Talk:Carl Denham: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Cbrown1023 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*Correct or not, do you think it might be original research? [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]] <small>[[User_talk:CanadianCaesar|Cæsar is turn’d to hear]]</small> 02:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
*Correct or not, do you think it might be original research? [[User:CanadianCaesar|CanadianCaesar]] <small>[[User_talk:CanadianCaesar|Cæsar is turn’d to hear]]</small> 02:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
:According to my reading of Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research, this does not appear to constitute original research, so long as I cite the sources for this, which would be the [[PCL-R]] and Peter Jackson's 2005 remake of [[King Kong]]. It appears to be straightforward application of the checklist to this character in much the same way as 4 is the straightforward application of addition to 2 and 2. I do not know of any scholarly journals that publish hypothetical diagnoses for fictional characters at any rate, so I do not see how this could be a matter of dispute anyway. Nevertheless, I mainly just edit and don't follow the latest in policy trends around here as I am more concerned with the information than with wikipolitics.--[[User:NeantHumain|NeantHumain]] 05:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
:According to my reading of Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research, this does not appear to constitute original research, so long as I cite the sources for this, which would be the [[PCL-R]] and Peter Jackson's 2005 remake of [[King Kong]]. It appears to be straightforward application of the checklist to this character in much the same way as 4 is the straightforward application of addition to 2 and 2. I do not know of any scholarly journals that publish hypothetical diagnoses for fictional characters at any rate, so I do not see how this could be a matter of dispute anyway. Nevertheless, I mainly just edit and don't follow the latest in policy trends around here as I am more concerned with the information than with wikipolitics.--[[User:NeantHumain|NeantHumain]] 05:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
==Dates of birth and death== |
|||
Where did these come from? |
|||
Revision as of 23:39, 1 January 2008
 | Film B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Fictional psychopath
After having watched the 2005 remake of King Kong, I realized Carl Denham is the perfect example of the fictional psychopath who does not appear to be "evil." He displays many typical signs of the psychopathic personality like deceit, manipulation, fearlessness, impulsivity, an empathy deficit, financial irresponsibility, and grandiosity (his dream of being a highly successful film producer if only next time). He even has a warrant for his arrest. Most moviegoers would never think of him as a psychopath or even really such a bad guy (reckless, yes), yet the label of psychopath is appropriate.
- Correct or not, do you think it might be original research? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 02:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- According to my reading of Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research, this does not appear to constitute original research, so long as I cite the sources for this, which would be the PCL-R and Peter Jackson's 2005 remake of King Kong. It appears to be straightforward application of the checklist to this character in much the same way as 4 is the straightforward application of addition to 2 and 2. I do not know of any scholarly journals that publish hypothetical diagnoses for fictional characters at any rate, so I do not see how this could be a matter of dispute anyway. Nevertheless, I mainly just edit and don't follow the latest in policy trends around here as I am more concerned with the information than with wikipolitics.--NeantHumain 05:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Dates of birth and death
Where did these come from?