Jump to content

Talk:Anger/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

Addiction as bad habit?

Under "Control Methods" appears the following sentence: "Seneca further advises daily self-inquisition about one's bad habit.[1]," 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)

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)

  • 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)

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)

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)

ENGVAR?

Please help me determine WP:ENGVAR for this article. There are a couple of instances of "behaviour" and a couple of "behavior" (though one of these was just switched), the "ize" ending is pervasive. If we look to the style of the initial author as a guide, the initial content was just a stub and I don't see any particular indicators (thiugh the source for the stub was the British "Easton's Bible Dictionary") and that content was reverted within minutes. I'm leaning towards American English. Jojalozzo 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, reverted before seeing this. Apologies. In 2003 it has "organisation", which is Brit eng, but it's extremely stubby at that point, not the current article at all. We could keep the ize, but also the u's, call it Oxford English, and leave it at that halfway between usual British and American. CMD (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Emotions templates

There are two templates both listing emotions. One at the bottom and one at the side. Unnecessary duplication. I propose removing the side one as few articles seem to be using it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2012 (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)

The description of the audio states that it is an argument about the existence of God, but that isn't the argument at all. It sounds more like an argument between a Christian and a Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.19.13 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC) @2.101.19.13: well, after all these years, after I discovered it, I changed it. I, a random editor, changed the description. whereever you, the person behind the ip is now, rest assured.

Punctuation

In "In modern society," the statement "Recently, Sue Parker Hall has challenged this idea;" sounds like a complete thought. Should there be a period instead of a semi-colon? This paragraph continues with the semi-colon format, "she conceptualizes anger as a positive, pure and constructive emotion, that is always respectful of others; it is only ever used to protect the self on physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual dimensions in relationships." Would these breaks be better suited with a period?

In the next paragraph, "Parker Hall proposes that it is not anger that is problematic but rage, a different phenomenon entirely; " is another complete thought that may sound better with a period before continuing with the next thought, "rage is conceptualized as a pre-verbal, pre-cognition, psychological defense mechanism which originates in earliest infancy as a response to the trauma experienced when the infant's environment fails to meet their needs."

Please let me know what you think so I know if I should make this edit or if semicolons make sense here. Thank you.

EBedoy (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Understanding our reaction in anger

For me Anger is an unhealthy reaction to feelings of pain fear or frustrations

If I am angry I am not nurturing and healing my emotional pains.

By dwelling on my pains of the past if I do not heal my pains my pain turned in to resentments, then dwelling up that pain even longer turned in to vengeance.

If I am angry I can be afraid and am not facing my fears.

If I am angry because I am frustrated it is because of my unreasonable expectations of other people or my unreasonable expectations life.

Sadly when people are angry they will often transfer their unhealthy pains unhealthy fears and unhealthy frustrations on to other people through aggresion and confrontations.

Being angry towards another person adversely affects that person and my relationship with other people.

If we allow fear to build up in us over time we become more vulnerable to panic.

Love and peace to everyone

Dave of Beckenham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Of Beckenham (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! However, the Talk page is for discussing the article. In what way would you like to change the article? Lova Falk talk 14:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-sacrifice as a sort of passive anger

Been a lot of controversy about this topic so I'm not surprised to see it on the page but I believe it's an incorrect and a rather premature classification of anger since it is not an inevitable reaction/mood. To begin with, self-sacrifice in itself can be discussed on a very wide variety of different psychological topics ranging from cognitive dissonance to beliefs be it doing it because it's what they believe to be right or to avoid feeling guilty/& selfish, it's not something that can be easily nailed to a specific subject like it has been here.

If you would use the same mind-set to put it in anger, it could also easily be classified as a depressive state since emotional deprivation is not uncommon which is yet again, wrong, because the term self-sacrifice varies greatly. If someone feels a very strong need to re-add it, I would request a more specific and explained course of mind-set in regards to the "anger" part with atleast 3+ legitimate sources supporting these specific points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coeco (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


this page was vandalised and I don't know how to revert it to it's previous form — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.4 (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction to Hinduism Section

I made a correction to the Hinduism section of this article, but that change was subsequently reverted. I'll explain the reason for the correction here, and leave it up to the editors to decide what to do.

As it currently reads, the relevant sentence is: "Alternatively if one thinks one is superior, the result is grief." This is an incorrect summary of the following sentence from reference #66: "If we think that those who are a hindrance to the gratification of our desire are inferior to us, we turn our anger against them, and if we think they are superior, all we do is to grieve within ourselves."

The meaning of the Wikipedia sentence is the opposite of the reference article sentence -- that we grieve within ourselves when we think we are inferior, not when we think we are superior.

I changed the word "superior" to "inferior" in the Wikipedia sentence, wanting to make the minimal change needed to correct the meaning. I don't know why the change was reverted, there was no explanation given. 76.99.184.193 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-insertion of Brahma Kumaris

Hi there, have re-inserted some text a now blocked editor removed. I will add a reference for the piece.

I thought I would be bold and make the Brahma Kumaris into a subsection in the religions section. If someone prefers to put it back as a sub-set of Hinduism, that's fine with me. Though I do think it can stand on it's own. Regards Danh108 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Its a minority group compared to other major religions so doesn't fit. I see James has removed this addition which looks justified. Changeisconstant (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Cool, fair enough. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. Cheers James.210.86.249.30 (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry, 30 day log out thing. This was meDanh108 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Anger, Rage, and Wrath

We currently have articles on both anger and rage (emotion) (with "wrath" redirecting to anger). I'm wondering: do we need separate articles on "anger" and "rage", or can they be combined? The current segment on "rage" in the "anger" article doesn't say very much, doesn't link to the main rage article, and in some ways seems to contradict it. (Rage is described in anger as "the inability to process emotions or life's experiences" either because the capacity to regulate emotion has never been sufficiently developed or because it has been temporarily lost due to more recent trauma, whereas rage (emotion) describes it as associated with the fight-or-flight response and often activated in response to an external cue, such as the murder of a loved one or some other kind of serious offense, which isn't quite the same. Also, if anger and rage are distinct enough to have separate articles, would "wrath" be better redirected to rage? Iapetus (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrath Pronounciation

I've got to say, I just came here to clear up with someone the pronunciation of wrath.

JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal communication as source

The 'Differences between related concepts' section contained the following phrase:

"a whole load of different feelings trying to get out at once" (Harvey, 2004)<ref>Harvey D, 2004, personal communication</ref>"

I did a search for an actual source for this quote, or a D. Harvey who researches rage, but couldn't find anything so I removed the phrase from the article. All sources must be, in some way, available to people who want to find them. Personal communications by unknown people are not available to anyone. Leschnei (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Apeshit (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:50, 17 September 2018 (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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.134.169 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

anger/perceived social class study

i know its not wikipedias policy to police people but to represent the truth, but i feel like there shold maybe be some sort of qualifier in that paragraph that says that people also respect happy/non emotive faces. it just sounds so negative and potentiall misleading to say that people dont have respect for sad faces but they do for angry ones. surely if there was a normal face in there they would say that they would have positive. also why exactly do people view a person who looks angry as an ability holder? 98.15.165.150 (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Anger and lateralization of brain function

According to Iain McGilchrist, the left brain mediates anger and aggression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.228.51.95 (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This picture looks like something a child might put together with MSPaint. It's a poorly-rendered symbolic representation of anger that has no business being in an encyclopaedia. Also, it was created by a Wikipedia user, rather than being some widely-recognised depiction of anger, which, since it's a Wikipedian's artistic interpretation of anger, effectively qualifies it as original research. Please do not add this awful image back into the article. The only suitable images IMHO are photographs with an obviously angry subject, like the one accompanying the lead paragraph, and historical, artistic or cultural depictions of anger. Personal artistic interpretation doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 203.51.35.151 (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"Rage killing" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rage killing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Rage killing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference AngerTheory was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anger/Archive_2&oldid=1142752403"