Talk:Manic Pixie Dream Girl/Archive 1

that's a chauvinist title
find sources to support it in article 'cause it's obvious. --79.130.11.198 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How is it a chauvinist title? It's a chauvinist 'concept', not a chauvinist title. The title merely reflects the concept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.128.132 (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Amelie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.37.19 (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. Amelie is her own protagonist, not the romantic interest of a brooding male protagonist and is clearly seeking out her own happiness not only helping others find theirs. Also, she's not shallow at all, she definitely has her own issues to work through. If this article didn't lay out what qualities denote an MPDG clearly enough for you, try this one: Ø (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Ø

Do you really understand what wikipedia is all about? Just because I think that the queen of Jordan is an MPDG does not qualify her to be cited here. Perhaps, you think that the princess of Japan, the Chancellor of Germany, or Princess Diana qualifies as MPDG, but that would be your personal opinion. Your personal opinions are not sufficient to justify placing any fact or non-fact into wikipedia articles.

Hence Jewish Anderstein (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone help me fit in this quote
Can't decide on the best place to put this quote from a retrospective piece analyzing the enduring appeal of Annie Hall:

What's the Big Deal?: Annie Hall (1977) Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA) - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 Author: FILM.COM / Eric D. Snider

"Annie Hall herself is reflected in the quirky, carefree characters who are now often played by Zooey Deschanel -- the 'manic pixie dream girl,' as film critic Nathan Rabin famously called them. Annie's kooky manner of dress (which was Keaton's own, and which inspired a brief fashion craze) and her general flightiness weren't totally new -- Goldie Hawn co-existed -- but Annie was a fully realized character being appreciated by a new generation of moviegoers, many of whom became moviemakers. The women in Garden State, Almost Famous, and Elizabethtown, just to name a few, have a bit of Annie Hall in them, though usually not as nuanced." Lawikitejana (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anything out there mention the parallel to magic negro?
I'm aware of the rule against original research. Therefore, I'm just going to ask if anyone knows of any qualifying source (i.e., meeting verifiability and reliable source policies) that draws this parallel? Lawikitejana (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The line in this article about only caring for her mans happiness without caring for her own is clearly an opinion and not an encyclopedia type description, as the listed source is "A feminist critique". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.43.133 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway
Would Anne Hathaway in "Love and Other Drugs" fit this type cast? Not very familiar with chick flicks.


 * Do you have any reliable sources that describe her in this way? We must follow the sources, no matter what we think of her. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See also Magical Negro?
Per WP:SEEALSO, we generally limit inclusions in the "See also" section to "links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic". My contention is that these are two of numerous stock characters in fiction with no other sourced connection. Clearly we would not include an extensive listing of various stock characters here. Why this particular one?

The editor disputing my removal states, "this other stock character has obvious parallels, even in its name". I don't see a parallel in the names. As for the other "obvious parallels", I think we're looking at original research ("Gee, the descriptions sound kinda related to me..."). Anything sourcable here that "would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic"? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're just looking for a citation, a quick web search found that this piece in the Onion A/V Club states, "Like the Magical Negro, the Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype is largely defined by secondary status and lack of an inner life." Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. Added it to the description. Thanks! - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Luther
I added this example, the only one that explicitly used the word "pixie". Of course it was immediately deleted.


 * In the final episode of the third series of Luther, Alice Morgan describes John Luther's new love interest Mary Day as "A pixie. A sprite. A daydream of the life you imagine you want to live."

There is no "synthesis". I presented the facts, I did not synthesise any conclusion. There is both a primary (the dialogue quoted) and a secondary (a review) source both using the word "pixie". Unlike many other examples here, all just the opinion of some reviewer. Anyone who watched the episode could see this was indeed a MPDG, but I did not just add it based on my own opinion. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is about the stock character in films called the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl". Not every pixie is an MPDG. (Similarly, not every "negro" who is magical is a "Magical Negro".)
 * Yes, the dialogue and review both use the word "pixie". Neither one, however, is referring to the stock character that this article is about. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn

 * "Rabin points to Katharine Hepburn's character in Bringing Up Baby (1938) as one of the earliest examples of the archetype"

Really? Unless I missed something, it looks like it is the commenter called "Kathryn" who brings up this example. Rabin does not mention either Katharine Hepburn or Bringing up Baby in the review text.

Cheers, 90.229.34.175 (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Counterexample Eternal Sunshine
This is also first mentioned by a reviewer, here:

Three years earlier than the reference given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.34.175 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Girls on Film: Why it's time to retire the term 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl'
Here's an interesting article that has potential for content:


 * Girls on Film: Why it's time to retire the term 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl' This once-useful piece of critical shorthand has devolved into laziness and sexism. By Monika Bartyzel, The Week, April 26, 2013

Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the source. We added information from this article to the Criticism and Debate section as part of our class project. Krtiffany1824 (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Static" characters
The link to "static characters" goes to the page Character, but there is no designation "static" on that page any longer. There is "flat vs. round" but I am not confident that this means the same thing, so I'm not sure what to do about this. It does look like it dates from when the page Character was different, though. Bunnyhugger (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to the Cornell communications students &mdash; if this issue still exists in the article, you might seek a better wikilink for the term "static character." Lawikitejana (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I followed the link and it seems as though someone has re-added the "dynamic vs. static" distinction on the Character page. Krtiffany1824 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

COMM 3460 - Updates to Manic Pixie Dream Girl
For Cornell's COMM 3460 - Crowds, Communities and Technologies, we will be updating and editing this Wikipedia page.


 * Rachel Ellicott, Communications
 * Kaitlyn Tiffany, Communications
 * Mo Rahman, Communications
 * Anthony Xia, Computer Science

Education Program:Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2014)

Updates: We plan to update the section on criticism and debate to include details on the recent controversy in which the coiner of the term attempted to redact it. Further, we plan to expand the section on the original coining of the term, detailing the more specific point that the coiner made about Elizabethtown and Kirsten Dunst in it.

We will organize the examples and counter-examples sections to create more thorough and readable lists of films that have been popularly called "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" films by a TBD number of critics.

Further, we would add a section on this trope has functioned in television and television criticism. We would also add a section on academic writings on the subject.

Our primary sources will be television and film reviews and widely circulated criticism (for subjective quotes and justification of inclusion of a film, only), communication/media studies journals and the original MPDG/redacting the MPDG articles written by Nathan Rabin.

Krtiffany1824 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Aquamarine315 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi folks, please remember to sign your talk page edits using four tildes ~, don't leave a post unsigned. Also use references correctly, such as the reference to the course page should not be a bare URL. Make sure your sources are notable - scientific articles from journals are okay; reviews written by unknown critics in less-well-known sites are not. Happy editing! LeshedInstructor (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi LeshedInstructor, thanks for the reminder on signing and linking with bare URL. RE: sources, we were planning on using these popular media sources not for objective fact but to provide context of the discourse surrounding MPDGs. E.g. "[Insert movie title] was popularly characterized as an example of the MPDG trope by [insert publication or author]" We believe this is preferable to merely listing MPDG examples, considering how subjective our creation of that list would inherently be. We have noticed this method of citation on various other popular culture articles. Krtiffany1824 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

More specific plans:

To create a section entitled "Manic Pixie Dream Boy" in order to discuss the spin-off term and the tropes appearance in recent cinema. Popular discussion focused on Augustus Waters in the film adaptation of John Green's The Fault in Our Stars and on TV characters such as Parks and Recreation's Ben Wyatt and 30 Rock's Criss Chros.


 * The case for calling Augustus Waters a Manic Pixie Dream Boy


 * The case for calling Ben Wyatt and Criss Chros Manic Pixie Dream Guys

Further, we would like to expand the criticism and debate section by including a new subsection about Nathan Rabin's 2007 coinage of the term as well as his 2014 retraction of the term. We would also add (to the original section, not the NR subsection) discussion of the 2013 debate about whether the term had "died."


 * Original Nathan Rabin article:


 * Nathan Rabin article retracting the term:


 * The Manic Pixie Dream Girl Has Died


 * Girls on Film: Why it's time to retire the term 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl'


 * Is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl Dead?


 * "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" Has Lost All Meaning

To clarify and expand on the "Examples" section, we will refer to two academic papers on the topic which have been peer-reviewed and accessed through the Cornell University Library. Each provides justification that we believe sufficient for including an example on this page.


 * Deciphering the Manic Pixie Mythos (From Randolph College Journal of Academic Writing)


 * Manic Pixie Dream Girls (From Emory College Electronic Theses)

Krtiffany1824 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You might try turning all these plans of yours into a wiki formatted list, so that it's more readable. Otherwise I think you have a good plan. You might want to compile a list of characters (and what story/film they are from) that have been classified as MPDGs. I was also thinking that there might be less pop-y sources (maybe psychology or sociology of archetypes). I'm looking forward to seeing how you develop this article! Nebelmeister (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that (about turning the plans into a list) - just did something very minor in that direction, for exactly the reason you stated. Lawikitejana (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

We have reached out to three users who have been active on this talk page with hopes that they can be helpful in guiding our efforts: SummerPhD, Lawikitejana and Hence Jewish Anderstein.

Krtiffany1824 (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding feminist theory and sociology sources as per suggestion of Nebelmeister.

Counterexamples
Potential table to add for alternative formatting purposes.

Atinyox (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Atinyox (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Feminist readings of Hollywood conventions (audiofile)


 * From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in Movies (1978)


 * Marjorie Rosen’s Popcorn Venus: Women, Movies, and the American Dream (1973)


 * Laurie Penny on sexism in storytelling: I was a Manic Pixie Dream Girl


 * Gender Bias Without Borders: An Investigation of Female Characters in Popular Films Across 11 Countries

Krtiffany1824 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just made our first edit: adding a section on Manic Pixie Dream Boys. Let us know what you think!

Krtiffany1824 (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just added some more edits to criticism and debate, detailing the 2012/2013 call for the retirement of the term! Krtiffany1824 (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Just added the section for retraction of the term. Mosammad93 (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Added a section on the implications of the male gaze in films with an MPDG. Aquamarine315 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor Edits

 * Changed “Nathan Rabin, who coined the term after seeing Kirsten Dunst in Elizabethtown (2005)” to “Nathan Rabin, who coined the term after observing Kirsten Dunst’s character in Elizabethtown (2005)”


 * Added years of release to the first mention of each film in the article


 * Removed Fahrenheit 451 as an example on the grounds that the first sentence of the article calls MPDG a piece of film terminology, doesn’t make sense to have one random literary example.


 * Linked to Roger Ebert (the first mention of his name was previously not linked to his Wikipedia page)


 * At suggestion of Wikipedia user, checked the See Also link to “static characters”


 * Fixed spacing under headings; were previously inconsistent


 * Added Feminist Film Theory to See Also, removed Mania and Pixie

Krtiffany1824 (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Changes Made Based On COMM 3460 Feedback

 * We edited the Male Gaze section to be a little more relevant to the topic of MPDG.


 * Charts are great--however, each thing we put on a chart needs to have a a relevant source. We can't just base it on everyone's opinion. Therefore we can't make a MPDBoy chart since there are so few real examples. We did, however, find more examples of the MPDG and added that to the chart.


 * A description of every character on a chart is a little uncharacteristic of Wikipedia--we are linking to the page of the movie if people want more info.

Mosammad93 (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Jupiter Ascending's "Caine Wise" character as Manic Pixie Dream Boy
Hello everybody

I really don't understand why my changes were deleted. The fact that Wachowski's Jupiter As-cending utilizes a "female gaze" and has an audience especially with young, female viewers is very well showed also in the Wikipedia-page on the film. Now, expanding and investigation this information in the trope of the character of "Caine Wise" as Manic Pixi Dream Boy seems to me quite logic.

You can find primary source here: http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/04/jupiter-ascending-filmmakers-thrive-on-being-sci-fi-originals and an interesting development here: http://k8monstrscloset.com/2015/02/23/jupiterascendingregenderedspaceopera/. And there are the footnotes about the female gaze in the main Wikipedia-page about the film that refer here: http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/jupiter-ascending-is-the-sci-fi-movie-women-were-waiting-for and here http://www.dailydot.com/geek/jupiter-ascending-female-audience/.

So, with this information, I really see no accuracy in deleting Jupiter Ascending from this chapter, especially as we are talking of an online encyclopaedia which should keep fast but accurate track of new evolvements.

Would appreciate especially feedbacks by SummerPhD.

Thanks a lot, Dddorian grey (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What we need here is a reliable source which directly states that the character is a MPDB. The Toronto Sun link does not use the term. The k8monstrscloset site is blog -- a "self-published site" -- and is therefore not a reliable source. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Undue significance
Given the Retraction discussed in the body of this article (and some of the discussion), I think the Lead of the article makes the concept of a "MPDG" sound more established than it in fact is.

Anyone else agree?

CBHA (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Male gaze section
I was reading the article and I noticed something off with one of the sections. The article discusses a term coined in 2005 to describe a type of stock character. The "Male gaze" section quotes a source from 1985, discussing heroines in film and that they only serve to inspire action from male heroes. The source is way too old to cover this stock character, does not mention Manic Pixie Dream Girl types at all, and seems to be discussing another type of female characters. What is the connection? Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Heaven Help Us (1985)
i über-liked the one in    'Catholic Boys' / Heaven Help Us (1985) And did Molly Ringwald do any? And Badlands (1973) ? :-) Natural Born Killers ?

82.170.88.56 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC) NN


 * To include any of these, we would need reliable sources calling them "manic pixie dream girls". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does Nathan Rabin get to define this?
I have considered manic pixies to be a trope for a long time. I don't think of them as dreams meant for men. In fact, the best example ever created is Natasha Rostof from War and Peace. She starts out a manic pixie (and in fact very male dependent) then grows into an adult. The idea that this character somehow exists in an adolescents mind is simplistic and provocative. Just because some guy had that idea for a blog post shouldnt define this entire trope. This is a useful trope that has been hijacked for the wrong reasons.

I would like to see this trope in a non-sexist way. This can be achieved by simply changing to trope name to 'Manic Pixies' and dropping 'dream'. Real women exhibit manic pixie traits. There is no inherent reason why manic pixies have to exist for men. Androsynth (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Nathan Rabin got to define the term because he is Nathan Rabin and other reliable sources soon picked up on his usage.


 * Yes, it is a sexist, patriarchal stock character. It is one of many similar characters in the history of film -> storytelling. The Damsel in distress and Magic Negro come to mind. Yes, there are characters who break the mold, often in dramatic fashion. The existence of the trope, however, is not challenged by those counter-examples. Rather, the counter-examples often exist because of the trope. (When she was younger, my niece had a kids' book "The Paperbag Princess" that was a perfect example of this phenomenon.)


 * Wikipedia uses the term "Manic Pixie Dream Girl" and discusses the trope not because it "should" be this way. Wikipedia uses the term and discusses the trope because reliable source indicate that it is this way. MPDGs, Magical Negros, Damsels in distress, White saviors, Noble savages and countless other offensive stereotypes are propagated in popular culture. Identifying them is part of the battle to wipe them out. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This term was coined 12 years ago (as of this comment). This is not a long established trope that deserves ossification in an encyclopedia. He took a common human personality type (manic pixie girl) and altered it to make it more provocative. All Nathan Rabin did was add the "dream" element to it, thus making it offensive. This article belongs on TV tropes, not on wikipedia. Androsynth (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of the examples in the table are not dreamlike at all. They mostly are real characters, who do not exist solely for men. The reason this trope is sexist is because every female who is a MPG (a real, common, normal character personality type) is being shoehorned into this sexist trope. It is self-perpetuating sexism: "we have to define these women as dream girls so the next generation knows what a dream girl is". Androsynth (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * What you think of the trope is rather immaterial. Independent reliable sources state it exists. Whether or not the trope or the belief that it is a trope is sexist is also immaterial (except to the extent that independent reliable sources discuss this aspect of the trope or belief in the trope). Basically, Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources have to say about the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl".


 * If you feel the subject is not notable, you can nominate the article for deletion at Articles for Deletion. Honestly, I don't think you have much chance there.


 * If you feel the article should not be here for some other reason (the concept is offensive, it's "too new" or whatever, you could suggest the article should be deleted for that reason. In over a decade on Wikipedia, I've seen articles deleted for failing notability, being blatant copyright violations and for being nothing more than an "attack" page. I don't think that is going to happen either.


 * If you can find independent reliable sources that share your opinion, we might add some of that content, subject to WP:IRS and WP:WEIGHT, of course. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is offensive to common sense. Any trope that states Marilyn Monroe is a pixie, Maria Von Trapp is manic, or Annie Hall is a dream girl is trying to be provocative or is just overly broad.


 * Plus the original author has retracted it because of its "fuzzy definition". If he had called it "Hollywood Dream Girl", it would be more accurate, but wouldn't have been as provocative or memorable.


 * The rules are on your side, but common sense is not. This is an example of the internet running amok with a new concept. This will be my last talk comment on this page. Androsynth (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Then I guess we're done here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/08/07/manic_pixie/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111208041216/http://dcist.com/2010/11/love_and_other_drugs.php to http://dcist.com/2010/11/love_and_other_drugs.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/08/07/manic_pixie/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617034840/http://www.filmspotting.net/reviews/624-fs-326-127-hours-top-5-manic-pixie-dream-girls.html to http://www.filmspotting.net/reviews/624-fs-326-127-hours-top-5-manic-pixie-dream-girls.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Contents

 * 1) On the table listing all of the different examples, you may benefit from adding a brief description of each character, and maybe a 1-2 sentence summary of the film they appear in.
 * 2) We think the section on The Male Gaze isn't really relevant to this article.
 * 3) Flesh out the Manic Pixie Dream Boy section.  Maybe put in a chart of examples like you did above.
 * 4) Add a few more counterexamples!!
 * 5) Flesh out the See Also links. Make sure they're all really relevant to the article. For example, mania and pixie don't seem to be relevant.
 * 6) Maybe add another section with examples of similar archetypes with links to the articles (i.e., Manic Pixie Dream Boy and Magical Negro)

Organization and Style

 * 1) Add bullet points to indicate the start of a new section within the subsections of the page.
 * 2) Make sure all subsections are under the correct section heading.
 * 3) Add some pictures of the characters you reference.
 * 4) Add more charts.
 * 5) This article seems a little short.

Discussion on Credibility of a Source
Under the "Retraction of Term" section, I included insight from a verifiable and reliable source (one that I would deem as such) but v2.0 reversed the edit believing otherwise. Do others find Erraticus  qualifies as a "verifiable" and "reliable" source?
 * 1) The article cited comes from a publication which has been around for a couple years, and includes content from dozens of contributors. Many "ideas" or "essays" (as the editorial team at Erraticus appear to call them), are original publications while some are republished under Creative Commons, originally appearing in Aeon magazine and The Conversation. Original contributors are authors of books, academics, and writers who have been published in other established publications.
 * 2) The edits I included were as follows: Jeffrey Howard proposes that we reclaim the MPDG rather than outright reject the character. He asserts, "The most problematic element of the MPDG isn’t that she’s a crippling fantasy, it’s that we take the symbolic literally...We must learn to see psychic forces in the characters acting on our screens, that each of these individuals represents internal and archetypal aspects of ourselves." The MPDG represents an immature, "empty vessel view" of women, but when understood mythologically the trope makes "more concrete the psychological aspects of our experiences." The MPDG can be used to subvert the hopeless romantic concept that another person can complete us, make us whole, or compensate for our personal shortcomings. Instead, Howard concludes, "The hero saves himself, or herself. By doing so, they transform into counterexamples to those who might succumb to broken myths, suggesting that ultimate satisfaction in life comes from within rather than without."
 * 3) v2.0 suggests that Jeffrey Howard is not a notable enough person but just "a random guy," which seems like a somewhat fair assessment to me, beyond that fact that he's the editor of the publication, which is somewhat notable, and the author of the content I included. Jeffrey Howard may be editor in chief of this online magazine, but that doesn't mean it qualifies his article as "self-published" as v2.0 suggests. Editors publish content, they've written themselves, in publications they manage all the time. It might be reasonable to omit Jeffrey Howard's name from the addition, replacing it with something more generic like "One observer," but I otherwise find it to a reasonable inclusion. This is cultural commentary from a magazine that focuses on culture; it isn't an article on Quantum Mechanics or String Theory.
 * Drmies (talk) has reverted the same edit for "giving too much air time" to a "questionable source." As you can see above, I hold a different perspective. It seems like a shame to leave out such a relevant insight about the MPDG. Can you address some of my points? Thank you much, friend! The Invisible Hook (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey Howard (who?) is the founder, editor and author of the piece. The publication is an "online publication focused on human flourishing." Yes, it gives the author's opinions on the MPDG, as do approximately 382,000 sites, ranging from wikihow to The Atlantic. On that continuum, this online publication seems to be a whole lot closer to wikihow (which is unequivocally not a reliable source) than it is to The Atlantic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is meager: what is Erraticus? It looks like just another pop culture website, and a venue for beginning writers (from the Submissions page). Not a very well-known magazine. And the author is an unknown--so that's two strikes against. Now, the content you inserted consisted mostly of huge quotes--and given that the article is also a very personal reflection (again, by an unknown), that's three strikes against. If this had been one single sentence, without an overload of whoever Jeffrey Howard is, that would be an improvement (the way it's written interesting: it reads like it came out of a composition class, written by one of the better students). But let me just note that while Wikipedia might be here to list all notable popular culture tropes, it is not here to be a reservoir of things said in magazines about popular culture tropes. (The problem here isn't the "credibility" of the source, but rather its importance.) Drmies (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Annie Hall redux
IP editor disagrees with including Hall.

The current inclusion criteria for this article say, in short, "If an independent reliable source says a character is an MPDG, Wikipedia says they are an MPDG." The source cited is certainly independent and reliable and labels Hall.

If you wish to change the inclusion criteria here, you will need to establish alternative criteria and build a consensus here.

If, for some reason, you feel that The A.V. Club is not a reliable source for this information, please take the issue directly to Reliable sources/Noticeboard as the source is widely used for similar material in a broad range of articles.

If you do not feel the source directly states that Hall is an MPDG (it's pretty clear), you will really need to explain and build a consensus.

If, for some reason, you feel that we should use the criteria we are using except for this case, you will need to explain why.

Other than that, I'm not sure what your argument would be, other than you don't agree with the reliable source. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The page contradicts itself by giving it as an example of an MPDG then also as a counterexample. The counterexample is supported by an article of The Guardian which states: "An often cited example of an MPDG prototype is Diane Keaton's portrayal of the titular character in Woody Allen's Annie Hall. But Annie absolutely is not an MPDG. She's a complicated, slightly eccentric, powerful woman who, over the course of the movie, develops her own goals, has her own motivation, and pursues it with or without her partner. Her character doesn't only exist for her lover's self-discovery." That quote is completely accurate and in line with the what is conveyed in the rest of the Wikipedia article. The Guardian is one of the most reputable newspapers in the world, while A.V. Club is an online entertainment website. Having Annie Hall both as an example and counterexample delegitimizes and confuses the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.147.246 (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If your argument is that the A.V. Club is not a reliable source, please take this issue directly to Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
 * If your argument is that we should use different criteria, you will need to suggest criteria and build a consensus.
 * Other than that, Hall clearly meets the established criteria.
 * "One of the most reputable newspapers in the world" says she is "an often cited example of an MPDG prototype". The current inclusion criteria asks for an independent reliable source. Hall is clearly an often cited example. Yes, sources disagree. Whether or not a character is an MPDG is a matter of opinion. Providing conflicting claims should help make that clear. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Samantha in Spike Jonze's Her
This article lists Samantha as an example of an algorithm-defined fantasy girl, but she doesn't fit the description of Her being "without having any desires or journey of her own": a major plot point in the film is her desire for relationships with other people, and the resulting course of action she chooses to take--her journey, if you will.

Without reading the cited source, one might argue that Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and if this one inaccurately describes the film or the character, we shouldn't take its word about Her being MPDG.

71.121.143.169 (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Guardian is a reliable source. Saying it is "wrong" and therefore not reliable is backwards. If a source meets the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, it is reliable and what it says is verifiable.


 * In this particular case I don't think it's that Samantha isn't an MPDG, I think (as the source explains) she doesn't stay an MPDG.
 * "'Samantha' basically becomes Phoenix’s Manic Pixie Dream App. She is supportive, lively, curious, completely available. She is the perfect girlfriend, at least until he finds out she’s been seeing other people – about 8,000 of them. But Her takes the radical step of letting Samantha go off to pursue her own goals..." She's an MPDG "until" and then there's the "radical step". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe
I don't get how Marilyn Monroe as "Sugar" in "Some Like it Hot" is supposed to fit this trope. Yes, I see that this seems to be sourced, though the source does not mention Marilyn Monroe in print (seems like I would have to listen to a 1:24hr mp3 to find it).

Anyway, how does she have "eccentric personality quirks" and how is she "unabashedly girlish"? And how is the "Joe" character "brooding or depressed" except in his disguise as Shell junior? --217.239.2.184 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Too Broad a Category to Be Useful?
It seems any female character whose somewhat unconventional is getting this label attached to her. With several of the examples given such Annie Hall the female character clearly does have her own interests or issues. The problem of course may be with the original definition and definer, not wikipedia itself. 50.101.125.50 (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To the extent that I've been able to control it, the label -- in this article, anyway -- is only attached to those characters who are described as "Manic Pixie Dream Girls" in independent, reliable sources. We don't get to decide that character X is or is not a MPDG, we merely report what reliable sources say. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "magic pixie dream girl" isn't broad at all, yet few people seem to understand it -- perhaps because of all the misinformation floating around like this shitshow of an article. It really needs to be deleted and redone completely from scratch without any of the dubious sources. Just because someone publishes words on their blog doesn't make it a fact or even an intelligent thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.4.84.137 (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would like to delete the article and start over, you can try WP:AFD.
 * If you believe some of the sources are not reliable, you can explain how you feel they fail the criteria explained at WP:IRS.
 * If you have other problems with the article, you can briefly and factually explain the problems here and propose solutions.
 * If you just wanted to vent and demonstrate your superiority, you've done that and we're all impressed. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Amy Adams in Enchanted
I think Amy Adams in Enchanted is a perfect example of this genre plus she is from a fantasy, cartoon world. The man she saves is due to marry a woman who is all wrong for him. I don't know enough about this topic to find references for it, perhaps someone who does could add it. Thank you. Rissa -- bossy, obsessive/compulsive copy editor 21:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The only way we could add this would be with a reliable source pointing to Giselle as an example of a MPDG. We are unlikely to find that as Giselle is pretty much the protagonist in the film: Everyone from the fantasy world has an interest in finding her (whether to marry her or kill her) and she is the nexus for the real world characters as well. That the film is a direct parody of so many princess movie themes, of course, blurs the lines considerably. Is her goal to find her purported true love, find that the purported true love is not her true love or merely find her true true love? (A typical princess movie's goal is much easier: marry a prince and live happily ever after.) In any case, long story short, we would need a source. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many of the examples listed are of female protagonists. I mean, I don't disagree with your rationale, only pointing out that it's inconsistent with the apparent criteria used for this article -- whatever the heck that even is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.4.84.137 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The "apparent criteria" are readily apparent and quite simple: reliable source pointing to the character as an example of a MPDG. If you feel there are examples included which apparently do not meet the apparent criteria, whatever the heck they even are, feel free to discuss the issues here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop
You people are turning wikipedia into tvtropes.com. Please stop this shit and delete this article. When coming up with an article that describes a phrase, ask yourself if that phrase will cona be deleted. Thanks. 50.89.174.229 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is something you won't see at tvtropes.com. If our standards for inclusion are not to your liking, you'll want to address that at a much higher level than a brief, unsigned rant on a random article's talk page. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They are right though. One tvtropes is already one too many. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:899A:5E0E:2383:DC7B (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Serious issues with section on retiring the term
Hey all. I read Rabin's original article, in which he calls for the term to be retired. This wiki article didn't accurately reflect what he wrote. It misquoted him and included several statements that aren't actually in Rabin's article (for example, nowhere does Rabin say that the trope's popularity led to a more precise definition of the MPDG). I know that my additions aren't perfect and things can be more clearly explained. I honestly welcome any and all edits. But please don't just revert the changes. You're literally re-adding misquotes. Read his article, and then determine what statements should be added, phrases reworked, points better articulated, etc. and edit from there. Thanks! Dax Kirk (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)