Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alcohol in the Bible/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:14, 4 May 2008.

Alcohol in the Bible
Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria (though perhaps some of the strings of footnotes need to be modified -- but I don't see any guidance on how best to do this, I didn't receive any instruction on it from PR, but I hope to quickly resolve it here). I am a primary contributor to the article. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed the dashes per SandyGeorgia's comment in an edit summary. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

Neat topic. I'm please to see it here at FAC.


 * Has someone demanded the multiple citations in a row? I see them in several sections, including the lead. I think they're distracting. I understand that anything involving interpretation of the Bible will be controversial, but if you plan to cite claims in the text that appear also in the lead, I think it's ok to leave the citations out of the lead. I also notice whopping lists of citations in the Alcoholic content section. I suggest you cite a claim three times at the most, or include further phrases or sentences that those citations back up.
 * Can you put the three points of a list into prose in the first section?
 * I've never seen such a citation method as what is in the Hebrew and Greek tables. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that I'm unfamiliar with it. Other editors here are more familiar with proper citing methods than I.
 * I had no idea such a claim as this was possible: All interpreters agree that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures condemn ordinary drunkenness in passages such as these (all from the NIV) When was the last time all interpreters agreed on anything Biblical?
 * It would help to name Holofernes in the text as he's depicted in an image (this is one of my favorite paintings, btw).
 * This is a lonely sentence: In short, in biblical literature ordinary drunkenness is a serious spiritual and moral failing.l that should be attached to a paragraph. In fact, you have a few one-sentence paragraphs. You might also want to consider joining some of your smaller paragraphs together.

Clearly this is a well-researched article. Very good job. --Moni3 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for your comments. I'll do my best to address them in the article soon, but I wanted to reply to your first bullet. The article has received numerous fact requests -- either in the form of editing changes or requests -- from a few Christians who believe (against a broad and numerous scholarly consensus but not without a few scholars of their own) that wine etc. were usually non-alcoholic in the Bible. Here's one on this article, but they are and have been more frequent over at the related article Christianity and alcohol, from which this article spun off. Here's one for the latter article from this morning changing the text and requesting a citation for the very first phrase in the intro, which is already cited below in the body. I have typically duplicated the references as requested rather than repeatedly revert and point the (usually anonymous) editor down to another part of the article. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand it's controversial. I think there are ways to handle it. I suggest you take the citations out of the lead unless you're quoting a statement. If people have specific problems with a claim in the article, cite it three times, then place other citations within a footnote section, similarly to what I had to do with Citation #88 in To Kill a Mockingbird. You chose a topic that it seems lots of people have an interest in, so you may be fending people off for a long time with fact tags. But if you want it to be FA, I think you're going to have to clean up the lists of citations. --Moni3 (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I have attempted to address all your concerns (do you have any further comments on those?), save for the first bullet. I'm fine with trimming down or reworking the references as you suggest, and I'll definitely take a look at TKAM. However, since that change is (potentially) a big job, I'd like to get further input on the best way to do it for the whole article so I know everyone will be satisfied. As for the tables of Greek and Hebrew, such things are present in many secondary and tertiary works dealing with this subject, e.g., Gentry's God Gave Wine, Reynold's Biblical Approach to Alcohol, "wine" in Cyclopeadia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "wine" in Easton's Bible Dictionary, and "Wine; wine press" in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. I have tried to make them a little more useful and accessible by tablizing the lists. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This was an interesting article, but I can't support in its current format due to citation issues. Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is massive overlinking in the article. Examples of words in the lead that do not need to be wikilinked: joy, blesssing, fruit, beer, vineyard, wine, grape juice)
 * this sentence is not worded well "The relationships between Judaism and alcohol and Christianity and alcohol have generally followed this same pattern, with some dissenters particularly among Christians around the time of Prohibition.'
 * This clause needs to be reworded "each is a set of historical artifacts that evidence views during their respective time periods of composition and editing"; it makes it sound as if the evidencing only occurred whilethe books were written instead of providing evidence of attitudes of the time they were written
 * I echo Moni's skepticism of this claim; "All interpreters agree that the New Testament teaching on and exemplary use of alcoholic beverages reflects the attitudes and ideas found in earlier biblical literature"; If it remains in the article it needs big-time sourcing
 * Per WP:EL, there should be no external links in the body of the article.
 * Rather than ass "see Christianity and alcohol on the different viewpoints" into the article, can this go in a "Further information" template at the top of that section
 * " either sold for consumption or stored in a cellar or cistern, lasting for three to four years" - needs to be reworded; lasting implies the wine goes bad or is discarded after 3-4 years
 * Again, a bold "all interpreters believe" claim must be vigorously source: "All interpreters agree that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures condemn ordinary drunkenness in passages such as these "
 * "In short, in biblical literature ordinary drunkenness is a serious spiritual and moral failing" - we don't really need concluding sentences to sum up everything in that section.
 * I know that the footnote for the sentence "Kings were forbidden to abuse alcohol lest their judgments be unjust." says that there are differing interpretations of that sentence, but it again needs to be presented in the prose. otherwise the article appears to be contradicting itself.
 * can you add a wikilink to first fruits? I was not familiar with the term
 * I am concerned that many interpretations of the text in the Bible are sourced to a Bible verse and not to a scholarly book. The article makes it clear that translations vary and that scholars disagree on the meaning of some passages.  To then source an interpretation of the verse to the Bible itself is bordering on WP:OR, in my opinion.
 * again, an "all agreed" with no source "No matter what the reason why he abstained or had stomach problems, all agree that the wine in question was intended as medicine to help improve Timothy's health"


 * Thanks for your comments. I will try to address them soon. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now attempted to address these concerns. My comments and questions follow:


 * Regarding your third bullet, I intended to say exactly how you understood it because I did not want to presume the correctness of any theory about the times when the books were written. For instance, some say Deuteronomy was substantially penned by Moses, while others say it was Davidic, while others say it was post-exilic (cf. Deuteronomy, which is incomplete but gives enough of the general idea). The post-exilic customs were surely much different than those of the time of Moses, and since respectable scholars still argue for each different time period, I don't want to assume that the customs as written accurately reflect the customs of the time portrayed rather than a later time.


 * Regarding the external links, I am a big enforcer of the guidelines about ELs in the body. However, I'd note that the guidelines say links should "not normally" be used in the body. I deviated in two ways here that I think are reasonable exceptions (i.e., non-normal circumstances). First, I link to Biblegateway.com for some Bible verses, but I don't see this as significantly different from using the template, except that I can cite multiple verses at once. Once I decided to make use of multiple verse citations, which I think is far easier for the reader than linking to each individual verse, I just made it consistent throughout for all the verses. Second, in the Greek and Hebrew tables, I link to the entry in Strong's concordance, combined with some Hebrew and Greek lexicons. Since this is where I got some of the definitions from and since the Strong's number is a common way to reference the words, I added a link. It don't think it would be unreasonable, however, to move the linking of the Strong's number into a footnote instead if you think that is much to be preferred.


 * Regarding your suggestion for using, my only hang up is that putting it at the top of the section means that it is not clear why the reader should see that article. Here the article is referenced only to define abstentionist and prohibitionist. Perhaps I should just define them inline in addition to referencing that article in some way for more info?


 * Regarding "lasting for three to four years", you have understood correctly. According to the cited sources, the stored wine would only last 3-4 years max. Should I reword it?


 * Regarding the statement about kings, I think the sentence "Kings were forbidden to abuse alcohol lest their judgments be unjust," could be affirmed by anyone. The dispute comes in when one tries to define "abuse," which moderationists and some abstentionists take to mean "use too much" and other abstentionists and all prohibitionists take to mean simply "use". Is it not sufficiently neutral/ambiguous for you?


 * Regarding citing the Bible: I see that I need to make this clearer. Except for a few isolated cases that I've tried to cover in some detail with multiple sources, there isn't much dispute when it comes to wine except for the lexicography (e.g., is the meaning of yayin/oinos alcoholic or non-alcoholic in some particular passage?). So, to take the first two citations as examples, no one -- and I think I can honestly say that without fear of any reasoned contradiction from any quarter whatsoever -- disputes that the Bible says Noah planted a vineyard and got drunk in Ge 9:20-27, and no one disputes that the Bible says Jesus made wine at the wedding at Cana in Jn 2. Moreover, no one disputes that yayin (oinos in the LXX) in the Noah story mean fermented juice since it is clear that drunkenness resulted from him drinking it. OTOH, some abstentionists and all prohibitionists argue that at Cana the oinos must be assumed to be non-alcoholic (or at the very least highly diluted). So the disputable part is entirely related to the definitions of the beverage words, not that the Bible says wine or some other beverage was used.


 * I think it would be nigh impossible to write an article about alcohol in the Bible without citing the primary source rather extensively (cf. the encyclopedia articles like those I cited above for Moni3, which have different standards than the WP but still provide a good comparison). I could cite secondary sources for each of these Bible citations also, but that would just about quintuple the number of references. Where there is dispute, I have attempted to express it. Are there particular places where you think I need a secondary source? How can I do this better?


 * Have I addressed all your concerns, aside from any that you already raised or re-raised based on my responses above? Do you have any input on how I should best handle multiple source citations?#|[1][2][3][4][5][6] --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Karanacs. The refs are a bit out of hand as well. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What can I do about the refs? --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 04:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Firm Oppose What you do have is really sterling work, but the article doesn't seem to be truly comprehensive in its coverage. If the topic is "alcohol in the bible", then you've left what seems to be a considerable amount of factual material about the impact of the coverage of alcohol in the bible societally. It's not just about the various theoretical interpretations of the individual passages, it's about how the coverage of alcohol in the bible has impacted Western society. To be comprehensive, this article must give information about how alcohol in the bible informed the real world use and abuse of the substance. For example: How did mentions of alcohol in the bible impact the push for American Prohibition? Supposedly during the push for Prohibition, entire alcohol-free bibles were printed. How does the coverage of alcohol in the bible compare to that of other major religious texts, such as the koran, buddhist texts, hindu texts, etc.? You're just missing all of the historical context that makes this topic important. A mere recounting of mentions and their various liturgical interpretations by theologians is not enough by a long shot. Van Tucky 01:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Regarding the historical context, you seem to be asking for some of the same content as at Christianity and alcohol. For reference, I started that article, and because of length as it developed, I broke the section on "Alcohol in the Bible" off as this article, per WP:SUMMARY. Consequently, I tried to keep this article focused on the texts at hand as its subject matter and let the summary article(s) handle its impact on history of alcohol in general and the traditions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Bahá'í Faith, or any other group that regards the Bible as at least somewhat holy. Thus, my first reaction is to say that that sort of material doesn't really belong here and would expand this article beyond its titular purpose, but I'm open to being convinced. On the other hand, I don't think a brief comparison with other religious texts like would necessarily be out of place, though given the title of this article and the large number of other religious texts out there, perhaps a separate article would be best for that as well (cf. Summary_of_Christian_eschatological_differences). --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments (forgive my typing, I'm on the road with an unfamiliar laptop keyboard)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/1.html
 * http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/ (it's also missing publisher information)
 * http://www.gty.org/ (Where it is listed, it's lacking a publisher also)
 * http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2262 (also lacking a publisher)
 * http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tbr/tbr38.htm Also, it's lacking a publisher
 * If you're going to use the short bibliographical details in the notes with the fuller bibliographical details in the references section, can you put the last name of the author of the work first in the references?
 * I share the concerns about the amount of information sourced to the bible, and what makes http://www.biblegateway.com/ a reliable site for giving the verses? Do they have permission to reproduce some of these versions? Translations may be copyrighted.
 * while we are discussing links to bible versions, why do a few of the verses have a last access date?
 * The New Schaff Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge is an older work. Is there nothing newer?
 * The Beecher "Total abstinence" ref doesn't appear to be used in the notes?
 * A LOT of these sources are pretty old, but a spot check of how they are used doesn't give much information out how old the sources backing up the information is. For example, this phrase "while most interpreters contend that only inappropriate use is in view here." from the Drunkeness section is sourced to a source from 2005, to John Wesley (18th century), an early 18th century source, and one from 1748. That's quite a spread, that the sentence doesn't explicate.
 * Surely we can find something more scholarly than a book published by The Reader's Digest?
 * http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/ is lacking a publisher
 * same for http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/
 * http://faithtacoma.org/sermons/Revising_Communion/Revising_FPC_Lords_Supper_No.2_Wine_No.1_Jan.28.2001.htm is lacking publisher information also what makes this a reliable source?
 * Same for http://faithtacoma.org/sermons/Revising_Communion/Revising_FPC_LordsSupper_No.3_Wine_No.2_Feb.04.2001.htm
 * I'm on the road again, and the link checker tool doesn't like this hotel's ISP, I am getting a LOT of timeout errors, which I suspect are related to the hotel ISP. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address them soon (working through the list above). --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose if we delete the references, the article may be very very short; ok, it's well-referenced, but: 1/4 of the rest part is a table, so the KB of text are 15-20 :( Mojska   666  – Leave your message here 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One objection - the table must be made comprehensive. "Etc." is unacceptable. I think that this can be done without making the table too large. If it can't then the table needs to be collapsed or moved to a separate list, which this article summarizes in an objective manner (i.e. it can't cherry-pick examples). Savidan 17:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.