This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alcohol in the Bible article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Alcohol in the Bible was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See section Septuagint equivalent(s) for yayin. A person who is an "oinopotes" in Prov 23:20 (Septuagint) is associated with the Hebrew term "sawbaw." Thus "Oinopotes" is a person, so is not really equivalent to a thing: "yayin". Likewise for sumposion, katoinousthai. I suggest the wording could be made clearer. Officelamp ( talk) 12:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Alcohol in the Bible SCORES IN KEY AREAS | |||||
Legality | A | A | A | A | |
Neutrality | A | A | A | A | |
Writing | A | A | A | A | |
Sources | A | A | A | A | |
Citations | A | A | A | A | |
Overall the article is excellent. There are plenty of citations and sources. All the pictures are A-OK. Neutrality is not even a problem when all they are doing is making references to the Bible and other Christian related material concerning a subject that does not have a mass countermovement against it. As for the writing, it is interesting. The subject is "Alcohol in the Bible" so the reasonableness of the sources used is a no-brainer. With 138 citations and the other things I just mentioned, I find it highly likely that someones agrees and is therefore willing to pass it.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Can the concept of "new wine" being alcoholic be reconciled with Isaih 65:8, which makes reference to new wine being from the cluster? I've noticed that many prohibitionist Christians use this verse to support the notion that the Bible also speaks of grape juice, yet I noticed it's not mentioned in this article, even though new wine is mentioned frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.206.191 ( talk • contribs)
Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Jesus drank wine? On one occasion at a wedding he turned water into wine but that action doesn't necessarily encourage its consumption. During the last supper he never uses the word wine to describe his drink. Where do most people get the idea he drank wine and orders us to drink it? 70.58.5.164 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I need some suggestions on how to improve the references on this article. In the recent peer review of this article, User:Konstable (now retired) suggested I divide the references into notes and references along the lines of Islam or Demosthenes, both featured articles. Konstable's main reason for this suggestion is that some of the citations have quite a few different sources (e.g., "... abused,[8][9][10][11][12]" from the lead), so he said I should combine them into a single footnote for each cited item with multiple sources within each note.
I attempted to do this in my "private" version of this article, but I ran into some issues. First, I don't want to introduce manual footnoting unless I absolutely have to (compare the manual "letter" footnotes in Demosthenes) since they're a maintenance hassle. Second, I want to be able to use the <ref name="NamedNote">xyz</ref> ... <ref name="NamedNote"/> style notes since I have several sources that I cite a number of times (e.g., "Wine" from Easton's Bible Dictionary). Looking at my "private" version, where should I go from here? -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Your article is more modern thinking than the ideas of the days you write about. As a teacher of the torah and bible for 30 years, I often review other's ideas on what is written. I learn something new everyday. What I've discovered over the past thirty years is that most people write based on the concepts they learned from their basic church's doctrines. If you really want to write a correct article about alcohol in the bible, you need to leave the Christian writings completely and delve into the midrash (legend) books. For instance, one word that is often used describing Jesus is Nitzer. This was translated that he was from Nazerene. The word is greek for Nazerite. When you use this concept of Jesus being a Nazerite and understand the actual laws surrounding a Nazerite, then re-read the New Testament, a whole new story comes out of it. Jesus is only accused of drinking alcohol but no one actually sees him drinking it. As for alcohol, the Midrash (legends) is that the process was taught to man by the fallen angels (referred to as the Sons of G-d in the Book of Genesis) to mankind (decendants of Cain) before the flood. If you look deep into the Torah, you will discover that wine and strong drink was actually sent into the tabernacle for the LORD to enjoy. How deep are you willing to go into the actual words of the Torah bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitteringsword ( talk • contribs)
The article is clearly written from a Christian perspective, which either has to be removed or made clear that his article is only about the Christian POV. Example of the this bias are
Frankly I think it would be easier to rename this article "Alcohol in the Christian Bible" then to remove all of the bias and insert a Jewish view. Jon513 ( talk) 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate forum discussion. See WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The word "wine" in olden times was used indiscriminately to mean either fresh grape juice or fermented (alcoholic) grape juice. The context in which the word is used tells the reader which meaning is appropriate. If it speaks bad about it, it is referring to alcoholic wine. If it speaks good about it, it is referring to unfermented grape juice. Don't believe me? Look in any English dictionary over 200 years old and you'll see the word wine meant any grape juice. In the Old Testament there are 3 Hebrew words that are all translated as “wine”. Yayin which is intoxicating, fermented wine, tirosh which is fresh grape juice, and shakar which is an intoxicating, intensely alcoholic, strong drink (often referring to other intoxicants than wine). The Greek words in the New Testament that are translated as "wine" are oinos and gleukos which can refer to either unfermented grape juice or alcoholic wine. Many have said grape juice was fermented to preserve it. There were many methods back then besides fermentation to preserve grape juice and even when it was fermented the alcohol content was MUCH less than the wines of today. 67.42.243.40 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
|
I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles ( talk) 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This reassessment is going to look at how the article matches up against the current GA Criteria. Since the article was passed before the current criteria was established, the GA Sweeps project is going through each article to determine if it still meets the new and more stringent criteria. Given the fact that this is a controversial subject I refrain from making judgments on its content but instead focus my review on prose, MOS compliance, and adherence to the GA Criteria. I note at first glance that there are several maintenance tags, this is a concern, I will evaluate the validity of these tags as I read through the article.
Generally I am concerned about this article. I feel it does not meet several of the GA Crieria. The article is certainly comprehensive covering all of the Biblical traditions from OT, Apocrapha and NT. It is a controversial subject but it does appear to be stable. The images are solid and the writing is fairly neutral, not giving weight to one side or the other. The following is a list of my concerns as they match up against the GA Criteria:
At this point I will put the article on hold for a week and notify the concerned projects and editors. If you have questions or concerns you can list them here and/or contact me on my talk page. I am more than happy to civilly discuss any of my criticisms and reverse my opinion should I be presented with a convincing and cogent argument. This is a collaborative process and I do hope that we can work together to make this article better. If no work is done within a week and no extension of time is requested then I will likely delist the article from its GA standing. H1nkles ( talk) 19:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've done as much as I'm willing to, for the time being, to fix up this article. I've addressed most but not all of the issues you've raised. I worked on the prose, but didn't make big changes; it seems fine to me. I added a short paragraph to the lead which refers to the different sections of the article. There are still some problematic one-sentence paragraphs, as I'm unwilling to expand them, and I can't tack them on to other paragraphs, but nor am I willing to delete them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw your review of Alcohol in the Bible. Thanks for putting in the time and effort. I haven't had time to do a lot of editing lately, but I'd like to improve the article along the lines of the comments you made. One problem I've had, which I'd like your advice on, is how to handle the controversial nature of the subject material.
First, there is a small but ardent minority of Christians, who view alcohol as sinful and argue that "wine" in the Bible means "juice" wherever it is positively used and "alcohol" when negatively used (see some such complaints above; more are implicit in the edit history). Several persons of such a persuasion have added material and/or requested the many citations I've given at places, and others I put in as a pre-emptive strike of sorts. I've tried to represent their viewpoint fairly, but it is clearly not the view of the vast majority of Christian, Judaic, or other scholars. How should I reference the article to satisfy the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and undue weight while at the same time satisfying these "squeaky wheels"? This has been a real problem for me. (I'm getting flashes of past edit wars, particularly on Christianity and alcohol, from which this article spun off.)
Second, how should I cite the Bible? Some say it is too disputed to use as a primary source - and in many articles, I agree - but in this case, I tried merely to give instances of alcohol appearing in the Bible. Given the broadly accepted meaning of the terms "wine" and "beer" as alcoholic beverages, few of these references should be controversial, and where they are controversial, I included commentators' differening views (e.g., on Proverbs 31:4–7 under the Drunkenness section). As the article stands now, nearly all of the footnotes with Bible verses have been stripped out, but see this revision where I have many footnotes to verses. As a case study, we might look at this semi-randomly selected paragraph from that older revision:
Does this meet WP:PSTS? To prohibitionists, it is non-neutral and blasphemous, but to anyone outside that small circle, I fully expect it would not be at all controversial. In its present form, the paragraph is unchanged except that all but the last footnote are omitted, and to my mind, that is significant a loss. Standard reference works on a topic like this include many direct references, cf. [3] (again picking semi-randomly).
Third, I got some complaints on the use of the term "Bible" (see #Christian_bias above), which is why I added the section on the meaning of the term. Do you think the criticism was unwarranted? How should I have handled it?
Again, many thanks for your time and efforts! -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
First off thank you for fighting the battles you have evidently fought. It is unfortunate that articles must be burdened with copious amounts of references in order to satisfy a small, but vocal, minority. I have seen this issue played out in many articles on a vast array of subjects. Unfortunately in my experience there are no easy answers. I'll try to give my impressions, but they are truly opinions based on my interpretations of the MOS as it applies to this article.
I hope that these comments help address your questions. Please feel free to reply and I will continue the discussion. As an Evangelical Christian I have wanted to engage in articles related to Christianity. While I don't really have an axe to grind on the topic at hand, I do find the debate as to how the article should fit into WP standards and yet also convey the heart of the subject stimulating. I welcome your response. H1nkles ( talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll respond as well, Flex, unsolicited though my opinion may be.
First off, I apologize if my stripping of primary sources was inconsiderate of the work you've put in the article.
I agree with H1knles that the article has a balance on the POV issue.
As for citing bible verses: As a via media, perhaps if you reinstated the verse references which you believe are necessary. But if their interpretation is challenged by anyone, they should be removed. (Allowing, of course, for the interpretation of the verse by RS to be included instead.) I believe this is a practical solution, as it allows for the use of relevant citations from the bible, while at the same time avoiding problems of interpreting primary sources (ie, if everyone agrees on the interpration, there's no problem).
I don't believe the section discussing the bible is necessary. It is rather tangential to the article. We have entire articles on the bible and its different parts (ie OT, Hebrew Bible, NT, deuterocanon), so persons can go to those articles if they want. A wikilink to Bible is all that is needed.
Your instinct in saying, "I don't like the idea of splitting each topical section into a HB/OT, Apoc/Deut-con, and NT subsections because it will separate topics that are related", is right. It seems to me that Jon513's comments were primarily in reference to his perception of too-much Christian pov in the article, rather than desiring a section explaining different views of what constitutes the bible. That (what constitutes the bible) is such a basic topic that it is too tangential here. That is not to say that you didn't handle the complaint well; with no-one else participating in the discussion, it was the prudent thing to do at the time. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
After a hiatus on my part from reviewing, much discussion and a community reassessment I will delist the article from its GA status. The reason for delisting is that it does not meet the current GA Criteria, in format and adherence to the MOS. If there is disagreement about this determination please discuss it at the GA community reassessment page. H1nkles ( talk) 03:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There are a couple of footnotes referencing a work by Fitzsimmonds, but a full citation isn't provided anywhere. -- macrakis ( talk) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no word "Alcohol" in the Bible. Article should be called "Wine in the Bible". -- Вишера Олег ( talk) 08:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Alcohol in the Bible which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bbible\-history\.com\b
on the local blacklist\bbible\-history\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Somebody should examine this book and reference it in the article as appropriate:
Kreglinger, Gisela H. 2016. The Spirituality of Wine. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC) -- 82.169.115.181 ( talk) 12:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The etymology of the word 'alcohol' given in the second and third paragraphs in the introduction is obsolete. This etymology can be found on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alcohol under 'Various old etymological notes'.
Besides, the author of these two paragraphs seems to have a strong aversion to drinking alcoholic beverages, which shines through the words and examples he/she uses. This clearly violates neutrality. -- 82.169.115.181 ( talk) 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
To that point, with respect, both reliable and published sources have been added at every point when requested in these paragraphs where the points made require it, and these sources are not original per Wikipedia guidelines. Reliable published citations are listed. To add to that, per your request, I've added an additional citation regarding context between alcohol and use in argument through the Bible with the verse connecting it to the "cup of demons" for which the association with the root word of alcohol suggests a correlation. The citation verbiage specifically contains this argument (among other association) - "If when you set up for yourselves, think yourselves happy in getting clear from the restraints of a sober regimen, and take the liberty of the drunkards, what reproach it will be to you! What a degeneracy! What a fall from your first love! And where will it stop? Perhaps you have given up the name of your Lord Jesus at his table; and dare you partake of the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils?" - The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine Vol. 36, 1813. Pgs. 93-94. Thank you, Statescontributor ( talk) 00:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alcohol in the Bible article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Alcohol in the Bible was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See section Septuagint equivalent(s) for yayin. A person who is an "oinopotes" in Prov 23:20 (Septuagint) is associated with the Hebrew term "sawbaw." Thus "Oinopotes" is a person, so is not really equivalent to a thing: "yayin". Likewise for sumposion, katoinousthai. I suggest the wording could be made clearer. Officelamp ( talk) 12:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Alcohol in the Bible SCORES IN KEY AREAS | |||||
Legality | A | A | A | A | |
Neutrality | A | A | A | A | |
Writing | A | A | A | A | |
Sources | A | A | A | A | |
Citations | A | A | A | A | |
Overall the article is excellent. There are plenty of citations and sources. All the pictures are A-OK. Neutrality is not even a problem when all they are doing is making references to the Bible and other Christian related material concerning a subject that does not have a mass countermovement against it. As for the writing, it is interesting. The subject is "Alcohol in the Bible" so the reasonableness of the sources used is a no-brainer. With 138 citations and the other things I just mentioned, I find it highly likely that someones agrees and is therefore willing to pass it.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Can the concept of "new wine" being alcoholic be reconciled with Isaih 65:8, which makes reference to new wine being from the cluster? I've noticed that many prohibitionist Christians use this verse to support the notion that the Bible also speaks of grape juice, yet I noticed it's not mentioned in this article, even though new wine is mentioned frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.206.191 ( talk • contribs)
Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Jesus drank wine? On one occasion at a wedding he turned water into wine but that action doesn't necessarily encourage its consumption. During the last supper he never uses the word wine to describe his drink. Where do most people get the idea he drank wine and orders us to drink it? 70.58.5.164 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I need some suggestions on how to improve the references on this article. In the recent peer review of this article, User:Konstable (now retired) suggested I divide the references into notes and references along the lines of Islam or Demosthenes, both featured articles. Konstable's main reason for this suggestion is that some of the citations have quite a few different sources (e.g., "... abused,[8][9][10][11][12]" from the lead), so he said I should combine them into a single footnote for each cited item with multiple sources within each note.
I attempted to do this in my "private" version of this article, but I ran into some issues. First, I don't want to introduce manual footnoting unless I absolutely have to (compare the manual "letter" footnotes in Demosthenes) since they're a maintenance hassle. Second, I want to be able to use the <ref name="NamedNote">xyz</ref> ... <ref name="NamedNote"/> style notes since I have several sources that I cite a number of times (e.g., "Wine" from Easton's Bible Dictionary). Looking at my "private" version, where should I go from here? -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Your article is more modern thinking than the ideas of the days you write about. As a teacher of the torah and bible for 30 years, I often review other's ideas on what is written. I learn something new everyday. What I've discovered over the past thirty years is that most people write based on the concepts they learned from their basic church's doctrines. If you really want to write a correct article about alcohol in the bible, you need to leave the Christian writings completely and delve into the midrash (legend) books. For instance, one word that is often used describing Jesus is Nitzer. This was translated that he was from Nazerene. The word is greek for Nazerite. When you use this concept of Jesus being a Nazerite and understand the actual laws surrounding a Nazerite, then re-read the New Testament, a whole new story comes out of it. Jesus is only accused of drinking alcohol but no one actually sees him drinking it. As for alcohol, the Midrash (legends) is that the process was taught to man by the fallen angels (referred to as the Sons of G-d in the Book of Genesis) to mankind (decendants of Cain) before the flood. If you look deep into the Torah, you will discover that wine and strong drink was actually sent into the tabernacle for the LORD to enjoy. How deep are you willing to go into the actual words of the Torah bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitteringsword ( talk • contribs)
The article is clearly written from a Christian perspective, which either has to be removed or made clear that his article is only about the Christian POV. Example of the this bias are
Frankly I think it would be easier to rename this article "Alcohol in the Christian Bible" then to remove all of the bias and insert a Jewish view. Jon513 ( talk) 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate forum discussion. See WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The word "wine" in olden times was used indiscriminately to mean either fresh grape juice or fermented (alcoholic) grape juice. The context in which the word is used tells the reader which meaning is appropriate. If it speaks bad about it, it is referring to alcoholic wine. If it speaks good about it, it is referring to unfermented grape juice. Don't believe me? Look in any English dictionary over 200 years old and you'll see the word wine meant any grape juice. In the Old Testament there are 3 Hebrew words that are all translated as “wine”. Yayin which is intoxicating, fermented wine, tirosh which is fresh grape juice, and shakar which is an intoxicating, intensely alcoholic, strong drink (often referring to other intoxicants than wine). The Greek words in the New Testament that are translated as "wine" are oinos and gleukos which can refer to either unfermented grape juice or alcoholic wine. Many have said grape juice was fermented to preserve it. There were many methods back then besides fermentation to preserve grape juice and even when it was fermented the alcohol content was MUCH less than the wines of today. 67.42.243.40 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
|
I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles ( talk) 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This reassessment is going to look at how the article matches up against the current GA Criteria. Since the article was passed before the current criteria was established, the GA Sweeps project is going through each article to determine if it still meets the new and more stringent criteria. Given the fact that this is a controversial subject I refrain from making judgments on its content but instead focus my review on prose, MOS compliance, and adherence to the GA Criteria. I note at first glance that there are several maintenance tags, this is a concern, I will evaluate the validity of these tags as I read through the article.
Generally I am concerned about this article. I feel it does not meet several of the GA Crieria. The article is certainly comprehensive covering all of the Biblical traditions from OT, Apocrapha and NT. It is a controversial subject but it does appear to be stable. The images are solid and the writing is fairly neutral, not giving weight to one side or the other. The following is a list of my concerns as they match up against the GA Criteria:
At this point I will put the article on hold for a week and notify the concerned projects and editors. If you have questions or concerns you can list them here and/or contact me on my talk page. I am more than happy to civilly discuss any of my criticisms and reverse my opinion should I be presented with a convincing and cogent argument. This is a collaborative process and I do hope that we can work together to make this article better. If no work is done within a week and no extension of time is requested then I will likely delist the article from its GA standing. H1nkles ( talk) 19:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've done as much as I'm willing to, for the time being, to fix up this article. I've addressed most but not all of the issues you've raised. I worked on the prose, but didn't make big changes; it seems fine to me. I added a short paragraph to the lead which refers to the different sections of the article. There are still some problematic one-sentence paragraphs, as I'm unwilling to expand them, and I can't tack them on to other paragraphs, but nor am I willing to delete them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw your review of Alcohol in the Bible. Thanks for putting in the time and effort. I haven't had time to do a lot of editing lately, but I'd like to improve the article along the lines of the comments you made. One problem I've had, which I'd like your advice on, is how to handle the controversial nature of the subject material.
First, there is a small but ardent minority of Christians, who view alcohol as sinful and argue that "wine" in the Bible means "juice" wherever it is positively used and "alcohol" when negatively used (see some such complaints above; more are implicit in the edit history). Several persons of such a persuasion have added material and/or requested the many citations I've given at places, and others I put in as a pre-emptive strike of sorts. I've tried to represent their viewpoint fairly, but it is clearly not the view of the vast majority of Christian, Judaic, or other scholars. How should I reference the article to satisfy the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and undue weight while at the same time satisfying these "squeaky wheels"? This has been a real problem for me. (I'm getting flashes of past edit wars, particularly on Christianity and alcohol, from which this article spun off.)
Second, how should I cite the Bible? Some say it is too disputed to use as a primary source - and in many articles, I agree - but in this case, I tried merely to give instances of alcohol appearing in the Bible. Given the broadly accepted meaning of the terms "wine" and "beer" as alcoholic beverages, few of these references should be controversial, and where they are controversial, I included commentators' differening views (e.g., on Proverbs 31:4–7 under the Drunkenness section). As the article stands now, nearly all of the footnotes with Bible verses have been stripped out, but see this revision where I have many footnotes to verses. As a case study, we might look at this semi-randomly selected paragraph from that older revision:
Does this meet WP:PSTS? To prohibitionists, it is non-neutral and blasphemous, but to anyone outside that small circle, I fully expect it would not be at all controversial. In its present form, the paragraph is unchanged except that all but the last footnote are omitted, and to my mind, that is significant a loss. Standard reference works on a topic like this include many direct references, cf. [3] (again picking semi-randomly).
Third, I got some complaints on the use of the term "Bible" (see #Christian_bias above), which is why I added the section on the meaning of the term. Do you think the criticism was unwarranted? How should I have handled it?
Again, many thanks for your time and efforts! -- Flex ( talk/ contribs) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
First off thank you for fighting the battles you have evidently fought. It is unfortunate that articles must be burdened with copious amounts of references in order to satisfy a small, but vocal, minority. I have seen this issue played out in many articles on a vast array of subjects. Unfortunately in my experience there are no easy answers. I'll try to give my impressions, but they are truly opinions based on my interpretations of the MOS as it applies to this article.
I hope that these comments help address your questions. Please feel free to reply and I will continue the discussion. As an Evangelical Christian I have wanted to engage in articles related to Christianity. While I don't really have an axe to grind on the topic at hand, I do find the debate as to how the article should fit into WP standards and yet also convey the heart of the subject stimulating. I welcome your response. H1nkles ( talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll respond as well, Flex, unsolicited though my opinion may be.
First off, I apologize if my stripping of primary sources was inconsiderate of the work you've put in the article.
I agree with H1knles that the article has a balance on the POV issue.
As for citing bible verses: As a via media, perhaps if you reinstated the verse references which you believe are necessary. But if their interpretation is challenged by anyone, they should be removed. (Allowing, of course, for the interpretation of the verse by RS to be included instead.) I believe this is a practical solution, as it allows for the use of relevant citations from the bible, while at the same time avoiding problems of interpreting primary sources (ie, if everyone agrees on the interpration, there's no problem).
I don't believe the section discussing the bible is necessary. It is rather tangential to the article. We have entire articles on the bible and its different parts (ie OT, Hebrew Bible, NT, deuterocanon), so persons can go to those articles if they want. A wikilink to Bible is all that is needed.
Your instinct in saying, "I don't like the idea of splitting each topical section into a HB/OT, Apoc/Deut-con, and NT subsections because it will separate topics that are related", is right. It seems to me that Jon513's comments were primarily in reference to his perception of too-much Christian pov in the article, rather than desiring a section explaining different views of what constitutes the bible. That (what constitutes the bible) is such a basic topic that it is too tangential here. That is not to say that you didn't handle the complaint well; with no-one else participating in the discussion, it was the prudent thing to do at the time. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
After a hiatus on my part from reviewing, much discussion and a community reassessment I will delist the article from its GA status. The reason for delisting is that it does not meet the current GA Criteria, in format and adherence to the MOS. If there is disagreement about this determination please discuss it at the GA community reassessment page. H1nkles ( talk) 03:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There are a couple of footnotes referencing a work by Fitzsimmonds, but a full citation isn't provided anywhere. -- macrakis ( talk) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no word "Alcohol" in the Bible. Article should be called "Wine in the Bible". -- Вишера Олег ( talk) 08:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Alcohol in the Bible which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bbible\-history\.com\b
on the local blacklist\bbible\-history\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Somebody should examine this book and reference it in the article as appropriate:
Kreglinger, Gisela H. 2016. The Spirituality of Wine. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC) -- 82.169.115.181 ( talk) 12:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The etymology of the word 'alcohol' given in the second and third paragraphs in the introduction is obsolete. This etymology can be found on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alcohol under 'Various old etymological notes'.
Besides, the author of these two paragraphs seems to have a strong aversion to drinking alcoholic beverages, which shines through the words and examples he/she uses. This clearly violates neutrality. -- 82.169.115.181 ( talk) 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
To that point, with respect, both reliable and published sources have been added at every point when requested in these paragraphs where the points made require it, and these sources are not original per Wikipedia guidelines. Reliable published citations are listed. To add to that, per your request, I've added an additional citation regarding context between alcohol and use in argument through the Bible with the verse connecting it to the "cup of demons" for which the association with the root word of alcohol suggests a correlation. The citation verbiage specifically contains this argument (among other association) - "If when you set up for yourselves, think yourselves happy in getting clear from the restraints of a sober regimen, and take the liberty of the drunkards, what reproach it will be to you! What a degeneracy! What a fall from your first love! And where will it stop? Perhaps you have given up the name of your Lord Jesus at his table; and dare you partake of the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils?" - The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine Vol. 36, 1813. Pgs. 93-94. Thank you, Statescontributor ( talk) 00:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)