Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fictional portrayals of psychopaths

Fictional portrayals of psychopaths (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

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 For starters, "psychopath" is as outdated a term in clinical literature as "idiot" or "moron", so any definition is going to be fraught with peril.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 were to create Fictional portrayals of foofeefums. 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 Stanley Kowalski and Gary Gilmore in the "realistic" section, when both A Streetcar Named Desire and The Executioner's Song - 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, WP:OR by its very nature, and really ends up feeling like something written in high school - well-written, organized, but juvenile. At least Fictional portrayals of sociopaths would be able to be objectively defined via the DSM-IV. --Action Jackson IV 09:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• CommentThere IS no such thing as a DSM-IV definition of "Sociopath" which is, in fact a virtually interchangeable synomym for Psychopath devised in the 40s or 50s to differentiate between Psychopathy as we now use the term and a far earlier use of the term to denote "any mental illness". It never replaced Psychopathy and the two terms are regarded as interchangeable though some sources suggest slight differences of emphasis. --Zeraeph 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete 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 Wikipedia. J Milburn 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep For starters, Psychopathy is as far from an "outdated term" as anything could be. An entire diagnostic system for the condition (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)) 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 DSM-IV-TR, and as such, a far more accurate, recent and formal diagnosis than anything in the DSM-IV-TR. 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 Dr Robert Hare who created the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) 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 lead to an unwieldy, but remarkably pertinent section in the main, medical article Psychopathy. 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 Wikipedia. --Zeraeph 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - 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 Witchcraft ("does subject float when thrown into a lake?"), but this by itself doesn't really legitimize Witchcraft - any more so than a Spark 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 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 Wikipedia, in the end, it's still crufty. --Action Jackson IV 11:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment 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 Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is not only widely accreditted and peer reviewed in accord with WP:RS 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 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 WP:RS for any assertion. Particularly not against such a body of evidence that is clearly in accord with WP:RS. --Zeraeph 12:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - Awesome. --Action Jackson IV 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • PS 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 Disorder and Psychopathy in Cocaine-Dependent Women," American Journal of Psychiatry, 156. pp. 849-856 ). --Zeraeph 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - absent a clinical diagnosis any tagging of a character as a "psychopath" is original research. Standard for inclusion is vague, seeming to encompass anyone who behaves in an anti-social fashion. Otto4711 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 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 Antisocial characters in fiction? 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 WP:OR? --Zeraeph 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • 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 and if not it's POV. Otto4711 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • 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 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 Fictional portrayals of psychopaths 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?--Zeraeph 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • We already have WP:TRIV which is part of the MoS and WP:BHTT 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. 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. Otto4711 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • 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 quickly bloat out of control. Otto4711 15:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I take your point, perhaps a re-worded title would solve the problem? --Zeraeph 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • 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 in compliance with WP:NOT#IINFO or WP:NOT#DIR 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. Otto4711 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that it is possible to state that some characters are psychopaths without 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 Fritz Lang's movie M, stating that the film is "about a sexual psychopath", named Hans Beckert, who is a "psychopathic murderer". Uncle G 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • 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? Otto4711 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• (removed incivility posted by anonymous editor. Otto4711 19:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia always proceeds by citing what reliable sources say. To reject that because you don't like it is a breach of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newport (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
• Delete no objective definition of who should or shouldn't be on the list. Carlossuarez46 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on the comments in defense of the List of omnipotent fictional characters 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. Carlossuarez46 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep 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 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 fictional portrayals 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 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tantalizing Posey (talk • contribs).

• 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. --Zeraeph 11:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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 qualifies? Still fraught with unacceptable OR and POV violations. Otto4711 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep "Psychopath" is a word found in most dictionaries, and it is reasonable to use it in Wikipedia, which is a general reference work not tailored for psychiatrists.--Runcorn 11:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep "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. --Holdenhurst 19:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV would seem to indicate that generating a list of people for whom the inclusion criterion is that there's "little doubt" is unacceptable. Otto4711 12:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 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?--Newport 22:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Otto4711 12:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 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 the word. To deny this is to push NPOV to absurd lengths.--Osidge 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)