Talk:Dexter Morgan

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Infertility?

I haven't the forth book yet, but no where in the tv series or the first 3 books does it say Dexter is infertile, yet the page says he is. In season 3 Rita gets pregnant, clearly making Dexter fertile, someone should probably remove the infertile section, i'd do it myself but i'm not hugely familiar with Wikipedia editing.--TimMcJones (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last note on sociopathy vs. psychopathy

Whoever said that there is a recognized difference between these two disorders in the DSM-IV is incorrect. Both conditions are correlated to Antisocial Personality Disorder, for which the standard term is Sociopath. This is listed in Wikipedia's own articles on the subject. Therefore I see no harm in listing Dexter as a sociopath.On Thermonuclear War 03:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to respectfully disagree. Psychopathy and sociopathy are not synonmous nor are they the same condition. Sociopathy is antisocial personality disorder. We call people who have AsPD "sociopaths", much like we call those with narcissistic PD, "narcissists" and those with borderline PD, "borderlines". Today, research is moving in the direction of psychopathy as an umbrella label that has its own subtypes. Not all psychopaths are the same, this is a fact. But why? Research is pointing at three Cluster B PD's as being three distinct subtypes or three distinct manifestations of psychopathy. These three conditions are antisocial PD, borderline PD, and narcissistic PD. Many now consider these three conditions as distinct subtypes of psychopathy, meaning that the three personality structures are psychopathic, but manifest in different ways. This is why not all psychopaths behave alike, but there is very limited diversity in their ways of relating to other people, their range of emotions (some are as cool as a cucumber, likely those with narcissistic/antisocial psychopathy) and others are hostage to intense negative emotions like anger, rage, anxiety and depression, likely those with borderline psychopathy. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 21:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology compromise

How about we put in a list of speculated psychosis, and references to the series to support (or discredit) each 'illness'. But keep it encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qforvendetta (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food

I really think we ought to include a note about how food is a huge theme in the show. I mean Dexter is almost always eating. Witchbaby 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any notability in this besides that a guy's gotta eat.--CyberGhostface 04:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It's as significant as the way James Bond is particular about how his martini is prepared. Note the opening credit sequence. Fried pork. Eggs, runny. Oranges with blood-red pulp. All thematically linked to a guy who was traumatized by blood, whose work has to do with blood, and who collects blood samples as souvenirs of his victims. Dexter has no emotions, no feeling for other human beings no interest in sex or romance. It is through food that Dexter Morgan revels as a sensual being.

Food themes also recur in the books. Dexter is fond of pork sandwiches (like Cuban sandwiches, popular in Florida). He also has an interest in doughnuts. and although the discipline of harry taught him to keep his mind sharp, in "Deeply Devoted Dexter," our hero discovers the distraction of beer.
Dexter's gotta eat, and he's gotta kill. At a certain level, they're both the same thing. [USER: EGTea, 29 March 2007]

Dexter mentions a high metabolism in the novels. I was also struck by the techniques used in the title sequence... the zoom and other features is used to semi-disguise the activities, eg the cutting of meat and the tying of laces. Other shots are used (the knife on plate and fruit) to give the impression of furious action and purpose. 81.159.232.216 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the dark passenger

I think that "the dark passenger" should not be an alter-ego of Dexter, he's described as a different character, one who "takes over." More along the lines of Multiple Personality Disorder, but still quite different. Seeing as different people can have a "dark passenger" of their own (Cody and Agent Doakes), it seems that it would be less of an an alias and more of... well, a mysterious personality flaw.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trocisp (talk • contribs) 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, the third book makes it pretty clear that the Dark Passenger is a completely separate entity. Even before reading it, I felt that, as it seemed to Dexter that other people had "passengers" of their own, it would be much more likely that (in a fictional setting) it would be some sort of supernatural being rather than the product of a broken mind. Gazok (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sociopaths and Victims of Abuse

1. Whoever removed the categories for sociopaths and murderers clearly has little knowledge of who Dexter is. Dexter is clearly a sociopath. One of the driving factors of his narrative is his inability to feel normal, human emotions. He does care for people, but on a distant level. Heck, several times in the novel he refers to himself as a sociopath. What other proof do you need?
2. I removed 'victims of abuse'. While I won't spoil anything for those who have not yet finished the novel, what happened to Dexter (while very traumatic) was not abuse.--CyberGhostface 00:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply #2

I have finished the novel, and I disagree. To explain in detail would be a spoiler.

It can be argued that Dexter Morgan is a psychopath. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) provides definitions in which the traits of psychopathy and sociopathy overlap somewhat. What psychopaths and sociopaths have in common is utter disregard for the rights and feelings of other people, an ability to be superficially charming and a lack of remorse in whatever they do. All of these traits are present in Dexter, but none is absolute. Either Dexter cares about *some* people, or Harry Morgan was successful in teaching him how to behave like someone who cares.

What tilts the scales to psychopath for Dexter is that sociopaths are more likely to act impulsively and erratically. Dexter is nothing, if not, extremely deliberate and organized.

I recently read "A Death in Belmont," Sebastian Junger's book about how racism may have sent a black man to prison for life for a murder that was out of character for this individual, but which fit the pattern of a famous serial killer who had terrorized the area for more than a year. In a chapter that defines serial killers, Junger cites experts who say that serial killers always have a sexual component in their motivations. That would be inconsistent with Dexter, who says he isn't interested in sex, and chose his girlfriend because, as a traumatized victim of domestic abuse, Rita wasn't interested in sex either (only her uninterest took the form of "I'm not ready for that *yet*. Please be patient.")

Reply

While such qualities do certainly make a person a sociopath, that's not the issue here He is listed as both a sociopath and a psychopath, which is not possible. The terms sociopath and psychopath are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. They are two separate (if very similar) psychological conditions; why else do you think that antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy each have their own distinct entry in this very encyclopedia? Oh, and it also stands to reason that a serial killer is a murderer, so why list a character as both? Treybien 19:42 15 October 2006 (UTC)

He actually said in the book something along the lines of "I'm a sociopath but not a psychopath". So if anything would have to be removed, it would be the latter. And all serial killers are murderers, but not all murderers are serial killers. While it may seem redundant to have similar categories, they are important for people for searching through the categories.--CyberGhostface 10:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.71.18 (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply to above

Why do I think sociopathy and psychopathy are defined differently in this very encyclopedia? I could point out that this very encyclopedia is written and edited by amateurs, and people who don't know what they write about are not excluded to any great degree.

That being said, I would agree on reflection that Dexter is more of a sociopath because his behavior fails the so-called McNaughten standard, also known as the "cop in the room" rule. By this standard, a true psychopathic killer would kill whenever the impulse came upon him, because he couldn't help himself. Such a psychopath wouldn't plan his crimes, he wouldn't care about getting away with the crime. A psychopath would follow his impulse, even if he was aware that a police officer was standing next to him while he did it. I think we can agree that Dexter Morgan can control his "Dark Passenger" to such a degree that he wouldn't kill anyone if there was a cop in the room. Therefore, Dexter is not a psychopath, but a sociopath who does what he does because it's what he wants.

A simpler rule is: a psychopath is sick. A sociopath is evil.

Actually, sociopath and psychopath are interchangeable words, synonyms. I think Dexter uses sociopath to imply someone who can blend seamlessly into society while a psychopath can't. ~Clenching Teeth Toast Guy
No, psychopathy and sociopathy are not the same thing, although the definitions overlap somewhat. The legal definition of insanity (which is not psychological terminology) is the inability to distinguish right from wrong. A psychopath cannot perceive how society's standards may apply to his behavior. A sociopath, on the other hand, knows the rules, knows he's wtong, and doesn't care.

spoilers

I inserted the words (contains spoilers) to the "Character history" header because the fact that Dexter Morgan has a brother was not revealed until the climax of "Darkly Dreaming Dexter" and would spoil the ending for both readers and viewers of the television series as of this writing. For this same reason I woud not recommend adding the names of Brian or Dexter's biological father ("Driscoll?") to the family list

Wikipedia contains spoilers. And in the future you should add the proper spoiler template.--CyberGhostface 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of "Character history" should be removed. It is a big fat spoiler for the complete first season of Dexter. Something like "Kevin Spacey – Roger "Verbal" Kint/Keyser Söze". I suggest replacing the paragraph with a shorter, non-spoiling introduction about early childhood. Fuzzy 14:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit late to the party on this but if anybody gets such ideas again, stop and read WP:SPOILER before you do, would you please? --Streaky (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victims

Was it really necessary to remove the victims table? It is, I think, encyclopedic and interesting. --Mister Six 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it encyclopedic? Victim pages have been removed from other articles on account of them being unencyclopedic.--CyberGhostface 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'mn working on the principle that 'encyclopedic' = 'comprehensive and relevant'. Which, you know, it is: the guy's a serial killer in a series that mainly focuses on him and his killings (unlike, say, The Silence of the Lambs, which focuses more on the serial killer's world), so listing his victims seems extremely relevant to me. I just don't see an argument for removing it. I don't know what other pages you're referring to, so I can't comment on them, but in the case of Dexter Morgan, a character in an episodoic TV show, I think it's certainly relevant. Feel free to call for a public vote or something, because right now it's one person versus another and I don't see why your opinion outweighs mine. Unless, of course, you can refer to a specific Wikipedia rule that overrides it (ie: something applicable to this situation, rather than something that happened on another page) I'd appreciate you leaving it up. --Mister Six 11:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And who his specific victims are contributes what exactly to his character? All that needs to be said is the type of person he kills. Adding stuff like "In Episode 606 Dexter kills Joe Bloe because he ate babies" is just trivia and fancruft. Look at other articles for serial killers. For example, in Jigsaw Killer someone attempted to add a list of his victims. This was removed on account of it being unencyclopediac.
Also keep in mind that first and foremost Dexter is a character from novels, and this article seems to be writing about the novel's character and continuity. So adding TV information seems out of place.--CyberGhostface 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what about putting it in the Dexter TV show section? --Mister Six 21:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if you could make it like the list of Deaths in the Sopranos articles.--CyberGhostface 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, since the list of victims would be different for the TV series and for the novels, it would be more appropriate to have separate lists connected to the entries for the separate versions. This article needs to remain neutral between the two versions.24.13.222.219 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Above

The above argument makes Jeff Lindsay sound like a victim, whose literary character Dexter Morgan is being disfigured by its development for a television series. I can only presume from the lack of any news of copyright infringement litigation that the people who developed the "Dexter" TV show are doing so with Mr. Lindsay's permission. This "don't molest a novel character" stuff is what's out of place. It's provincial and not in touch with how the masses experience fiction today.

It is legitimate to discuss the character's TV development, if only to point out how it differs from the novels. For example, a major good-guy character dies in the first novel, and a bad guy escapes. At the comparable point in the TV plot, the same good guy lives and the same bad guy dies. That's worth discussing, no matter which side of the argument you side with.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.82.78 (talk • contribs)

A.) What makes your argument so special that it deserves its own section? (This goes for everyone here who feels the need to make one reply to a previous post in its own section) B.) Whose argument are you replying to? No one has discussed Lindsay's novel being molested. And your complaints about how it differs from the novel is lacking from this article is fruitless: the main article for the TV show has a detailed section that tells how the show differs from major events to minor changes. C.)If what you're complaining about is the missing table for Dexter's victims...it has NOTHING to do with Lindsay's novel being 'molested'. Even if used information from the book, it'd still be trivial and unencyclopediac to list the fictiona victims of a fictional serial killer. I don't see Freddy Krueger or Otis B. Driftwood having their own table filled with victims and how they were dispatched?--CyberGhostface 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I wasn't complaining about the lack of a victims' table. I don't care about such a table one way or the other. If I were to make an argument based on the question "Why Dexter and not Freddy Krueger?" it would be that, unlike Freddy, Dexter Morgan's victims are not innocents who happened to stumble into the den of the monster. Dexter Morgan is, by his own description, a monster, but he follows a code by which he doesn't kill the undeserving. His victims generally get more character development than the typical victim in a teen slasher movie. It's no fun to watch Dexter kill if you don't agree his victim deserves to die.

And my writings deserve to get a header for the same reason as anyone else who edits Wikipedia: Because I made a header. Asking why is silly.

Dexter doesn't kill the undeserving? That depends on if you're familar with the books, where on two occasions he's let innocent people get murdered and mutilated with indifference. But thats beside the point. The argument that "Well, Dexter kills evil people and Freddy doesn't so therefore they deserve their own section" doesn't make much sense, nor that the his victims get more development. Shit, except for the teen that was raped, I can't think of a single victim that had any complexity.
Discussing changes between two medias in an article dedicated to the show is relevant and encyclopediac. A list of victims saying "So and so got killed by Dexter" is not.
As for the headers...FIVE people made their own sections for their own reply. All that served to do is clutter up the page and it make overlong and unwieldy. Make your reply in the appropiate discussion. Simple wiki-quette (or wiki-ettiqutte or whatever the nickname is).--CyberGhostface 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victims List = Episode List

There's a List of Episodes which looks like there's room for another column in which we could list "Dexter's Victims" for each episode. That would put all of the victims in the TV series in one place, so we wouldn't need to have a list here as well. Likewise there could be a list of victims in each book on the page for that book. Sound like a good way to handle the differences? 24.13.222.219 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be like List_of_deaths_in_The_Sopranos_series. I still don't think they're relevant enough for their own page but I guess that would be a way to handle the differences of opinion.--CyberGhostface 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The victims could be listed with the episode like House's illnesses are listed at List of House episodes. --Boycool42 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split between TV version & book version

I think we might want to split this article to separate the TV character and the book character. They are similar characters, but are becoming increasingly different. This article weaves together different facts from both mediums, and does always not make a clear distinction between the two.

Agree. Go ahead and do it, as I haven't read the book. –Pomte 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean by making seperate articles, I disagree. If you mean by splitting the article into different sections, go ahead.--CyberGhostface 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just adding some info and then realized that it might not be present in the books, as I based it off the TV show. I think splitting the sections would be a great help. (no seperate articles though) -On Thermonuclear War 1:03, 1 October 2007(UTC)

America's hero

Why can't there be a title like this somewhere in the article? I'm not into all the psychology as the people above, but this show is extremely popular with everybody I talked to who has seen it. And the character is doing the right thing too. If he just wanted to kill he could get a job in a slaughterhouse. - VGI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.141.8 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (to a certain extent, although this isn't the place) but it counts as original research unless have you have a source. Try finding a published review, I'm positive someone else has brought up a similar agenda.--CyberGhostface 17:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See: Nigeria’s Vigilante Justice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.145.172 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moloch and the Dark Passenger

Under "psychopathy and sociopathy," it says that Dexter's Dark Passenger is "an independent agent inhabiting Dexter, instead of a deviant psychological construction. It is revealed that the Dark Passenger is the offspring of Moloch, a god who has been worshiped since biblical times." I don't think that Lindsay meant for all the mystical talk in Book 3 to be taken literally. Some cultists claimed that the Dark Passenger was a child of Moloch but, since they're crazy cultists, I don't think we should take their claims too seriously. Lindsay often described the Passenger with supernatural language to emphasize Dexter's insanity. I think this part should be re-worded or removed. -IGlowInTheDark 5:41, 20 October 2007(UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--CyberGhostface 17:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree... He clearly talks about "IT" separately, in a factual manner. He repeatedly mentions the fact that the cultists all have their own "passengers," and the first Watcher is able to terrify Dexter's passenger into fleeing by "reaching out" to it (it makes mention to some sort of feeler, but I can't remember the exact wording). Also, at the end it says "IT" is watching and waiting for a day when it can return. Gazok (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People talk about their penises in the third person (and some even name them) so just because he refers to the dark passenger in the third person doesn't make it an actual seperate entity. Not only that but it's clearly not the point. It's not like you need to have a phd in the subject to understand what he means. --86.159.124.14 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sociopathy, again

No, I don't want to argue the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. Because neither one applies to Dexter.

I know that the books use the term "sociopath," and Lindsay has refered to Antisocial Personality Disorder in interviews. But Lindsay is wrong. (Or maybe Lindsay is right about Dexter being wrong?) Dexter is a paradigm "secret schizoid" (that is, someone suffering from Schizoid Personality Disorder who hides it very well).

ASPD is about inability to conform, manipulation, and impulsive aggression; SPD is about coldness, detachment, and complete lack of interest in normal human interaction. Which one sounds like Dexter? If you look at the DSM criteria, he's not even close to ASPD, but he matches all criteria for SPD (except, arguably, lack of schizophrenia or other psychosis).

The problem is, (non-psychotic) serial killers are almost always antisocial, and never schizoid. But then Dexter isn't a typical serial killer. At first he may look like a Bundy/Gacy type, but he's not. There are no sex or power urges, he doesn't care at all about media coverage, and he always just grabs his victims instead of luring or deceiving them first (playing on their sympathy, asking them on dates, hiring them as prostitutes, etc.). Those are all clear signs of ASPD, and common traits of Bundy-style serial killers, and not at all Dexter. So, how do you explain Dexter? Well, you don't; the mystery is supposed to be still unresolved--otherwise, what was the point of the third book?

TV Dexter is completely different. In the first few episodes, he was novel Dexter, but he became less schizoid with each episode, and by the end of the season, no psychiatrist would even consider the diagnosis. The need to kill is not an externalized "Dark Passenger," but a craving and preoccupation of Dexter's own self--in other words, an addiction. In fact, TV Dexter fits the DSM criteria for drug addiction perfectly, except of course that it's not drugs that he's addicted to. They play with this concept openly in the series with the whole NA plot.

But neither Dexter is a sociopath. --76.200.100.185 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that Dexter's mental diagnosis is different than what the official consensus is is original research. If you find a published source making your arguments about Dexter (not just about sociopaths in general: that would be Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position) you can add it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official stance of the American Psychiatric Association as presented in the DSM-IV-TR is that "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" are obsolete synonyms. The World Health Organization takes a similar stance in its ICD-10 by referring to psychopathy, antisocial personality, asocial personality, and amoral personality as synonyms for dissocial personality disorder. But this is a moot point as Dexter is a fictional character written by a man who is not a mental health professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.252.66 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debra's Ranking

In the TV series, Dexter's sister Deb is not a detective, but only a police officer working in the homicide division. This is evidenced when the Captain says "If you keep up the hard work I see a Detective's shield in your future" as well as the fact that she is never referred to as Detective, and takes orders from the detectives. --Xander756 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last two sentences.

"It is implied that Brian murdered Driscoll with an injection of insulin to mimic a heart attack, as it is revealed that Driscoll had been visited by a cable repair man prior to his death, and an elderly neighbor recognizes Brian as the repairman. However, the body is cremated before Dexter can obtain proof."

Implies that Dex is trying to prove that Brian killed Driscoll, whereas he was just trying to generally prove that Driscoll had been murdered. I'm not sure how, but it needs to be reworded. Duggy 1138 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious quotation

When talking about his "work" in the TV series he explains the code as, "My intention was never to save lives, but save lives I did."[citation needed]

It is true that a citation is needed for this quotation. Whilst it probably accurately describes his psychology, I not only do not know whether he ever said this, but also do not know whether he in fact would say it, as it seems to make his character darker than it appears in the episodes that I have seen. If somebody does not provide at least an episode number for this quotation, I think it should be deleted. --Susurrus (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth

I believe Dexter was born in August/September 1974, does anybody have verification of this? Slaja (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dex Book Development

Just reading the section on Dexter's development throughout the literary series. The section for the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter states that Dexter received a large wound in his abdomen, necessitating a blood transfusion, finding out that Dexter is type AB-, and that Harry Morgan was forced to go to Dexter's biological father for a blood donation.

This is not true. The book makes no mention of Dexter's biological father, who is only named in the first TV season. Dexter's blood type is never revealed, and the scant physical descriptions of Dexter in the book do not mention a large scar nor its cause. The TV show clearly depicts it, however. I am guessing that the TV series and the book are being mixed up here. Thoughts? Needs cleaning up and re-checking against the books? LudBob (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of kills of the killers

I am in complete agreement with the idea of having a kill list within the Dexter article, but there is hardly any chance of finding references to how many people these people have killed and can only be gotten via original research. Perhaps this section of the table should be deleted? It is unsustainable. That Cheesy dude, Talk to the hand, or my user talk page...

Greate Idea having the kill list but another small problem. The definition of Self-Defence is up for discussion. I just finished watching Episode 11 Season 5. I would rather say it was Self Preservation as Stan Liddy did not want to harm Dexter but rather hand him over to the police. Dexter kicked him in the Face first trying to escape then killed him in the scuffle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.10.190 (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Dexter episode 412 screenshot.jpg

The image File:Dexter episode 412 screenshot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chutsky's Arm

It was his left arm that was amputated, not his right, in the second Dexter Book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.224.190 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the list of victims

Oscar Prado is listed as not fitting the code but he most certainly does. Here is a quote from earlier in this very article "Prado deviates from The Code to murder a rival defense attorney."

If this doesn't fit "the code" then I don't know what does. Also, although I'm not sure it's an actual part of the code, Prado is virtually certain to kill again given his temper and the enthusiasm with which he took to Dexter's methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.3.212 (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is referring to Miguel Prado, Oscar is his brother, the one he kills at the very start of season 3, he had not killed anyone (to our and his knowledge), so he does not fit the code. Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List is original research

Questions like the one in the section above show that the whole list is created by plot observations done by viewers. Nothing is supported by reliable third-party sources. The problems comes again an again. Watching a film and making conclusions, even if they look 100% accurate, is original research. The writers can mislead the audience just to make plot twists. TV series like Lost (TV series prove that this is not uncommon. Information based on a fictional character's "research" like scrapbooks, photos on a wall, etc. that viewers watch on episodes can't be a reliable source. Sources must come from real world and it would be better that they were by third parties and not by the channel or the production company that releases the series. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no conclusions here, just reiterating what is clearly seen on the screen. The original research police needs to take a refresher course, I'm afraid... Moreover, assuming that scrapbooks are intentionally misleading for plot twist purposes is original research. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of verifiability with the use of third party sources is original research. Someone comes and claims that these are facts from the TV series. How can I verify? By watching the whole series? What would happen if someone was claiming that the number of stars visible on the sky are that many? I would have to count them to verify it? This is not how it goes. We need an article by a journalist or someone expert to prove what it written here. It's of course clear that Dexter's kills are the main plot device that as long ad there are not covered by public media, critics, etc. this section has no more notability than "Dexter's trousers". -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this list's removal, I was the one who initially added it in the first place (when I was just starting out on Wikipedia and was slightly less informed on its policies) and now I do recognize that it is completely original research, there is no call for the usage of primary sources to substantiate miscellany. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did some google search hoping that someone has written an article on Dexter's kill but I was unable to find something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Magioladitis, you don't have to watch the whole series – every victim has an episode number next to it. As for "fits the code", Dexter usually says it about the victims who don't, and also explains why. This is all found in the series itself. Nothing here fits the definition of WP:OR. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the article you just linked: "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not my personal experience, it's as simple as see and tell – just like a plot section. The primary source of the information is each individual episode that is referenced in the table. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That type of source is only applicable to plots, not for miscellany in character articles (which already should be kept to an utter minumum). That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, this kind of restriction does not apply in any official WP policy... unless you can point me to the appropriate one please, specifically saying that what is applied in plot sections cannot be applied anywhere else. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't link you to a non-existence of a policy and I've already quoted a sentence out of WP:OR that stops this list from being part of the article. It is obviously personal experience because you are viewing it and then writing what you experienced, the only exception to this is a plotsum, which this is not. Your edit warring is frustrating and I see that you've been blocked multiple times because of it, perhaps you should adhere more strictly to policy and try not to just make up your own. I am going to restore Magioladitis's edit and if you think that this is a mistake, don't revert. Stick to the talk page, default is non-inclusion in questionable content. Thank you. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Digging through my trash? One of those, huh... and you're either seriously missing the point or trying to wear me out. "Personal experience" means that an editor saw or heard something either by hirself or in the presence of a few witnesses. Watching an episode that is broadcast over a major TV network is akin to reading an article. How can Wikipedia "become" a primary source for that info if all Dexter viewers already saw it coming from the series itself? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me explain this to you clearly then. When you write a plot summary, you view the episode and write down what you've seen or what you are seeing as you watch it, this is a primary source because it comes straight from the source of the program, a link to an imdb page on the article Imdb would be a primary source because it came from that page (it would generally be sustainable because it is needed in place of other more reliable sources). Viewing the episode and writing like this is from personal experience, put simply, you are personally viewing (experiencing) the show and documenting what you saw. Wikipedia has a rule that this is allowed in plot summaries, which is why both Magioladitis and I have left the entire sections above it alone, because they are allowed to be there, but there is no rule allowing miscellany or lists to be substantiated by primary sources when unneeded because this is considered to be original research. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference between watching the episode or reading an article that contains nothing but information from that episode. There are no conclusions, no deductions, no personal opinions. You forget that not everything is original research, quote: "compiling related facts[...]is part of writing an encyclopedia." This is not an analysis, merely a table presenting a list of facts that can be seen/heard on screen. WP:PRIMARY does not apply for the same reason – quote: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source"; there are no interpretive claims, no analyses, and certainly not synthetic claims. This is just a bunch of information bits, except that it's nicely organized. What I watched can be verified by millions of viewers that watched that same episode (which can also be viewed on demand); it's different from writing, say, about a yeti sighting in my back yard. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No conclusions? Number of kills. No deductions? Reason for being targeted. No personal opinions? Fits the code? It really is an analysis. No interpretative claims? What about whether or not the target fits the code? We need to interpret whether or not Dexter thinks that they fit the code. Analysis, this whole thing is an analysis. A passage from the Works of Fiction section in NOTOR clearly nullifies your linking the article with this: "This would include direct quotes or non interpretative summaries..." That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 15:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless Dexter clearly states each and every time the kill does not fit the code, and otherwise states that all the others do – by portraying himself as clearly adhering to the code, unless he specifies otherwise, which he does each and every time. Number of kills? See and tell. We don't need to interpret anything, "fits code" is what Dexter tells us, and "number of kills" is what can be seen/heard in the episode! Reason for being targeted? All in the plot. Where is the "personal deduction" here? Oh, for cryin' out loud... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous... will you not see any form of sense at all? Writers generally deal in obscurantism... you know what actually no... I give up. Perhaps someone else will want to come along and tell you that you really are wrong, or Magioladitis will want to back up his points... but I find it ridiculous that I can't remove something that I wrote myself and is counter-Wikipedia policy. Perhaps this was the start of my discontent or disillusionment with Wikipedia itself. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 16:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK then – as every deduction has more than one outcome, please give me an example of a different conclusion that could be drawn as legitimately for any point in the table. Yes, you wrote it, and now I am trying hard to preserve your own work (wow, speaking of ridiculous...) by reminding you that behind every rule there is a human that wrote it, with their reasons for the existence of that rule and all exceptions to it, which most editors here seem to overlook to begin with. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list is done in universe style. Whether they fit Dexters Code or not, that is an in-universe conclusion. Its been mentioned, Dexter says the character does or doesn;t fit the code. Thats true. However, thats an in-universe statement of the matterial. Its not from an outside source. Further, there is enough ambiguity for some of his kills that they very well could not fit the code. For example, second season the guy who had guns. Never said why he was killed. Stan Bodry season 4. Dexter never went through his usuall methods of finding out whether he killed someone. Further, this this gives no in depth understanding of the characters. Its pretty much there to look cool. Its fannish OR. Only the major, essential facts of a character should be added. The article is against wiki policies and quite frankly is a waste of space on this page. It was debated for the better part of July and no agreement was made, just a "ridiculous" here "ridiculous there" and give up. Third party needed. If I sound more confrontational and dictatoral then I meant I apologize. Been fighting with vandals for awhile now in the Supernatural pages.

third opinion request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion: the List is fancruft and in-universe. It offers no real world information of encyclopedic value (if many of Dexter's victims were based on real world criminals that might be another matter). It should be removed or refactored into Dexter's background information where appropriate. Millahnna (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims

This is a chronological list of all the people Dexter has killed on the show. In the season five premiere "My Bad", Dexter claimed that he had seen 67 people die.

His Code

"Dexter can only kill people after finding evidence that they are guilty of murder, and he must dispose of all evidence so he never gets caught." Unfortunately that is not true. Dexter killed at least two people he didn't know much about (I'm just referring to sesion 5): 1. He killed a man in the bathroom because he insulted Rita (episode: My Bad) 2. He killed the ex-cop played by Peter Weller (episode 12). There he didn't follow his code - unless you would say that he destroyed evidence but that wouldn't work as it would interfer with his first rule: kill only murderers. Therefore it has to be argued if he really follows a code. In fact, following the code Dexter would have to kill himself for his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.176 (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Group members fit the Code?

I understand how Boyd fits the code, but, how to Dan and Cole? Yes, they did rape several women, but Boyd was the only one who actually did any killing. So, wouldn't they technically be violations of the code? Le Rusecue (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims

Fancruft of the highest order or not? Discuss, please? I agree with those removing it. At the very least it needs major revision. Millahnna (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with its removal, it is purely WP:OR. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 03:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of another point; some folks in above conversations are saying that using the primary source for the list is fine (in a similar way that we use primary source for episode summaries). SO which primary source, the books or the show? Because the article at large is at least attempting to cover both (as well it should). Either way, I'm still in favor of removing the list as cruft. It's not any different than the crufty lists of deaths that plague horror film articles. Millahnna (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so no one else has made a point for it to stay, its been almost 48 hours. I say if no one comes up with a good argument in another 24 hours it should be removed.Odoital25 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a note on WT:TV to ask for more opinions. I'm not sure I count as a true third opinion since I do regularly watch the article, though I've had little hand in editing it. Also, I'm far more familiar with the Film Project MOS than the TV one, so I wanted to make sure some more experienced editors saw the conflict and weighed in if necessary. I'd say give it until Monday or Tuesday just to be safe that we have enough opinions to form a consensus. Millahnna (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the entire section should be removed. It's a list and all that information should be part of the storylines section. Jayy008 (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove it. This is what separates Wikipedia and Wikias. It is a cruft and plot summary. I don't think it is WP:OR, but it is still not needed. JDDJS (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also removed it as per WP:UNSOURCED as it looks like WP:OR- that said if it can be sourced it could make for an interesting article.Moxy (talk)

Has this been updated lately?

Hey everyone, sorry if I'm just missing something but I read the summary at the beginning and it said "A seventh novel is expected in late 2012." As of today's date, it's 2/3/13; either that line needs to be updated or this article may need some overall updating perhaps? Until I read this article I never knew there were novels so I can't comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.138.49 (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blood type

Yes Dexters AB- Blood is rare However people with blood type AB- can recieve Blood from people with A- B- O- or AB- Blood this is a mistake by the Writer But i feal that this need to be pointed out in the Artical any one who feals the same way please coment back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.236.67 (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter's diagnosis revisited

Despite the fact that it was implied in the show that Dexter was a "psychopath", he clearly was not. Psychopathy is a cluster of traits and behaviours that are tied to Cluster B personality disorders. Antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder are three PD's which, in some schools of thought, are considered to be three different subtypes, three different breeds, or three different manifestations of psychopathy. In a nutshell, all three of those personality disorders are considered to be psychopathic. If you go by the other school of thought - that psychopathy is a PD in its own right, then you'd quickly come to realize that comorbidity is highest with BPD, AsPD, and NPD. Dexter is neither a narcissist, a sociopath (antisocial), or a borderline. Dexter Morgan is a textbook case of a schizoid personality disorder with avoidant and possibly obsessive-compulsive personality disorder features, aswell. He seems to be free of any serious or noticeable Cluster B traits. Another, but less likely possibility, is that he may have Aspergers syndrome. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 20:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter/Sinister

Is there any way to fit into this article that Dexter is the opposite of Sinister? The IMDB Trivia section says the name was chosen on purpose. Faolin42 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victims

Looking at the history of the talk page a decision was previously made to remove this section. However the current article appears to have had this added back in. As per previous discussions this would appear to be pure fancruft and unsuitable for Wikipedia, equally it appears to be incomplete and contains numerous entries of unknown. Can we confirm if there is consensus to remove the section again.Bath1865 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been several days and no-one has commented, given the previous decision was to remove I'm going to be Bold and remove this section. If anyone disagrees suggest we bring the discussion here. Bath1865 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=k> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=k}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Dexter_Morgan"