Talk:Envy

Link
This link obviously does not belong here. Whoever added is gonna have to create a separate page for that meaning of envy.


 * eNVy - NVIDIA-INSTALLER Ubuntu Linux

Removal or correction of "Comparison with jealousy" section
The definition of jealousy in this section is mainly incorrect, should be corrected or removed altogether

merriam-webster: "1. an unhappy or angry feeling of wanting to have what someone else has"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jealousy

oxford dictionary: "1. Feeling or showing an envious resentment of someone or their achievements, possessions, or perceived advantages"

https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/jealous

Section on Christianity
This is my first contribution to a talk page, and an effort to be bold as a blossoming Wikipedian. I believe that the section on Christianity doesn't seem very encyclopedic in nature. It's also tagged as being mostly single-sourced. Does anyone have thoughts or feedback on these issues? Thanks in advance for your time and consideration! JessPotato (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

“Religious Views” can be seriously improved
The article’s presentation of religious views of envy can, in my opinion, be significantly improved. The section on Buddhism, while the section that best conforms to Wikipedia’s tone, cites no sources. In fact, the section on Christianity is the only section out of five that cites sources properly. However, these citations are exclusively Bible quotations, and in addition this section is repeatedly partisan in tone, as quotes such as “Envy ruins the body’s health, making bones rot and prohibiting the inheritance of the kingdom of God” demonstrate. The section on Hinduism does not reference sources properly, and exclusively cites the Mahabharata. The section on Islam again does not reference sources correctly and exclusively cites Islamic scripture. The section on Judaism, like the rest, does not cite any sources outside of scripture. Despite “Religious Views” being by far the longest section of the article, and dealing with issues of theology, it does not cite a single academic source, instead relying solely on religious texts, which can be variously interpreted, but are cited in this section as if they have one interpretation.

I believe that this article would be vastly improved by rewriting this section in its entirety, having it cite reliable sources, and making it conform to Wikipedia’s tone and goal of neutrality. FriedQuiver (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Abandoned user draft
Please would an interested editor assess the material at User:Dbabbitt/Sandbox/Envy, incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)