationship. As he comes across happier, positive memories of Clementine early in his relationship, he decides to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her, trying to evade the procedure by taking his idealized memory of Clementine into [[False memory|memories not related to her]] or waking up to stop the process. Despite his efforts, the technicians steadily erase his memories. He comes to the last remaining memory of Clementine, the day he had first met her at a beach house in Montauk. As this memory disintegrates around them, she tells him, "Meet me in Montauk."

The film features separate, but related, story arcs revolving around the employees of Lacuna during Joel's memory erasure. Patrick, one of the Lacuna technicians performing the erasure, uses Joel's memories and mannerisms to seduce and romance Clementine. Mary, the Lacuna receptionist, is dating the other memory-erasing technician, Stan, but has feelings for Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, a married doctor and the head of Lacuna. During Joel's memory wipe, Mary discovers she had previously had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and agreed to have this erased from her memory when Dr. Mierzwiak's wife found out. On learning this, she asks Stan whether he knew about this, to which he claims that he did not. Mary then quits her job and steals the company's records, mailing them to all of Lacuna's customers.

The film returns to the present after Joel and Clementine have met at the [[Montauk station|train station of Montauk]]. They both come upon their Lacuna records later that day, and react with shock and bewilderment – they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel pleads with Clementine to restart their relationship; Clementine initially resists, pointing out it could go the same way. Joel accepts this and they decide to try anyway.

==Cast==
{{multiple image
| direction = vertical
| width = 175
| footer = Top to bottom: [[Jim Carrey]] and [[Kate Winslet]] play Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski respectively
| image1 = Jim Carrey 2008.jpg
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Kate Winslet by Andrea Raffin.jpg
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
}}

* [[Jim Carrey]] as Joel Barish: Joel is an introvert who enters a two-year relationship with Clementine Kruczynski before erasing her from his mind after they break-up and after she erases him from her memory. [[Charlie Kaufman]] wrote Joel with autobiographical personality traits.<ref name=":11" /> Producers cast Carrey against type for his role as Joel,<ref name=":11" /> selecting him for his regular appearance, as well as his comedic ability. This was as according to Michel Gondry, "[I]t's hard to be funny. It's far easier to take someone really funny and bring them down than do the opposite."<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/michel-gondry-on-mood-indigo-kanye-west-and-the-10th-anniversary-of-eternal-sunshine|title=Michel Gondry on ‘Mood Indigo,’ Kanye West, and the 10th Anniversary of ‘Eternal Sunshine’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=July 19, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> To make Carrey, an actor who typically portrayed high-energy roles, play a restrained character, Gondry prevented him from improvising, a restriction he did not place on the other members of the cast. Carrey did not like this.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/undercover-indies-what-makes-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-so-unforgettable/|title=Undercover Indies: What Makes ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ So Unforgettable?|last=Placa|first=Kaia|date=March 31, 2017|website=Film Independent|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry would also put Carrey off balance by giving wrong orders or by rolling the camera at the wrong time. Gondry believed this would make Carrey forget what he should do to be the character, allowing him to go in character.<ref name=":11" /> In the 2017 [[Netflix]] documentary ''[[Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond|Jim & Andy]]'', Carrey mentions a conversation with Gondry one year before shooting began for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', shortly after Carrey had a breakup with an unspecified woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrey-life-is-too-beautiful/|title=Carrey: 'Life Is Too Beautiful'|last=Leung|first=Rebecca|date=November 18, 2004|website=CBS News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry saw that Carrey's emotional state at the time was "so beautiful, so broken" and asked him to stay that way for one year to fit the character. In the documentary, Carrey commented, "That's how fucked up this business is."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wtop.com/entertainment/2017/11/review-jim-carrey-possessed-by-andy-kaufman-in-documentary-jim-andy/|title=Review: ‘Jim & Andy’ documents Jim Carrey’s journey into his own ‘Tru-Man’|last=Fraley|first=Jason|date=November 30, 2017|website=wtop.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/jim-andy-great-beyond-venice-2017-1035248|title='Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond': Film Review {{!}} Venice 2017|last=Rooney|first=David|date=September 5, 2017|website=The Hollywood Reporter|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> [[Nicolas Cage]] was Gondry's original choice to play Joel,<ref name=":12" /> but Cage was unable to do the role as he was in high demand from independent directors after his performance in ''[[Leaving Las Vegas]]''.<ref name=":14" />
:* Ryan Whitney as young Joel
* [[Kate Winslet]] as Clementine Kruczynski: Clementine is a spontaneous extrovert who, after breaking up with Joel Barish after a two-year relationship, erases him from her mind. Producers cast Winslet against type for her part as Clementine,<ref name=":11" /> having previously featured in period pieces.<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/kate-winslet-on-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2419277|title=No Corsets for Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"|last=Murray|first=Rebecca|date=|website=ThoughtCo.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> She received the role after she was the only actress to offer criticism on the script instead of pandering to the writers.<ref name=":14" /> After another actor won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Oscar]], the studio attempted to make Gondry use her instead of Winslet for the role of Clementine, but Gondry threatened to walk from the project if that occurred.<ref name=":14" /> During filming, Gondry took Winslet to separate rooms to coach her,<ref name=":14" /> and she wore wigs instead of dying her hair.<ref name=":15" /> Commentators have noted how the character of Clementine serves as a critique of the [[Manic Pixie Dream Girl]] [[stock character]] several years before the film critic Nathan Rubin had coined the phrase. The character's criticism of the stock character is predominantly present in her remark: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a9285/manic-pixie-dream-girl-characters/|title=Remembering Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 10 Years Later|last=Gould|first=Hallie|date=March 20, 2014|website=Marie Claire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://flavorwire.com/446166/eternal-sunshine-destroyed-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-stereotype-before-it-even-existed|title=‘Eternal Sunshine’ Destroyed the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype Before It Even Existed|last=Herman|first=Alison|date=March 19, 2014|website=FlavorWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> With her impulsiveness, emotion intensity (extreme mood changes), alcohol dependence, turbulent relationships, reckless behavior, and hasty idealization/devaluation of Joel, Clementine seems to exhibit traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, although it is not clear whether Kaufman wrote her character with this specific diagnosis in mind.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://themighty.com/2017/11/movies-borderline-personality-disorder-bpd/|title=6 Movies That Got Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms (Mostly) Right|work=The Mighty|access-date=2018-08-17|language=en-US}}</ref>

:* Lola Daehler as young Clementine
* [[Kirsten Dunst]] as Mary Svevo: Mary is the receptionist for Lacuna who has a crush on Howard. While erasing Joel's memory, Howard's wife catches her kissing Howard. Howard's wife reveals Mary previously had a relationship with Howard, which Howard erased from her mind. She reacts to this information by quitting her job and mailing Lacuna's company records to its customers.
* [[Mark Ruffalo]] as Stan Fink: Stan is a technician for Lacuna who is in a relationship with Mary until the reveal of her previous relationship with Howard. Ruffalo received the role of Stan after providing an "unexpected take on the role" to Gondry when he suggested Stan be a fan of [[The Clash]] and look like [[Joe Strummer]].<ref name=":14" />
* [[Elijah Wood]] as Patrick: Patrick is a technician for Lacuna who enters a relationship with Clementine by imitating Joel. They break up when Joel and Clementine begin dating for the second time.
* [[Tom Wilkinson]] as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak: Howard runs Lacuna. Before the film's events, he had an affair with Mary, which ended with the relationship's erasure from her mind. Wilkinson reportedly did not enjoy the shooting of the film and frequently disagreed with Gondry.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-ruffalo-blasts-iraqs-gop-warmongers-talks-begin-again-and-avengers|title=Mark Ruffalo Blasts Iraq’s GOP Warmongers, Talks ‘Begin Again’ and ‘Avengers’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=June 30, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Jane Adams (actress)|Jane Adams]] as Carrie Eakin: Joel's friend. She is in a troubled relationship with Rob.
* [[David Cross]] as Rob Eakin: Joel's friend. He is in a troubled relationship with Carrie.
* [[Deirdre O'Connell (actress)|Deirdre O'Connell]] as Hollis Mierzwiak: Howard's wife
* [[Thomas Jay Ryan]] as Frank: Joel's neighbor
* Debbon Ayer as Joel's mother

==Production==
=== Development ===
The concept of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' came from 1998 conversations between [[Michel Gondry]] and the film's co-writer [[Pierre Bismuth]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scriptmag.com/features/script-screen-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=From Script to Screen: ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’|last=Cohen|first=David S.|date=February 17, 2016|website=Script Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> The pair had met and become friends in the early 1980s during Gondry's drumming career in the French pop group ''[[Oui Oui]]''.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/06/1|title=Eraserhead|last=Lack|first=Jessica|date=September 6, 2008|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth had conceived of the idea of erasing certain people from people's minds in response to a friend complaining about her boyfriend; when he asked her if she would erase that boyfriend from her memory, she said yes.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-unforgettable-heartbreaking-exploration-love-human-beings-nature-memory/|title=‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’: An Unforgettable and Heartbreaking Exploration of Love, Human Beings and the Nature of Memory|last=|first=|date=|website=Cinephilia & Beyond|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth originally was going to conduct an art experiment involving sending cards to people saying someone they knew had erased the card’s recipient from their memory.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19247/1/a-secret-history-of-michel-gondry|title=Ten years of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Mansfield|first=Matt|date=March 13, 2014|website=Dazed Digital|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> When he mentioned this to Gondry, they developed it into a story based on the situations that would arise if it were scientifically possible.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> Bismuth never conducted the experiment.<ref name=":6" />

Gondry approached [[Charlie Kaufman]] with this concept, the two having worked previously together for Kaufman's [[Human Nature (film)|''Human Nature'']].<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":6" /> Gondry and Kaufman together further developed the story a short pitch.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.avclub.com/michel-gondry-charlie-kaufman-1798208337|title=Interview - Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman|last=Tobias|first=Scott|date=March 17, 2004|website=AV Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> While the writers did not believe the concept to be marketable, a small bidding war began over the idea.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/charlie-kaufman-anomaslisa-c-v-r.html|title=In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman|last=Sternbergh|first=Adam|date=December 16, 2015|website= [[New York (magazine)#Digital expansion and blogs|Vulture]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> [[Steve Golin]] of [[Propaganda Films]] purchased it on June 12, 1998, for a low seven-figure sum.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/charlie_kaufman.html|title=Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry - Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind|last=Kleinman|first=Geoffrey|date=|website=DVD Talk|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/1998/film/news/pic-pitch-plays-at-propaganda-1117471841/|title=Pic pitch plays at Propaganda|last=Madigan|first=Nick|date=June 15, 1998|work=Variety|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Kaufman, who was responsible for writing the screenplay, did not begin immediately, instead opting to suspend writing while he was working on ''[[Adaptation (film)|Adaptation]]'', ''[[Confessions of a Dangerous Mind]]'' and ''Human Nature''.<ref name=":7" /> During this time, filmmaker [[Christopher Nolan]] released his film ''[[Memento (film)|Memento]]'', which similarly deals with memory. Due to the similarities, Kaufman became worried and tried to pull out of the project, but Golin made him complete it.<ref name=":11" /> During writing, the pitch's ownership changed several times thus Kaufman did not have to deal with the studios until the end of the scriptwriting process.<ref name=":7" /> The final script made the studios nervous.<ref name=":7" />

{{Quote box
| quote = <poem>How happy is the blameless vestal's lot?
The world forgetting, by the world forgot:
'''Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!'''
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;</poem>
| author = [[Alexander Pope]]
| source = ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'', 207-10
| width = 20%
| align = right
| quoted = 1
}}
Kaufman did not want to make the film a thriller and wanted to downplay the science fiction aspects of memory erasure, focusing on the relationship.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":10" /> He had an "enormous struggle" with the script, particularly encountering two problems while writing the script: showing "the memories, Joel's reactions to the memories, and Joel interacting with Clementine outside of the memories in the memories," and the fact that characters could refer in later scenes to a memory that had already been erased.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman solved the first problem by making Joel lucid and able to comment on his memories and solved the second by making the memories degrade instead of immediately erasing, with complete erasure occurring at awakening.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman's original title for the screenplay was 18 words long, as he had wanted a title that "you couldn't possibly fit on a marquee,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3664683.stm|title=Inside screenwriter Kaufman's Mind|last=Smith|first=Neil|date=April 28, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> however, he eventually decided on ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', a title coming from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/film-charlie-kaufman-s-critique-of-pure-comedy.html|title=Charlie Kaufman's Critique of Pure Comedy|last=Scott|first=A. O.|date=April 4, 2004|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

=== Production ===
The shooting of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' began in mid-January 2003 after six weeks of preparation,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/20/news1|title=In brief: Elijah Wood joins Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=December 20, 2002|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://variety.com/2002/film/markets-festivals/ruffalo-springs-for-eternal-1117877087/|title=Ruffalo springs for ‘Eternal’|last=Feiwell|first=Jill|date=December 8, 2002|website=Variety|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Pavlus|first=John|date=April 2004|title=Forget Me Not|url=https://theasc.com/magazine/april04/cover/|journal=The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques|volume=85|pages=1-3|via=}}</ref> lasting for three months on a budget of $20 million mostly in and around [[New York City]].<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /> The production crew, however, recreated some key scenes, such as Joel's [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] apartment and the 1950s-style kitchen, in a [[New Jersey]] former U.S. Navy base.<ref name=":13" />

The shoot was challenging for cinematographer [[Ellen Kuras]], due to the difficulty of filming Gondry's vision for the film, which aimed to "blend location-shoot authenticity with unpredictable flashes of whimsy." According to this vision, Gondry wanted [[available light]] used exclusively for the shoot. Kuras disagreed with this choice and would get around it by lighting the room instead of the actors and by hiding light bulbs around the set to increase light levels.<ref name=":13" /> Another issue encountered by the cinematographers was the frequent improvisation, the lack of marks and the few rehearsals completed, meaning the cinematographers often did not know where the actors would be. Two [[Hand-held camera|handheld cameras]] filmed near 360-degree footage at all times, shooting 36 000 feet of film a day to deal with this.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":13" /> Gondry called back to the work of famed [[French New Wave]] director [[Jean-Luc Godard]] by filming using wheelchairs as well as using sled and chariot dollies instead of [[Camera dolly|traditional dollies]]. When using wheelchairs, the shot was not consistently smooth, however as Kuras liked the aesthetic of the low-angle, wobbly movement, the final film contains the footage.<ref name=":13" />

The film used minimal [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]], with many effects accomplished [[In-camera effect|in-camera]], through [[Forced perspective|forced perspectives]], hidden space, spotlighting, unsynchronized sound, split focus and [[continuity editing]].<ref name=":6" /> A notable example is the ocean washing away the house in [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]]; the production team accomplished this by building the corner of a house on the shore and allowing the tide to come in.<ref name=":12" /> Carrying out this effect was difficult as the special team hired to place the set in the water refused, citing dangers. Gondry in response fired the team and had the production team, including the actors and producers, place the set in the water. In retaliation for Gondry's actions, the chief of the union reprimanded Gondry in front of the crew.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://the-talks.com/interview/michel-gondry/|title=Michel Gondry: "I Believe in Utopia"|last=|first=|date=July 27, 2011|website=The Talks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Kaufman engaged in script rewriting during production; thus, several discrepancies exist between the production script and the final film.<ref name=":9" /> A fundamental difference is that in the production script, with the erasure of each memory, Clementine behaves increasingly robotic.<ref name=":7" /> In the final film, Winslet plays Clementine straight, and degradation of settings and the intrusion of settings upon each other establish memory degradation visually. Another script component that did not make it into the final film was the appearance of Naomi, Joel's girlfriend. Despite Kaufman's insistence on Naomi’s inclusion, the production cut her already filmed scenes.<ref name=":7" />

Icelandic editor [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]] [[Film editing|edited]] the film, and she reportedly conflicted with Gondry during editing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/heroines-of-cinema-valdis-oskarsdottir-and-the-invisible-art-of-editing-44254/|title=Heroines of Cinema: Valdis Oskarsdottir, and the ‘Invisible Art’ of Editing|last=Hammett Knott|first=Matthew|date=October 11, 2012|website=IndieWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Charlie Kaufman was also very involved in the [[Film editing|editing]] of the film. Editing was a long process as there was no requirement to rush it.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":9" /> There were a few [[Test screening|test screenings]] of the film, which elicited positive reactions.<ref name=":9" />

== Release ==

=== Box office ===
Produced on a budget of $20 million, ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' opened on March 19, 2004, in the United States, earning $8,175,198 in its opening weekend in 1,353 theaters. The film placed seventh in the weekend's box office, and remained in theaters for 19 weeks, earning $34,400,301 in the United States and $37,857,825 in international markets for a total of $72,258,126 worldwide.<ref name="BOXTotal">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Film)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|accessdate=June 30, 2018|date=|website=|last=|first=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' is, as of June 2018, Kaufman's most profitable and Gondry's second most profitable film.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=charliekaufman.htm|title=Charlie Kaufman (Writer)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michelgondry.htm|title=Michel Gondry (Director)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating, based on 238 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Propelled by [[Charlie Kaufman]]'s smart, imaginative script and Michel Gondry's equally daring directorial touch, ''Eternal Sunshine'' is a twisty yet heartfelt look at relationships and heartache."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 89 out of 100, based on 41 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Metacritic]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title=CinemaScore|work=cinemascore.com}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' in his initial 2004 review gave the film 3½ out of a possible 4.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Original Review|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=March 19, 2004|website=RogerEbert.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> He revisited the film in 2010 when he referred to Kaufman as "the most gifted screenwriter of the 2000s" and revised the rating to a full four stars, adding it to his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004-1|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|author=Ebert|first=Roger|authorlink=Roger Ebert|date=January 2, 2010|website=Rogerebert.suntimes.com|type=Review; 2010 review|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised the film for being "cerebral, formally and conceptually complicated, dense with literary allusions and as unabashedly romantic as any movie you'll ever see".<ref>{{cite web |last= Murphy |first= Mekado |url= http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/critics-picks-video-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/ |title = Critics' Picks Video: 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'|work=[[The New York Times]] |date = February 15, 2011 |accessdate = 2013-03-27 }}</ref> ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'' summed up their review by saying, "the formidable Gondry/Kaufman/Carrey axis works marvel after marvel in expressing the bewildering beauty and existential horror of being trapped inside one's own addled mind, and in allegorising the self-preserving amnesia of a broken but hopeful heart."<ref>[https://www.timeout.com/london/film/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind movie review – Film – Time Out London]</ref>

Winslet and Carrey received acclaim for their performances. Winslet's performance as Clementine received multiple award nominations, including an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Academy Award nomination for Best Actress]], and [[Premiere (magazine)|''Premiere'' magazine]] placed it 81st in their 2008 list of the 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|title=The 100 Greatest Performances of All Time: 100–75|last=|first=|date=December 3, 2008|work=Premiere|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|archivedate=March 31, 2009|deadurl=yes|accessdate=July 7, 2018|df=}}</ref> Claudia Puig in a review for ''[[USA Today]]'' said of her performance "Winslet is wonderful as a free spirit whose hair color changes along with her moods. She hasn't had such a meaty role in a while, and she plays it just right."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-03-18-eternal-sunshine_x.htm|title=Soak up 'Eternal Sunshine,' and you'll feel warm all over|last=Puig|first=Claudia|date=March 18, 2004|work=[[USA Today]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Carrey's performance as Joel also received multiple award nominations. Jason Killingsworth in a review for [[Paste (magazine)|Paste magazine]] said of his performance "Carrey nails the part, winning audience sympathy from the opening moments of the film".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2004/06/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Killingsworth|first=Jason|date=June 1, 2004|website=Paste Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref>

In the autumn 2008 issue of [[Screen (journal)|Screen Journal]], Carol Vernallis argued that Gondry's experience in directing [[music video]]s contributed to the film's [[Mise en scène|mise-en-scène]] and sound design. Vernallis describes some threads of the visual, aural and musical motifs throughout the film, and how some motifs can work in [[counterpoint]].<ref>Vernallis, Carol. "Music video, songs, sound: experience, technique and emotion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''". ''Screen''. 49.3. (2008) pp.277–97.</ref>

===Accolades and honors===
{{Main|List of accolades received by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
|-
!scope="col"| Award
!scope="col"| Award category
!scope="col"| Recipients and nominees
!scope="col"| Result
!scope="col"| {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="2"|[[77th Academy Awards|Academy Awards]]
|[[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]]
|[[Kate Winslet]]
|{{nom}}
!scope ="row" rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2005|title=Nominees & Winners for the 77th Academy Awards|last=|first=|date=|year=2005|work=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]]
|[[Pierre Bismuth]], [[Michel Gondry]] and [[Charlie Kaufman]]
|{{won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="6"|[[58th British Academy Film Awards|British Academy Film Awards]] (BAFTA)
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role|Best Actor in a Leading Role]]
|[[Jim Carrey]]
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan="6" style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4180423.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The nominations|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4260929.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The winners|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role|Best Actress in a Leading Role]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Direction|Best Director]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Editing|Best Editing]]
|[[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
|{{won}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]]
|[[Likely Story|Anthony Bregman]] and [[Steve Golin]]
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{Won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="4"|[[62nd Golden Globe Awards|Golden Globe Awards]]
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy|Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Jim Carrey
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan=4 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=/year/2005|title=The 62nd Annual Golden Globe Awards (2005)|year=2005|work=[[Golden Globe Award]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical|Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy|Best Film - Musical or Comedy]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay|Best Screenplay]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{nom}}
|-
!scope="row"|[[Hugo Award|Hugo Awards]]
|[[Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation|Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form]]
|Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Bierre Bismuth
|{{nom}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/|title=2005 Hugo Awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[National Board of Review Awards 2004|National Board of Review]]
|[[National Board of Review Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
! rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/award-years/2004/|title=2004 Award Winners|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[Writers Guild of America Awards 2004|Writers Guild of America]]
|[[Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Pierre Bismuth, Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4281705.stm|title=Quirky movies win script awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|}

=== Home media ===

Universal Home Entertainment released ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' on [[DVD]] on September 28, 2004.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind#tab=summary|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)|last=|first=|date=|website=The Numbers|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> A [[Blu-ray]] edition release occurred in the U.S. on January 25, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Blu-ray/16770/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=blu-ray.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

==Music==
{{Anchor|Music|Soundtrack|Score}}{{Infobox album
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| type = Soundtrack
| artist = Jon Brion
| cover = Eternal sunshine CD cover.jpg
| alt =
| released = March 16, 2004
| recorded =
| venue =
| studio =
| genre = Soundtrack
| length = 56:08
| label = [[Hollywood Records|Hollywood]]
| producer = Kathy Nelson (executive producer) [[Tim DeLaughter]] (track 4) [[Jon Brion]] (track 9) Don Nelson (tracks 11 and 20) Ethan Johns (track 18)
| chronology = [[Jon Brion]]
| prev_title = [[Punch-Drunk Love (soundtrack)|Punch-Drunk Love]]
| prev_year = 2002
| next_title = [[I Heart Huckabees (soundtrack)|I ♥ Huckabees]]
| next_year = 2004
}}
{{Main|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (soundtrack)}}{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| collapsed = yes
| extra_column = Artist
| total_length = 56:08
| title1 = Theme
| extra1 = [[Jon Brion]]
| length1 = 2:24
| title2 = [[Mr. Blue Sky]]
| extra2 = [[Electric Light Orchestra]]
| length2 = 5:03
| title3 = Collecting Things
| extra3 = Jon Brion
| length3 = 1:13
| title4 = [[Light & Day]]
| extra4 = [[The Polyphonic Spree]]
| length4 = 3:03
| title5 = Bookstore
| extra5 = Jon Brion
| length5 = 0:52
| title6 = It's the Sun
| note6 = [[KCRW]] [[Morning Becomes Eclectic]] version
| extra6 = The Polyphonic Spree
| length6 = 5:33
| title7 = Wada Na Tod, Mera Man Tera Pyasa
| extra7 = [[Lata Mangeshkar]], [[Mohammed Rafi]]
| length7 = 5:54
| title8 = Showtime
| extra8 = Jon Brion
| length8 = 0:55
| title9 = [[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]
| note9 = [[The Korgis]] cover
| extra9 = [[Beck]]
| length9 = 5:54
| title10 = Sidewalk Flight
| extra10 = Jon Brion
| length10 = 0:31
| title11 = Some Kinda Shuffle
| extra11 = Don Nelson
| length11 = 2:11
| title12 = Howard Makes It All Go Away
| extra12 = Jon Brion
| length12 = 0:14
| title13 = Something
| extra13 = [[The Willowz]]
| length13 = 2:23
| title14 = Postcard
| extra14 = Jon Brion
| length14 = 0:23
| title15 = I Wonder
| extra15 = The Willowz
| length15 = 2:56
| title16 = Peer Pressure
| extra16 = Jon Brion
| length16 = 1:12
| title17 = A Dream Upon Waking
| extra17 = Jon Brion
| length17 = 3:36
| title18 = Strings That Tie to You
| extra18 = Jon Brion
| length18 = 2:33
| title19 = Phone Call
| extra19 = Jon Brion
| length19 = 1:03
| title20 = Nola's Bounce
| extra20 = Don Nelson
| length20 = 1:56
| title21 = Down The Drain
| extra21 = Jon Brion
| length21 = 0:56
| title22 = Row
| extra22 = Jon Brion
| length22 = 1:00
| title23 = Drive In
| extra23 = Jon Brion
| length23 = 2:19
| title24 = Main Title
| extra24 = Jon Brion
| length24 = 1:23
| title25 = Spotless Mind
| extra25 = Jon Brion
| length25 = 1:12
| title26 = Elephant Parade
| extra26 = Jon Brion
| length26 = 0:28
}}{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1score = {{Rating|4|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev2 = [[IGN]]
| rev2Score = 7/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2004/03/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original-soundtrack|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Original Soundtrack - IGN Review|date=March 18, 2004|website=IGN.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
| rev3 = [[Filmtracks.com|Filmtracks]]
| rev3Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=January 21, 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev4 = [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]
| rev4Score = 7.5/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
}}

The [[soundtrack]] album for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' was composed by Los Angeles musician [[Jon Brion]], also featuring songs from artists including [[The Polyphonic Spree]], [[The Willowz]], and Don Nelson. [[Hollywood Records]] released the soundtrack on March 16, 2004.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040225005925/en/Beck-Polyphonic-Spree-Headline-Hollywood-Records-Eternal|title=Beck and The Polyphonic Spree Headline Hollywood Records' "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' Soundtrack|last=Ferraro|first=Kris|date=February 25, 2004|website=Business Wire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> A [[cover version]] of [[The Korgis]]' "[[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]" with instrumentation by Brion and vocals by [[Beck]] operates as the soundtrack's centerpiece, setting the film's tone in the opening credits, and closing the film.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://consequenceofsound.net/2009/12/cinema-sounds-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Cinema Sounds: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=O'Shoney|first=Carson|date=December 18, 2009|website=Consequence of Sound|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's'' soundtrack received generally positive reviews. [[AllMusic]] described it as "nearly as deft", and described Brion's score as "intimate" and "evocative of love and memories".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Other positive reviews noted the [[Ambient music|ambient]] nature of the music and lauded Beck's cover of "Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> On the other hand, the soundtrack's detractors criticized the album's lack of identity and its depressive atmosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=21 January 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Even among the detractors, however, the score's ability to mesh with the plot was lauded, an appraisal common to many reviews.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-losers-the-rare-but-beautiful-film-scores-of-jon-brion-deserve-an-oscar-2b29438a926e/|title=The Losers: The Rare But Beautiful Film Scores of Jon Brion Deserve an Oscar|last=Belletto|first=Adam|date=February 17, 2015|website=Film School Rejects|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

== Legacy ==

=== Television series ===
In October 2016, [[Anonymous Content]] announced they would be working with [[Universal Cable Productions]] to produce a television series based on the film. Kaufman is not involved in writing the show. The project is still in planning stages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-tv-933163|title='Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' TV Series in the Works (Exclusive)|last1=Sandberg|first1=Byran Elise|last2=Kit|first2=Borys|date=October 7, 2016|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

===Media recognition===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Presenter
! Title
! Rank
! Notes
|-
| 2005
| align=center | ''[[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]]''
| align=center | 101 Greatest Screenplays
| align=center | 24
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays|title=101 Greatest Screenplays|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=101 Greatest Screenplays Full List|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2008
| align=center | ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time]]
| align=center | 73
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|title=The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|last=|first=|date=November 2008|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|archive-date=October 21, 2013|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=5 | 2009
| align=center | ''[[Time Out (magazine)#Time Out New York|Time Out New York]]''
| align=center | The TONY Top 50 Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 3
|<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=November 26 – December 2, 2009|title=The TONY top 50 movies of the decade|url=https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-tony-top-50-movies-of-the-decade#tab_panel_5|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]|volume=|issue=739|pages=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|via=}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Slant Magazine]]''
| align=center | The 100 Best Films of the Aughts
| align=center | 86
|<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_2|title=The 100 Best Films of the Aughts|last=|first=|date=February 7, 2010|work=[[Slant Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=February 10, 2010}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]''
| align=center | The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)
| align=center | 5
|<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=2|title=The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009)|last=|first=|date=November 3, 2009|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| align=center | The Best Films of the '00s
| align=center | 1
|<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/|title=The Best Films of the '00s|last=Murray|first=Noel|last2=Rabin|first2=Nathan|date=December 3, 2009|website=The A.V. Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|last3=Phipps|first3=Keith|last4=Robinson|first4=Tasha|last5=Tobias|first5=Scott}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Metacritic]]''
| align=center | Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 2
|<ref name=":20">{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-pick-the-best-movies-of-the-decade|title=Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade|last=|first=|date=January 3, 2010|work=Metacritic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2016
| align=center | ''[[BBC]]''
| align=center |[[BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century|The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films]]
| align=center | 6
|<ref name="BBC">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films|title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films|last=|first=|date=August 23, 2016|website=|publisher=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=2 | 2018
| align=center | ''Empire''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 100 Greatest Movies|The 100 Greatest Movies]]
| align=center | 41
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|title=The 100 Greatest Movies|last=|first=|date=March 20, 2018|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706075658/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|archive-date=July 6, 2018|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''They Shoot Pictures Don't They''
| align=center | The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films
| align=center | 5
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_rankinghistory.htm|title=The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films (Ranking History)|last=|first=|date=|website=They Shoot Pictures Don't They|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|}

==See also==

* [[Lucid dream]]
* ''[[Inception]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{Official website|http://www.eternalsunshine.com}}
* {{IMDb title|0338013|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Allmovie title|278676|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Mojo title|eternalsunshine|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/REVIEWS/403190302/1023 ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''] review by [[Roger Ebert]]

{{Michel Gondry}}
{{Charlie Kaufman}}
{{Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film 1991–2010}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind}}
[[Category:2004 films]]
[[Category:Science fiction drama films]]
[[Category:2000s romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American independent films]]
[[Category:American comedy-drama films]]
[[Category:American romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American romantic fantasy films]]
[[Category:Comedy of remarriage films]]
[[Category:Mad scientist films]]
[[Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction]]
[[Category:Nonlinear narrative films]]
[[Category:American psychological films]]
[[Category:Films about altered memories]]
[[Category:Films set in Long Island]]
[[Category:Films set in Manhattan]]
[[Category:Films shot in New York (state)]]
[[Category:Films shot in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Films directed by Michel Gondry]]
[[Category:Films scored by Jon Brion]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Charlie Kaufman]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]]
[[Category:Focus Features films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay BAFTA Award]]
[[Category:Films produced by Steve Golin]]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-27T15:34:30Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Music */ Moved up infobox

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox film
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| image = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.png
| alt = A man and a woman lying on a sheet of ice, there is a large crack in the ice beside them.
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Michel Gondry]]
| producer = {{ubl|[[Steve Golin]]|Anthony Bregman}}
| screenplay = [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| story = {{ubl|Charlie Kaufman|Michel Gondry|[[Pierre Bismuth]]}}
| starring = {{Plainlist|
* [[Jim Carrey]]
* [[Kate Winslet]]
* [[Kirsten Dunst]]
* [[Mark Ruffalo]]
* [[Elijah Wood]]
* [[Tom Wilkinson]]
}}
| music = [[Jon Brion]]
| cinematography = [[Ellen Kuras]]
| editing = [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| studio = {{ubl|[[Anonymous Content]]|[[This is that corporation|This is That]]}}
| distributor = [[Focus Features]]
| released = {{Film date|2004|03|19}}
| runtime = 108 minutes
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $20 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |title = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind |work = [[Box Office Mojo]] |url = http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm }}</ref>
| gross = $72.3 million<ref name="BOM" />
}}

'''''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''''' is a 2004 American [[science fiction]] [[romantic comedy]] film written by [[Charlie Kaufman]] and directed by [[Michel Gondry]]. It follows an estranged couple who have erased each other from their memories, then, started dating again. [[Pierre Bismuth]] created the story with Kaufman and Gondry. The [[ensemble cast]] includes [[Jim Carrey]], [[Kate Winslet]], [[Kirsten Dunst]], [[Mark Ruffalo]], [[Elijah Wood]], and [[Tom Wilkinson]]. The title of the film is a quotation from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].

The film uses elements of the [[psychological thriller]] and a [[nonlinear narrative]] to explore the nature of [[memory]] and [[romantic love]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|work=Slant Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 25, 2004}}</ref> It opened in [[North America]] to wide acclaim on March 19, 2004, and grossed over $70 million worldwide. It won the [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay]], and Winslet received a nomination for [[Academy Award for Best Actress]]. The film developed a [[cult following]] in the years after its release and is now regarded by many critics as one of the greatest films of the 21st century.<ref>The film was ranked #6 on the [[BBC]]'s list of the 100 best films of the 21st century, compiled from a survey of 177 film critics. {{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films |title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films |date=August 23, 2016 |website=[[BBC]] |accessdate=August 16, 2017}} See also {{cite web|last1=Dargis|first1=Manohla|last2=Scott|first2=A.O. |title=The 25 Best Films of the 21st Century...So Far |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html |date=Jun 9, 2017 |website=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2017}}</ref>

==Plot==
[[File:Montauk LIRR train station.jpg|thumb|Train station of Montauk where Joel and Clementine meet each other again after erasing of their memories.|alt=]]
Shy, soft-spoken Joel Barish and unrestrained free-spirit Clementine Kruczynski begin a relationship on a [[Long Island Rail Road]] train from [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]] to [[Rockville Centre, New York|Rockville Centre]]. They are almost immediately drawn to each other, despite their contrasting personalities, and both had felt the need to travel to Montauk that day. Although they do not realize it, Joel and Clementine are former lovers, now separated after having spent two years together.

After a fight, Clementine hires the New York City firm Lacuna, Inc. to [[Memory erasure|erase all her memories]] of their relationship. Upon discovering this from his friends Rob and Carrie, Joel is saddened and decides to undergo the procedure himself, a process which takes place while he sleeps.

Much of the film subsequently takes place in Joel's mind, during this memory erasure procedure. Joel finds himself revisiting his memories of Clementine [[reverse chronology|in reverse]], starting from the disintegration of their relationship. As he comes across happier, positive memories of Clementine early in his relationship, he decides to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her, trying to evade the procedure by taking his idealized memory of Clementine into [[False memory|memories not related to her]] or waking up to stop the process. Despite his efforts, the memories are steadily erased. He comes to the last remaining memory of Clementine, the day he had first met her at a beach house in Montauk. As this memory disintegrates around them, she tells him, "Meet me in Montauk."

Separate, but related, story arcs revolving around the employees of Lacuna are revealed during Joel's memory erasure. Patrick, one of the Lacuna technicians performing the erasure, uses Joel's memories and mannerisms to seduce and romance Clementine. Mary, the Lacuna receptionist, is dating the other memory-erasing technician, Stan, but has feelings for Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, a married doctor and the head of Lacuna. During Joel's memory wipe, Mary discovers she had previously had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and agreed to have this erased from her memory when Dr. Mierzwiak's wife found out. On learning this, she asks Stan whether he knew about this, to which he claims that he didn't. Mary then quits her job and steals the company's records, mailing them to all of Lacuna's customers, believing the clients should know the truth.

The film returns to the present after Joel and Clementine have met at the [[Montauk station|train station of Montauk]]. They both come upon their Lacuna records later that day, and react with shock and bewilderment – they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel pleads with Clementine to restart their relationship; Clementine initially resists, pointing out it could go the same way. Joel accepts this and they decide to try anyway.

==Cast==
{{multiple image
| direction = vertical
| width = 175
| footer = Top to bottom: [[Jim Carrey]] and [[Kate Winslet]] play Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski respectively
| image1 = Jim Carrey 2008.jpg
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Kate Winslet by Andrea Raffin.jpg
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
}}

* [[Jim Carrey]] as Joel Barish: Joel is an introvert who enters a two-year relationship with Clementine Kruczynski before erasing her from his mind after they break-up and after she erases him from her memory. [[Charlie Kaufman]] wrote Joel with autobiographical personality traits.<ref name=":11" /> Producers cast Carrey against type for his role as Joel.<ref name=":11" /> Carrey was selected for his regular appearance, as well as his comedic ability, as according to Michel Gondry, "[I]t's hard to be funny. It's far easier to take someone really funny and bring them down than do the opposite."<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/michel-gondry-on-mood-indigo-kanye-west-and-the-10th-anniversary-of-eternal-sunshine|title=Michel Gondry on ‘Mood Indigo,’ Kanye West, and the 10th Anniversary of ‘Eternal Sunshine’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=July 19, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> To make Carrey, an actor who typically portrayed high-energy roles, play a restrained character, Gondry prevented him from improvising, a restriction he did not place on the other members of the cast. Carrey did not like this.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/undercover-indies-what-makes-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-so-unforgettable/|title=Undercover Indies: What Makes ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ So Unforgettable?|last=Placa|first=Kaia|date=March 31, 2017|website=Film Independent|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry would also put Carrey off balance by giving wrong orders or by rolling the camera at the wrong time. Gondry believed this would make Carrey forget what he should do to be the character, allowing him to go in-character.<ref name=":11" /> In the 2017 [[Netflix]] documentary ''[[Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond|Jim & Andy]]'', Carrey mentions a conversation with Gondry one year before shooting began for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', shortly after Carrey had a breakup with an unspecified woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrey-life-is-too-beautiful/|title=Carrey: 'Life Is Too Beautiful'|last=Leung|first=Rebecca|date=November 18, 2004|website=CBS News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry saw that Carrey's emotional state at the time was "so beautiful, so broken" and asked him to stay that way for one year to fit the character. In the documentary, Carrey commented, "That's how fucked up this business is."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wtop.com/entertainment/2017/11/review-jim-carrey-possessed-by-andy-kaufman-in-documentary-jim-andy/|title=Review: ‘Jim & Andy’ documents Jim Carrey’s journey into his own ‘Tru-Man’|last=Fraley|first=Jason|date=November 30, 2017|website=wtop.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/jim-andy-great-beyond-venice-2017-1035248|title='Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond': Film Review {{!}} Venice 2017|last=Rooney|first=David|date=September 5, 2017|website=The Hollywood Reporter|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> [[Nicolas Cage]] was Gondry's original choice to play Joel,<ref name=":12" /> but Cage was unable to do the role as he was in high demand from independent directors after his performance in ''[[Leaving Las Vegas]]''.<ref name=":14" />
:* Ryan Whitney as young Joel
* [[Kate Winslet]] as Clementine Kruczynski: Clementine is a spontaneous extrovert who, after breaking up with Joel Barish after a two-year relationship, erases him from her mind. Winslet was cast against type for her part as Clementine,<ref name=":11" /> having previously featured in period pieces,<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/kate-winslet-on-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2419277|title=No Corsets for Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"|last=Murray|first=Rebecca|date=|website=ThoughtCo.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> and received the role after she was the only actress to offer criticism on the script instead of pandering to the writers.<ref name=":14" /> After another actress won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Oscar]], the studio attempted to make Gondry use her instead of Winslet for the role of Clementine, but Gondry threatened to walk from the project if that occurred.<ref name=":14" /> During filming, Gondry took Winslet to separate rooms to coach her,<ref name=":14" /> and she wore wigs instead of dying her hair.<ref name=":15" /> The character of Clementine has been noted several times to serve as a critique of the [[Manic Pixie Dream Girl]] [[stock character]] before the phrase itself had been coined. The character's criticism of the stock character is predominantly present in her remark: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a9285/manic-pixie-dream-girl-characters/|title=Remembering Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 10 Years Later|last=Gould|first=Hallie|date=March 20, 2014|website=Marie Claire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://flavorwire.com/446166/eternal-sunshine-destroyed-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-stereotype-before-it-even-existed|title=‘Eternal Sunshine’ Destroyed the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype Before It Even Existed|last=Herman|first=Alison|date=March 19, 2014|website=FlavorWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> With her impulsiveness, emotion intensity (extreme mood changes), alcohol dependence, turbulent relationships, reckless behavior, and hasty idealization/devaluation of Joel, Clementine seems to exhibit traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, although it is not clear whether her character was written with this specific diagnosis in mind.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://themighty.com/2017/11/movies-borderline-personality-disorder-bpd/|title=6 Movies That Got Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms (Mostly) Right|work=The Mighty|access-date=2018-08-17|language=en-US}}</ref>
:* Lola Daehler as young Clementine
* [[Kirsten Dunst]] as Mary Svevo: Mary is the receptionist for Lacuna who has a crush on Howard. While erasing Joel's memory, Howard's wife catches her kissing Howard. Howard's wife reveals Mary previously had a relationship with Howard which Howard erased from her mind. In revenge for the deception, she mails Lacuna's company records to the customers.
* [[Mark Ruffalo]] as Stan Fink: Stan is a technician for Lacuna who is in a relationship with Mary until the reveal of her previous relationship with Howard. Ruffalo received the role of Stan after providing an "unexpected take on the role" to Gondry when he suggested Stan be a fan of [[The Clash]] and look like [[Joe Strummer]].<ref name=":14" />
* [[Elijah Wood]] as Patrick: Patrick is a technician for Lacuna who enters a relationship with Clementine by imitating Joel. They break up when Joel and Clementine begin dating for the second time.
* [[Tom Wilkinson]] as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak: Howard runs Lacuna. Before the film's events, he had an affair with Mary, which ended with the relationship's erasure from her mind. Wilkinson reportedly did not enjoy the shooting of the film and frequently disagreed with Gondry.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-ruffalo-blasts-iraqs-gop-warmongers-talks-begin-again-and-avengers|title=Mark Ruffalo Blasts Iraq’s GOP Warmongers, Talks ‘Begin Again’ and ‘Avengers’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=June 30, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Jane Adams (actress)|Jane Adams]] as Carrie Eakin: Joel's friend. She is in a troubled relationship with Rob.
* [[David Cross]] as Rob Eakin: Joel's friend. He is in a troubled relationship with Carrie.
* [[Deirdre O'Connell (actress)|Deirdre O'Connell]] as Hollis Mierzwiak: Howard's wife
* [[Thomas Jay Ryan]] as Frank: Joel's neighbor
* Debbon Ayer as Joel's mother

==Production==
=== Development ===
The concept of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' came from 1998 conversations between [[Michel Gondry]] and the film's co-writer [[Pierre Bismuth]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scriptmag.com/features/script-screen-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=From Script to Screen: ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’|last=Cohen|first=David S.|date=February 17, 2016|website=Script Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> The pair had met and become friends in the early 1980s during Gondry's drumming career in the French pop group ''[[Oui Oui]]''.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/06/1|title=Eraserhead|last=Lack|first=Jessica|date=September 6, 2008|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth had conceived of the idea of erasing certain people from people's minds in response to a friend complaining about her boyfriend; when he asked her if she would erase that boyfriend from her memory, she said yes.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-unforgettable-heartbreaking-exploration-love-human-beings-nature-memory/|title=‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’: An Unforgettable and Heartbreaking Exploration of Love, Human Beings and the Nature of Memory|last=|first=|date=|website=Cinephilia & Beyond|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth originally was going to conduct an art experiment involving sending cards to people saying someone they knew had erased the card’s recipient from their memory.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19247/1/a-secret-history-of-michel-gondry|title=Ten years of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Mansfield|first=Matt|date=March 13, 2014|website=Dazed Digital|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> When he mentioned this to Gondry, they developed it into a story based on the situations that would arise if it were scientifically possible.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> Bismuth never conducted the experiment.<ref name=":6" />

Gondry approached [[Charlie Kaufman]] with this concept, the two having worked previously together for Kaufman's [[Human Nature (film)|''Human Nature'']].<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":6" /> Gondry and Kaufman together further developed the story a short pitch.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.avclub.com/michel-gondry-charlie-kaufman-1798208337|title=Interview - Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman|last=Tobias|first=Scott|date=March 17, 2004|website=AV Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> While the writers did not believe the concept to be marketable, a small bidding war began over the idea.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/charlie-kaufman-anomaslisa-c-v-r.html|title=In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman|last=Sternbergh|first=Adam|date=December 16, 2015|website= [[New York (magazine)#Digital expansion and blogs|Vulture]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> It was purchased on June 12, 1998, for a low seven-figure sum by [[Steve Golin]] of [[Propaganda Films]].<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/charlie_kaufman.html|title=Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry - Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind|last=Kleinman|first=Geoffrey|date=|website=DVD Talk|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/1998/film/news/pic-pitch-plays-at-propaganda-1117471841/|title=Pic pitch plays at Propaganda|last=Madigan|first=Nick|date=June 15, 1998|work=Variety|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Kaufman, who was responsible for writing the screenplay, did not begin immediately, instead opting to suspend writing while he was working on ''[[Adaptation (film)|Adaptation]]'', ''[[Confessions of a Dangerous Mind]]'' and ''Human Nature''.<ref name=":7" /> During this time, the film ''[[Memento (film)|Memento]]'' was released, which similarly deals with memory. Due to the similarities, Kaufman became worried and attempted to pull out of the project, but Golin made him complete it.<ref name=":11" /> During writing, the pitch's ownership changed several times thus Kaufman did not have to deal with the studios until the end of the scriptwriting process.<ref name=":7" /> The final script made the studios nervous.<ref name=":7" />

{{Quote box
| quote = <poem>How happy is the blameless vestal's lot?
The world forgetting, by the world forgot:
'''Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!'''
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;</poem>
| author = [[Alexander Pope]]
| source = ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'', 207-10
| width = 20%
| align = right
| quoted = 1
}}
Kaufman did not want to make the film a thriller and wanted to downplay the science fiction aspects of memory erasure, focusing on the relationship.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":10" /> He had an "enormous struggle" with the script, particularly encountering two problems while writing the script: showing "the memories, Joel's reactions to the memories, and Joel interacting with Clementine outside of the memories in the memories," and the fact that characters could refer in later scenes to a memory that had already been erased.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman solved the first problem by making Joel lucid and able to comment on his memories and solved the second by making the memories degrade instead of immediately erasing, with complete erasure occurring at awakening.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman's original title for the screenplay was 18 words long, as he had wanted a title which "you couldn't possibly fit on a marquee,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3664683.stm|title=Inside screenwriter Kaufman's Mind|last=Smith|first=Neil|date=April 28, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> however, he eventually decided on ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', a title coming from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/film-charlie-kaufman-s-critique-of-pure-comedy.html|title=Charlie Kaufman's Critique of Pure Comedy|last=Scott|first=A. O.|date=April 4, 2004|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

=== Production ===
The shooting of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' began in mid-January 2003 after six weeks of preparation,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/20/news1|title=In brief: Elijah Wood joins Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=December 20, 2002|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://variety.com/2002/film/markets-festivals/ruffalo-springs-for-eternal-1117877087/|title=Ruffalo springs for ‘Eternal’|last=Feiwell|first=Jill|date=December 8, 2002|website=Variety|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Pavlus|first=John|date=April 2004|title=Forget Me Not|url=https://theasc.com/magazine/april04/cover/|journal=The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques|volume=85|pages=1-3|via=}}</ref> lasting for three months on a budget of $20 million mostly in and around [[New York City]].<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /> Some key scenes, however, such as Joel's [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] apartment and the 1950s-style kitchen, were recreated in a [[New Jersey]] former U.S. Navy base.<ref name=":13" />

The shoot was challenging for cinematographer [[Ellen Kuras]], due to the difficulty of filming Gondry's vision for the film, which aimed to "blend location-shoot authenticity with unpredictable flashes of whimsy." According to this vision, Gondry wanted [[available light]] used exclusively for the shoot. Kuras disagreed with this choice and would get around it by lighting the room instead of the actors and by hiding light bulbs around the set to increase light levels.<ref name=":13" /> Another issue encountered by the cinematographers was the frequent improvisation, the lack of marks and the few rehearsals completed, meaning the cinematographers often did not know where the actors would be. Two [[Hand-held camera|handheld cameras]] filmed near 360-degree footage at all times, shooting 36 000 feet of film a day to deal with this.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":13" /> Gondry called back to the work of famed [[French New Wave]] director [[Jean-Luc Godard]] by filming using wheelchairs as well as using sled and chariot dollies instead of [[Camera dolly|traditional dollies]]. When using wheelchairs, the shot was not consistently smooth, however as Kuras liked the aesthetic of the low-angle, wobbly movement, the final film contains the footage.<ref name=":13" />

The film used minimal [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]], with many effects accomplished [[In-camera effect|in-camera]], through [[Forced perspective|forced perspectives]], hidden space, spotlighting, unsynchronized sound, split focus and [[continuity editing]].<ref name=":6" /> A notable example is the ocean washing away the house in [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]]; the production team accomplished this by building the corner of a house on the shore and allowing the tide to come in.<ref name=":12" /> Carrying out this effect was difficult as the special team hired to place the set in the water refused, citing dangers. Gondry in response fired the team and had the production team, including the actors and producers, place the set in the water. In retaliation for Gondry's actions, the chief of the union reprimanded Gondry in front of the crew.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://the-talks.com/interview/michel-gondry/|title=Michel Gondry: "I Believe in Utopia"|last=|first=|date=July 27, 2011|website=The Talks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Kaufman engaged in script rewriting during production; thus several discrepancies exist between the production script and the final film.<ref name=":9" /> A fundamental difference is that in the production script, with the erasure of each memory, Clementine behaves increasingly robotic.<ref name=":7" /> In the final film, Winslet plays Clementine straight, and degradation of settings and the intrusion of settings upon each other establish memory degradation visually. Another script component which did not make it into the final film was the appearance of Naomi, Joel's girlfriend. Despite Kaufman's insistence on Naomi’s inclusion, the production cut her already filmed scenes.<ref name=":7" />

Icelandic editor [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]] [[Film editing|edited]] the film, and she reportedly conflicted with Gondry during editing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/heroines-of-cinema-valdis-oskarsdottir-and-the-invisible-art-of-editing-44254/|title=Heroines of Cinema: Valdis Oskarsdottir, and the ‘Invisible Art’ of Editing|last=Hammett Knott|first=Matthew|date=October 11, 2012|website=IndieWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Charlie Kaufman was also very involved in the [[Film editing|editing]] of the film. Editing was a long process as there was no requirement to rush it.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":9" /> There were a few [[Test screening|test screenings]] of the film, which elicited positive reactions.<ref name=":9" />

== Release ==

=== Box office ===
Produced on a budget of $20 million, ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' opened on March 19, 2004, in the United States, earning $8,175,198 in its opening weekend in 1,353 theaters. The film placed seventh in the weekend's box office, and remained in theaters for 19 weeks, earning $34,400,301 in the United States and $37,857,825 in international markets for a total of $72,258,126 worldwide.<ref name="BOXTotal">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Film)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|accessdate=June 30, 2018|date=|website=|last=|first=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' is, as of June 2018, Kaufman's most profitable, and Gondry's second most profitable film.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=charliekaufman.htm|title=Charlie Kaufman (Writer)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michelgondry.htm|title=Michel Gondry (Director)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating, based on 238 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "Propelled by [[Charlie Kaufman]]'s smart, imaginative script and Michel Gondry's equally daring directorial touch, ''Eternal Sunshine'' is a twisty yet heartfelt look at relationships and heartache."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 89 out of 100, based on 41 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Metacritic]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title=CinemaScore|work=cinemascore.com}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' in his initial 2004 review gave the film 3½ out of a possible 4.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Original Review|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=March 19, 2004|website=RogerEbert.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> He revisited the film in 2010 when he referred to Kaufman as "the most gifted screenwriter of the 2000s" and revised the rating to a full 4 stars, adding it to his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004-1|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|author=Ebert|first=Roger|authorlink=Roger Ebert|date=January 2, 2010|website=Rogerebert.suntimes.com|type=Review; 2010 review|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised the film for being "cerebral, formally and conceptually complicated, dense with literary allusions and as unabashedly romantic as any movie you'll ever see".<ref>{{cite web |last= Murphy |first= Mekado |url= http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/critics-picks-video-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/ |title = Critics' Picks Video: 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'|work=[[The New York Times]] |date = February 15, 2011 |accessdate = 2013-03-27 }}</ref> ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'' summed up their review by saying, "the formidable Gondry/Kaufman/Carrey axis works marvel after marvel in expressing the bewildering beauty and existential horror of being trapped inside one's own addled mind, and in allegorising the self-preserving amnesia of a broken but hopeful heart."<ref>[https://www.timeout.com/london/film/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind movie review – Film – Time Out London]</ref>

Winslet and Carrey received acclaim for their performances. Winslet's performance as Clementine received multiple award nominations, including an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Academy Award nomination for Best Actress]], and it was placed 81st in [[Premiere (magazine)|''Premiere'' magazine's]] 2008 list of 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|title=The 100 Greatest Performances of All Time: 100–75|last=|first=|date=December 3, 2008|work=Premiere|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|archivedate=March 31, 2009|deadurl=yes|accessdate=July 7, 2018|df=}}</ref> Claudia Puig in a review for ''[[USA Today]]'' said of her performance that "Winslet is wonderful as a free spirit whose hair color changes along with her moods. She hasn't had such a meaty role in a while, and she plays it just right."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-03-18-eternal-sunshine_x.htm|title=Soak up 'Eternal Sunshine,' and you'll feel warm all over|last=Puig|first=Claudia|date=March 18, 2004|work=[[USA Today]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Carrey's performance as Joel also received multiple award nominations. Jason Killingsworth in a review for [[Paste (magazine)|Paste magazine]] said of his performance that "Carrey nails the part, winning audience sympathy from the opening moments of the film".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2004/06/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Killingsworth|first=Jason|date=June 1, 2004|website=Paste Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref>

In the Autumn 2008 issue of [[Screen (journal)|Screen Journal]], Carol Vernallis argued out that Gondry's experience in directing [[music video]]s contributed to the film's [[Mise en scène|mise-en-scène]] and sound design. Vernallis describes some threads of the visual, aural and musical motifs throughout the film, and how some motifs can work in [[counterpoint]].<ref>Vernallis, Carol. "Music video, songs, sound: experience, technique and emotion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''". ''Screen''. 49.3. (2008) pp.277–97.</ref>

===Accolades and honors===
{{Main|List of accolades received by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
|-
!scope="col"| Award
!scope="col"| Award category
!scope="col"| Recipients and nominees
!scope="col"| Result
!scope="col"| {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="2"|[[77th Academy Awards|Academy Awards]]
|[[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]]
|[[Kate Winslet]]
|{{nom}}
!scope ="row" rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2005|title=Nominees & Winners for the 77th Academy Awards|last=|first=|date=|year=2005|work=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]]
|[[Pierre Bismuth]], [[Michel Gondry]] and [[Charlie Kaufman]]
|{{won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="6"|[[58th British Academy Film Awards|British Academy Film Awards]] (BAFTA)
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role|Best Actor in a Leading Role]]
|[[Jim Carrey]]
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan="6" style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4180423.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The nominations|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4260929.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The winners|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role|Best Actress in a Leading Role]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Direction|Best Director]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Editing|Best Editing]]
|[[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
|{{won}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]]
|[[Likely Story|Anthony Bregman]] and [[Steve Golin]]
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{Won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="4"|[[62nd Golden Globe Awards|Golden Globe Awards]]
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy|Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Jim Carrey
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan=4 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=/year/2005|title=The 62nd Annual Golden Globe Awards (2005)|year=2005|work=[[Golden Globe Award]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical|Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy|Best Film - Musical or Comedy]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay|Best Screenplay]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{nom}}
|-
!scope="row"|[[Hugo Award|Hugo Awards]]
|[[Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation|Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form]]
|Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Bierre Bismuth
|{{nom}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/|title=2005 Hugo Awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[National Board of Review Awards 2004|National Board of Review]]
|[[National Board of Review Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
! rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/award-years/2004/|title=2004 Award Winners|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[Writers Guild of America Awards 2004|Writers Guild of America]]
|[[Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Pierre Bismuth, Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4281705.stm|title=Quirky movies win script awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|}

=== Home media ===

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''<nowiki/>'s [[DVD]] release happened on September 28, 2004, by Universal Home Entertainment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind#tab=summary|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)|last=|first=|date=|website=The Numbers|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> A [[Blu-ray]] edition release occurred in the U.S. on January 25, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Blu-ray/16770/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=blu-ray.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

==Music==
{{Anchor|Music|Soundtrack|Score}}{{Infobox album
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| type = Soundtrack
| artist = Jon Brion
| cover = Eternal sunshine CD cover.jpg
| alt =
| released = March 16, 2004
| recorded =
| venue =
| studio =
| genre = Soundtrack
| length = 56:08
| label = [[Hollywood Records|Hollywood]]
| producer = Kathy Nelson (executive producer) [[Tim DeLaughter]] (track 4) [[Jon Brion]] (track 9) Don Nelson (tracks 11 and 20) Ethan Johns (track 18)
| chronology = [[Jon Brion]]
| prev_title = [[Punch-Drunk Love (soundtrack)|Punch-Drunk Love]]
| prev_year = 2002
| next_title = [[I Heart Huckabees (soundtrack)|I ♥ Huckabees]]
| next_year = 2004
}}
{{Main|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (soundtrack)}}{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| collapsed = yes
| extra_column = Artist
| total_length = 56:08
| title1 = Theme
| extra1 = [[Jon Brion]]
| length1 = 2:24
| title2 = [[Mr. Blue Sky]]
| extra2 = [[Electric Light Orchestra]]
| length2 = 5:03
| title3 = Collecting Things
| extra3 = Jon Brion
| length3 = 1:13
| title4 = [[Light & Day]]
| extra4 = [[The Polyphonic Spree]]
| length4 = 3:03
| title5 = Bookstore
| extra5 = Jon Brion
| length5 = 0:52
| title6 = It's the Sun
| note6 = [[KCRW]] [[Morning Becomes Eclectic]] version
| extra6 = The Polyphonic Spree
| length6 = 5:33
| title7 = Wada Na Tod, Mera Man Tera Pyasa
| extra7 = [[Lata Mangeshkar]], [[Mohammed Rafi]]
| length7 = 5:54
| title8 = Showtime
| extra8 = Jon Brion
| length8 = 0:55
| title9 = [[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]
| note9 = [[The Korgis]] cover
| extra9 = [[Beck]]
| length9 = 5:54
| title10 = Sidewalk Flight
| extra10 = Jon Brion
| length10 = 0:31
| title11 = Some Kinda Shuffle
| extra11 = Don Nelson
| length11 = 2:11
| title12 = Howard Makes It All Go Away
| extra12 = Jon Brion
| length12 = 0:14
| title13 = Something
| extra13 = [[The Willowz]]
| length13 = 2:23
| title14 = Postcard
| extra14 = Jon Brion
| length14 = 0:23
| title15 = I Wonder
| extra15 = The Willowz
| length15 = 2:56
| title16 = Peer Pressure
| extra16 = Jon Brion
| length16 = 1:12
| title17 = A Dream Upon Waking
| extra17 = Jon Brion
| length17 = 3:36
| title18 = Strings That Tie to You
| extra18 = Jon Brion
| length18 = 2:33
| title19 = Phone Call
| extra19 = Jon Brion
| length19 = 1:03
| title20 = Nola's Bounce
| extra20 = Don Nelson
| length20 = 1:56
| title21 = Down The Drain
| extra21 = Jon Brion
| length21 = 0:56
| title22 = Row
| extra22 = Jon Brion
| length22 = 1:00
| title23 = Drive In
| extra23 = Jon Brion
| length23 = 2:19
| title24 = Main Title
| extra24 = Jon Brion
| length24 = 1:23
| title25 = Spotless Mind
| extra25 = Jon Brion
| length25 = 1:12
| title26 = Elephant Parade
| extra26 = Jon Brion
| length26 = 0:28
}}{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1score = {{Rating|4|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev2 = [[IGN]]
| rev2Score = 7/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2004/03/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original-soundtrack|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Original Soundtrack - IGN Review|date=March 18, 2004|website=IGN.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
| rev3 = [[Filmtracks.com|Filmtracks]]
| rev3Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=January 21, 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev4 = [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]
| rev4Score = 7.5/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
}}

The [[soundtrack]] album for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' was composed by Los Angeles musician [[Jon Brion]], also featuring songs from artists including [[The Polyphonic Spree]], [[The Willowz]], and Don Nelson. The soundtrack was released by [[Hollywood Records]] on March 16, 2004.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040225005925/en/Beck-Polyphonic-Spree-Headline-Hollywood-Records-Eternal|title=Beck and The Polyphonic Spree Headline Hollywood Records' "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' Soundtrack|last=Ferraro|first=Kris|date=February 25, 2004|website=Business Wire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> A [[cover version]] of [[The Korgis]]' "[[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]" with instrumentation by Brion and vocals by [[Beck]] operates as the soundtrack's centerpiece, setting the film's tone in the opening credits, and closing the film.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://consequenceofsound.net/2009/12/cinema-sounds-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Cinema Sounds: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=O'Shoney|first=Carson|date=December 18, 2009|website=Consequence of Sound|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's'' soundtrack received generally positive reviews. [[AllMusic]] described it as "nearly as deft", and described Brion's score as "intimate" and "evocative of love and memories".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Other positive reviews noted the [[Ambient music|ambient]] nature of the music and lauded Beck's cover of "Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> On the other hand, the soundtrack's detractors criticized the album's lack of identity, and its depressive atmosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=21 January 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Even among the detractors, however, the score's ability to mesh with the plot was lauded, an appraisal common to many reviews.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-losers-the-rare-but-beautiful-film-scores-of-jon-brion-deserve-an-oscar-2b29438a926e/|title=The Losers: The Rare But Beautiful Film Scores of Jon Brion Deserve an Oscar|last=Belletto|first=Adam|date=February 17, 2015|website=Film School Rejects|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

== Legacy ==

=== Television series ===
In October 2016, [[Anonymous Content]] announced they will be working with [[Universal Cable Productions]] to produce a television series based on the film. Kaufman is not involved in writing the show. The project is still in planning stages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-tv-933163|title='Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' TV Series in the Works (Exclusive)|last1=Sandberg|first1=Byran Elise|last2=Kit|first2=Borys|date=October 7, 2016|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

===Media recognition===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Presenter
! Title
! Rank
! Notes
|-
| 2005
| align=center | ''[[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]]''
| align=center | 101 Greatest Screenplays
| align=center | 24
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays|title=101 Greatest Screenplays|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=101 Greatest Screenplays Full List|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2008
| align=center | ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time]]
| align=center | 73
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|title=The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|last=|first=|date=November 2008|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|archive-date=October 21, 2013|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=5 | 2009
| align=center | ''[[Time Out (magazine)#Time Out New York|Time Out New York]]''
| align=center | The TONY Top 50 Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 3
|<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=November 26 – December 2, 2009|title=The TONY top 50 movies of the decade|url=https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-tony-top-50-movies-of-the-decade#tab_panel_5|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]|volume=|issue=739|pages=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|via=}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Slant Magazine]]''
| align=center | The 100 Best Films of the Aughts
| align=center | 86
|<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_2|title=The 100 Best Films of the Aughts|last=|first=|date=February 7, 2010|work=[[Slant Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=February 10, 2010}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]''
| align=center | The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)
| align=center | 5
|<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=2|title=The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009)|last=|first=|date=November 3, 2009|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| align=center | The Best Films of the '00s
| align=center | 1
|<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/|title=The Best Films of the '00s|last=Murray|first=Noel|last2=Rabin|first2=Nathan|date=December 3, 2009|website=The A.V. Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|last3=Phipps|first3=Keith|last4=Robinson|first4=Tasha|last5=Tobias|first5=Scott}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Metacritic]]''
| align=center | Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 2
|<ref name=":20">{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-pick-the-best-movies-of-the-decade|title=Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade|last=|first=|date=January 3, 2010|work=Metacritic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2016
| align=center | ''[[BBC]]''
| align=center |[[BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century|The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films]]
| align=center | 6
|<ref name="BBC">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films|title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films|last=|first=|date=August 23, 2016|website=|publisher=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=2 | 2018
| align=center | ''Empire''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 100 Greatest Movies|The 100 Greatest Movies]]
| align=center | 41
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|title=The 100 Greatest Movies|last=|first=|date=March 20, 2018|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706075658/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|archive-date=July 6, 2018|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''They Shoot Pictures Don't They''
| align=center | The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films
| align=center | 5
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_rankinghistory.htm|title=The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films (Ranking History)|last=|first=|date=|website=They Shoot Pictures Don't They|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|}

==See also==

* [[Lucid dream]]
* ''[[Inception]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{Official website|http://www.eternalsunshine.com}}
* {{IMDb title|0338013|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Allmovie title|278676|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Mojo title|eternalsunshine|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/REVIEWS/403190302/1023 ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''] review by [[Roger Ebert]]

{{Michel Gondry}}
{{Charlie Kaufman}}
{{Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film 1991–2010}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind}}
[[Category:2004 films]]
[[Category:Science fiction drama films]]
[[Category:2000s romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American independent films]]
[[Category:American comedy-drama films]]
[[Category:American romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American romantic fantasy films]]
[[Category:Comedy of remarriage films]]
[[Category:Mad scientist films]]
[[Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction]]
[[Category:Nonlinear narrative films]]
[[Category:American psychological films]]
[[Category:Films about altered memories]]
[[Category:Films set in Long Island]]
[[Category:Films set in Manhattan]]
[[Category:Films shot in New York (state)]]
[[Category:Films shot in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Films directed by Michel Gondry]]
[[Category:Films scored by Jon Brion]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Charlie Kaufman]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]]
[[Category:Focus Features films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay BAFTA Award]]
[[Category:Films produced by Steve Golin]]

Talk:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-27T15:28:22Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* To Do on this Article */ Strikethrough on changes

{{Vital article|topic=Art|level=5|class=C}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Film|class=C|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=no|B-Class-4=no|B-Class-5=yes|American-task-force=yes|French-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Romance|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Science Fiction|class=C|importance=High}}
}}

==References to use==

:''Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.''
*{{cite book | editor-last=Grau | editor-first=Christopher | year=2009 | title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind | series=Philosophers on Film | publisher=Routledge | isbn=0415774659 }}
*{{cite book | last=Harbidge | first=Lesley | year=2009 | chapter=A New Direction in Comedian Comedy?: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', ''Punch-Drunk Love'' and the Post-Comedian Rom-Com | title=Falling in Love Again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema | publisher=I. B. Tauris | pages=176–189 | isbn=1845117719 }}
*{{cite book | last=Miah | first=Andy | year=2009 | chapter='Blessed Are the Forgetful': The Ethics of Memory Deletion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' | title=Bioethics at the Movies | editor-last=Shapshay | editor-first=Sandra | publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]] | pages=137–155 | isbn=0801890772 }}
*{{cite book | last=Nungesser | first=Verena-Susanna | year=2009 | chapter=I Forgot to Remember (to Forget): Personal Memories in ''Memento'' (2000) and ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' (2004) | title=Mediation, Remediation, and the Dynamics of Cultural Memory | series=Media and Cultural Memory | publisher=Walter de Gruyter | isbn=3110204444 }}
*{{cite book | last=Walters | first=James | year=2008 | chapter=Return to Innocence: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' (Michael Gondry, 2004) | title=Alternative Worlds in Hollywood Cinema | publisher=Intellect Ltd | pages=81–104 | isbn=1841502022 }}
*{{cite book | last=Wartenberg | first=Thomas E. | year=2007 | chapter=Arguing against utilitarianism: ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' | title=Thinking on Screen: Film as Philosophy | publisher=Routledge | pages=76–93 | isbn=0415774314 }}

==Clean-up==
===Cleaned up several sections===

There were several minor errors in various sections and some clunky prose that I cleaned up. There was also a bit of unnecessary detail IMHO about the scene where Joel and Clementine were watching a circus parade that didn't really fit in with that section about deleted and dropped scenes.[[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]]) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

===Reverted major changes that were made to the page without discussion===

It was my understanding that people shouldn't do major edits (like bagging an entire section and rewriting another) without explaining what they are doing here. I'm referring to the detailed linear chronology section and the plot one. IMHO, those two sections were fine the way they were and were in place for four years when someone decided to change them. So I'm changing them back. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 05:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 

===Tweaked the discussion about the looped ending===

Somebody really went out on a limb with an interpretation of the scene of Joel and Clementine playing in the snow meant "and they lived happily ever after"...With respect to that person, it's a nice interpretation, but it isn't supported by shooting script or comments made by Gondry or Kaufmann. So I got rid of that. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.252.102.65|71.252.102.65]] ([[User talk:71.252.102.65|talk]]) 03:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 

===Did a few more tweaks on the linear chronology===

I noticed that the chronology got shortened down some and for the most part, I think it looks better than when I last saw it. I did do a number of tweaks and added a bit more description of the final scenes.

===Did some tweaks on the analysis of the end===

I did a bit of editing on the last paragraph of the end section. I thought it was a bit too speculative in its interpretation of the snow scene. I am willing to discuss this with whoever made the change. But I really do think that it's better to say that this is one interpretation (based on the fact that we saw a snow-memory of Joel's getting erased and the hair color thing).

Frankly, I think when the snow scene during the credits took place is not terribly important. But at the same time, I've seen some people come along and deride this page for having content that extrapolates too much, and I figure that the paragraph as it was originally worded is like waving a red flag to a bull. But let me stress, I am willing to discuss this.

===Did Joel really overlook the skeleton drawing?===

I just watched the movie and my memory is that Joel didn't overlook his drawing of Clem as a skeleton when he gathered up things to bring to Lacuna. Don't we actually see him pull out the drawing during the "gathering things to bring to Lacuna" scene? That would imply he brought it. And the second time we see it is after Joel openshis file and is listening to the tape, so I assumed the drawing was part of his file (for some reason it wasn't among the items Patrick stole). I'm not sure about this so I won't change the page. I'm not going to go watch the movie again to check it, but I'm sure someone here is willing to watch for this next time they watch the movie.

:I've seen the movie a bunch of times, and I think that implication was clearly that Joel simply overlooked the sketch when he was clearing out Clementine's effects. He wasn't exactly going about it in a slow, methodical way, and I find it easy to believe that he could have overlooked it in the state that he was in. God knows that I've forgotten things when I have been distraught like Joel was.

::I agree with the first person. I believe that drawing of Clem with the body of the skeleton was part of the file that Joel received in the mail and not something that he forgot to bring with him to Lacuna. One reason is the color of Clem's hair. After Joel had the procedure and he met Clem (again) for the first time her hair was Blue. She must have changed it from orange to blue sometime between the last time Joel saw her before she had the procedure and when he met her again in Montauk. The color of her hair in the drawing was red. Red was the color her hair was before she dyed it orange. If he just happened to see that drawing the day he got his file from Lacuna in the mail then how was he was supposed to know it was a drawing of Clem? He had met Clem only two days before that (after his procedure) and he knew her with blue hair. It makes sense to think that drawing was something that was returned to him in the mail. Not everything that he brought with him to Lacuna was returned because Patrick stole most of it but that drawing was one of them. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I respectfully disagree with the people who think that the painting was in the file (does it really matter that much anyway?). Joel said to Clementine, "Look what I found" (indicating the painting). Moreover, he had obviously been tearing his apartment apart looking for evidence of their relationship. If he had just gotten the painting in the mail, he would have said something like, "Look at what was in my envelope." Besides, all their respective mementos were a lot more than what could be stuffed in a large envelope. But then, does it really matter? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.75.6.24|72.75.6.24]] ([[User talk:72.75.6.24|talk]]) 03:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

------I really feel in some odd way it does matter. First of all, I know that the people who made this movie emphasized certain things in a certain way for viewers to take notice. There is a purpose. It lets your imagination soar and think of those things and their significance/meaning/relevance, and the endless possibilities and combinations that we can create with our minds. It is also somehow clever because in the end you're STILL left wondering. I feel like there is a everlasting impression, in which I want to know the actual ending to their relationship but I will never know (and in turn, joel and clementine, as they are presented in the end, also wonder about the future of them as a couple. Despite those doubts, they do it anyway). This movie was based on the idea of Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus"(according to my philosophy teacher)and therefore, a philosophical movie.The point of philosophy is to make you think. And this is exactly what this movie did.

*What i also found interesting was the fact that almost every character is left wondering about SOMETHING. Joel wonders what will happen, knowing that in the past they just broke up! Clem thinks the same. Dr. Howard is left wondering, thinking what if I did pursue this relationship with her instead of my wife? I wonder did anyone think about that, in general? It's crazy though (the idea) . And that's why i LOVE this movie even more now. All thanks to my class.
As he's cleaning he comes across a few letters and pauses and you know that he is reading them. You have to feel his anger. He seems ANGRY that he doesn't understand WHYY! and the fact that he's going crazy because of this. But yet, he's sad and just feels completely helpless. He looks at her baby picture and REMEMBERS to look at the back to see this signature or a note from Clem, or just the fact that he wanted to see her handwriting for the last time. But the fact that he does send this very powerful message through such a small/quick emphasis on a tiny detail! (an example..)

*To just comment on the first msg, I don't think that they showed anything of the skeleton painting. I think i didn't catch it, but it is the part when he's cleaning out stuff that reminds him of her, am i correct? I am really confused as to what you are talking about. I know it's the skeleton picture but where is it when he's cleaning?.
-angela
------
* <s>Why is Angelas' text (above) going off the right side of the page? :Please fix it. I dont't know how! (''Yet'')</s>
Fixed (hope its ok to have done so Angela) N.b. It was caused by a single '''''space''''' at the start of your sentence.
*Why aren't people signing? **Four 'tildes' remember?

[[Special:Contributions/220.101.28.25|220.101.28.25]] ([[User talk:220.101.28.25|talk]]) 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-----

===someone's question about memory scenes being correct===

someone posted a question about the memory scenes section asking if they were correct. I think the answer is pretty much yes (although I suppose there is always room for "happy" to "glad" type word changes

===Cleaned up the section on Joel's childhood===

I took a crack at cleaning up the language in the "Joel's childhood" section (moving part of it to the section about how erased memories appear and hopefully clarifying the lead-in sentences that someone added to the section.

===Science catching up to fiction...===

Memories Selectively, Safely Erased In Mice: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081022135801.htm —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JaffaCakeLover|JaffaCakeLover]] ([[User talk:JaffaCakeLover|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JaffaCakeLover|contribs]]) 11:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 

===Quick question===

... anyone else think Stan's a bit of an idiot because he's had his memory erased a few times? It IS brain damage, and I'm sure the good doctor wouldn't think twice to tweak his employees' brains rather than pay unemployment, or get sued, etc. Just a thought. I actually like the article. [[User:Phoenix frou|Phoenix frou]] 15:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's an interesting thought, but I figure that there's no evidence to suggest that. I suppose it would be something that Gondry or Kaufmann could answer.

::I don't believe Stan was like that because he had his memory erased a few times. First of all if the doctor wanted to, "tweak his employees' brains rather than pay unemployment, or get sued, etc," then Stan would have had to ''submit'' to the procedure. There's no way that the doctor could've done the procedure to anyone without their consent and no way that he could've ''tricked'' anyone into erasing their memory. Even if Stan wanted to erase some of his memories about something else the doctor couldn't have "''gone behind his back''" and erased different memories. All the memories that were to be erased had to be "mapped" before the procedure. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I got the impression that Stan was a bit of a stoner...smokes dope, drinks (maybe heavily), listens to really loud music, etc. You could get that way without having your memory zapped.

I don't know if the movie has inspired any fanfic, but I suppose someone who was into that could use that as a theme.

===and more===

actually i'm not really taking you into consideration. you're the problem here, one which i couldn't be bothered dealing with.

===constructive criticism===

Frankly, statements like "this tripe does not belong in Wikipedia" aren't terribly helpful. I assume that Wikipedia's amorphous standards call for people to say things like, "this section needs to be changed because..." or "this could be written in a format that consists of..." instead of things like "this sucks, and I'm not going to bother to tell you specifically why."

And as far as claims that I'm acting like I "own it," that is untrue. I have not objected to substantive alterations to the input that I have provided to it over the last two years. For example, I had no problems with someone reformatting most of my input from an "FAQ" that I did for the imdb.com site into something that looked a lot better and apparently conforms to wikipedia standards.

I'm just not willing to agree to deleting huge sections of the page without the person making such demands providing detailed reasons why such changes should be made.

===ergh===

Extremely poorly written. No, that is not subjective. It's just terrible. You're acting like you own this page. This tripe does not belong in wikipedia.

===hey, hey, hey===

The article has been pretty much the way it without anyone else objecting to its structure for over two years. I think "extremely poorly written" is pretty much a matter of opinion. I also think that trying to compress a movie as complex as ESOTSM into a one paragraph summation is not realistic and would pretty much moot the whole point of providing a "detailed chronology" (that readers are entirely free to skip). I also think that it's worth looking at how long the page for the movie "Memento" is as well. The chronology there is pretty long too.

This being said, I will take another look at the chronology and see if I can winnow it down some. However, I don't think that it's realistic to demand/ask/suggest what you're asking/demanding/suggesting. I'm more than willing to debate and discuss how this chronology can be improved. However, to do that, you've got to be specific in your criticisms (i.e. "get rid of all of it" is a pretty sweeping demand).

Also, I will remove the sentence that you find objectionable about why Clementine knew Patrick was a creep. I think it is not such an unreasonable inference to draw, but it is not worth getting in a fight over.

===hey, "hey, "alteration""===

The entire plot of the movie is far from encyclopaedic. I do agree that as its narrative is far from linear an outline of the chronological plot may be in order, but what we have here is overkill. I stress also that the material in question is incredibly poorly written. The fact that the entire plot is there isn't the problem, it's all of the extra bits and pieces that are thrown in - these are clear to see but I put down a few examples previously. You could coherently some up the chronological plot in a relatively small paragraph, this just isn't necessary.

If anybody with any authority in wikipedia was to stumble upon this apparently inactive article I'm quite sure they would agree with me.

Ergh. And I notice that extra bit has been put back in. I'm not going to remove it, what's the point. I might as well delete the whole damn thing. Seriously, this is ''poorly written'' material that does ''not belong in Wikipedia''. Move it to your website and add a link at the bottom for all our sakes.
I see you've repeated in response to me the same text as begins the entire thing (confusion on imdb), so I assume you're the original author. Move it to your website.

===hey, "alteration"===

I don't have a problem with you removing the speculation about why Clementine told Patrick to get away from her. But I DO have a problem with any changes to the synopsis of the film. YOU may find it rambling. But I do not, and I suspect a lot of other people do not either.

As for the level of detail, if you read the imdb.com postings about this, you would have been amazed at how much confusion that there was over the sequence of events in this movie. The detailed synopsis of the plot was designed to answer people's questions about what happened.

==alteration==

I deleted '(a logical explanation for that being that she had read his name in her file and realized that he was involved in the memory erasure process)' for two reasons. The first is that this is not a good explanation at all - would clementine really have sat down and read the file through in her injured state after the confrontation in Joel's car? The second is that either way we don't know, so let's not bother including anything on that matter.

I might add that this synopsis of the film is ''highly'' speculative. It rambles on and at points isn't as coherent as a wikipedia article should be. It strikes me as something which should go on the original authors website - it should be removed from this article.

Infact I'll take a few quotes to illustrate this:

'Patrick approaches Clementine on the steps to her building, but she angrily tells him to "get the fuck" away from her.' / 'Meanwhile, Mary has come over ostensibly to help Stan and Patrick with the procedure. However, given the fact that she and Stan kiss each other, it is obvious that she is there more to see Stan than to do any work.' / 'They travel back on the same train, and both find themselves --for them-- mysteriously drawn to each other.'

This is a poorly written and subjective blow by blow recount of the entire story and does not belong here.

// I agree with the fact that it is a poorly written summary of this movie. As the person above me said, it is meant to make you think (which is what philosophy is all about)...it's very broad, if you watch what happens...it's open for discussion...anything it possible. if you look at what I said in the section about Clems skeleton pic being over looked, i wrote that this film was based on the idea of Albert Camus' "Myth of Sisyphus", which was, Yes to life! You embrace it and to embrace your life, you must embrace both the good and the bad. And though you embrace it, at the same time, life is pointless and repetitive (just as if someone is working and they do it over and over and over, there is a reason! the reason is to make money...but what happens after? it is inevitable that death is going to come. and our bodies die. so the idea is simply put: what is the point of actions, if we are going to just die? that's how it is pointless and repetitive).
In simpler terms, Joel got what he asked for. He chose his fate. The moment he agreed to delete her from his mind, his fate was inevitable, and in a way sort of predestined just because it was inevitable, whether you're conscious of it or not.
My final point is that you cannot absolutely not write this summary in the way of YOUR vIEWS. And i'm not saying this to be mean or to tell you you're wrong, i'm saying this only because it will harm the thoughts of others who have not seen this movie...you can give your opinion but you must state that it is YOUR opinion and not the RIGHT way of thinking or anything like that. You should just give a very extremely brief explanation of what happens, not in detail.

Try not to state your opinion unless you have another article of text or an idea that proves your opinion/judgments/argument/idea, then you must compare and state how your evidence justifies your argument. until then do not mess this movie up for others. On top of that i agree that you didn't even give the correct details! at least be correct in what happens...it might be an interpretation of what you though but you shouldn't. it will influence others. and in a bad way too.
=angela

==speaking as the author of the dearly departed faq==

I have to really disagree with the the poster below who thinks the interpretation of the ending needs to be changed. He or she needs to read the interview in the back of the "script book" which quotes Kaufman as saying, more or less, "the hallway scene marked the end of the story and that it is up to the viewers to decide what happened." I agree that the passage below that states "Clementine" feels the same way is too speculative. But I stick to my guns that the way Joel said, "Okay" meant "I don't care." And if you look at the very end of the scene, and you study the expression on Winslet's face, its undeniable that at first, she's confused by what Joel said, and then she nods her head. Then they both start to laugh. How speculative is it to conclude that both characters were laughing because, "this is weird, weird, weird"? I don't think it is speculative at all. What is a bit more speculative is the conclusion that I drew that they had decided to live in the moment and not worry about what is preordained.

I really do believe as I stated before on the IMDB comments of this movie, that ESOTSM is sort of a psychological rohrschach test (inkblots). People who are pessimistic are likely to see a darker ending. People who aren't are more inclined to see a happier one. I think I take the middle course and say that it was a "hopeful" ending.

==overly specualtive interpretation of the ending, NEEDS to be changed==

This article speculates that joel and Clementine get back together at the end, even though the movie leaves it ambiguous. Although the last shot in the film is of the couple frolicking in the snow, Gondry and Kaufman both admit on the DVD commentary that this could be an earlier scene of the two, and does not neccesarily mean that they are back together. That information, taken with the fact that the WHOLE movie is out-of-order chronologically, means that you can't definitively say that they do get back together.

I'll quote what the wiki article says:

"Clementine...tells Joel that their relationship is bound to fail. Joel shrugs and says 'Okay' in a tone which indicates that he accepts that it will likely fail, but still wants to experience it. Clementine feels the same way. Both of them begin to laugh over the absurdity of the situation and with relief that they aren't going to walk away from what may turn out to be a rewarding relationship"

I think the whole "Clementine feels the same way" and "relief that they aren't going to walk away from what may turn out to be a rewarding relationship" part of this entry is bullshit and speculative. How does the author of this entry know how Kate Winslet's character feels at this point in the movie? And does Joel's "tone" of voice really indicate as much as this entry's author speculates?

This is all one person's interpretation of the film, when I saw it I thought the opposite, that they did not get back together. The last shot of them together in Montauk could be from any time in their relationship. But I don't insist that my interpretation is right and present it that way, as this page's author(s) did. The article should note the ambiguous nature of the ending and state that the film leaves it to the viewer to figure it out. If a registered user doesn't make those changes, I might just edit the page myself.

:I agree; go ahead and see what you can do. There is a lot of speculation about this film; most of it is very amateurish, anyway, and is not supported by the film. As Roger Ebert says, if it's not in the film, it doesn't exist. [[User:Paul Klenk|paul klenk]] [[User talk:Paul Klenk|talk]] 23:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

===more comments on the ending...===

Probably disrupting some compromise here but I think it has to be said... Currently the article states:

". Clementine tells Joel that their relationship is bound to fail, based on what they now know about it. However, Joel just shrugs and says "Okay" (indicating that he doesn't care about what may happen in the future)."

We don't actually know what the "okay" means, so... saying that it indicates that he doesn't care about what may happen in the future doesn't actually add anything to the article. There are three main scenarios as I see it. 1) "Okay" means that he doesn't care about what happens in the future and wants to give it a go in case it doesn't fail 2) it means that he doesn't care about what happens in the future so it's worth them getting back together even if it does fail or 3) that he's agreeing with her, it's bound to fail and they shouldn't get back together, indicating that he does care about what happens in the future. Not all the scenarios envisage him not caring about what may happen in the future so... that part should be deleted. In any case it's not for a Wikipedia article to imagine what a character in a film might possibly be thinking...

If no-one disagrees I will remove the bracketed line...?

-- [[User:Lochaber|Lochaber]] 00:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHOA. What's the deal with this "FAQ"? Is that encyclopedic?-[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 02:37, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

It could certainly be edited to make it so. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 04:22, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So--shall it be done? I'd be happy to start in on it... --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 04:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:I think my biggest problem with it isn't that it's in FAQ format — that's easy enough to fix — but that it's mostly just interpretation, and I'm wary of including that in an article, even with (or maybe especially with) a "some people think" tag at the front. -[[User:Branddobbe|Branddobbe]] 06:56, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well--in the cases where the particular interpretation is widely accepted by critics and the like, I think it's appropriate. I'll look into it. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 19:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are all of those FAQ questions and answers your own work? [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 00:07, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Is your question directed to me? If so, the answer is no--I would have posted it under my own name. If your question is directed to the anon poster, I can't speak for him, but I believe it was his own work. I met him on the IMDb board for the movie, and invited him to incorporate his FAQ into the Wikipedia article. He posted it (without registering) but didn't integrate it, so rather than have it deleted, I thought I'd help with the process. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 00:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-Gah, the FAQ is annoying and should go.
:This article was good and in-depth until I came across the FAQ. Come on, this is a silly Q&A: "Did Joel slit his throat in one scene?" The FAQ should be made into a paragraph called trivia or something because there is some nice trivia such as the elephant parade scene for people that haven't watch/hear the DVD features. --[[User:Anonymous Cow|Anonymous Cow]] 21:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
----

I think the plot needs the part about how Mary finds out about the affair and the subsequent memory erasure right before Joel wakes up on Valentine's Day. Because this event served as a catalyst for how Joel and Clementine find out that each of their memories has been altered (Mary breaks into harold's office and sends all the former patients their info). I would do it but my memory is sketchy about the details. (no irony intended with that statement) [[User:Mimsie|Mimsie]] 00:23, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:It's there, in the linear chronology section. [[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 00:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

----

"Since this happened before Mary mailed out all of Lacuna's files and tapes to Mierzwiak's patients, there is no way that the cassette could have been either of the ones that Joel or Clementine made denouncing each other immediately prior to having their memories erased." - This doesn't necessarily have to be true... The discussion about the original intention for the credits being to show the cyclic nature of their relationship, I suppose it could possibly be that when we see Joel throw out the cassette, it wasn't in the first iteration of their relationship. However, I'll confess that this didn't occur to me until after reading this article and it's more likely just a solution looking for a problem...

I think it's overly specualtive to think they didn't get back together, or to think anything else in a movie like this, I do think that the page should say that they COULD have gotten back together, but to simply deny it completely is just stupid.

== Lacuna ==

Is the Lacuna link at the bottom of the page supposed to be a joke? Is this treatment real?

:It's a promotional website for the movie that was put up a few months before its release. The treatment is definitely not real. --[[User:Lukobe|Lukobe]] 16:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

== Huckleberry Hound ==

This article states that the second time (chronologically) that Joel meets Clementine, he says he doesn't know the song "Clementine" or anything about Huckleberry Hound. It explains the fact that he knew about both the first time he met Clementine by saying that knowledge was too closely tied in with the relationship and so was deleted from his mind. I think it is much more likely that Joel decides not to say he knows the "Clementine" or Huckleberry Hound. Why he might decide to do this, however, is very much unclear.
:I think Joel honestly doesn't remember the song. Why do you think he does remember it? Oh, you say the reason is unclear. Well in that case, let me urge you to reconsider the position that he does not remember it, because at least this position has a clear reason; the memory was deleted. When Joel first mentions the song, he also mentions that his mother used to sing it to him. At another point of the movie, they actually show a scene where his mother is singing the song to him, and then show the scene get deleted. It's not only the obvious conclusion that the song was deleted, it's more or less explicit. -[[User:Lethe/sig|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe/sig|Talk]] 22:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

:It's pretty clear Joel doesn't consciously remember neither Clementine nor the song at that point in the movie. They have been erased. Why would he lie, anyway? [[User:Andran|Andran]] 07:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
::It seemed to me that the significance of his not remembering the references was to further the notion that memories are more deeply linked than we might expect; rather than just reflecting on his former girlfriend, his memories of her also tie into many other parts of his consciousness. He couldn't remove her without removing other things significantly tied to his personality.
:::But that is not the only interpretation. First of all, I think it's safe to assume that the only memories that got deleted were the ones that we saw got deleted. We saw the entire process from beginning to end (or rather from end to beginning). Also, I don't think that if what Joel said on the beach was true, that it was his favorite doll when was little and that his mom used to sing that song to him all the time, then I don't think that the one memory of his mom bathing him in the sink would have been the ''only'' memory he had about Huckleberry Hound or the Clementine song. So even if that one memory of his mom bathing him in the sink was erased then I don't think that would have caused him to forget all about Huckleberry Hound or the doll. Someone asked why would he lie about not knowing about it? Well, maybe it was because she just got finished telling him that she didn't want to hear any jokes about her name. Maybe he said he didn't know any because he was trying to get her to like him and he didn't want to make fun of her. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::::I do think that is a way too speculative theory. As it is a movie it has its temporal limitations, thus it can’t show every single time Joel was thinking of Huckleberry Hound. Joel’s memories of Huckleberry Hound are connected to his memories of Clementine – as she interferes with his childhood memories. Nothing what so ever suggests he is lying to Clementine, everything in the plot suggests that those memories were deleted. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.107.76.118|62.107.76.118]] ([[User talk:62.107.76.118|talk]]) 14:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC) 

Arthy: I think in chronologically first time, we have no way of knowing whether he knew the song or not - because what we are seeing is Joel's casting of his mind - it could be well that he learnt it from the present and tried to be smarter in his memory.. like he did in another occasion - i.e., letting her know that patrick is stealing his identity - which he ofcourse didnt know in the past! — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.228.112.22|216.228.112.22]] ([[User talk:216.228.112.22|talk]]) 00:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC) 

== Deleted FAQ ==
That FAQ was annoying me so I fucking deleted it.

That is all. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:67.23.58.96|67.23.58.96]] ([[User talk:67.23.58.96|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.23.58.96|contribs]]) 02:43, 30 March 2005

:Your actions were pretty rude and probably vandalism. But you know...? I kinda don't like the FAQ either. -[[User:Lethe/sig|Lethe]] | [[User talk:Lethe/sig|Talk]] 03:00, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

== Montauk next day ==
Both Joel and Clem go back to Montauk the very next day and I found that peculiar while watching it. However, they did account for it if you think about the chronology. Clem whispers in Joel's ear, in the final memory to be erased "maybe in Montauk", which could be construed as a subliminal message still left behind about something wonderful happening there.

Similarly, Clem is reliving some of her experiences with Patrick, who's using Joel's and Clem's memories. This may have served to reawaken in her some memories of Montauk as well, and cause her to go there. Do you think this bears mentioning in the article? Otherwise, forget it. --[[User:70.50.113.170|70.50.113.170]] 03:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Did Clem say in the final memory to be erased "maybe in Montauk" or did she say "meet me in Montauk"? [[User:Rhallanger|Rhallanger]] 05:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think she clearly said "Meet me in Montauk". -CGK

== Lacuna (the word) ==

I don't know where in the article to put this, but the word 'lacuna' is italian for 'empty' or 'gap', and I think the significance of that word choice is worth noting. It might also be worth stating a reference to the band [[Lacuna Coil]], the title of which translates to 'empty spiral'.

[[User:SonOfNothing|SonOfNothing]] 16:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:In might be worth noting just in case someone doesn't know the word. It's originally Latin for pit or hole, and the Oxford English Dictionary defines "lacuna" as
:* 1. In a manuscript, an inscription, the text of an author: A hiatus, blank, missing portion.
:* 2. Chiefly in physical science: A gap, an empty space, spot, or cavity.
:--[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 17:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

::It could go under trivia, no?
::[[User:OrisDeInferi|Inferi]] 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

== Huckleberry Hound and Joel being an active part of memories ==

Here is what I interpreted about the Huckleberry Hound motif:

Joel never connect Clementine's name with Huckleberry Hound unless she prompts him to. That is to say, when they're on the train, he doesn't make the connection until she tells him "don't make fun of my name." Whether or not he's aware of Huckleberry Hound doesn't matter.
The reason why he sings it during the memory of the party at Montauk is because this is one of the memories that he takes an active role in while it is being erased. Remember how Clementine says "This is it...etc." This shows that this memory is the type that the article calls number 4, "Memories in which Joel is a participant but can "break character" and change the way the scene turns out." He knows the Huckleberry Hound reference already, and he brings it up. However, when he's on the train, he doesn't make the connection, because, obviously, he doesn't know her.

:Your interpretation doesn't work, and the movie makes this thing pretty clear: when Joel is in the train with Clem he doesn't remember the song because it's been already erased by Lacuna employees. ''He does know the song'', he just cannot remember it. However, when he met Clementine for the first time, back in the beach house, he did remember the song because it was from Huckleberry Hound, a cartoon from his childhood. No need for him to "break character"... that part of his memory is just as it happened the first time :-) It's not because he "knows the reference" from the train, which would be impossible since the train meeting hasn't happened yet! [[User:Andran|Andran]] 07:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

::I agree with the above poster; that interpretation does not work, and the movie makes it clear as crystal. --[[User:Shinramen1313|Shinramen1313]] 23:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

::That's not fair, you are basically saying that his interpretation is wrong because you already have an interpretation. There could very well be more than one way to intrepret the movie. What does, "he does know the song, he just can't remember it," mean? You said that there was no "need" for him to break character but that doesn't mean that he ''couldn't'' have broken character. In fact, he was ''already'' breaking character and actively participating in that memory long before they got to the house. Remember when he was talking about her sweater, the one that he'd "grow to love, then eventually hate"? At that point he was talking about things that happened long after the memory he was in at that time. Just because your interpretation makes sense to you that doesn't mean another one would be impossible. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::One more thing. I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, I'm just saying that the other one is possible too. And also, I don't think that the first person meant that "he knew the reference ''from the train''" because obviously you are right, that part hadn't happened yet. But still, at that point, Joel had just gotten out of a relationship with her after two years, so he could've remembered the song from the time he spent with her. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

== Script trivia ==

Not sure where to include it in the article, but the original script called for a follow-up scene showing an elderly Clementine going in for a memory erasure. The implication being that the two had gone through this dozens of times over their lifetimes.

==Summary addition==
This article seems fairly complete, but for some reason I confused it with another one, so had thought of a sentence and wonder if it is worth fitting in. "This poses the question that if, given the chance to make the same choice afresh, whose outcome which we regard in hindsight as a mistake, we make the same choice, can we really regard the original choice as a mistake?" Bit verbose and untidy, yep, but it made sense to me at the time! [[User:MartinRe|MartinRe]] 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

== Split proposal for "movie soundtrack" section ==

I added it because although it relates to a movie and music, this article currently has 37K and the main article and its soundtrack section need ''splitting'' issues. [[User:69.227.173.21|69.227.173.21]] 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
:I support the spilt. [[User:58.170.77.140|58.170.77.140]] 13:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
:I support the split, as well. The movie and the soundtrack are definitely related, but they ought to have their own articles.--[[User:Evadb|Evadb]] 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
:+1 for the split --[[User:Emc2|Emc²]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emc2&action=edit&section=new Contact me] [[Image:Nuvola_apps_email.png|16px]]) 14:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:This looks like a consensus to me. And over a month has passed with no objections. I'm making the split. [[User:Elvrum|Elvrum]] 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
:I recently added an edit to this section concerning the synchronization of this movie to an album- I'm not terribly familiar with wikipedia's formatting/sectioning rules, so I put it where I thought it would most be appropriate. It, however, is not related to the soundtrack of the movie itself. [[User:71.126.59.133|71.126.59.133]] 06:32, 8 July 2006 (EST)

== Just Fixed The Image ==

I Know the poster was a canidate for speedy deletion, so I speedily uploaded another one and cited my sources, if anyone fixes the other one, feel free to put it back in the article
[[User:KaufmanIsAwesome|KaufmanIsAwesome]] 20:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

== Props ==
Not NPOV, and certainly not correct tone for an encyclopedia. [[User:FerventDove|FerventDove]] 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

==Problems with General focus of the article==
While a large proportion of the article is fine, much of it is rife with [[WP:OR]] [[WP:CITE|unsourced]] analysis. There are a lot of sentences that start with 'this might mean', 'is appears that' and the like. None of this is within the scope of a wikipedia article on a movie. ALL analysis must be sourced to a 3rd party. I'm going to start chopped large chunks of text that are, in my opinion, impossible to successfully edit to conform to WP standards. [[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

== Cleanup tag ==

I added a clean up tag, because the article is unfocused and disorganised. It needs asserted work on tone, sourcing, order, detail (more in some areas, less in others) and less opinion statements. I am willing to help, but it probably needs a few heads together. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

==Chopped memory reconsolidation section==
I chopped this section, because, although it is interesting and has cites, there is no cite linking the research to the movie, making it OR.

:''===Consistence with theories about memory [[reconsolidation]]===
:Several aspects of the method for memory erasure are actually in good agreement with recent scientific findings. It was found, that [[consolidation]] of [[memories]] does not necessarily lead to a permanent fixation. Rather, retrieval of a memory can render it susceptible to several amnestic agents such as protein synthesis inhibition (PSI) <ref>Nader, K., G.E. Schafe, and J.E. Le Doux, Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature, 2000. 406(6797): p. 722-6 </ref> and [[electroconvulsive shock]] (ECS)<ref>Misanin, J.R., R.R. Miller, and D.J. Lewis, Retrograde amnesia produced by electroconvulsive shock after reactivation of a consolidated memory trace. Science, 1968. 160(827): p. 554-5</ref>. After initial training, these agents become more and more ineffective as the memory is consolidated unless the memory is retrieved. Retrieval obviously induces a state of lability which needs a process termed reconsolidation in order to refix the labile memory. Further research elucidated, that recently established memories can be disrupted more easily (with lower doses of amnestic agent or fewer retrieval trials) than older ones<ref>Suzuki, A., et al., Memory reconsolidation and extinction have distinct temporal and biochemical signatures. J Neurosci, 2004. 24(20): p. 4787-95</ref>. Ongoing research now aims at the therapeutical application of the reconsolidation phenomenon for treatment of maladaptive memories such as [[PTSD]]. It was found that the drug [[propranolol]], a β-adrenergic receptor antagonist, can disrupt reconsolidation of auditory fear conditioning in mice<ref>Debiec, J. and J.E. Ledoux, Disruption of reconsolidation but not consolidation of auditory fear conditioning by noradrenergic blockade in the amygdala. Neuroscience, 2004. 129(2): p. 267-72</ref>.
''
[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 10:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
* Good call Ashmoo. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
** I don't understand how that makes it original research. I thought original research meant that it wasn't cited. You can say that it's not specifically about the movie itself but that's not the same thing as [[WP:OR|OR]]. [[User:Ospinad|Ospinad]] 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

***Unsourced means that its not cited. Original research means that it is an original idea that is not "academically" notable or significantly represented in secondary sources. Inclusion on this article, given that it is not specifically about the movie, makes it original research. Ie, original research that the topics outlined relate to this movie. [[User:Jdcooper|Jdcooper]] 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== Chopped Lacuna Inc section==
I have also chopped the following section, as it seem to just be a reiteration of details that have previously been mentioned (twice) in the plot section.

<blockquote>
===Lacuna, Inc.===
The fictional Lacuna Inc. was the brainchild of Dr. Howard Mierzwiak who after years of [[neurobiology|neurobiological]] research developed a painless method for identifying and erasing specific memories. [http://www.lacunainc.com/ Lacuna Inc] was founded to provide a research facility for the development of this procedure. Over the years, the project has progressed from a mere idea into a full-blown medical service.

After a patient decides what memory it is going to have erased, there is some initial preparation that goes into a successful procedure. The patient is instructed to collect any items or mementos that have any ties to the memory or memories being targeted. These items will be used by the Lacuna team during and disposed of following the procedure. This is to ensure that the patient will not have any inexplicable items after the memory erasure.

While connected to a [[brain]] scanning device, the patient is instructed to look at the items, and while reexperiencing the unwanted memories technicians scan brain activity, allowing them to chart and record where the memories are located. The team of Lacuna technicians will use the information they have received from the patient to construct a map of the memory. They will then use this map to extract the memory from the patient's mind.

Following the map created specifically for every patient, that patient takes a [[sedative]]. A team then uses a device that systematically retriggers all the memories they have recorded. As they are retriggered, the targeted memories gradually dissolve while the device erases them. The procedure works on a reverse time-line, which means it begins with the most recent memories and goes backwards in time. This approach is designed to target the psychological core that every memory builds on. By eradicating the core, Lacuna technicians are able to make the entire memory dissolve. When the patient wakes from the surgery, they remember nothing.

In addition, Lacuna Inc. sends a letter to the friends and family of the patient, explaining that the patient is erasing the memory of a particular human and asking the recipients to never mention that human to the patient again.
</blockquote>

[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 08:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

==Chopped 'childhood' and 'Mary Sveno' sections==
I've chopped some more text. These, while interesting, as totally unsourced and simply commentaries on possible interpretations of the film. They would be better suited to someone's personal fan page on the film. I think we need to keep the article as encyclopediac as possible.

<blockquote>
===Joel's childhood===
The memory of Clementine that Joel's subconscious interacts with suggests that he somehow hid her in other memories in which she did not belong. The apparent idea behind this was that this would preserve Joel's memories of Clementine from the erasure procedure. Joel therefore conjures memories from his early childhood (the scenes in his mother's kitchen), and when this tactic fails, his memory of Clementine urges him to hide her "in his humiliation."

These turn out to be scenes in which his mother walks in on him masturbating and where bullies pressure him into hitting a dead bird with a hammer. The latter scene was meant to express a common early memory, when children are forced by others to do things they don't want to, something Jim Carrey revealed in an interview included as an extra on the DVD.

Hiding Clementine causes problems with the memory-erasing procedure, and leads Dr. Mierzwiak to come over to Joel's apartment to help Stan, which leads to Mary's discovery of her past relationship with the doctor. In turn, this precipitates Mary's decision to mail to all of Lacuna's clients their files (which leads to Joel and Clementine discovering that they have had a tumultuous past relationship).

===Mary Svevo===
There are several hints early in the movie that foreshadow Mary's previous relationship with Mierzwiak. The first is the way that she looks and acts around him when Joel first comes into the clinic. Then, when she comes over to see Stan during Joel's procedure, she speaks flatteringly of Mierzwiak's intellect, saying that he should be quoted in [[Bartlett's]]. Stan gives a look of exasperation at her fawning over the doctor. When Mierzwiak does come over, she proceeds to fawn over him and mentions some obscure quotes, apparently ones she had used on the doctor before her memory erasure, since Mierzwiak is familiar with them.

Late in the movie, Mary makes her feelings known to the doctor, and they eventually kiss. Mrs. Mierzwiak shows up and in the confrontation that follows, Mary learns that she had had a relationship with Mierzwiak, and she let him erase her memory of it. Devastated, Mary goes to the Lacuna office and listens to her tape. (In a deleted portion of this scene, there is a bit of dialogue in which we learn that Mary had a natal abortion in the wake of the affair.) Mary clears out her desk, steals all Lacuna's files and tapes, and mails them to their clients, on the grounds that the procedure is a mistake.

It is unclear what Stan knew about Mary's relationship with Mierzwiak or her undergoing the memory-erasure procedure. At the end of the movie, he emphatically claims that he didn't, that he only saw the two together one night, and that she looked "happy with a secret", but that he only had suspicions. However, when Mierzwiak comes over, Stan is noticeably agitated, not just because of Joel's procedure being a mess, but of Mary being there. He also honks his van's horn when Mrs. Mierzwiak arrives to warn the two former lovers of her arrival.
</blockquote>
[[User:Ashmoo|Ashmoo]] 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

::The subplot of Mary's prior relationship with Mierzwiak is pretty important, though. It's clear from the tape that there was a degree of coercion involved in having her memory wiped; it not only provides a plot mechanic for Joel and Clementine to discover their original memories, it also is part of a chain of abuses of the procedure you see throughout the film (Paul, Stan and Mary's partying, Paul's attempt to use details of her memories to seduce her), culminating in Joel's attempt to resist the wipe. Her re-awakened feelings echoes the cycle of memory and forgetfulness in the rest of the movie. [[Special:Contributions/71.56.127.236|71.56.127.236]] ([[User talk:71.56.127.236|talk]]) 04:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

== True Ending? Joel cried and thrown away the tape? ==

I'd like to raise a discussion on the true ending of the film.

Just after showing the credits in the beginning of the film, Joel cried and thrown away a tape. Is it chronologically after the 'okay' scene near the end of the film? If no, when did it happen? If no, where did this tape come from?

Please keep this discussed. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Llf|Llf]] ([[User talk:Llf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Llf|contribs]]) 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 
:I think that scene is just before he gets his memory erased, and the tape he's listening to is a mixtape you can hear playing in the background in another scene. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

== Connections to the song meet me in montauk ==

Even though it was not confirmed by the band circa survive should it be put on this article? [[Special:Contributions/98.73.10.215|98.73.10.215]] ([[User talk:98.73.10.215|talk]]) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

== Special Features ==

Is there a need to describe the contents of the DVD in that much detail? [[User:Farslayer|Farslayer]] ([[User talk:Farslayer|talk]]) 10:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:No. --[[User:Closedmouth|Closedmouth]] ([[User talk:Closedmouth|talk]]) 12:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== Question about "Meet me in Montauk" ==

I don't understand how the plot allowed Clementine to whisper that 'message' to Joel during his attempt to escape the erasure process. Was "meet me in Montauk" a preserved memory or a brand new thought? It's the only thing that still confuses me!! [[User:Adambisset|Adambisset]] ([[User talk:Adambisset|talk]]) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
==Real life memory erasure==
I added the following:
:The journal [[Nature Neuroscience]] reported in February 2009 that beta blockers can erase memories. Beta blockers interferes with this re-creation of the stressful memory - and prevents the brain renewing it. Wide-scale use of the drug was a long way off.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Derbyshire|first=David |date=16th February 2009|title=Pill to erase bad memories: Ethical furore over drugs 'that threaten human identity' |journal=[[Daily Mail]]|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1145777/Pill-erase-bad-memories-Ethical-furore-drugs-threaten-human-identity.html|accessdate=16th February 2009}}</ref>
[[User:Ikip|Ikip]] ([[User talk:Ikip|talk]]) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

== young bully ==

Is it Paulie Litt or Josh Flitter that plays the 'young bully' character, as on this pagge it says Paulie Litt, but on the Josh Flitter page it says he played it. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.246.201.101|84.246.201.101]] ([[User talk:84.246.201.101|talk]]) 10:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 

== Hey, let's discuss this thing about the chronology ==

I don't know why the linear chronology --which has been up for the last few years without controversy-- seems to make people want to delete it without any discussion. It was my understanding that people on Wikipedia are supposed to discuss and negotiate major changes on this page and not just do them.

So let's talk about the linear chronology. It's my position that it's essential to understand the plot of the movie. I can't count the number of times I've seen people asking questions about what happened and getting important facts about the story wrong. I don't think that simply stating the sequence of events in a chronological statement constitutes "original research"...If I had interviewed Gondry and Kaufman and posted my interview there without publishing it elsewhere, it would be original research, but why is simply stating the events as shown "original research"?

I did move it further down the page since I can see why some people might find it too long to be at the top.

:per [[WP:PLOT]], our coverage of fiction works should be a ''brief'' summary/synopsis of the work, which the current plot does fine. A scene-by-scene description is not appropriate, and is also boarding on [[WP:OR|original research]] since some of these facts are not specifically made clear by the movie and only hint at what may have been possibilities. Now, arguably the linear chronology is not a scene-by-scene but its close enough to fall in area of things we don't include. Now, if you can show through sources that this chronology is critical to the work, then we can probably keep it, but I've not seen anything like that. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I don't see myself just saying, "Well, Masem says so it must be so." That chronology was up for years before you came along. Can't we compromise here? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 00:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 

Look life is short...How about this, I post the chronology on my blog and we include it as one additional resource? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Senegalparrot|contribs]]) 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) 

:We already have a chronology - that's the plot summary which is told in the same order as the attempted detailed chronology. Sure, it doesn't attempt the level of detail for the specifics, but it follows along as it's supposed to, instead of trying to follow the scene-for-scene aspects of the work (which are out of chronological order). Our goal on WP is to inform the general reader - one who may never have seen or will likely seen - the work in question, so we don't go into such detail. A detailed examination of the work is uncalled for, unless that work has received significant critical analysis to merit that (something like [[MacBeth]] or [[Hamlet]]. Without sourcing beyond the primary work, any further details about the movie are excessive and potentially violating other policies like [[WP:OR]].
:As for using your blog, well, that's not a reliable source, so we can't include it as a resource, but that's not stopping the inclusion of a reliable source that details the plot of the movie to be used instead. --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 01:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, there's nothing wrong with listing as a source a movie review or what not that has errors in it, but listing as a source someone who has studied the film is. Sigh, there's no point in debating this. I disagree with you, but you're an administrator, so I know I'm not going to win. Congratulations.[[User:Senegalparrot|Senegalparrot]] ([[User talk:Senegalparrot|talk]]) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, that's how we source things - mind you, if there's obvious errors in a review, we ignore those, but if its intepretive errors, there's not much we can do about that. But don't despair that easily. Look at [[Memento (film)|Memento]] (a similarly convoluted presentation in terms of chronology); the first reference from Salon.com is a detailed analysis of the film. That's the type of source that would be useful to include here if someone has done a similar approach. This film had similar praise, so it may be a matter of just looking for the right sources (don't forget google books and scholar! there's plenty of hits that a spot check shows, I just don't know how details and which ones are more about the origin of the title vs the movie itself). --[[User:Masem|MASEM]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

== Frames of reference - wrong example ==
In the Frames of reference section the article says: "5. Memories in which Joel relives various moments of his childhood with Clementine in the place of one of the people in the memory (e.g., Joel masturbating)." This example is not very good as there is no clear indication of Clementine replacing someone else in this scene. A better and clearer example of this would be when Joel is playing under the kitchen table and Clementine replaces the role of Miss. Hailin (or something), his mother's friend.

:Please don't remove my topic just because I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor. The example I am mentioning above is misleading and must be changed.

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=756742856 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060813151310/http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807 to http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''InternetArchiveBot''']] ([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 15:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

== To Do on this Article ==

I will make the following changes (unless people have other ideas) in about two months. If others in the meantime can contribute these changes I would be very grateful.

INFOBOX
*<s>Find who designed the poster for its caption</s> unnecessary as it is a still.

LEAD
*Expand to include details on production, television show
*3 paragraphs is a good amount to aim for
*<s>Remove excess sources for non-controversial points</s>

PLOT
*Complete a better plot summary if possible
*<s>Replace some excessive words, such as "Joel was devastated"</s>
*<s>Add a Wikilink for Montauk train station</s>

CAST
*Attempt to find a good source for Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet being on set for narration over their younger selves lines
*Attempt to find a good source for Mary's abortion
*Find any information on Elijah Wood

PRODUCTION
*Try to find more information on the editing process, as it being in the production section seems a bit dubious, being that it already is in a section called Production. If more information can be found on the editing, there can be a section on Principle photography and Post-production
*Find when production on Human Nature began, or at least when Gondry and Kaufman meet. This is as the script to Eternal Sunshine was sold in 1998, while Human Nature was released in 2001. However, Human Nature's script was developed in 1996, and Kaufman and Gondry could have met then, or Gondry could have started his directorial role later
*Remove some blank space on the quotes section

RELEASE
*Focus reviews on different areas of acclaim; cinematography, music, portrayals, script.
*Gondry's experience in music videos could be moved to an analysis section
*<s>Make a table for the accolades section, such as in [[2001: A Space Odyssey (film)|2001's page]], or [[Prometheus (2012 film)|Prometheus's page]]</s>

ANALYSIS
*Add this section into the page. There are many sources to include here, which a contributor has placed [[Talk:Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind#References to use|here]
*Place this section below the music section, as this will stop the album's infobox influencing the references
*Stills from the film can be added to this section under fair use

SEE ALSO SECTION
*<s>Psychological Thriller is a bit redundant.</s>

[[User:JoshMuirWikipedia|JoshMuirWikipedia]] ([[User talk:JoshMuirWikipedia|talk]]) 17:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-27T15:27:21Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Plot */ Changes outlined in talkpage

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox film
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| image = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.png
| alt = A man and a woman lying on a sheet of ice, there is a large crack in the ice beside them.
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Michel Gondry]]
| producer = {{ubl|[[Steve Golin]]|Anthony Bregman}}
| screenplay = [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| story = {{ubl|Charlie Kaufman|Michel Gondry|[[Pierre Bismuth]]}}
| starring = {{Plainlist|
* [[Jim Carrey]]
* [[Kate Winslet]]
* [[Kirsten Dunst]]
* [[Mark Ruffalo]]
* [[Elijah Wood]]
* [[Tom Wilkinson]]
}}
| music = [[Jon Brion]]
| cinematography = [[Ellen Kuras]]
| editing = [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| studio = {{ubl|[[Anonymous Content]]|[[This is that corporation|This is That]]}}
| distributor = [[Focus Features]]
| released = {{Film date|2004|03|19}}
| runtime = 108 minutes
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $20 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |title = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind |work = [[Box Office Mojo]] |url = http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm }}</ref>
| gross = $72.3 million<ref name="BOM" />
}}

'''''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''''' is a 2004 American [[science fiction]] [[romantic comedy]] film written by [[Charlie Kaufman]] and directed by [[Michel Gondry]]. It follows an estranged couple who have erased each other from their memories, then, started dating again. [[Pierre Bismuth]] created the story with Kaufman and Gondry. The [[ensemble cast]] includes [[Jim Carrey]], [[Kate Winslet]], [[Kirsten Dunst]], [[Mark Ruffalo]], [[Elijah Wood]], and [[Tom Wilkinson]]. The title of the film is a quotation from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].

The film uses elements of the [[psychological thriller]] and a [[nonlinear narrative]] to explore the nature of [[memory]] and [[romantic love]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|work=Slant Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 25, 2004}}</ref> It opened in [[North America]] to wide acclaim on March 19, 2004, and grossed over $70 million worldwide. It won the [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay]], and Winslet received a nomination for [[Academy Award for Best Actress]]. The film developed a [[cult following]] in the years after its release and is now regarded by many critics as one of the greatest films of the 21st century.<ref>The film was ranked #6 on the [[BBC]]'s list of the 100 best films of the 21st century, compiled from a survey of 177 film critics. {{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films |title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films |date=August 23, 2016 |website=[[BBC]] |accessdate=August 16, 2017}} See also {{cite web|last1=Dargis|first1=Manohla|last2=Scott|first2=A.O. |title=The 25 Best Films of the 21st Century...So Far |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html |date=Jun 9, 2017 |website=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2017}}</ref>

==Plot==
[[File:Montauk LIRR train station.jpg|thumb|Train station of Montauk where Joel and Clementine meet each other again after erasing of their memories.|alt=]]
Shy, soft-spoken Joel Barish and unrestrained free-spirit Clementine Kruczynski begin a relationship on a [[Long Island Rail Road]] train from [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]] to [[Rockville Centre, New York|Rockville Centre]]. They are almost immediately drawn to each other, despite their contrasting personalities, and both had felt the need to travel to Montauk that day. Although they do not realize it, Joel and Clementine are former lovers, now separated after having spent two years together.

After a fight, Clementine hires the New York City firm Lacuna, Inc. to [[Memory erasure|erase all her memories]] of their relationship. Upon discovering this from his friends Rob and Carrie, Joel is saddened and decides to undergo the procedure himself, a process which takes place while he sleeps.

Much of the film subsequently takes place in Joel's mind, during this memory erasure procedure. Joel finds himself revisiting his memories of Clementine [[reverse chronology|in reverse]], starting from the disintegration of their relationship. As he comes across happier, positive memories of Clementine early in his relationship, he decides to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her, trying to evade the procedure by taking his idealized memory of Clementine into [[False memory|memories not related to her]] or waking up to stop the process. Despite his efforts, the memories are steadily erased. He comes to the last remaining memory of Clementine, the day he had first met her at a beach house in Montauk. As this memory disintegrates around them, she tells him, "Meet me in Montauk."

Separate, but related, story arcs revolving around the employees of Lacuna are revealed during Joel's memory erasure. Patrick, one of the Lacuna technicians performing the erasure, uses Joel's memories and mannerisms to seduce and romance Clementine. Mary, the Lacuna receptionist, is dating the other memory-erasing technician, Stan, but has feelings for Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, a married doctor and the head of Lacuna. During Joel's memory wipe, Mary discovers she had previously had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and agreed to have this erased from her memory when Dr. Mierzwiak's wife found out. On learning this, she asks Stan whether he knew about this, to which he claims that he didn't. Mary then quits her job and steals the company's records, mailing them to all of Lacuna's customers, believing the clients should know the truth.

The film returns to the present after Joel and Clementine have met at the [[Montauk station|train station of Montauk]]. They both come upon their Lacuna records later that day, and react with shock and bewilderment – they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel pleads with Clementine to restart their relationship; Clementine initially resists, pointing out it could go the same way. Joel accepts this and they decide to try anyway.

==Cast==
{{multiple image
| direction = vertical
| width = 175
| footer = Top to bottom: [[Jim Carrey]] and [[Kate Winslet]] play Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski respectively
| image1 = Jim Carrey 2008.jpg
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Kate Winslet by Andrea Raffin.jpg
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
}}

* [[Jim Carrey]] as Joel Barish: Joel is an introvert who enters a two-year relationship with Clementine Kruczynski before erasing her from his mind after they break-up and after she erases him from her memory. [[Charlie Kaufman]] wrote Joel with autobiographical personality traits.<ref name=":11" /> Producers cast Carrey against type for his role as Joel.<ref name=":11" /> Carrey was selected for his regular appearance, as well as his comedic ability, as according to Michel Gondry, "[I]t's hard to be funny. It's far easier to take someone really funny and bring them down than do the opposite."<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/michel-gondry-on-mood-indigo-kanye-west-and-the-10th-anniversary-of-eternal-sunshine|title=Michel Gondry on ‘Mood Indigo,’ Kanye West, and the 10th Anniversary of ‘Eternal Sunshine’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=July 19, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> To make Carrey, an actor who typically portrayed high-energy roles, play a restrained character, Gondry prevented him from improvising, a restriction he did not place on the other members of the cast. Carrey did not like this.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/undercover-indies-what-makes-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-so-unforgettable/|title=Undercover Indies: What Makes ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ So Unforgettable?|last=Placa|first=Kaia|date=March 31, 2017|website=Film Independent|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry would also put Carrey off balance by giving wrong orders or by rolling the camera at the wrong time. Gondry believed this would make Carrey forget what he should do to be the character, allowing him to go in-character.<ref name=":11" /> In the 2017 [[Netflix]] documentary ''[[Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond|Jim & Andy]]'', Carrey mentions a conversation with Gondry one year before shooting began for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', shortly after Carrey had a breakup with an unspecified woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrey-life-is-too-beautiful/|title=Carrey: 'Life Is Too Beautiful'|last=Leung|first=Rebecca|date=November 18, 2004|website=CBS News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry saw that Carrey's emotional state at the time was "so beautiful, so broken" and asked him to stay that way for one year to fit the character. In the documentary, Carrey commented, "That's how fucked up this business is."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wtop.com/entertainment/2017/11/review-jim-carrey-possessed-by-andy-kaufman-in-documentary-jim-andy/|title=Review: ‘Jim & Andy’ documents Jim Carrey’s journey into his own ‘Tru-Man’|last=Fraley|first=Jason|date=November 30, 2017|website=wtop.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/jim-andy-great-beyond-venice-2017-1035248|title='Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond': Film Review {{!}} Venice 2017|last=Rooney|first=David|date=September 5, 2017|website=The Hollywood Reporter|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> [[Nicolas Cage]] was Gondry's original choice to play Joel,<ref name=":12" /> but Cage was unable to do the role as he was in high demand from independent directors after his performance in ''[[Leaving Las Vegas]]''.<ref name=":14" />
:* Ryan Whitney as young Joel
* [[Kate Winslet]] as Clementine Kruczynski: Clementine is a spontaneous extrovert who, after breaking up with Joel Barish after a two-year relationship, erases him from her mind. Winslet was cast against type for her part as Clementine,<ref name=":11" /> having previously featured in period pieces,<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/kate-winslet-on-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2419277|title=No Corsets for Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"|last=Murray|first=Rebecca|date=|website=ThoughtCo.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> and received the role after she was the only actress to offer criticism on the script instead of pandering to the writers.<ref name=":14" /> After another actress won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Oscar]], the studio attempted to make Gondry use her instead of Winslet for the role of Clementine, but Gondry threatened to walk from the project if that occurred.<ref name=":14" /> During filming, Gondry took Winslet to separate rooms to coach her,<ref name=":14" /> and she wore wigs instead of dying her hair.<ref name=":15" /> The character of Clementine has been noted several times to serve as a critique of the [[Manic Pixie Dream Girl]] [[stock character]] before the phrase itself had been coined. The character's criticism of the stock character is predominantly present in her remark: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a9285/manic-pixie-dream-girl-characters/|title=Remembering Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 10 Years Later|last=Gould|first=Hallie|date=March 20, 2014|website=Marie Claire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://flavorwire.com/446166/eternal-sunshine-destroyed-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-stereotype-before-it-even-existed|title=‘Eternal Sunshine’ Destroyed the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype Before It Even Existed|last=Herman|first=Alison|date=March 19, 2014|website=FlavorWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> With her impulsiveness, emotion intensity (extreme mood changes), alcohol dependence, turbulent relationships, reckless behavior, and hasty idealization/devaluation of Joel, Clementine seems to exhibit traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, although it is not clear whether her character was written with this specific diagnosis in mind.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://themighty.com/2017/11/movies-borderline-personality-disorder-bpd/|title=6 Movies That Got Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms (Mostly) Right|work=The Mighty|access-date=2018-08-17|language=en-US}}</ref>
:* Lola Daehler as young Clementine
* [[Kirsten Dunst]] as Mary Svevo: Mary is the receptionist for Lacuna who has a crush on Howard. While erasing Joel's memory, Howard's wife catches her kissing Howard. Howard's wife reveals Mary previously had a relationship with Howard which Howard erased from her mind. In revenge for the deception, she mails Lacuna's company records to the customers.
* [[Mark Ruffalo]] as Stan Fink: Stan is a technician for Lacuna who is in a relationship with Mary until the reveal of her previous relationship with Howard. Ruffalo received the role of Stan after providing an "unexpected take on the role" to Gondry when he suggested Stan be a fan of [[The Clash]] and look like [[Joe Strummer]].<ref name=":14" />
* [[Elijah Wood]] as Patrick: Patrick is a technician for Lacuna who enters a relationship with Clementine by imitating Joel. They break up when Joel and Clementine begin dating for the second time.
* [[Tom Wilkinson]] as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak: Howard runs Lacuna. Before the film's events, he had an affair with Mary, which ended with the relationship's erasure from her mind. Wilkinson reportedly did not enjoy the shooting of the film and frequently disagreed with Gondry.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-ruffalo-blasts-iraqs-gop-warmongers-talks-begin-again-and-avengers|title=Mark Ruffalo Blasts Iraq’s GOP Warmongers, Talks ‘Begin Again’ and ‘Avengers’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=June 30, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Jane Adams (actress)|Jane Adams]] as Carrie Eakin: Joel's friend. She is in a troubled relationship with Rob.
* [[David Cross]] as Rob Eakin: Joel's friend. He is in a troubled relationship with Carrie.
* [[Deirdre O'Connell (actress)|Deirdre O'Connell]] as Hollis Mierzwiak: Howard's wife
* [[Thomas Jay Ryan]] as Frank: Joel's neighbor
* Debbon Ayer as Joel's mother

==Production==
=== Development ===
The concept of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' came from 1998 conversations between [[Michel Gondry]] and the film's co-writer [[Pierre Bismuth]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scriptmag.com/features/script-screen-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=From Script to Screen: ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’|last=Cohen|first=David S.|date=February 17, 2016|website=Script Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> The pair had met and become friends in the early 1980s during Gondry's drumming career in the French pop group ''[[Oui Oui]]''.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/06/1|title=Eraserhead|last=Lack|first=Jessica|date=September 6, 2008|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth had conceived of the idea of erasing certain people from people's minds in response to a friend complaining about her boyfriend; when he asked her if she would erase that boyfriend from her memory, she said yes.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-unforgettable-heartbreaking-exploration-love-human-beings-nature-memory/|title=‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’: An Unforgettable and Heartbreaking Exploration of Love, Human Beings and the Nature of Memory|last=|first=|date=|website=Cinephilia & Beyond|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth originally was going to conduct an art experiment involving sending cards to people saying someone they knew had erased the card’s recipient from their memory.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19247/1/a-secret-history-of-michel-gondry|title=Ten years of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Mansfield|first=Matt|date=March 13, 2014|website=Dazed Digital|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> When he mentioned this to Gondry, they developed it into a story based on the situations that would arise if it were scientifically possible.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> Bismuth never conducted the experiment.<ref name=":6" />

Gondry approached [[Charlie Kaufman]] with this concept, the two having worked previously together for Kaufman's [[Human Nature (film)|''Human Nature'']].<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":6" /> Gondry and Kaufman together further developed the story a short pitch.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.avclub.com/michel-gondry-charlie-kaufman-1798208337|title=Interview - Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman|last=Tobias|first=Scott|date=March 17, 2004|website=AV Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> While the writers did not believe the concept to be marketable, a small bidding war began over the idea.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/charlie-kaufman-anomaslisa-c-v-r.html|title=In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman|last=Sternbergh|first=Adam|date=December 16, 2015|website= [[New York (magazine)#Digital expansion and blogs|Vulture]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> It was purchased on June 12, 1998, for a low seven-figure sum by [[Steve Golin]] of [[Propaganda Films]].<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/charlie_kaufman.html|title=Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry - Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind|last=Kleinman|first=Geoffrey|date=|website=DVD Talk|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/1998/film/news/pic-pitch-plays-at-propaganda-1117471841/|title=Pic pitch plays at Propaganda|last=Madigan|first=Nick|date=June 15, 1998|work=Variety|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Kaufman, who was responsible for writing the screenplay, did not begin immediately, instead opting to suspend writing while he was working on ''[[Adaptation (film)|Adaptation]]'', ''[[Confessions of a Dangerous Mind]]'' and ''Human Nature''.<ref name=":7" /> During this time, the film ''[[Memento (film)|Memento]]'' was released, which similarly deals with memory. Due to the similarities, Kaufman became worried and attempted to pull out of the project, but Golin made him complete it.<ref name=":11" /> During writing, the pitch's ownership changed several times thus Kaufman did not have to deal with the studios until the end of the scriptwriting process.<ref name=":7" /> The final script made the studios nervous.<ref name=":7" />

{{Quote box
| quote = <poem>How happy is the blameless vestal's lot?
The world forgetting, by the world forgot:
'''Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!'''
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;</poem>
| author = [[Alexander Pope]]
| source = ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'', 207-10
| width = 20%
| align = right
| quoted = 1
}}
Kaufman did not want to make the film a thriller and wanted to downplay the science fiction aspects of memory erasure, focusing on the relationship.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":10" /> He had an "enormous struggle" with the script, particularly encountering two problems while writing the script: showing "the memories, Joel's reactions to the memories, and Joel interacting with Clementine outside of the memories in the memories," and the fact that characters could refer in later scenes to a memory that had already been erased.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman solved the first problem by making Joel lucid and able to comment on his memories and solved the second by making the memories degrade instead of immediately erasing, with complete erasure occurring at awakening.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman's original title for the screenplay was 18 words long, as he had wanted a title which "you couldn't possibly fit on a marquee,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3664683.stm|title=Inside screenwriter Kaufman's Mind|last=Smith|first=Neil|date=April 28, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> however, he eventually decided on ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', a title coming from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/film-charlie-kaufman-s-critique-of-pure-comedy.html|title=Charlie Kaufman's Critique of Pure Comedy|last=Scott|first=A. O.|date=April 4, 2004|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

=== Production ===
The shooting of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' began in mid-January 2003 after six weeks of preparation,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/20/news1|title=In brief: Elijah Wood joins Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=December 20, 2002|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://variety.com/2002/film/markets-festivals/ruffalo-springs-for-eternal-1117877087/|title=Ruffalo springs for ‘Eternal’|last=Feiwell|first=Jill|date=December 8, 2002|website=Variety|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Pavlus|first=John|date=April 2004|title=Forget Me Not|url=https://theasc.com/magazine/april04/cover/|journal=The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques|volume=85|pages=1-3|via=}}</ref> lasting for three months on a budget of $20 million mostly in and around [[New York City]].<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /> Some key scenes, however, such as Joel's [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] apartment and the 1950s-style kitchen, were recreated in a [[New Jersey]] former U.S. Navy base.<ref name=":13" />

The shoot was challenging for cinematographer [[Ellen Kuras]], due to the difficulty of filming Gondry's vision for the film, which aimed to "blend location-shoot authenticity with unpredictable flashes of whimsy." According to this vision, Gondry wanted [[available light]] used exclusively for the shoot. Kuras disagreed with this choice and would get around it by lighting the room instead of the actors and by hiding light bulbs around the set to increase light levels.<ref name=":13" /> Another issue encountered by the cinematographers was the frequent improvisation, the lack of marks and the few rehearsals completed, meaning the cinematographers often did not know where the actors would be. Two [[Hand-held camera|handheld cameras]] filmed near 360-degree footage at all times, shooting 36 000 feet of film a day to deal with this.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":13" /> Gondry called back to the work of famed [[French New Wave]] director [[Jean-Luc Godard]] by filming using wheelchairs as well as using sled and chariot dollies instead of [[Camera dolly|traditional dollies]]. When using wheelchairs, the shot was not consistently smooth, however as Kuras liked the aesthetic of the low-angle, wobbly movement, the final film contains the footage.<ref name=":13" />

The film used minimal [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]], with many effects accomplished [[In-camera effect|in-camera]], through [[Forced perspective|forced perspectives]], hidden space, spotlighting, unsynchronized sound, split focus and [[continuity editing]].<ref name=":6" /> A notable example is the ocean washing away the house in [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]]; the production team accomplished this by building the corner of a house on the shore and allowing the tide to come in.<ref name=":12" /> Carrying out this effect was difficult as the special team hired to place the set in the water refused, citing dangers. Gondry in response fired the team and had the production team, including the actors and producers, place the set in the water. In retaliation for Gondry's actions, the chief of the union reprimanded Gondry in front of the crew.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://the-talks.com/interview/michel-gondry/|title=Michel Gondry: "I Believe in Utopia"|last=|first=|date=July 27, 2011|website=The Talks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Kaufman engaged in script rewriting during production; thus several discrepancies exist between the production script and the final film.<ref name=":9" /> A fundamental difference is that in the production script, with the erasure of each memory, Clementine behaves increasingly robotic.<ref name=":7" /> In the final film, Winslet plays Clementine straight, and degradation of settings and the intrusion of settings upon each other establish memory degradation visually. Another script component which did not make it into the final film was the appearance of Naomi, Joel's girlfriend. Despite Kaufman's insistence on Naomi’s inclusion, the production cut her already filmed scenes.<ref name=":7" />

Icelandic editor [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]] [[Film editing|edited]] the film, and she reportedly conflicted with Gondry during editing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/heroines-of-cinema-valdis-oskarsdottir-and-the-invisible-art-of-editing-44254/|title=Heroines of Cinema: Valdis Oskarsdottir, and the ‘Invisible Art’ of Editing|last=Hammett Knott|first=Matthew|date=October 11, 2012|website=IndieWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Charlie Kaufman was also very involved in the [[Film editing|editing]] of the film. Editing was a long process as there was no requirement to rush it.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":9" /> There were a few [[Test screening|test screenings]] of the film, which elicited positive reactions.<ref name=":9" />

== Release ==

=== Box office ===
Produced on a budget of $20 million, ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' opened on March 19, 2004, in the United States, earning $8,175,198 in its opening weekend in 1,353 theaters. The film placed seventh in the weekend's box office, and remained in theaters for 19 weeks, earning $34,400,301 in the United States and $37,857,825 in international markets for a total of $72,258,126 worldwide.<ref name="BOXTotal">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Film)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|accessdate=June 30, 2018|date=|website=|last=|first=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' is, as of June 2018, Kaufman's most profitable, and Gondry's second most profitable film.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=charliekaufman.htm|title=Charlie Kaufman (Writer)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michelgondry.htm|title=Michel Gondry (Director)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating, based on 238 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "Propelled by [[Charlie Kaufman]]'s smart, imaginative script and Michel Gondry's equally daring directorial touch, ''Eternal Sunshine'' is a twisty yet heartfelt look at relationships and heartache."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 89 out of 100, based on 41 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Metacritic]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title=CinemaScore|work=cinemascore.com}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' in his initial 2004 review gave the film 3½ out of a possible 4.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Original Review|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=March 19, 2004|website=RogerEbert.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> He revisited the film in 2010 when he referred to Kaufman as "the most gifted screenwriter of the 2000s" and revised the rating to a full 4 stars, adding it to his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004-1|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|author=Ebert|first=Roger|authorlink=Roger Ebert|date=January 2, 2010|website=Rogerebert.suntimes.com|type=Review; 2010 review|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised the film for being "cerebral, formally and conceptually complicated, dense with literary allusions and as unabashedly romantic as any movie you'll ever see".<ref>{{cite web |last= Murphy |first= Mekado |url= http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/critics-picks-video-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/ |title = Critics' Picks Video: 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'|work=[[The New York Times]] |date = February 15, 2011 |accessdate = 2013-03-27 }}</ref> ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'' summed up their review by saying, "the formidable Gondry/Kaufman/Carrey axis works marvel after marvel in expressing the bewildering beauty and existential horror of being trapped inside one's own addled mind, and in allegorising the self-preserving amnesia of a broken but hopeful heart."<ref>[https://www.timeout.com/london/film/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind movie review – Film – Time Out London]</ref>

Winslet and Carrey received acclaim for their performances. Winslet's performance as Clementine received multiple award nominations, including an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Academy Award nomination for Best Actress]], and it was placed 81st in [[Premiere (magazine)|''Premiere'' magazine's]] 2008 list of 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|title=The 100 Greatest Performances of All Time: 100–75|last=|first=|date=December 3, 2008|work=Premiere|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|archivedate=March 31, 2009|deadurl=yes|accessdate=July 7, 2018|df=}}</ref> Claudia Puig in a review for ''[[USA Today]]'' said of her performance that "Winslet is wonderful as a free spirit whose hair color changes along with her moods. She hasn't had such a meaty role in a while, and she plays it just right."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-03-18-eternal-sunshine_x.htm|title=Soak up 'Eternal Sunshine,' and you'll feel warm all over|last=Puig|first=Claudia|date=March 18, 2004|work=[[USA Today]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Carrey's performance as Joel also received multiple award nominations. Jason Killingsworth in a review for [[Paste (magazine)|Paste magazine]] said of his performance that "Carrey nails the part, winning audience sympathy from the opening moments of the film".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2004/06/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Killingsworth|first=Jason|date=June 1, 2004|website=Paste Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref>

In the Autumn 2008 issue of [[Screen (journal)|Screen Journal]], Carol Vernallis argued out that Gondry's experience in directing [[music video]]s contributed to the film's [[Mise en scène|mise-en-scène]] and sound design. Vernallis describes some threads of the visual, aural and musical motifs throughout the film, and how some motifs can work in [[counterpoint]].<ref>Vernallis, Carol. "Music video, songs, sound: experience, technique and emotion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''". ''Screen''. 49.3. (2008) pp.277–97.</ref>

===Accolades and honors===
{{Main|List of accolades received by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
|-
!scope="col"| Award
!scope="col"| Award category
!scope="col"| Recipients and nominees
!scope="col"| Result
!scope="col"| {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="2"|[[77th Academy Awards|Academy Awards]]
|[[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]]
|[[Kate Winslet]]
|{{nom}}
!scope ="row" rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2005|title=Nominees & Winners for the 77th Academy Awards|last=|first=|date=|year=2005|work=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]]
|[[Pierre Bismuth]], [[Michel Gondry]] and [[Charlie Kaufman]]
|{{won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="6"|[[58th British Academy Film Awards|British Academy Film Awards]] (BAFTA)
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role|Best Actor in a Leading Role]]
|[[Jim Carrey]]
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan="6" style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4180423.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The nominations|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4260929.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The winners|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role|Best Actress in a Leading Role]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Direction|Best Director]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Editing|Best Editing]]
|[[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
|{{won}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]]
|[[Likely Story|Anthony Bregman]] and [[Steve Golin]]
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{Won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="4"|[[62nd Golden Globe Awards|Golden Globe Awards]]
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy|Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Jim Carrey
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan=4 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=/year/2005|title=The 62nd Annual Golden Globe Awards (2005)|year=2005|work=[[Golden Globe Award]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical|Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy|Best Film - Musical or Comedy]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay|Best Screenplay]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{nom}}
|-
!scope="row"|[[Hugo Award|Hugo Awards]]
|[[Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation|Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form]]
|Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Bierre Bismuth
|{{nom}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/|title=2005 Hugo Awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[National Board of Review Awards 2004|National Board of Review]]
|[[National Board of Review Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
! rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/award-years/2004/|title=2004 Award Winners|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[Writers Guild of America Awards 2004|Writers Guild of America]]
|[[Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Pierre Bismuth, Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4281705.stm|title=Quirky movies win script awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|}

=== Home media ===

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''<nowiki/>'s [[DVD]] release happened on September 28, 2004, by Universal Home Entertainment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind#tab=summary|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)|last=|first=|date=|website=The Numbers|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> A [[Blu-ray]] edition release occurred in the U.S. on January 25, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Blu-ray/16770/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=blu-ray.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

==Music==
{{Anchor|Music|Soundtrack|Score}}
{{Main|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (soundtrack)}}{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| collapsed = yes
| extra_column = Artist
| total_length = 56:08
| title1 = Theme
| extra1 = [[Jon Brion]]
| length1 = 2:24
| title2 = [[Mr. Blue Sky]]
| extra2 = [[Electric Light Orchestra]]
| length2 = 5:03
| title3 = Collecting Things
| extra3 = Jon Brion
| length3 = 1:13
| title4 = [[Light & Day]]
| extra4 = [[The Polyphonic Spree]]
| length4 = 3:03
| title5 = Bookstore
| extra5 = Jon Brion
| length5 = 0:52
| title6 = It's the Sun
| note6 = [[KCRW]] [[Morning Becomes Eclectic]] version
| extra6 = The Polyphonic Spree
| length6 = 5:33
| title7 = Wada Na Tod, Mera Man Tera Pyasa
| extra7 = [[Lata Mangeshkar]], [[Mohammed Rafi]]
| length7 = 5:54
| title8 = Showtime
| extra8 = Jon Brion
| length8 = 0:55
| title9 = [[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]
| note9 = [[The Korgis]] cover
| extra9 = [[Beck]]
| length9 = 5:54
| title10 = Sidewalk Flight
| extra10 = Jon Brion
| length10 = 0:31
| title11 = Some Kinda Shuffle
| extra11 = Don Nelson
| length11 = 2:11
| title12 = Howard Makes It All Go Away
| extra12 = Jon Brion
| length12 = 0:14
| title13 = Something
| extra13 = [[The Willowz]]
| length13 = 2:23
| title14 = Postcard
| extra14 = Jon Brion
| length14 = 0:23
| title15 = I Wonder
| extra15 = The Willowz
| length15 = 2:56
| title16 = Peer Pressure
| extra16 = Jon Brion
| length16 = 1:12
| title17 = A Dream Upon Waking
| extra17 = Jon Brion
| length17 = 3:36
| title18 = Strings That Tie to You
| extra18 = Jon Brion
| length18 = 2:33
| title19 = Phone Call
| extra19 = Jon Brion
| length19 = 1:03
| title20 = Nola's Bounce
| extra20 = Don Nelson
| length20 = 1:56
| title21 = Down The Drain
| extra21 = Jon Brion
| length21 = 0:56
| title22 = Row
| extra22 = Jon Brion
| length22 = 1:00
| title23 = Drive In
| extra23 = Jon Brion
| length23 = 2:19
| title24 = Main Title
| extra24 = Jon Brion
| length24 = 1:23
| title25 = Spotless Mind
| extra25 = Jon Brion
| length25 = 1:12
| title26 = Elephant Parade
| extra26 = Jon Brion
| length26 = 0:28
}}{{Infobox album
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| type = Soundtrack
| artist = Jon Brion
| cover = Eternal sunshine CD cover.jpg
| alt =
| released = March 16, 2004
| recorded =
| venue =
| studio =
| genre = Soundtrack
| length = 56:08
| label = [[Hollywood Records|Hollywood]]
| producer = Kathy Nelson (executive producer) [[Tim DeLaughter]] (track 4) [[Jon Brion]] (track 9) Don Nelson (tracks 11 and 20) Ethan Johns (track 18)
| chronology = [[Jon Brion]]
| prev_title = [[Punch-Drunk Love (soundtrack)|Punch-Drunk Love]]
| prev_year = 2002
| next_title = [[I Heart Huckabees (soundtrack)|I ♥ Huckabees]]
| next_year = 2004
}}
{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1score = {{Rating|4|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev2 = [[IGN]]
| rev2Score = 7/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2004/03/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original-soundtrack|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Original Soundtrack - IGN Review|date=March 18, 2004|website=IGN.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
| rev3 = [[Filmtracks.com|Filmtracks]]
| rev3Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=January 21, 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev4 = [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]
| rev4Score = 7.5/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
}}

The [[soundtrack]] album for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' was composed by Los Angeles musician [[Jon Brion]], also featuring songs from artists including [[The Polyphonic Spree]], [[The Willowz]], and Don Nelson. The soundtrack was released by [[Hollywood Records]] on March 16, 2004.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040225005925/en/Beck-Polyphonic-Spree-Headline-Hollywood-Records-Eternal|title=Beck and The Polyphonic Spree Headline Hollywood Records' "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' Soundtrack|last=Ferraro|first=Kris|date=February 25, 2004|website=Business Wire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> A [[cover version]] of [[The Korgis]]' "[[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]" with instrumentation by Brion and vocals by [[Beck]] operates as the soundtrack's centerpiece, setting the film's tone in the opening credits, and closing the film.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://consequenceofsound.net/2009/12/cinema-sounds-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Cinema Sounds: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=O'Shoney|first=Carson|date=December 18, 2009|website=Consequence of Sound|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's'' soundtrack received generally positive reviews. [[AllMusic]] described it as "nearly as deft", and described Brion's score as "intimate" and "evocative of love and memories".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Other positive reviews noted the [[Ambient music|ambient]] nature of the music and lauded Beck's cover of "Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> On the other hand, the soundtrack's detractors criticized the album's lack of identity, and its depressive atmosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=21 January 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Even among the detractors, however, the score's ability to mesh with the plot was lauded, an appraisal common to many reviews.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-losers-the-rare-but-beautiful-film-scores-of-jon-brion-deserve-an-oscar-2b29438a926e/|title=The Losers: The Rare But Beautiful Film Scores of Jon Brion Deserve an Oscar|last=Belletto|first=Adam|date=February 17, 2015|website=Film School Rejects|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

== Legacy ==

=== Television series ===
In October 2016, [[Anonymous Content]] announced they will be working with [[Universal Cable Productions]] to produce a television series based on the film. Kaufman is not involved in writing the show. The project is still in planning stages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-tv-933163|title='Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' TV Series in the Works (Exclusive)|last1=Sandberg|first1=Byran Elise|last2=Kit|first2=Borys|date=October 7, 2016|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

===Media recognition===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Presenter
! Title
! Rank
! Notes
|-
| 2005
| align=center | ''[[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]]''
| align=center | 101 Greatest Screenplays
| align=center | 24
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays|title=101 Greatest Screenplays|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=101 Greatest Screenplays Full List|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2008
| align=center | ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time]]
| align=center | 73
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|title=The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|last=|first=|date=November 2008|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|archive-date=October 21, 2013|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=5 | 2009
| align=center | ''[[Time Out (magazine)#Time Out New York|Time Out New York]]''
| align=center | The TONY Top 50 Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 3
|<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=November 26 – December 2, 2009|title=The TONY top 50 movies of the decade|url=https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-tony-top-50-movies-of-the-decade#tab_panel_5|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]|volume=|issue=739|pages=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|via=}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Slant Magazine]]''
| align=center | The 100 Best Films of the Aughts
| align=center | 86
|<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_2|title=The 100 Best Films of the Aughts|last=|first=|date=February 7, 2010|work=[[Slant Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=February 10, 2010}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]''
| align=center | The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)
| align=center | 5
|<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=2|title=The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009)|last=|first=|date=November 3, 2009|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| align=center | The Best Films of the '00s
| align=center | 1
|<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/|title=The Best Films of the '00s|last=Murray|first=Noel|last2=Rabin|first2=Nathan|date=December 3, 2009|website=The A.V. Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|last3=Phipps|first3=Keith|last4=Robinson|first4=Tasha|last5=Tobias|first5=Scott}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Metacritic]]''
| align=center | Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 2
|<ref name=":20">{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-pick-the-best-movies-of-the-decade|title=Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade|last=|first=|date=January 3, 2010|work=Metacritic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2016
| align=center | ''[[BBC]]''
| align=center |[[BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century|The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films]]
| align=center | 6
|<ref name="BBC">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films|title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films|last=|first=|date=August 23, 2016|website=|publisher=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=2 | 2018
| align=center | ''Empire''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 100 Greatest Movies|The 100 Greatest Movies]]
| align=center | 41
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|title=The 100 Greatest Movies|last=|first=|date=March 20, 2018|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706075658/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|archive-date=July 6, 2018|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''They Shoot Pictures Don't They''
| align=center | The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films
| align=center | 5
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_rankinghistory.htm|title=The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films (Ranking History)|last=|first=|date=|website=They Shoot Pictures Don't They|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|}

==See also==

* [[Lucid dream]]
* ''[[Inception]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{Official website|http://www.eternalsunshine.com}}
* {{IMDb title|0338013|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Allmovie title|278676|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Mojo title|eternalsunshine|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/REVIEWS/403190302/1023 ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''] review by [[Roger Ebert]]

{{Michel Gondry}}
{{Charlie Kaufman}}
{{Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film 1991–2010}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind}}
[[Category:2004 films]]
[[Category:Science fiction drama films]]
[[Category:2000s romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American independent films]]
[[Category:American comedy-drama films]]
[[Category:American romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American romantic fantasy films]]
[[Category:Comedy of remarriage films]]
[[Category:Mad scientist films]]
[[Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction]]
[[Category:Nonlinear narrative films]]
[[Category:American psychological films]]
[[Category:Films about altered memories]]
[[Category:Films set in Long Island]]
[[Category:Films set in Manhattan]]
[[Category:Films shot in New York (state)]]
[[Category:Films shot in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Films directed by Michel Gondry]]
[[Category:Films scored by Jon Brion]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Charlie Kaufman]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]]
[[Category:Focus Features films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay BAFTA Award]]
[[Category:Films produced by Steve Golin]]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-27T15:16:56Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: Restructured

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox film
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| image = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.png
| alt = A man and a woman lying on a sheet of ice, there is a large crack in the ice beside them.
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Michel Gondry]]
| producer = {{ubl|[[Steve Golin]]|Anthony Bregman}}
| screenplay = [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| story = {{ubl|Charlie Kaufman|Michel Gondry|[[Pierre Bismuth]]}}
| starring = {{Plainlist|
* [[Jim Carrey]]
* [[Kate Winslet]]
* [[Kirsten Dunst]]
* [[Mark Ruffalo]]
* [[Elijah Wood]]
* [[Tom Wilkinson]]
}}
| music = [[Jon Brion]]
| cinematography = [[Ellen Kuras]]
| editing = [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| studio = {{ubl|[[Anonymous Content]]|[[This is that corporation|This is That]]}}
| distributor = [[Focus Features]]
| released = {{Film date|2004|03|19}}
| runtime = 108 minutes
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $20 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |title = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind |work = [[Box Office Mojo]] |url = http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm }}</ref>
| gross = $72.3 million<ref name="BOM" />
}}

'''''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''''' is a 2004 American [[science fiction]] [[romantic comedy]] film written by [[Charlie Kaufman]] and directed by [[Michel Gondry]]. It follows an estranged couple who have erased each other from their memories, then, started dating again. [[Pierre Bismuth]] created the story with Kaufman and Gondry. The [[ensemble cast]] includes [[Jim Carrey]], [[Kate Winslet]], [[Kirsten Dunst]], [[Mark Ruffalo]], [[Elijah Wood]], and [[Tom Wilkinson]]. The title of the film is a quotation from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].

The film uses elements of the [[psychological thriller]] and a [[nonlinear narrative]] to explore the nature of [[memory]] and [[romantic love]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|work=Slant Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 25, 2004}}</ref> It opened in [[North America]] to wide acclaim on March 19, 2004, and grossed over $70 million worldwide.<ref name=BOM/> It won the [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay]], and Winslet received a nomination for [[Academy Award for Best Actress]]. The film developed a [[cult following]] in the years after its release and is now regarded by many critics as one of the greatest films of the 21st century.<ref>The film was ranked #6 on the [[BBC]]'s list of the 100 best films of the 21st century, compiled from a survey of 177 film critics. {{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films |title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films |date=August 23, 2016 |website=[[BBC]] |accessdate=August 16, 2017}} See also {{cite web|last1=Dargis|first1=Manohla|last2=Scott|first2=A.O. |title=The 25 Best Films of the 21st Century...So Far |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html |date=Jun 9, 2017 |website=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2017}}</ref>

==Plot==
[[File:Montauk LIRR train station.jpg|thumb|Train station of Montauk where Joel and Clementine meet each other again after erasing of their memories.|alt=]]
Shy, soft-spoken Joel Barish and unrestrained free-spirit Clementine Kruczynski begin a relationship on a [[Long Island Rail Road]] train from [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]] to [[Rockville Centre, New York|Rockville Centre]]. They are almost immediately drawn to each other, despite their contrasting personalities, and both had felt the need to travel to Montauk that day. Although they do not realize it, Joel and Clementine are former lovers, now separated after having spent two years together.

After a fight, Clementine hires the New York City firm Lacuna, Inc. to [[Memory erasure|erase all her memories]] of their relationship. Upon discovering this from his friends Rob and Carrie, Joel was devastated and decided to undergo the procedure himself, a process that takes place while he sleeps.

Much of the film subsequently takes place in Joel's mind, during this memory erasure procedure. Joel finds himself revisiting his memories of Clementine [[reverse chronology|in reverse]], starting from the disintegration of their relationship. As he comes across happier, positive memories of Clementine early in his relationship, he decides to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her, trying to evade the procedure by taking his idealized memory of Clementine into [[False memory|memories not related to her]] or waking up to stop the process. Despite his efforts, the memories are steadily erased. He comes to the last remaining memory of Clementine, the day he had first met her at a beach house in Montauk. As this memory disintegrates around them, she tells him, "Meet me in Montauk."

Separate, but related, story arcs revolving around the employees of Lacuna are revealed during Joel's memory erasure. Patrick, one of the Lacuna technicians performing the erasure, uses Joel's memories and mannerisms to seduce and romance Clementine. Mary, the Lacuna receptionist, is dating the other memory-erasing technician, Stan, but has feelings for Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, a married doctor and the head of Lacuna. During Joel's memory wipe, Mary discovers she had previously had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and agreed to have this erased from her memory when Dr. Mierzwiak's wife found out. On learning this, she asks Stan whether he knew about this, to which he claims that he didn't. Mary then quits her job and steals the company's records, mailing them to all of Lacuna's customers, believing the clients should know the truth.

The film returns to the present after Joel and Clementine have met at the train station of Montauk. They both come upon their Lacuna records later that day, and react with shock and bewilderment – they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel pleads with Clementine to restart their relationship; Clementine initially resists, pointing out it could go the same way. Joel accepts this and they decide to try anyway.

==Cast==
{{multiple image
| direction = vertical
| width = 175
| footer = Top to bottom: [[Jim Carrey]] and [[Kate Winslet]] play Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski respectively
| image1 = Jim Carrey 2008.jpg
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Kate Winslet by Andrea Raffin.jpg
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
}}

* [[Jim Carrey]] as Joel Barish: Joel is an introvert who enters a two-year relationship with Clementine Kruczynski before erasing her from his mind after they break-up and after she erases him from her memory. [[Charlie Kaufman]] wrote Joel with autobiographical personality traits.<ref name=":11" /> Producers cast Carrey against type for his role as Joel.<ref name=":11" /> Carrey was selected for his regular appearance, as well as his comedic ability, as according to Michel Gondry, "[I]t's hard to be funny. It's far easier to take someone really funny and bring them down than do the opposite."<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/michel-gondry-on-mood-indigo-kanye-west-and-the-10th-anniversary-of-eternal-sunshine|title=Michel Gondry on ‘Mood Indigo,’ Kanye West, and the 10th Anniversary of ‘Eternal Sunshine’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=July 19, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> To make Carrey, an actor who typically portrayed high-energy roles, play a restrained character, Gondry prevented him from improvising, a restriction he did not place on the other members of the cast. Carrey did not like this.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/undercover-indies-what-makes-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-so-unforgettable/|title=Undercover Indies: What Makes ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ So Unforgettable?|last=Placa|first=Kaia|date=March 31, 2017|website=Film Independent|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry would also put Carrey off balance by giving wrong orders or by rolling the camera at the wrong time. Gondry believed this would make Carrey forget what he should do to be the character, allowing him to go in-character.<ref name=":11" /> In the 2017 [[Netflix]] documentary ''[[Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond|Jim & Andy]]'', Carrey mentions a conversation with Gondry one year before shooting began for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', shortly after Carrey had a breakup with an unspecified woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrey-life-is-too-beautiful/|title=Carrey: 'Life Is Too Beautiful'|last=Leung|first=Rebecca|date=November 18, 2004|website=CBS News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry saw that Carrey's emotional state at the time was "so beautiful, so broken" and asked him to stay that way for one year to fit the character. In the documentary, Carrey commented, "That's how fucked up this business is."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wtop.com/entertainment/2017/11/review-jim-carrey-possessed-by-andy-kaufman-in-documentary-jim-andy/|title=Review: ‘Jim & Andy’ documents Jim Carrey’s journey into his own ‘Tru-Man’|last=Fraley|first=Jason|date=November 30, 2017|website=wtop.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/jim-andy-great-beyond-venice-2017-1035248|title='Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond': Film Review {{!}} Venice 2017|last=Rooney|first=David|date=September 5, 2017|website=The Hollywood Reporter|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> [[Nicolas Cage]] was Gondry's original choice to play Joel,<ref name=":12" /> but Cage was unable to do the role as he was in high demand from independent directors after his performance in ''[[Leaving Las Vegas]]''.<ref name=":14" />
:* Ryan Whitney as young Joel
* [[Kate Winslet]] as Clementine Kruczynski: Clementine is a spontaneous extrovert who, after breaking up with Joel Barish after a two-year relationship, erases him from her mind. Winslet was cast against type for her part as Clementine,<ref name=":11" /> having previously featured in period pieces,<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/kate-winslet-on-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2419277|title=No Corsets for Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"|last=Murray|first=Rebecca|date=|website=ThoughtCo.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> and received the role after she was the only actress to offer criticism on the script instead of pandering to the writers.<ref name=":14" /> After another actress won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Oscar]], the studio attempted to make Gondry use her instead of Winslet for the role of Clementine, but Gondry threatened to walk from the project if that occurred.<ref name=":14" /> During filming, Gondry took Winslet to separate rooms to coach her,<ref name=":14" /> and she wore wigs instead of dying her hair.<ref name=":15" /> The character of Clementine has been noted several times to serve as a critique of the [[Manic Pixie Dream Girl]] [[stock character]] before the phrase itself had been coined. The character's criticism of the stock character is predominantly present in her remark: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a9285/manic-pixie-dream-girl-characters/|title=Remembering Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 10 Years Later|last=Gould|first=Hallie|date=March 20, 2014|website=Marie Claire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://flavorwire.com/446166/eternal-sunshine-destroyed-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-stereotype-before-it-even-existed|title=‘Eternal Sunshine’ Destroyed the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype Before It Even Existed|last=Herman|first=Alison|date=March 19, 2014|website=FlavorWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> With her impulsiveness, emotion intensity (extreme mood changes), alcohol dependence, turbulent relationships, reckless behavior, and hasty idealization/devaluation of Joel, Clementine seems to exhibit traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, although it is not clear whether her character was written with this specific diagnosis in mind.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://themighty.com/2017/11/movies-borderline-personality-disorder-bpd/|title=6 Movies That Got Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms (Mostly) Right|work=The Mighty|access-date=2018-08-17|language=en-US}}</ref>
:* Lola Daehler as young Clementine
* [[Kirsten Dunst]] as Mary Svevo: Mary is the receptionist for Lacuna who has a crush on Howard. While erasing Joel's memory, Howard's wife catches her kissing Howard. Howard's wife reveals Mary previously had a relationship with Howard which Howard erased from her mind. In revenge for the deception, she mails Lacuna's company records to the customers.
* [[Mark Ruffalo]] as Stan Fink: Stan is a technician for Lacuna who is in a relationship with Mary until the reveal of her previous relationship with Howard. Ruffalo received the role of Stan after providing an "unexpected take on the role" to Gondry when he suggested Stan be a fan of [[The Clash]] and look like [[Joe Strummer]].<ref name=":14" />
* [[Elijah Wood]] as Patrick: Patrick is a technician for Lacuna who enters a relationship with Clementine by imitating Joel. They break up when Joel and Clementine begin dating for the second time.
* [[Tom Wilkinson]] as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak: Howard runs Lacuna. Before the film's events, he had an affair with Mary, which ended with the relationship's erasure from her mind. Wilkinson reportedly did not enjoy the shooting of the film and frequently disagreed with Gondry.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-ruffalo-blasts-iraqs-gop-warmongers-talks-begin-again-and-avengers|title=Mark Ruffalo Blasts Iraq’s GOP Warmongers, Talks ‘Begin Again’ and ‘Avengers’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=June 30, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Jane Adams (actress)|Jane Adams]] as Carrie Eakin: Joel's friend. She is in a troubled relationship with Rob.
* [[David Cross]] as Rob Eakin: Joel's friend. He is in a troubled relationship with Carrie.
* [[Deirdre O'Connell (actress)|Deirdre O'Connell]] as Hollis Mierzwiak: Howard's wife
* [[Thomas Jay Ryan]] as Frank: Joel's neighbor
* Debbon Ayer as Joel's mother

==Production==
=== Development ===
The concept of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' came from 1998 conversations between [[Michel Gondry]] and the film's co-writer [[Pierre Bismuth]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scriptmag.com/features/script-screen-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=From Script to Screen: ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’|last=Cohen|first=David S.|date=February 17, 2016|website=Script Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> The pair had met and become friends in the early 1980s during Gondry's drumming career in the French pop group ''[[Oui Oui]]''.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/06/1|title=Eraserhead|last=Lack|first=Jessica|date=September 6, 2008|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth had conceived of the idea of erasing certain people from people's minds in response to a friend complaining about her boyfriend; when he asked her if she would erase that boyfriend from her memory, she said yes.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-unforgettable-heartbreaking-exploration-love-human-beings-nature-memory/|title=‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’: An Unforgettable and Heartbreaking Exploration of Love, Human Beings and the Nature of Memory|last=|first=|date=|website=Cinephilia & Beyond|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth originally was going to conduct an art experiment involving sending cards to people saying someone they knew had erased the card’s recipient from their memory.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19247/1/a-secret-history-of-michel-gondry|title=Ten years of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Mansfield|first=Matt|date=March 13, 2014|website=Dazed Digital|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> When he mentioned this to Gondry, they developed it into a story based on the situations that would arise if it were scientifically possible.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> Bismuth never conducted the experiment.<ref name=":6" />

Gondry approached [[Charlie Kaufman]] with this concept, the two having worked previously together for Kaufman's [[Human Nature (film)|''Human Nature'']].<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":6" /> Gondry and Kaufman together further developed the story a short pitch.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.avclub.com/michel-gondry-charlie-kaufman-1798208337|title=Interview - Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman|last=Tobias|first=Scott|date=March 17, 2004|website=AV Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> While the writers did not believe the concept to be marketable, a small bidding war began over the idea.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/charlie-kaufman-anomaslisa-c-v-r.html|title=In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman|last=Sternbergh|first=Adam|date=December 16, 2015|website= [[New York (magazine)#Digital expansion and blogs|Vulture]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> It was purchased on June 12, 1998, for a low seven-figure sum by [[Steve Golin]] of [[Propaganda Films]].<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/charlie_kaufman.html|title=Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry - Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind|last=Kleinman|first=Geoffrey|date=|website=DVD Talk|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/1998/film/news/pic-pitch-plays-at-propaganda-1117471841/|title=Pic pitch plays at Propaganda|last=Madigan|first=Nick|date=June 15, 1998|work=Variety|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Kaufman, who was responsible for writing the screenplay, did not begin immediately, instead opting to suspend writing while he was working on ''[[Adaptation (film)|Adaptation]]'', ''[[Confessions of a Dangerous Mind]]'' and ''Human Nature''.<ref name=":7" /> During this time, the film ''[[Memento (film)|Memento]]'' was released, which similarly deals with memory. Due to the similarities, Kaufman became worried and attempted to pull out of the project, but Golin made him complete it.<ref name=":11" /> During writing, the pitch's ownership changed several times thus Kaufman did not have to deal with the studios until the end of the scriptwriting process.<ref name=":7" /> The final script made the studios nervous.<ref name=":7" />

{{Quote box
| quote=<poem>How happy is the blameless vestal's lot?
The world forgetting, by the world forgot:
'''Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!'''
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;</poem>
| author = [[Alexander Pope]]
| source = ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'', 207-10
| width = 25%
| align = right
| quoted = 1
}}
Kaufman did not want to make the film a thriller and wanted to downplay the science fiction aspects of memory erasure, focusing on the relationship.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":10" /> He had an "enormous struggle" with the script, particularly encountering two problems while writing the script: showing "the memories, Joel's reactions to the memories, and Joel interacting with Clementine outside of the memories in the memories," and the fact that characters could refer in later scenes to a memory that had already been erased.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman solved the first problem by making Joel lucid and able to comment on his memories and solved the second by making the memories degrade instead of immediately erasing, with complete erasure occurring at awakening.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman's original title for the screenplay was 18 words long, as he had wanted a title which "you couldn't possibly fit on a marquee,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3664683.stm|title=Inside screenwriter Kaufman's Mind|last=Smith|first=Neil|date=April 28, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> however, he eventually decided on ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', a title coming from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/film-charlie-kaufman-s-critique-of-pure-comedy.html|title=Charlie Kaufman's Critique of Pure Comedy|last=Scott|first=A. O.|date=April 4, 2004|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

=== Production ===
The shooting of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' began in mid-January 2003 after six weeks of preparation,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/20/news1|title=In brief: Elijah Wood joins Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=December 20, 2002|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://variety.com/2002/film/markets-festivals/ruffalo-springs-for-eternal-1117877087/|title=Ruffalo springs for ‘Eternal’|last=Feiwell|first=Jill|date=December 8, 2002|website=Variety|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Pavlus|first=John|date=April 2004|title=Forget Me Not|url=https://theasc.com/magazine/april04/cover/|journal=The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques|volume=85|pages=1-3|via=}}</ref> lasting for three months on a budget of $20 million mostly in and around [[New York City]].<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /> Some key scenes, however, such as Joel's [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] apartment and the 1950s-style kitchen, were recreated in a [[New Jersey]] former U.S. Navy base.<ref name=":13" />

The shoot was challenging for cinematographer [[Ellen Kuras]], due to the difficulty of filming Gondry's vision for the film, which aimed to "blend location-shoot authenticity with unpredictable flashes of whimsy." According to this vision, Gondry wanted [[available light]] used exclusively for the shoot. Kuras disagreed with this choice and would get around it by lighting the room instead of the actors and by hiding light bulbs around the set to increase light levels.<ref name=":13" /> Another issue encountered by the cinematographers was the frequent improvisation, the lack of marks and the few rehearsals completed, meaning the cinematographers often did not know where the actors would be. Two [[Hand-held camera|handheld cameras]] filmed near 360-degree footage at all times, shooting 36 000 feet of film a day to deal with this.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":13" /> Gondry called back to the work of famed [[French New Wave]] director [[Jean-Luc Godard]] by filming using wheelchairs as well as using sled and chariot dollies instead of [[Camera dolly|traditional dollies]]. When using wheelchairs, the shot was not consistently smooth, however as Kuras liked the aesthetic of the low-angle, wobbly movement, the final film contains the footage.<ref name=":13" />

The film used minimal [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]], with many effects accomplished [[In-camera effect|in-camera]], through [[Forced perspective|forced perspectives]], hidden space, spotlighting, unsynchronized sound, split focus and [[continuity editing]].<ref name=":6" /> A notable example is the ocean washing away the house in [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]]; the production team accomplished this by building the corner of a house on the shore and allowing the tide to come in.<ref name=":12" /> Carrying out this effect was difficult as the special team hired to place the set in the water refused, citing dangers. Gondry in response fired the team and had the production team, including the actors and producers, place the set in the water. In retaliation for Gondry's actions, the chief of the union reprimanded Gondry in front of the crew.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://the-talks.com/interview/michel-gondry/|title=Michel Gondry: "I Believe in Utopia"|last=|first=|date=July 27, 2011|website=The Talks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Kaufman engaged in script rewriting during production; thus several discrepancies exist between the production script and the final film.<ref name=":9" /> A fundamental difference is that in the production script, with the erasure of each memory, Clementine behaves increasingly robotic.<ref name=":7" /> In the final film, Winslet plays Clementine straight, and degradation of settings and the intrusion of settings upon each other establish memory degradation visually. Another script component which did not make it into the final film was the appearance of Naomi, Joel's girlfriend. Despite Kaufman's insistence on Naomi’s inclusion, the production cut her already filmed scenes.<ref name=":7" />

Icelandic editor [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]] [[Film editing|edited]] the film, and she reportedly conflicted with Gondry during editing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/heroines-of-cinema-valdis-oskarsdottir-and-the-invisible-art-of-editing-44254/|title=Heroines of Cinema: Valdis Oskarsdottir, and the ‘Invisible Art’ of Editing|last=Hammett Knott|first=Matthew|date=October 11, 2012|website=IndieWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Charlie Kaufman was also very involved in the [[Film editing|editing]] of the film. Editing was a long process as there was no requirement to rush it.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":9" /> There were a few [[Test screening|test screenings]] of the film, which elicited positive reactions.<ref name=":9" />

== Release ==

=== Box office ===
Produced on a budget of $20 million, ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' opened on March 19, 2004, in the United States, earning $8,175,198 in its opening weekend in 1,353 theaters. The film placed seventh in the weekend's box office, and remained in theaters for 19 weeks, earning $34,400,301 in the United States and $37,857,825 in international markets for a total of $72,258,126 worldwide.<ref name="BOXTotal">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Film)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|accessdate=June 30, 2018|date=|website=|last=|first=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' is, as of June 2018, Kaufman's most profitable, and Gondry's second most profitable film.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=charliekaufman.htm|title=Charlie Kaufman (Writer)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michelgondry.htm|title=Michel Gondry (Director)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating, based on 238 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "Propelled by [[Charlie Kaufman]]'s smart, imaginative script and Michel Gondry's equally daring directorial touch, ''Eternal Sunshine'' is a twisty yet heartfelt look at relationships and heartache."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 89 out of 100, based on 41 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Metacritic]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title=CinemaScore|work=cinemascore.com}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' in his initial 2004 review gave the film 3½ out of a possible 4.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Original Review|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=March 19, 2004|website=RogerEbert.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> He revisited the film in 2010 when he referred to Kaufman as "the most gifted screenwriter of the 2000s" and revised the rating to a full 4 stars, adding it to his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004-1|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|author=Ebert|first=Roger|authorlink=Roger Ebert|date=January 2, 2010|website=Rogerebert.suntimes.com|type=Review; 2010 review|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised the film for being "cerebral, formally and conceptually complicated, dense with literary allusions and as unabashedly romantic as any movie you'll ever see".<ref>{{cite web |last= Murphy |first= Mekado |url= http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/critics-picks-video-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/ |title = Critics' Picks Video: 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'|work=[[The New York Times]] |date = February 15, 2011 |accessdate = 2013-03-27 }}</ref> ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'' summed up their review by saying, "the formidable Gondry/Kaufman/Carrey axis works marvel after marvel in expressing the bewildering beauty and existential horror of being trapped inside one's own addled mind, and in allegorising the self-preserving amnesia of a broken but hopeful heart."<ref>[https://www.timeout.com/london/film/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind movie review – Film – Time Out London]</ref>

Winslet and Carrey received acclaim for their performances. Winslet's performance as Clementine received multiple award nominations, including an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Academy Award nomination for Best Actress]], and it was placed 81st in [[Premiere (magazine)|''Premiere'' magazine's]] 2008 list of 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|title=The 100 Greatest Performances of All Time: 100–75|last=|first=|date=December 3, 2008|work=Premiere|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|archivedate=March 31, 2009|deadurl=yes|accessdate=July 7, 2018|df=}}</ref> Claudia Puig in a review for ''[[USA Today]]'' said of her performance that "Winslet is wonderful as a free spirit whose hair color changes along with her moods. She hasn't had such a meaty role in a while, and she plays it just right."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-03-18-eternal-sunshine_x.htm|title=Soak up 'Eternal Sunshine,' and you'll feel warm all over|last=Puig|first=Claudia|date=March 18, 2004|work=[[USA Today]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Carrey's performance as Joel also received multiple award nominations. Jason Killingsworth in a review for [[Paste (magazine)|Paste magazine]] said of his performance that "Carrey nails the part, winning audience sympathy from the opening moments of the film".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2004/06/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Killingsworth|first=Jason|date=June 1, 2004|website=Paste Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref>

In the Autumn 2008 issue of [[Screen (journal)|Screen Journal]], Carol Vernallis argued out that Gondry's experience in directing [[music video]]s contributed to the film's [[Mise en scène|mise-en-scène]] and sound design. Vernallis describes some threads of the visual, aural and musical motifs throughout the film, and how some motifs can work in [[counterpoint]].<ref>Vernallis, Carol. "Music video, songs, sound: experience, technique and emotion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''". ''Screen''. 49.3. (2008) pp.277–97.</ref>

===Accolades and honors===
{{Main|List of accolades received by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
|-
!scope="col"| Award
!scope="col"| Award category
!scope="col"| Recipients and nominees
!scope="col"| Result
!scope="col"| {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="2"|[[77th Academy Awards|Academy Awards]]
|[[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]]
|[[Kate Winslet]]
|{{nom}}
!scope ="row" rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2005|title=Nominees & Winners for the 77th Academy Awards|last=|first=|date=|year=2005|work=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]]
|[[Pierre Bismuth]], [[Michel Gondry]] and [[Charlie Kaufman]]
|{{won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="6"|[[58th British Academy Film Awards|British Academy Film Awards]] (BAFTA)
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role|Best Actor in a Leading Role]]
|[[Jim Carrey]]
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan="6" style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4180423.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The nominations|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4260929.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The winners|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role|Best Actress in a Leading Role]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Direction|Best Director]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Editing|Best Editing]]
|[[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
|{{won}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]]
|[[Likely Story|Anthony Bregman]] and [[Steve Golin]]
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{Won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="4"|[[62nd Golden Globe Awards|Golden Globe Awards]]
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy|Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Jim Carrey
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan=4 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=/year/2005|title=The 62nd Annual Golden Globe Awards (2005)|year=2005|work=[[Golden Globe Award]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical|Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy|Best Film - Musical or Comedy]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay|Best Screenplay]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{nom}}
|-
!scope="row"|[[Hugo Award|Hugo Awards]]
|[[Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation|Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form]]
|Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Bierre Bismuth
|{{nom}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/|title=2005 Hugo Awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[National Board of Review Awards 2004|National Board of Review]]
|[[National Board of Review Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
! rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/award-years/2004/|title=2004 Award Winners|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[Writers Guild of America Awards 2004|Writers Guild of America]]
|[[Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Pierre Bismuth, Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4281705.stm|title=Quirky movies win script awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|}

=== Home media ===

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''<nowiki/>'s [[DVD]] release happened on September 28, 2004, by Universal Home Entertainment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind#tab=summary|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)|last=|first=|date=|website=The Numbers|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> A [[Blu-ray]] edition release occurred in the U.S. on January 25, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Blu-ray/16770/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=blu-ray.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

==Music==
{{Anchor|Music|Soundtrack|Score}}
{{Main|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (soundtrack)}}{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| collapsed = yes
| extra_column = Artist
| total_length = 56:08
| title1 = Theme
| extra1 = [[Jon Brion]]
| length1 = 2:24
| title2 = [[Mr. Blue Sky]]
| extra2 = [[Electric Light Orchestra]]
| length2 = 5:03
| title3 = Collecting Things
| extra3 = Jon Brion
| length3 = 1:13
| title4 = [[Light & Day]]
| extra4 = [[The Polyphonic Spree]]
| length4 = 3:03
| title5 = Bookstore
| extra5 = Jon Brion
| length5 = 0:52
| title6 = It's the Sun
| note6 = [[KCRW]] [[Morning Becomes Eclectic]] version
| extra6 = The Polyphonic Spree
| length6 = 5:33
| title7 = Wada Na Tod, Mera Man Tera Pyasa
| extra7 = [[Lata Mangeshkar]], [[Mohammed Rafi]]
| length7 = 5:54
| title8 = Showtime
| extra8 = Jon Brion
| length8 = 0:55
| title9 = [[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]
| note9 = [[The Korgis]] cover
| extra9 = [[Beck]]
| length9 = 5:54
| title10 = Sidewalk Flight
| extra10 = Jon Brion
| length10 = 0:31
| title11 = Some Kinda Shuffle
| extra11 = Don Nelson
| length11 = 2:11
| title12 = Howard Makes It All Go Away
| extra12 = Jon Brion
| length12 = 0:14
| title13 = Something
| extra13 = [[The Willowz]]
| length13 = 2:23
| title14 = Postcard
| extra14 = Jon Brion
| length14 = 0:23
| title15 = I Wonder
| extra15 = The Willowz
| length15 = 2:56
| title16 = Peer Pressure
| extra16 = Jon Brion
| length16 = 1:12
| title17 = A Dream Upon Waking
| extra17 = Jon Brion
| length17 = 3:36
| title18 = Strings That Tie to You
| extra18 = Jon Brion
| length18 = 2:33
| title19 = Phone Call
| extra19 = Jon Brion
| length19 = 1:03
| title20 = Nola's Bounce
| extra20 = Don Nelson
| length20 = 1:56
| title21 = Down The Drain
| extra21 = Jon Brion
| length21 = 0:56
| title22 = Row
| extra22 = Jon Brion
| length22 = 1:00
| title23 = Drive In
| extra23 = Jon Brion
| length23 = 2:19
| title24 = Main Title
| extra24 = Jon Brion
| length24 = 1:23
| title25 = Spotless Mind
| extra25 = Jon Brion
| length25 = 1:12
| title26 = Elephant Parade
| extra26 = Jon Brion
| length26 = 0:28
}}{{Infobox album
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| type = Soundtrack
| artist = Jon Brion
| cover = Eternal sunshine CD cover.jpg
| alt =
| released = March 16, 2004
| recorded =
| venue =
| studio =
| genre = Soundtrack
| length = 56:08
| label = [[Hollywood Records|Hollywood]]
| producer = Kathy Nelson (executive producer) [[Tim DeLaughter]] (track 4) [[Jon Brion]] (track 9) Don Nelson (tracks 11 and 20) Ethan Johns (track 18)
| chronology = [[Jon Brion]]
| prev_title = [[Punch-Drunk Love (soundtrack)|Punch-Drunk Love]]
| prev_year = 2002
| next_title = [[I Heart Huckabees (soundtrack)|I ♥ Huckabees]]
| next_year = 2004
}}
{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1score = {{Rating|4|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev2 = [[IGN]]
| rev2Score = 7/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2004/03/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original-soundtrack|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Original Soundtrack - IGN Review|date=March 18, 2004|website=IGN.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
| rev3 = [[Filmtracks.com|Filmtracks]]
| rev3Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=January 21, 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev4 = [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]
| rev4Score = 7.5/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
}}

The [[soundtrack]] album for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' was composed by Los Angeles musician [[Jon Brion]], also featuring songs from artists including [[The Polyphonic Spree]], [[The Willowz]], and Don Nelson. The soundtrack was released by [[Hollywood Records]] on March 16, 2004.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040225005925/en/Beck-Polyphonic-Spree-Headline-Hollywood-Records-Eternal|title=Beck and The Polyphonic Spree Headline Hollywood Records' "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' Soundtrack|last=Ferraro|first=Kris|date=February 25, 2004|website=Business Wire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> A [[cover version]] of [[The Korgis]]' "[[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]" with instrumentation by Brion and vocals by [[Beck]] operates as the soundtrack's centerpiece, setting the film's tone in the opening credits, and closing the film.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://consequenceofsound.net/2009/12/cinema-sounds-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Cinema Sounds: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=O'Shoney|first=Carson|date=December 18, 2009|website=Consequence of Sound|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's'' soundtrack received generally positive reviews. [[AllMusic]] described it as "nearly as deft", and described Brion's score as "intimate" and "evocative of love and memories".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Other positive reviews noted the [[Ambient music|ambient]] nature of the music and lauded Beck's cover of "Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> On the other hand, the soundtrack's detractors criticized the album's lack of identity, and its depressive atmosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=21 January 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Even among the detractors, however, the score's ability to mesh with the plot was lauded, an appraisal common to many reviews.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-losers-the-rare-but-beautiful-film-scores-of-jon-brion-deserve-an-oscar-2b29438a926e/|title=The Losers: The Rare But Beautiful Film Scores of Jon Brion Deserve an Oscar|last=Belletto|first=Adam|date=February 17, 2015|website=Film School Rejects|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

== Legacy ==

=== Television series ===
In October 2016, [[Anonymous Content]] announced they will be working with [[Universal Cable Productions]] to produce a television series based on the film. Kaufman is not involved in writing the show. The project is still in planning stages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-tv-933163|title='Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' TV Series in the Works (Exclusive)|last1=Sandberg|first1=Byran Elise|last2=Kit|first2=Borys|date=October 7, 2016|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

===Media recognition===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Presenter
! Title
! Rank
! Notes
|-
| 2005
| align=center | ''[[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]]''
| align=center | 101 Greatest Screenplays
| align=center | 24
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays|title=101 Greatest Screenplays|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=101 Greatest Screenplays Full List|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2008
| align=center | ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time]]
| align=center | 73
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|title=The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|last=|first=|date=November 2008|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|archive-date=October 21, 2013|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=5 | 2009
| align=center | ''[[Time Out (magazine)#Time Out New York|Time Out New York]]''
| align=center | The TONY Top 50 Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 3
|<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=November 26 – December 2, 2009|title=The TONY top 50 movies of the decade|url=https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-tony-top-50-movies-of-the-decade#tab_panel_5|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]|volume=|issue=739|pages=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|via=}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Slant Magazine]]''
| align=center | The 100 Best Films of the Aughts
| align=center | 86
|<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_2|title=The 100 Best Films of the Aughts|last=|first=|date=February 7, 2010|work=[[Slant Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=February 10, 2010}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]''
| align=center | The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)
| align=center | 5
|<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=2|title=The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009)|last=|first=|date=November 3, 2009|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| align=center | The Best Films of the '00s
| align=center | 1
|<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/|title=The Best Films of the '00s|last=Murray|first=Noel|last2=Rabin|first2=Nathan|date=December 3, 2009|website=The A.V. Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|last3=Phipps|first3=Keith|last4=Robinson|first4=Tasha|last5=Tobias|first5=Scott}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Metacritic]]''
| align=center | Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 2
|<ref name=":20">{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-pick-the-best-movies-of-the-decade|title=Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade|last=|first=|date=January 3, 2010|work=Metacritic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2016
| align=center | ''[[BBC]]''
| align=center |[[BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century|The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films]]
| align=center | 6
|<ref name="BBC">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films|title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films|last=|first=|date=August 23, 2016|website=|publisher=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=2 | 2018
| align=center | ''Empire''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 100 Greatest Movies|The 100 Greatest Movies]]
| align=center | 41
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|title=The 100 Greatest Movies|last=|first=|date=March 20, 2018|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706075658/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|archive-date=July 6, 2018|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''They Shoot Pictures Don't They''
| align=center | The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films
| align=center | 5
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_rankinghistory.htm|title=The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films (Ranking History)|last=|first=|date=|website=They Shoot Pictures Don't They|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|}

==See also==

* [[Lucid dream]]
* ''[[Inception]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{Official website|http://www.eternalsunshine.com}}
* {{IMDb title|0338013|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Allmovie title|278676|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Mojo title|eternalsunshine|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/REVIEWS/403190302/1023 ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''] review by [[Roger Ebert]]

{{Michel Gondry}}
{{Charlie Kaufman}}
{{Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film 1991–2010}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind}}
[[Category:2004 films]]
[[Category:Science fiction drama films]]
[[Category:2000s romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American independent films]]
[[Category:American comedy-drama films]]
[[Category:American romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American romantic fantasy films]]
[[Category:Comedy of remarriage films]]
[[Category:Mad scientist films]]
[[Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction]]
[[Category:Nonlinear narrative films]]
[[Category:American psychological films]]
[[Category:Films about altered memories]]
[[Category:Films set in Long Island]]
[[Category:Films set in Manhattan]]
[[Category:Films shot in New York (state)]]
[[Category:Films shot in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Films directed by Michel Gondry]]
[[Category:Films scored by Jon Brion]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Charlie Kaufman]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]]
[[Category:Focus Features films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay BAFTA Award]]
[[Category:Films produced by Steve Golin]]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-27T15:14:10Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Accolades and honours */ Formated Table

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox film
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| image = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.png
| alt = A man and a woman lying on a sheet of ice, there is a large crack in the ice beside them.
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Michel Gondry]]
| producer = {{ubl|[[Steve Golin]]|Anthony Bregman}}
| screenplay = [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| story = {{ubl|Charlie Kaufman|Michel Gondry|[[Pierre Bismuth]]}}
| starring = {{Plainlist|
* [[Jim Carrey]]
* [[Kate Winslet]]
* [[Kirsten Dunst]]
* [[Mark Ruffalo]]
* [[Elijah Wood]]
* [[Tom Wilkinson]]
}}
| music = [[Jon Brion]]
| cinematography = [[Ellen Kuras]]
| editing = [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| studio = {{ubl|[[Anonymous Content]]|[[This is that corporation|This is That]]}}
| distributor = [[Focus Features]]
| released = {{Film date|2004|03|19}}
| runtime = 108 minutes
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $20 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |title = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind |work = [[Box Office Mojo]] |url = http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm }}</ref>
| gross = $72.3 million<ref name="BOM" />
}}

'''''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''''' is a 2004 American [[science fiction]] [[romantic comedy]] film written by [[Charlie Kaufman]] and directed by [[Michel Gondry]]. It follows an estranged couple who have erased each other from their memories, then, started dating again. [[Pierre Bismuth]] created the story with Kaufman and Gondry. The [[ensemble cast]] includes [[Jim Carrey]], [[Kate Winslet]], [[Kirsten Dunst]], [[Mark Ruffalo]], [[Elijah Wood]], and [[Tom Wilkinson]]. The title of the film is a quotation from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].

The film uses elements of the [[psychological thriller]] and a [[nonlinear narrative]] to explore the nature of [[memory]] and [[romantic love]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|work=Slant Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 25, 2004}}</ref> It opened in [[North America]] to wide acclaim on March 19, 2004, and grossed over $70 million worldwide.<ref name=BOM/> It won the [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay]], and Winslet received a nomination for [[Academy Award for Best Actress]]. The film developed a [[cult following]] in the years after its release and is now regarded by many critics as one of the greatest films of the 21st century.<ref>The film was ranked #6 on the [[BBC]]'s list of the 100 best films of the 21st century, compiled from a survey of 177 film critics. {{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films |title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films |date=August 23, 2016 |website=[[BBC]] |accessdate=August 16, 2017}} See also {{cite web|last1=Dargis|first1=Manohla|last2=Scott|first2=A.O. |title=The 25 Best Films of the 21st Century...So Far |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html |date=Jun 9, 2017 |website=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2017}}</ref>

==Plot==
[[File:Montauk LIRR train station.jpg|thumb|Train station of Montauk where Joel and Clementine meet each other again after erasing of their memories.|alt=]]
Shy, soft-spoken Joel Barish and unrestrained free-spirit Clementine Kruczynski begin a relationship on a [[Long Island Rail Road]] train from [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]] to [[Rockville Centre, New York|Rockville Centre]]. They are almost immediately drawn to each other, despite their contrasting personalities, and both had felt the need to travel to Montauk that day. Although they do not realize it, Joel and Clementine are former lovers, now separated after having spent two years together.

After a fight, Clementine hires the New York City firm Lacuna, Inc. to [[Memory erasure|erase all her memories]] of their relationship. Upon discovering this from his friends Rob and Carrie, Joel was devastated and decided to undergo the procedure himself, a process that takes place while he sleeps.

Much of the film subsequently takes place in Joel's mind, during this memory erasure procedure. Joel finds himself revisiting his memories of Clementine [[reverse chronology|in reverse]], starting from the disintegration of their relationship. As he comes across happier, positive memories of Clementine early in his relationship, he decides to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her, trying to evade the procedure by taking his idealized memory of Clementine into [[False memory|memories not related to her]] or waking up to stop the process. Despite his efforts, the memories are steadily erased. He comes to the last remaining memory of Clementine, the day he had first met her at a beach house in Montauk. As this memory disintegrates around them, she tells him, "Meet me in Montauk."

Separate, but related, story arcs revolving around the employees of Lacuna are revealed during Joel's memory erasure. Patrick, one of the Lacuna technicians performing the erasure, uses Joel's memories and mannerisms to seduce and romance Clementine. Mary, the Lacuna receptionist, is dating the other memory-erasing technician, Stan, but has feelings for Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, a married doctor and the head of Lacuna. During Joel's memory wipe, Mary discovers she had previously had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and agreed to have this erased from her memory when Dr. Mierzwiak's wife found out. On learning this, she asks Stan whether he knew about this, to which he claims that he didn't. Mary then quits her job and steals the company's records, mailing them to all of Lacuna's customers, believing the clients should know the truth.

The film returns to the present after Joel and Clementine have met at the train station of Montauk. They both come upon their Lacuna records later that day, and react with shock and bewilderment – they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel pleads with Clementine to restart their relationship; Clementine initially resists, pointing out it could go the same way. Joel accepts this and they decide to try anyway.

==Cast==
{{multiple image
| direction = vertical
| width = 175
| footer = Top to bottom: [[Jim Carrey]] and [[Kate Winslet]] play Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski respectively
| image1 = Jim Carrey 2008.jpg
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Kate Winslet by Andrea Raffin.jpg
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
}}

* [[Jim Carrey]] as Joel Barish: Joel is an introvert who enters a two-year relationship with Clementine Kruczynski before erasing her from his mind after they break-up and after she erases him from her memory. [[Charlie Kaufman]] wrote Joel with autobiographical personality traits.<ref name=":11" /> Producers cast Carrey against type for his role as Joel.<ref name=":11" /> Carrey was selected for his regular appearance, as well as his comedic ability, as according to Michel Gondry, "[I]t's hard to be funny. It's far easier to take someone really funny and bring them down than do the opposite."<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/michel-gondry-on-mood-indigo-kanye-west-and-the-10th-anniversary-of-eternal-sunshine|title=Michel Gondry on ‘Mood Indigo,’ Kanye West, and the 10th Anniversary of ‘Eternal Sunshine’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=July 19, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> To make Carrey, an actor who typically portrayed high-energy roles, play a restrained character, Gondry prevented him from improvising, a restriction he did not place on the other members of the cast. Carrey did not like this.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/undercover-indies-what-makes-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-so-unforgettable/|title=Undercover Indies: What Makes ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ So Unforgettable?|last=Placa|first=Kaia|date=March 31, 2017|website=Film Independent|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry would also put Carrey off balance by giving wrong orders or by rolling the camera at the wrong time. Gondry believed this would make Carrey forget what he should do to be the character, allowing him to go in-character.<ref name=":11" /> In the 2017 [[Netflix]] documentary ''[[Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond|Jim & Andy]]'', Carrey mentions a conversation with Gondry one year before shooting began for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', shortly after Carrey had a breakup with an unspecified woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrey-life-is-too-beautiful/|title=Carrey: 'Life Is Too Beautiful'|last=Leung|first=Rebecca|date=November 18, 2004|website=CBS News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry saw that Carrey's emotional state at the time was "so beautiful, so broken" and asked him to stay that way for one year to fit the character. In the documentary, Carrey commented, "That's how fucked up this business is."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wtop.com/entertainment/2017/11/review-jim-carrey-possessed-by-andy-kaufman-in-documentary-jim-andy/|title=Review: ‘Jim & Andy’ documents Jim Carrey’s journey into his own ‘Tru-Man’|last=Fraley|first=Jason|date=November 30, 2017|website=wtop.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/jim-andy-great-beyond-venice-2017-1035248|title='Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond': Film Review {{!}} Venice 2017|last=Rooney|first=David|date=September 5, 2017|website=The Hollywood Reporter|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> [[Nicolas Cage]] was Gondry's original choice to play Joel,<ref name=":12" /> but Cage was unable to do the role as he was in high demand from independent directors after his performance in ''[[Leaving Las Vegas]]''.<ref name=":14" />
:* Ryan Whitney as young Joel
* [[Kate Winslet]] as Clementine Kruczynski: Clementine is a spontaneous extrovert who, after breaking up with Joel Barish after a two-year relationship, erases him from her mind. Winslet was cast against type for her part as Clementine,<ref name=":11" /> having previously featured in period pieces,<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/kate-winslet-on-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2419277|title=No Corsets for Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"|last=Murray|first=Rebecca|date=|website=ThoughtCo.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> and received the role after she was the only actress to offer criticism on the script instead of pandering to the writers.<ref name=":14" /> After another actress won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Oscar]], the studio attempted to make Gondry use her instead of Winslet for the role of Clementine, but Gondry threatened to walk from the project if that occurred.<ref name=":14" /> During filming, Gondry took Winslet to separate rooms to coach her,<ref name=":14" /> and she wore wigs instead of dying her hair.<ref name=":15" /> The character of Clementine has been noted several times to serve as a critique of the [[Manic Pixie Dream Girl]] [[stock character]] before the phrase itself had been coined. The character's criticism of the stock character is predominantly present in her remark: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a9285/manic-pixie-dream-girl-characters/|title=Remembering Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 10 Years Later|last=Gould|first=Hallie|date=March 20, 2014|website=Marie Claire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://flavorwire.com/446166/eternal-sunshine-destroyed-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-stereotype-before-it-even-existed|title=‘Eternal Sunshine’ Destroyed the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype Before It Even Existed|last=Herman|first=Alison|date=March 19, 2014|website=FlavorWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> With her impulsiveness, emotion intensity (extreme mood changes), alcohol dependence, turbulent relationships, reckless behavior, and hasty idealization/devaluation of Joel, Clementine seems to exhibit traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, although it is not clear whether her character was written with this specific diagnosis in mind.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://themighty.com/2017/11/movies-borderline-personality-disorder-bpd/|title=6 Movies That Got Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms (Mostly) Right|work=The Mighty|access-date=2018-08-17|language=en-US}}</ref>
:* Lola Daehler as young Clementine
* [[Kirsten Dunst]] as Mary Svevo: Mary is the receptionist for Lacuna who has a crush on Howard. While erasing Joel's memory, Howard's wife catches her kissing Howard. Howard's wife reveals Mary previously had a relationship with Howard which Howard erased from her mind. In revenge for the deception, she mails Lacuna's company records to the customers.
* [[Mark Ruffalo]] as Stan Fink: Stan is a technician for Lacuna who is in a relationship with Mary until the reveal of her previous relationship with Howard. Ruffalo received the role of Stan after providing an "unexpected take on the role" to Gondry when he suggested Stan be a fan of [[The Clash]] and look like [[Joe Strummer]].<ref name=":14" />
* [[Elijah Wood]] as Patrick: Patrick is a technician for Lacuna who enters a relationship with Clementine by imitating Joel. They break up when Joel and Clementine begin dating for the second time.
* [[Tom Wilkinson]] as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak: Howard runs Lacuna. Before the film's events, he had an affair with Mary, which ended with the relationship's erasure from her mind. Wilkinson reportedly did not enjoy the shooting of the film and frequently disagreed with Gondry.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-ruffalo-blasts-iraqs-gop-warmongers-talks-begin-again-and-avengers|title=Mark Ruffalo Blasts Iraq’s GOP Warmongers, Talks ‘Begin Again’ and ‘Avengers’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=June 30, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Jane Adams (actress)|Jane Adams]] as Carrie Eakin: Joel's friend. She is in a troubled relationship with Rob.
* [[David Cross]] as Rob Eakin: Joel's friend. He is in a troubled relationship with Carrie.
* [[Deirdre O'Connell (actress)|Deirdre O'Connell]] as Hollis Mierzwiak: Howard's wife
* [[Thomas Jay Ryan]] as Frank: Joel's neighbor
* Debbon Ayer as Joel's mother

==Production==
=== Development ===
The concept of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' came from 1998 conversations between [[Michel Gondry]] and the film's co-writer [[Pierre Bismuth]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scriptmag.com/features/script-screen-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=From Script to Screen: ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’|last=Cohen|first=David S.|date=February 17, 2016|website=Script Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> The pair had met and become friends in the early 1980s during Gondry's drumming career in the French pop group ''[[Oui Oui]]''.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/06/1|title=Eraserhead|last=Lack|first=Jessica|date=September 6, 2008|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth had conceived of the idea of erasing certain people from people's minds in response to a friend complaining about her boyfriend; when he asked her if she would erase that boyfriend from her memory, she said yes.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-unforgettable-heartbreaking-exploration-love-human-beings-nature-memory/|title=‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’: An Unforgettable and Heartbreaking Exploration of Love, Human Beings and the Nature of Memory|last=|first=|date=|website=Cinephilia & Beyond|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth originally was going to conduct an art experiment involving sending cards to people saying someone they knew had erased the card’s recipient from their memory.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19247/1/a-secret-history-of-michel-gondry|title=Ten years of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Mansfield|first=Matt|date=March 13, 2014|website=Dazed Digital|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> When he mentioned this to Gondry, they developed it into a story based on the situations that would arise if it were scientifically possible.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> Bismuth never conducted the experiment.<ref name=":6" />

Gondry approached [[Charlie Kaufman]] with this concept, the two having worked previously together for Kaufman's [[Human Nature (film)|''Human Nature'']].<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":6" /> Gondry and Kaufman together further developed the story a short pitch.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.avclub.com/michel-gondry-charlie-kaufman-1798208337|title=Interview - Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman|last=Tobias|first=Scott|date=March 17, 2004|website=AV Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> While the writers did not believe the concept to be marketable, a small bidding war began over the idea.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/charlie-kaufman-anomaslisa-c-v-r.html|title=In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman|last=Sternbergh|first=Adam|date=December 16, 2015|website= [[New York (magazine)#Digital expansion and blogs|Vulture]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> It was purchased on June 12, 1998, for a low seven-figure sum by [[Steve Golin]] of [[Propaganda Films]].<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/charlie_kaufman.html|title=Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry - Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind|last=Kleinman|first=Geoffrey|date=|website=DVD Talk|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/1998/film/news/pic-pitch-plays-at-propaganda-1117471841/|title=Pic pitch plays at Propaganda|last=Madigan|first=Nick|date=June 15, 1998|work=Variety|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Kaufman, who was responsible for writing the screenplay, did not begin immediately, instead opting to suspend writing while he was working on ''[[Adaptation (film)|Adaptation]]'', ''[[Confessions of a Dangerous Mind]]'' and ''Human Nature''.<ref name=":7" /> During this time, the film ''[[Memento (film)|Memento]]'' was released, which similarly deals with memory. Due to the similarities, Kaufman became worried and attempted to pull out of the project, but Golin made him complete it.<ref name=":11" /> During writing, the pitch's ownership changed several times thus Kaufman did not have to deal with the studios until the end of the scriptwriting process.<ref name=":7" /> The final script made the studios nervous.<ref name=":7" />

{{Quote box
| quote=<poem>How happy is the blameless vestal's lot?
The world forgetting, by the world forgot:
'''Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!'''
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;</poem>
| author = [[Alexander Pope]]
| source = ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'', 207-10
| width = 25%
| align = right
| quoted = 1
}}
Kaufman did not want to make the film a thriller and wanted to downplay the science fiction aspects of memory erasure, focusing on the relationship.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":10" /> He had an "enormous struggle" with the script, particularly encountering two problems while writing the script: showing "the memories, Joel's reactions to the memories, and Joel interacting with Clementine outside of the memories in the memories," and the fact that characters could refer in later scenes to a memory that had already been erased.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman solved the first problem by making Joel lucid and able to comment on his memories and solved the second by making the memories degrade instead of immediately erasing, with complete erasure occurring at awakening.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman's original title for the screenplay was 18 words long, as he had wanted a title which "you couldn't possibly fit on a marquee,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3664683.stm|title=Inside screenwriter Kaufman's Mind|last=Smith|first=Neil|date=April 28, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> however, he eventually decided on ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', a title coming from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/film-charlie-kaufman-s-critique-of-pure-comedy.html|title=Charlie Kaufman's Critique of Pure Comedy|last=Scott|first=A. O.|date=April 4, 2004|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

=== Production ===
The shooting of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' began in mid-January 2003 after six weeks of preparation,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/20/news1|title=In brief: Elijah Wood joins Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=December 20, 2002|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://variety.com/2002/film/markets-festivals/ruffalo-springs-for-eternal-1117877087/|title=Ruffalo springs for ‘Eternal’|last=Feiwell|first=Jill|date=December 8, 2002|website=Variety|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Pavlus|first=John|date=April 2004|title=Forget Me Not|url=https://theasc.com/magazine/april04/cover/|journal=The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques|volume=85|pages=1-3|via=}}</ref> lasting for three months on a budget of $20 million mostly in and around [[New York City]].<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /> Some key scenes, however, such as Joel's [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] apartment and the 1950s-style kitchen, were recreated in a [[New Jersey]] former U.S. Navy base.<ref name=":13" />

The shoot was challenging for cinematographer [[Ellen Kuras]], due to the difficulty of filming Gondry's vision for the film, which aimed to "blend location-shoot authenticity with unpredictable flashes of whimsy." According to this vision, Gondry wanted [[available light]] used exclusively for the shoot. Kuras disagreed with this choice and would get around it by lighting the room instead of the actors and by hiding light bulbs around the set to increase light levels.<ref name=":13" /> Another issue encountered by the cinematographers was the frequent improvisation, the lack of marks and the few rehearsals completed, meaning the cinematographers often did not know where the actors would be. Two [[Hand-held camera|handheld cameras]] filmed near 360-degree footage at all times, shooting 36 000 feet of film a day to deal with this.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":13" /> Gondry called back to the work of famed [[French New Wave]] director [[Jean-Luc Godard]] by filming using wheelchairs as well as using sled and chariot dollies instead of [[Camera dolly|traditional dollies]]. When using wheelchairs, the shot was not consistently smooth, however as Kuras liked the aesthetic of the low-angle, wobbly movement, the final film contains the footage.<ref name=":13" />

The film used minimal [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]], with many effects accomplished [[In-camera effect|in-camera]], through [[Forced perspective|forced perspectives]], hidden space, spotlighting, unsynchronized sound, split focus and [[continuity editing]].<ref name=":6" /> A notable example is the ocean washing away the house in [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]]; the production team accomplished this by building the corner of a house on the shore and allowing the tide to come in.<ref name=":12" /> Carrying out this effect was difficult as the special team hired to place the set in the water refused, citing dangers. Gondry in response fired the team and had the production team, including the actors and producers, place the set in the water. In retaliation for Gondry's actions, the chief of the union reprimanded Gondry in front of the crew.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://the-talks.com/interview/michel-gondry/|title=Michel Gondry: "I Believe in Utopia"|last=|first=|date=July 27, 2011|website=The Talks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Kaufman engaged in script rewriting during production; thus several discrepancies exist between the production script and the final film.<ref name=":9" /> A fundamental difference is that in the production script, with the erasure of each memory, Clementine behaves increasingly robotic.<ref name=":7" /> In the final film, Winslet plays Clementine straight, and degradation of settings and the intrusion of settings upon each other establish memory degradation visually. Another script component which did not make it into the final film was the appearance of Naomi, Joel's girlfriend. Despite Kaufman's insistence on Naomi’s inclusion, the production cut her already filmed scenes.<ref name=":7" />

Icelandic editor [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]] [[Film editing|edited]] the film, and she reportedly conflicted with Gondry during editing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/heroines-of-cinema-valdis-oskarsdottir-and-the-invisible-art-of-editing-44254/|title=Heroines of Cinema: Valdis Oskarsdottir, and the ‘Invisible Art’ of Editing|last=Hammett Knott|first=Matthew|date=October 11, 2012|website=IndieWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Charlie Kaufman was also very involved in the [[Film editing|editing]] of the film. Editing was a long process as there was no requirement to rush it.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":9" /> There were a few [[Test screening|test screenings]] of the film, which elicited positive reactions.<ref name=":9" />

== Release ==

=== Box office ===
Produced on a budget of $20 million, ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' opened on March 19, 2004, in the United States, earning $8,175,198 in its opening weekend in 1,353 theaters. The film placed seventh in the weekend's box office, and remained in theaters for 19 weeks, earning $34,400,301 in the United States and $37,857,825 in international markets for a total of $72,258,126 worldwide.<ref name="BOXTotal">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Film)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|accessdate=June 30, 2018|date=|website=|last=|first=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' is, as of June 2018, Kaufman's most profitable, and Gondry's second most profitable film.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=charliekaufman.htm|title=Charlie Kaufman (Writer)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michelgondry.htm|title=Michel Gondry (Director)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating, based on 238 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "Propelled by [[Charlie Kaufman]]'s smart, imaginative script and Michel Gondry's equally daring directorial touch, ''Eternal Sunshine'' is a twisty yet heartfelt look at relationships and heartache."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 89 out of 100, based on 41 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Metacritic]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title=CinemaScore|work=cinemascore.com}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' in his initial 2004 review gave the film 3½ out of a possible 4.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Original Review|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=March 19, 2004|website=RogerEbert.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> He revisited the film in 2010 when he referred to Kaufman as "the most gifted screenwriter of the 2000s" and revised the rating to a full 4 stars, adding it to his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004-1|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|author=Ebert|first=Roger|authorlink=Roger Ebert|date=January 2, 2010|website=Rogerebert.suntimes.com|type=Review; 2010 review|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised the film for being "cerebral, formally and conceptually complicated, dense with literary allusions and as unabashedly romantic as any movie you'll ever see".<ref>{{cite web |last= Murphy |first= Mekado |url= http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/critics-picks-video-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/ |title = Critics' Picks Video: 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'|work=[[The New York Times]] |date = February 15, 2011 |accessdate = 2013-03-27 }}</ref> ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'' summed up their review by saying, "the formidable Gondry/Kaufman/Carrey axis works marvel after marvel in expressing the bewildering beauty and existential horror of being trapped inside one's own addled mind, and in allegorising the self-preserving amnesia of a broken but hopeful heart."<ref>[https://www.timeout.com/london/film/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind movie review – Film – Time Out London]</ref>

Winslet and Carrey received acclaim for their performances. Winslet's performance as Clementine received multiple award nominations, including an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Academy Award nomination for Best Actress]], and it was placed 81st in [[Premiere (magazine)|''Premiere'' magazine's]] 2008 list of 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|title=The 100 Greatest Performances of All Time: 100–75|last=|first=|date=December 3, 2008|work=Premiere|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|archivedate=March 31, 2009|deadurl=yes|accessdate=July 7, 2018|df=}}</ref> Claudia Puig in a review for ''[[USA Today]]'' said of her performance that "Winslet is wonderful as a free spirit whose hair color changes along with her moods. She hasn't had such a meaty role in a while, and she plays it just right."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-03-18-eternal-sunshine_x.htm|title=Soak up 'Eternal Sunshine,' and you'll feel warm all over|last=Puig|first=Claudia|date=March 18, 2004|work=[[USA Today]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Carrey's performance as Joel also received multiple award nominations. Jason Killingsworth in a review for [[Paste (magazine)|Paste magazine]] said of his performance that "Carrey nails the part, winning audience sympathy from the opening moments of the film".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2004/06/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Killingsworth|first=Jason|date=June 1, 2004|website=Paste Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref>

In the Autumn 2008 issue of [[Screen (journal)|Screen Journal]], Carol Vernallis argued out that Gondry's experience in directing [[music video]]s contributed to the film's [[Mise en scène|mise-en-scène]] and sound design. Vernallis describes some threads of the visual, aural and musical motifs throughout the film, and how some motifs can work in [[counterpoint]].<ref>Vernallis, Carol. "Music video, songs, sound: experience, technique and emotion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''". ''Screen''. 49.3. (2008) pp.277–97.</ref>

===Accolades and honours===
{{Main|List of accolades received by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
|-
!scope="col"| Award
!scope="col"| Award category
!scope="col"| Recipients and nominees
!scope="col"| Result
!scope="col"| {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="2"|[[77th Academy Awards|Academy Awards]]
|[[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]]
|[[Kate Winslet]]
|{{nom}}
!scope ="row" rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2005|title=Nominees & Winners for the 77th Academy Awards|last=|first=|date=|year=2005|work=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]]
|[[Pierre Bismuth]], [[Michel Gondry]] and [[Charlie Kaufman]]
|{{won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="6"|[[58th British Academy Film Awards|British Academy Film Awards]] (BAFTA)
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role|Best Actor in a Leading Role]]
|[[Jim Carrey]]
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan="6" style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4180423.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The nominations|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4260929.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The winners|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role|Best Actress in a Leading Role]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Direction|Best Director]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Editing|Best Editing]]
|[[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
|{{won}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]]
|[[Likely Story|Anthony Bregman]] and [[Steve Golin]]
|{{Nom}}
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{Won}}
|-
!scope="row" rowspan="4"|[[62nd Golden Globe Awards|Golden Globe Awards]]
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy|Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Jim Carrey
|{{nom}}
!scope="row" rowspan=4 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=/year/2005|title=The 62nd Annual Golden Globe Awards (2005)|year=2005|work=[[Golden Globe Award]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical|Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
|Kate Winslet
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy|Best Film - Musical or Comedy]]
|Michel Gondry
|{{nom}}
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay|Best Screenplay]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{nom}}
|-
!scope="row"|[[Hugo Award|Hugo Awards]]
|[[Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation|Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form]]
|Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Bierre Bismuth
|{{nom}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/|title=2005 Hugo Awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[National Board of Review Awards 2004|National Board of Review]]
|[[National Board of Review Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
! rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/award-years/2004/|title=2004 Award Winners|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
!scope="row" |[[Writers Guild of America Awards 2004|Writers Guild of America]]
|[[Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
|Pierre Bismuth, Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman
|{{won}}
!rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4281705.stm|title=Quirky movies win script awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|}

=== Home media ===
''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''<nowiki/>'s [[DVD]] release happened on September 28, 2004, by Universal Home Entertainment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind#tab=summary|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)|last=|first=|date=|website=The Numbers|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> A [[Blu-ray]] edition release occurred in the U.S. on January 25, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Blu-ray/16770/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=blu-ray.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

== Legacy ==

=== Television series ===
In October 2016, [[Anonymous Content]] announced they will be working with [[Universal Cable Productions]] to produce a television series based on the film. Kaufman is not involved in writing the show. The project is still in planning stages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-tv-933163|title='Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' TV Series in the Works (Exclusive)|last1=Sandberg|first1=Byran Elise|last2=Kit|first2=Borys|date=October 7, 2016|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

===Media recognitions===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Presenter
! Title
! Rank
! Notes
|-
| 2005
| align=center | ''[[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]]''
| align=center | 101 Greatest Screenplays
| align=center | 24
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays|title=101 Greatest Screenplays|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=101 Greatest Screenplays Full List|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2008
| align=center | ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time]]
| align=center | 73
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|title=The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|last=|first=|date=November 2008|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|archive-date=October 21, 2013|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=5 | 2009
| align=center | ''[[Time Out (magazine)#Time Out New York|Time Out New York]]''
| align=center | The TONY Top 50 Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 3
|<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=November 26 – December 2, 2009|title=The TONY top 50 movies of the decade|url=https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-tony-top-50-movies-of-the-decade#tab_panel_5|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]|volume=|issue=739|pages=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|via=}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Slant Magazine]]''
| align=center | The 100 Best Films of the Aughts
| align=center | 86
|<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_2|title=The 100 Best Films of the Aughts|last=|first=|date=February 7, 2010|work=[[Slant Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=February 10, 2010}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]''
| align=center | The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)
| align=center | 5
|<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=2|title=The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009)|last=|first=|date=November 3, 2009|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| align=center | The Best Films of the '00s
| align=center | 1
|<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/|title=The Best Films of the '00s|last=Murray|first=Noel|last2=Rabin|first2=Nathan|date=December 3, 2009|website=The A.V. Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|last3=Phipps|first3=Keith|last4=Robinson|first4=Tasha|last5=Tobias|first5=Scott}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Metacritic]]''
| align=center | Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 2
|<ref name=":20">{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-pick-the-best-movies-of-the-decade|title=Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade|last=|first=|date=January 3, 2010|work=Metacritic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2016
| align=center | ''[[BBC]]''
| align=center |[[BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century|The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films]]
| align=center | 6
|<ref name="BBC">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films|title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films|last=|first=|date=August 23, 2016|website=|publisher=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=2 | 2018
| align=center | ''Empire''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 100 Greatest Movies|The 100 Greatest Movies]]
| align=center | 41
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|title=The 100 Greatest Movies|last=|first=|date=March 20, 2018|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706075658/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|archive-date=July 6, 2018|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''They Shoot Pictures Don't They''
| align=center | The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films
| align=center | 5
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_rankinghistory.htm|title=The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films (Ranking History)|last=|first=|date=|website=They Shoot Pictures Don't They|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|}

==Music==
{{Anchor|Music|Soundtrack|Score}}
{{Main|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (soundtrack)}}
{{Infobox album
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| type = Soundtrack
| artist = Jon Brion
| cover = Eternal sunshine CD cover.jpg
| alt =
| released = March 16, 2004
| recorded =
| venue =
| studio =
| genre = Soundtrack
| length = 56:08
| label = [[Hollywood Records|Hollywood]]
| producer = Kathy Nelson (executive producer) [[Tim DeLaughter]] (track 4) [[Jon Brion]] (track 9) Don Nelson (tracks 11 and 20) Ethan Johns (track 18)
| chronology = [[Jon Brion]]
| prev_title = [[Punch-Drunk Love (soundtrack)|Punch-Drunk Love]]
| prev_year = 2002
| next_title = [[I Heart Huckabees (soundtrack)|I ♥ Huckabees]]
| next_year = 2004
}}{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1score = {{Rating|4|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev2 = [[IGN]]
| rev2Score = 7/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2004/03/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original-soundtrack|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Original Soundtrack - IGN Review|date=March 18, 2004|website=IGN.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
| rev3 = [[Filmtracks.com|Filmtracks]]
| rev3Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=January 21, 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev4 = [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]
| rev4Score = 7.5/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
}}

The [[soundtrack]] album for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' was composed by Los Angeles musician [[Jon Brion]], also featuring songs from artists including [[The Polyphonic Spree]], [[The Willowz]], and Don Nelson. The soundtrack was released by [[Hollywood Records]] on March 16, 2004.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040225005925/en/Beck-Polyphonic-Spree-Headline-Hollywood-Records-Eternal|title=Beck and The Polyphonic Spree Headline Hollywood Records' "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' Soundtrack|last=Ferraro|first=Kris|date=February 25, 2004|website=Business Wire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> A [[cover version]] of [[The Korgis]]' "[[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]" with instrumentation by Brion and vocals by [[Beck]] operates as the soundtrack's centerpiece, setting the film's tone in the opening credits, and closing the film.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://consequenceofsound.net/2009/12/cinema-sounds-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Cinema Sounds: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=O'Shoney|first=Carson|date=December 18, 2009|website=Consequence of Sound|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's'' soundtrack received generally positive reviews. [[AllMusic]] described it as "nearly as deft", and described Brion's score as "intimate" and "evocative of love and memories".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Other positive reviews noted the [[Ambient music|ambient]] nature of the music and lauded Beck's cover of "Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> On the other hand, the soundtrack's detractors criticised the album's lack of identity, and its depressive atmosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=21 January 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Even among the detractors, however, the score's ability to mesh with the plot was lauded, an appraisal common to many reviews.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-losers-the-rare-but-beautiful-film-scores-of-jon-brion-deserve-an-oscar-2b29438a926e/|title=The Losers: The Rare But Beautiful Film Scores of Jon Brion Deserve an Oscar|last=Belletto|first=Adam|date=February 17, 2015|website=Film School Rejects|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| collapsed = yes
| extra_column = Artist
| total_length = 56:08
| title1 = Theme
| extra1 = [[Jon Brion]]
| length1 = 2:24
| title2 = [[Mr. Blue Sky]]
| extra2 = [[Electric Light Orchestra]]
| length2 = 5:03
| title3 = Collecting Things
| extra3 = Jon Brion
| length3 = 1:13
| title4 = [[Light & Day]]
| extra4 = [[The Polyphonic Spree]]
| length4 = 3:03
| title5 = Bookstore
| extra5 = Jon Brion
| length5 = 0:52
| title6 = It's the Sun
| note6 = [[KCRW]] [[Morning Becomes Eclectic]] version
| extra6 = The Polyphonic Spree
| length6 = 5:33
| title7 = Wada Na Tod, Mera Man Tera Pyasa
| extra7 = [[Lata Mangeshkar]], [[Mohammed Rafi]]
| length7 = 5:54
| title8 = Showtime
| extra8 = Jon Brion
| length8 = 0:55
| title9 = [[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]
| note9 = [[The Korgis]] cover
| extra9 = [[Beck]]
| length9 = 5:54
| title10 = Sidewalk Flight
| extra10 = Jon Brion
| length10 = 0:31
| title11 = Some Kinda Shuffle
| extra11 = Don Nelson
| length11 = 2:11
| title12 = Howard Makes It All Go Away
| extra12 = Jon Brion
| length12 = 0:14
| title13 = Something
| extra13 = [[The Willowz]]
| length13 = 2:23
| title14 = Postcard
| extra14 = Jon Brion
| length14 = 0:23
| title15 = I Wonder
| extra15 = The Willowz
| length15 = 2:56
| title16 = Peer Pressure
| extra16 = Jon Brion
| length16 = 1:12
| title17 = A Dream Upon Waking
| extra17 = Jon Brion
| length17 = 3:36
| title18 = Strings That Tie to You
| extra18 = Jon Brion
| length18 = 2:33
| title19 = Phone Call
| extra19 = Jon Brion
| length19 = 1:03
| title20 = Nola's Bounce
| extra20 = Don Nelson
| length20 = 1:56
| title21 = Down The Drain
| extra21 = Jon Brion
| length21 = 0:56
| title22 = Row
| extra22 = Jon Brion
| length22 = 1:00
| title23 = Drive In
| extra23 = Jon Brion
| length23 = 2:19
| title24 = Main Title
| extra24 = Jon Brion
| length24 = 1:23
| title25 = Spotless Mind
| extra25 = Jon Brion
| length25 = 1:12
| title26 = Elephant Parade
| extra26 = Jon Brion
| length26 = 0:28
}}

==See also==
* [[Lucid dream]]
* ''[[Inception]]''
* [[Psychological thriller]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{Official website|http://www.eternalsunshine.com}}
* {{IMDb title|0338013|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Allmovie title|278676|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Mojo title|eternalsunshine|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/REVIEWS/403190302/1023 ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''] review by [[Roger Ebert]]

{{Michel Gondry}}
{{Charlie Kaufman}}
{{Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film 1991–2010}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind}}
[[Category:2004 films]]
[[Category:Science fiction drama films]]
[[Category:2000s romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American independent films]]
[[Category:American comedy-drama films]]
[[Category:American romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American romantic fantasy films]]
[[Category:Comedy of remarriage films]]
[[Category:Mad scientist films]]
[[Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction]]
[[Category:Nonlinear narrative films]]
[[Category:American psychological films]]
[[Category:Films about altered memories]]
[[Category:Films set in Long Island]]
[[Category:Films set in Manhattan]]
[[Category:Films shot in New York (state)]]
[[Category:Films shot in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Films directed by Michel Gondry]]
[[Category:Films scored by Jon Brion]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Charlie Kaufman]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]]
[[Category:Focus Features films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay BAFTA Award]]
[[Category:Films produced by Steve Golin]]

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

2018-09-27T15:05:40Z

JoshMuirWikipedia: /* Accolades and honours */ Added Refences + Wikilinks

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{Use American English|date=July 2016}}
{{Infobox film
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| image = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.png
| alt = A man and a woman lying on a sheet of ice, there is a large crack in the ice beside them.
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = [[Michel Gondry]]
| producer = {{ubl|[[Steve Golin]]|Anthony Bregman}}
| screenplay = [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| story = {{ubl|Charlie Kaufman|Michel Gondry|[[Pierre Bismuth]]}}
| starring = {{Plainlist|
* [[Jim Carrey]]
* [[Kate Winslet]]
* [[Kirsten Dunst]]
* [[Mark Ruffalo]]
* [[Elijah Wood]]
* [[Tom Wilkinson]]
}}
| music = [[Jon Brion]]
| cinematography = [[Ellen Kuras]]
| editing = [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| studio = {{ubl|[[Anonymous Content]]|[[This is that corporation|This is That]]}}
| distributor = [[Focus Features]]
| released = {{Film date|2004|03|19}}
| runtime = 108 minutes
| country = United States
| language = English
| budget = $20 million<ref name="BOM">{{cite web |title = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind |work = [[Box Office Mojo]] |url = http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm }}</ref>
| gross = $72.3 million<ref name="BOM" />
}}

'''''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''''' is a 2004 American [[science fiction]] [[romantic comedy]] film written by [[Charlie Kaufman]] and directed by [[Michel Gondry]]. It follows an estranged couple who have erased each other from their memories, then, started dating again. [[Pierre Bismuth]] created the story with Kaufman and Gondry. The [[ensemble cast]] includes [[Jim Carrey]], [[Kate Winslet]], [[Kirsten Dunst]], [[Mark Ruffalo]], [[Elijah Wood]], and [[Tom Wilkinson]]. The title of the film is a quotation from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].

The film uses elements of the [[psychological thriller]] and a [[nonlinear narrative]] to explore the nature of [[memory]] and [[romantic love]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|work=Slant Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 25, 2004}}</ref> It opened in [[North America]] to wide acclaim on March 19, 2004, and grossed over $70 million worldwide.<ref name=BOM/> It won the [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay]], and Winslet received a nomination for [[Academy Award for Best Actress]]. The film developed a [[cult following]] in the years after its release and is now regarded by many critics as one of the greatest films of the 21st century.<ref>The film was ranked #6 on the [[BBC]]'s list of the 100 best films of the 21st century, compiled from a survey of 177 film critics. {{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films |title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films |date=August 23, 2016 |website=[[BBC]] |accessdate=August 16, 2017}} See also {{cite web|last1=Dargis|first1=Manohla|last2=Scott|first2=A.O. |title=The 25 Best Films of the 21st Century...So Far |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/movies/the-25-best-films-of-the-21st-century.html |date=Jun 9, 2017 |website=[[The New York Times]] |accessdate=8 July 2017}}</ref>

==Plot==
[[File:Montauk LIRR train station.jpg|thumb|Train station of Montauk where Joel and Clementine meet each other again after erasing of their memories.|alt=]]
Shy, soft-spoken Joel Barish and unrestrained free-spirit Clementine Kruczynski begin a relationship on a [[Long Island Rail Road]] train from [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]] to [[Rockville Centre, New York|Rockville Centre]]. They are almost immediately drawn to each other, despite their contrasting personalities, and both had felt the need to travel to Montauk that day. Although they do not realize it, Joel and Clementine are former lovers, now separated after having spent two years together.

After a fight, Clementine hires the New York City firm Lacuna, Inc. to [[Memory erasure|erase all her memories]] of their relationship. Upon discovering this from his friends Rob and Carrie, Joel was devastated and decided to undergo the procedure himself, a process that takes place while he sleeps.

Much of the film subsequently takes place in Joel's mind, during this memory erasure procedure. Joel finds himself revisiting his memories of Clementine [[reverse chronology|in reverse]], starting from the disintegration of their relationship. As he comes across happier, positive memories of Clementine early in his relationship, he decides to preserve at least some memory of her and his love for her, trying to evade the procedure by taking his idealized memory of Clementine into [[False memory|memories not related to her]] or waking up to stop the process. Despite his efforts, the memories are steadily erased. He comes to the last remaining memory of Clementine, the day he had first met her at a beach house in Montauk. As this memory disintegrates around them, she tells him, "Meet me in Montauk."

Separate, but related, story arcs revolving around the employees of Lacuna are revealed during Joel's memory erasure. Patrick, one of the Lacuna technicians performing the erasure, uses Joel's memories and mannerisms to seduce and romance Clementine. Mary, the Lacuna receptionist, is dating the other memory-erasing technician, Stan, but has feelings for Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, a married doctor and the head of Lacuna. During Joel's memory wipe, Mary discovers she had previously had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and agreed to have this erased from her memory when Dr. Mierzwiak's wife found out. On learning this, she asks Stan whether he knew about this, to which he claims that he didn't. Mary then quits her job and steals the company's records, mailing them to all of Lacuna's customers, believing the clients should know the truth.

The film returns to the present after Joel and Clementine have met at the train station of Montauk. They both come upon their Lacuna records later that day, and react with shock and bewilderment – they have no clear memory of having known each other, let alone having had a relationship and having had their memories erased. Joel pleads with Clementine to restart their relationship; Clementine initially resists, pointing out it could go the same way. Joel accepts this and they decide to try anyway.

==Cast==
{{multiple image
| direction = vertical
| width = 175
| footer = Top to bottom: [[Jim Carrey]] and [[Kate Winslet]] play Joel Barish and Clementine Kruczynski respectively
| image1 = Jim Carrey 2008.jpg
| alt1 =
| caption1 =
| image2 = Kate Winslet by Andrea Raffin.jpg
| alt2 =
| caption2 =
}}

* [[Jim Carrey]] as Joel Barish: Joel is an introvert who enters a two-year relationship with Clementine Kruczynski before erasing her from his mind after they break-up and after she erases him from her memory. [[Charlie Kaufman]] wrote Joel with autobiographical personality traits.<ref name=":11" /> Producers cast Carrey against type for his role as Joel.<ref name=":11" /> Carrey was selected for his regular appearance, as well as his comedic ability, as according to Michel Gondry, "[I]t's hard to be funny. It's far easier to take someone really funny and bring them down than do the opposite."<ref name=":14">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/michel-gondry-on-mood-indigo-kanye-west-and-the-10th-anniversary-of-eternal-sunshine|title=Michel Gondry on ‘Mood Indigo,’ Kanye West, and the 10th Anniversary of ‘Eternal Sunshine’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=July 19, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> To make Carrey, an actor who typically portrayed high-energy roles, play a restrained character, Gondry prevented him from improvising, a restriction he did not place on the other members of the cast. Carrey did not like this.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/undercover-indies-what-makes-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-so-unforgettable/|title=Undercover Indies: What Makes ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ So Unforgettable?|last=Placa|first=Kaia|date=March 31, 2017|website=Film Independent|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry would also put Carrey off balance by giving wrong orders or by rolling the camera at the wrong time. Gondry believed this would make Carrey forget what he should do to be the character, allowing him to go in-character.<ref name=":11" /> In the 2017 [[Netflix]] documentary ''[[Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond|Jim & Andy]]'', Carrey mentions a conversation with Gondry one year before shooting began for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', shortly after Carrey had a breakup with an unspecified woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carrey-life-is-too-beautiful/|title=Carrey: 'Life Is Too Beautiful'|last=Leung|first=Rebecca|date=November 18, 2004|website=CBS News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Gondry saw that Carrey's emotional state at the time was "so beautiful, so broken" and asked him to stay that way for one year to fit the character. In the documentary, Carrey commented, "That's how fucked up this business is."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wtop.com/entertainment/2017/11/review-jim-carrey-possessed-by-andy-kaufman-in-documentary-jim-andy/|title=Review: ‘Jim & Andy’ documents Jim Carrey’s journey into his own ‘Tru-Man’|last=Fraley|first=Jason|date=November 30, 2017|website=wtop.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/jim-andy-great-beyond-venice-2017-1035248|title='Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond': Film Review {{!}} Venice 2017|last=Rooney|first=David|date=September 5, 2017|website=The Hollywood Reporter|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> [[Nicolas Cage]] was Gondry's original choice to play Joel,<ref name=":12" /> but Cage was unable to do the role as he was in high demand from independent directors after his performance in ''[[Leaving Las Vegas]]''.<ref name=":14" />
:* Ryan Whitney as young Joel
* [[Kate Winslet]] as Clementine Kruczynski: Clementine is a spontaneous extrovert who, after breaking up with Joel Barish after a two-year relationship, erases him from her mind. Winslet was cast against type for her part as Clementine,<ref name=":11" /> having previously featured in period pieces,<ref name=":15">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/kate-winslet-on-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2419277|title=No Corsets for Kate Winslet in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"|last=Murray|first=Rebecca|date=|website=ThoughtCo.|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> and received the role after she was the only actress to offer criticism on the script instead of pandering to the writers.<ref name=":14" /> After another actress won an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Oscar]], the studio attempted to make Gondry use her instead of Winslet for the role of Clementine, but Gondry threatened to walk from the project if that occurred.<ref name=":14" /> During filming, Gondry took Winslet to separate rooms to coach her,<ref name=":14" /> and she wore wigs instead of dying her hair.<ref name=":15" /> The character of Clementine has been noted several times to serve as a critique of the [[Manic Pixie Dream Girl]] [[stock character]] before the phrase itself had been coined. The character's criticism of the stock character is predominantly present in her remark: "Too many guys think I'm a concept, or I complete them, or I'm gonna make them alive. But I'm just a fucked-up girl who's looking for my own peace of mind. Don't assign me yours."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a9285/manic-pixie-dream-girl-characters/|title=Remembering Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 10 Years Later|last=Gould|first=Hallie|date=March 20, 2014|website=Marie Claire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://flavorwire.com/446166/eternal-sunshine-destroyed-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl-stereotype-before-it-even-existed|title=‘Eternal Sunshine’ Destroyed the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Stereotype Before It Even Existed|last=Herman|first=Alison|date=March 19, 2014|website=FlavorWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> With her impulsiveness, emotion intensity (extreme mood changes), alcohol dependence, turbulent relationships, reckless behavior, and hasty idealization/devaluation of Joel, Clementine seems to exhibit traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, although it is not clear whether her character was written with this specific diagnosis in mind.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://themighty.com/2017/11/movies-borderline-personality-disorder-bpd/|title=6 Movies That Got Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms (Mostly) Right|work=The Mighty|access-date=2018-08-17|language=en-US}}</ref>
:* Lola Daehler as young Clementine
* [[Kirsten Dunst]] as Mary Svevo: Mary is the receptionist for Lacuna who has a crush on Howard. While erasing Joel's memory, Howard's wife catches her kissing Howard. Howard's wife reveals Mary previously had a relationship with Howard which Howard erased from her mind. In revenge for the deception, she mails Lacuna's company records to the customers.
* [[Mark Ruffalo]] as Stan Fink: Stan is a technician for Lacuna who is in a relationship with Mary until the reveal of her previous relationship with Howard. Ruffalo received the role of Stan after providing an "unexpected take on the role" to Gondry when he suggested Stan be a fan of [[The Clash]] and look like [[Joe Strummer]].<ref name=":14" />
* [[Elijah Wood]] as Patrick: Patrick is a technician for Lacuna who enters a relationship with Clementine by imitating Joel. They break up when Joel and Clementine begin dating for the second time.
* [[Tom Wilkinson]] as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak: Howard runs Lacuna. Before the film's events, he had an affair with Mary, which ended with the relationship's erasure from her mind. Wilkinson reportedly did not enjoy the shooting of the film and frequently disagreed with Gondry.<ref name=":14" /><ref name=":16">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/mark-ruffalo-blasts-iraqs-gop-warmongers-talks-begin-again-and-avengers|title=Mark Ruffalo Blasts Iraq’s GOP Warmongers, Talks ‘Begin Again’ and ‘Avengers’|last=Stern|first=Marlow|date=June 30, 2014|website=The Daily Beast|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
* [[Jane Adams (actress)|Jane Adams]] as Carrie Eakin: Joel's friend. She is in a troubled relationship with Rob.
* [[David Cross]] as Rob Eakin: Joel's friend. He is in a troubled relationship with Carrie.
* [[Deirdre O'Connell (actress)|Deirdre O'Connell]] as Hollis Mierzwiak: Howard's wife
* [[Thomas Jay Ryan]] as Frank: Joel's neighbor
* Debbon Ayer as Joel's mother

==Production==
=== Development ===
The concept of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' came from 1998 conversations between [[Michel Gondry]] and the film's co-writer [[Pierre Bismuth]].<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scriptmag.com/features/script-screen-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=From Script to Screen: ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’|last=Cohen|first=David S.|date=February 17, 2016|website=Script Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> The pair had met and become friends in the early 1980s during Gondry's drumming career in the French pop group ''[[Oui Oui]]''.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2008/sep/06/1|title=Eraserhead|last=Lack|first=Jessica|date=September 6, 2008|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth had conceived of the idea of erasing certain people from people's minds in response to a friend complaining about her boyfriend; when he asked her if she would erase that boyfriend from her memory, she said yes.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://cinephiliabeyond.org/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-unforgettable-heartbreaking-exploration-love-human-beings-nature-memory/|title=‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’: An Unforgettable and Heartbreaking Exploration of Love, Human Beings and the Nature of Memory|last=|first=|date=|website=Cinephilia & Beyond|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Bismuth originally was going to conduct an art experiment involving sending cards to people saying someone they knew had erased the card’s recipient from their memory.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/19247/1/a-secret-history-of-michel-gondry|title=Ten years of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Mansfield|first=Matt|date=March 13, 2014|website=Dazed Digital|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> When he mentioned this to Gondry, they developed it into a story based on the situations that would arise if it were scientifically possible.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /> Bismuth never conducted the experiment.<ref name=":6" />

Gondry approached [[Charlie Kaufman]] with this concept, the two having worked previously together for Kaufman's [[Human Nature (film)|''Human Nature'']].<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":6" /> Gondry and Kaufman together further developed the story a short pitch.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=https://www.avclub.com/michel-gondry-charlie-kaufman-1798208337|title=Interview - Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman|last=Tobias|first=Scott|date=March 17, 2004|website=AV Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> While the writers did not believe the concept to be marketable, a small bidding war began over the idea.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite web|url=http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/charlie-kaufman-anomaslisa-c-v-r.html|title=In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman|last=Sternbergh|first=Adam|date=December 16, 2015|website= [[New York (magazine)#Digital expansion and blogs|Vulture]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> It was purchased on June 12, 1998, for a low seven-figure sum by [[Steve Golin]] of [[Propaganda Films]].<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/charlie_kaufman.html|title=Charlie Kaufman & Michel Gondry - Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind|last=Kleinman|first=Geoffrey|date=|website=DVD Talk|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/1998/film/news/pic-pitch-plays-at-propaganda-1117471841/|title=Pic pitch plays at Propaganda|last=Madigan|first=Nick|date=June 15, 1998|work=Variety|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> Kaufman, who was responsible for writing the screenplay, did not begin immediately, instead opting to suspend writing while he was working on ''[[Adaptation (film)|Adaptation]]'', ''[[Confessions of a Dangerous Mind]]'' and ''Human Nature''.<ref name=":7" /> During this time, the film ''[[Memento (film)|Memento]]'' was released, which similarly deals with memory. Due to the similarities, Kaufman became worried and attempted to pull out of the project, but Golin made him complete it.<ref name=":11" /> During writing, the pitch's ownership changed several times thus Kaufman did not have to deal with the studios until the end of the scriptwriting process.<ref name=":7" /> The final script made the studios nervous.<ref name=":7" />

{{Quote box
| quote=<poem>How happy is the blameless vestal's lot?
The world forgetting, by the world forgot:
'''Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!'''
Each prayer accepted, and each wish resigned;</poem>
| author = [[Alexander Pope]]
| source = ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'', 207-10
| width = 25%
| align = right
| quoted = 1
}}
Kaufman did not want to make the film a thriller and wanted to downplay the science fiction aspects of memory erasure, focusing on the relationship.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":10" /> He had an "enormous struggle" with the script, particularly encountering two problems while writing the script: showing "the memories, Joel's reactions to the memories, and Joel interacting with Clementine outside of the memories in the memories," and the fact that characters could refer in later scenes to a memory that had already been erased.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman solved the first problem by making Joel lucid and able to comment on his memories and solved the second by making the memories degrade instead of immediately erasing, with complete erasure occurring at awakening.<ref name=":7" /> Kaufman's original title for the screenplay was 18 words long, as he had wanted a title which "you couldn't possibly fit on a marquee,"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3664683.stm|title=Inside screenwriter Kaufman's Mind|last=Smith|first=Neil|date=April 28, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref> however, he eventually decided on ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'', a title coming from the 1717 poem ''[[Eloisa to Abelard]]'' by [[Alexander Pope]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/film-charlie-kaufman-s-critique-of-pure-comedy.html|title=Charlie Kaufman's Critique of Pure Comedy|last=Scott|first=A. O.|date=April 4, 2004|website=[[The New York Times]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

=== Production ===
The shooting of ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' began in mid-January 2003 after six weeks of preparation,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/dec/20/news1|title=In brief: Elijah Wood joins Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=December 20, 2002|website=The Guardian|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://variety.com/2002/film/markets-festivals/ruffalo-springs-for-eternal-1117877087/|title=Ruffalo springs for ‘Eternal’|last=Feiwell|first=Jill|date=December 8, 2002|website=Variety|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Pavlus|first=John|date=April 2004|title=Forget Me Not|url=https://theasc.com/magazine/april04/cover/|journal=The International Journal of Film & Digital Production Techniques|volume=85|pages=1-3|via=}}</ref> lasting for three months on a budget of $20 million mostly in and around [[New York City]].<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" /> Some key scenes, however, such as Joel's [[Yonkers, New York|Yonkers]] apartment and the 1950s-style kitchen, were recreated in a [[New Jersey]] former U.S. Navy base.<ref name=":13" />

The shoot was challenging for cinematographer [[Ellen Kuras]], due to the difficulty of filming Gondry's vision for the film, which aimed to "blend location-shoot authenticity with unpredictable flashes of whimsy." According to this vision, Gondry wanted [[available light]] used exclusively for the shoot. Kuras disagreed with this choice and would get around it by lighting the room instead of the actors and by hiding light bulbs around the set to increase light levels.<ref name=":13" /> Another issue encountered by the cinematographers was the frequent improvisation, the lack of marks and the few rehearsals completed, meaning the cinematographers often did not know where the actors would be. Two [[Hand-held camera|handheld cameras]] filmed near 360-degree footage at all times, shooting 36 000 feet of film a day to deal with this.<ref name=":16" /><ref name=":13" /> Gondry called back to the work of famed [[French New Wave]] director [[Jean-Luc Godard]] by filming using wheelchairs as well as using sled and chariot dollies instead of [[Camera dolly|traditional dollies]]. When using wheelchairs, the shot was not consistently smooth, however as Kuras liked the aesthetic of the low-angle, wobbly movement, the final film contains the footage.<ref name=":13" />

The film used minimal [[Computer-generated imagery|CGI]], with many effects accomplished [[In-camera effect|in-camera]], through [[Forced perspective|forced perspectives]], hidden space, spotlighting, unsynchronized sound, split focus and [[continuity editing]].<ref name=":6" /> A notable example is the ocean washing away the house in [[Montauk, New York|Montauk]]; the production team accomplished this by building the corner of a house on the shore and allowing the tide to come in.<ref name=":12" /> Carrying out this effect was difficult as the special team hired to place the set in the water refused, citing dangers. Gondry in response fired the team and had the production team, including the actors and producers, place the set in the water. In retaliation for Gondry's actions, the chief of the union reprimanded Gondry in front of the crew.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://the-talks.com/interview/michel-gondry/|title=Michel Gondry: "I Believe in Utopia"|last=|first=|date=July 27, 2011|website=The Talks|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

Kaufman engaged in script rewriting during production; thus several discrepancies exist between the production script and the final film.<ref name=":9" /> A fundamental difference is that in the production script, with the erasure of each memory, Clementine behaves increasingly robotic.<ref name=":7" /> In the final film, Winslet plays Clementine straight, and degradation of settings and the intrusion of settings upon each other establish memory degradation visually. Another script component which did not make it into the final film was the appearance of Naomi, Joel's girlfriend. Despite Kaufman's insistence on Naomi’s inclusion, the production cut her already filmed scenes.<ref name=":7" />

Icelandic editor [[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]] [[Film editing|edited]] the film, and she reportedly conflicted with Gondry during editing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiewire.com/2012/10/heroines-of-cinema-valdis-oskarsdottir-and-the-invisible-art-of-editing-44254/|title=Heroines of Cinema: Valdis Oskarsdottir, and the ‘Invisible Art’ of Editing|last=Hammett Knott|first=Matthew|date=October 11, 2012|website=IndieWire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Charlie Kaufman was also very involved in the [[Film editing|editing]] of the film. Editing was a long process as there was no requirement to rush it.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":9" /> There were a few [[Test screening|test screenings]] of the film, which elicited positive reactions.<ref name=":9" />

== Release ==

=== Box office ===
Produced on a budget of $20 million, ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' opened on March 19, 2004, in the United States, earning $8,175,198 in its opening weekend in 1,353 theaters. The film placed seventh in the weekend's box office, and remained in theaters for 19 weeks, earning $34,400,301 in the United States and $37,857,825 in international markets for a total of $72,258,126 worldwide.<ref name="BOXTotal">{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=eternalsunshine.htm|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Film)|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|accessdate=June 30, 2018|date=|website=|last=|first=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=}}</ref> ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' is, as of June 2018, Kaufman's most profitable, and Gondry's second most profitable film.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Writer&id=charliekaufman.htm|title=Charlie Kaufman (Writer)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=michelgondry.htm|title=Michel Gondry (Director)|last=|first=|date=|website=|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref>

=== Critical response ===
On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has a 93% "Certified Fresh" rating, based on 238 reviews, with an average rating of 8.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "Propelled by [[Charlie Kaufman]]'s smart, imaginative script and Michel Gondry's equally daring directorial touch, ''Eternal Sunshine'' is a twisty yet heartfelt look at relationships and heartache."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 89 out of 100, based on 41 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/movie/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Metacritic]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> Audiences polled by [[CinemaScore]] gave the film an average grade of "B-" on an A+ to F scale.<ref name="CinemaScore">{{cite web |url= https://www.cinemascore.com/publicsearch/index/title/ |title=CinemaScore|work=cinemascore.com}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] of ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' in his initial 2004 review gave the film 3½ out of a possible 4.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Original Review|last=Ebert|first=Roger|date=March 19, 2004|website=RogerEbert.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> He revisited the film in 2010 when he referred to Kaufman as "the most gifted screenwriter of the 2000s" and revised the rating to a full 4 stars, adding it to his "[[The Great Movies|Great Movies]]" list.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-2004-1|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|author=Ebert|first=Roger|authorlink=Roger Ebert|date=January 2, 2010|website=Rogerebert.suntimes.com|type=Review; 2010 review|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> [[A. O. Scott]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' praised the film for being "cerebral, formally and conceptually complicated, dense with literary allusions and as unabashedly romantic as any movie you'll ever see".<ref>{{cite web |last= Murphy |first= Mekado |url= http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/critics-picks-video-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/ |title = Critics' Picks Video: 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'|work=[[The New York Times]] |date = February 15, 2011 |accessdate = 2013-03-27 }}</ref> ''[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out]]'' summed up their review by saying, "the formidable Gondry/Kaufman/Carrey axis works marvel after marvel in expressing the bewildering beauty and existential horror of being trapped inside one's own addled mind, and in allegorising the self-preserving amnesia of a broken but hopeful heart."<ref>[https://www.timeout.com/london/film/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind movie review – Film – Time Out London]</ref>

Winslet and Carrey received acclaim for their performances. Winslet's performance as Clementine received multiple award nominations, including an [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Academy Award nomination for Best Actress]], and it was placed 81st in [[Premiere (magazine)|''Premiere'' magazine's]] 2008 list of 100 Greatest Performances of All Time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|title=The 100 Greatest Performances of All Time: 100–75|last=|first=|date=December 3, 2008|work=Premiere|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090331131542/http://www.premiere.com/List/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time/The-100-Greatest-Performances-of-All-Time-100-75|archivedate=March 31, 2009|deadurl=yes|accessdate=July 7, 2018|df=}}</ref> Claudia Puig in a review for ''[[USA Today]]'' said of her performance that "Winslet is wonderful as a free spirit whose hair color changes along with her moods. She hasn't had such a meaty role in a while, and she plays it just right."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2004-03-18-eternal-sunshine_x.htm|title=Soak up 'Eternal Sunshine,' and you'll feel warm all over|last=Puig|first=Claudia|date=March 18, 2004|work=[[USA Today]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Carrey's performance as Joel also received multiple award nominations. Jason Killingsworth in a review for [[Paste (magazine)|Paste magazine]] said of his performance that "Carrey nails the part, winning audience sympathy from the opening moments of the film".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2004/06/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=Killingsworth|first=Jason|date=June 1, 2004|website=Paste Magazine|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref>

In the Autumn 2008 issue of [[Screen (journal)|Screen Journal]], Carol Vernallis argued out that Gondry's experience in directing [[music video]]s contributed to the film's [[Mise en scène|mise-en-scène]] and sound design. Vernallis describes some threads of the visual, aural and musical motifs throughout the film, and how some motifs can work in [[counterpoint]].<ref>Vernallis, Carol. "Music video, songs, sound: experience, technique and emotion in ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''". ''Screen''. 49.3. (2008) pp.277–97.</ref>

===Accolades and honours===
{{Main|List of accolades received by Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
{| class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable"
|-
! scope="col"| Award
! scope="col"| Award category
! scope="col"| Recipients and nominees
! scope="col"| Result
! scope="col"| {{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="2"|[[77th Academy Awards|Academy Awards]]
|[[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress]]
|[[Kate Winslet]]
| {{nom}}
| rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2005|title=Nominees & Winners for the 77th Academy Awards|last=|first=|date=|year=2005|work=[[Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| [[Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Original Screenplay]]
|[[Pierre Bismuth]], [[Michel Gondry]] and [[Charlie Kaufman]]
| {{won}}
|
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="6"|[[58th British Academy Film Awards|British Academy Film Awards]] (BAFTA)
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role|Best Actor in a Leading Role]]
|[[Jim Carrey]]
| {{nom}}
| scope="row" rowspan=6 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4180423.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The nominations|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4260929.stm|title=Bafta Film Awards 2005: The winners|year=2005|work=[[BBC]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role|Best Actress in a Leading Role]]
| Kate Winslet
| {{Nom}}
|
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Direction|Best Director]]
| Michel Gondry
| {{nom}}
|
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Editing|Best Editing]]
|[[Valdís Óskarsdóttir]]
| {{won}}
|
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Film|Best Film]]
|[[Likely Story|Anthony Bregman]] and [[Steve Golin]]
| {{Nom}}
|
|-
|[[BAFTA Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
| Charlie Kaufman
| {{Won}}
|
|-
! scope="row" rowspan="4"|[[62nd Golden Globe Awards|Golden Globe Awards]]
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Musical or Comedy|Best Actor in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
| Jim Carrey
| {{nom}}
| scope="row" rowspan=4 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hfpa.org/browse/?param=/year/2005|title=The 62nd Annual Golden Globe Awards (2005)|year=2005|work=[[Golden Globe Award]]|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Comedy or Musical|Best Actress in a Leading Role - Musical or Comedy]]
| Kate Winslet
| {{nom}}
|
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy|Best Film - Musical or Comedy]]
| Michel Gondry
| {{nom}}
|
|-
|[[Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay|Best Screenplay]]
| Charlie Kaufman
| {{nom}}
|
|-
|[[Hugo Award|Hugo Awards]]
|[[Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation|Best Dramatic Presentation - Long Form]]
| Michel Gondry, Charlie Kaufman, Bierre Bismuth
| {{nom}}
| rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/|title=2005 Hugo Awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[National Board of Review Awards 2004|National Board of Review]]
|[[National Board of Review Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
| Charlie Kaufman
| {{won}}
| rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/award-years/2004/|title=2004 Award Winners|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|-
|[[Writers Guild of America Awards 2004|Writers Guild of America]]
|[[Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Screenplay|Best Screenplay - Original]]
| Pierre Bismuth, Michel Gondry and Charlie Kaufman
| {{won}}
| rowspan=1 style="text-align:center;"|<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4281705.stm|title=Quirky movies win script awards|accessdate=September 27, 2018}}</ref>
|}

=== Home media ===
''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''<nowiki/>'s [[DVD]] release happened on September 28, 2004, by Universal Home Entertainment.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind#tab=summary|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)|last=|first=|date=|website=The Numbers|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref> A [[Blu-ray]] edition release occurred in the U.S. on January 25, 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Eternal-Sunshine-of-the-Spotless-Mind-Blu-ray/16770/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=|first=|date=|website=blu-ray.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 5, 2018}}</ref>

== Legacy ==

=== Television series ===
In October 2016, [[Anonymous Content]] announced they will be working with [[Universal Cable Productions]] to produce a television series based on the film. Kaufman is not involved in writing the show. The project is still in planning stages.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/eternal-sunshine-spotless-mind-tv-933163|title='Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' TV Series in the Works (Exclusive)|last1=Sandberg|first1=Byran Elise|last2=Kit|first2=Borys|date=October 7, 2016|work=[[The Hollywood Reporter]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

===Media recognitions===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Presenter
! Title
! Rank
! Notes
|-
| 2005
| align=center | ''[[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]]''
| align=center | 101 Greatest Screenplays
| align=center | 24
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays|title=101 Greatest Screenplays|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list|title=101 Greatest Screenplays Full List|last=|first=|date=2005|website=Writers Guild of America West|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=June 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2008
| align=center | ''[[Empire (film magazine)|Empire]]''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time]]
| align=center | 73
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|title=The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time|last=|first=|date=November 2008|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021123702/http://www.empireonline.com/500/85.asp|archive-date=October 21, 2013|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=5 | 2009
| align=center | ''[[Time Out (magazine)#Time Out New York|Time Out New York]]''
| align=center | The TONY Top 50 Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 3
|<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last=|first=|date=November 26 – December 2, 2009|title=The TONY top 50 movies of the decade|url=https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/the-tony-top-50-movies-of-the-decade#tab_panel_5|journal=[[Time Out (magazine)|Time Out New York]]|volume=|issue=739|pages=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|via=}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Slant Magazine]]''
| align=center | The 100 Best Films of the Aughts
| align=center | 86
|<ref name=":17">{{cite web|url=http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_2|title=The 100 Best Films of the Aughts|last=|first=|date=February 7, 2010|work=[[Slant Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=February 10, 2010}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Paste (magazine)|Paste]]''
| align=center | The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)
| align=center | 5
|<ref name=":18">{{cite web|url=https://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/lists/2009/11/50-best-movies-of-the-decade-2000-2009.html?p=2|title=The 50 Best Movies of the Decade (2000–2009)|last=|first=|date=November 3, 2009|work=[[Paste (magazine)|Paste Magazine]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[The A.V. Club]]''
| align=center | The Best Films of the '00s
| align=center | 1
|<ref name=":19">{{cite web|url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-best-films-of-the-00s,35931/|title=The Best Films of the '00s|last=Murray|first=Noel|last2=Rabin|first2=Nathan|date=December 3, 2009|website=The A.V. Club|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018|last3=Phipps|first3=Keith|last4=Robinson|first4=Tasha|last5=Tobias|first5=Scott}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''[[Metacritic]]''
| align=center | Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade
| align=center | 2
|<ref name=":20">{{cite web|url=http://www.metacritic.com/feature/film-critics-pick-the-best-movies-of-the-decade|title=Film Critics Pick the Best Movies of the Decade|last=|first=|date=January 3, 2010|work=Metacritic|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| 2016
| align=center | ''[[BBC]]''
| align=center |[[BBC's 100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century|The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films]]
| align=center | 6
|<ref name="BBC">{{Cite web|url=http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20160819-the-21st-centurys-100-greatest-films|title=The 21st Century's 100 Greatest Films|last=|first=|date=August 23, 2016|website=|publisher=BBC|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|accessdate=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| rowspan=2 | 2018
| align=center | ''Empire''
| align=center |[[Empire (film magazine)#The 100 Greatest Movies|The 100 Greatest Movies]]
| align=center | 41
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|title=The 100 Greatest Movies|last=|first=|date=March 20, 2018|website=Empire|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180706075658/https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/best-movies/|archive-date=July 6, 2018|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|-
| align=center | ''They Shoot Pictures Don't They''
| align=center | The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films
| align=center | 5
|<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_rankinghistory.htm|title=The 21st Century's Most Acclaimed Films (Ranking History)|last=|first=|date=|website=They Shoot Pictures Don't They|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
|}

==Music==
{{Anchor|Music|Soundtrack|Score}}
{{Main|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (soundtrack)}}
{{Infobox album
| name = Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
| type = Soundtrack
| artist = Jon Brion
| cover = Eternal sunshine CD cover.jpg
| alt =
| released = March 16, 2004
| recorded =
| venue =
| studio =
| genre = Soundtrack
| length = 56:08
| label = [[Hollywood Records|Hollywood]]
| producer = Kathy Nelson (executive producer) [[Tim DeLaughter]] (track 4) [[Jon Brion]] (track 9) Don Nelson (tracks 11 and 20) Ethan Johns (track 18)
| chronology = [[Jon Brion]]
| prev_title = [[Punch-Drunk Love (soundtrack)|Punch-Drunk Love]]
| prev_year = 2002
| next_title = [[I Heart Huckabees (soundtrack)|I ♥ Huckabees]]
| next_year = 2004
}}{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[Allmusic]]
| rev1score = {{Rating|4|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev2 = [[IGN]]
| rev2Score = 7/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://au.ign.com/articles/2004/03/18/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-original-soundtrack|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Original Soundtrack - IGN Review|date=March 18, 2004|website=IGN.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
| rev3 = [[Filmtracks.com|Filmtracks]]
| rev3Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=January 21, 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref>
| rev4 = [[Pitchfork (website)|Pitchfork]]
| rev4Score = 7.5/10<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>
}}

The [[soundtrack]] album for ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' was composed by Los Angeles musician [[Jon Brion]], also featuring songs from artists including [[The Polyphonic Spree]], [[The Willowz]], and Don Nelson. The soundtrack was released by [[Hollywood Records]] on March 16, 2004.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20040225005925/en/Beck-Polyphonic-Spree-Headline-Hollywood-Records-Eternal|title=Beck and The Polyphonic Spree Headline Hollywood Records' "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind'' Soundtrack|last=Ferraro|first=Kris|date=February 25, 2004|website=Business Wire|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> A [[cover version]] of [[The Korgis]]' "[[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]" with instrumentation by Brion and vocals by [[Beck]] operates as the soundtrack's centerpiece, setting the film's tone in the opening credits, and closing the film.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://consequenceofsound.net/2009/12/cinema-sounds-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Cinema Sounds: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind|last=O'Shoney|first=Carson|date=December 18, 2009|website=Consequence of Sound|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind's'' soundtrack received generally positive reviews. [[AllMusic]] described it as "nearly as deft", and described Brion's score as "intimate" and "evocative of love and memories".<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.allmusic.com/album/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-mw0000696862|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - AllMusic Review|last=Phares|first=Heather|date=|website=AllMusic.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Other positive reviews noted the [[Ambient music|ambient]] nature of the music and lauded Beck's cover of "Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime."<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/7890-eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind/|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Pitchfork Review|last=Sylvester|first=Nick|date=April 6, 2004|website=Pitchfork.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> On the other hand, the soundtrack's detractors criticised the album's lack of identity, and its depressive atmosphere.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/eternal_sunshine.html|title=Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Filmtracks Review|last=Clemmensen|first=Christian|date=21 January 2005|website=Filmtracks.com|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref> Even among the detractors, however, the score's ability to mesh with the plot was lauded, an appraisal common to many reviews.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name=":4" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-losers-the-rare-but-beautiful-film-scores-of-jon-brion-deserve-an-oscar-2b29438a926e/|title=The Losers: The Rare But Beautiful Film Scores of Jon Brion Deserve an Oscar|last=Belletto|first=Adam|date=February 17, 2015|website=Film School Rejects|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=July 6, 2018}}</ref>

{{Track listing
| all_writing =
| collapsed = yes
| extra_column = Artist
| total_length = 56:08
| title1 = Theme
| extra1 = [[Jon Brion]]
| length1 = 2:24
| title2 = [[Mr. Blue Sky]]
| extra2 = [[Electric Light Orchestra]]
| length2 = 5:03
| title3 = Collecting Things
| extra3 = Jon Brion
| length3 = 1:13
| title4 = [[Light & Day]]
| extra4 = [[The Polyphonic Spree]]
| length4 = 3:03
| title5 = Bookstore
| extra5 = Jon Brion
| length5 = 0:52
| title6 = It's the Sun
| note6 = [[KCRW]] [[Morning Becomes Eclectic]] version
| extra6 = The Polyphonic Spree
| length6 = 5:33
| title7 = Wada Na Tod, Mera Man Tera Pyasa
| extra7 = [[Lata Mangeshkar]], [[Mohammed Rafi]]
| length7 = 5:54
| title8 = Showtime
| extra8 = Jon Brion
| length8 = 0:55
| title9 = [[Everybody's Got to Learn Sometime]]
| note9 = [[The Korgis]] cover
| extra9 = [[Beck]]
| length9 = 5:54
| title10 = Sidewalk Flight
| extra10 = Jon Brion
| length10 = 0:31
| title11 = Some Kinda Shuffle
| extra11 = Don Nelson
| length11 = 2:11
| title12 = Howard Makes It All Go Away
| extra12 = Jon Brion
| length12 = 0:14
| title13 = Something
| extra13 = [[The Willowz]]
| length13 = 2:23
| title14 = Postcard
| extra14 = Jon Brion
| length14 = 0:23
| title15 = I Wonder
| extra15 = The Willowz
| length15 = 2:56
| title16 = Peer Pressure
| extra16 = Jon Brion
| length16 = 1:12
| title17 = A Dream Upon Waking
| extra17 = Jon Brion
| length17 = 3:36
| title18 = Strings That Tie to You
| extra18 = Jon Brion
| length18 = 2:33
| title19 = Phone Call
| extra19 = Jon Brion
| length19 = 1:03
| title20 = Nola's Bounce
| extra20 = Don Nelson
| length20 = 1:56
| title21 = Down The Drain
| extra21 = Jon Brion
| length21 = 0:56
| title22 = Row
| extra22 = Jon Brion
| length22 = 1:00
| title23 = Drive In
| extra23 = Jon Brion
| length23 = 2:19
| title24 = Main Title
| extra24 = Jon Brion
| length24 = 1:23
| title25 = Spotless Mind
| extra25 = Jon Brion
| length25 = 1:12
| title26 = Elephant Parade
| extra26 = Jon Brion
| length26 = 0:28
}}

==See also==
* [[Lucid dream]]
* ''[[Inception]]''
* [[Psychological thriller]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{Official website|http://www.eternalsunshine.com}}
* {{IMDb title|0338013|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Allmovie title|278676|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Rotten-tomatoes|eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* {{Mojo title|eternalsunshine|Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind}}
* [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/REVIEWS/403190302/1023 ''Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind''] review by [[Roger Ebert]]

{{Michel Gondry}}
{{Charlie Kaufman}}
{{Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film 1991–2010}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind}}
[[Category:2004 films]]
[[Category:Science fiction drama films]]
[[Category:2000s romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American independent films]]
[[Category:American comedy-drama films]]
[[Category:American romantic comedy films]]
[[Category:American films]]
[[Category:American romantic fantasy films]]
[[Category:Comedy of remarriage films]]
[[Category:Mad scientist films]]
[[Category:Memory erasure and alteration in fiction]]
[[Category:Nonlinear narrative films]]
[[Category:American psychological films]]
[[Category:Films about altered memories]]
[[Category:Films set in Long Island]]
[[Category:Films set in Manhattan]]
[[Category:Films shot in New York (state)]]
[[Category:Films shot in New Jersey]]
[[Category:Films directed by Michel Gondry]]
[[Category:Films scored by Jon Brion]]
[[Category:Screenplays by Charlie Kaufman]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award]]
[[Category:Focus Features films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay BAFTA Award]]
[[Category:Films produced by Steve Golin]]