Talk:Seven deadly sins/Archive 2

Archive this page?

Can we archive this page and start over? I've tried to summarize the points that still appear to be open for discussion. So much of this talk page is obsolete that making a serious contribution is a daunting task.

2) Where do the virtues fit in? My suggestion would be under the extended defs or individual articles.

3) venial / mortal / capital / deadly / etc. These terms might warrant a brief discussion here in the intro to III.

4) What about Dante and others? Summarize them in IV and point to the "SDS in pop culture" wiki.

5) Source citations are important. We're not getting much, if any, in this area.

6) Why doesn't the Bible list the SDS? The "not in the Bible" objection is common, and should be addressed.

7) "Keystone" issues -- is there a keystone sin? This was removed a long time ago from the article, but the discussion looks open. Its removal looks justified.

8) References in the talk page abound to Gilligan, America's Top Model, and such. These issues have long since been resolved with the "SDS in pop culture" page. Also, there's questions/comments/references to individual sentences that no longer exist in the article (ie, childish vs adultish).

9) Protestant vs Catholic understanding? Someone raised this issue, but I'm not sure it's a big deal. Aquinas predates Protestantism, as does Gregory, et al. Maybe this could be addressed briefly in IV?

10) The ordering of the sins has been brought up. It's changed over the years ... mention that in IV or II.

11) Just what do we use as authorities? Merriam-Webster, Gregory, Aquinas, Dante, etc? This would be helped greatly with a better job of citations, which we've generally stunk at doing (which I already carped on).

So ... is someone with clout listening and willing to archive this page and format some of this abbreviated list into a suitable skeleton for continued discussion on the rewrite of this list?

Thanks. Davidfmurphy 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

All sounds good to me. In the spirit of Wikipedia, I imagine the 'person with clout' would be you, me, or anyone else who keeps a close eye on the SDS. On how to archive a page see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. I'll have a look at doing it myself tomorrow if you haven't had a chance to.

I agree that once we have decided what the outstanding issues are, we will be in a much better position to look at making the article more scholarly and enyclopedic.

--Merlinme 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one general point about the format of these talk pages: I noticed that, not just with this section but also with the Desert Fathers, you've put the new section at the top or in the middle. I'm not sure if this is deliberate or not, but I generally find it easier to follow talk pages if they're in roughly chronological order, i.e. most recent items last. It's pretty straightforward to do this if you use the "+" tab instead of the "edit this page" tab when adding new items to the talk page.

That's a very minor issue though, your contributions are always valuable.

--Merlinme 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. If people still need to revive old discussions, feel free to pull them out of the archive. Natalie 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Capital vs. deadly sins

In my opinion bundling up the capital sins with the deadly is quite misleading (at least from a Catholic perspective), albeit a common mistake. According to Catholic doctrine a deadly sin is any grave sin which separates you from the grace of God (as opposed to venial sin). Conversely, the capital sins (from lat. caput = head) are thought of as 7 principal sins to which any one specific sin can be related.

Thus, the distinction between mortal and venial sin is a normative one - giving the sins a hierarchy of gravity -, whereas the distinction between the seven capital sins is a descriptive differentiation - giving them a thematic classification. In other words, a sin of pride can either be of venial or deadly gravity. There is not a link of equivalence between deadly and capital sins - a sin related to a capital sin is not by definition a deadly sin.

This is basic theology and should be pointed out.

BA 23:25(CET), 30 January 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.225.209 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

--70.81.58.96 (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC) : the important distinction between capital and deadly sin is still not made in the article. As pointed out above by another Wiki editor, this is an important distinction as not all "deadly sins" are necessarily "mortal sins".

Update : --Benz74 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I made several corrections to clarify between mortal, venial and Deadly (capital) sins. I also added some references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this matter.

Perfect, thanks. --Merlinme (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Psychiatric definitions of the Sins

The article has been heavily edited by an anonymous user who apparently has a background in psychiatry. This provided some interesting insights, but I've removed a lot of material which I think was using non-standard, psychiatric definitions of the Sins. Merriam-Webster defines Lust as:

1 obsolete a : PLEASURE, DELIGHT b : personal inclination : WISH 2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS 3 a : an intense longing : CRAVING <a lust to succeed> b : ENTHUSIASM, EAGERNESS <admired his lust for life>

Nowhere does this mention things like 'the desire for social standing', so I heavily edited the section which read:

'the overwhelming desire for friendship, acceptance, or sexual companionship as its object. Unfulfilled lusts can lead to sexual or sociological compulsions and or transgressions including (but obviously not limited to) adultery, sexual addiction, social climbing, the desire for high social standing, and excessive materialism (the overriding need to impress and be accepted by others through display of ones posessions), among other things. Compulsive shyness or withdrawl (self-consciousness attributed to feelings of guilt) and obsessive/compulsive thoughts may be psychological consequences of such impulses.'

This is either original research or a non-standard, psychiatric definition, and I did not think it was helpful to understanding the article.

Similarly, the Merriam-Webster definition of Sloth is:

1 a : disinclination to action or labor : INDOLENCE b : spiritual apathy and inactivity <the deadly sin of sloth>

It is not the same thing as depression, and although how I can see the one might be caused by the other, confusing the two does not help an article on the Sins. So I removed the following section: 'The advent of psychiatry in modern times, and a greater understanding of the nature of mental health issues in general beginning in the 19th century has resulted in a more sympathetic attitude to these behaviors and greater tolerance of psychological diturbances, which are now understood to be manifestations of clinical depression or anxiety disorder that are often beyond the rational control of the so-called "sinner".'

Hope everyone agrees this was helpful.

--Merlinme 16:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle with your decision, but I think something is being overlooked. Merriam-Webster is not the authority on this subject as the SDS predates MW by many years. Their definitions can be helpful, but the definitions used here should be based upon source documents from which the original list of deadly sins was derived.

This may sound like a nit-picky point, but I think authorial intent gets minimized when ancient terms are not defined using ancient defintions. Perhaps the greatest difference between MW and the original SDS are the defintions for sloth. They are so massively different one would rightly wonder why sloth is even in the list (if you're going with MW), but when you see the historical definition, sloth sounds much more deadly than simple apathy and/or inactivity.

Does this make sense? Davidfmurphy 08:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. A lot of the problem with an article about something like the SDS is choosing which version to talk about. Some people want to talk about the 'biblical' version, but it's highly debatable whether the SDS are even in the bible. Some people want to talk about the 'original' version, as set down by Pope Gregory, which I have some sympathy with, but his version is such a long way from what we mean today in popular usage that I'm not sure it's very helpful. The current approach seems to be to talk about what the sins originally meant and also what they mean now, i.e. how the meaning has evolved, which seems sensible.

This approach had however been quite badly muddled by an editor changing significant portions of the sections on Lust and Sloth to use definitions which would not be recognisable to either Pope Gregory or a current reader. My intention in quoting MW was not to say that 'this is the definitive version of what the sins are', it was simply to provide some justification for removing quite a large part of someone else's work. I thought the definitions being used were not mainstream, and I quoted MW as justification for this (rather than just making it one editor's opinion vs. another's).

--Merlinme 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Desert Fathers

Why was the section on Desert Fathers removed? It looks like an old edit from a year ago was pasted into the article, and that doesn't seem right. A serious, scholarly treatment of the history of the SDS must begin with Evagrius. Gregory didn't create the list -- he adapted the list of Evagrius.

And speaking of Evagrius in regard to the question posed above: the diagnostic purpose of the list is independent of categorization (capital/mortal/venial/etc). The goal is to merely show how the various temptations operate so that we can be better prepared to resist it. Perhaps the sentence in question should read: "One cannot effectively resist temptation without being aware of how it operates." Each of the SDS can be commited consciously/inadvertently/etc. The list allows you to diagnose your vulnerability to the SDS and avoid committing them. Davidfmurphy 23:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Added other biblical references

I added some other biblical references to the original article. Not out of cheek or with any intent to slight. I noted that the SDS page referenced earlier church fathers, as indeed they were more of the direct source of the SDS list than anything strictly biblical. The subheading of Proverbs 6 was a good start to showing that those church fathers weren't necessarily making it all up out of thin air, but seemed to leave more questions than answers. ("So where'd the list come from?") The other biblical references, I thought, might shed some light on that old objection that the SDS list isn't found (verbatum) in the Bible.

Though it can sometimes be popular to imagine that early church leaders were in the habit of just making up stuff as they went along, they didn't fabricate their list. They distilled and aggregated it from many biblical references. Simpler lists, like the SDS, were useful for teaching biblical morals and doctrine when dealing with a predominantly illiterate laity.

Gypsywlf 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC) gypsywlf

Hmmmm... Well, in the list of sins from Galatians, you give the verse numbers in it, but forgot to include which chapter these were from. After a quick search through Galatians, though, I find the verses were from chapter 5. I'm guessing this was a simple oversight on your part. ---Nomad Of Norad 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since it falls roughly in this heading, here's a segment I removed from the biblical references:

>>This list cites Lust very completely. Adultery: intercourse outside of a marriage. Fornication: intercourse without marriage. Uncleanness: (impurity) sex acts besides intercourse outside of or without marriage. lasciviousness: inordinate desire for sex outside of or without marriage, even if not acted upon. homosexuality: sex acts with the same sex (man w/ man or woman w/ woman)

It looks like someone's personal opinion, not a citation from the bible, and the capitalization and abbreviations don't help. But in case someone wants to go through and fix this up and find the source in the Bible this comes from, I thought I'd move it here. I can't remember ever seeing this anywhere though. 71.232.60.189 14:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation

why are there so many separate links on the top of this page. isn't that what a disambig page is for in the first place. Hazelorb 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited them down to two: Seven deadly sins disambig, and Cardinal sins disambig. Thanks for pointing that out. :) Disinclination 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How did Luxuria become Lust?

This would seem to be an important historical issue to address. -Gomm 23:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many things to say. English names do not exactly translate Latin names, as old Latins had many degrees of different feelings, and many different words to express this degrees. In English for example greed and gluttony are quite the same (except the "object" of greed, once is wealth, once is food and drink), but Latin avaritia (that gave the english word avarice) and gula are quite different. Avaritia means "have a lot of things and won't like to give any to other people", but gula is "willing to take everything from other people (not only food, but also money, clothes, etc), even by using the force". Luxuria is a Latin word that translate totally different of English lust. Also, pride is not a sin. Pride is a virtue. I am proud of my country, proud of my friends, proud of myself, etc. (just as example). The Latin superbia translated to English has a meaning which is more close to "arrogance", overbearing pride. Kind of pride that you really want to show it to other people, to show them that you are superior and they are inferior. You can be proud, but not arrogant. A bit of history would be necessary, indeed. For example the sins (as the list originally made by Evgarius Ponticus in about 500 BC, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evagrio_Pontico, i could not find an English reference here) were 8, and not 7. Interesting is that on his list "gula" was from far the most important (most deadly) sin, apart of the other 7, in front of them. In 6th century Pope Gregory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Gregory_I) made a correction to the list, adding the envy and putting together the pride and vanity. He also changed the order to be as it is known today. During 16th-17th centuries the list was again rearranged and "melancholia" ceased to be a deadly sin anymore. That were only 7 sins left, and that is where the nowadays's list came from. Sorry for my English. (Added by L.V) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.147.61 (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

YOU ARE A SINNER! quotation: "Also, pride is not a sin. Pride is a virtue. I am proud of my country, proud of my friends, proud of myself, etc. (just as example)." quotation end. I am very much astonished! why are you 'proud' of 'your' country? what did you do to deserve this? do you think it's better than any other country? or 'your' friends are better or yourself are better than other people?? YOU call it a virtue, but i call it a sin. the most deadly sin is to believe that you are the only one to know the 'truth' to know god and to know the only way.........don't worry! be HAPPY! but don't be proud!!!! (and don't pretend you are virtuous)............ ps: are you ready to kill for your country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.157.44 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Frickin' language barrier, bozo. It's called "pride" in English for poetic effect - the first guy got the closer intended meaning. However, English also has a distinction between possessing pride and being proud of something, and even then, being proud of something can be sinful (I hate to break that one law, but Nazism, real-world Communism, and aggressive Imperialism are all being pride in one's country).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ok first off ... all you are naming views .. that has nothing to do with pride. and secondly how are any of those being prideful in ones country , yes because everyone likes being pushed around like they are nothing, do some reading before you argue about pride. pride can be a sin but then again not at all. the only way pride is a sin is if you are to prideful. if you start to shove it in peoples faces that you are proud then you are sinning like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.128.49 (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"You are a sinner", exclamation mark, capitals seems to me to have the character (I go no further) of pride themselves. You could at least have added a "thus repent". Being ready to kill (and die) for one's country is the virtue of fortitude. There are occasions when a soldier must disobey and killing is nothing for clerics but "are you ready to kill for your country" in the sense it was probably intended is wrong. And what seems important to me is that the teaching that pride is sinful says precisely that we don't need something "better" to be proud of. The whole problem of pride begins with pride of being better. It does no harm to be proud of one's country, in the sense that one loves it (that is even a moral duty, although love of persons is of course more important), that one acknowledges the good in it, of course as given by God, and that one thanks God for it. Nor takes this away the duty not to love as such what's bad in it.--77.4.40.63 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Lust again

This sentence from the Lust section seems to be weasel words ("can"):

"Unfulfilled lusts can lead to sexual or sociological compulsions and/or transgressions including (but obviously not limited to) sexual addiction, adultery, bestiality, and rape."

The fact suggested is not obvious - one could equally argue that repression of lust would cause these effects; or that other factors are much more significant. It should surely state who advocates this suggestion (Dante, Pope Gregory...?). --h2g2bob 05:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...wouldn't "repression of lust" make it "unfilfilled"? I think the point here is lusting after or giving undue love to something you shouldn't - it won't be requited, and it will only lead to bad juju.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Modern sins?

There have been several attempts to give more contemporary versions of the Sins, such as Ghandi's Seven sins. Would it be fair to include those as well?

I take exception to this.

I feel that someone may have made an error with this one:

"[Pride is]... failing to give compliments to others though they may be deserving of them."

however,

"To praise to do harm." — Hagakure

They can't both be right. Vranak

There's a difference between dishonest flattery with the intent to butter someone up, and refusing to give credit where credit is due. The first quote seems to be most like refusing to honor God when it is his grace, not yours, that helped you, while the second is like overly flattering God in the eyes of the people to make you look like a good guy, and use that position to do harm.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in case

At the moment we have seven deadly sins, Seven deadly sins, Seven Deadly Sins, The Seven Deadly Sins, the Seven Deadly Sins, and "The Seven Deadly Sins". We should be consistent; I confess to being unsure which we should use however. Any thoughts? --Merlinme 10:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no caps at all. It's not a proper noun. Natalie 10:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I tend to agree, so I've changed it to lower case for Virtues and Sins except where it's a title, e.g. the Bosch painting. --Merlinme 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Natalie 09:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A curious omission

The seven deadly sins do not seem to include dishonesty. I would have thought honesty to be the greatest of the virtues and dishonesty the greatest of the sins. 89.49.143.229 22:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dorothy Sayers cleared this up in the introduction to her translation of Dante's Purgatorio. The Seven Deadly Sins are the list of MOTIVES for doing evil. Dishonesty is not a motive, it is a sin motivated by another sin, such as greed for money, in which case the deadly sin is Greed. CharlesTheBold (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another curious omission would be envy, wich I think is one of the seven, regadless of wether it is or not we are left with six sins even though the title clearly states that there should be seven.

>> The omission of envy was a deletion (probably vandalism), which I have taken the liberty of undoing. And as for the "dishonesty" comment: lying itself is considered a sin, even explicitly mentioned in the Ten Commandments, but it is not one of the historically specially-classified Seven Deadly Sins. DurandalsFate 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a popular topic in Sunday schools. It's not so cut and dry. There's a difference between bearing false witness and telling your wife she doesn't look fat. 71.154.206.87 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it pretty much is cut and dry - that's why it's in the commandments, and not in Leviticus or something. You shouldn't be lying to her wife - if she really has a problem, you're supposed to help her admit it and solve it. If it's something genetic, you tell her that you see her as beautiful, and that you're not concerned with any weight she might have.

It's actually, in fact, relevant to the "seven deadly sins" - they are supposed to be the deadly vices, states of mind that encourage sinning - for example, if you can't be honest on something so trivial as how a dress makes your wife look, wouldn't it be that much easier for you to lie if you really did have a problem?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Target practice may make it that much easier for you to kill a person, but that doesn't make shooting paper targets a form of murder. There are different meanings of the act depending where and why you shoot, just as there are different kinds of lies, only one particular kind being in the ten commandments. Lying in some situations might be a necessity or even cause good. I'm sure you can think of a possibility if you don't like mine. Not all situations can be resolved with some feelgood alternative. Refusal to lie to help someone else, because you want to avoid "sinning", might even be a selfish act. 71.154.206.87 (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tully seems to have spoken of honesty as the sum of all virtues and that's precisely a reason why dishonesty is not a deadly sin. The deadly sin are not the worst sins, or apostasy, idolatry, blasphemy, hatred of God (as opposed to the real Christian highest virtue), murder (though that somewhat belongs to anger) would have been included and gluttony not. St. Thomas even excludes (formal) pride by moving it to somewhat a higher position, and puts vainglory instead. The realistic impression of scholasticism was not only that man is, deplorably, sinful, but also that he is, gratefully, not so rotten as to be led directly to evil, an utter impossibility, but only by an apparent good. Thus, if honesty is a virtue, a man is not led to dishonesty - no man wants to be dishonest -, but (to take one of the acts normally understood under dishonesty) by some movement of sloth that makes him want to escape a discussion. To mention two points: a) Courtesy is, generally speaking, not lying even if the words in their mathematical meanings happen to be wrong, since language is not mathematics but transports what is intended to transport. When the wife isn't contented with being beautiful (as I daresay she normally is), she can still be "slim" in the sense of "slim in a meaning that the word 'slim' would have if the fashion really were made for normal women", and if she insists on fulfilling the standards on fashion (and puts it in such formal terms), then I personally think the husband should, to a degree, follow his mood which would probably be annoyment. b) I read as a statement of moral theology (!) the German proverb: "Everyone's his own neighbor." That is, everyone has the right and the duty to be so selfish as to avoid sinning in any cases at any costs. (There are some cases where, of course, the circumstances changes what is sin, as when helping with an accident one misses the Sunday mass.) --77.4.40.63 (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

cultural references

The main cultural references article looks like it's being deleted, so a lot of information has been moved here. I'm not sure this is the best approach though, as some of it has a tenuous connection at best to the main article, removing it permanently might be a better approach. That "Retail" section has to go... As for the rest of it, can we cut it down to "influential works inspired by the seven deadly sins", or something, so we don't have to have every single last one of them? --Merlinme 09:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well that's a start. I've cut out about half of them, and wouldn't be that bothered if we lost most of the rest, to be honest, they're rather a list and it's debatable how much they add to the article. --Merlinme 10:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Proverbs 6:16 – 19

Added this back in. Parts of it are arguably original research, but apart from anything else the following section doesn't make sense (without additional editing) if this section is removed. If you think it should go therefore, please make sure the article still reads sensibly. --Merlinme 10:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Avarice History

I don't know much, but I do know St. Augustine and a bit of Chaucer (I speak in particular of the Parson's Tale). Shouldn't it be mentioned that avarice, a form of greed, is actually idolatry? After all, avarice was the original sin, not greed. It is "turning every coin in the coffer into a god," after all. After all, what did the church have a problem with? Not wealth, or acquisition of wealth, but holding importance on wealth that should be turned to God. Any thoughts? ----Chris Chamberlain (July 30th, 2007, 10:56 PM CST)

Evagrius

I see that about a year ago, in October 2006, some one mentioned Evagrius on this talk page, as can be seen if you read the section headed "Desert Fathers" above. I agree whole-heartedly that Evagrius should get a mention here - he may have listed eight sins, but his list was surely the fore-runner of the modern "Deadly Seven". ACEOREVIVED 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting- if you could find a source for that and can write it up in an appropriate way, then perhaps it should go in. --Merlinme 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Merlinme - I have now added information on Evagrius Ponticus in the section "Background to the Seven Deadly Sins". My reference is the article by Refoule which now appears in the "References" - the "E" in "Refoule" should have an acute accent, but I was not sure how to type one when editing Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested test for a work to be included in the article: whole work has to be based around SDS (exclude episodes)

The thing is, with modern TV serials running to hundreds of episodes, in some ways I would be quite surprised if they didn't have an episode mentioning the seven deadly sins. Listing every single episode seems pointless.

I have no problem listing a TV series here if it's called "The seven deadly sins", or all the main characters are based on the seven deadly sins, or in some other way the sins are central to the whole story. However I'd suggest episodes/ single chapters/ songs/ short stories etc. are not included (with possible exceptions if they have stood the test of time and are well known centuries later). Otherwise we're going to get back to the long list at the (deleted) Seven Deadly Sins in Popular Culture.

What do other people think?

--Merlinme 09:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly overwhelmed with responses on this (regarding the criteria for including references to SDS in culture in the article), however it seems to have been adopted as the de facto standard. Note I did include "songs" (as opposed to albums) in the list of things not to be included; I've therefore removed one song. If people disagree- please place your arguments here. --Merlinme (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr Faust

I'm just wondering if it's enough, but there is a scene in The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus by Marlowe, where Lucifer has the sins come out to meet Faust. So i wasn't sure if it was enough to be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.85.51 (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Muppet Show

I only mentioned it because it was the first pilot episode and they were never showed again. Each sin was represents by a Muppet and I think it could be an interesting peice of trivia. Of course, I could be wrong. That is just my two cents. The Quidam 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the Wikipedia policy on trivia is: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." See: Wikipedia:Trivia_sections. I've set the bar reasonably high for inclusion in this section, i.e. to be included, someone must have based an entire work around SDS, and that does not include episodes (or other short pieces of work). Some would argue that this entire section shouldn't exist at all, but it is an undeniable fact that the SDS have been influential in the arts, and I think having some of the most notable examples here is sensible. To avoid arguments about what's notable and what isn't, I've allowed large modern works where the SDS are central to the work.

And no, no-one has appointed me the guardian of these things, but I seem to be just about the only active Wikipedian with the SDS on their watchlist, and I don't want to see the article overwhelmed by a trivia list. --Merlinme 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Catholic vs. Christian

I've reverted an edit which changed "Christian" to "Catholic". The SDS existed before the distinction was drawn between Catholic/ Orthodox/ Protestant. They may have more significance for Catholics, but I think they certainly have plenty of significance for many Protestants as well. I can't comment on their existence in the Orthodox churches, as I know nothing about Orthodox views on the SDS.

--Merlinme 09:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 3

I'm removing Devil May Cry 3 on the basis that there's absolutely no mention of the seven deadly sins anywhere in the main article (for the game). There is a mention of the sins in the article on the Devil May Cry 3 manga, however they are not listed as major characters, and I do not think they form large enough a part of the story. If we listed everything which mentioned the SDS somewhere, the "references" section would be longer than the main article. --Merlinme 08:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The main footsoldiers of the game are named after the sins, and Leviathan is said to be powered by souls damned by Envy (Leviathan has been associated as the demon of envy in some other places). Also, the climax of the game has the main villain calling upon the seven sins for something like "ring the bells of damnation, and open the gate to hell!", so that he can get in there and retrieve a sword of power. The sins are also represented by seven bell-shaped statues of skeletal, evil angels throughout the tower. It may not be mentioned in the most boiled down synopsis of the story, but its mentioned throughout the game.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure all this is true, however it's unverifiable for me. I know we're not supposed to rely on Wikipedia for sources, but I like the main article of something to mention Seven Deadly Sins before listing it here; otherwise I tend to consider it likely that SDS plays a minor part in the work. If you wish to update the Devil May Cry 3 article to include a mention of SDS then we can have it here. (Importantly, other people who know about the game can then agree/ disagree, so we have some form of check of accuracy.) Don't add the SDS for the sake of it though; make sure the mention is in proportion to the rest of the Devil May Cry 3 article. --Merlinme (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not part of that wiki-project, so I wouldn't know how they are handling "cultural allusions" or such, and I'm not sure I understand why we would need to use wiki as a source. The DMC games are based off of Dante's Divine Comedy (specifically Inferno, for DMC3), and thus would have a frequent use of the SDS.

Some non-wiki sources:

1. the cutscene in which Arkham opens the gate
2. One review mentioning the seven deadly sins in the game
3. another review
4. One that specifically mentions how the enemies based on each sin have unique "cool" things about them

Also, I just remembered another - awakening fallen angels that represent the sins is the storyline of the DM3 manga.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So make the change! Be WP:BOLD! You don't have to be "part of a wiki-project" to make a page better. That's the whole point of Wikipedia; anyone can edit it. --Merlinme (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I know quite well that anyone can edit it - but seeing as there synopsis is good enough that Capcom has adopted it as the official one, I can't mess that part up. And while the sins are a dominant part of the game, besides the bell scene, they are not explicitly part of the storyline itself. So my only other option would be to add in a "cultural allusions" section, and all I'd have to put in it would be the sins, thus ruining a featured article. The sins are already mentioned by multiple non-wiki sources and are central to the prologue manga.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it again, one of the refs explicitly uses the scene where he calls upon the sins, which should have been immediately able to find on that article. But whatever, I added in a sentence that should not mess anything up and makes it clear that the sins have a significant mention in that game.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok- so now add it in to the SDS article! Explain briefly why the SDS are important to the game. You don't need my permission. --Merlinme (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Section headings

I've changed the section headings so that where said, e.g. "Pride (or Vanity)", they now say "Pride (Vanity)". This is because I simply think it looks more encyclopedic. I've also removed "Revenge" under "Wrath", as they are simply not the same thing. Wrath is anger; it may lead to a desire for revenge, but they're not synonyms. E.g. (from Cambridge Dictionaries Online): "wrath noun [U] FORMAL OR OLD-FASHIONED extreme anger". I don't speak Latin, but ira (which is how it would originally have been written down) is usually just translated as anger. Merriam-Webster Online translates wrath as "strong vengeful anger or indignation 2 : retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement". So yes there may be a sense of vengeance there (and possibly this is stronger in American English than British English). However wrath and revenge are not the same thing, and I really think it's quite confusing to treat them as if they are. --Merlinme 08:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

latin 'ira' is much more than just 'anger', it's more like 'rage, fury' which almost always leads to thoughts of 'revenge'Scyriacus (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality in list of sexual transgressions under Lust

I've removed this. Historically it's probably correct, and I'm sure some would argue it still is correct. I suppose it could go back in if it were put in context. Personally I'm not convinced it's worth sidetracking the article into this kind of debate.

--Merlinme (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So, you removed something not because you knew it to be incorrect, but because you didn't like it, or because it's controversial? If it's correct, you have no business removing it, and if anyone can establish the truth of it, I hope they undo the change (at which point, feel free to delete this comment. --DurandalsFate 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Merlinme doesn't seem to be saying that it's been removed because it controversial, but rather that it's removed because it's completely contextless at this point. Maybe an easy way to add context would be to link to an article about historical opinions of homosexuality, which we must have somewhere around here. Natalie 12:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Societal_attitudes_towards_homosexuality#Regions_and_historical_periods comes reasonable close to what I was thinking of. Natalie 12:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

belongs under 'religion', which is the (totally unbiased) belief, that a few are right and all the others are wrong. chapter: the earth is flat and homos are (deadly?) sinners........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyriacus (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

....yeah, the Bible doesn't actually say the Earth is flat - that's just the beliefs of Plato and Aristotle that were fancied by almost all "men of reason" at the time. And what does your comment have to do with the article?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost all men of reason? Yeah, no. 82.29.9.176 (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, actually, the Bible says that the sun was stopped in the sky to give Joshua more time to defeat the Amarites, among other instances. This suggestion is that the sun moves and the earth doesn't, according to fundamentalists. I'm neither supporting nor opposing this view, just pointing out its root. 142.12.15.5 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

...I didn't say during medieval times, I meant during biblical times - however, I was wrong about this being due to Plato and Aristotle.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional seven sins?

Do we want to include these "new" sins that have been reported over the last day or so? From what I've read, it's unclear whether or not they are actually additional to the list of "seven deadly sins" - Bloomberg is calling them social sins, but others are calling them deadly/mortal sins as well. I tried to find a cite for this on the Vatican's website, since they seem like the best source, but have been unsuccessful so far. Natalie (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought a short paragraph on the "new sins" would be appropriate. It's debatable how much they're linked to the Seven Deadly Sins, which have 1500 years of accumulated religious and cultural associations; but it seems sensible to at least mention the "new sins", which appear to be endorsed by the Vatican. --Merlinme (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could actually find a Vatican source for this. All of the news articles I've read mention the March 9th edition of L'Osservatore Romano, but the most recent English edition on their website is March 5th. Not sure why that is. Natalie (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably because they haven't translated and written it up yet. This is all very recent; it seems to be something mentioned at the end of a teaching seminar. Admittedly by quite a senior figure, but I'm not sure if this was supposed to represent new doctrine as such, or just an interesting idea to inspire people. On reflection we should probably hold fire until all this has been clarified. --Merlinme (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I seriously don't think this is noteworthy. From what I've read, it was an offhand comment made in a sermon by a senior Vatican cleric. It's not meant to be a change in doctrine.69.129.83.50 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems extremely notable, based on the coverage in the press and the extensive sources involved. It's been on every network and major website. Redrocket (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really- all that shows is the media knows a good story when they see one. You can get some good headlines out of the SDS. But they seem to have taken something said in passing and acted like it was a major new statement on doctrine. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do they seem to always come in sevens? Dr.K. (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on the "Modern Update" section title; does anyone prefer "2008 Update" over "Modern Update"? Celeritas (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind- if you make the change I certainly won't rever it. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I think this section should be removed. It is in no way "new doctrine" or any such thing. In a month no one will even remember this issue, it is completely irrelevant to this topic and does not belong in an encyclopedia. For a less sensationalist approach to this story, check out http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801336.htm This section should be removed from this article and maybe be moved to Uncyclopedia or something.Billy Duraney (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but it keeps being added, so rather than keep reverting, I modified the section and attempted to keep it in perspective. In a month or so's time we can probably remove it. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree it should be removed, but leaving a mention and link to the news story in which the idea of additional seven original sins was created and a link to the misreported statements from Bishop Girotti http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801336.htm or http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/index.html The seven bulleted and links from the 'sins' within wikipedia are a particular problem as they imply that that article somehow describes the sin. The wikipedia articles were not written for that purpose. I will remove the links now, and most of this section should be removed as soon as possible.

TransControl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes. A citation for the wording of the 'sins' relating to genetic modification and experimentation would be excellent: This interpretation from http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0801336.htm is quite different to the current wikipedia entry "Pollution, Genetic manipulation, Accumulating excessive wealth, Inflicting poverty, Drug trafficking and consumption, Morally debatable experiments, Violation of fundamental rights of human nature"

"Among the "new sins" that have emerged in recent times, he pointed to genetic experiments and manipulation that violate fundamental human rights and produce effects difficult to foresee and control.

He said other areas where sin has a social impact include drug abuse, which affects many young people; economic injustice, which has left the poor even poorer and the rich richer; and environmental irresponsibility"

Harassment is a sin, a collective sin. It is not a form of controllable, unknowable harassment hence participation but awareness or fully controllable harassment. It is harassment with material possessions and intention. It can create havoc and suicide. Americans brought up in their war-like culture and one soul beliefs sadly excel in this abusive nature (I am not to judge but other cultures do not rely on competitive practice as much and having grown up with harassment as the idea to fail or constantly put someone down by INDIRECT MEANS I know what I'm talking about). Corporations and made up religions are also benefit of this sin. Ergo when someone harasses someone else through scrupulous ends as a meaning over time to attain a goal, that goal being harm or violence (unlawful principle, major unfriendly biasm or selfish means), it is harassment. It can fall under anger as a form of exploitation or intention to harm greatly. It is a hidden predatorial trait, and a communistic, totalitarian ..well..immature principle...which should have died a long time ago. This is why not only religion but psychology alone is of little comprehension to us in our known universe. A great collective sin you asdd should watch out for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.41.161 (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

TransControl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Punishments

There was previously a section on here which described how the sins people did were handled in Hell. It went something like this:

• Lust: Smothered in fire and brimstone.
• Gluttony: Forcefed snakes, toads and rats.
• Greed: Boiled alive in a boiling oil.
• Sloth: Dropped into a pit of snakes.
• Wrath: Dismembered alive.
• Envy: Dropped in freezing water.
• Pride: Broken on a wheel.

Anyone who has read at least the 8 or 9 book in the Full-metal Alchemist series knows that Greed is destroyed in boiling oil :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.20.219 (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This section should be added back in as it is generally important, if not, vital information about the subject. But I read the article about Dante's visit to hell and the punishments are different with some of the sins. Could someone respond, decide whether or not this section should be put back in a maybe make it a comparison between the different methods of punishment. Thank you. Evilgidgit (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling either way whether this is included or not. If you wish to put it back in, with references- please do. Be WP:BOLD --Merlinme (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Inferno isn't actually built around the sins - there's some overlap, but it's the purgatorio that is structured for correcting the sins.

However, none of that stuff sounds like anything in the Divine Comedy or any mythology I've yet heard. Probably why it was deleted.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Envy contradiction

An IP partially removed the "Contradiction" template from Envy. I'm not sure how helpful it was, and it certainly wasn't very well written, so I've moved the whole of the template and comment here for discussion and resolution (if people think there actually is a contradiction). I can see that sources would be good, however I remain to be persuaded that the text is contradictory. I may remove the Schadenfreude reference though, I agree Schadenfreude is not really the same thing as Envy. --Merlinme (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability criteria for inclusion in "cultural references" section

I deleted a couple of things which KrytenKoro has since reinstated. I should perhaps clarify why I deleted them; if something is listed which doesn't have a Wikipedia article for itself which mentions Seven Deadly Sins, then I don't think it should be included here. This is partly because of notability, but also because it seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. I know Wikipedia should not be used as a source as such, but if I create a Wikipedia article about L.O.C. which says "L.O.C.'s album Melankolia / XXX Couture is all about the Seven Deadly Sins", then someone else who actually knows about it can say "No it isn't, that's rubbish". Or they can point out it only sold 10 copies, and doesn't qualify on the grounds of notability. In other words, it's much easier for people who know about the subject to dispute it if it's added in the main article. I therefore like to see a clear reference to Seven Deadly Sins in the main article before it's included here. Do people agree or disagree? --Merlinme (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Melankolia album does have an article, just not on the English wiki, as it is a foreign band. However, there is a huge difference between being on the English wiki, and having notability, and this is one of the main problems I have with the idea that it must already be on wiki to be mentioned - not only because this is only in English, but because wiki isn't even edited by most of the world, the range of coverage on wiki is completely disparate from what is actually notable in the world. At best, it's a work in progress, and at worst, it's a load of fan-wank.

I can agree, to an extent, with your declaration that no episodes or songs be included - after all, most of the time this kind of thing is just thrown around as a "spooky, esoteric term". But if a work is deeply based on the concept, and is not so completely trivial as to basically just be some kid in his garage, it is fair to include it as a reference in popular culture. After all, being the English wikipedia just means we cover things in the English language - it does not mean that we don't care about the non-English-speaking world.

The plan of relying on wikipedia to already report on something before we can report on it, to borrow a simile, would be like "waiting to build the cart until the horse is already pulling it". This is one of the reasons why using wikipedia as a source is forbidden - we make no claims to be anywhere near completion; and at best, there are more appropriate sources to use, and at worst, you're relying on someone else's vandalism or wanking.

For a good example of where to draw the line, I would say that anything that goes into the details of the concept, and can find professional sources with a quick web search, should be acceptable, song, episode, or not. For an example, I would say the Supernatural episode, while delving into the details a fair bit, would be out because they have absolutely no importance beyond that episode, while Devil May Cry 3, which uses them as a main basis, but mostly as names, would be just about on this side of the fence, as they continue to be important. In Melankolia's case, not only is each song named after a sin, but they've done photoshoots for each song that further represent it.

In the future, if you're going to rely on the internet as a measure of notability (already suspect with recommendations), at least use Google. Merely searching wikipedia is just not a good idea.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the average casual English reader supposed to be able to verify anything stated about a Danish band, the main link to which is in Danish? Verifiability is one of the four cornerstones of Wikipedia. I really don't think the reference should be there. --Merlinme (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

...by searching google, as mentioned above. The link to the danish article is merely until an english one gets written, and again, we're not allowed to be using wikipedia to verify anything. The link is merely there for more information, if one wants it. If you're concern is about verifiability, you should be complaining about not having references to English sites (still something not required by the guidelines - sourcing info to japanese sites, for example, is acceptable. We don't live in a one-language world).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references to non-English works

I'm unconvinced that we should be including references to works which don't have an entry in the English Wikipedia. Its relevance to English speaking people is surely debatable. A quick Amazon.co.uk/amazon.com search for Melankolia (for example) returned nothing. I've no problem at all with including Melankolia in the Danish Wiki, but why are we referencing something in the English Wiki which you can't even buy in the English speaking world? --Merlinme (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mostly answered above, but amazon is not the best place to look for such things.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You haven't really answered my points. Why are we having something here which is essentially meaningless to English speakers? Isn't the Danish Wikipedia the correct place for this? I'm open to correction but I would be quite surprised if you can get this album anywhere except on import. --Merlinme (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

...I really did. There is a huge difference between being in English, and being relevant to the English. Just look at a recent featured article: El Señor Presidente. While yes, it has been translated, the fact remains that it is at heart a foreign work that still has relevance. I think it is a huge misstep to argue that the English wikipedia should be relegated to cover English and American topics, and foreign topics be damned. The point is for the English wiki to cover all notable topics in English, not for it to ignore anything that didn't originate in a few given countries.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not arguing against the inclusion of "landmark works of Latin American literature". I recently read Love in the Time of Cholera myself. I'm arguing against including references to things in this article, which aren't considered important enough to have their own article. Also, as stated above, I am in no position to judge the notability or otherwise of Danish rappers. I'm much happier to leave that to people who understand the subject well enough to have contributed to a primary article on L.O.C. If there is no primary article on L.O.C. ... I am left to wonder whether he's notable enough to English speakers to be included in the English language Wiki at all, and certainly not in an article on a completely separate subject. --Merlinme (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF goes both ways. If you are really questioning whether he is notable at all (whether it is to English speakers really isn't the point - the notability guidelines have no language requirements), then a simple search will show you that he is considered a prominent figure of the Danish entertainment scene.

Here's my problem with the argument you're trying to make:

1. Having a wikipedia article is only tangentially a measure of a subject's notability, and is more a measure of whether interested parties want to spend the time writing an article on it. Thus, whether an article exists on wikipedia should only really be used as a pretext for deleting/merging duplicate articles.
2. Wikipedia makes no claims to being an authoritative source - it is for the most part written by laymen, who have no true expertise in the subject they are writing on, and information can be vandalized at a moment's notice - it has no lasting power as a permanent reference. As such, it it strictly prohibited for being used as a source, and the WP:V guideline refers to off-wiki resources.
3. Even considering all that, there still manages to be an article on the subject in question on the wikipedia project. That, in and of itself, is more than is required or expected for this situation. Disqualifying it on basis of the topic's language is illogical and somewhat centrist - after all, how would English reader's ever learn of anything foreign nation's did, if we abstained from mentioning works not yet in English.
4. It is not difficult, by any means, to translate a foreign-language website. The translation may not be professional, but it is easy enough to get a relative amount of understanding from foreign article's that they can't truly be called a barrier to understanding. Hell, the online translations are usually more cogent than most netspeak.

Since list sections are somewhat discouraged, though, I think a much more capable solution to the dispute would rather be to summarize the lists in prose, rather than list form. We could even mention how the topic is often used episodically, giving one sentence to the facet.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Major policies relevant to the "Cultural references section"

• Wikipedia:Embedded Lists. General guidelines on embedded lists.
• Wikipedia:Notability. Including the various more specific guidelines, i.e. notability requirements for music, fiction, etc.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anything stated in this section should be verifiable with Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. That means an independent source, i.e. a band's own web page doesn't count.
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Of course we may come up with our own ideas as well, but I would suggest that we should start from this point. "Cultural references to the Seven Deadly Sins" previously had its own article, but it broke pretty much all those policies, particularly the indiscriminate collection of information. As the influence of the SDS has been so massive on Christian culture, I think it's reasonable to want to keep the list down to a manageable size.

I think this clarifies what I've been trying to get at. If something isn't notable enough to get its own article in Wikipedia, then it's not notable enough to be mentioned in this list. I will modify my point slightly though: it's possible to meet notability and not currently have an en.wikipedia article. In this case I guess it's sufficient if there's a link to a Reliable Source which makes the link between X and the SDS. I would suggest that this Reliable Source should be in English though, or I don't see how it meets Verifiability. The average reader should not be expected to get something translated before they can verify if something is true or not.

On this basis, note that songs are generally not considered notable enough to get their own articles, except if they were massive hits or otherwise very important. Similarly, albums which are only available as bootlegs are not generally considered notable enough to get their own article. TV episodes, by contrast, often get their own articles. I still personally think we should leave them out though, simply because we could easily end up with dozens.

Using these guidelines I think several current entries can be removed. I don't have time right now but I'll make my arguments at a later point. I'd be glad to get any comments in the meantime. --Merlinme (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Not indiscriminate list does not apply at all, according to its description.

WP:Notability does not apply to the CONTENT of an article - only the topic itself

WP:Verify certainly would not throw out a wikipedia article in a foreign language. The verify guidelines on a foreign=language source are that it be possible to verify by the reader, or that the specific excerpt is given a translation. Also, it has no relevance on mere linking - if you truly just want a source to back up that the album covers the deadly sins, I can insert a ref later today, or let you do the google search yourself to their main page.

I am perfectly willing to help rewrite the section in prose, and even trim most of the list because of that, down to just a few examples. However, I strongly disagree with the assertion that wikipedia should be used to check or vouch for any of these, much less resrticting it to the English wiki.

If it is impossible to rewrite the entire lists of meaningful allusions, then we should rewrite each section of the list as prose, if possible.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles was actually the one I was looking for. Perfect! Just couldn't find it this morning. Wikipedia:Trivia is also relevant. The "In popular culture" page is worth reading in full. It's noticeable that the tone seems to be more in favour of these sections than when I last read it, about a year ago. However it does say things like: "these lists can attract non-notable entries and should be carefully maintained". That's non-notable entries, which is what I've been trying to get at. We shouldn't be listing things which aren't otherwise notable. It also says: "Unselective and exhaustive lists are discouraged" (with a link to WP:TRIVIA). So, we should be selective, and the entries in the list should be notable. Also, where possible all entries should be verified with a reference to a reliable source which makes the link between Seven Deadly Sins and the work. Agreed? --Merlinme (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We should limit the list to entries that are notable or uniquely interesting, and back these up with sources - I in fact have agreed with this from the start. My only problem was the technique of using wikipedia as a source or proof of such criteria, which is against the guidelines.

I'm perfectly in agreement with requiring a source for each entry, or removing all of them where the sins are merely "there" - in fact, I would agree with limiting the list to unique entries like the Digimon or Xxxcouture ones.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 13:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain your last point please? I don't understand what you mean by "unique entries". --Merlinme (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Along the lines of ""In popular culture" lists should contain verifiable facts of genuine interest to a broad audience of readers.", we should focus on the entries that are unusual and interesting, and not just "they mention the sins, and use them literally" - so the Next Top Supermodel bit we keep removing would stay removed, as it's generic and unimaginative. Similarly, the bit in Dr. Faustus, while an important work, uses them generically and does not focus on them, so it wouldn't be of much interest beyond to say "they are often represented as demons, as in xxxx, xxxx, and xxxx". Se7en seems imaginitive, as well as works like the Norwegian thing and Xxxcouture.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Death Comes for the Archbishop

I'm not convinced this should be in the cultural references section. I asked for a reference a long time ago that it was connected to the SDS; I've never seen one (and nor could I find one online). The book contains examples of sin, including apparently greed, avarice and gluttony, however this is not the same as being a reference to the Seven deadly sins. Would anyone object if I removed it? --Merlinme (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Hibberd: Sin

I'm inclined to remove this on the grounds of notability. A google search turns up nothing except a website for another play he's written, in which it says nothing except: "In 1978 the Victorian State Opera commissioned the musical satire Sin." It doesn't sound like it's even considered a particularly important work in Jack Hibberd's output. Would anyone object if I removed it? --Merlinme (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

CarnMeynen, what you should keep in mind is that your comments as interesting or insightful as they may or may not be, are not what Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia is for. In particular, let me quite from the relevant section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not:

Do not use Wikipedia for personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of an individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.

What you have been trying to add to this article simply does not fall within the scope of an encyclopedia. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Punishment for Lust in the Divine Comedy

Couple of things: is it correct that the penitent walk within flames in Purgatorio? I haven't tried that hard, but I could only quickly find a reference to being buffeted by winds in Inferno. And if the penitent (as opposed to the damned) do walk within flames, is it correct that they walk naked? Someone has deleted this, but it seems relevant; Wikipedia is not censored. --Merlinme (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&person=23

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The penitent walk within a flame while singing of those who were chaste, and some seem to have their faces on backwards. I can't see anything about them being naked yet, though.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything either; seems reasonable to leave it out unless someone can find a reference. --Merlinme (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dante discusses lust twice. (1) The "Unrepentent" Lustful are in Inferno, Circle 2, and are blown about by a whirlwind. This section contains the most famous part of the epic, the story of Francesca di Rimini. (2) The "repentent" Lustful are in Purgatorio, Cornice 7, and walk in flames. The backward faces description is from a completely different part of the epic: Inferno, Circle 8, Bolgia 4, where the sin is witchcraft.

As for clothing, Dante mentions clothed sinners on a few occasions (Hypocrites in gilded robes, Envious in rags) and naked sinners on a few others. Illustrators like Dore have tended to portray the sinners as naked unless Dante specified otherwise. He didn't specify either way about the Lustful, though he mentions that the flames had no effect on his own robe. CharlesTheBold (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Great- please update the article appropriately, with references if possible. --Merlinme (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination.

Proverbs 6:16–19. This has always been a problem of mine. Can someone explain to me why this verse starts out by saying there are seven things that God hates, then proceeds to list seven? Does it have something to do with translation from Hebrew to English? Also, this is my first post, so if I'm not supposed to be asking questions like this here, I apologize. --St.Giga (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert on the language of the Old Testament. Even if I were, it must surely be very hard to know the intention of the original writer; are they using the contrast of six and seven as a sort of rhetorical device? E.g. "there are three things which really annoy me. No, make that four." In which case it's just a way of keeping the reader's attention, and also makes it more personal; it's less like reciting a list. Alternatively, there could be some distinction between the things which are hated and the things which are an abomination. The New International Version gives the text as: There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him:.

This would seem to support the idea that there is a distinction; seven things are detested, but only six are actually hated. However if this is the case, then the writer doesn't make it explicit which is which. If we assume they're listed in order, then presumably the last item in the list, a man who stirs up dissension among brothers, is the one which is detested but not hated. I suppose you could also make a case that the first item is the "merely detested" one. Or possibly there might be text elsewhere which makes the two different lists clear.

I'd be curious how it reads in the original language, which might make it more obvious if the words are being used for for their literal meaning or for the effect they create. For my personal view, I think it's a combination of rhetorical effect and drawing some slightly obscure distinction. But I don't see really how you would get a definitive answer.

On a "point of order", technically the talk page is for discussing how to improve the Wikipedia article, rather than a general discussion on the subject. But provided you ask a relevant question politely, someone will generally get round to answering you eventually. --Merlinme (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Merlinme, I was a little worried I might be in the wrong spot. Also, thanks for any answers. I actually always figured it was just an "I hate six, but detest seven" kind of thing, but even then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Giga (talk • contribs) 13:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that this is at first, any further moral etc. meanings nonwithstanding, a rhethorical device that appears sometimes in the Wisdom literature of the Bible. --77.4.40.63 (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Broader interpretations"

In response to ZuluPapa's comment, which was within the section that had to be removed - while there may be broader interpretations for the concepts which share English translations with the members of the SDS, the SDS itself is a uniquely Abrhamic concept. That is why the article discusses them in that context only. If you would like to add reliable sources which posit that other philosophies have a concept equivalent or extremely similar to the SDS, then go right ahead - such information would be welcomed. However, we cannot turn this article into a page in which editors drag up totally out-of-context or incorrect explanations of the various members simply because the members have names used in the common tongue for broader concepts.

As an example - the concept of Maya in Hinduism and Buddhism is a parallel to the seven deadly sins - those predispositions which drive a person to commit evils, and stray from paradise. If we could find reliable sources which discussed this parallel, we could add a section on Maya to this page.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 10:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I've seen a ref making the point that at one time there were 9 SDS like in the Enneagram and then fear an vanity (vain glory) where merged to make 7. This would put things into the SDS context. Regarding the broader interpretation, that's my OR for now. I'll keep looking for a better ref. I wouldn't want to turn this page into the sins discussion. However, becasue its a list, it would be valuable to cross ref to other well established lists. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Also wanted to address a point I see in the Edit Summaries. There no coincidence that these sin's are observed in many spiritually traditions. I am working on a thesis there there is a genetic survival basis to them occurring in humans for diverse organization (pack) survival. Like any defensive weapon, over use can be harmful. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Protect

Looking back in the past few days, I can't see any useful IP edits, and this article is a bad target for people adding trivial nonsense to it. Does anyone else think we need a semi-protect, against IP's?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to semi-protect, but I agree we're quite close to that level. It's more or less manageable at the moment, but the number of harmful IP edits is far greater than useful ones. Certainly if the situation gets any worse we should consider semi-protection. --Merlinme (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Pride or 'Excessive' Pride

I wonder if it should be 'excessive pride' instead of just pride.

Pride can have 2 contexts one a sin and the other a virtue. If one reads the definition from the religous view, the definition provided is understandable. In the case of virtue or secular view, it can confuse the reader. By adding the word Excessive, in all probability it will be read in the first context; sin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.187.244 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In the Catholic view, any pride at all is sinful. You should love something because it is God's, and you should appreciate someone's success because it was given to them by God. "Normal" pride for one's nation or job is weak, but still incorrect and sinful.

Thank you for your input, though.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, being a foreigner I do not know how the English precisely use the word pride, but let me state that appreciating someone's (even one's own) success because it was given by God actually includes appreciating the success spoken of. Though, "excessive pride" would be wrong too. It's not the excess that makes pride sinful, the excess only makes sins worse or, if we're talking about rightful self-love, induces to sin or hinders the virtue of humility from acting. According to St. Gregory, pride is 1) think that one's merits are not by God's grace, 2) think that they are but the Grace itself was by one's own merits, 3) take pride in something that is something one doesn't have, 4) show off unordinately and with despising others what one does have, and I might add of course 5) take pride in sin or in the very not-having of a certain virtue or perfection (such as if somebody was proud not of approximately rightful living in the world, but of the very not-being a monk). It is not sinful to come, with a careful examination, to the conclusion that the piece of the last two months' work happens to have been good work. That's not a thought to shun, but a reason for a thanksgiving prayer.--77.4.40.63 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tense of introduction

Excellent changes, it's nice to have some input from an expert. I've made a few copy edits.

I don't really like the tense of the introduction at the moment. We seem to veer uneasily between past and present tense. If we're talking about the Catholic Church in the present day, we should probably be talking in the present tense throughout. If we're talking about the historic Church, it should probably be in the past tense (and it should probably just refer to the Christian Church, given that this was pre-Reformation). Or we could have both, but make it clear which one we're referring to at any one time. --Merlinme (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New format

I've got to say, while I certainly respect the editor who did this, the new format confuses the hell out of me. For one, the modern setup is clearly of seven specific sins, which I feel should be the main and possibly only sections here - "extravagance", "vainglory", and "despair" should just be part of the discussion for their corresponding modern versions.

Also, I cleaned up the headers, because they need to be reachable by intrawiki links - that's the whole point of headers.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, we need to use more references from the catholic encyclopedia to fill out OR sections.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 09:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Seven Deadly Sins" vs. "seven deadly sins"

I would argue that each word should be capitalized because we are talking about a concept that has a proper name. We are not talking about seven sins that happen to be deadly. We are talking about seven specific sins that have been intentionally and purposefully collected together and given the name "Seven Deadly Sins". Anytime that I have seen the Seven Deadly Sins mentioned, every word in the phrase has been capitalized. The best-known analogue is the set of moral precepts known as the "Ten Commandments". If no one objects, I will rename this article and change all instances of "seven deadly sins" to "Seven Deadly Sins". --Rudy Waltz (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead links

We do not need them, and I would even argue that we don't need the "main" links within the body of the article, either. The other articles have virtually no coverage of the seven deadly sins, so having the links would only serve a function if the meaning of the words were obscure - however, not only are they not obscure, but we give virtually the same amount of definition within this article itself. Thus, linking to those articles within the lead paragraph constitutes overlinking:

• "...relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully."
• "Technical terms, unless they are fully defined in the article..."

It would be appropriate and helpful to include links to the relevant pages in the "See Also" section - while they do not contribute to the article itself, and should not be linked in the body of the text, the article itself contributes to them, and so interested readers could read up on the historical background of related information.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, many of the links throughout the article are only useful for the purposes of external definition, not historical background. As such, they should be rerouted towards either wiktionary, or a religious dictionary site such as Catholic Encyclopedia.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Sometimes the most appropriate link is an interwiki link to Wiktionary. Consider instead defining technical terms immediately, if this can be worked into the sentence neatly and concisely."

Minus old hoax

I removed old hoax:

• Girotti is not head of the Apostolic Penitentiary
• Girotti did not tell about "deadly" sins --Cinik (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 sins

Should we add an external link like the following ?

• Windows 7 sins - campaign by Free Software Foundation

Tiksagol (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture: Full Metal Alchemist

I believe that the Full Metal Alchemist series should be mentioned in here as it is far more popular that most of the publishings included in the entry even though it is still not a complete series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.81.66 (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the list. --Merlinme (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)