Jump to content

Talk:Seven deadly sins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

[edit]

In the section, 'Historical Sins: Acedia', insert citation after, "To him, it was the "middle sin", the only one characterised by an absence or insufficiency of love." Citation: McCarron, Bill and Knoke, Paul (2002) "From Gent to Gentil: Jed Tewksbury and the Function of Literary Allusion in A Place to Come To," *Robert Penn Warren Studies*: Vol. 2 , Article 6. Muriosity (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Formatting changed a slight bit to match Wikipedia's CS1/CS2 format as the template does it. Aidan9382 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ye okay whatever HAHAHAHAHA 49.181.222.71 (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AHHAAH I DRIVE A COMMODORE SND IM HUMAN CUNT HAHAHA 49.181.222.71 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

[edit]

Arrogance instead of Pride 109.242.137.212 (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed-up Sources

[edit]

When navigating to the source of Dorothy L. Sayer's thoughts on wrath, the source number of 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 22, which is placed just under the heading of Historical Views here. Armadyx (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islam

[edit]

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 (UTC)[reply]

"Moving pictures"

[edit]

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. Jtwooz (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]