Talk:Eidetic memory/Archive 2

Eidetic vs. photographic
Here http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/ is stated that there are differences between both types of memory. I've suggested to split this article in two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.38.207 (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The link has a POV. Not a suitable reason, unless you can make a stronger case; first, you have to show there are qualitative or quantitative reasons. We need more knowledge to characterize this topic first. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not an expert in this matter, so I'm afraid I can't make a case strong enough. After some Google "research" I've found that: 1. Several pages have the same description as Wikipedia's article (I don't know who copied whom), in these sources photographic memory=eidetic memory=total recall. 2. Some people calls "eidetic memory" to a special ability (learned or inherited), but not necessarily "photographic", so the latter term will be inappropriate. (see for example http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/photomemory.html). Probably there is no need for two different articles, but I think it will be a good idea to point out the differences between both terms. 62.42.38.207 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with merger. Photographic memory seems to be either a synonym or subset of eidetic memory, depending on whose definition you use. -Lamarcus (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree with merger. Eidetic memory tends to include photographic memory, as Lamarcus has noted.  P.F. Bruns (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree There's currently not even a section on photographic memory in this article to be split off. Jon (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with splitting into two articles. This article should definitely be split, because it's highly misleading at the moment. See my comment below in this section, but I'd rename this one to Photographic memory (which is a popular culture myth) and make another page to cover Eidetic imagery, which is something very different. Let99 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Eidetic IMAGERY is the appropriate term and it is NOT photographic memory. According to most psychologists, photographic memory doesn't exist. http://psycnet.apa.org/books/10518/055.pdf 216.165.24.190 (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If psychlogists are defining Eidetic Memory differently than how lay people are defining photographic memory this article could use a sourced paragraph or two about the difference. Jon (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure your sentence was in English. -98.154.249.46 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The term 'photographic memory' is a popular term, and one not used in psychology. -98.154.249.46 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Photographic memory" and "total recall" are popular culture terms. They just don't exist, according to research. Eidetic memory is something different and they should not be referred to as the same thing in the same sentence. I think it should be two articles -- one for eidetic memory (according to psychology), and one that shows all the evidence that "photographic memory" or "total recall" is a myth from popular culture. They are not the same things, so in its current form, the article is very confusing. Edit: what do you think about renaming this page to "Eidetic imagery" and creating a new page about the popular culture term "Photographic Memory" (a.k.a., "total recall")? The ideal way to do it is to rename this page to "Photographic memory" and split the eidetic content into a new page called "Eidetic imagery". Let99 (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Let99, see WP:Content fork; there is no need for two articles to address different uses of the term (or terms). The terms are used interchangeably, even though distinguished by different sources. All of that can be covered in one article -- Eidetic memory -- the same thing that Wikipedia does for many other articles, such as Atheism and all of its interchangeable or otherwise related terms (though some of those interchangeable or otherwise related terms have their own articles). Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They are not the same things and should not be used interchangeably. "Photographic memory" is a popular culture myth that doesn't exist. One can't say that eidetic memory exists and then claim that "photographic memory" is synonymous. Let99 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let99, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability, not our personal opinions; as is made quite clear by others above and elsewhere on this talk page, the terms are used interchangeably (not always) and, depending on how a source is defining the matter, are the same thing. If you are not aware of how we cover discrepancies with regard to a term here at Wikipedia, I advise you to look at the Atheism article and other Wikipedia articles that have a Definitions section or something similar. I also advise you to read WP:Content fork. Either way, there is no WP:Consensus for what you are suggesting be done with this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I will find other people who are knowledgeable about memory to leave their opinions here and help fix the article. The current page is one of those "worst of Wikipedia" pages, because it perpetuates bad information into popular culture. Let99 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You just reverted my edits, which I'm still in the middle of working on. Did you read the articles? They say what I added there. There is no original research in my edits. Eidetic memory is not the same thing as what is called photographic memory. See this page for the difference. Eidetic imagery is not photographic memory. Let99 (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That very short definition is not an adequate source. Please find better sources (preferably scientific journals) that distinguish between the two concepts. -- Neil N  talk to me  16:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please give me some minutes to do that. The entire Internet is corrupted by people's using Wikipedia for research. Even psychology websites are just copying content from Wikipedia, which is why it's important to get this article right. Let99 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I reverted you, and I just might do it again, like I did here, if you don't stick to what the sources state. Where do the sources state "often mistakenly confused with the non-existing"? They don't. That is you violating the WP:Synthesis policy, which is an aspect of the WP:Original research policy; this means that you are drawing a conclusion not made explicitly clear by the sources. Furthermore, you are violating the WP:Neutral policy, as you are making it out as though these terms are never legitimately defined in the same way, despite the fact that they are often legitimately defined in the same way. You repeatedly claiming "[e]idetic memory is not the same thing as what is called photographic memory" has no standing when compared to what WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is Wikipedia filled with so many hostile people? No need to be like that. There are many bad Wikipedia articles like this that will continue to spread false information around society due to these kinds of attitudes. Can I ask you what background you have in the memory field that makes you so confident that there are no differences between eidetic imagery in psychology and photographic memory as it appears in popular culture? I'm still looking for additional studies to cite at the moment, so please give me a bit of time. You can search around journals like this in the meantime, if you want to learn more about it. Let99 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is Wikipedia filled with so many editors who have been editing this site for several years and yet act like WP:Newbies in more than one way? No need to be like that. Just become more familiar with the way this site is supposed to work. My wanting you to follow the rules is not being hostile. I am stern with regard to a lot of Wikipedia rules. I now see that you are getting your "often mistakenly confused with the non-existing" wording from the Slate source, which states: "Photographic memory is often confused with another bizarre—but real—perceptual phenomenon called eidetic memory, which occurs in between 2 and 15 percent of children and very rarely in adults." Still, you are giving WP:Undue weight to that one source on the matter. I don't think that you are reading any of the guideline and policy pages I'm referring you to or that you care to read them, so I'll be ceasing discussion with you on this matter and will refrain from any further involvement with this article. Some things on Wikipedia I have patience for; not for this. This article just is not that important to me, and editors who are not well read on Wikipedia policies and guidelines are added frustration for very experienced Wikipedia editors. And, for the record, no Wikipedia editor has to accept any problematic or likely problematic reversion while waiting for the editor who made the problematic or likely problematic reversion to gather sources. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is problematic as is. I'm trying to fix it. Instead of jumping on people, why not work together to help make it accurate instead of just deleting things? The kind of behavior that some people do in their enthusiasm to enforce rules often makes it very difficult for people to fix articles like this that are spreading wrong information. If you think that my edits go against the rules, we can work to improve the additions here on the talk page. It seems that working on the same side towards the same goal would be more pleasant than this. Let99 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I work with other Wikipedia editors often, especially when I feel that the outcome will be beneficial to the Wikipedia article; I do not have a hint that the outcome will be beneficial to the Wikipedia article in this case. And I never stated that there are "no differences between eidetic imagery in psychology and photographic memory as it appears in popular culture." I was very clear above that it's a matter of what WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's always a good idea when challenged, to add proper sources with your edits so you can show other editors it's not only you who thinks your changes are "right". -- Neil N  talk to me  16:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My sources are proper. "Photographic memory" doesn't exist. Eidetic imagery does, and it's something different. Edit: additional links coming shortly. Let99 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources you have so far given do not specifically compare the two concepts. Furthermore, this source uses "photographic memory" and has the same facts as your Behavioral and Brain Sciences abstract. -- Neil N  talk to me  17:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many people you will find extensively comparing the two other than in Wikipedia and Wikipedia-derived articles. Wikipedia itself is the source of the confusion. Go read some scientific papers that contain definitions of eidetic imagery and you will see that it is not "photographic memory". The Psychology Today article says that photographic memory probably doesn't exist. (It doesn't, and Haraguchi surely uses an advanced mnemonic system like the method of loci combined with something like the major system.) It also says that eidetic imagery is not photographic memory as the word is understood by most people in popular culture. Let99 (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing any sources for "mistakenly confused". Are you going to provide any? If not, I will be modifying your edits. -- Neil N  talk to me  17:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the word "mistakenly" but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Eidetic imagery refers to images that a small percentage of children see. The definitions I've linked to clearly state this. Eidetic imagery is not "photographic memory", which is a popular culture term that has never been shown to exist. This Wikipedia article is using the two interchangeably and incorrectly. Also, could we keep this friendly and have you build upon my edits rather than completely revert them? We can keep discussing it here and gradually work towards making the article accurate. I will also ask some more people to leave their opinions on this page. Thanks... Let99 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Update
Until recently, Let99 and I hadn't extensively edited this article in years. As seen with this link, I recently altered the article with different edits. Let99 showed up sometime later to make changes, including rearranging things and partly reverting me. I did not like the rearrangement and reverted. I then decided to go ahead and source the interchangeability aspect, add other sourced material, and to better design the article article; that is seen here and here. The "Eidetic memory or photographic memory" heading is clearer than "Overview"; furthermore, per WP:Lead, the lead is the overview. I added a "Prevalence" heading because the information about who has or doesn't have eidetic memory, and why, is better suited under that title...away from the definitional material. The "Myths about photographic memory" heading was added by Let99, but that section is not solely about myths, and it is even less so with the content I added; so I changed the heading of that section to "Views"...which is more accurate and more encyclopedic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for editing it rather than reverting. I added some more edits. We can keep editing it until it's satisfactory to everyone. It should be very clear to readers that "eidetic images" (in psychology) and "photographic memory" are not the same things. Photographic memory does not exist, and eidetic images are generally not found in adults and they don't allow people to perform spectacular memory feats. Let99 (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted your latest edits, per my previous posts in this section and per my latest post in this section. Most of the sources I added are clear that the terms are used interchangeably or that photographic memory and eidetic memory are the same topic, but that the term eidetic memory is more accurate; if they distinguish photographic memory and eidetic memory at all, it's only slightly. Those sources are WP:Reliable psychology sources, and they are the following:




 * More sources state similarly. So we should not be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing when so many reliable sources are clear they are treated as the same topic. What we are supposed to do is be clear that the terms may also be distinguished -- that, sometimes, these are two concepts that are not considered the same thing -- and that's what I did. Your wording was non-neutral and less than accurate when considering the literature as a whole. Only one of the sources I added clearly states that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing, and I noted in the edit history that I'm not sure about that source; this is because I don't know the reliability of the publisher, and that author's credentials are lacking for this topic. As noted, I was already clear in the lead and lower in the article that photographic memory and eidetic memory may be distinguished. Clearly, going by the sources, they are not always distinguished. When researching photographic memory or eidetic memory, they are almost always discussed together, and are either treated as the same thing or as two different things. And this article should reflect that.


 * I am not interested in heavily debating this. I am interested in going by what the literature states with WP:Due weight. So if you insist on going with your aforementioned wording, I will start a WP:RfC on this matter, with a list of reliable sources showing what the literature states about this terminological situation...so that other editors can clearly judge all of this for themselves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Further comment: With this edit, I restored some of your wording because it is supported by the sources and is fine. That stated, in the case of my "while photographic memory has never been proven to exist and is considered popular myth" wording vs. your "is a popular culture myth that has never been demonstrated to exist" wording, I think my wording is better because a myth is always something that has never been demonstrated to exist. When it comes to your "with eidetic memory referring to the ability of some children to view eidetic imagery, or impressions of visual images for a few moments after looking away from them, and photographic memory, referring to the ability to recall information in great detail after seeing it just once" wording, that is not directly supported by the sources used for the sentence. Furthermore, while eidetic memory is typically only found in young children, it is not an ability exclusive to young children. So making it seem like it is exclusive to young children is off. And the lead already states "Eidetic images occur in a small number of children and generally are not found in adults." Also, I explained above why I object to your "Myths about photographic memory" heading; I stated, "That section is not solely about myths, and it is even less so with the content I added; so I changed the heading of that section to 'Views'...which is more accurate and more encyclopedic." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not clear that they are not the same thing from your wording. The reason that I knew that the page was edited, is that someone told me "photographic memory exists, because Wikipedia says so." So I came over to the page and say that it was made ambiguous again. People are reading your version and coming away not understanding that "photographic memory" is completely debunked and unquestionably does not exist. "Eidetic imagery" in psychology is not "photographic memory" -- it refers to the brief impression of an image that children sometimes see, and it has nothing to do with adults who memorize things. There is no science to support that. This is not clear in the article. It is not up to you whether you are "interested in debating it". I'm not interested in "debating" either -- only in seeing that the article is not misleading. Your lack of interest in spending time on it doesn't outweigh my lack of interest on it. The problem is that the article is misleading readers, and it still needs to be fixed. We can keep editing it until it's satisfactory to everyone. In order to keep things moving forward, please edit rather than reverting. Let99 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If "it is not clear that they are not the same thing from [my] wording," then this is because, like I just told you, "Most of the sources I added are clear that the terms are used interchangeably or that photographic memory and eidetic memory are the same topic, but that the term eidetic memory is more accurate; if they distinguish photographic memory and eidetic memory at all, it's only slightly." In other words, sources usually treat these topics side by side and as the same thing while other sources distinguish them or slightly distinguish them. In fact, enough sources note that some researchers doubt that eidetic memory exists at all. Going by all of this, we should not be strict in stating that eidetic memory and photographic memory are not the same thing; we should be clear that they are sometimes distinguished. You stated that "People are reading [my] version and coming away not understanding that "photographic memory" is completely debunked and unquestionably does not exist.", but, given that "my version" is very recent and is very clear that the two terms/concepts are sometimes distinguished, this is not true. My wording states: "Although the terms eidetic memory and photographic memory may be used interchangeably, they are also distinguished, with eidetic memory referring to the ability to view memories like photographs, and photographic memory referring to the ability to recall page or text numbers, or similar, in great detail. In the case of distinguishing the concepts, eidetic memory has been documented while photographic memory is a popular culture myth that has never been demonstrated to exist." That is very clear about what the literature relays. It is up to me whether I am interested in debating this. And I am not interested in debating this with you because, in addition to being very busy, you are going on your personal feelings about the topic rather than what WP:Reliable sources state. I am arguing with sources; you are not. It appears that you came to edit this article again because you saw me at it. You had not edited this article in years. I tweaked some things and you were suddenly back here. Anyway, the RfC below, which is for input from others, will hopefully handle all of this. I appreciate that you have not yet reverted again. Let's see what others have to state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Long-Term Memory?
I remember reading an article in some semi-popular journal a few years back that claimed that people with eidetic memory often have poor long-term memory. Can anyone find that article or something disproving it? I've tried to, but failed. 129.138.32.219 (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Photographic Memory
I am a bit confused after reading this article. Basically it says that this kind of memory is thought to be non existant. But then again... I can remember large pieces of text almost word by word reading them once or twice. The way it works is that I read the text and after that I can "see" the pages in my mind as pictures. Whenever I take exams or tests I simply "see" the text as it appears in reality in my mind and write down all I need. I can easily tell on which page the passage in question is and so on. Not always can I remember the text EXACTLY as it is after reading it for the first time, reading it twice is the best. Why? I would compare it to seeing a picture - you look at it at first and you see - oh there is John, James and Jill. You look at it again and you notice other details. So far I have tested myself with up to 60 pages and have been very close to the original text. And yes - I have made some of my teachers cry tears of joy, because they think that I have studied very hard :D :D :D So my question is - is my memory PHOTOGRAPHIC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.15.35 (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have photographic memory, get yourself tested by scientists in a controlled setting. You will be the first. Let99 (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The article originally mentions that photographic memory has never been demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we should rephrase the opening sentence in the Autism section to "varying degrees of *eidetic memory" to avoid conflicting statements. Devinrajan95 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No description of the reported sensation of experiencing eidetic memory is included in this article. This would help readers understand what distinguishes eidetic from photographic memory. Eidetic memory is described as a vivid after image that lingers in the mind's eye, with accuracy fading with the passage of time. People report “seeing” the image and their eyes appear to scan across the image as they describe it. Children with eidetic memory cannot memorize a page of text as photographic memory would imply. The memory is purely visual. A hypothesis as to why this ability is lost over age is that language acquisition and verbal skills allow older children to think more abstractly and thus prioritize visual memory systems less. Still despite this change over time, most people's memory for visual information is more detailed than our recall for other kinds of material. Sources used are Scientific American and Psychology Today Devinrajan95 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that is a great point about clearing up the differences between eidetic memory and photographic memory. The problem of informing people that photographic memory is a visual specific skill is very wide and many misconceptions are held about this. I think the wording is appropriate and would help the reader better understand that there are different types of eidetic among different people.Cproctor23 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Cproctor23

I had a friend in the Army with photographic memory. As an example, we were in DLI (Defense Language Institute) studying Vietnamese. Every morning, first thing in class we were to recite a short dialogue. My friend wouldn't study because he could just glance at the page at the start of class and then recite it. One day with a new Vietnamese instructor he wasn't allowed to open his book prior to doing the dialogue. Of course, he couldn't do it, so he asked the teacher to show (actually flash) him her book. He was also far-sighted, so after she turned her book momentarily around to show him, he was then able to stand up and recite the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4D04:4890:8976:456:7342:B1A5 (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Memory Records section should be changed/deleted
This section lists several feats of memorization which may or may not be attributed to eidetic memory. If a particular feat is attributed to eidetic memory, it should remain there. If it is not attributed to eidetic memory, then it has no place in this article. The second half of the article doesn't even have anything to do with memory records, and should be placed in a separate section or removed. The paragraph about synesthesia does not clearly explain how it relates to eidetic memory, and should be clarified, or removed.

Also, in the 'Controversy' section, it is said that Elizabeth refused to take additional tests, yet the source only says she was never tested again.

Sources 5 and 7 are identical. Darktangent (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Islamic guy at the bottom
Do we need a long as name instead of the shorter one?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone translate this? I don't know which one is less informative - the article or the comments. -.- -98.154.249.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Andriy Slyusarchuk
Please take care that any records by a guy called Andriy Slyusarchuk are not included. he is a liar, none of his records are officially accepted. He also claims to be able to read minds and - what an interesting statement - that he uses hypnosis to make people believe anything he wants them to believe. 94.216.213.26 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

List
I do not know, why this list is included again. You can already see, that the stupids edits on that list occur again. None of this claims are supported by reliable sources. This is not at all scientific or worth to be in an encylopedia, therefore I highly suggest to keep that extra page with the list of people outside of this article and anyone with unreliable claims can be added there. Memoryexpert de (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Eidetic Imagery/Therapy
I have removed the line that enjoined users seeking information on "eidetic therapy" to see the article on "Eidetic Imagery." No such article currently exists, and if you clicked the link you just found yourself redirected back to this article again. There probably ought to be an article on Eidetic Imagery (certainly this mess of an article does not cover the topic adequately); indeed, if done at all adequately it ought to replace this one. By no means all psychologists agree that eidetic imagery is a real, distinct phenomenon, but at least it is a reasonably well defined scientific meaning. "Eidetic memory," by contrast, has no real scientific meaning, and the idea seems to be nothing but a confusion between eidetic imagery (which, if real, is a very vivid and detailed, but quite briefly persisting form of visual memory) and the very good memories that people do have for certain sorts of material. Some people do, indeed, have extraordinary memory abilities, but there is nothing particularly "eidetic" about them, and the people who are claimed to have eidetic imagery (almost all young children) do not generally have unusually good memory abilities, at any rate, not beyond the few minutes or even seconds for which an eidetic image is usually claimed to persist.

Eidetic therapy is another topic again, that may or may not deserve its own entry. There is such a psychotherapeutic technique (and theory), that does, I think, involve the use of eidetic imagery, but, to the best of my knowledge, only a very small number of psychotherapists practice it, and it is not widely recognized as having any true scientific basis. Treharne (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this article would benefit from the addition of a description of how eidetic memory is diagnosed or experimentally assessed in a laboratory. If no such assessment exists, it should be mentioned as well, as readers may wonder how valid one’s claim may be, especially because the advanced memory it could be a factor of mnemonic/memory palace use, hyperthymesia, or a product of synesthesia. You mention that "eidetic memory" has no real concrete scientific meaning, which may contribute to the difficulty in "diagnosis" as there is no set of clear attributes that an "eidetic" individual may possess. Either way, the article should mention this. Devinrajan95 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if "diagnosed" would be the accurate term to use. Detected may be better. There is a test however for Eidetic memory with images by having the subject attempt to construct a full image from two abstract halves shown one at a time.Michael O&#39;Sullivan Duke (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that a description should be added of how eidetic memory is detected/experimentally assessed in a laboratory. I think many people have the misconception that photographic memory exists, and if they read this page they would like to know why "no one claiming to have long-term eidetic memory had this ability proven" and how this was tested. Maybe you can include Dr. Marsh's example that if you truly have photographic memory, you should be able to look at a page in book, then close your eyes and read that page backwards. Psy250 jes85 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I can remember thousands of incidents  that have occurred  in my life since I was 4 years of age. When I recall them it is in video form. I can also recall conversations verbatim and more. Brpllinson (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"Elizabeth"
I have made some edits and added some citations to the section on Elizabeth's alleged abilities. I think the skepticism expressed about her there is very warranted, but I do wonder if it is really true that it was largely skepticism about the claims about her that led to a more general scientific skepticism about eidetic imagery/memory as such. I am fairly familiar with the field, and I have never come across anything suggesting that this is the case. Also, when the rumors about the problems with this study first came to my attention (almost 30 years ago, as gossip from a psychology professor) the story that I heard was that it was not the result of fraud by the researcher (Stromeyer, who went on to become a tenured Harvard professor), but, rather, the result of a practical joke that got out of hand, played upon Stromeyer by his fiancee (i.e. "Elizabeth" herself) and some of their friends. I am not sure how this might be indicated in the article, especially as I can provide no cite for it, but, although it does not say so directly, the account as it stands might be read as implying that Stromeyer is a fraudster, which might be quite unfair.

Also, I believe that "Elizabeth" is not the real name of the woman in question, but is rather a pseudonym used to refer to her in the published accounts of her alleged abilities. It is a standard practice in the psychological sciences to refer to individual subjects with pseudonyms in this way, to preserve their privacy. Treharne (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

REMOVED: reimproved tag
Hello, I have removed the following tag:

For the following reasons: I Arman Cagle, have added a reference section, and added three references that relate to the article. 

If you have any questions, please reply to me on my talk page. Thanks, Arman Cagle

Arman Cagle ( Contact me EMail Me Contribs ) 17:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly this article is extremely low-quality and could do with a lot more sources, as well as probably an entire rewrite (or even deletion as the current state is "not even wrong".69.43.35.98 (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Duration
How long does photographic memory last? Is it a matter of minutes or hours? I mean photographic memory in the limited, clinical sense and not in the popular culture sense which seem to be largely mythical.

2010-09-12 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Jobs?
I've been trying to do some research on whether there are jobs that require a photographic memory. I have found no luck so far. Any suggestions? My 'talent' is limited to number memorization but it is quite impressive. Share your thoughts!

I don't think there are any such jobs. You have probably misunderstood the concept of photographic memory.

2011-01-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I would be incredibly surprised to find a job where eidetic memory is a prerequisite, seeing as it has never been proven to exist, that would be akin to finding a job where you have to be bigfoot to do it -ross616- (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There may be jobs where having a photographic memory helps, especially within the visual art fields, eg. court illustrator. Anyway, this amounts to discussion of the article as far as I can tell Totorotroll (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture - "My Idea of Fun"
I added a paragraph on Will Self's novel "My Idea of Fun". Eidetic memory ( or some expanded form of it ) is a significant theme in the novel, so I thought it might be worth mentioning it here.

This was my first ever contribution to Wikipedia, my previous participation was limited to occasionally correcting spelling mistakes. I hope it's OK - I was a little unsure about how to add references to books. Is the reference to the book in keeping with "house style" ?

Incidentally, the book is a really interesting read. It gets quite extreme in places, so it might not be to everyone's taste. 31.151.143.227 (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Simon


 * Your addition is obviously wholly in good faith, and it's well written. But just because you personally find this novel by Will Self interesting, does not necessarily mean that it can contribute to any general understanding of the phenomenon. It's fiction. Indeed, given that the book has its own wikipedia article, I'm not sure there is any need to have quite so much detail here. For some readers it might even confuse the boundary between fact and fiction. Sorry to sound so negative, but that's my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted your last edit, but the first one is still there. It was too elaborate. Don't be discouraged though, it is hard in the beginning to know which edits will be kept and which will be changed. Lova Falk   talk  14:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

please add this references
This was done on "Elizabeth" also:

Nature 237, 109 - 112 (12 May 1972); doi:10.1038/237109a0 Alpha Rhythm and Eye Movements in Eidetic Imagery DANIEL A. POLLEN & MICHAEL C. TRACHTENBERG* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.217.248 (talk) 15:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

pop culture sherlock holmes
surely holmes warrants a mention in thepop culture refrence? in thhe original books as well as new TV show/movies holmes incredible ability to pull up the most minute of details from a situation well after it occurs is a prime example of eidetic memory in both it's most norrow definition as well as the broader scope of just having the training/knowledge to pick up more details in an image.

as a side quesion. does muscle memory count as edetic or is this a seperate phenomium?152.91.9.153 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Major problems with article
This article has major problems. Mostly the lack of sources. The Overview section has almost no sources. Even worse, there is a lot of weasel words saying that ideas about eidetic memory are still theoretical and there is not yet experimental techniques to accurate study it. These sorts of statements are by definition not verifiable and thus cannot be in a wikipedia article. I will chop the obviously unsalvageable portions and add CITE tags to the rest. Ashmoo (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * afaik, the wp convention is that sources are not required in the overview, assuming that the overview summarises adequately sourced material in the body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.38.92 (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Extremely Poor and Misleading Overview Section
I am a memory researcher at UC Irvine, and I have to say that the overview of this article is misleading and, erm, wrong--just dead wrong. The correct way to write an encyclopedia article about eidetic memory is from a skeptical viewpoint. Properly done scientific investigations do not support the idea that anyone has photographic, perfect, or eidetic memory. So, for example, it should read "Eidetic memory is an alleged ability that..." and " although there is some evidence of people with above average memory, no verified cases have shown perfect memory recall..." etc etc. Gosh I wish someone from APS' wiki initiative would fix this article. I don't have time.

Eidetic memory is not fictional. Photographic memory is fictional.
The first sentence in this article claims eidetic memory is fictional. This is false, and the Slate article referenced (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/04/kaavya_syndrome.single.html) is clear on this. Here's what the Slate article says, "Photographic memory is often confused with another bizarre—but real—perceptual phenomenon called eidetic memory, which occurs in between 2 and 15 percent of children and very rarely in adults." The word "real" is right there. Seems unambiguously wrong to claim eidetic memory is fictional. Ericsilva (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In popular culture
''This section is moved from the article, where it was tagged as listcruft for being indiscriminate, to talk. It is too long and needs to be pared down to significant, notable or representative examples.'' RJFJR (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Television characters with eidetic memories include
 * Dr. Douglas "Doogie" Howser from Doogie Howser, M.D.
 * Solf J. Kimblee from Fullmetal Alchemist
 * Special Agent Fox Mulder from The X-Files
 * Professor X from X-Men
 * Zack from Where on Earth Is Carmen Sandiego?
 * T.J. Henderson from Smart Guy
 * Max Guevara from Dark Angel
 * Jessica Fletcher from Murder, She Wrote
 * Victoria Sinclair and her uncle Sir George Sinclair from 2008 TV movie The 39 Steps
 * Batman, Bane and Barbara Gordon from Batman
 * Detective Adrian Monk from Monk
 * Marshall Flinkman from Alias
 * Jimmy Neutron from The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius
 * Dr. Spencer Reid from Criminal Minds
 * Dr. Sam Beckett from Quantum Leap
 * Dr. Lexie Grey from Grey's Anatomy
 * Dr. Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory
 * Percival Rose from Nikita
 * Ingrid Third from Fillmore!
 * Shawn Spencer from Psych
 * Olivia Dunham from Fringe
 * Myka Bering from Warehouse 13
 * Mozzie from White Collar
 * Olive Doyle from Disney's A.N.T. Farm
 * Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation
 * Kes and Seven of Nine from Star Trek: Voyager
 * Spock from Star Trek: The Original Series
 * Zoe Heriot and the Eleventh Doctor from Doctor Who
 * Susan Ivanova from Babylon 5
 * Brick Heck from The Middle
 * Charlie Andrews from Heroes
 * H. M. Murdock from The A-Team
 * Mike Ross from Suits
 * Carrie Wells from Unforgettable
 * Malcolm from Malcolm in the Middle
 * Rory Gilmore from The Gilmore Girls
 * Kei Takishima from Special A
 * Glenn Garth Gregory from The Delphi Bureau
 * Ichabod Crane from the Fox series Sleepy Hollow claims to have an Eidetic Memory in the second episode of Season 1
 * Bart Allen from The Flash
 * Nash Bridges from Nash Bridges
 * Zack Addy from Bones
 * Noah Elliot Simon Shaw from The Unbecoming of Mara Dyer

In Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events series, one of the three protagonists, Klaus Baudelaire, is an avid reader and amateur researcher with an eidetic memory. He remembers virtually everything that he reads from books of any kind, even learned many languages. His knowledge and resources often help his other siblings, Violet and Sunny, to escape from dangerous situations, e.g. Count Olaf, the primary antagonist of the series.

Symbologist Robert Langdon from Dan Brown's Angels and Demons, The Da Vinci Code, The Lost Symbol and Inferno has an eidetic memory.

In the Swedish Millennium series by Stieg Larsson (and its accompanying films), the hacker heroine Lisbeth Salander has an eidetic memory.

In the movie Good Will Hunting, the main character, Will Hunting, is said to possess both an extraordinary IQ and an eidetic memory, demonstrated at the bar scene where he confronts a plagiarist.

Significant parts of the plot of Small Gods by Terry Pratchett depend on the hyperthymestic, eidetic memory of the novice Brutha. He remembers every moment of his life in perfect detail, down to the precise location and timing of individual footsteps. He cannot read, but he can nevertheless make perfect reproductions of documents from memory because he remembers the shapes of the letters. When he witnesses a disreputable action and is ordered to forget it, he does not understand the order as he has no concept of "forgetting". When asked what is the first thing that he can remember, he replies "There was a bright light, and then someone hit me".

The novel My Idea of Fun by author Will Self features a protagonist with a powerful eidetic memory, and this is explored extensively by Self. In this novel, the eidetic capabilities of the "Eidetiker" greatly exceed those described in this article.

In keeping with their unusual style, Autechre named track 7 from Confield 'Eidetic Casein' (literally translated, meaning 'photographic milk-proteins').

In Thomas Harris's 1981 novel Red Dragon, protagonist Will Graham is explicitly identified as having an eidetic memory rivaling Hannibal Lecter's.

In the visual novels Jisei, Kansei and Yousei by SakeVisual, one of the characters, Naoki Mizutani, possesses an eidetic memory.

In the comic book series Ruse, Simon Archard, one of the primary protagonists, has an eidetic memory.

In the Mass Effect series, the Drell species possess eidetic memory as a racial trait.

In Sharon Draper's novel Out of My Mind, the character Melody has eidetic memory though she has a condition called "Cerebral Palsy".

In David Foster Wallace's novel Infinite Jest, the character Hal Incandenza has an eidetic memory.

In Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow, the character Bean has a completely flawless eidetic memory.

In Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun, the protagonist Severian has a supposedly eidetic memory.

In Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files, Lasciel, Dresden's temporary mental houseguest, creates a physical persona named Sheila, who helps Dresden with some magical detective work by using her eidetic memory.

Funes the Memorious" or "Funes, His Memory." (original Spanish title: "Funes el memorioso") is a fantasy short story by Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges. First published in La Nación in June 1942, it appeared in the 1944 anthology Ficciones, part two (Artifices).

Deleted bare URL for Wiltshire
Deleted this sentence: "Stephen Wiltshire, an autistic savant, drew an 18' long highly detailed panorama of Manhattan after one 20 minute helicopter ride." because, as noted in Edit History: the link is a bare URL and, anyway, the info is already noted further into the article. The URL is usable, IF someone would care to properly format it and insert it as an additional Ref where pertinent (but any further elaboration is unnecessary in this article, I believe). Penwatchdog (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wogan's Perfect Recall is nothing to do with Eidetic memory
I don't see how Wogan's Perfect Recall, which is a general knowledge quiz, where 'contestants can answer either by knowing the answer or by remembering an answer from previous rounds', has anything to do with Eidetic memory. See this review http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2008/aug/28/1 James317a (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Franco Magnani
Where does Franco Magnani fit into any of this? See http://www.newyorker.com/books/double-take/back-issues-franco-magnani and An Anthropologist on Mars 82.35.199.68 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A small contribution for the record
Here's something from 1972:
 * Although the nature of eidetic memory is still a mystery, objective tests have recently demonstrated that it does exist. … C. F. Stromeyer of Bell Telephone Laboratories, with J. Psotka of Harvard University's Department of Psychology, conducted a series of experiments to 'show the feasibility and objectivity of a new technique for determining the fidelity and duration of eidetic imagery'. … The existence of eidetic imagery was proved when the correct figure in depth became immediately visible.

But note this:
 * While the woman's ability seems to prove Stromeyer's case, no repeat testing was performed and no one else has ever been able to replicate the ability so most scientists and psychologists dismiss it as invalid.

86.166.176.130 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture (again)
"In popular culture" content gives a useful four-part test for such entries:
 * 1) Has the subject (if a person or organization) acknowledged the existence of the reference?
 * 2) Have multiple reliable sources pointed out the reference?
 * 3) Did any real-world event occur because of the cultural element covered by the reference?
 * 4) Did the referencing material significantly depend on the specific subject? For example, if the reference is to a specific model of car, did the material use that model car for some reason, or was it just a case of "use a well-known name of a car"?

Eidetic or photographic memory is very commonly used as a plot device in crime dramas and related genres; any given instance is usually not particularly interesting nor worth documenting in an encyclopedia. It's unclear any of the remaining entries in the "In popular culture" section satisfy any of the above elements. I added a link to the page on tvtropes.org which has a comprehensive list of examples. I think that's sufficient and the list on the article can just be removed. -- Beland (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Hannibal Lecter article tells us that "He has an eidetic memory and a fondness for the method of loci: he has constructed in his mind an elaborate "memory palace" with which he relives memories and sensations in rich detail." But it's unclear on what, if anything, this claim is based. I don't know enough about the Thomas Harris books to know if that word is actually used by him. If not, then the inclusion of Lecter as a example here looks like WP:OR, as well as being trivial. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok agree thanks.Jameswilkinson5 (talk)

Hyperthymesia
It appears that previous users have deleted excess information claiming that it doesn’t “significantly contribute” to the knowledge of eidetic memory for a platform such as Wikipedia. Due to this article’s rather short length, there is plenty of room for examples to help further illustrate this phenomenon. I would suggest adding the example/hyperlink of Jill Price to the section that introduces hyperthymestic syndrome. Originally thought to possess eidetic memory, she was diagnosed with a condition similar to OCD that involves reminiscence of the past leading to superior autobiographical memory. This would tie in well to the exclusions of eidetic memory indicated—such as that the use of mnemonics cannot classify one as possessing eidetic memory. Devinrajan95 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While explicitly adding the Jill Price example to the article is a good idea, it may mislead a passive reader, so perhaps just including a hyperlink is best. The most salient aspect of this article is the statement in the overview - "The popular culture concept of "photographic memory," where someone can briefly look at a page of text and then recite it perfectly from memory, is not the same as seeing eidetic images, and photographic memory has never been demonstrated to exist." However for the entirety of the article, "photographic memory" is referenced and discussed. It makes me ask, "is this article about "eidetic memory of photographic memory?" Perhaps consider changing this for continuity purposes (and/or removing sections that discuss photographic memory). Cnwobu (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I also think adding a link to Jill Price is good. However, I'm not sure the Hyperthymesia paragraph should be in the Overview section. The transition to Hyperthymesia is a little too rough and disjoint. I feel it should maybe have its own subsection perhaps titled "Forms" or "Variations" of eidetic memory. But something I can't even discern from this wiki article is if hyperthymesia is even related to eidetic memory. I think it needs to be made clearer if hyperthymesia is a form or misconception of eidetic memory.RosaYang (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Reorganize Overview for clarity
The first two paragraphs at the beginning of the overview should be reshuffled to improve the section's flow. The sentence "It is found in early childhood (between 2 percent and 10 percent of that age group) and is unconnected with the person's intelligence level" is reiterated two sentences later in slightly greater detail. That sentence should be deleted and the following paragraph should be changed to "Eidetic memory is available only during early childhood (between 2 and 10 percent of children aged 6 to 12) and is virtually nonexistent in adults. Extensive research has failed to demonstrate consistent correlations between the presence of eidetic imagery and any cognitive, intellectual, neurological or emotional measure." This way, the first paragraph introduces what eidetic memory is and how it may change, and the second establishes in whom it may be found. Devinrajan95 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, another suggestion is that the first three paragraphs are wordy and excessive. They could be combined into a single concise paragraph written by one author as opposed three small paragraphs. Ceckersley (talk)
 * I agree with both the above comments. To be combined into one single paragraph would be really good. For example, the sentence in the 3rd paragraph, "The popular culture concept of "photographic memory," where someone can briefly look at a page of text and then recite it perfectly from memory, is not the same as seeing eidetic images, and photographic memory has never been demonstrated to exist," can be added after the definition of eidetic memory. It can be added after the first sentence by saying, "Conversely, photographic memory, where someone can briefly look at a page of text and then recite it perfectly from memory, is different than see eidetic images and has not been demonstrated to exist." Jh470 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Autism Section
I removed the section on autism, since it looks like original research with original conclusions. I couldn't find any studies on autism and eidetic memory. Let99 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?
One concern is that "It should be very clear to readers that 'eidetic images' (in psychology) and 'photographic memory' are not the same things. Photographic memory does not exist, and eidetic images are generally not found in adults and they don't allow people to perform spectacular memory feats. [...] 'Eidetic imagery' in psychology is not 'photographic memory' -- it refers to the brief impression of an image that children sometimes see, and it has nothing to do with adults who memorize things. There is no science to support that." The other concern is that "most of the sources [...] are clear that the terms are used interchangeably or that photographic memory and eidetic memory are the same topic, but that the term eidetic memory is more accurate; if they distinguish photographic memory and eidetic memory at all, it's only slightly. In other words, sources usually treat these topics side by side and as the same thing while other sources distinguish them or slightly distinguish them."

So the issue is this: Should we be strict in stating that eidetic memory and photographic memory are not the same thing? Or should we should initially treat the terms as the same thing, with "photographic memory" as the WP:Alternative title, and then relay that the terms are sometimes distinguished? Sources for examining the terminological matter are below. If viewing this from the RfC page or an alert on your talk page, the full discussion starts at Talk:Eidetic memory. I will alert WP:WikiProject Psychology and WP:Biology to this discussion.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This old signature is from my previous posting of this RfC. This is take 2. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I moved RFC to the bottom, where new sections go, otherwise it is inconvenient, attachig it to a thread started 8 years ago. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also notice that the RFC topic is also raised in several other talk threads. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Staszek Lem, yeah, I thought about moving the RfC to the bottom, but I opted to keep it higher since that discussion, while started all those years ago, continued to present day. Anyway, thanks for weighing in below and for any help you can provide with the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment of Staszek Lem

 * (Answering RFC request) I agree that the RFC question deserves attention. I am not an expert in the subject (psychology of memory) and I don't believe I edited articles on the subject. Therefore here is my "unadulterated" opinion...
 * IMO the current article does not address the question in a satisfactory way.
 * The article claim that some state "the photographic memory does not exist" . However let me notice that the statement of existence of eidetic memory is basically not falsifiable either: it is impossible to verify whether the subject does recall with high precision; after all, what is "high"?
 * The latter point brings me to another one: I have an impression that eidetic memory is rather a person's perception of their own memory, and as such, it is documented.
 * In the same way, AFAIK there are documented cases that people can recall a page of text. I could to it myself, from my old pocket phonebook befor iphones :-) Of course I saw it vividly due to countless glancing at it, but it is not unreasonable to believe some can do it after 30 sec of staring.
 * The sources cited must be read carefully, because it seems they are talking about different things. This is especially problematic when you are trying to cite popscience articles, where even advanced scientists may be sloppy. For example "Sci Am" article cited that claims that "photographic memory does not exist". In fact says that absolute photomemory does not exist. But this is trivial: it is simply impossible to prove that it exists or not, as I explained above. Moreover the author himself says "Most of us do have a kind of photographic memory ". Now, the question remains which "kind of photographic memory" is "true" photographic memory?
 * I can continue criticizing, but let me just repeat: the question does deserve clarification:
 * Definitions (possibly different and even mutually contradictory) must come from scholarly sources which specifically did research on the subject
 * Popscience refs (Slate, SciAm, etc.) must be used sparingly and with extreme careful reading what they say and how they argue. In this respect, sorry SciAm, big FAIL.
 * I don't have time now, but I would be interested to work on the improvement of this article. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've called the popular science sourcing poor. I presented it above, though, because it's what the other editor argued with and it's currently used in the article. As seen, I also provided scholarly sources. But there is not as much research on this topic as one would hope for. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted Let99 yet again. Well, this piece was made by an IP. Not sure if that IP is Let99. I soon restored these two bits by Let99. But I must reiterate, Let99, that Wikipedia does not care for your assertions that "photographic memory doesn't exist." It cares about what the sources state, with WP:Due weight. I have provided a number of sources supporting my point that "that 'most of the sources [...] are clear that the terms are used interchangeably or that photographic memory and eidetic memory are the same topic, but that the term eidetic memory is more accurate; if they distinguish photographic memory and eidetic memory at all, it's only slightly. In other words, sources usually treat these topics side by side and as the same thing while other sources distinguish them or slightly distinguish them.'"


 * As for you adding "that is found in some children" to the lead, for the eidetic memory part, the sources are clear that eidetic memory is not only attributed to children; it overwhelmingly is, but not exclusively. So I don't think we should be limiting eidetic memory to children in the lead. Furthermore, the second paragraph of the lead already states, "Eidetic images occur in a small number of children and generally are not found in adults." If I need to start another WP:RfC on this terminology matter, I will. But I ask that you listen to what I stated above, and to what Staszek Lem argued above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That wasn't my edit. One of your last changes to my edits cites only a self-published book by some random person, not a credible source. Do you have any background in human memory? You are picking little, random snippets from books that aren't correct. Let99 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn - Please read this article very closely, in particular this:
 * "Photographic memory is often confused with another bizarre—but real—perceptual phenomenon called eidetic memory, which occurs in between 2 and 15 percent of children and very rarely in adults. An eidetic image is essentially a vivid afterimage that lingers in the mind's eye for up to a few minutes before fading away. Children with eidetic memory never have anything close to perfect recall, and they typically aren't able to visualize anything as detailed as a body of text. [emphasis added]"
 * The two things are "confused" with each other, not "distinguished". If you are deeply familiar with human memory, you should know this. If you aren't then you shouldn't have such firm opinions about the page. Let99 (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you object to my rewordings, I've inserted a direct quote into the article that explicitly says that they are two different things that are frequently confused with each other. That other self-published, self-help book is not a reliable source. Let99 (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Let99, I've reverted you again, per what has been argued by Staszek Lem and me above. Slate is a poor source for this topic, and does not take priority over the quality scholarly sources I listed above. You repeatedly stating that eidetic memory and photographic memory are two different things is at odds with a number of sources. You steadily repeating that they are two different things without providing any sources to back you up on that, except the Slate source or some other popular culture source, and then using that rationale to alter the article is WP:Disruptive. And you adding quotes from your nitpicked sources is a WP:Undue weight problem. As for WP:Self-published sources, this set of sources, from Cengage Learning, ABC-CLIO, Pearson Higher Education, and Oxford University Press are not WP:Self-published, and they disagree with your assertion that eidetic memory and photographic memory are two different things. If you were referring to the The Roving Mind: A Modern Approach to Cognitive Enhancement source, I don't see that it's self-published, but I did state of it above: "I'm not sure about that source; this is because I don't know the reliability of the publisher, and that author's credentials are lacking for this topic." However, I only added that source for a little piece of the wording, to go beside the Slate source, and the Slate source is not much better than the The Roving Mind: A Modern Approach to Cognitive Enhancement source. As for you suggesting that you have a background in human memory, you should be using much better sources than Slate then. I am repeating the WP:RfC I started above, by adding a fresh template to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The self-published book that you reinserted is not credible source. Did you read the Slate author's book or know what it's based on? If not, you should read it. Let99 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Let99, as made clear, a number of reliable sources disagree with you, and editors are clear that the Slate source is poor and should not be used as authoritative. So do stop focusing on what you call the self-published source. And at least prove that it's self-published if you are going to call it that. Edit warring like this is not going to do you any favors. You should be letting this RfC play out without disruption, and following the rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Montanabw

 * Distinguish: Clearly they are not identical and this article should make that clear, with citations to solid, WP:SCIRS sources.  This situation reminds me of my pet peeve, the confusion of dissociative identity disorder (DID, and a severe variant is popularly known as "multiple personalities") with schizophrenia, which is not a "split personality".  Similar sloppiness here.   Montanabw (talk)  15:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, thanks for weighing in. The article already distinguishes them (see the lead and the "Eidetic memory or photographic memory" section). What I object to is the article being strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing. Like I noted above, "there are various sources stating that terms are used interchangeably or that photographic memory and eidetic memory are the same topic, but that the term eidetic memory is more accurate; if they distinguish photographic memory and eidetic memory at all, it's only slightly. In other words, sources usually treat these topics side by side and as the same thing while other sources distinguish them or slightly distinguish them."


 * I have not come across any good sources stating that they are not the same thing. And all the opposing editor has offered is the aforementioned Slate source for stating that they are not the same thing. WP:Verifiability is for presenting both sides, and with WP:Due weight. And that's what I've been doing in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm all for due weight, and explaining the controversy, how they are and are not identical. But to do so requires solid sources, and Slate is iffy for this unless someone can find and review their underlying sources.  Montanabw (talk)  19:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Montanabw. The current article is very misleading. They are not the same thing, but readers are getting the impression that they are. Not all textbooks get it right either. At least one of the cited textbooks appeared to be wrong about this topic. There is no such thing as photographic memory, but even some psychologists don't know that. Eidetic imagery is something else. This page is an example of Wikipedia near its worst. Let99 (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * After seemingly reviewing the sources, it seems that Montanabw does not agree with the way you have been trying to present the article. She stated that she is for WP:Due weight and presenting both sides, and "Slate is iffy for this unless someone can find and review their underlying sources." Other editors, such as Caeciliusinhorto and Permstrump below, are also clear that the Slate source is poor and should not be used as authoritative. We don't get to discard what quality textbook sources state because you think they got it wrong in this case and are clinging to the Slate source to make your arguments. Look at what Permstrump stated below, with sources, and allow him to craft the article based on those sources and/or on what some sources I listed state. If you notice, some of the sources he listed are distinguishing photographic memory and eidetic memory, but to strictly state that they are not the same thing goes against the literature. Stating that they are sometimes distinguished does comply with the literature and the WP:Due weight policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a fair assessment. We need to balance the content, present the issues fairly, and most of all, find the original studies that underlie articles such as the one in Slate. On this article WP:SCIRS is the wisest approach and we have to not sensationalize beyond what the professional literature supports.  Montanabw (talk)  02:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Other opinions?
The previous RfC on this was a bust (by that, I mean only one person weighed in, and the dispute continued afterward), and I don't want this one to be a bust as well. So pining Fieari, Pincrete, KateWishing, Legitimus, DrkBlueXG and Caeciliusinhorto for their opinions (if they have any) on this. They recently offered helpful comments in another terminological dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've also queried for opinions at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard (seen here) and the WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (seen here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist, I have not looked into all of the sources listed, I am certainly not an expert on human memory. That said, my previous (non-specialist) understanding of the terms was something like this:
 * "Eidetic memory" and "photographic memory" are used interchangeably by popular/pop-science sources.
 * Photographic memory, as understood in popular culture (i.e. long-term perfect recall of scenes/text/information, without the use of mnemonics like the method of loci) doesn't exist (or at least hasn't been demonstrated to exist).
 * There is a real phenomenon of eidetic memory which differs in some way from the popular conception.
 * Reading through this talkpage and the article, it seems that my understanding isn't completely wrong.
 * To return to the question: it seems that the idea that photographic memory and eidetic memory are separate things, one of which exists and one of which doesn't, has been backed up throughout this talkpage with reference to Foer's Slate article (if another source has been given, I've missed it). Foer might be considered an expert on memory, but he isn't a trained psychologist, and Slate is aimed at a popular, not a scientific audience: if that's the only source claiming that the two concepts must be rigorously distinguished, I think it would be undue weight to state that as fact
 * I would be inclined to have a lead which said something like:


 * Would that work? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what said is getting closer and it's along the lines of what I thought at first too, but then I spent some time researching it and I learned it's even more nuanced than that. It turns out another reason it's so hard to find a straight answer is because there are multiple schools of thought within the field about what eidetic imagery is and it's been an ongoing debate since the 60s. So on top of teasing apart photographic memory vs eidetic imagery, I think we need to articulate the controversy in the field about what eidetic imagery means too. I found a couple of review articles, so I think I finally have a pretty good hold on who/what the prominent scholars/views in the field are. Here are some quotes that touch on what I see as the main points of view on the topic that need to be articulated more clearly in the lead/body. (my emphasis underlined)
 * Turtle and Want, 2008: "A popular intuitive idea about memory, that involves a memory-as-photograph metaphor, is that some people are blessed with what is commonly called a 'photographic' memory. That is, some people are capable of faithfully and completely capturing the details of what they see and can then recall those details accurately when asked ..."
 * Higbee, 2008*: " Eidetic imagery is probably the source of the notion of photographic memory, but it differs from the popular notion of photographic memory in several ways : (1) The eidetic image fades away soon after viewing the scene. It does not stay with a person over a prolonged period of time, but lasts for a few seconds to a few minutes. (2) The eidetic image is affected by the subjective state of the viewer. The image may contain additions, omissions, or distortions, and the aspects of the scene that are of most interest to the person tend to be reproduced in most detail. The image is not an objective reproduction like a camera photograph. (3) The person does not take a split-second snapshot but requires a viewing time of several seconds to scan the scene. (4) Images can not be brought back once they have faded away; thus, people with eidetic imagery do not seem to be able to use their EI to improve long-term memory."
 * Cook and Wilson, 2010: " Incidentally, the existence of eidetic imagery is itself controversial, and the concept has been persistently 'defined downward' since the failure to validate early claims of photographic memory (Gray & Gummerman, 1975)."
 * Gray and Gummerman, 1975**: "There are two major viewpoints concerning eidetic imagery and other perceptual-cognitive abilities. The more popular view is that eidetic imagery is unique; the other view, which suggests that eidetic imagery differs from other types of visual imagery in degree only, not in kind, seems to provide the more promising approach... Eidetic imagery is well known for its "perceptlike" character, its rarity, and the fact that it is poorly understood . A phenomenon fit for introductory psychology texts, it is typically defined as, 'the ability to retain an accurate, detailed visual image of a complex scene or pattern' (Landauer, 1972) or 'the ability, possessed by a minority of people, to 'see' an image that is an exact copy of the original sensory experience' (Kagan & Havemann, 1972)."
 * * Higbee (2008) is a self-help book, not written by an expert, but what Higbee is saying is well supported by the sources and where all of the academic sources were unnecessarily esoteric, Higbee was one of the only sources that pulled them all together well in a clearly articulated way. I don't know that we should necessarily use it in the article, but I wanted to quote it here because I found it helpful for my own understanding and thought other people might too. **Gray and Gummerman (1975) might seem outdated, but it's still one of the most widely cited sources in the current literature. There are plenty of more recent secondary sources we could use to reference Gray and Gummerman, but for now I'm just quoting them for the same reason I used the self-help book on the talk page.


 * Academic conception of photographic memory:
 * Anders, 1985: "The notion that a visual image is stored directly (cf. photographic memory) lacks empirical support from performance. In fact, the available data are inconsistent with such an idea."
 * Crowder (in Byrne ed), 2003 (ISBN 9780028659190): "Photographic memory is the general claim that people can "still see in front of them" things that were experienced in the past."
 * Haber and Haber, 2000: "*We shall not consider photographic memory, because although some people claim to be able to merely glance at a page or scan faces in a crowd and then reproduce what they saw afterward, scientific tests of such performance have shown that virtually nobody has this ability"
 * Higbee, 2008: "Most psychologist do not believe in this popular notion of a photographic memory, although there is a valid phenomenon called eidetic imagery that is somewhat similar to this notion."
 * Cook and Wilson 2010: "...quickly grasping the whole image, somewhat like capturing an image with a camera..."
 * Perfect, 2013: "...representations isomorphic to the world that could be retrieved essentially perfectly."


 * Academic conception of eidetic imagery:
 * Atkin, 1977: "...eidetic imagery is most appropriately considered as a developmentally distinct phenomenon, which serves in early development as the initial storage mechanism for visual information".
 * Haeger, 1990: "Eidetic memory -- the term in psychology which denotes an ability to recall images with picture-like vividness and uncanny accuracy"
 * Schwitzgebel, 2002: "Eidetic imagery has been characterized as imagery of prior but now absent visual stimulation".
 * Turtle and Want 2008: Eidetikers claim to still see the pictures projected onto the easel, and they describe them as though they were still perceptually present...The primary difference between an eidetic image and an ordinary visual memory, therefore, seems to be the perceived location of the image, not its accuracy. That is, eidetic images are experienced as “out there” rather than “in the head.” In addition, the apparent vividness of eidetic images is reportedly relatively short-lived (lasting, at most, several minutes), and most eidetikers report being unable to bring back the images once they have faded.
 * Higbee, 2008: "...there is a valid phenomenon that is somewhat similar to the popular notion of photographic memory, which psychologists call 'eidetic imagery.' The word eidetic means “identical” or “duplicative.” Eidetic imagery is a very strong visual afterimage that enables a person to duplicate a picture mental and describe it in detail shortly after looking at it."


 * Difference between eidetic imagery and photographic memory:
 * Turtle and Want (2008): "...it is descriptions of an enigmatic phenomenon called 'eidetic imagery' that seem to come closest to intuitive ideas concerning photographic memory. People who experience eidetic imagery (so-called 'eidetikers') are reportedly able to continue to 'see' images of visual scenes that are no longer present...at first blush, this remarkable ability sounds much like the result of some kind of photographic memory system. Surely, here are individuals who are storing information much like photographs, capturing complete, detailed, and accurate visual images of scenes, and being able to access, examine, and report on them at will? Not quite. If there is one thing that is clear from research on this remarkable phenomenon, it is that whatever eidetikers are actually seeing, it is not an especially accurate visual image. In fact, even though eidetikers claim to be able to still see vivid images of the pictures after they have been removed from the easel and confidently report the details of those pictures, the details that they report are no more accurate than the details reported from ordinary people’s hazily experienced visual memories...Eidetic images, even though they seem to be experienced differently from ordinary visual memories, are as much constructions of the visual scene as are ordinary visual memories and are, thus, subject to the same errors."
 * Gray and Gummerman, 1975: "...the textbook description of eidetic imagery as a photographic memory is misleading."
 * Altkin, 1977: "...past research does not substantiate the extreme view which equates eidetic imagery with "photographic memory..."
 * Shimamura, 1984: "Eidetic imagery is different than photographic memory since distortions and errors are reported".
 * Crowder (in Byrne ed), 2003 (ISBN 9780028659190): "Nothing captures better the popular belief in "photographic memory" than the term eidetic imagery, although the latter hardly supports the exaggerated claims made for the former capacity. Photographic memory is the general claim that people can "still see in front of them" things that were experienced in the past. Eidetic imagery, on the other hand, is more closely tied to objective experimental criteria...Thus, systematic work on eidetic imagery indicates that it shares practically nothing with the popular concept of photographic memory. The apparent absence of eidetic imagery among adults and the fact that it is not predictive of particularly good memory for detail make it a poor basis for claims of photographic memory."
 * Hochman, 1998 (ISBN 0591876353): " the eidetic as a form of memory has been discussed, from its erroneous description as a photographic image to its current statement as an experiential image of profound developmental import".
 * |isbn=9780313321979 Roeckelein, 2004: "...in common parlance, people who experience eidetic imagery are described often as possessing a "photographic memory." Kluver (1928, p.70) states that "eidetic images may be almost photographic in fidelity," but Haber (1979, p.590) states that "eidetic imagery is not photographic" (also see Haber [1980])."
 * Higbee, 2008: "Most psychologist do not believe in this popular notion of a photographic memory, although there is a valid phenomenon called eidetic imagery that is somewhat similar to this notion..."


 * I'll make a suggestion for the lead tomorrow, because this is a long comment already. Send me an email if there's a paywall source you want to read and I'll send you the PDF. —PermStrump  ( talk )  05:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Caeciliusinhorto and Permstrump, I appreciate you weighing in. Nice suggestion for the lead, Caeciliusinhorto. Like Permstrump stated, it's not just that "eidetic memory" and "photographic memory" are used interchangeably by popular/pop-science sources; it's that they are used that way by academic sources as well, and that's what I've been trying to get through to Let99, who stated a little above, "There is no such thing as photographic memory, but even some psychologists don't know that. Eidetic imagery is something else. This page is an example of Wikipedia near its worst." He does not seem to understand WP:Due weight and going by what the sources state rather than our personal opinions. And I'm tired of him editing the article based on his personal opinions and edit warring on this subject. The Gray and Gummerman, 1975 source relays what I've been stating about the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, Permstrump, I'm wondering about noting the term eidetic imagery as a WP:Alternative name; I know that it has its own Wikipedia article, as you noted below, but sources do seem to use the term eidetic imagery, eidetic memory and photographic memory as synonyms, especially eidetic imagery and eidetic memory. Let's remember to keep in mind the interchangeability aspect. I'll relist here some sources I cited above:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Convenience break
, which one are you suggesting should be the actual name of the article and which one the alternative name? I haven't really decided my own opinion yet, but I wasn't sure which you meant. There seem to be plenty of sources that at least acknowledge there might be a discrepancy between "photographic memory" and "eidetic imagery/memory", but has anyone seen any sources that offer an explanation about the difference between eidetic "imagery" and eidetic "memory"? I don't think I've come across that yet. I know there is technically a difference between "imagery" and "memory" if we were talking about the field as a whole, but I'm not convinced in this case that authors were deliberately differentiating, because I haven't seen anyone even acknowledge that people are referring to eidetics using different terminology. I honestly think the sources that say eidetic "memory" were a slip of the tongue, so-to-speak, because the authors already had "photographic memory" on their minds. I think "photographic memory" is compared to eidetic "imagery" in the all of the academic literature that covers it in depth, so if I had to guess, I think that is the "right" term. —PermStrump ( talk )  05:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Permstrump, I haven't been arguing for a rename of the article. When, above, I stated, "I'm wondering about noting the term eidetic imagery as a WP:Alternative name," I was simply referring to noting it in the lead of the Eidetic memory article since that is what we usually do with significant alternative names. I was suggesting that because it seems that, per the section below, the Eidetic imagery article will eventually be merged with this one, and because, like I stated, "sources do seem to use the term eidetic imagery, eidetic memory and photographic memory as synonyms, especially eidetic imagery and eidetic memory." But as for moving "Eidetic memory" to "Eidetic imagery," I'm not sure about that.


 * On a side note: Since this article and talk page are on my watchlist, there's no need to ping me to this discussion. Would you prefer I stop pinging you to this discussion as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump, regarding this edit you made, like I noted here, I'm not sure about using "sometimes called photographic memory" instead of "or photographic memory." This is because the "or" wording lets the terms stand on their own, making it clear that either term may be defined the way that the first sentence defines them...without explicitly stating that they are the same thing. Then the second sentence addresses the fact that they may be considered the same thing or distinguished, and it explains how. Using "sometimes called photographic memory" can make it seem that any definition of eidetic memory is also known as photographic memory. But as we've observed with sources, this isn't the case. I don't think "sometimes called photographic memory" is needed when the rest of the lead already makes clear the distinguishing aspect. There's also the fact that, going by some of the sources I listed, eidetic memory and photographic memory are equated more often than just "sometimes." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The version with "or photographic memory" reads to me like the first sentence says the terms are synonymous and then contradicts itself in the following sentence, which seems confusing. The source I cited, Schwitzgebel 2002, said, "...eidetic imagery, sometimes popularly (but in the view of many theoreticians inaccurately) referred to as 'photographic memory'". Most of the sources that say the terms are synonymous without questioning it, say so in a passing mention in articles that are only superficially covering memory or imagery, if they're even really covering those topics at all. It seems to me like the highest quality sources on the topic (i.e., the peer-reviewed sources written by scholars who are actually experts in this niche field) either explicitly differentiate the terms or make sure to acknowledge there's contention. Schwitzgebel is a philosophy professor who has published multiple papers in peer-reviewed journals on this specific topic, and he's also disconnected from the controversy, which for the past 30+ years mainly seems to be among the same group of academics in the psych/neuropsych field (I actually read a source that says as much, but don't have it off hand), so I think Schwitzgebel is a good as a secondary source that can reliably offer an interpretation of the experts' views, which to me, is best reflected by saying "sometimes called photographic memory". Maybe we need a fresh pair of eyes though, because it's getting hard for me to read the first paragraph pretending like I'm reading it for the first time and no nothing about the topic except popular conceptions of "photographic memory". —PermStrump  ( talk )  04:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't view the "or" wording as a contradiction; this is because it's common for the leads of Wikipedia articles to have the most common definition of a topic first and to then list other definitions or explain that there is a dispute regarding how to define the topic. Starting off by defining the topic one way and then noting that it may be defined another way doesn't negate the first definition. The first sentence states "is an ability to vividly recall images from memory after only a few instances of exposure, with high precision for a brief time after exposure, without using a mnemonic device." I don't see that as problematic since both terms may be thought of as that way. The second sentence states, "Although the terms eidetic memory and photographic memory may be used interchangeably, they are also distinguished, with eidetic memory referring to the ability to view memories like photographs for a few minutes, and photographic memory referring to the ability to recall page or text numbers, or similar, in great detail." I don't see how that conflicts with the first sentence. The first sentence is a simple definition and the second sentence is an elaboration. The "sometimes called photographic memory" aspect does, however, conflict because of what the elaboration states. What the elaboration states is why I prefer a simple sentence that defines both terms, and then a sentence or two about how they are distinguished, like what is already there or something like what Caeciliusinhorto suggested in the section above.


 * As for your statement that "[m]ost of the sources that say the terms are synonymous without questioning it, say so in a passing mention in articles that are only superficially covering memory or imagery," the sources I listed in the "Other opinions?" section are specifically about memory or specifically psychology and the mind or brain. One of the sources, the "Carol Turkington, Joseph Harris (2010)" one, even addresses what most experts in the field think; it states, "Most experts suspect that eidetic imagery is not a different kind of visual memory, but just a greater skill in the ability to form visual images that everyone possesses to some degree. While eidetic imagery is most likely the source of the concept of a photographic memory, there are differences in the two concepts. An eidetic image fades soon after one sees the original image and does not stay with a person over time. The image is subjective, and the details of greatest interest to the person are the ones most easily reproduced. Moreover, a person cannot form an eidetic image in one second, as a camera can snap a photo; several seconds are required to scan the picture. Once the picture has faded away, eidetic images cannot be retrieved. Those who can form eidetic images do not seem to be able to use their special ability to improve long-term memory."


 * So I don't think we should be discarding these sources or considering them lesser sources when they are from scholars who seem to be experts on memory and/or psychology and when most of them are WP:Secondary sources, which are preferred over WP:Primary sources. Either way, I'm not sure how much weight the expert opinion should get in the case of primary sources or very old sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As for more eyes on this matter, I've clearly tried. Not many people are interested in helping out in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are two phenomena, one real and one fictitious. The RFC asks us to give opinions on whether the article should make it clear that they are not "the same thing". This was probably not the best way to ask the question, as one of them is not a "thing" at all. But I agree that it should be made clear in the lead that statements about "photographic memory" are largely bullshit. Maproom (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Further comment. Now that I've read Eidetic imagery, I have changed my view. It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide whether these two terms refer to "the same thing", just as it would be wrong to claim that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are the same thing and therefore those articles should be merged. What matters is whether published experts in the field believe them to be the same thing. It might be best to cite an expert on eidetic memory stating that it is "different from 'photographic memory', which does not exist". Maproom (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Maproom. Did you look at the sources I listed? They are listed at the beginning of the RfC, and, when it comes to sources treating the terms as synonymous, in the section. Like I noted a little above, these sources are from scholars who seem to be experts on memory and/or psychology and most of them are WP:Secondary sources. Secondary sources are preferred over WP:Primary sources. Some of these sources are clear that photographic memory and eidetic memory commonly mean the same thing, and also note that experts are even skeptical of eidetic memory. For example, the 2014 "Biological Psychology" source I listed above states, "Eidetic memory [...] This type of memory refers to occasions when people claim to be able to recall a very detailed visual image for a long period of time. This type of memory is commonly known as photographic memory and is very rare (with some researchers claiming that eidetic memories do not exist at all)." The 2014 "Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding" source I listed in the Skepticism section of the article states, "Some psychologists believe that eidetic memory reflects an unusually long persistence of the iconic image in some lucky people. More recent evidence raises questions about whether any memories are truly photographic (Rothen, Meier & Ward, 2012). Eidetikers' memories are clearly remarkable, but they are rarely perfect. Their memories often contain minor errors, including information that was not present in the original visual stimulus. So even eidetic memory often appears to be reconstructive."


 * So, given what a number of reliable sources relay on this topic, I don't see that we can strictly distinguish eidetic memory from photographic memory. The RfC does not simply ask us to give opinions on whether the article should make it clear that they are not the same thing; it's about whether we should be strict in stating that they are not the same thing. I am all for noting that they are sometimes distinguished, which is what the article already does, but being strict about stating that they are not the same thing is at conflict with various reliable sources and goes against the WP:Neutral policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Close discussion
A close discussion took place at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure; it is now located at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 22. In that discussion, I explained why I reverted the close. Per Closing discussions, the closer should be a neutral party. Rhoark and I have a tempestuous history, and so I do not consider him a neutral party when it comes to closing a RfC I started. I also noted the following to Rhoark about photographic memory vs eidetic memory: I don't see any consensus that we should be strict in stating that they are not the same thing. And your close begins by noting that definitions for the topic are not consistent. But then you stated, "There seems to be agreement that the article should more clearly partition its material to being about one concept or the other, but should not over-emphasize terminology as a way to distinguish the two." Why did you state that? How can the article more clearly be about one subject or the other, given the interchangeability of the terms? See the "Eidetic memory or photographic memory" section of the Eidetic memory article. That is a needed section. Do you mean that the article should pretty much stay as it is, with the lead noting the interchangeability and distinguishing aspects, and that one section going into further detail, but the rest of the article focusing specifically on eidetic memory (as in the one with more scientific backing)?

He responded, and I don't fully agree with his reasoning. So my revert was not solely about the editor who closed the discussion. Days ago, Jc37 came along and reverted my undo of the close, no doubt to take away from the backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. He reverted me stating, "neutrally undoing closure revert without endorsement." Jc37, may I ask: Why would you undo the revert "without endorsement"? Why wouldn't you assess the RfC and close the RfC with your own rationale? Yes, you explained in the aforementioned discussion why you reverted me, but I disagree with your viewpoint. I didn't state that Rhoark was WP:INVOLVED; in fact, I was clear that the WP:INVOLVED policy does not apply to Rhoark since he is not an administrator. If he was an administrator, that policy absolutely would apply to him. It states, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." So I don't see why you or Rhoark should think it's a appropriate for him to close a RfC I started. Despite the fact that if I made my case at WP:AN or WP:ANI about why Rhoark shouldn't be closing a RfC or any other discussion I started, a number of administrators would agree with me, I'm going to drop this close matter. I simply do not want anyone thinking that it's appropriate for an editor to close an RfC when the RfC was started by someone the editor has a tempestuous history with. If something like this happens again, then I will consider addressing it at WP:AN or WP:ANI. I advise Jc37 to not pursue this at WP:AN or WP:ANI; at this time, I'm not interested in pursuing this drama. And from what I see, this RfC concerns a topic that people generally are not interested in anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Eidetic imagery is a separate article apparently
From what I can tell in the literature, eidetic "memory" is either a misnomer or a synonym for eidetic imagery, but not a separate concept, so it doesn't make sense for there to be two articles the way there are. IMO they should either be merged or this one should be moved to "photographic memory" with a focus on presenting the pop culture myth and scientific consensus debunking it. I see this has been discussed before, but the old conversations are hard to follow, because the names of the articles have been changed. —PermStrump ( talk )  15:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the separate issue is a mess. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I just took a closer look at the eidetic imagery article and it's full of fringe psychology. In reference to "eidetic psychotherapy": "The eidetic image is unusually clear and has the ability to reproduce important life events with clarity. Through the eidetic image, one can re-experience a life event with all of its basic elements intact...These special images are neurologically recorded in the brain and systematically stored away for future reference. At any time, the image can be revisited and the details explored at will."←Cited to primary sources from the 1950s and 1960s. I'm going to have to remember to go back to work on that article too. —PermStrump  ( talk )  02:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to merge until the above issue is resolved. We need to have at least one article in a stable form.   Montanabw (talk)  02:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Long-Term Memory again!
I was surprised at the article. It has reinforced something that I have noticed over the years. That the beliefs in a topic, even a scientific topic, change with the times. When I looked at the citations to the article after suspecting that they are all fairly recent, sure enough there were none older than the 1970s. I suspected this from reading the article because the general attitude toward the subject is very different from what it was back in the 1950s and 60s. Then, from my reading, both eidetic memory and photographic memory, in my experience, were discussed as accepted fact. Also the range of the content is narrower than what I read back then. For example, the only cited example I see refers to the stereo pair recognition, and is the only a single anecdotal example. Also this stuff is parroted around the web almost word for word.....but back to my story, back then, I read about the stereo pair recognition, but it was a delay of one week, not one day. Other examples I read about back then were random dot replacement examples....where a random dot pattern was created and then partly erased, then a copy was made, and the erase portions were replaced with a second random dot pattern such that there was no information about the replacement. Only the two sheets compared could distinguish where the dots were identical, and where the dots were different. The articles I read then spoke of multiple subjects that could do this. There were stereo pair examples where the pattern had been modified to change the depth of the random dot surface so that a 3D object could be seen. Sorry, no citations, because you see, I don't remember them. Although, it seems to me that it might have been the Scientific American or perhaps Science News Letter (later changed to Science News and probably no longer published). That is interesting if it turned out I remembered correctly, because I checked and found a couple of more recent articles that seemed to reflect the style of what I see written in this article...and came to very different conclusions about the existence of these kinds of memories from the much older articles.

I've noticed this change of information of the day in other regards. The record of simultaneous chess games was 64 when I was a young man. In trying to find reference to that in more recent times, I failed, but found instead references to somewhat lesser accomplishments as being the top record.

Again there are still other topics I have seen a change with the times. The works of Eric Brene one of the most important principles in the TA movement which once were vary popular. Then a number of years ago I came across the International Association of Transnational Analysis web site which disparaged his work. Some years later I went to supposedly the same web site, and he was again in good graces. The interesting part of it is that I went, if I remember correctly, Claude Steiner, a one time colleague of Eric Berne. He was surprised to hear what I said and asked me to find the web information about this flip, which I was not able to do.

Why I mentioned it here, is because my sense of the disparaging of Berne was a year or two after the phrase "stonewalling" come into vogue...which you will notice, it is no longer commonly used as it was then....it use, was simply the aftermath of that day and age of Watergate, where politicians and others in various walks of life learned from the popular machinations of the day. They noticed the importance of discrediting ones opponent and destroying any beliefs and trust in them. These tend to stick around a few years and then go away as some other style of interaction comes into vogue. In the case of Eric Berne..I believe that the site had been taken over for a while by a Doctor who had his own style of therapy to push and so he was disparaging Eric Berne to knock him down from his fame of the time in order to replace it with his own dog and pony show.....a method that was popular at that time of our history....you know, the sort of thing you see for a while, but don't notice it a few years after or a few years before. In the early days, the International Association of Transaction Analysis web site....not the same web sites that are around now...was a wealth of interesting information about all kinds of wonderful books across the spectrum of help and self help including the TA books like Games People Play, What do you say after you say hello, Borne to Win, and other Eric Berne, Murial James, Claude Steiner etc. Later the site eliminated all the none TA books....which was a real loss...I used to give away their catalog of books as gifts, it was so good. TA started down hill then, and the disparaging Berne version came along, and then that all changed as people moved on and others took their place. I haven't looked at what TA is doing these days. It is probably very different from what I have been talking about from my memory.

Here is the critical point: The disparagement of photographic memory and the like that I am generally seeing on the web, is not too different in Style as the disparagement of Eric Berne. If I were to investigate, which I'm not going to bother to do, I suspect that I would find someone or organization in the woodwork who has his own ideas of how things really are or what they want people to think they really are....and for whatever reason, has decided that it is in their interest that there not be anything like photographic memory or eidetic memory. Perhaps it is simply part of the general propaganda machine which has been disparaging powerful individuals abilities....the purpose being to knock down heros, or belief in individual capabilities.....I've personally seen this technique aimed at Richard Feynman, in a circulated apocryphal story about him not being such a good guy and yelling at a student that the student was stupid....I heard that story from three different sources when I was consulting at an IBM facility, told by some very conservative, politically ideological characters that I had met there. Now that I got a few people riled up. Let me say that what I just wrote is just a little tongue in cheek, but to good cause....to get you to stop and think a bit, and maybe take a different look at the situation....we need people to think things through a bit considering the Trump politics of the day.

Now one other fact I must tell you. You see, I used to have a photographic memory, but my flash attachment broke. 50.0.36.88 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why did you title this post "Long-Term Memory again!"? I don't see that your post is about long-term memory. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Same editor again
Let99, if you keep returning after months to make the same contested changes, I will be reporting this as an example of a slow WP:Edit war on your part. Regarding these changes I reverted, it is not you making anything clearer. It is you editing with your POV mindset. You have no WP:Reliable sources to support something like "but in many cases they have different meanings." I and others presented our case in the above RfC; there, I presented a number of reliable sources. Editors agree that your sources are poor. As usual, you disappeared. That RfC is now closed; you are not supposed to comment in it now that it's been closed, which is why I reverted you here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I made a change to the wording here regarding "may be." Like I noted with that edit, I would rather not use "sometimes" in place of "may be" since enough sources are clear that the terms are commonly used interchangeably. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I don't login to Wikipedia often. I logged in, saw the notifications, checked the page, and cleaned it up with different revisions. I didn't revert anything, but respectfully left your edits. You don't own the page. You aren't the designated gatekeeper of this article. You suggested some edits. I suggested some edits. Other people suggested some edits. Eventually, the page will evolve into a form that is closer to the truth. Let99 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "May be" indicates permission. "Sometimes" indicates a passive detachment -- some people use the memory terms interchangeably, just like some people use irregardless interchangeably with regardless, but one would not write in a dictionary or encycolpedia that "irregardless may be used interchangeably with regardless." It is more accurate to say "irregardless is sometimes used interchangeably with regardless." Mixed usage is a result of ignorance, and it is only valid English because some people do it. Let99 (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit to the closed RfC again. If you add anything there one more time, you will be reported for disruption. You are correct that I do not own your comments, but Wikipedia has rules. That you don't login into Wikipedia often is one reason you are not familiar with those rules. We are not going to wait for you to comment every few months. You had the opportunity to keep arguing your case in the RfC. You left and that RfC is now over. It is marked as closed. The top of the RfC clearly states, "The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows." You inserted wording into the article that somewhat undermined the RfC. It was not at all proven that eidetic memory and photographic memory have different meanings in many cases. The sources provided above show that the terms are commonly used interchangeably, to mean the same thing. It's rather that they are sometimes distinguished.


 * As for "may be" indicating permission, "may be" is also often taken to mean "sometimes", and its use was correct since the terms may be used interchangeably. It's not used anymore anyway. Like I noted above, I changed it to "popularly." And "popularly" is more accurate than "sometimes" since the sources are generally clear that the terms are commonly (not just sometimes) used interchangeably. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * First, you do not have any right to delete my comments form a Talk page, so stop it. Secondly, you are reverting completely new edits that I've made, for example, the new paragraph about von Neumann that is entirely anecdotal. If you want to be consistent, then that statement should be removed entirely. You do not own the Wikipedia article. You are not the gatekeeper for the article. I haven't logged into Wikipedia lately, but I've been editing it for well over 10 years. People like you keep Wikipedia unfriendly. You get fixated on specific articles about things that you don't have any specialized knowledge about, and then you start reverting edits and threatening to call in admins to make it seems like the other person started the edit war. You started this. If you want to change something in the article, add your changes, but don't revert. You start the edit war and then pretend to be a victim. I think that you are trying to delete my comments from the talk page so that the admins don't see them when they arrive. Let99 (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I do have the right. Once again, the RfC is marked as closed. The top of the RfC clearly states, "The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows." Removing your comments from the RfC has nothing to do with making sure that "admins don't see them when they arrive." Admins don't suddenly arrive. Editors take issues like this to a WP:Noticeboard.


 * And regarding this, it is WP:Editorializing. Unless you have a WP:Reliable source for that, you shouldn't be adding "According to anecdotal, unconfirmed stories." Because you keep making problematic edits to this article, with your "you are wrong" assertions and no good sources to back them up, it's clear that these matters need to go to a noticeboard.


 * As for the rest, you keep talking about your supposed specialized knowledge in this area and yet you can't produce any good sources to support your views. This area is not even well-studied. Many academics do not believe in photographic memory and are skeptical that a distinct entity called eidetic memory exists. The sources above cover this. Read them and learn something. You've supposedly been editing Wikipedia "for well over 10 years", and yet you edit like a WP:Newbie. You speak of people like me. It's people like you who make it harder for the more experienced Wikipedia editors. Considering that content on Wikipedia is supposed to be supported by reliable sources, not personal opinions, editors like you are the reason why people are wary of trusting what they read on this site. Being friendly is one thing; being clear about following the rules is another. I repeatedly tell you what the rules are, and, because you don't like them, I'm supposedly being unfriendly. Well, I'm done warning you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not the rfc section, and my changes are not the same edits as before. For example, the von Neumann edit was new, but you reverted it anyway, even though it should be completely removed by your own arguments. You are reverting my new edits to the page, which is not okay. I can see that you edit the site often, which leads to a kind of entitlement where you believe that you are a gatekeeper to the articles. You are part of the "toxic editor culture" that people speak about on Wikipedia. We should be working together to find the most accurate text to put on the page, but you have a completely adversarial attitude, which focuses around reverting edits, starting edit wars, and then threatening to report me for starting edit wars. There are many people getting ripped off by con artists based on what is in the article. You mentioned that photographic memory is not well-studied, which is partially true, and why my point is correct -- those textbooks you found on Google Books are wrong. You can't just go find some random textbooks and pick and choose things without having some kind of background in the field. What you have left on the page is very misleading. Let99 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment about editorializing, that paragraph should be completely removed. It is an anecdotal story that is not credible. I would have removed it entirely, but thought that it would be more collaborative to progressively edit it as a community. Let99 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , the entire discussion with a light green background is closed. If you wish to comment on anything in that discussion please make a new section. Second, this edit was pretty poor. You cannot say "According to anecdotal, unconfirmed stories..." without providing a source that says these are anecdotal, unconfirmed stories - see WP:SYNTH. --Neil N  talk to me 14:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, NeilN.


 * Let99, I really don't have anything more to state. I'd be repeating myself, and I'd rather not keep that toxic culture you speak of going on at this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * NeilN -- I didn't edit the green section but got reverted in a normal section. That whole von Neumann section shouldn't be there in the first place. Like I mentioned, my edit was meant to be a compromise during incremental edits. I think it should be removed, but I placed a modifier there rather than completely deleting someone else's work. That way we could discuss it as the article evolves. There is a huge number of people who have claims about photographic memory like that. All of the stories are anecdotal and don't belong there. It is very easy for experienced memorizers to fool even top neuroscientists with a combination of memory techniques and magic tricks, so these anecdotes are meaningless. Here is an example of how to fool people with fake photographic memory. Memorizing entire telephone books is not extremely difficult and doesn't require any kind of photographic memory either. All claims should be backed up by science. (Edit: moved this to the correct part of the page) Let99 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We are careful to word the text as an attributed claim. If you are challenging the observation, you'll need to provide a reliable source that specifically mentions von Neumann. And you edited the green section here and here for example. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. I didn't see the color. My objection was to being reverted outside of the green area. "It is claimed" that many people have a photographic memory. However, not a single case of photographic memory has ever been found by scientists, despite huge cash prizes for anyone who can perform that skill. Not a single one of the world's best memorizers has a photographic memory. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim--not the person challenging it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and science can find no evidence at all that anyone has photographic memory. Anecdotal claims don't belong in an encyclopedia without a word of caution. Let99 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * When it comes to our talk page edits, I didn't revert you outside of the green (which looks blue to me on this computer). I reverted you twice because you made two edits to the green area. NeilN showed the two edits above. As for what you stated about Neumann, some would argue that memorizing an entire telephone book is extremely difficult, but that is beside the point. You engaged in WP:Synthesis. Nothing regarding WP:Burden of proof allows you to do that. Also see what editors have stated below on the matter. As for photographic memory existing or not existing, we've already been over that; so I'm not going to repeat myself on that topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

John von Neumann
It seems an edit on 13 October 2016 introduced the Neumann "apparently able to recall" text. However, the edit only copied half of the reference from John von Neumann so the citation is broken here. The 8 February 2017 edit to this article to insert "According to anecdotal, unconfirmed stories" is very unwise—an editor who believes that addition is appropriate would have to know that the whole claim should be removed. Adding text like that is what WP:POINT advises against—if you believe the sentence should be removed, argue for that and accept the consensus result. However, do not add editorial commentary to an article in order to make a point. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a pretty poor edit. I've attributed the assertion and fixed the reference. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This ability is more fully described at the John von Neumann article, with a quote from Herman Goldstine, but in slightly different words. Also a bit about memorizing telephone directories. There are three different sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you all (NeilN, Johnuniq and Martinevans123) for weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent tags
Billhpike, regarding this and this, why do you believe that the Annette Kujawski Taylor source is a WP:Self-published source? I see no indication that ABC-CLIO, the company that published the book, is a self-publishing company. I and many others have used ABC-CLIO books times before on Wikipedia. And Annette Kujawski Taylor being the lone author of the book does not make the source self-published.

Also, you tagged the following line as needing a medical source; "'Eidetikers', as those who possess this ability are called, report a vivid afterimage that lingers in the visual field with their eyes appearing to scan across the image as it is described." This sentence is supported by a Psychology Today source. I agree that it is a poor source, but Psychology Today is used on Wikipedia for some material, and WP:MEDRS does have a WP:MEDPOP and "Other sources" section; these sections don't completely discourage sources such as Psychology Today. Anyway I am a WP:Med editor, and I understand why you tagged two other pieces sourced to Psychology Today, but I don't see why you feel that this particular sentence needs to be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect to the Encyclopedia of Humman Memeory, I made a mistake and have removed the self published tag. Billhpike (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Billhpike, thanks for that edit. I see that you also removed the tag for the aforementioned sentence. Either way, I will look for one or more better sources for that sentence and for the other pieces you tagged as needing a medical source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I see that you beat me to one part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback on my tagging. Billhpike (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)