Talk:Contempt

Meaningless line
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. 203.213.113.27 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Bullies often harbour complex emotions toward their victims. I would not as much look at, let alone address or touch, those I hold in contempt. I assume my stance is universal; and then this sentence would not just come out of nowhere, it would simply be wrong. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:90E2:6541:9E49:86ED (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments
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 be removed altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.241.57 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing needed on Law section
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 69.253.249.55 (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 69.253.249.55 (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article needs spliting as it is on two topics
It needs to be split into contempt (emotion) and contempt (law) - these are two different subjects. &mdash; 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)

Illustration
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)


 * Look at the French page. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:90E2:6541:9E49:86ED (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

New Title for Subsection
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 67.166.4.90 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll just shorten it to 'Gender Differences'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.4.90 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The entire gender differences section could use some serious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.99.104 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Unverifiable reference in section Response
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
For a source that describes the facial expression, see http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/final-debate-2016-lying-politicians-214370 czar  04:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation style mixup
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. — Paleo  Neonate  — 01:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Off Topic
The information in section titled Marriage does not belong here under contempt. Though the word contempt appears a few times in the summaries of the research the author has cited, the entire section should be removed as the subject is not of contempt but of marital interrelations. PrincessAnnadoll (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)PrincessAnnadoll

Picture
Hello. I noticed that you added a picture. I initially thought of removing it, but decided that it'd be more friendly to leave a note about it instead: my impression is that it doesn't appear to obviously display an expression of contempt. — Paleo Neonate  – 17:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you for the comment. I have edited the photo you are concerned about to describe it as a subtle expression of contempt. Often people show subtle expressions of contempt in an effort to mask their expression or because politeness norms dictate that we not show contempt in full. To show a contrast I uploaded a new photo showing a larger expression of contempt. Let me know what you think - whether this helps to resolve your concern.Djgriffin7 (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It does appear less ambigious with the new one. Let's leave those there then, and see if they remain...  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 13:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

disdain
Looking for disdain I came on contempt. But these are not the same. Contempt addresses ill-humor but disdain is very much worse???

85.149.24.135 (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Contempt mixes anger, irritation, etc. with disgust, outrage, etc. Disdain is more laconic and supercilious.
 * Contempt is: "Uugh!" Disdain is: "Pah!"
 * In Shakespeare: "What, my dear Lady Disdain! are you yet living?" - because surely the effort of looking down on everybody and everything would have worn her out by now. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:90E2:6541:9E49:86ED (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

People feel contempt towards a low-status individual at a distant proximity, with other emotions resulting from different combinations
Aha, the nice, tidy combinatorial theory I have been looking for! Alas, the very existence of the phrase "contempt of court" shows that this cannot be correct. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:90E2:6541:9E49:86ED (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)