Talk:Anger

Physiological effects

There is an entry at this time (2 Dec 2007) regarding the physiology of anger. However, there could be more detail regarding anger as a purely neurological operant mode in most animals. My thoughts were of anger as a limbic system mode (and how the limbic system and amygdala operates in animals so equipped) and how its conditioned by genetics (disposition and species evolution/specialization) and environment (cognitive events and physical/chemical trauma).
Ed 03:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! We can do that too! --Aminz 08:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA

The article clearly satisfies GA requirements ; well-written, well-referenced, no recent edit wars, and follows the manual of style. Thus, after reviewing it, I believe that Anger should and is A Good Article.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 20, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes

2. Factually accurate?: Accurate

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes, although a few points might need to be reviewed

5. Article stability? No recent edit wars

6. Images?: Well illustrated for this kind of topics

A good article indeed If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 15:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture and audio

One problem with the picture and audio is that it is not anonymous and seems to violate privacy. Not only do we have a picture of two people (who may not want their pictures posted on the world wide web), at the end of the audio, their names and residences are provided. Although the guy obviously gives a fake name, the woman appears to give her real name and where she lives. At the very least, the audio should clip off the part where their names and locations are given. --MPerel 08:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no violation of privacy with respect to the picture; he was out at a public event. I also want to note here that this issue was brought up at ANI link and at least 7 of the editors posting there (as of this post) agreed that this picture was illustrative and appropriate to this article. I'm not going to play any sound files on my computer, as it bogs the old thing down too much. But if there are addresses and names given, I agree that those should be edited out of the sound file. R. Baley (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The audio with the names and locations are the biggest issue I see. That information is given at the end of the audio, so it should be easy enough to truncate that part. --MPerel 09:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm more concerned by its usefulness. Does anyone really need such illustrations of anger? Are there really people out there who have never encountered an angry exchange?Kurzon (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Redundant Anna Wierzbicka references

There are two references to the research of this person and they are nearly identical

One from the introduction: “According to Anna Wierzbicka, the exact conception of anger can vary from culture to culture. For example, what the Ilongots of Philippines call liget roughly refers to what is known as "anger." Unlike anger, however the concept of liget has connections to envy and ambition.[2]”

And the other from the body: “According to Anna Wierzbicka, the exact conception of anger can vary from culture to culture. For example, the Ilongot language of Philippines does not have a term exactly corresponding to the English term "anger". In this language, the closest term expressing the concept of "anger" is liget (glossed as ‘energy, anger, passion’). This term plays a crucial role in the culture and life of Ilongots and has a competitive character related to envy and ambition.”

The second seems most appropriate since it meantions some of her body of work and preceeds a summary of that work.

Also, there is no explanation of who this person is (making it very unencylopedic). If she were as well known as Freud this would be acceptable, but she is not synonymous with psychology or anger in the majority of the english speaking world (as far as this scholar is aware) which would make such an omission acceptable.

My suggestions: 1. Omit the reference in the introduction which is redunant because it doesn't say anything that the later reference doesn't, and a place in the introduction would seem to mean that she DISCOVERED Anger or was one of the first to do work on it.

2. Edit the second reference to say "psychology professor Anna Wiezbicka..." or Anna Wiebicka of Such-and-Such University says...

I will be making these changes later today or tomorrow if noone objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.232.113 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the intro should summarize the whole article and stand as an independent section on its own. That reference from intro can however be removed if that bit of info is not significant. I agree with the other suggestion though. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Bible on Anger

The Bible takes a more nuanced view of anger than the medieval Catholic Church. Example: "In your anger do not sin" (Ephesians 4:26).

Jesus, who was sinless, was recorded to be angry with the Pharisees (Mark 3:5), with his own disciples (Mark 10:14), and with the moneychangers in the temple (John 2:16). Jethro Dull (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source WP:RS for that? --Be happy!! (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes actually, this is true. In the Protestant Bible, being angry is not a sin. However, actions during anger can be. In the quote "In your anger do not sin", it is saying: When you are angry, you are not sinning, but beware of your actions.

In Roman Catholicism, however, anger is one of the seven deadly sins, as it is seen as the Devil's influence upon the soul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.227.74 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sulk

If one searches Wikipedia for the word 'sulk', one is ushered towards this page on anger, where this is not even a mere mention of the word! This is a lamentable state of affairs!. How can the world's online encyclopedia lack a page or even a mention of that most important of human behaviours, to sulk? I am going off in a huff now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoreilly (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Mist Redirect?

Should red mist really be directed here? The article doesnt seem to mention it specifically. As far as I was aware it's a term used in at least the military to describe a very specific state of mind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaeme (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Apeshit redirects here, where can I find more details about why?

where can I find more details about the expression "apeshit" and it's association with the anger feeling?--TiagoTiago (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• [1] --76.113.150.171 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When someone is said to have "gone apeshit" it is generally understood to mean that they flew into a violent rage. That's kind of like Anger, I guess...207.159.180.63 (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

References

There seems to be a disproportionate use of certain sources. For instance, "Simon Kemp, K.T. Strongman" is used 23 times, whereas every other source (with one exception) is used only once or twice. It's great that people are referencing information in the article, but we should be wary of relying too heavily on a single source.Fuzzform (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Humans are animals

Humans are animals, so if there is a sentence that says "humans and animals" or something please change it to "humans and non-human animals" or another suitable statement. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 20:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that humans are animals, but for simplicity, everybody chooses to say 'humans and animals'... -71.80.3.109 (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (wowaname)

Intent to harm as criteria for defining anger

I'm surprised that only the Buddhist section refers to the intention to cause harm to the focus of the anger. It seems to me that if you intend to harm, regardless of your emotional state, you are angry. And if you don't intend to harm, it is difficult to see your behavior as angry. 99.232.211.136 Raymm (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Anger (as defined by Merriam-Websters dictionary) is an emotional state and is unrelated to one's actions. If someone gets in an argument and decides to walk away they may still be angry yet are taking no aggressive actions, conversely a sociopathic killer can brutaly murder someone and yet still be happy and feel no anger at all. So since anger is an emotional state one cannot be angery "regardless of [one's] emotional state" any more than someone can be happy and yet in a sad emotional state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.53.28 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

BIas paragraph taken out for now

Anger is the result of a guilty conscience from failure to express feelings of being hurt to the person associated with it. The reason for the guilt is because the unstated feelings leave the relationship vulnerable to further damage without taking initiative to protect it and needlessly risking the loss. The person may blame the "offender" for their lack of sensitivity and caring rather than take initiative to let them know the impact of their behavior. They may hold fast to those angry feelings and foster them and even seek revenge. The effect to themselves may be worse than the original offense, such as when bitten by a snake, the venom is driven to the heart much faster when the victim irrationally seeks revenge and chases the snake rather than realizing the snake was just acting according to instinct. People often act out of instinct until they understand how others are affected by their actions. They may change their behavior to become more effective with people and so stating the hurt is vital to coming into harmony with their conscience. Thus the guilty conscience for not inviting that harmony when the opportunity is presented. The Anger can help the hurt person become self-aware and be motivated to action rather than let the hurtful experiences keep happening. [to be cited later--part is on pg 221 of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families by Stephen R.Covey.] - This entire paragraph seemed distinctly unencyclopaedic - it presents an opinion by an author as fact. I have placed it here for fellow editors to decide if it should go back in. Overmage (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree the wording isn't great, and I'd rather something from a psychology text rather than the book mentioned. Tend towards leaving it out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to me like it is aimed more towards a specific circumstance (I would guess conflict within families from the title of the book). Certainly other circumstances would disagree (say, one's family dies in a shooting, anger at the shooter is by no means "the result of a guilty conscience" and their is no "relationship" to damage). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.53.28 (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Addiction as bad habit?

Under "Control Methods" appears the following sentence: "Seneca further advises daily self-inquisition about one's bad habit.," where "bad habit" is linked to the disambiguation page for "Addiction." I see no reason for referencing addiction here. Does anyone else? --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Anger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Tagged as having limited geographic scope, that it may contain original research as of November 2009 and needing rewrite from November 2009. Unsourced statements tagged in January 2010, February 2010 and November 2009, Tom B (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

nothing happening, delist Tom B (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First sentence seems inacurate. "Anger is an emotion related to one's perception of having been offended or wronged and a tendency to undo that wrongdoing by retaliation." First part is OK, but the word for the second part ("tendency to undo that wrongdoing by retailation") is revenge. Revenge is based on anger, but anger is not revenge or taking revenge neccesserily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.213.181 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a choice to either do something differently or re-invite anger. Anger in itself only lasts for a brief period in a certain intensity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.168.68.12 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Move back

Please move this article back to Anger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.181 (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Catholicism

In the section on catholicism, it says that vengeance cold be a good thing. I think the distinction between ritcheous and sinful anger should be more clearly defined. perhaps this from http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3158.htm could help

"It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God's work, since he who has power to punish "is God's minister," as stated in Romans 13:4."