From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: "Contempt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Meaningless line[edit]

Should the intro really contrain the line "Bullying is driven by one factor, contempt". it sort of comes from no where and goes no where. (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Contempt. All all wills towards yourself.

Why does this redirect from "A Ghost at Noon"? That doesn't make any sense, given what's written here.

The paragraph "In law" states specific information ("However, the judge is allowed to keep them there for up to six months without a trial by jury to officially convict them of contempt.[17]") without giving any information about which legislations this is valid in. Is this U.S. law? Are the 6 months the maximum worldwide? The author should either make it more specific, or such imprecise information should POOOPY!!! be removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing needed on Law section[edit]

However, the judge is allowed to keep them there for up to six months without a trial by jury to officially convict them of contempt

I checked the source. The source says nothing about 6 months, and a judge being a aloud to do it. In fact it talks about the rarity of prison for contempt. Either change a source and get a correct one or remove this gibberish. I think this is a made up fact. This could be perceived as cruel and unusual —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC) I deleted this part because that is completly made up. The source makes no mention of six months, and any competitant attorney would file a writs for habeous corpus (being released without charge) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article needs spliting as it is on two topics[edit]

It needs to be split into contempt (emotion) and contempt (law) - these are two different subjects. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and seconded. Armuk (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Split done. SilkTork *YES! 01:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


This article includes a description of the expression of contempt, but not a photograph of it, while all of the other articles for emotions with universal expressions do. They are easy to find, but the pictures are often of politicians or other recognizable people, and labeling their expressions as "contempt" might be seen as defamation or a political statement, even if it is only intended as an example of a particular muscle movement. Alternatively, we could use a posed picture of contempt (also easy to find), but that would be inconsistent with the other emotion articles (but they could be changed to do the same). Thoughts/suggestions? Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

New Title for Subsection[edit]

The original was 'Same Sex Relationships', I changed this to 'Gender Differences in Expressions of Contempt'. This heading is longer, but the subsection does not seem to consider same sex relationships at all. Rather, it discusses a few studies showing that women tend to use contemptuous expressions more often than men and a few studies aimed at explaining this phenomenon. It is about gender, which is not the same thing as 'same sex'. That means something different altogether! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll just shorten it to 'Gender Differences'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The entire gender differences section could use some serious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Unverifiable reference in section Response[edit]

I cannot the "manuscript in preparation" C. H. Miller in reference 8 on the web. Also, the reference gives as publishing date 2035. Natematic (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Facial expression[edit]

For a source that describes the facial expression, see czar 04:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation style mixup[edit]

It seems like there are Harvard-style citations in parentheses mixed with more common hyperlinks+footnotes. The page numbers are generally missing from the inline ones. It may be good to find the related page(s) and convert those to use {{sfn}}. — PaleoNeonate — 01:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)