Talk:Pride

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Purple Pride

[edit]

One of the 7 deadly sins Keron Thornhill (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pride

[edit]

Doesn't pride mean pack Of lions Or more than one lion 107.242.121.8 (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pride" is a word with many different meanings. It can refer to a pack of lions, it can also refer to a "happy confidence". I think this discussion about this page suffers from a lack of understanding and definition as to what exactly pride is. Do not take my word for it. There are numerous sources as to what "Pride" means. Some times it gets confused with "cocky" or "arrogant" or whatever term you apply for narcissism in a human being. I suppose the only definition that may ever fit with "pride" is "truly excessive confidence" and I emphasize "truly", people confuse or attack confidence all the time out of there own narcissism routinely. Cyberquell (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, I just did it myself :) Exchange "pride" with "arrogance" on my earlier post. "arrogance" is "truly excessive confidence". "pride" is just "happy confidence" Pride is tricky, even if you arguing in good faith. There's a reason why people have been arguing it's definition for thousands of years. Cyberquell (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i think the search term "pride" should redirect to the disambiguation page for the word "pride" because there are so many different meanings Dimimegesis (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A healthy amount of pride is good"

[edit]

Besides being dubious, this statement is also a Wikipedia: Subjective importance because being "good" is not an objective merit. It is like adding "chocolate is good" to article chocolate or adding "i love dogs!" to article canis lupus. Violation of encyclopedic neutrality. Cactus Ronin (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be more or less meaningless, since 'good' would seem to imply 'healthy' anyway. The lede probably needs rewriting in a more coherent manner. As does the rest of the article, since it seems to be a collection of random stuff relating to 'pride', rather than an overview of the topic as a whole. If there actually is a single topic at all, rather than several different ones... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revisions for Accuracy & Modern Context

[edit]

Hi folks, just logging the recent series of edits I've made to improve clarity and usability of this article:

🟢 Clarified Theological Context: Adjusted key phrasing to make clear that "pride" as a sin is rooted strictly in the historical context of Judeo-Christian theology. This stops confusion with the modern meaning of the word.

🔁 Redirected Literal Misreadings: Added cross-references to [[Arrogance]] and [[Seven deadly sins#Pride]] to help users distinguish moral theology from modern psychology or culture.

📚 Historical Representation Update: Rewrote the paragraph listing pride movements to reflect historical chronology:

🖼️ Replaced Image: Swapped out the allegorical painting with a new image titled "What Pride Is to Us", which offers a visual cue aligned with the article's modern section and represents the spirit of contemporary pride movements. Uploaded here: Commons link

🔍 Tone & Structure Cleanup: Split long paragraphs, updated inline links, and ensured consistency with other Wiki articles and citation formats.

Happy to revise any bit if there's a community consensus. But the intention's solid: make Wikipedia useful to those seeking clarity, not just tradition.

Cheers,

[[User:Guilbrynski|Guilbrynski]] Guilbrynski (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally doesn't use AI-generated images per WP:AIIMAGES.
What do you mean by removing the 17th century engraving image as "self-promotion"? Belbury (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The initial comment of this discussion appears to be LLM-generated, which indicates that the corresponding article edits should be reviewed. — Newslinger talk 22:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Symbol for Modern Pride Context

[edit]

Apologies for earlier policy issues — I wasn't fully aware of the guidelines around LLM-generated content. I’ll do my best to align with expectations going forward.

Today I added a public domain image to accompany the section discussing modern cultural expressions of pride (e.g., Black pride, feminist pride, etc.). It's licensed under CC0, avoids stylistic ambiguity, and is intended as an educational symbolic anchor to the updated paragraph.

I created the image by modifying a raised fist graphic commonly associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, a widely used public domain symbol, and added a white heart at the wrist to represent compassion alongside strength. The file, titled “Fist & Love,” was edited and uploaded by me to Wikimedia Commons for educational use.

If others have a preferred alternative, I’m open to discussion, but this version seems relevant and appropriate unless a consensus suggests otherwise.

Guilbrynski (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up here: I've now clarified the licensing on Commons to reflect that the image is a derivative work. The raised fist with heart on wrist was widely circulate protesting pride imagery from around 2017. The updated file now explains this, and the educational rationale is included:
File:Fist & Love.png
I’m happy to wait for input, but if there’s no objection in the next few days, I’ll consider re-adding the image with a neutral caption to support the article’s section on contemporary expressions of pride. All good now? Guilbrynski (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Squirrel Conspiracy User:Newslinger User:Belbury — just tagging in case the clarification above wasn't seen. Let me know if there are any issues. Guilbrynski (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen it. For an article about the broadest possible sense of pride (a sense of satisfaction with one's identity, performance, or accomplishments), a variant of a Black Lives Matter fist symbol seems too specific. A WP:LEADIMAGE is meant to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page, and this makes it look like a page about Black Pride. The white heart on the wrist also seems an unclear addition to that.
An image of a person acting proudly would seem a more obvious choice. File:Allegory of Pride Met DP888806.jpg (which you removed as "self-promotion" and I still don't know what you meant by that) seems more suitable to me. Belbury (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Belbury, I appreciate your reply.
Just to clarify: the image I had posted (File:Fist & Love.png) is based on a symbol that has circulated, meanwhile not in mainstream for some reasons, explaining perhaps why you "hadn't seen it" at the protest, across identity-based movements over the past decade.
Variations of the raised fist have been used widely in feminist pride, queer pride, labour solidarity, and disability rights contexts. The version I uploaded incorporates a white heart at the wrist, drawn from protest graphics used during 2020–21 and aligned with grassroots artwork (examples archived and timestamped). It’s meant as a universal expression of pride with compassion, not a narrowly political emblem.
Regarding the historical allegory (File:Allegory of Pride Met DP888806.jpg), I removed that one because it explicitly represents vanity, not pride. It was painted as a critique of pride as a sin, making it unsuitable going forward as a lead image for an article about pride as a positive or neutral concept.
To help move this forward collaboratively, I’m opening a discussion below with a few image options. Editors are welcome to weigh in, not as a vote, but to help guide consensus. Or if you have anything better that can unendingly give:
- a sense of satisfaction with one's identity, performance, or accomplishments
- readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page
I would be more than happy to check it out and give you my feeling.
PS:For reference only, this fist-with-heart variant appears in some grassroots protest materials, e.g. [this archived example from a BLM local chapter on Facebook] (https://www.facebook.com/BLMCASLO)
Peace, Guilbrynski (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I said I hadn't seen it, I was responding to your in case the clarification above wasn't seen comment. But I haven't seen an icon of a black fist with a white heart on the wrist anywhere either, for what it's worth.
I think a historical painting is okay here if it's presented in context in the caption as "pride as a sin", as you say. It better conveys the idea that this is an article about the wider concept of pride throughout history. A black power fist, or your earlier AI-generated image of a group with a rainbow pride flag, makes it look as if article might only address the modern meaning of pride. --Belbury (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With no response to that, I've added File:Pride (Superbia), from The Seven Vices MET DP867537.jpg instead, and stated in the caption that the 16th century artist intended it as a depiction of a vice. Belbury (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being away — I’ve been tied up with other time-consuming projects. I recently revisited the Pride page and noticed that the fist with heart on wrist image, even though it reflects visual language seen during recent Black Lives Matter protests, is still not present. I personally felt that having no image was preferable to displaying one that I believe doesn’t fit the context of modern consensus.
That said, since an image is now preferred on this page, I wanted to bring attention to a key line from WP:LEADIMAGE:
“Lead images should visually confirm the subject of the article in its most recognizable or expected form.”
With that in mind, I’d like to ask respectfully — does a 16th-century painting depicting vanity as a sin fulfil that guidance? Is this truly the most expected or neutral representation for a reader landing on a general article about pride?
Or should we reopen the discussion around imagery such as the fist-with-heart symbol — one that connects more closely to modern usage across identity, culture, and emotional expression?
I’ll be staying in the loop moving forward, as this article feels important to get right — both for accuracy and for balance. Best. Nodocéphale (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]