|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Happiness article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Happiness has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital||(Rated C-class)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
- 1 Western Perspective
- 2 more weblinks
- 3 Daniel Kahneman
- 4 Failure to adequately characterize Happiness
- 5 Different Meanings of Happy
- 6 Evolutionary psychology
- 7 External links modified
- 8 Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016
- 9 What religions think about happiness does not matter.
- 10 Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016
The article, as often, is clearly biased and written from a Western Anglo-American perspective, from start to finish.
The first paragraph cites hello the US Declaration of Independence and the "unalienable right for happiness" but we all know that this was written cynically at the same time that the Anglohgejkdbfk;sj hjlfsjldhfjksdj0[piofqwsairpoq colonizers of North America were assassinating the Native Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indian philosopher Kautilya wrote in his Nitisutras 2-7 that the root of happiness is ultimately the service to elders (vRddhopasevA). http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/chANakyasUtra.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- German happiness researcher and writer Sebastian Luetzig about -be happy in everyday life- with articles and blog] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised that Daniel Kahneman's work has not been considered in this discussion of happiness. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could tackle this. Hans Pitsch Hanspitsch (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Failure to adequately characterize Happiness
I'm sorely disappointed with the treatment of Happiness. First, if Happiness be a state of mind, and I think all would agree with that, then no one has presented even the properties of Happiness. Properties would include a list of the gradient of affective states, autonomic responses, behavioral responses, the satiation of biological drives to appease impulses of dissatisfaction with the present psycho-physical state. All this historical presentation just muddies the waters and explains nothing. They all focus on what may lead to happiness, not what happiness is and how it's state is established in the mind. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Dalton Seymour 8/24/14
Different Meanings of Happy
Happiness can be related to excitement. Excitement doesn't always mean happy, but can also mean happy in a sense that your situation is bad, but some thing happy finally happens.Awsome81672 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
|Warring and personal attacks|
Flyer22 is wading out of her depths and has exited the kiddy pool in reverting my inclusion of Nietzsche to the philosophy of happiness section of the article. Nietzsche is obviously enormously relevant to this section, and it is an embarrassing omission to not include him along with Aristotle, Mill, Augustine, and Aquinas. Read the links I've provided and you will see they back up everything I say, which represents the current academic consensus on Nietzsche's philosophical views on happiness. Stop reverting my edits without reason because of your petty, childish vendetta against me, supplying absolutely spurious reasons in the comment box. Thanks! Best of luck to you. Kingshowman (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
Fine. Since you're so rude, hostile, and have such an obviously meagre education on topics you chose to write on, and delight in acting like a thorn in my side, pointlessly wasting my work and time on all of my edits, I'm finished editing here. I'm going to revert all my edits myself since the great representative of Wikipedia Flyer22 has decided they are unwanted.. I'm done with this low-quality encyclopedia and will invest no more time in improving it. Enjoy your plethora of c-class articles, which cover about 90 percent of the topics.Kingshowman (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
As a note for you, I deleted my edits to the David Hume article since they were so obviously "poor, plain and simple." Strangely enough, they got restored (as did my contributions to nearly all the other pages that you found so purely and simply "poor.") Obviously, I'm very interested in hearing more of your assessment of the Hume article since doubtlessly you've based it on your reading of Hume rather than just spouting shit out of your ass. Kingshowman (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
You are such a fundamentally dishonest, disengenuous person without the integrity to even admit when she is obviously wrong. My Hume edits were regarded as an improvement, contra the wisdom you tried to dispense to me. Likewise, my "landlord" edits were restored. Likewise my edits to the "Coal" page were restored. As were others. So go fuck off. Kingshowman (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
My primary editing has been at the David Hume page. You claimed my edits there were "poor, pure and simple." Yet when I deleted them, they were magically restored. Not by "Twinkle" or "Huggle" but by a live-honest-to-God editor who said not to throw out the edits. So they were indeed regarded as an improvement. Contra your opinion, which you provided no argument to back up. If you'd like, I can delete them again, and we can see what happens this time. Why is admitting you were wrong so difficult for you? Kingshowman (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
And you should perhaps finish your education before you start throwing so many insults around and ignorantly opining on subjects well beyond your ken. Kingshowman (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)kingshowman
Pgallert, thanks for this. As you can see above, by stating "Pgallert reverted you because you removed his edits as well. And it seems that he is willing to let your edits stay for improvement.", I noted similarly of your reasons for reverting Kingshowman. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Read it and weep: "I believe the prose added to the lead of Hume indeed improved the article ...the new prose captures much better what Hune is about than what was there before." Please try reading Hume, Nietzsche, or Freud before you comment on them in the future. Enjoying my day of triumph and my freedom from ever editing this encyclopedia again! So long, edit goon!----kingshowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 August 2015
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Happiness. 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:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101115020515/http://www.time.com:80/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015902-1,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015902-1,00.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141112020019/http://www.breslov.org/dvar/zmanim/elul3_5758.htm to http://www.breslov.org/dvar/zmanim/elul3_5758.htm
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011133516/http://newadvent.org:80/summa/200308.htm to http://www.newadvent.org/summa/200308.htm
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120617020438/http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu:80/betseys/papers/happiness.pdf to http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Happiness.pdf
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100223054616/http://www.cis.org.au:80/Policy/spring05/polspr05-2.htm to http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spring05/polspr05-2.htm
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071222025241/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/opinion/la-oe-weiner13nov13,0,5698259.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail to http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-weiner13nov13,0,5698259.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120522230648/http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu:80/subjectivehappinessscale.pdf to http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/subjectivehappinessscale.pdf
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120417090553/http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu:80/Faculty/Clark/PANAS-X.pdf to http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/clark/panas-x.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
I suggest adding this as the last paragraph of the "Definition" section:
There is increasing disaffection with using statements by subjects about how happy they are to assess how happy (or content) they are. Aside from seeking to establish people’s subjective or objective well-being, in recent years measuring where people feel that their life has meaning has grown in popularity among researchers. [reference: Carol Graham. 2016. "Amitai Etzioni's Critique of Happiness." Society 53.3]. Critics point out that gang members can find meaning in their illegal and unethical pursuits as can jihadists. That all these measures of happiness, contentment, well-being, and meaning are amoral. [reference: Amitai Etzioni. 2016. "Happiness is the Wrong Metric." Society 53.3].
- Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. You are autoconfirmed. But I please ask that you establish as consensus for the addition before adding. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
What religions think about happiness does not matter.
This article needs to include scientific thoughts on happiness. The religious opinion of what happiness is does not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the