Talk:Seven deadly sins

Mixed-up sources

When navigating to the source of [Seven deadly sins#cite ref-1 37-0|Dorothy L. Sayer's thoughts on wrath]], the source number of [Seven deadly sins#cite note-:1-37|37]is that of (Landau, Ronnie (30 October 2010). The Seven deadly Sins: A companion. ISBN 978-1-4457-3227-5.) The true source of Sayer's quote is from the source number of[Seven deadly sins#cite note-DLSintro652-22|22],which is placed just under the heading of Historical Views [[Seven deadly sins#cite ref-DLSintro652 22-0|here]. [[User:Armadyx|Armadyx[[User talk:Armadyx|talk]19:40, 30 April 2023

Islam

Who on Earth thought it was at all helpful to muddy the waters of an already muddy pool by introducing a corresponding list of deadly sins in Islam? Catholicism was muddying its own pool quite well enough by itself, thanks. At the very least, that person ought to have linked shirk to the Wiki article [Shirk (Islam)];ever-forgetful that there already is an English verb to shirk. As it adds nothing but confusion to the article (which apart from this deals exclusively with moral science from a Judaeo-Christian perspective), I'm partial to the notion of deleting the reference entirely; however, I'll withhold my damp sponge from the blackboard to see what others may think of it. Nuttyskin (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024

"Moving pictures"

In the introduction section, it says the concept of the Seven Deadly Sins has found its way "into the streams of religious and philosophical thought, fine art painting, and popular culture, including literature and new forms of media such as moving pictures and digital streaming." Is "moving pictures" really necessary here? Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the Wikipedia style guide for such topics, but that seems unnatural, convoluted, and pretentious. It also compromises the reader's ability to quickly digest and comprehend this information in the way that an introduction section should for an article. [User:Jtwooz|Jtwooz] ([User talk:twooz|talk) 02:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This entire post does not answer the question and is completely ofd track. It's a mess. 96.42.102.65 (User talk:96.42.102.65|talk) 10:56, 10 January 2025

... what? Jtwooz (User talk:Jtwooz|talk) 20:45, 27 January 2025

Clarification on modern usage of "pride"

I wanted to share a personal perspective that led me to suggest a small but meaningful clarification to this article. For a long time, I’ve held the belief — reinforced by theological teachings and cultural cues — that pride, in any form, was something inherently dangerous or wrong. Even when people said they were proud of someone, I felt a quiet discomfort, like it was brushing too close to something spiritually toxic. That belief weighed on me over time.

Recently, I had a thoughtful exchange that helped me realize how much the meaning of the word "pride" has shifted outside of its religious roots. What I once understood as a deadly sin — associated with hubris or arrogance — is often used today to express dignity, perseverance, or even love. It was a moment of real internal clarity, and I thought this distinction could be worth making clear in this article for other readers who may carry similar confusion.

Looking through the Talk history, I saw that there was a previous proposal to change the word "pride" to "arrogance." That suggestion was ultimately declined, largely due to a lack of sources and the need to remain accurate to the original theological framing. I fully agree that this article should preserve the integrity of its subject, and I’m not suggesting any rewording of the sin itself. Rather, I believe a brief note could help differentiate the theological meaning from how the word functions in modern secular and psychological contexts.

This edit would serve to clarify, not dilute. It would acknowledge that while the article presents pride in its classical religious form — as the sin of hubris — the term has taken on very different connotations in contemporary usage. That distinction may help readers who, like me, came to the article seeking to understand the roots of a moral concept, but left confused about how it relates to the everyday use of the word.

Here is the suggested addition: “This article discusses pride in its classical theological context, where it is considered a deadly sin. In modern usage, however, ‘pride’ can also refer to a healthy sense of dignity, accomplishment, or self-respect — a meaning that differs significantly from the sin of hubris.”

To support this distinction, several reliable sources illustrate how the term has evolved:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines pride not only as "inordinate self-esteem" but also as "reasonable self-respect."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pride

Britannica notes that pride can be a positive emotion associated with personal achievement.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/pride-human-behavior

Psychology Today distinguishes between "authentic pride" (linked to self-worth) and "hubristic pride" (linked to arrogance).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-future-self/202012/the-value-authentic-pride

TED Ideas explores pride as a virtue when rooted in earned effort or moral strength.

https://ideas.ted.com/pride-can-be-a-virtue-but-it-needs-to-be-the-right-kind-of-pride

Thank you for considering this. I hope it can contribute to the article’s clarity and help other readers who, like me, have been quietly wrestling with the evolving meaning of this powerful word.

P.S. I noticed there is already a hatnote linking to the main Pride article, which does address the broader and more positive meanings of the word. That’s definitely helpful. However, many readers may miss or skip over hatnotes (I would have had!), especially when reading sections quickly or searching for moral/theological clarity. I believe a brief sentence within the body of the article would make the distinction more accessible and immediate, without requiring them to navigate away. Guilbrynski (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve made two sub-edits to improve clarity for readers who may conflate the theological and modern meanings of “pride.” First, in the introduction, I added a brief clarification to acknowledge that while the article focuses on the religious concept of pride as a sin, the term also carries different, often positive meanings in modern usage. This was done to prevent misreadings right from the start. Second, I inserted an italicized note at the top of the Pride section — the one most visible via search engines — further distinguishing between the classical concept of hubris and the contemporary notion of self-respect or dignity. I also added a link to Arrogance to anchor the contrast. These changes aim to preserve doctrinal integrity while making the article more accessible and less confusing to modern readers. Guilbrynski (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree, and I'll copy my edit summary: "i saw your talk page note and disagree. this is editorial commentary; the article clarifies we're dealing with a specific usage here. also, overlinking, and those italics are not in agreement with our style guide". Drmies (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)