This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot(talk | contribs) at 12:55, 12 February 2024(Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Film}}, {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:55, 12 February 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Film}}, {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tokusatsu, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tokusatsu on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TokusatsuWikipedia:WikiProject TokusatsuTemplate:WikiProject TokusatsuTokusatsu articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
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.
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.--NeantHumain05:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
