Talk:List of fictional self-harmers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-09. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] Virgin Suicides
But ain't "Cecilia Lisbon" from "The Virgin Suicides" a case of interrupted suicide? Or has that been put out of proportion in the movie adaption? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.135.131.23 (talk • contribs).
- Well, I guess if it's an act that harms oneself and doesn't result in death, it can be considered self-harm in a way. I'm unsure about it myself. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Exactly. That's why I'm hesitant about this. I haven't read or seen "The Virgin Suicides," so I'm erring on the side of caution about this particular example. However, if you know more about the movie/book and don't feel the entry's appropriate on this list, I don't think people will object if you remove it. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] This is listcruft
This list has no rigorous criteria, lacks references and gives no indication of the type and severity of self-harm. It is classic listcruft: a mish-mash of fictional characters united by some ill-defined trait. Roger Rabbit hits himself over the head with a mallet, could he be added to this list? --Nydas 09:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ill-defined? Well, since there's an article that talks about the subject matter, and defines it, I don't think it's ill-defined at all. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 09:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- See Wikipedia: List guideline. Ambiguous terms such as 'self-harm' should be clarified. I note that the self-harm article does not cover self-harm in magicial creatures or cartoon characters.--Nydas 11:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, if you treat them like normal non-magical or non-animated figures, it should still work. I wouldn't know if Roger Rabbit counts since I'm unfamiliar with that character, but it's not rocket science at all. If you have a beef with the term "self-harm," by all means, go to the article itself and ask for someone to define it better. But deleting the entire list isn't the answer. It's not violating policy. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." - from Wikipedia: List guideline. It is not enough to simply link to a related article. The real killer here is that all the entries in the list contain nothing but names - they don't actually describe the type of self-harm, thus rendering this list doubly vague.--Nydas 18:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
For a similar set of articles, see the links at List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual figures in fiction and myth (I don't know if you consider these to be "listcruft" also?). Certainly these articles would have the same problem of borderline cases where we are not sure if they should be counted as gay/bi - perhaps we can see how those articles handle it (or if they don't).
Single acts are not usually considered self-harm (this same issue comes up on List of self-harmers). One could also say "So and so cartoon character once held hands with someone, does that make him gay?" Mdwh 21:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- The list of gays in fiction at least has some extra information (stating whether they were gay, lesbain or bisexual), whereas this list and the List of self-harmers gives no information at all. Colin Farrell appears to be on the list because he (supposedly) used to pull out some hair (follicle by follicle) - maybe that should be mentioned in the article. The problem is that since there is no criteria nor any explanation, Wikipedians cannot even be aware of 'borderline' cases.--Nydas 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The way I understand WP is that people can add missing information. Why don't you? -80.135.136.52 12:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well since the list is List of gay OR bisexual people, it's clearly relevant to state which they are - so that doesn't apply to lists only of self-harmers. It's always good to supply more information, but that's not a reason to delete - rather we should respond by adding the information. If you're talking about List of self-harmers, then that information is supplied, either in the form of references, or in that article, and I'd suggest doing the same for this article.
-
- The same criticism can be made of the lists under List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual figures in fiction and myth - they don't tend to supply evidence of why they are counted as bi or gay. Mdwh 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ?Non-fictional characters from books, television shows and films?
Hmm, I see why you'd want to include those works here and doing so is quite useful in the encyclopedic context as it provides a sort of guide to representative works dealing with the subject at hand. Nonetheless I can't help but consider a "non-fictional character" to be a real character... So shouldn't they be moved to the list of self-harmers? -80.135.142.85 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- They should probably be listed on List of self-harmers too - but I think it's useful listing them here, as it's examples of portrayals in films/etc. Mdwh 18:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Although we need sources to list them there - e.g., does someone have one for John Nash? I saw an act of self-harm in the film, but we need something more to label someone as a self-harmer - so that's a reason why non-fictional characters may be mentioned here, but not in the other article. Mdwh 18:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
I propose that we do something similar to List of self-harmers and other "list" articles, in that all entries must either have an entry, or a mention on the relevant article page. Otherwise we risk cases such as original research, cases which aren't really self-harm, or outright vandalism. Anyone agree/disagree? Mdwh 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that, unlike List of self-harmers, the book/film etc itself can serve as a source. However I think in those cases it would be best to describe briefly why they are listed as a self-harmer, to avoid characters being added for dubious or false reasons. Mdwh 23:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problematic definitions
One of the problems with the definition that qualifies a character to be entered on this list is that certain fictional portrayals seem to toy with the idea of self-injury, by having scenarios that seem similar to SI, but with a very different psychological background. I think the best examples are Nico Minoru and, to a lesser extent, Dawn Summers.
- The scene in which Dawn appears to have cut her wrists can be interpreted as self-injury related meta, but I'm not sure her psychological context is that of a cutter/self-injurer (playing devil's advocate here, it can also be argued that just because she does it only once, under strenuous circumstances, doesn't disqualify the feelings of dissociation and unreality, which have often been connected to SI).
- Slightly more clear-cut, the issue of self-injury is directly addressed in Runaways, in the vampire story-arc. It seems clear, to me, that Nico only cuts herself to release the Staff of One, and doesn't seem to be experiencing any of the psychological symptoms associated with SI. Of course, I've only read the first five TPBs, so something might have happened in the last ten issues, or so, to change that.
I'm not qualified to remark on the other characters, but I think it's likely that some of them fall under similar criteria (not unlike the situation in LGBT comic book characters). Reading the self-injury article through and through gives a better picture of the context of SI behavior. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
