Talk:Richard Topcliffe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Psychopath
I see there are two links to a source for this term. The problem I have is that it's a 20thC. diagnosis based on partly known actions of a 16thC. torturer. We try to get away from descriptions of catholics as devoted (see Talk:Adolf Hitler) or fanatical, protestants as zealous, and puritans as stern - because they're just cartoon tags that tell us nothing about the real people. But this example is even worse - to describe him as a psychopath is to assert that he had a psychiatric condition which prevented him from sharing ordinary human feelings. Even to describe him as sadistic would assert that he took pleasure from his torture. The terms are anachronistic, and the evidence to back them up isn't available. Why not just describe him as cruel? He undoubtedly was that.--Shtove 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Although the link says he was a psychopath, the offending sentence in the article says he gained a reputation for being a psychopath, which makes it anachronistic as Shtove says. Any objections to removing the sentence? Glow worm64 18:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
