264:
Psychology courses I took in college that "psychopath" was outdated, and so broad as to be almost totally useless in diagnosing any condition (akin to having a
General Practioner diagnosing you as "physically ailing"). I'd like to think that at the very least, out of all the professors I had, that Dr. Rosenberg and Dr. Foye were both reasonably up to date in their understanding of psychology. But anyway - even supposing, for the sake of argument, that the PCL-R and UK terminology combine to make an iron-clad, academically-standard definition of "psychopath", I still have to ask myself - does an article this multi-focused (to the point of scatter-brained) really provide any encyclopedic merit? Might do well on "Wikiartia", but for Knowledge (XXG), in the end, it's still crufty. --
358:? Though my primary objection to this nomination concerns the remarkable degree of misinformation in the terms on which it is presented I would also see secondary grounds for objection in the quality of the article and it's value to those who seek information on personality types as portrayed in fiction. As long as the text of the fiction defines the character as Psychopathic it can hardly be
243:. I moved it off myself, to get the article back to cited medical and judicial information, not much caring what became of it. When I checked back I discovered that, while I may not agree with every suggestion presented in it, the article had somehow metamorphosed into one of the most fascinating I have seen on Knowledge (XXG). --
404:
No one really seems to like them much but resign themselves to them for lack of a perceived better option. It's been my opinion for some time that the better solution is to delete the garbage dump articles as they come up and aggressively deal with the sections as they appear or re-appear in the main articles.
630:
But then we're just changing from deciding whether the character meets the clinical definition to whether it meets this heretofore unstated and very vague "literary and cultural" definition. What exactly qualifies a charcter as a "psychopath" under this "tradition" and who decides that a character so
588:
of psychopaths in popular and literary culture, as well as popular notions about what a psychopath is, or might be, in a fictional context. This is not an article about debating or verifying the clinical semantics of psychopathy and all of the medical concepts and terms related to the condition, nor
417:
And to comment on the notion of a list of anti-social characters, I would oppose such a list as being incredibly vague and indiscriminate. Any character who acts in any way contrary to society would be eligible for inclusion. Most works of fiction contain one or more such characters so the list would
403:
which is an essay section but addresses the idea that it's better to have these sorts of articles because of the potential of cluttering the main article. Personally I have little problem with the idea of considering the deletion of other similar articles and indeed have AFDed a large number of them.
371:
But that then requires us to evaluate the qualifications of the person making the statement, which is still OR. Do we give the same weight to a declaration of psychopathology from a psychiatrist as we do to a cop or a plumber or a serial killer's latest victim? If so, then the restriction is useless
723:
Holdenhurst is understating the case and Otto4711 is possibly disingenuous. In
Hollywood films, even colour ones, things are pretty black and white. It is utterly beyond reasonable doubt, in many cases, whether a film character is a psychopath in accordance with the usual dictionary definition of
583:
Most of the arguments in favor of deleting this article are petty and arbitrary (and often incoherent and confused as well). This article would be better-served with additional clarification of definitions and sources rather than wholesale deletion. This is a well-researched, well-organized piece
568:
for AfD above, apparently these lists will or attempt to include any fictional character exhibiting the feature for any brief mention of time. So, combined with any definition of psycopath, it's hard to find any fictional character not exhibiting psycopathy (in someone's opinion) for a microsecond.
436:
Honestly, I don't see a lot of utility in any such lists that draw in characters from every realm of fiction who have nothing in common other than they are perceived as "anti-social" or "acting against society" or whatever phrase one were to come up with. I don't think that such lists are generally
238:
that
Psychopathy is "Impossible to scientifically define". Beyond which, fiction has a seperate and slightly different fascination with the concept "Psychopath", which, while not as scientific as the medical use of the term by any stretch of the imagination, is still a valid social construct. That
381:
I take your point, except that a fictional character exists only within the context of the fiction he participates in, and if a character is diagnosed by a person who is, in that same fictional context, declared qualified to diagnose him (such as a fictional qualified psychiatrist) that should be
285:
it is also generally regarded as an international diagnostic standard (which the DSM is not, most of Europe, for example, uses the ICD instead), by the medical, penal and academic communities. The fact that you seem completely unaware of this reality raises serious questions about the validity of
121:
Oy vey, where to begin? For starters, "psychopath" is as outdated a term in clinical literature as "idiot" or "moron", so any definition is going to be fraught with peril. The article makes an admirable attempt to offer multiple definitions, but ultimately it constitutes a breed of OR - as if one
320:
It is, in fact the DSM category of
Antisocial Personality Disorder that is widely criticised, and has been shown by research to be "so broad as to be almost totally useless in diagnosing any condition" (see Rutherford, M.J., Cacciola, J.S., & Alterman, A.I. (1999). "Antisocial Personality
263:
quiz legitimizes the theory that deep down inside, we are all a specific Disney character. UK English has always been more traditional than US English, and it opens up a whole Amero-centric aspect that I'm really not prepared to discuss. Bottom line in that regard: I was taught in all of the
126:. Additionally, the article is completely unweildly (unsurprising, with a word as unscientific and non-precise as "psychopath") and basically reduces to "fictional portrayals of characters who are not normal". The article can't even keep true to its own imaginary definition - witness
146:- specifically the latter - had strong subtexts that argued just the opposite. So, to summarize: Impossible to scientifically define, leaving in every single different pop-media definition of the slang-term "psychopath" leaves us with a completely unweildly and unmanagable list,
706:
And this in a nutshell is the problem with the list. In your opinion there's no room for denying that the characters belong on the list, except of course for the exception you noted. But that's based on your POV, not an objective standard for inclusion.
201:
per well reasoned explanation of nominator. An article of that length with no sources is never a good thing, and it really does constitute OR, grouping 'psychopaths' together as the author sees fit. Good effort, but it doesn't belong on
Knowledge (XXG).
584:
that contains many interesting and valid insights about many different types of fictional representations, which have also been discussed elsewhere and in other articles. Most of the complainers here seem to forget that this article discusses
286:
that aspect of your nom to the point of negating it. I also very much doubt if the UK Parliament encourage "screwy PHD"s to draft their legislation. I am not personally prepared to accept unsupported claims of "what I learned in college" as a
255:- I don't wish to turn this into a debate over the merits of the term "psychopathy". That said - it does seem that the PCL-R is pretty self-confined. To use a bit of hyperbole: A (suitably screwy) Ph.D could create a checklist to diagnose
276:
Well, if you really "don't wish to turn this into a debate over the merits of the term "psychopathy"" I suggest you strike your original remarks to that effect from your nomination and go with what is left alone. As a matter of fact the
353:
There IS a case to be made for restricting the article to those characters specified by the text or script to be psychopaths (of which there are plenty) and forking the others off to a new article perhaps to be called, less formally
661:"Psychopath" merely means "a person suffering from chronic mental disorder, especially with abnormal or violent social behaviour". At least in films, there's usually pretty litle doubt if someone is a psychopath. --
230:. The Uk Mental Health Bill drafted in 2002 and 2004 makes considerable specific reference to "Psychopath", as does the existing Mental Health Act (uk) 1983. I also respectfully suggest that the nom tries telling
589:
is it a psychiatric report. The article is a critical analysis of fictional portrayals of psychopaths as they are generally understood in the accepted tradition of literary and cultural criticism.
386:
on the same grounds, which risk *wincing hard* these lists returning to bloat the psych articles them are affiliated with. Maybe it is time to devise a specific guideline essay on the subject?--
693:
per
Tantalizing Posey. Could anyone deny that most of the characters listed in the article are psychopaths? OK, maybe Harry Lime is just an unpleasant ruthless criminal, but how many others?--
382:
sufficient. If we delete this article on those grounds we would have to consider deleting all similar articles, concerning fictional characters with specific disorders and conditions, not just
617:
I think I totally agree with you, the concept "Psychopath" IS common in fiction and often has a whole meaning of it's own. At the same time there should be clearer sources and definitions. --
468:
performing original research. There is, after all, a fair amount of scholarship on at least one type of fictional portrayal: film. Pages 34–35 of ISBN 0934223491, for example, discusses
87:
82:
91:
227:
223:
74:
114:
649:"Psychopath" is a word found in most dictionaries, and it is reasonable to use it in Knowledge (XXG), which is a general reference work not tailored for psychiatrists.--
527:
445:
and the argument that there's some sort of research value in a list that lumps, say, evil
Pokemons and Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs together.
78:
605:
177:
definition of "Sociopath" which is, in fact a virtually interchangeable synomym for
Psychopath devised in the 40s or 50s to differentiate between
222:) is in general medical use since 1991 and went into it's second edition as recently as 2003, three years after the last text Revision of the
278:
235:
219:
677:
would seem to indicate that generating a list of people for whom the inclusion criterion is that there's "little doubt" is unacceptable.
383:
70:
62:
728:
711:
697:
681:
665:
653:
635:
621:
573:
559:
543:
508:
491:
482:
449:
431:
422:
408:
390:
376:
366:
345:
325:
310:
298:
268:
247:
206:
189:
162:
150:
by its very nature, and really ends up feeling like something written in high school - well-written, organized, but juvenile. At least
56:
151:
17:
516:
Knowledge (XXG) always proceeds by citing what reliable sources say. To reject that because you don't like it is a breach of
259:("does subject float when thrown into a lake?"), but this by itself doesn't really legitimize Witchcraft - any more so than a
565:
487:
But upon what is that based? Is it in the opinion of the author, and by citing it we're giving it the sheen of factuality?
539:
123:
743:
36:
601:
355:
231:
185:
and the two terms are regarded as interchangeable though some sources suggest slight differences of emphasis. --
742:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
478:, stating that the film is "about a sexual psychopath", named Hans Beckert, who is a "psychopathic murderer".
136:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
142:
321:
Disorder and
Psychopathy in Cocaine-Dependent Women," American Journal of Psychiatry, 156. pp. 849-856 ). --
307:
265:
159:
131:
593:
181:
as we now use the term and a far earlier use of the term to denote "any mental illness". It never replaced
597:
218:
is as far from an "outdated term" as anything could be. An entire diagnostic system for the condition (
341:. Standard for inclusion is vague, seeming to encompass anyone who behaves in an anti-social fashion.
570:
556:
290:
for any assertion. Particularly not against such a body of evidence that is clearly in accord with
49:
501:
535:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
674:
521:
400:
396:
662:
127:
442:
438:
517:
359:
338:
291:
287:
282:
147:
203:
708:
678:
632:
505:
488:
446:
419:
405:
373:
342:
226:, and as such, a far more accurate, recent and formal diagnosis than anything in the
53:
694:
650:
618:
531:
479:
428:
387:
363:
322:
295:
244:
239:
lead to an unwieldy, but remarkably pertinent section in the main, medical article
186:
108:
725:
240:
215:
182:
178:
469:
337:- absent a clinical diagnosis any tagging of a character as a "psychopath" is
256:
474:
427:
I take your point, perhaps a re-worded title would solve the problem? --
174:
155:
555:
no objective definition of who should or shouldn't be on the list.
631:
qualifies? Still fraught with unacceptable OR and POV violations.
260:
736:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
281:
is not only widely accreditted and peer reviewed in accord with
724:
the word. To deny this is to push NPOV to absurd lengths.--
464:
possible to state that some characters are psychopaths
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
48:. If you have any questions, please contact me at
746:). No further edits should be made to this page.
154:would be able to be objectively defined via the
8:
564:Based on the comments in defense of the
566:List of omnipotent fictional characters
134:in the "realistic" section, when both
279:Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)
236:Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)
220:Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
384:Fictional portrayals of psychopaths
71:Fictional portrayals of psychopaths
63:Fictional portrayals of psychopaths
152:Fictional portrayals of sociopaths
124:Fictional portrayals of foofeefums
24:
356:Antisocial characters in fiction
418:quickly bloat out of control.
1:
399:which is part of the MoS and
504:posted by anonymous editor.
173:There IS no such thing as a
763:
57:06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
729:19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
712:12:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
698:22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
682:12:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
666:19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
654:11:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
636:18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
622:11:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
574:20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
560:20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
544:23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
509:19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
492:18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
483:00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
450:18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
432:16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
423:15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
409:18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
391:16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
377:13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
367:13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
346:12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
326:12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
311:12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
299:12:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
269:11:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
248:11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
207:10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
190:13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
163:09:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
739:Please do not modify it.
137:A Streetcar Named Desire
32:Please do not modify it.
143:The Executioner's Song
530:comment was added by
372:and if not it's POV.
586:fictional portrayals
437:in compliance with
610:
598:Tantalizing Posey
596:comment added by
547:
339:original research
308:Action Jackson IV
266:Action Jackson IV
160:Action Jackson IV
754:
741:
609:
590:
525:
395:We already have
234:who created the
128:Stanley Kowalski
112:
94:
34:
762:
761:
757:
756:
755:
753:
752:
751:
750:
744:deletion review
737:
591:
526:—The preceding
122:were to create
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
760:
758:
749:
748:
732:
731:
717:
716:
715:
714:
701:
700:
687:
686:
685:
684:
669:
668:
656:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
625:
624:
612:
611:
578:
577:
576:
571:Carlossuarez46
557:Carlossuarez46
550:
549:
548:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
315:
314:
313:
232:Dr Robert Hare
214:For starters,
209:
195:
194:
193:
192:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
759:
747:
745:
740:
734:
733:
730:
727:
722:
719:
718:
713:
710:
705:
704:
703:
702:
699:
696:
692:
689:
688:
683:
680:
676:
673:
672:
671:
670:
667:
664:
660:
657:
655:
652:
648:
645:
644:
637:
634:
629:
628:
627:
626:
623:
620:
616:
615:
614:
613:
607:
603:
599:
595:
587:
582:
579:
575:
572:
567:
563:
562:
561:
558:
554:
551:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
523:
519:
515:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
499:
493:
490:
486:
485:
484:
481:
477:
476:
471:
467:
463:
460:Note that it
459:
451:
448:
444:
440:
435:
434:
433:
430:
426:
425:
424:
421:
416:
410:
407:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
389:
385:
380:
379:
378:
375:
370:
369:
368:
365:
361:
357:
352:
349:
348:
347:
344:
340:
336:
333:
327:
324:
319:
316:
312:
309:
306:- Awesome. --
305:
302:
301:
300:
297:
293:
289:
284:
280:
275:
272:
271:
270:
267:
262:
258:
254:
251:
250:
249:
246:
242:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
208:
205:
200:
197:
196:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
168:
167:
166:
165:
164:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
144:
139:
138:
133:
129:
125:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
738:
735:
720:
690:
658:
646:
592:— Preceding
585:
580:
552:
513:
473:
465:
461:
439:WP:NOT#IINFO
350:
334:
317:
303:
273:
252:
211:
198:
170:
141:
135:
132:Gary Gilmore
120:
50:my talk page
45:
43:
31:
28:
663:Holdenhurst
581:Strong Keep
241:Psychopathy
216:Psychopathy
212:Strong Keep
183:Psychopathy
179:Psychopathy
502:incivility
470:Fritz Lang
443:WP:NOT#DIR
257:Witchcraft
500:(removed
472:'s movie
228:DSM-IV-TR
224:DSM-IV-TR
204:J Milburn
54:Ian Manka
709:Otto4711
679:Otto4711
633:Otto4711
606:contribs
594:unsigned
540:contribs
528:unsigned
506:Otto4711
489:Otto4711
447:Otto4711
420:Otto4711
406:Otto4711
374:Otto4711
343:Otto4711
115:View log
695:Newport
675:WP:NPOV
651:Runcorn
619:Zeraeph
532:Newport
522:WP:NPOV
514:Comment
480:Uncle G
466:without
429:Zeraeph
401:WP:BHTT
397:WP:TRIV
388:Zeraeph
364:Zeraeph
351:Comment
323:Zeraeph
304:Comment
296:Zeraeph
274:Comment
253:Comment
245:Zeraeph
187:Zeraeph
171:Comment
88:protect
83:history
726:Osidge
553:Delete
335:Delete
199:Delete
175:DSM-IV
156:DSM-IV
92:delete
518:WP:RS
360:WP:OR
292:WP:RS
288:WP:RS
283:WP:RS
261:Spark
148:WP:OR
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
721:Keep
691:Keep
659:Keep
647:Keep
602:talk
536:talk
520:and
362:? --
294:. --
158:. --
140:and
130:and
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
441:or
113:– (
608:)
604:•
542:)
538:•
524:.
462:is
318:PS
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
52:.
600:(
546:.
534:(
475:M
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.