Talk:Anger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Anger has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 20, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

Per Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations/Archive1, too many OR and POV tags. Diez2 18:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Article looks good now. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.


Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)