Talk:Rage (emotion)/Archive 1

message: Wolverine sometimes lapses into a "berserker rage" while in close combat. In this state he lashes out with the intensity and aggression of a mindless animal and is more resistant to psionic attack. Though this quality has sometimes saved the life of his allies, as well as himself, he has frequently expressed shame concerning it as he strives to be a purely civilized and honorable warrior.
:Wolverine? Wolverine?? Are you f**king kidding me???
:I guess you couldn't think of a suitable example containing Aquaman. Or did you already use your Optimus Prime analogy in another article?
:Don't get me wrong, your Buffy the Vampire Slayer commnents vis-a-vis gender roles in the late 20th/early 21st century in the "Feminist" article was very fascinating, but this is too much.
:Save your pop psychology claptrap for "WikiProject Nerds" and leave the serious stuff to the grown-ups. Jack Meihoffer 02:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all well and good Darkspine, but this article approaches rage as if it were trying to build a dungeons and dragons rule off of it.  I can put it no better than the anonymous comment involving an "Optimus Prime analogy."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.A.Anthony (talk • contribs) 05:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolverine Berserker Rage 

message: I agree, this article is absolutely atrocious, it doesn't cite any sources whatsover and seems to take a more "fictional" approach to rage than scientific or factual. Whoever worked on this needs to -seriously- find some proof for what they are saying.
: Hell, I'd agree with deleting the whole thing if this is how it's going to stand.  The grammar caused me to feel righteous indignation bordering on rage.  I can tell it wasn't rage though because my face was red.  Seriously, this is a complete work of fiction.  - MrGalt 
**I must say, MrGalt, your comment gave me one of the best laughs I've I had in a while!  I do agree, this article is very bad.  Perhaps there is merit to some of what has been said, but with no sources...??? Aleta 08:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OP of original topic (Absolutely no citations+statement) after coming back to this article several months later, I'm very saddened to see it has not been improved. So much so that, even with no citations, I am going to attempt to rewrite the article (until someone with actual citations comes) to a far more "neutral" standpoint than the un cited non factual basis present. 
*done* I was just going to edit the article in a need to provide an un-biased standpoint, but as I originally posted, it became clear that it was COMPLETELY out of salvation. It took too much of a sci-fi/fantasy/fictional approach to rage and not scientific or even in definition. I've turned it down to a stub until better research can be put in. 67.142.130.42 06:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely NO citations or backings 

message: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest people in rage thinking "Kill, Kill" over and over in their heads isn't that scientific....O____oKokiri kid 04:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kill Kill

message: I have to cast my vote in with the folks that want to re-write this.
:Agree, trash it.Paul Slocum 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreed.  Destroy the article

message: Maybe :Category:Wikipedian psychologists can help. -- Wavelength 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Wikipedian psychologists 

message: I'm speechless.  This has to go down in the history books as the worst, funniest, and most ridiculous article ever.  Please tell me there's some way for us to archive this bad boy (after making a real article out of it, of course).  This is just too priceless to go all willy-nilly and delete the whole thing without saving it for future genreations.  --Drewcifer3000 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantastically bad article 

message: Although it was said here, there was no notation of needed citations on the actual article page. I have added some; no doubt more could be added, but that should get the job done. Aleta 08:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need of citations noted 

message: After reading this article I became so enraged I ate my damn keyboard.  This article of pure original research should be deleted.  Nothing here to salvage whatsoever.  And someone please hurry and delete it quick before I turn purple and eat my monitor!  Mr Christopher 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm so mad (enraged) I just ate my keyboard!

message: Rage should be redirected to Anger. It's pretty obvious that nobody likes this article. It is still real funny though, since it is unbelievably, so it might be able to be archived or something like that. --Kevin 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support. I obviously support it. --Kevin 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed redirect 

message: I've listed this page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology/Review and requested people take a look at the article and comment on the proposed redirect. Aleta 08:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I've added it to Wikiproject Psychology.  Aleta 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychopathology/Review

message: There has recently been a large deletion in the text of this article by user:Johannes H.-Larsen. This large deletion was not discussed, so I'm gonna revert that. Hopefully, that user will see this and come back so we can all talk it over and finally get something done on this article. --Kevin (TALK) 16:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large deletion

message: Well, obviously the need has arisen for a new "Rage" article, because this one is, and excuse my language, crap. It is purely original research, no factual accuracy whatsoever. The new question becomes should we rewrite the article with the aid of people knowledgeable on the topic of rage, or should it just be trashed entirely? If it is trashed entirely, eventually I'm sure someone out there will make a new "Rage" article, and if that person is (and this is the likely case) not knowledgeable on the topic, we will run into this very same problem again--an article with no facts, no basis, just original research.
So now, I pose this question to all of you: Do we delete the article, in the hopes that someone out there will rewrite it, or do we take it upon ourselves to rewrite this article (and find people knowledgeable on the topic)?
Personally, I feel there should be an article on rage. Of course, it shouldn't be as horrid as this one, but there should be one. So I am leaning toward finding someone who knows something about rage to actually post some facts so that we can rewrite this article, but if you feel that deleting it entirely is the solution to this problem, please voice your opinion. 24.15.53.225 21:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting this article outright might be a satisfactory solution.  For purposes on encylopedic knowledge, rage is indistinguishable from anger, and the two are not easily scientifically discussed.  A better approach might be to look for instances of rage in fiction, rather than explain how adrenaline makes humans superpowered and immune to bullets, or whatever it is this one is trying to say. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think if you take a peek at the article on Anger, it is pretty clear that there is really no need whatsoever for this one, and that the article on anger (besides displaying a much greater degree of professionalism) effectively makes this one obsolete. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite or Trash? 

message: is rage really a disorder? i mean its only natural to get angry, maybe getting angry too much is a disorder, but i think rage itself is just an extension of anger and isn't really a disorder  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.227.155 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "disorder"? 

message: Substituted at 15:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment