Talk:Emotion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as top-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) Core Topic

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have. The following comments have been left for this page: Core Topic (edit)

Previous discussions are archived:

• Archive 1

Contents 1 clean up April 2008 2 Emotion Templates 3 Magelhaes 4 notable theorists

[edit] clean up April 2008

I have started a major cleanup of this article. I hope my changes don't annoy anyone too much. I don't plan to delete much but rather move some things to separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have finshed cleaning up for now and took the liberty of removing the clean up tag. The page looks a lot better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talk • contribs) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep coming back to edit this page! But I have now removed the expert request tag, since although I can only claim some expertise in emotions, this page is now as good as most other pages on Wiki that don't have this tag. Obviously experts are always needed.Thomascochrane (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, I think it is time to archive the rest. Arnoutf (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Arnoutf. I hope we can make this a real A grade article eventually. Thomascochrane (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulation, Thomas, for your work here on this topic. All affective matters were, and still mostly are, awfully dealt with on Wikipedia. It looks like if 21st century psychological science was helpless on these matters. Let's keep improving the state of the art here at least... --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emotion Templates

the emotion side bar template seems useful here, but I won't add it to the page until the debate about whether it should be merged/connected with the emotion-footer is resolved. I have also swapped the psychology side bar for the psychology navigation footer.Thomascochrane (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone's input at Template talk:Emotion-footer#Merge from Template:Emotion would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magelhaes

Recently an editor added numerous references to a portugese emotion researcher. I removed this as although this professor maybe somewhat notable, he is not a leading figure in the field; like the other people mentioned (publishing over 100 articles, books, conference papers is not a big deal for a university professor, many do this). I think there are many emotion researchers who have a similar resume. I mention the mention putting him on par with Ekman (Ekmans and Magelhaes seminal work). The most important of the implied work by Paul Ekman was conducted in the early 1970's when Magelhaes (born 1966) was not even 10 years of age..... Arnoutf (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree he was over-referenced in the article, but I think you should reinstate him in the list of notables. It's pretty harmless to have a link there, and we should be broad in what we include.Thomascochrane (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not object reinstation, but have you actually read the Freitas-Magalhaes article (and looked at its history, and all the tags it evoked). I think there are several dozens of emotion researchers who have a similar claim to fame (e.g. Agneta Fischer, Tony Manstead (sorry for the Amsterdam bias) have a similar resume and have worked extensively with Nico Frijda (like F-M has with Ekman)). I am sure there are many, many other professors at this level. I suggest to wait re-adding this person to the list, at least untill the discussion on his bio page is resolved. Arnoutf (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] notable theorists

Recently some notable theorists were removed as red-links. This is IMHO a bad reason for removal. Notability is needed to get an article on Wikipedia, but not having an article on Wikipedia is not necessarily a claim to non-notability.

There is something to a clean-up though as this list has the potential to expand forever. I go through the list and state my claim to notability; and whether I think the person should be kept. Please amend, as my personal point of view may colour my scoring. Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Magda Arnold
  • Strong keep, important in revival of emotion appraisal Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Antonio Damasio
  • Strong keep, arguably the most important figure in neuropsychology of emotions Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Phoebe Ellsworth
  • Remove, good and probably notable for psychology and law, but not a generally known theorist of emotions Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, additional appraisal theorist. Sarcasmyst (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2008
  • keep--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Paul Ekman
  • Strong keep, probably the most important person in facial expressions and emotions Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • strong keep--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Lisa Feldman Barrett
  • Weak keap, has done some important work Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, important theoretical work in neuroscience of emotion (not discrete emotions) and structure of basic emotions: circumplex model. Sarcasmyst (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2008
• Barbara Fredrickson
  • Weak keap, has done some important work Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, major positive emotions researcher. Sarcasmyst (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2008
• Nico Frijda
  • Keep, e.g. author of the landmark book "emotions" (1986) Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Peter Goldie
  • Remove, has done some work on the philosophy on emotions Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep. At least as senior as de Sousa. Also has many articles in philosophy journals on this--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• William James
  • Strong keep, one of the founders Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Carl Lange
  • Strong keep, important early theorist Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Richard Lazarus
  • Strong keep, one the early people in the revival after behaviorism Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Joseph LeDoux
  • Keep, another important neurologist on emotions Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep --Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Batja Mesquita
  • Weak remove, is an expert in the field and has published but not much more notable than many others Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Jaak Panksepp
  • Add. One of the most important neuroscientists doing work on emotion. He coined the term affective neuroscience, it is said. However, I wonder if this is a list of "emotion theorists" in the strict sense, or in a larger sense... --Robert Daoust (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • comment: I had been thinking about Panksepp as well as he is indeed important. However as the list is already fairly long I think we need fewer rather than more listed. Perhaps exchange for LeDoux (another neuroscientist)? Arnoutf (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
      • comment: Agreed, LeDoux is as much a memory theorist as an emotions theorist, while Panksepp's work is more directly emotional in nature. Also, Panksepp is an animal researcher, which none of the other notables here are (to my knowledge). Pursuing diversity (a "representative sample") may be the easiest way to maintain a "good" notables list that isn't too long. Sarcasmyst (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2008
• Robert Plutchik
  • Strong keep, important wheel of Plutchik Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Jesse Prinz
  • Remove, philosopher with medium strength link to emotions Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Although only active recently, has become very influential in philosophical circles.--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Klaus Scherer
  • Keep, important person in the field at the moment Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Robert Solomon
  • Keep, if we need a philosopher on emotions, let's take Solomon who was the most important one Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. What's all this 'if we need a philosopher'??--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Psychologist speaking ;-) That's why I need second opinions here. Arnoutf (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ronald de Sousa
  • Keep, also an important philosopher/theorist Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep
• Jeanne Tsai
  • Remove, certainly a promising researcher but not truly notable in the field (yet) Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Robert Zajonc
  • Keep, the mere exposure effect and positive emotions, that has to stay Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• James A. Russell
  • Strong Keep, developed the dimensional factors of emotions and the relation environmental psychology and emotions. Arnoutf (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep--Thomascochrane (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As nobody responded I have used my argumentation above to clean out the list. Please post discussion here before re-entering people Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)